All right, let's see it.

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
All right, let's see it.

There's a study which is constantly referenced in which secular countries do better than religious.

 

 

Let's see it.

 

 

 

 

 


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:There's

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

There's a study which is constantly referenced in which secular countries do better than religious.

Let's see it.

Do better in what sense?

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Do better

thatonedude wrote:

Do better in what sense?

 

From what I heard GDP, Human development Index, and crime rate, but how well, and what other factors they take into account I don't know.

 

 

 


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:From

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


From what I heard GDP, Human development Index, and crime rate, but how well, and what other factors they take into account I don't know.

 

Is this what you were referring to?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Is this

thatonedude wrote:

Is this what you were referring to?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

 

 

I don't think so.

 

 

article wrote:

Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.

 

 

 

And I don't think that it can be used for that purpose.

 

Plus they seem to be comparing everything else to the U.S

 

 

 

So I don't think that's said study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
 There is this one.

 There is this one.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:  There is

BobSpence1 wrote:

 There is this one.

LOL And this one.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett

spike.barnett wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

 There is this one.

LOL And this one.

Aarrgh! Didn't recognize the URL from the first link - I didn't click on it....

Trying to do to many things at once...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Aarrgh!

BobSpence1 wrote:

Aarrgh! Didn't recognize the URL from the first link - I didn't click on it....

Trying to do to many things at once...

I know. I saw an opportunity to correct you and I thought to myself "this won't happen again for a while." So I decided I'd bust your balls a little.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


thatonedude
Superfan
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Plus

Cpt_pineapple wrote:


Plus they seem to be comparing everything else to the U.S

So I don't think that's said study.

I'll keep digging. I know that I saw some studies referenced in a couple of books. When I get time, I'll pull them off the shelf and see if I can't find some references. Do you have any other specifics on the study you are looking for?

This raises the question: would this be a good group project? There's no reason to rely on someone else's analysis if we can gather and crunch the numbers ourselves.

All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
thatonedude wrote:Do you

thatonedude wrote:

Do you have any other specifics on the study you are looking for?

 

 

 

Yes, Hamby keeps citing it. He may have posted it in the past, but I can't for the life of me remember.

 

Quote:

This raises the question: would this be a good group project? There's no reason to rely on someone else's analysis if we can gather and crunch the numbers ourselves.

 

 

That's why I want to see the study.

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I've cited the one

 I've cited the one everyone's been citing here several times, mostly for these results:

Quote:
Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution

and

Quote:
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies

and

Quote:
No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health.

I mean... gee... what else do you want?  You're the one always on about how bad abortion is, and there's your correlation.  More religion = more abortion.  Furthermore, there's your general trend that you keep saying doesn't exist.  Furthermore, he goes out of his way to point out that no nation has ever managed to combine religiosity, denial of evolution, and good societal health.  I mean... shit.  Couldn't you just admit there's a pattern?  It wouldn't be the end of the world, Pineapple.

Oh, yeah, and there's this:

Quote:
None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.

I mean, really Alison, what more do you want?  You've got the following:

* No existing high/high low.  (religiosity/denial of evolution, societal dysfunction)

* Several great examples of low/low high.

* Charts with nice statistically relevant trends.

Seriously.  Here it is, in plain English:

Quote:
Indeed, the data examined in this study demonstrates that only the more secular, pro-evolution democracies have, for the first time in history, come closest to achieving practical “cultures of life” that feature low rates of lethal crime, juvenile-adult mortality, sex related dysfunction, and even abortion. The least theistic secular developed democracies such as Japan, France, and Scandinavia have been most successful in these regards.

And for crying out loud...

