Theists would readily help people of their own religion. They are less likely to help people who disagree with them.

Agnostics ... see atheists.

Atheists are thinking people and are more likely to have a good understanding of ethics than religious people. Therefore, I believe atheists would be more likely to help those in need.

I can only say that while the beliefs regarding philanthropy, etc. may be influenced by religiousness/non-religiousness, the actual actions are more influenced by the wealth they perceive they have. The wealth one has is a direct reflection on how much they value wealth. The less one has the less they value it (otherwise they would put more effort into its accumulation) and so they are far more apt to give it away and not be concerned about accumulating it. So the better question might be, "does religious belief effect how one values wealth?", but that opens a whole different can of worms.

We all can.?❤

i don't think a person's likelihood to help a person in need can be broken down that way. there are good people and bad people and generous people and stingy people and people in a position to help others who will or won't, and people not in a position to help others who would or wouldn't if only they could, and it has more to do with who they are than what they are. there are those who are brainwashed by certain religions or religious leaders to think some people are not worthy of being helped, but apart from that, just saying theists doesn't give a clue as to how they'd react. there are those for whom, for example, doing a mitzvah is the best thing ever, or who think jesus wants them to give give give, and there are those whose preachers have convinced them that everyone should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. not all theists are alike. there are also generous and stingy atheists and agnostics, whose only advantage in all this is that their generosity or stinginess is their own and unrelated to religion.

g

I have known good folks from all three categories and I have known bad folks from all three categories.

Your question can be misleading. You might think I am biased because I am an atheist, but I can assure you that I am not.
Agnostics and atheists; I have always found easy to get along with, but a Christian person that I know will hold my atheism against me and even fabricate the truth to discredit me if possible.This I find keeps me on my guard whenever we meet. I believe there is only one race-the human race. Though religious people preach this, I find they are the ones who fail the most. Not all, but quite a few.

In my opinion, the poll shouldn't necessarily be who would be most likely to help those in need but more explicitly where each group might be willing or "able" to help. I know some very conservative atheists that may help where a theist would and I know theists that wouldn't have a problem donating to programs like Planned Parenthood, etc.

I think there is a big difference between wanting to help for the sake of helping, and helping only because one wants to feel good about one self. Which label belongs to which option?....that part is debateable...

I’ll be honest. Theism tend to have credos and dogma that encourages the members to help others. Atheism does not.

Seems to me though that they would in reality all be pretty even. Why is atheism winning the poll currently? Probably bias.

Probably the same, but with different motivations and stipulations. Non believers are more likely to help anyone, and for no other reason than they could and it was the right thing to do. Believers will help those they deem worthy or safe, and are more likely (not always) to do so because they believe in a reward, or for show.

We are not a homogeneus class of people, and for practical purposes atheist and agnostic will act in the same way.
Help or not help is due to person's own culture,decision etc.
Probably the conditions/culture you were raised matter a lot more than your religious/non-religious choice.

The answer is 'decent, caring and compassionate people' who exist in all three of the above categories.

As do complete bastards.

Sorry but you can’t group people when it comes to this.
And I say this because of human nature bias usually tends to play a part in the making the decision to help others.

Case in point most churches will send missionaries and money to help people in foreign countries all while ignoring the dozen or so homeless people who if they were to step into their church would be asked to leave.

Most atheists that I’ve met would step over a homeless person to take the dog that’s with and give it a proper home all while insinuating that the homeless person should’ve made better choices.

And agnostics for the most part would give the homeless guy food and water for them and their pet companion but that would most likely be the extent of that.

And these are from my observations in life and do not reflect upon everyone.

The current look of things would make me think it is theists. Why? It's because they want their good works to guarantee them a place in heaven. Agnostics and atheists are really close to being the same but even though they would help a person in need, they might be held back by the total ignorance of the theist. Of course, theists are not perfect even though they wanna be. I took a friend to a food pantry one time and they have to hear a bit about Jesus and then pray before you get the free food.

Agnostics and Atheists I would say fall in the same category on this kind of question. At least IMO. Theists it depends on who was needing help. They would be more likely to jump on it if it was a church or family member, or someone/thing that they would be praised for helping. IME, non-theists are much more likely to help without the need for qualifiers.

thiests only because it serves their own purpose to recruit and get their heaven ticket, they are so fanatical about it they sacrifice their whole houshold to do so. athiests and agnostics are probably more interested in environmental issues. context is everything

Simply an honorable person so no category you have in your poll fits.

In my opinion the question has zero to do with my opinion and wholly depends on the individual. also, not to throw a wrench into your science, and i am wildly guessing here but, i think that a lot of agnostics and atheists were raised to be theists. which part of their present charitable nature was formed while being taught religious charitable values?

I can't vote because the premise is false from the start. I've witnessed a++holes in each group and I've witnessed people who have gone above and beyond to be kind, generous and charitable. It's the person and not always the group they most associate with - if you're a negative prick, you're going to find something that mirrors your world-views in the group you decide to associate with. The reverse is true for people who tend to be more positive.

Honestly, for me it shouldn't matter what your religious background is. It should come from being a good and decent person.

Atheists, because I believe their thinking is clear. Clarity of thought reduces gray areas and helps them make clear choices. Theists would give their money to church because they are not free thinkers. They do what they are told (in the name of God) and tend to depend on an unknown power to help them and solve their problems. When did you hear a theist organization or a church give money to a Muslim cause in the U.S. or Middle East? If at all, it is rare.

I think the better question would be who would help those in need without preconditions. I do not think any of these groups have a monopoly on people who would help or who would not. One thing I have always found interesting though is the fact that Churches and similar organizations are the first place many go to when talking about helping the less fortunate. Instead of taking the meat and potatoes morality of such faiths and applying it to our secular world we seem to use them as an excuse for NOT enshrining helping the less fortunate without all sorts of conditions and bureaucratic bull shit. You want to reduce the power of churches? Enshrine the ideals of secular morality as law. I find that most of the people I know who are ground floor Christians are far more willing to help people they do not know then non-believers. While I do not like the conversion aspect of their help in some cases I do like their specific willingness to help. And feel one of the great failing of secular thought is its seeming inability to embrace the simplest of moral ideals such as help those in need without all sorts of needless paperwork and such. Not to mention our governments willingness to cut at social services before anything else.

As with most things, there is not one answer. There are generous, loving people in all three categories, just as there are greedy assholes in all categories. Without research which might be difficult to find, given that most charitable organizations don't ask, nor do they care, what you believe in when you send them money, actual numbers could be hard to come by. Given that hundreds of theist charitable organizations exist for every secular one, it makes it even harder to trace the beliefs of those who donate. I have read of non believers being turned away when they tried to volunteer to work for church related charitable organizations. But my guess these are a aberration rather than a norm.

If you are Atheist then the consequences of doing nothing are absolute. If you are a theist, then there is almost always a loophole that makes doing nothing okay, although you would have to be heartless to still do nothing.

Theists will help by telling you to pray to Jesus for help.

Agnostics might want to help but they're just not sure.

Atheists will help because they know there's no one else.