Surprise..surprise, if your religious your more likely to..

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You don't think it's at all telling that people who supposedly should be learning from prophets and saviors and trying to follow the goodness of god, are actually LESS likely to follow those types of teachings?

I mean isn't this what the religious right keeps telling us? That atheists and liberals have no morals? Yet they're more likely to snub their savoir's teachings?

I mean yeah, it's not highly scientific, nor is it a huge gap, but I really wish more people who constantly complain about the state of morality would take a good hard look in the mirror.

Religion isn't about values, and it isn't about doing what's right. It's about control. It always has been, and always will be. Whether it's controlling large nations, or just the people in your household. It's about getting people to do what you want to do and more importantly, think the way you want them to think.

The funny thing is when religion starts to have less influence on a society, you usually see more freedoms, fairness, and morality. Not less. If you're to afraid to look at examples close to home, you can at least look at the effect religion has in the middle east, and how it's used.

I bet they'd be ok with torture too.

So is it your contention that Canada and America is becoming more free, fair and moral?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

You don't think it's at all telling that people who supposedly should be learning from prophets and saviors and trying to follow the goodness of god, are actually LESS likely to follow those types of teachings?

I mean isn't this what the religious right keeps telling us? That atheists and liberals have no morals? Yet they're more likely to snub their savoir's teachings?

I mean yeah, it's not highly scientific, nor is it a huge gap, but I really wish more people who constantly complain about the state of morality would take a good hard look in the mirror.

Religion isn't about values, and it isn't about doing what's right. It's about control. It always has been, and always will be. Whether it's controlling large nations, or just the people in your household. It's about getting people to do what you want to do and more importantly, think the way you want them to think.

The funny thing is when religion starts to have less influence on a society, you usually see more freedoms, fairness, and morality. Not less. If you're to afraid to look at examples close to home, you can at least look at the effect religion has in the middle east, and how it's used.

I bet they'd be ok with torture too.

Kim Jong-il, China, Stalin Castro all say hello.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Mike F

Not passing judgment of the survey itself, but if you don't like research done on college students, you can throw out virtually every social science finding in the last century.

And 322 subjects, even from one university, isn't an unacceptable sample size in my experience.

Reliable data with confidence levels of 95% requires at least a sample of 1000. In fact, most academia requires confidence levels of 99%, requiring a sample size of 1500+. This sample means nothing.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by peter12

Reliable data with confidence levels of 95% requires at least a sample of 1000. In fact, most academia requires confidence levels of 99%, requiring a sample size of 1500+. This sample means nothing.

The sample size you need will also affect your variance.

In this case, with this sample size you will have a 95% confidence level that the result is within +-5 (actually 5.34).

A sample size of 1000 gives you +-3 "19 times out of 20".

Handy calculator for this: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The sample size you need will also affect your variance.

In this case, with this sample size you will have a 95% confidence level that the result is within +-5 (actually 5.34).

A sample size of 1000 gives you +-3 "19 times out of 20".

Handy calculator for this: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Exactly, so you also get a tighter sample.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Kim Jong-il, China, Stalin Castro all say hello.

A common mistake here, those societies force upon them ideals. Just because a political philosophy says its atheist, its more accurate to say they fear the church and replace it with their own brand of idol worship/cult of personality.

You'll find most communist nations, especially Russia and the former USSR states are highly religious, have been throughout the communist era.

You can't force thought, you can influence it sure, but ultimately even Russia used the Orthodox church and allowed religion to be openly and freely shown as long as it was the church that the state was in bed with.

What he should have said is a free society that evolves into a less religious society. Which we find examples of in Europe, especially the nordic countries like Sweden, Denmark.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Thor

A common mistake here, those societies force upon them ideals. Just because a political philosophy says its atheist, its more accurate to say they fear the church and replace it with their own brand of idol worship/cult of personality.

You'll find most communist nations, especially Russia and the former USSR states are highly religious, have been throughout the communist era.

You can't force thought, you can influence it sure, but ultimately even Russia used the Orthodox church and allowed religion to be openly and freely shown as long as it was the church that the state was in bed with.

What he should have said is a free society that evolves into a less religious society. Which we find examples of in Europe, especially the nordic countries like Sweden, Denmark.

That might explain Russia, however North Korea has completely purged religion. Its a splitting hair argument. I don't buy that any nations freedoms or rights are based around the religious beliefs of the body politics, but is built around the beliefs and egos of the political bodies in power today.

In terms of being a nation based around religion doesn't fit around America because of its diversity so saying that 332 people represent the ongoing political body is false at best as they've shifted to the minority.

You might have an argument with Islamic Nations that for example have adopted that religion into their courts and policies, however you do have to look at the communist parties where they replaced the religion with a false religion based around the body politic and where the ends justify the means became the one commandment that they followed.

At its base level every political body is willing to abrogate rights and freedoms in its pursuit to make the country that it represent more closely in line with its political beliefs. Religion is just a convienient blame point for that.

[Flash Walken]

Saying North Korea purged all religions isn't quite accurate.They very much did replace active religious practices with what another poster mentioned above, a Cult of Personality. Kim Il Song is still technically President, and will be in perpetuity. Kim Jong Il, his son, is technically only the leader of the military. It is messed up, but not exactly the first leader to Deify him/herself.

To a certain extent you would expect these results. Organized religion is often harsh and uncompromising. Basic tenets are 'do what has to be done.'