Quote:
Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

You read the whole thing, right?  Yes, the U.S. is singularly dysfunctional and singularly religious among developed countries, but the point is not how fucked up America is.  It's that there is a TREND supported by voluminous data which seems very hard to contradict.  The trend is simple:

Quote:
Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction
So, before you ask for other studies, why don't you discredit this one first? I'm sure you can do that from your bedroom with a few hunches about how statistics work. Sheesh.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:So, before

Hambydammit wrote:

So, before you ask for other studies, why don't you discredit this one first? I'm sure you can do that from your bedroom with a few hunches about how statistics work. Sheesh.

 

 

study wrote:

Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.

 

 

 

Quote:

So, before you ask for other studies, why don't you discredit this one first? I'm sure you can do that from your bedroom with a few hunches about how statistics work

 

 

I know stats Hamby.

 

I was expecting much more calculations and other variables taken into account.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I've

Hambydammit wrote:

 I've cited the one everyone's been citing here several times, mostly for these results:

Quote:
Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution

and

Quote:
In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies

and

Quote:
No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health.

Oh, yeah, and there's this:

Quote:
None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.

I mean, really Alison, what more do you want?  You've got the following:

* No existing high/high low.  (religiosity/denial of evolution, societal dysfunction)

* Several great examples of low/low high.

* Charts with nice statistically relevant trends.

 

So the whole "variables" thing only applies to the studies I post?

 

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:

    No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health

 

Not a lot of societies have a "popular denial of evolution". To my knowledge the only democriaces with "popular" [I take that to mean >50%] denial of evolution, is the U.S and Turkey.

 

So take out the "denial of evolution part" and you get countries that have strong religiousity and high rates of societal health.

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

Contradicting these conclusions requires demonstrating a positive link between theism and societal conditions in the first world with a similarly large body of data - a doubtful possibility in view of the observable trends.

 

 

 

 

The conclusion is that

 

Study wrote:

The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.

 

That's it. That was the purpose of the study which is different from what you're using it for.

 

The data was to test THAT, not what you're saying.

 

In order to show what you're saying, you would have to do way more calculations, and take into account much more variables.

 

 

 

I've already posted that the study said it wasn't testing what you say it concludes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I'm sorry, Pineapple.

 I'm sorry, Pineapple.  I'm not going to do this argument with you again.  You see the results, and you don't like them.  I'm sorry that in examining the claim that religion benefits society, the researcher found that not only does it not benefit it, but it harms it in some ways.  That's the son-of-a-bitch of research.  Sometimes you learn things you didn't set out to learn.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'm

Hambydammit wrote:

 I'm sorry, Pineapple.  I'm not going to do this argument with you again.  You see the results, and you don't like them.  I'm sorry that in examining the claim that religion benefits society, the researcher found that not only does it not benefit it, but it harms it in some ways.  That's the son-of-a-bitch of research.  Sometimes you learn things you didn't set out to learn.

 

 

Yep, Hamby you are so much smarter than dumb little naive Alison. Dumb ol Alison who minored in mathematics [pfft what does THAT have to do with stats anyway?]. What does SHE know? She's just a dipshit Deist

 

Yeah, asking for "calculations" and "variables" and performing "regressive analysis" are for pussies anyway.

 

Anyway, what Hamby doesn't realize is poor little inferior Alison actually agrees with the study. That study shows that belief in God/creator is not required for a good society. That's it. That's exactly wat the study says, and that's ALL it says.

 

It didn't go for correlation/cause which is what you NEED for your view.

 

 Alice in wonderland indeed.

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Alison, why don't you stop

 Alison, why don't you stop bitching at me and write the author, asking for the full study instead of the abstract.

That's what I do when I really, really want to see a study.

Oh, and Alison, the study's intention was to determine if belief in God is necessary for healthy society.  The result was that religion gives every indication of not only not being necessary, but being detrimental.  Little old Hamby who has been reading abstracts for longer than Alison has been alive is pretty good at comprehending them.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Alison,

Hambydammit wrote:

 Alison, why don't you stop bitching at me and write the author, asking for the full study instead of the abstract.

That's what I do when I really, really want to see a study.

