This is BS. I can't even read the entire thing. It's ridiculous and it holds no merit. Some people apparently aren't aware that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
This is BS. I can't even read the entire thing. It's ridiculous and it holds no merit. Some people apparently aren't aware that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.
Actually, Shadow Nexus, your harshly sarcastic responce is a prime example of how stupid some people's studies are. You did a much better job than I of explaining how idiotic this article really is. Sometimes, the pen is mightier than the sword. And sometimes, mockery is the mightiest of all.
have a donutOriginally Posted by The Man
Dominant or not, saying "Christainity and other religons suck", entails a enirly different conotation than simply saying "religons suck". That is my point, I am not diggin, I am merely reading what is right on the paper.Because Christians are by far the most dominant religion in these areas.
Sorry, symantics aint a good word; connotation would be better, Or entailing to the fact that the article can litterally say one thing, but completley imply another. (see last respose with the religon sucks example).Er. What?
I think that is the real debatable point here. I really see some irony in that statment. People who claim to be Christians, but do not practice Christianity, are not Christians. Then you say it is still a result of organized religon? explain?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.
That is all fine and dandy, but I belive it has more to do with the adolecence of the situation. I do agree with Jebus here. I can see religon being pulled into this now, as per Jebus's post. Its like the old saying, you can't have good with out evil. It seems to work like a sperctrum. Somthing bad happens in a warzone, yeah it sucks. If somthing bad happens in a peaceful place, it is horrid in relation.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.
Read it again, and see my first problem on this post. The one dealing with the sematincs of the article.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.
Quite the opposite, I am merley look at the article, and not the study. The study may be fine; but the article is pretty mouthy if you will.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.
Again, I blame this merely on the way the article is presented. As I say in my previous post, it looses alot of credibility imo.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.
Yeah, science is realy noble in itself. In my mind, science and religon coexsist just fine. I am talking about athiest science, which is fine in most respects, but as far as thier aditude towards others goes, is downright rude and frustrating. The have a "You belive in GOD? Your a fool!" aditude. Granted, there are the overzealous christains, but I run into more overzealous athiests (mainly online) than I do christians.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.
touch'eAlso, 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.I am talking in my personal experiences. I am not so naive to say that they don't exist. Hell, even the Satan is supposed to be claim to be Jesus when he comes.
More later.
He has such a talent for summing everything up in such few words!
Bipper GOES
Basically, I don't think erligion has an effect one way or another. Why? because it doesn't touch people's hearts. They don't let anything that's taught get there. Why? Because almost all religions do not answer the important questions in a reasonable manner, thus people don't really believe, thus they don't really care that much. If people believed their religion to be true, they would follow whatever holy writings they're supposed to believe in.
I think most of the bases here have been covered. But I must just put in this little tid bit of info.
I live in Northwest Ohio, and particually my area is heavily religious. My town has... .err... 5-7 churches in it. We got a population of under 2000 if memory serves. Just about every one in town is some form of christian. I talk with them a lot.
They do not have the "I am right you are wrong, god dammit" attitude. In fact they are more open minded then my sisters are.. and they are self-proclaimed atheists(they think god is a bunch of crock).
Here the more the person is religious the less violent and the kinder they are. If you need help, no matter the problem, the first people you would go to are generally the more religious ones. I am one of the few exceptions, but I am sure you have gleaned from my posts that I am at least somewhat religious.
Anyways I may not be a christian, but when I hear people bash them it riles my blood. Just cause you have meet some that are hard headed doesn't mean they all are. Do not try to stereotype. Because I can pull the same BS with atheists. The mud slogging game goes both ways. But it is dirty and I would rather stay away from it.
As for the article. Fairly interesting, though it didn't take everything into account, and until they had filtered out other variables it may have been best to refrain from publishing an article due to the fact that such reactions as are evident here would have been easily predicted.
Also please bear in mind that not every self-proclaimed christian is a christian. Though this also goes both ways(not all self-proclaimed atheists/agnostics are what they claim).
I lost my train of thought. So please exuse how rambling it is. Whatever I have it is really messing with my thought process. Not to mention it looks like I wil lose another finger nail.
STILL Updating the anime list. . . I didn't think I was that much of an anime freak! I don't even want to consider updating the manga list!
How are the actions of Pat Robertson et al not examples of organized religion at work? They are organized, and they are directly related to religious beliefs. Even if they contradict the principles of the original founder of the religion, they are still acting on their religious beliefs, even if those beliefs have nothing to do with the teachings of the founder. I'm baffled by what you say here.