What I think is more shocking is the 42 percent of otherwise irreligious people who are in step. I think the age of those surveyed has a great influence on that, though. I am pretty confident the results would be different if you surveyed the students and their faculty, for example.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So is it your contention that Canada and America is becoming more free, fair and moral?

I guess that depends on what you believe free, fair and moral means.

Take sexism and racism, for example. Obviously immoral and obviously less prevalent today than they were 50 years ago, so morality gets a boost. Less sexism and racism = more freedom and fairness.

So the answer to your question is "yes".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Saying North Korea purged all religions isn't quite accurate.They very much did replace active religious practices with what another poster mentioned above, a Cult of Personality. Kim Il Song is still technically President, and will be in perpetuity. Kim Jong Il, his son, is technically only the leader of the military. It is messed up, but not exactly the first leader to Deify him/herself.

But you have to ask yourself, does the government in place believe in what they're propogating to their own people, or is a tool that is ruthlessly and cynically applied by the government to formulate policy?

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

To a certain extent you would expect these results. Organized religion is often harsh and uncompromising. Basic tenets are 'do what has to be done.'

But you can apply that argument to any political body, especially the ruthless totalitarian ones. To a political body the ends certainly justify the means and you'll even see that in moderate or even non religious states.

You also have to ask yourself the question of how many of the governments in place actually believe. Hussein projected his government as one that believed and followed the tenants of Islam to placate his people. But he was certainly jealous of the power that religion held in his country and was contemptfull of it behind the scenes.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

What I think is more shocking is the 42 percent of otherwise irreligious people who are in step. I think the age of those surveyed has a great influence on that, though. I am pretty confident the results would be different if you surveyed the students and their faculty, for example.

Young people are probably more steadfast in their beliefs then older ones who have life experiences beyond what they've pulled off of the web or a textbook.

I'm probably sure that if you went to an elderly church group, or one just populated by woman, or one just populated by men that the results would be completely different no matter what the religion or lack of religion was.

All this is saying is that that specific group bought back these numbers on this question. Its a farce to condemn an entire group on the opinions of a tiny sliver of it.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But you have to ask yourself, does the government in place believe in what they're propogating to their own people, or is a tool that is ruthlessly and cynically applied by the government to formulate policy?

I'm sure they don't all believe it, but I am sure some do, or at least want to believe it that bad.

I'm not really sure where this discussion is going, but every source of power does that. Conceal their motives behind smoke and mirrors, it doesn't matter what the power structure is. Obama isn't coming right out and frank talking to you about the next 3 years that he has mapped out. The ruthlessness varies, sure, but a secular disguise behind a religious front that itself defends something that might otherwise be considered imoral doesn't really do much to further the argument that religious autocracy is better than secular autocracy.

Young people are probably more steadfast in their beliefs then older ones who have life experiences beyond what they've pulled off of the web or a textbook.

I'm probably sure that if you went to an elderly church group, or one just populated by woman, or one just populated by men that the results would be completely different no matter what the religion or lack of religion was.

All this is saying is that that specific group bought back these numbers on this question. Its a farce to condemn an entire group on the opinions of a tiny sliver of it.

I agree.

My comment was more about the respect for life that I think grows with age. The unique fragility of the person and so on.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by ok, ok,....I get it

I find this post unexpected.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

That might explain Russia, however North Korea has completely purged religion. Its a splitting hair argument. I don't buy that any nations freedoms or rights are based around the religious beliefs of the body politics, but is built around the beliefs and egos of the political bodies in power today.

North Korea as Hitchens put it best is a necro-ocricy, a dead head of state which is praised daily by school children and adults alike. Just because its not a 'approved religion' does not mean that country is run like a religious nation, theocratic nation.

The point I was countering is we don't have good example of 'atheistic' societies in the past because in order for them to occur they have to be free societies and those societies citiziens have to naturally move away from religion.

In terms of being a nation based around religion doesn't fit around America because of its diversity so saying that 332 people represent the ongoing political body is false at best as they've shifted to the minority.

America is definately unique amongst the western world, and its true it is the anomoly amongst free people sticking with religion. However it can also be said that the fastest growing segments in America are the non religious, representing anywhere from 15-20% depending on statistics.

This is what we saw in secular Europe about 10-30 years ago depending on the nation, once that tide started it quickly happened over just 1-2 generations going from religious to non religious.

Now America is probably going to be much more stubborn, its certainly its own unique little world onto itself.

You might have an argument with Islamic Nations that for example have adopted that religion into their courts and policies, however you do have to look at the communist parties where they replaced the religion with a false religion based around the body politic and where the ends justify the means became the one commandment that they followed.

But the point I was making, is that those are not 'atheistic' nations because those countries are still religious, the people can't be forced to become atheists, the only place you can argue that is N Korea but they replaced traditional religion with their own.

[missdpuck]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I find this post unexpected.

That cracked me up.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

So is it your contention that Canada and America is becoming more free, fair and moral?

I'm speaking historically, but even though I know I'm opening a can of worms here because I am probably thinking you already disagree I have to say yes. Obviously yes. It's not a straight line, progress rarely is. There's always missteps and problems.

Though I'd say with the resurgence of the religious right (and religious fundamentalists of all faiths) this is being threatened. Especially in the States where we've seen influence of religion on social and political policy. Canada is stuck in a middle ground between Europe's largely secular societies, and America's battle ground of church and state.

[Hack&Lube]

For a North American example of that, Quebec pretty much followed the model of the European flip to secularism in 1 or 2 generations.