 

Kay, I'll just check out his Palenotlogy website, but I can't find his e-mail.

 

Do you have a copy of the full study?

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh, and Alison, the study's intention was to determine if belief in God is necessary for healthy society.  The result was that religion gives every indication of not only not being necessary, but being detrimental. 

 

 

Try this one:

 

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

Little old Hamby who has been reading abstracts for longer than Alison has been alive is pretty good at comprehending them.

 

Just because I'm young doesn't mean I'm stupid.

 

Also quality over quantity, my dear Smiling

 

 


 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
 http://moses.creighton.edu/


 

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html

 

 

Response? Or is the author not worthy?

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Response? Or is the

 

Quote:
Response? Or is the author not worthy?

Sorry... I can't be online 24/7.  Gotta work sometimes, you know.  Bad economy and all.

I read this response a long time ago in detail, and skimmed it just now.  The author raises some good points, but I think he also might be overstating some of what he calls methodological flaws.  I do not have a copy of the original full study, and so I cannot say anything conclusively.  All I can do is point out that even the follow-up's author concedes that his objections do not disprove the conclusions.  They simply call for more precise research.

As I've said before, the argument (my argument, at least) that religion is not just unnecessary, but also bad for society does not hinge on this or any other existing study.  I've tried really hard to explain this to you before.  There are things we know for certain about individual psychology and group psychology.  We know for certain what religion is and what it promotes in individuals and groups.  It doesn't take much to look at these basic factors and reach the obvious conclusion:  Societies that are based on these kinds of beliefs and behaviors will not be as functional as those that don't.

Remember, you are the one who keeps bringing up statistics and demanding numbers, not me.  You asked which study I cited, and I told you.  I pointed you to the conclusions I was referencing.  If it turns out that this study is, in fact, less than strongly indicative of a trend, fine.  I base my argument on well-established principles of human psychology, not on statistics.  Where the statistics appear to support my conclusion, I mention them.

Furthermore, I'm inclined to say that there are more conclusive meta-studies out there.  I'm just having trouble locating them at the moment.  I know it's really important to you, but I'm not a statistician, and demonstrating statistically what I can deduce from the principles of science is not high on my list of things to do.

Chin up, though.  I'm digging for more compelling numbers for you.  Give it time.  I'm working 50 hours a week these days.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hamby, if you haven't

Hamby, if you haven't noticed, my splurge of recent topics is to deterimine whether religion does have a negative effect on society.

 

My "define religion" topic was to set a  base of a coherent and consistent definition of "religion".

My "thoughts on irrationality topic", was created to determine what effect individuals and group has. A massive irrational belief is pretty much enivitable.

My "underlaying cause topic" was asking for a method to determine the cause and effect.

This topic is to get the statistical data [which is part of the scientific method].

 

None of these topics convince me, plus there's still the objections I threw around in other topics.

 

I remain unconvinced, but after serious thought. More serious than you seem to give me credit for.

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I remain

 

Quote:
I remain unconvinced, but after serious thought. More serious than you seem to give me credit for.

No, I'm convinced you're serious.  If convincing you was my top priority at this time, I think I could do it, but I simply don't have the time or the energy to track down every bit of information I pored over to reach the conclusion myself.

For what it's worth, I'm going to talk to a friend of  mine who's a PhD in the philosophy of evolutionary biology.  I'm pretty sure he's done a few research projects that have involved the kind of data you're looking for.  If he has some good resources, I'll pass them along.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I think I

Hambydammit wrote:

I think I could do it, but I simply don't have the time or the energy to track down every bit of information I pored over to reach the conclusion myself.

 

 

I kinda used information too.

Every year I make a trip to my University book store and gobble up all the left over text books on psychology, math and physics.

 

I think this time, I'll pick up some sociology too.

 

 

 

Of course people can come up with ideas all the time with lots of sources of information, the difference is proving it.

