Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/27/2005 5:57:06 AM EDT


www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html


...consider the source.....

Britain



September 27, 2005

The Times

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent



RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.



According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“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.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

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





Link Posted: 9/27/2005 5:57:56 AM EDT
What a load.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:01:29 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:03:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I don't go to church, save funerals and weddings, but I gotta call


Why can't atheists just go be atheists--and STFU about it? Same with vegetarians. Same with (especially recently converted) Christians.



WTH is wrong with recently converted Christians?
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:08:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:11:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I don't go to church, save funerals and weddings, but I gotta call


Why can't atheists just go be atheists--and STFU about it? Same with vegetarians. Same with (especially recently converted) Christians.



WTH is wrong with recently converted Christians?



Nothing is "wrong" per se--I just get tired of their zeal and extreme need to tell everyone. It's like someone who quit smoking six months ago--too much of a zealot now. No offense intended--I just get weary, and it's mostly a real life thing, little relevance here.



What's wrong with people who quit smoking 6 months ago?

I am starting to get offended.

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:35:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 6:38:17 AM EDT by Greenhorn]
This guy is supposedly a scientist, and yet he forgets the most basic thing that any scientist or anyone else should know "coorelation does not prove causation." England has less bad stuff than the US (which is, of course, BS anyway) and they are less Christian, so therefore being Christian makes you a worse person. I suppose race car drivers are worse than normal drivers because they have more accidents.

Nowhere in the article does it give any reason to make a negative connection between morality and faith.

This is more than obviously a biased opinion by an activist "scientist" using his credentials to further his agenda.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:42:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I don't go to church, save funerals and weddings, but I gotta call


Why can't atheists just go be atheists--and STFU about it? Same with vegetarians. Same with (especially recently converted) Christians.



WTH is wrong with recently converted Christians?



Its not a problem with Christianity, new converts are usually the most loud and obnoxious of the bunch. They have a tendency to make statements those more mature in their faith (or lack theroef ) wouldn't bother with.

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:42:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
This guy is supposedly a scientist, and yet he forgets the most basic thing that any scientist or anyone else should know "coorelation does not prove causation." England has less bad stuff than the US (which is, of course, BS anyway) and they are less Christian, so therefore being Christian makes you a worse person. I suppose race car drivers are worse than normal drivers because they have more accidents.

Nowhere in the article does it give any reason to make a negative connection between morality and faith.

This is more than obviously a biased opinion by an activist "scientist" using his credentials to further his agenda.



Well said.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:44:47 AM EDT
Is it now so fashionable to bash the US that a large newspaper can do so with impunity? This is a steaming pile of rubbish, and any educated person can see it. This is nothing more than a shot at the US that makes European countries feel good about themselves. It amazes me that people think like this.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:46:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I don't go to church, save funerals and weddings, but I gotta call


Why can't atheists just go be atheists--and STFU about it? Same with vegetarians. Same with (especially recently converted) Christians.



WTH is wrong with recently converted Christians?



Its not a problem with Christianity, new converts are usually the most loud and obnoxious of the bunch. They have a tendency to make statements those more mature in their faith (or lack theroef ) wouldn't bother with.




Recently Born Again Christians are brimming with their newfound faith, and they want to share it with everybody. They feel free from the burdens they felt before they were Saved, and they want to ensure the people they care about go to Heaven.

They don't do it to be annoying. They do it because they want you to be with them in the Afterlife. Try to look at it that way.

/I was the same way
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:46:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 6:49:59 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
This guy is supposedly a scientist, and yet he forgets the most basic thing that any scientist or anyone else should know "coorelation does not prove causation." England has less bad stuff than the US (which is, of course, BS anyway) and they are less Christian, so therefore being Christian makes you a worse person. I suppose race car drivers are worse than normal drivers because they have more accidents.

Nowhere in the article does it give any reason to make a negative connection between morality and faith.

This is more than obviously a biased opinion by an activist "scientist" using his credentials to further his agenda.



You are reading a reporters take on it. The study only seeks to disprove the idea that being religous somehow leads to a better society. If this is true then the US should have less social problems than places like the UK and France.

The quote from the piece is “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”"

The idea that religion actually leads to bad things appears to be the invention of the reporter, not the maker of the report.

here is the original article

moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:52:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I don't go to church, save funerals and weddings, but I gotta call


Why can't atheists just go be atheists--and STFU about it? Same with vegetarians. Same with (especially recently converted) Christians.



WTH is wrong with recently converted Christians?



