I'm on a break in class so I don't have time to respond to everything in this thread. I'll post more later.
Because Christians are by far the most dominant religion in these areas.Originally Posted by bipper
Er. What?We should also point out that they did *write* the article and there for ARE liable of its symantical meaning.
it's fine for you to have your judgment that they're not following the principles of what Christianity is supposed to be, and in point of fact I agree with you. However, it is still a direct result of organized religion.Assuming that opening statment is true, then they would not be Christians. No, it does not strike me odd as most people whom have religously enforced morals are gung-ho war supporters in the wake of such wars as Iraw, and world war II. Does it supprise you that morals create a stronger drive for wars than political reasons? The same can stand true for the abortion clinics.
well, here's an old thread about the occurrence of teen pregnancies in red states. As red states tend to be the most heavily religious, it's pretty much interchangeable.As for the higher rates of teen pregnancies, that just seems completley wrong. I could see it, as being teens are rebellious against thier upbringings and going on such things as adolessence. From my experience, there are a lot more teen pregnecies popping up in the ghettos and slummy areas of this country, and other countries. As per this is actually a fact, edczxcvbnm brings up a good point on religons. Its one thing to claim to study them, its another to follow them.
They're not saying they cause the actions, they're saying those actions are highest in areas where self-identified religious belief is highest. Correlation does not imply correlation, and all the study concludes is that it *may* be a contributing factor. Read the article again.well, if one does not practice a religion, can you say they are seriously of that religon, or religous? I don't see how this study really holds any credibility when its opening statment is "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today." Look at it carfully, that alone makes not a lick of sence. They say the the RELIGOUS BELIEFS cause these actions...nicely done. *bravo*
It looks to me like people are looking at the study and attributing meanings to it which it does not actually imply so they can dismiss it in an attempt to make themselves feel more comfortable.This study needs to be looked at more closley, as it seems to have a conception based on starting controversy.
Er. What? It was the Catholic Church that excommunicated Galileo because he dared to suggest that the world revolved around the Sun. It's in the name of religion that people today still insist on ignoring evolution, global warning and other scientific facts. Yeah, chalk another one up for religion alright, science is sure better off because of it.Originally Posted by lordblazer
He doesn't present them as facts, he presents them as conclusions in a study. And, how are they "baseless"? There seems to be a preponderance of evidence pointing to exactly those conclusions.yes, fall on that one little word, to make the article sound safe. That is why I refeared to the articles symantical value. The author acts in a way to make political correctness seem important to him, then he gougess nearly baseless facts into the article.
There is no "believe me, god damn it" element to religion? That's funny, all the religious people around have a "Believe in God or you're a dirty sinner and you're going to hell" attitude. And science has a preponderance of evidence pointing to its conclusions and the fact that we've been able to use it to do things that would have been impossible without it makes it pretty much invaluable.I say the same for science. It is, afterall, a near religon for the faithless. There is no "belive me, god damnit" outlook to religon. It is a way of life that requires faith, but to put it in such a primal manner is just insulting. I see more hostility in the anti religous banterings of athiests than any peice for religon. For every slander that throw on religon, there is an equal slander to any ladder of power.
Also, I've never read any atheist writings anywhere near as hostile as some of the stuff I've come out of so-called "religious" institutions. Here's an example.
More later.