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I've been thinking more and

I've been thinking more and your reference to "the obvious conclusion" kinda reminded me of Micheal Behe's "obvious conclusion after pouring over the data."

 

You still have to prove it. And to prove it, you need studies, which is what I asked for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Keep your knickers on,

 Keep your knickers on, sweetie.  I've told you I'm not ready to present a conclusive case yet.  You keep doing your own research, and maybe you'll change your mind without me.  If not, it's something I'm going to get around to, but it might take me a while.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Keep

Hambydammit wrote:

 Keep your knickers on, sweetie.  I've told you I'm not ready to present a conclusive case yet.

 

 

 

Your first post contradicts this.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

 You keep doing your own research, and maybe you'll change your mind without me.  If not, it's something I'm going to get around to, but it might take me a while.

 

 

And the possibilty of you changing your mind?

 

 

 

 


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: ...So,

Hambydammit wrote:
...So, before you ask for other studies, why don't you discredit this one first? I'm sure you can do that from your bedroom with a few hunches about how statistics work. Sheesh.
...
Keep your knickers on, sweetie.

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

&(- /\ *)&


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:None of these topics

Quote:
None of these topics convince me.

Nothing will ever convince you anyway. Why should we waste our time trying? It's like trying to talk a bigot into accepting that homosexuality is not immoral.

Atheist: "Here's a study."

Alison: "Not good enough!"

Atheist: "Okay. Here's the following logical argument, backed-up by empirical observations in psychology."

Alison: "Not good enough!"

Atheist: "Okay. Here's a few news reports detailing extremely harmful acts that the perpetrators explicitly state they did in the name of their dogma."

Alison: "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!"

 

The pattern's pretty obvious by now. It will never be good enough to convince you. You've somehow 'scientifically deduced' that there is a magical deity (yet you cannot / will not share how you deduced this), and will not accept anything that might suggest that insisting on such a conclusion is an unhealthy thing to do.

 

You attend a university. Go get the fucking papers yourself.

Why should Hamby (or anyone else) be doing your legwork for you just so we can hear you say, "This isn't good enough!!!@!!@@" one more time?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I don't see how I've

 I don't see how I've backpedaled on anything.  I am personally convinced that despite the potential problems mentioned in the analysis of the study that it is nonetheless indicative of a real trend.  Alison is convinced that it is not.  Neither of us has seen the original study, so on that front, we're at an impasse.

I have proven to myself through a multi-pronged approach that religion, in and of itself, is a harmful construct, and if one reads all of my writing, it should be easy enough to put the pieces together.  I'm working over 50 hours a week, trying to write a book, run a blog, and moderate this board.  I don't have time to argue with Alison again on the subject we've already covered.

Where's the backpedal?  I'm just not interested in putting together a case just for Alison, right this minute, when she's already read pretty much everything I've written on the subject and remains unconvinced.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Atheist:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Atheist: "Here's a study."

Alison: "Not good enough!"

Atheist: "Okay. Here's the following logical argument, backed-up by empirical observations in psychology."

Alison: "Not good enough!"

Atheist: "Okay. Here's a few news reports detailing extremely harmful acts that the perpetrators explicitly state they did in the name of their dogma."

Alison: "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!"

 

Alison: Society is a complex process. This study does not take into account enough variables to make a decision based on it.

Other: OMG you are denying the obvious! We don't need data because it's so obvious

Alison: This country seems to counter your claim, murder [for example] is not rampent here

Other: oh Alison, you are not taking into account other variables, society is a complex process.

Alison: /facepalm

ad nausim.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

The pattern's pretty obvious by now. It will never be good enough to convince you. You've somehow 'scientifically deduced' that there is a magical deity (yet you cannot / will not share how you deduced this), and will not accept anything that might suggest that insisting on such a conclusion is an unhealthy thing to do.

 

The pattern's pretty obvious by now. It will never be good enough to convince you. You've somehow 'scientifically deduced' that there is a magical deity (yet you cannot / will not share how you deduced this), and will not accept anything that might suggest that insisting on such a conclusion is an unhealthy thing to do.