Its not a problem with Christianity, new converts are usually the most loud and obnoxious of the bunch. They have a tendency to make statements those more mature in their faith (or lack theroef ) wouldn't bother with.




Recently Born Again Christians are brimming with their newfound faith, and they want to share it with everybody. They feel free from the burdens they felt before they were Saved, and they want to ensure the people they care about go to Heaven.

They don't do it to be annoying. They do it because they want you to be with them in the Afterlife. Try to look at it that way.

/I was the same way



And new atheist tend to want to fill everyone in on how there is no God and the religion they follow is obviously false and is easily proven to be so.

They don't do it to be annoying, they do it to free others from the odious bondage they have recently freed themselves from. Try to look at it that way.

Its fucking annoying, no matter who is doing it
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:53:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2IDdoc:
Is it now so fashionable to bash the US that a large newspaper can do so with impunity? This is a steaming pile of rubbish, and any educated person can see it. This is nothing more than a shot at the US that makes European countries feel good about themselves. It amazes me that people think like this.



Its a typical case of a reporter misusing a scientific report to push his agenda.

the original document is available on the web HERE
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:55:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2IDdoc:
Is it now so fashionable to bash the US that a large newspaper can do so with impunity? This is a steaming pile of rubbish, and any educated person can see it. This is nothing more than a shot at the US that makes European countries feel good about themselves. It amazes me that people think like this.



Should they be punished for thier insolence?

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 6:57:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

And new atheist tend to want to fill everyone in on how there is no God and the religion they follow is obviously false and is easily proven to be so.

They don't do it to be annoying, they do it to free others from the odious bondage they have recently freed themselves from. Try to look at it that way.

Its fucking annoying, no matter who is doing it



At least you're consistent.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 7:04:51 AM EDT
The left will never forgive Christianity for its role in the defeat of communism.

Same with America.

Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:07:13 AM EDT
I'm a Christian and Ive never murdered anyone, aborted a baby, or comiited suicide. Now, the sexual
promiscuity thing I was guilty of in my youth, but most of the chicks I banged back then were athiests
so I'm blaming it on them.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:14:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By BenDover:

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I don't go to church, save funerals and weddings, but I gotta call


Why can't atheists just go be atheists--and STFU about it? Same with vegetarians. Same with (especially recently converted) Christians.



WTH is wrong with recently converted Christians?



Its not a problem with Christianity, new converts are usually the most loud and obnoxious of the bunch. They have a tendency to make statements those more mature in their faith (or lack theroef ) wouldn't bother with.




you would be screaming and hollering if you had been saved from a eternal damnation, but since you do not belive you will not experience that
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:21:14 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:26:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
Its fucking annoying, no matter who is doing it



+1 from a "live and let live" atheist.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 8:54:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 8:56:02 AM EDT by Greenhorn]

Originally Posted By Dino:
You are reading a reporters take on it. The study only seeks to disprove the idea that being religous somehow leads to a better society. If this is true then the US should have less social problems than places like the UK and France.

The quote from the piece is “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”"

The idea that religion actually leads to bad things appears to be the invention of the reporter, not the maker of the report.

here is the original article

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




Hoookay, perhaps the reporter is saying things that the actual "scientist" wasn't, but it cannot be denied that this "scientist" is saying that coorelation proves causation, and is putting his own biases into it. There are so many other factors that would affect the health of a society that belief in God would probably have little effect. He is attributing ALL of the social difference solely to the godliness of a country. Tha's jus' pline ignant.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:01:29 AM EDT
I guess that's why "happy slapping" and other random acts of violence are so popular with our youth.

Wait... no, wait a minute.... that's England. Nevermind.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:17:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 9:20:17 AM EDT by Dino]

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:

Originally Posted By Dino:
You are reading a reporters take on it. The study only seeks to disprove the idea that being religous somehow leads to a better society. If this is true then the US should have less social problems than places like the UK and France.

The quote from the piece is “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”"

The idea that religion actually leads to bad things appears to be the invention of the reporter, not the maker of the report.

here is the original article

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




Hoookay, perhaps the reporter is saying things that the actual "scientist" wasn't, but it cannot be denied that this "scientist" is saying that coorelation proves causation, and is putting his own biases into it. There are so many other factors that would affect the health of a society that belief in God would probably have little effect. He is attributing ALL of the social difference solely to the godliness of a country. Tha's jus' pline ignant.



No the scientist is NOT doing that. RTFA

He is debunking the idea that religious nations somehow have less social problems than secular nations. He does this by comparing the most religious modern democracy with the least religious modern democracies.

