I have often wondered how generous religious people would appear if their donations to religious organizations were eliminated, or reduced to the extent that the religious organizations use the funds for religious activities. That’s a very difficult bit of data to obtain.

It’s actually not difficult to obtain at all, and you are right: 74-78% of money donated by religious people goes to the care and feeding of religious institutions. That doesn’t change the fact that religious people give more — it simply shows that their generosity is largely wasted. We can do better. That’s one reason the 100% forwarded donation is important.

These questions and comments are welcome at the Foundation’s Facebook Causes page. Join the discussion and help us get this thing right.

Suddenly this is a promotion of McGowan’s parenting ideas?

No more than any other featured beneficiary. Members choose how their donation is distributed among ten beneficiaries, including the foundation itself with its parent program. A member can choose whether or not to send a percentage to that program. This is a common nonprofit model.

What does any of this have to do with raising and administering funds for charities?

Many early commenters have specifically mentioned the active engagement and discussion beyond mere giving as one of the particular strengths of the idea.

And what makes it any better that just giving all your money to one cause you have investigated and like?

Part of the intention is to demonstrate collective giving as an expression of worldview, something the nonreligious have not had as readily up to this point.

If 100% goes to the charities, who pays for all the investigation, and administration of the funds?

Grants and designation donations to the Foundation itself — similar to programs like Causecast.

@Janice:

I’m not confident that the idea of a parenting seminar will appeal to many nonbelieving parents. It seems to go against the grain of the concept of “freethought.”

This seminar program has already been in operation for 16 months, traveling to 19 cities across the U.S. We are moving to this training structure precisely because it has been so successful.

I did like the idea of coordinated charitable giving before I learned that it was also being used to create this parenting seminar speaker panel.

Organizing atheists to do anything is already a hard sell. Adding an entirely separate endeavor to the mix isn’t going to broaden its appeal.

On the educational side, the Foundation will build the next stage in nonreligious parent education—a nationwide training program for parenting seminar leaders. We plan to have 30-40 people teaching nonreligious parenting seminars in cities across the country within a year.

WTF? Suddenly this is a promotion of McGowan’s parenting ideas?

The centerpiece of the Foundation will be a lively online community. Active members can join a social network and discussion forums centered on the ten categories of giving, upload videos, recruit new members, advocate for causes and help us choose the new beneficiaries each quarter. We’ll also create and host a multi-author blog of world-class contributors focused on the cause areas, as well as humanism, philanthropy, and the intersection of the two.

What does any of this have to do with raising and administering funds for charities? And what makes it any better that just giving all your money to one cause you have investigated and like?

Carefully selected for impact and efficiency, the beneficiaries may be founded on any worldview so long as they do not engage in proselytizing. At the end of each quarter, 100 percent of the donations will be forwarded and a new slate of beneficiaries selected.

If 100% goes to the charities, who pays for all the investigation, and administration of the funds?

Ok, ok, I am foremost a skeptic, and I don’t like solving problems that don’t exist when real problems do. Take this as a hint the idea needs a better PR person.

So, Hemant, while this new foundation might be great, the premise is bullshit.

In addition to supporting atheist and humanist groups, my charitable dollars go to Planned Parenthood, Room to Read, UNICEF, and CARE. These seem like good secular groups to support.

Besides the characteristic noted by others, that atheism in and of itself is not a set of principles and thus does not direct people to be charitable (or to do anything else), it is likely the case that atheists as a group are more liberal than theists as a group, and liberals tend to look to the government to do certain things that are expected by theists to be done through charitable (particularly religious) organizations. I am a liberal, I pay my taxes with that expectation, and I am less inclined to fund organizations that are doing what I think the government is supposed to do.

I remember answering a phone survey asking me about my faith. I said I was an atheist, although I was somewhat likely to say “Jewish” in response to such questions at the time. Many of the questions asked me if my faith directed me to do various things. Uh, no, my faith doesn’t direct me to do anything. I bet my responses contributed to a conclusion in the survey about what terribly selfish people atheists are.

There is a conflation of faith per se with the social and community structure built up around that faith. Atheism is more related to belief in god than to the act of worship or the participation in the community of the church.