Does being religious make you more generous?

I did read it ana and I am not making assumptions - this is why I phrased my observation as a question. However, from my knowledge of the OP's posting history, I thought it was a fair enough question to ask.

I really can't see where that came from, vegas!

lilygran let me say I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I've gathered that you are a Christian from some of your earlier posts. Am I right in this assumption? So many charities seem to have a religious basis eg Christian aid. Does this mean they target Christians in the aid they offer? I give to various charities, not chosen for a religious bias, but more to do with my personal interests. Having said that, I have sponsored a girl in Tanzania for the last 6 years through World Vision, because I like the way they use contributions, even though I am not a Christian, although I am aware that the girl I sponsor and her family are. What I am really wondering about is how inclusive are religious charities or do they favour those of their own religious persuasion? Honestly not having a go at anyone, but just wondering.

The article I posted the link to in the OP referred to research carried out with people of a number of faiths. That's what I was asking Gransnetters about. I wasn't trying to propagandise on behalf of one religion. Christian Aid is called Christian Aid because it was started by Christians. Oxfam was started in Oxford but it doesn't only work with people from Oxford. Christian Aid works all over the world with people of any or no faith. It is not an evangelising organisation. There are charities whose main purpose is religious or missionary and usually their publicity makes it clear. There are charities whose main purpose is to help other charities, as well.

Just clicked on the OP link and got an error message instead of an article. Hey ho. I was just wondering where agnostics and atheists came in the generosity pecking order. Perhaps they were not mentioned.

I wasn't going to say the next bit, but I will. If they weren't mentioned, then the article is bullshit. It's bullshit anyway. Religion does not make people better at anything except being religious and anyone who believes otherwise is deluded.

IMO

Which is not the same thing as saying all religion and all effects of religion are bad. That is not what I have said.

Apparently bags, according to the Washington Post, not everyone wants contributions from atheists even when they try to make them!

www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/in-season-of-giving-atheist-groups-charity-rebuffed/2013/12/19/45ddbef6-68f2-11e3-997b-9213b17dac97_story.html

For my part, I'm going to be a bit more careful who I give to in the future. I haven't always investigated as thoroughly as I should have what happens to my contributions.

thatbags here's the link again - it does seem to be working. It wasn't a piece of serious in depth research, it was done for the BBC and did include people who don't profess a faith. Of course, I can't agree with your statement about religion. I would just suggest that being better at religion also implies being better at a number of things.

Whoops! www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10885180/Religion-makes-people-more-generous.html

Why, lily? Why would being better at being religious make people better, on average, than not being religious?

My argument is that although any particular religious person (of whatever religious faith) might make someone a better person in one or more ways than any particular non-religious person, the reverse also applies equally, and therefore, on average, over a large enough random sample, there will be no evidence to suggest that being religious makes people better, on average, than non-religious people, and vice versa.

I'm not saying here that not being religious is an advantage either in making people good or not good. I'm saying it doesn't make a scrap of difference because goodness comes from all parts of life, not just religious parts.

vegas, prejudice like that does make one want to be more circumspect with one's donations (of money or time or effort), doesn't it?

There are lots of good people about, thank goodness, whatever their beliefs. I would just suggest that the main world religions invite us to improve - ourselves, our community, our world, to be compassionate and to respect the humanity of others. You can't object to that, surely?

No, I don't object to that, but non-religious moral philosophy does the same thing and is all encompassing, whereas religon isn't.

DH volunteers for a large national charity and we also donate to others on a regular basis. I try to do my bit for a very small charity. However, I still feel an element of guilt if I see someone collecting in the street and I usually donate a small sum. Some posters have mentioned charity collectors approaching people in the street - I thought they were not allowed to do that, nor even to 'jingle' their tin (sorry, jingl!). They have to stand and hope that you will approach them and donate. Catching your eye with a smile is usually a good tactic on their part, I find.

Not sure about door to door envelopes, I have done it in the past (I was phoned by a charity I had no links with and asked if I would do it and got caught on the hop). The thing is, you are usually asked to do your own area so people know you and don't like to say no, so a bit of moral blackmail there even if it is unintentional on the part of the collector.

and then there is music. See ffinn's "Stand by me" link.

Music is all-encompassing too in all its variations, is what I meant. So there you have it: non-religious moral philosophy and music are all we need to make us generous.

Fascinating link about US charities that will not accept donations from atheists!