For the purposes of this study, people who claim to be Christians are Christians. You can debate their claims all you want, but the conclusion of this study is that areas that claim to be religious are on the whole less socially advanced than those that do not.
Well, seeing as religious groups are the ones most vehemently pushing abstinence-only agendas, it doesn’t seem to me to be surprising that religious areas have the highest incidences of teen pregnancy, as abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work.That is all fine and dandy, but I belive it has more to do with the adolecence of the situation. I do agree with Jebus here. I can see religon being pulled into this now, as per Jebus's post. Its like the old saying, you can't have good with out evil. It seems to work like a sperctrum. Somthing bad happens in a warzone, yeah it sucks. If somthing bad happens in a peaceful place, it is horrid in relation.
“It can.” It’s not saying it does. Do you have a problem with the implication that it’s a possibility? That’s what I’m getting from your post.Read it again, and see my first problem on this post. The one dealing with the sematincs of the article.
All the article does is repeat the study’s conclusions. How is that mouthy?Quite the opposite, I am merley look at the article, and not the study. The study may be fine; but the article is pretty mouthy if you will.
Evidently you never read sites like Free Republic, then. They’re out there, but due to the rather liberal attitude of most roleplaying games, you won’t find as many of them on, say, Final Fantasy sites.Yeah, science is realy noble in itself. In my mind, science and religon coexsist just fine. I am talking about athiest science, which is fine in most respects, but as far as thier aditude towards others goes, is downright rude and frustrating. The have a "You belive in GOD? Your a fool!" aditude. Granted, there are the overzealous christains, but I run into more overzealous athiests (mainly online) than I do christians.
And again, to pretty much everyone else who has posted, where does the article say that religion DOES cause these things? It just says that it’s a possibility. Evidently, some of you are not equipped to deal with that suggestion.
China is not a free society, which I consider to be a more important factor than its religiosity or lack thereof. And I believe the conclusion of this study was precisely that violence does not occur as frequently in less religious countries. Europe is less religious than America and seems to have less violence in pretty much every study I’ve ever observed. If you have contradicting statistics, I’d like to see links.
While I agree that access to wealth is a strong factor in things like this, and that power corrupts, I’d dispute your conclusion. As an example, religion is being used to justify hate speech against gay people, and it is also being used to justify abstinence-only education. It isn’t that difficult to deduce from this that violence against gay people or teen pregnancies would be more common in areas with such religions.It's about access to wealth. As they say: power corrupts. The creation of social strata of varying power. All religion does is get in the way of social change on occasions, which bogs down the evolution of a culture, but it doesn't contribute to amoral behavior. Except, appearantly, with Catholic Priests... but even that's a matter of "those with power vs. those without".
A lot of people in America actually do believe this crap quite literally. They honestly believe that they’ll only go to heaven if they vote for politicians who oppose gay rights and abortions. It’s not really that far removed from hijackers who think they’ll go to heaven for flying planes into the World Trade Center. The afterlife is a strong motivator in people’s behavior. I think you severely underestimate it.
I am just commenting on what the man just said about religion and gays/abstinance.
Yeah...this is already going down hill as I am too lazy to do a real quote
Anyways religion has nothing to do with that except that the majority of those people use that as an excuse to justify what they believe. In the end it isn't real christianity or religion at all as they teach you to accept others that are different from you even if they are 'sinners'.
So when ministers at churches say that gay people are all going to hell and people need to vote for candidates who oppose gay rights, that’s not a case of religion influencing society? Riiiight.
You hit the point, exactly. RELIGION IS USED. Exploited. If religion wasn't there, they'd use darwinism to bash gays. Or some economical bull**** (like atheist homophobes do). Whatever, they'd find an excuse. After all, the bible doesn't even have anything against gays, except in a section that is nulled by the bible itself. Hate looks for excuses, it doesn't like little things like "fact" getting in the way. And hate exists wherever diversity exists, and diversity exists wherever freedom exists. Hence: FREEDOM is the cause of crime.