His article is in a peer reviewed journal, which means his facts have been checked by people who know what they are about.

The idea that a hypothetical country has less problems because of religion is the example of using correlation to prove causality. Its bullshit.

The reporter is the one making claims that the scientist did not even mention in his article. The reporter is the one who is using correlation to prove causality, not the scientist.



Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:21:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 9:50:36 AM EDT by thompsondd]

Originally Posted By Joaquin:

www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html


...consider the source.....

Britain



September 27, 2005

The Times

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent



RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.



According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“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.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

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









Perhaps he should read C.S. Lewis' 'Mere Christainity'.

In the meantime,



The US is becoming LESS and LESS religious. Why do you think most churches have lowered some of the traditional customs (such as "Sunday Best" and replaced it with casual service, comtemporay singing vs. traditional choirs, etc)? To try and counter decreasing attendance levels.

It is no longer COOL to be religious. It is too much of a hassel to go to church for most people. That is 'their' time.

Whole article stinks of someone who sways facts in order to achieve a predetermined outcome.



Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:23:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/27/2005 9:30:47 AM EDT by Greenhorn]

Originally Posted By Dino:
No the scientist is NOT doing that. RTFA

He is debunking the idea that religious nations somehow have less social problems than secular nations. He does this by comparing the most religious modern democracy with the least religious modern democracies.

His article is in a peer reviewed journal, which means his facts have been checked by people who know what they are about.

The idea that a hypothetical country has less problems because of religion is the example of using correlation to prove causality.

The reporter is the one making claims that the scientist did not even mention in his article.



Now wait just a doggone minute here. You just said it yourself - this "scientist" is saying that a more godly society is not necessarily more moral. He is making a single connection between the quality of a society as a whole and one small factor. By making the claim, he is ignoring ALL OTHER FACTORS!

He gave no information indicatating that two societies that are put together identically and with the same history, geography, etc., with the only difference being the godliness of the people, would have the same crime rate. Therefore his entire claim is absolute bunk, hearsay, conjecture, opinion and bias.
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:41:36 AM EDT
I could make up stuff too.


GM
Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:50:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By goodmedicine:
I could make up stuff too.


GM



Link Posted: 9/27/2005 9:53:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By goodmedicine:
I could make up stuff too.


GM



Not if you're a scientist or journalist. They are physically unable to make stuff up. It's a really intresting phenomenon.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 6:41:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:

Originally Posted By Dino:
No the scientist is NOT doing that. RTFA

He is debunking the idea that religious nations somehow have less social problems than secular nations. He does this by comparing the most religious modern democracy with the least religious modern democracies.

His article is in a peer reviewed journal, which means his facts have been checked by people who know what they are about.

The idea that a hypothetical country has less problems because of religion is the example of using correlation to prove causality.

The reporter is the one making claims that the scientist did not even mention in his article.



Now wait just a doggone minute here. You just said it yourself - this "scientist" is saying that a more godly society is not necessarily more moral. He is making a single connection between the quality of a society as a whole and one small factor. By making the claim, he is ignoring ALL OTHER FACTORS!

He gave no information indicatating that two societies that are put together identically and with the same history, geography, etc., with the only difference being the godliness of the people, would have the same crime rate. Therefore his entire claim is absolute bunk, hearsay, conjecture, opinion and bias.



Ok i'm gonna explain this slowly.

He is countering the claim that religous societies are better from the standpoint of social issues. Its a claim often used by fundamentalist Christians here in the US.

If that claim is true (notice it says nothing about geography or any other matters, the claim ONLY concerns the degree of religion in a society) then the US should have less social problems than the more secular societies which he compares them too.

If the claim is true, a society of believers will behave more properly than a society of secularists, every time, regardless of other factors. If it doesn't work that way then there are other factors than relgion that lead to proper and improper behaviour.

All this study does is say that there are obviously other factors involved that determine social behavior. Religion is not a panacea for social ills.

It doesn't say religion hurts, it just says its not the only answer.

Link Posted: 9/28/2005 6:47:50 AM EDT
The best part of Ruth Gledhill ended up as a stain on the sheets. Not worthy of a detailed response.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:28:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
The idea that a hypothetical country has less problems because of religion is the example of using correlation to prove causality. Its bullshit.



Hogwash. I suspect that you have zero experience with the social sciences. The study in no way controls for the underlying differences in populations between these societies. France is not Germany is not England is not the United States. A better comparison would be between the America of the 1950s and the America of today, which still would not be perfect. As religion has gradually declined, so have most social indicators. Same with Europe. The 20th century has the distinction of being both the most atheist and the most bloody century of the millenium. There is certainly enough correlation to plausibly argue that religion leads to a healthier society. Ergo, its not bullshit.