 

Using the logic here, I don't seem to need to prove it if it's "obvious"

 

Post a study to conclude this, or refute the paper that showed that the study in this thread is invalid to show that conclusion.

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

 

You attend a university. Go get the fucking papers yourself.

 

I am not making the claim. Why the fuck should I dig up a study that supposidly shows YOUR claim.

 

Heck, apperently I don't even have to read the study. Hamby admitted he never read the full study, and yet he's using it. So why the fuck should I read the study to refute his claim, when he himself has not read the study?

 

 

I studied science what you're doing this is the other thing.

 

 

 

 

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Alison: Society is a

Quote:

Alison: Society is a complex process. This study does not take into account enough variables to make a decision based on it.

Other: OMG you are denying the obvious! We don't need data because it's so obvious

Alison: This country seems to counter your claim, murder [for example] is not rampent here

Other: oh Alison, you are not taking into account other variables, society is a complex process.

Alison: /facepalm

ad nausim.

We gave you the data, remember? It wasn't comprehensive enough for you (the abstract, anyway).

Saying, "Well, country 'X' doesn't seem to be having that much dysfunction..." and singling it out in order to overturn an entire study is like a smoker insisting that cigarettes cannot give you cancer because his mother smokes and she's lived to be seventy so far. Tobacco products will only harm a percentage of the people that choose to use them. Does that mean that they're not unhealthy to use?

 

Quote:
I studied science

Good for you. You're not applying it to your belief in a deity.

Statistics demonstrate trends; this itself isn't necessarily strong evidence, but when it corroborates other pieces of information, they become much stronger.

So, to be specific, let's look at Christianity for a moment:

Christianity proposes that there is a magical deity named Yahweh, who loves the worshipper and is always correct, and who demands that worshippers clash with non-believers (heathens), treat homosexuals as outcasts, impregnate women every time they have sex with them, treat women as 2nd class citizens, etc. If you do not follow these demands, you're cast into Hell forever after you die.

...So? Is this really a perfectly normal and healthy thing to believe in? Straight answer, please.

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:We gave

Kevin R Brown wrote:

We gave you the data, remember? It wasn't comprehensive enough for you (the abstract, anyway).

 

I posted an abstract questioning said data.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Saying, "Well, country 'X' doesn't seem to be having that much dysfunction..." and singling it out in order to overturn an entire study is like a smoker insisting that cigarettes cannot give you cancer because his mother smokes and she's lived to be seventy so far. Tobacco products will only harm a percentage of the people that choose to use them. Does that mean that they're not unhealthy to use?

 

 

 

There are actual *ahem* studies to link smoking to cancer.

 

 

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

So, to be specific, let's look at Christianity for a moment:

Christianity proposes that there is a magical deity named Yahweh, who loves the worshipper and is always correct, and who demands that worshippers clash with non-believers (heathens), treat homosexuals as outcasts, impregnate women every time they have sex with them, treat women as 2nd class citizens, etc. If you do not follow these demands, you're cast into Hell forever after you die.

...So? Is this really a perfectly normal and healthy thing to believe in? Straight answer, please.

 

 

That is not healthy to believe in.

 

Now straight answer for this one from you:

 

 

If Christianity teaches these things, they are in the bible etc.... then why is there such a diveregence of Theists? Theists seem to be as diverse as atheists.

 

Fuck, why is there 15,000 demoninations of Christianity all with different views? We SHOULDN'T see that if religion is so uniform as you seem to suggest it to be.


 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh and Hamby, if that

Oh and Hamby, if that accusation of backpeddling was refering to me when I said "your first post condraticts this" in reference to you saying you're not ready to present a conclusive case yet.

 

I meant you seemed convinced that the study showed what you said was true, hence presenting a concluding case.