Oh, and where do you find less religious societies with less violence? Ah, yes, places that DON'T have nearly 100 seperate cultures within their borders. Of course the United States have that conflict.... we have the KKK and the Panthers living in the same neighborhoods. If you can't see that creating violence, you need help.
http://www.venganza.org
I agree. Not with everything in the article. But with the thought that Christianity can be dangerous. When you start denying scientific laws (laws, not theories), because of your faith you're not only living in a fantasy you're practicing the occult. You're holding back society. Just like the dips who prosecuted Galileo. Am I the only person who stops to think during history class at the thought of people being murdered for arrogant and ignorant Christians and what they might have become and gets aggrivated? I feel like it. I feel like, while we might not have repeated history, we're certainly drumming to the same rhythm.
My brother goes to a Christian school. We talk a lot. He's seen dangerous faith in Christianity. He dignifies it. But, just like sheep, some people haven't the brain power to do so. I think it was Aristotle that predicted democracy would lead to a mob-rule. When people vote exclusively for one party because of their heritage, that's what we have. I don't think my brother is dangerous. But, if he began prosecuting me for not being Christian I would be scared. If he started voting strictly conservative and calling me unpatriotic for not being completely conservative I'd be terrified. If he denied Darwinism because it contradicts Christianity, I don't think we'd talk anymore.
I am Catholic and I have never heard a priest say that. They talk about forgiveness in the churches I have visited. This is not to say that there are not a few wack jobs in the bunch.
DEBUNKED!!!!11!...like this fagtarded article....but not so much by me as it was udsuna...or whatever. I really just wanted to put my 2 cents in with experience.
Ok, here is what I have been trying to say:
The article is writen just fine (gramatically) however, the way the article interpits upon reading, makes it seem as though it is more of an attack (for lack of a better word atm) on religon. It goes as far as to serpratley point out christianity, which is just wrong. No religon should have been singled out unless it was singled out in the study. I havn't seen any reports from the studies, and jusdgine by the context of the article, I am gonna say it's scope was per the article.
The way the article came across, despite its carful (!?) wording, was a little aggressive. That is what completley turned me off. The fact that most people whom read it, does support this. Defensive stances prolly also had an effect on this, along with scoped logic. Mouthy was not meant to mean hurling insults, but rather covering information in too many words, wich should really be done with caution on such delicate matters.
In programming life, there are two ways to see things. The logistical, and semantical. The way things are, and the way the are implied. That is very synominous with my thinking. I tend to think that atheists dwell on the logistical, while religous types dwell on the semantical (as far as morality and other behavioral/traditional teachings go). I tend to fall in the middle, although I have more faith in the Christain religon, as it seems to be sufficiant for me.
Bipper
I strongly disagree with this. If God says something, you can’t argue with it, and God says in the Old Testament that homosexuality is an abomination. Also, I believe a lot of Paul’s writings in the New Testament were critical of homosexuality, so it’s not really nullified by Jesus’ statement that the Old Testament laws no longer applies. At any rate, under some people’s reasonings, God says that homosexuality is an abomination, and there’s nothing that can contradict for that. No reasoning, nothing. God is above reasoning. However, Darwinism is based entirely on observation. Observation points out that animals often exhibit homosexual behaviours. That simple reasoning would invalidate their argument because there wouldn’t be a God to hide behind.
I don’t doubt that diversity doesn’t help matters much. However, England is nearly as diverse as America, and as far as I know doesn’t have anywhere near the violence. On the other hand (again, I’m relying on memory here), Scotland doesn’t have nearly as much diversity as England, yet is the most violent region in the United Kingdom. So if diversity is a contributing factor, it’s not THAT much of a contributing factor.Oh, and where do you find less religious societies with less violence? Ah, yes, places that DON'T have nearly 100 seperate cultures within their borders. Of course the United States have that conflict.... we have the KKK and the Panthers living in the same neighborhoods. If you can't see that creating violence, you need help.
Also, here again you’re focusing on the “violence” part of the study (which I honestly believe to be the least important part) to the exclusion of the sexual promiscuity, abortions and suicide.
It’s a lot more than a few. Trust me, I live in the South.
Fuzzy logic applies strictly to programming because it doesn't make sense any where else. I personally think atheists are more moral than religious people. But that's probably just because the aforementioned attentiveness in History class. But that's probably stupid. Nothing is ever that black and white, and I'm just making absurd generalizations.
"All generalizations are false, including this one" - Mark Twain
rofl.
And I honestly don't think it was all that unbalanced an article. It's contrasting conventional wisdom with the conclusions of the study, so it presents both sides of the issue. However, the conclusions of the study make people uncomfortable, so they react in a defensive manner.
Posting Permissions