Of course, this debate will be academic in a few decades once "secular" Europe is overrun and subjegated by the Muslims.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 7:55:08 AM EDT
It's a load of crap. But on an individual level, many people are worse off having God in their life if they have to struggle with religious standards that they necessarily do not agree with due to practical considerations.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 8:38:06 AM EDT
Clearly this nation's retreat from God over the past 50 years or so has resulted in less crime, less poverty, and a lower scum index in this country.

Not a day goes by that I am not further convinced that this country needs an enema.

Link Posted: 9/28/2005 8:42:49 AM EDT
doesn't anyone know their bible? this is exactly what it tells you will happen!! READ IT, KNOW IT!!!
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 8:48:10 AM EDT
What about countries that are completely devoted to their "religion"

i'm thinking of the middle eastern variety.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 9:01:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
What about countries that are completely devoted to their "religion"

i'm thinking of the middle eastern variety.



Which is exactly why talking about the costs/benefits of "religion" makes about as much sense as talking about the costs/benefits of "government." There are good ones and bad ones of both.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 11:31:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/28/2005 11:40:19 AM EDT by ShadowOne]

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Clearly this nation's retreat from God over the past 50 years or so has resulted in less crime, less poverty, and a lower scum index in this country.

Not a day goes by that I am not further convinced that this country needs an enema.




I somehow doubt there is less scum today than 50 years ago. Modernization of communication has improved our awareness of them, that's all. People tend to give too much credit to the God factor because it's the easy and simple answer to comprehend.



Violent crime in US stays at historic low: report

news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050925/us_nm/crime_usa_dc
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 11:35:47 AM EDT
You can fuck up and destroy your life with virtually ANYTHING.

Drugs, alcohol, guns, gambling, porn, money, women and religion.

All it takes is a personality or disposition that is vulnerable.

And if you are one of those kinds of people and one of those things does NOT get you, something will be along shortly that you can use to fuck up your life.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 11:37:16 AM EDT
Bullshit article. Etremism is never a good thing, so I have a difficult time seeing how trying to get away from God as quickly as possible is any better than religious zealotry.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 11:40:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ShadowOne:

Originally Posted By drjarhead:
Clearly this nation's retreat from God over the past 50 years or so has resulted in less crime, less poverty, and a lower scum index in this country.

Not a day goes by that I am not further convinced that this country needs an enema.




I somehow doubt there is less scum today than 50 years ago. Modernization of communication has improved our awareness of them, that's all. People tend to give too much credit to the God factor because it's the easy and simple answer to comprehend.



Sarcasm Dude, sarcasm. Hence the:
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 11:44:41 AM EDT
It's simple: What else can you expect from a bunch of horses asses besides Horseshit?
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 12:07:55 PM EDT
I take heart that Secular Humanism is a belief system also and can be corrupted by silly thoughts.

If a person does not fully believe each and every iota of dogma and observance of a particular religion they are in a sense being a secular humanist, a sceptic. Nearly all of us have a private side in our belief system.

This guys sounds like another "nattering nabob of negativity"..
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 1:25:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
This guy is supposedly a scientist, and yet he forgets the most basic thing that any scientist or anyone else should know "coorelation does not prove causation." England has less bad stuff than the US (which is, of course, BS anyway) and they are less Christian, so therefore being Christian makes you a worse person. I suppose race car drivers are worse than normal drivers because they have more accidents.

Nowhere in the article does it give any reason to make a negative connection between morality and faith.

This is more than obviously a biased opinion by an activist "scientist" using his credentials to further his agenda.



Yup, just goes to prove that anyone can "create" a study to prove W(ever)TF they want it to prove - like fresh air causes cancer, or smoking is perfectly healthy hobby... facts don't matter except in how they might be manipulated to prove what I want it to!
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 1:44:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I don't go to church, save funerals and weddings, but I gotta call


Why can't atheists just go be atheists--and STFU about it? Same with vegetarians. Same with (especially recently converted) Christians.




its the same with any 'recently converted' name your group here. They are exited about what has happend to them and want to share. This will settle in time as long as the person isnt antogonized. However Christians are bound to try to convert those that are not following God. Some will do it the right way just by subtly planting seeds and by leading by example. Others will do it the wrong way by arguing incessantly, ending arguments with "well your wrong and your going to hell" and see 'living by example' as a good way to show the 'lowly sinners' how perfect they supposedly are.


there are going to be those in any group that tries to convert others to their beliefs. And then there are those who keep their mouths shut and never say a word. For the most part, these are the ones to cherish.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 2:17:53 PM EDT
Sounds like someone had a hypothesis and conclusion worked out before they sat down to research and write this stuff.
Link Posted: 9/28/2005 2:24:55 PM EDT

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.