 

 

 

 

 

 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: I'm

Hambydammit wrote:

 I'm sorry, Pineapple.  I'm not going to do this argument with you again.  You see the results, and you don't like them.  I'm sorry that in examining the claim that religion benefits society, the researcher found that not only does it not benefit it, but it harms it in some ways.  That's the son-of-a-bitch of research.  Sometimes you learn things you didn't set out to learn.

The study is pseudo-science. The confounding factors are far to complex for this study to say anything other then some people have an anti-religion agenda.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Oh, and

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh, and Alison, the study's intention was to determine if belief in God is necessary for healthy society.  The result was that religion gives every indication of not only not being necessary, but being detrimental.  Little old Hamby who has been reading abstracts for longer than Alison has been alive is pretty good at comprehending them.

The study shows no such thing. Your constant resorting to "credentials" is amusing but unconvincing.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I have

Hambydammit wrote:

I have proven to myself through a multi-pronged approach that religion, in and of itself, is a harmful construct, and if one reads all of my writing, it should be easy enough to put the pieces together. 

What writings? You mean the ones listed on your vanity page on this site?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
It pains me to say this, but

Edited for clarity:

I agree with Alison and OrdinaryClay's sentiment that this one study's finely-grained arguments and commentary aren't to be taken as conclusive. The study sets out to show that secularism does not result in total chaos. That is certainly shown, but it's the more fine-grain arguments I take exception to. I was able to see a copy of the data from my library account, and while the study does, in fact, clearly show that secularism has no seriously negative effects across the board, I'm not sure how conclusive you could say the rest is.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Oh, and Alison, the study's intention was to determine if belief in God is necessary for healthy society.  The result was that religion gives every indication of not only not being necessary, but being detrimental.  Little old Hamby who has been reading abstracts for longer than Alison has been alive is pretty good at comprehending them.

The study shows no such thing. Your constant resorting to "credentials" is amusing but unconvincing.



It does quite clearly show that secularism provides a society with no ill effects. As to religion=detriment, I'd have to see more material than this one study, personally.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh great, now Will has

Oh great, now Will has gotten into the field of religious apoligetics.

 

 

 


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Oh

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Oh great, now Will has gotten into the field of religious apoligetics.

Was that a "there goes the neighbourhood?" Nice try, meany-face.

I think I've been clear on my position regarding the social sciences and their use of statistics. While it obviously has a (limited) place for making a point, I find that the finer the point being made, the less solid one can assert a conclusion. So while I agree with that study's conclusion that secularism has no detrimental effect on a society, I'd be hesitant to say that it affirms a detrimental effect of religion.

Unless, of course, I determine that "detrimental effect" is "annoying Saint Will", because then, we have a 100% correlation between religious institutions and detrimental effect.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

I have proven to myself through a multi-pronged approach that religion, in and of itself, is a harmful construct, and if one reads all of my writing, it should be easy enough to put the pieces together. 

What writings? You mean the ones listed on your vanity page on this site?


This is why I was hesitant to agree with the OC. So much "nanny-nanny-boo-boo" and so little content.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

I think you can draw a conclusion at most that "religion has no recordable benefitial effect" from the study.

 

It isn't really designed to show detriments. But I can say that religious persecution of gays directly inhibits part of society from developing by supporting bigotry.

 

I can also say that "faith healing" initiatives directly suppress societal health, and anti-intellectualism from the fundamentalist movements in religions hampering societal development.

 

...As well as community funding that goes to religious organizations rather than the communities themselves, and ends up being spent for infrastructural purposes of the churches.

 

Not to mention the move away from a diversity of ideas, and promotion of making questioning ideas "offensive" by calling them "sacred".

