[dale_glass]

> EA is basically Christian charity for people who live in a city that views Christianity as a dirty thing.

I don't see it. They're pretty much opposite approaches.

Christianity is deontological and focused on God. Christianity says that's what is important is following the rules, and the rules exist to make God happy, and that outcomes are irrelevant.

EA is an utilitarian frame work, and focused on the real world. Utilitarianism says what is important is obtaining utility, and that outcomes are the ultimate measure of goodness.

The main difference is that from an utilitarian standpoint, Christian charity only ever works by accident. From its point of view what's important is that you do it. The how and why, and what happens as a result is unimportant. So giving huge amounts of money to a megachurch for the pastor's Ferrari while the poor starve is perfectly fine, because you're not doing it for the poor people, you're doing it for God, and you did what was asked of you.

[23B1]

I think you missed the point of the Godel quote, though.

[dale_glass]

No, I just ignored it because it seemed irrelevant to the point I wanted to make.

My intent was to disagree and say that no, EA isn't come sort of of rebranding of a Christian concept for people who dislike religion, but a fundamentally different thing altogether, with different mechanics and motivations.

For that matter, atheists in general don't believe Christianity has any claim on charity, marriage or even Christmas.

[brutusborn]

Isn’t it equivalent insofar as Christian conceptions of charity aren’t prescriptive? Besides tithings, “love thy neighbour” or other Christian ideas can be interpreted in infinitely many ways, similar to EA.

I think the morality of Christianity is the old-testament part and the charity/universal love is the New Testament part and thus more the focus of Christianity (obviously this depends on your particular sects interpretations of the scriptures).