Last I checked, almost all legitimate religions (ones stoners come up with to justify their addictions not included) preach against those things....

...so how does that lead to higher rates of what is preached? Turn them into the forbidden fruit and people just "have to" go and do it?

Link Posted: 9/28/2005 2:25:35 PM EDT
Gott Mit Uns!

Link Posted: 9/29/2005 6:18:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/29/2005 6:22:59 AM EDT by Greenhorn]

Originally Posted By Dino:
He is countering the claim that religous societies are better from the standpoint of social issues. Its a claim often used by fundamentalist Christians here in the US.

If that claim is true (notice it says nothing about geography or any other matters, the claim ONLY concerns the degree of religion in a society) then the US should have less social problems than the more secular societies which he compares them too.

If the claim is true, a society of believers will behave more properly than a society of secularists, every time, regardless of other factors. If it doesn't work that way then there are other factors than relgion that lead to proper and improper behaviour.

All this study does is say that there are obviously other factors involved that determine social behavior. Religion is not a panacea for social ills.

It doesn't say religion hurts, it just says its not the only answer.




I realize that you think that the scientist is not saying that religion hurts. But you are not understanding this. If the scientist says that religion does not make a better society, he is, no matter what you think, throwing out all other factors.

Think about it. If you are in a hot air balloon and there is a big rip in the top, it will not work as well as one that does not have a hole. If you pump more heat into it, it will work better than otherwise but still it won't work as well as one with no hole. That "scientist," looking at it, would see that adding heat does not make it as good as other balloons, and would conclude that adding heat does not help it.

Understand now?
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:08:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dino:
You are reading a reporters take on it. The study only seeks to disprove the idea that being religous somehow leads to a better society. If this is true then the US should have less social problems than places like the UK and France.

The quote from the piece is “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”"

The idea that religion actually leads to bad things appears to be the invention of the reporter, not the maker of the report.

here is the original article

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



The study itself is flawed because it assumes that someone who proclaims religion actually is an adherent of that religion.

I know people who claim to be Christian, yet they routinely fornicate, comit adultery, use drugs, etc.

If, however, you examine people who actually live by Christian principle, I dare say that you would find that their lives actually do show the benefit, and that those people benefit society.

Scientifically this study sounds about as valid as the NEJM study that proclaimed a gun in the household is 40 times more likely to kill the homeowner than the criminal, this despite the fact that rthe researchers counted a criminal bringing a gun in with them as a gun "in your home".

Flawed logic.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 4:09:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/30/2005 4:13:36 AM EDT by John_Wayne777]

Originally Posted By Dino:

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:

Originally Posted By Dino:
You are reading a reporters take on it. The study only seeks to disprove the idea that being religous somehow leads to a better society. If this is true then the US should have less social problems than places like the UK and France.

The quote from the piece is “The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”"

The idea that religion actually leads to bad things appears to be the invention of the reporter, not the maker of the report.

here is the original article

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




Hoookay, perhaps the reporter is saying things that the actual "scientist" wasn't, but it cannot be denied that this "scientist" is saying that coorelation proves causation, and is putting his own biases into it. There are so many other factors that would affect the health of a society that belief in God would probably have little effect. He is attributing ALL of the social difference solely to the godliness of a country. Tha's jus' pline ignant.



No the scientist is NOT doing that. RTFA

He is debunking the idea that religious nations somehow have less social problems than secular nations. He does this by comparing the most religious modern democracy with the least religious modern democracies.

His article is in a peer reviewed journal, which means his facts have been checked by people who know what they are about.

The idea that a hypothetical country has less problems because of religion is the example of using correlation to prove causality. Its bullshit.

The reporter is the one making claims that the scientist did not even mention in his article. The reporter is the one who is using correlation to prove causality, not the scientist.




The devil is in the definition of the term "religious", which is improperly defined in this study. One can identify themself as religious and yet not adhere to the principles or tennets of the faith they proclaim, and skew the whole thing beyond reason.

Did the researcher take into consideration the teachings given to the people who identified themselves as religious? Did he delve into their personal code of morality?

Without doing such a thing he is making broad generalizations that don't survive a surface examination.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top