 

 

 

http://whatstheharm.net/christianscience.html

http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html

http://whatstheharm.net/evolutiondenial.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22924256-29277,00.html

http://whatstheharm.net/jehovahswitnesses.html

http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html

http://whatstheharm.net/scientology.html

http://whatstheharm.net/transcendentalmeditation.html

http://whatstheharm.net/cults.html

http://whatstheharm.net/breatharianism.html

 

 

Irrationality does not help society. That much is indisputable, and I've yet to speak personally to a theist that would argue for things like breatharianism. Exactly how great a scale of harm though is what the question is.

 

From the FAQ:

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

1. Didn't these people bring it on themselves?

Some might argue that a lack of critical thinking is its own punishment. Doesn't someone deserve to befall a bad fate if they proceed thoughtlessly? If you are asking this question, please read this page of names of children. Many of them died through no fault of their own, from easily preventable illnesses. Among the adults elsewhere on the site are many who are unwilling victims of things like belief in witchcraft.

Unwilling victims notwithstanding, we firmly believe in the principle of not blaming the victim. Many people come by their assumptions or beliefs not by conscious choice, but by societal forces, parental ignorance, or other forms of indoctrination. Who is to say that any one of these victims might have been persuaded to drop their irrational beliefs, had they been reached in time?

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

 

"What's the harm in..." lists 368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages

 

 

 

Some of the worst tragedies in history stem from religious irrational belief. The ones below are famous examples.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Ten_Commandments_of_God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Was that a

HisWillness wrote:

Was that a "there goes the neighbourhood?" Nice try, meany-face.

I think I've been clear on my position regarding the social sciences and their use of statistics. While it obviously has a (limited) place for making a point, I find that the finer the point being made, the less solid one can assert a conclusion. So while I agree with that study's conclusion that secularism has no detrimental effect on a society, I'd be hesitant to say that it affirms a detrimental effect of religion.

Unless, of course, I determine that "detrimental effect" is "annoying Saint Will", because then, we have a 100% correlation between religious institutions and detrimental effect.

 

 

What Hamby does not seem to realize is that I could use psychology and such to make it "obvious" that societal ills cause religion, hence literally turning his trend around.

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Was that a "there goes the neighbourhood?" Nice try, meany-face.

I think I've been clear on my position regarding the social sciences and their use of statistics. While it obviously has a (limited) place for making a point, I find that the finer the point being made, the less solid one can assert a conclusion. So while I agree with that study's conclusion that secularism has no detrimental effect on a society, I'd be hesitant to say that it affirms a detrimental effect of religion.

Unless, of course, I determine that "detrimental effect" is "annoying Saint Will", because then, we have a 100% correlation between religious institutions and detrimental effect.

What Hamby does not seem to realize is that I could use psychology and such to make it "obvious" that societal ills cause religion, hence literally turning his trend around.

That would probably be accurate as well. Religion thrived off the black death for example. Fear of mortality is probably one of the larger factors that push people into a belief that they can exist eternally.

 

As well as something to allow you to feel you have some measure of control (prayer) over things you do not understand (deadly disease that spreads due to poor hygiene).

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
What Hamby does not seem to realize is that I could use psychology and such to make it "obvious" that societal ills cause religion, hence literally turning his trend around.

 

I have a feeling Hamby's familiar with the causation-vs-correlation argument, but he's running a restaurant in a recession. I'm going to have to guess that your recent exchange is more emotionally than intellectually fueled. You both flew off the handle about statistics, if that tells you anything.

 

Regardless, social science studies are good for general talking points (like "secularism doesn't result in anarchy" ) but I don't know how much they can be supported past that point, other than as indicators or starting ideas for other studies. It's not a fair comparison to bring up smoking being related to cancer, considering the sheer number of studies and hard data involved there.

 

But it would be funny to have that statistical analysis of the correlation between societal ills and religion. Then the qualifications fly: "We're not saying that being religious will destroy your society completely, we're just saying that social suck and religion go hand in hand."

 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:As well as

ClockCat wrote:
As well as something to allow you to feel you have some measure of control (prayer) over things you do not understand.


That's reason #1, as far as I'm concerned.


 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence