Is it immoral to believe in anecdotal "answered prayer?"

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to be a crack at, i.e. what demographic or stereotype you are targeting. Is it that those who are able to turn on a computer are more likely to be critical of religion?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly it's an observation; I encounter more vocally militant atheists online than I do in life, and I associate primarily with scientists. It was a bit of a crack at OP, in this context, mostly because it seems like an attempt to vilify practitioners of religion for failing to live up to an artificially inflated moral standard that he almost certainly doesn't approach either. What I perceive as the need to establish disbelief as not just truthful (which I agree with) but morally superior (which as a blanket statement I don't agree with) strikes me as misguided and distasteful.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings. Also many people give far more towards good causes over their lifetime then they spend on wedding rings.

and most people don't pretend they would give up all their wealth to help the starving. Most people who claim to care about the starving etc will admit they only care enough to give up a proportion of what they have. So no double standard. (also a good thing imo as it would be a disaster otherwise)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they'd give up their wedding ring to "end world hunger" when its put to them in those stark terms doesn't mean that their actions indicate far different priorities. Many people would say a lot of things, and many people would act in a certain way when put under the spotlight, but its their actions when no one is looking that reveal true priorities, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, I think many who could exchange a wedding ring to end world hunger would do so even if no-one ever found out they did it.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your counterargument is itself a massive exaggeration. He didn't say that people didn't want to end world hunger, but trading in a wedding ring could probably feed ten children or so for a year. I doubt most people are in a rush to do so.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, most people only care enough to give up a some of what they don't need to survive, but most people will admit that so there's no double standard.

Of course my coumnter-claim is an exaggeration but that's how you deal with exaggerated claims. If we were always willing to give up a non-essential to help 10 starving people then that's the same as giving up everything non-essential - most people wouldn't ever claim they cared enough to do that.

chez

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Sure, most people only care enough to give up a some of what they don't need to survive, but most people will admit that so there's no double standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then what is the OP about? He's arguing that believing in something that could alleviate some amount of hunger but chooses not to is immoral, right? tame_deuces point was that this is true of essentially everybody, in some sense, and so it's a silly thing to bring up as a denouncement of religion. I think the point was phrased a little poorly, but the content is solid.

EDIT: Also, I fail to see the exaggeration. You don't think that 99% of people care more about their worldly goods than abstract starving children? I'd say he's lowballing it if anything.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd agree (as I suggested in my earlier post) that a morality based on all the good you're not doing doesn't really seem useful or tenable. But if we agree that that is the case, then I think arguing about the morals of some god is going to be awfully confusing if you're holding that god to a different moral standard than humans. Would it be human immoral to worship something that doesn't live up to god morality? It might still be way better than any human morality. And so on.


[/ QUOTE ]
The only thing we have are moral judgements and being human the judgments we make are human ones. Its meaningless to talk about gods morality this way - whatever we learn about god we are still left with human judgement about it. If god disagrees then so be it, I can only judge it better or worse using my human facilities.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings. Also many people give far more towards good causes over their lifetime then they spend on wedding rings.

and most people don't pretend they would give up all their wealth to help the starving. Most people who claim to care about the starving etc will admit they only care enough to give up a proportion of what they have. So no double standard. (also a good thing imo as it would be a disaster otherwise)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they'd give up their wedding ring to "end world hunger" when its put to them in those stark terms doesn't mean that their actions indicate far different priorities. Many people would say a lot of things, and many people would act in a certain way when put under the spotlight, but its their actions when no one is looking that reveal true priorities, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, I think many who could exchange a wedding ring to end world hunger would do so even if no-one ever found out they did it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


How about just end hunger for 5 guys, which is all that was ever claimed? The "end world hunger" thing is a bit of goalpost-moving.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings. Also many people give far more towards good causes over their lifetime then they spend on wedding rings.

and most people don't pretend they would give up all their wealth to help the starving. Most people who claim to care about the starving etc will admit they only care enough to give up a proportion of what they have. So no double standard. (also a good thing imo as it would be a disaster otherwise)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they'd give up their wedding ring to "end world hunger" when its put to them in those stark terms doesn't mean that their actions indicate far different priorities. Many people would say a lot of things, and many people would act in a certain way when put under the spotlight, but its their actions when no one is looking that reveal true priorities, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, I think many who could exchange a wedding ring to end world hunger would do so even if no-one ever found out they did it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


How about just end hunger for 5 guys, which is all that was ever claimed? The "end world hunger" thing is a bit of goalpost-moving.

[/ QUOTE ]
I responded to that - always giving up a non-essential to help a few guys is the same as giving up all non-essentials. Few would claim they care enough to give up that much so there's no double standard.

Many claim to care enough to give up some of their non-essentials and that's exactly what they do.

chez

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, </font>

Ah, but he said nothing about world hunger. He said Quote: <font color="blue"> 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, </font>

The sheer fact that when someone loses a wedding ring it will occupy their mind at least for that day considerably more than a starving child is proof enough of this statement.


Again, we're not talking about "world hunger" or giving up "all one's wealth". Is your car more important than a starving child? How about the next concert you attend? Why not forego these things and stop a child from starving today?

Answer: Right now, at least right for this very moment these material things are worth more to you than saving a starving child. Otherwise, you'd be making the arrangements.

I am NOT questioning your charity! I don't even know what you give to charitable causes. What I'm saying is that few of us give "til it hurts". We don't need to go broke doing so, but most of us could easily give more AND think more about charitable causes if we wanted to.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think it is immoral that 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, when from all my observations of people this clearly isn't true.

And note that I'm not judging those who care more about their wedding ring, I'm being judgemental towards so many people having obvious double standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see some serious responses to this, because what tame_deuces suggests is undeniably right.

[/ QUOTE ]
I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, hence they care more about world hunger than wedding rings. Also many people give far more towards good causes over their lifetime then they spend on wedding rings.

and most people don't pretend they would give up all their wealth to help the starving. Most people who claim to care about the starving etc will admit they only care enough to give up a proportion of what they have. So no double standard. (also a good thing imo as it would be a disaster otherwise)

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they'd give up their wedding ring to "end world hunger" when its put to them in those stark terms doesn't mean that their actions indicate far different priorities. Many people would say a lot of things, and many people would act in a certain way when put under the spotlight, but its their actions when no one is looking that reveal true priorities, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, I think many who could exchange a wedding ring to end world hunger would do so even if no-one ever found out they did it.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, forget world hunger! I think tame_deuces was talking about starving children. A wedding ring doesn't need to solve world hunger, but it would certainly take care of a starving child.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> I deny its right, at least its a massive exaggeration. Most people would swap something like a wedding ring for an end to world hunger, </font>

Ah, but he said nothing about world hunger. He said Quote: <font color="blue"> 99% of all people pretend that starving children means more to them than a lost wedding ring, </font>

The sheer fact that when someone loses a wedding ring it will occupy their mind at least for that day considerably more than a starving child is proof enough of this statement.


Again, we're not talking about "world hunger" or giving up "all one's wealth". Is your car more important than a starving child? How about the next concert you attend? Why not forego these things and stop a child from starving today?

Answer: Right now, at least right for this very moment these material things are worth more to you than saving a starving child. Otherwise, you'd be making the arrangements.

I am NOT questioning your charity! I don't even know what you give to charitable causes. What I'm saying is that few of us give "til it hurts". We don't need to go broke doing so, but most of us could easily give more AND think more about charitable causes if we wanted to.

[/ QUOTE ]
but few claim to care enough to give till it hurts. The problem here is confusing premises

1) many people claim to care enough to give up some non-essentials often with greater money value than the ring.

2) most of those people don't claim to care enough to donate till it hurts

these are consistant with not caring enough to give up the wedding ring.

the double standard is an illusion (not always but often)

BTW this is not about my charity but I'll brag to giving infinitely more to charity then I've spent on wedding rings.

chez