Hindu's to Christians in India: "convert or die"

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I'll believe that when I see it.

Here is an article discussing one such study.

[cyclone3483]

Originally Posted by Azure

Was I the only one who laughed at what Lithium posted?

yes you were

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by Azure

Was I the only one who laughed at what Lithium posted?

Thanks Azure, I'm glad somebody can laugh about religious debate with me.

[photon]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I said people "like" Lithium.

So you made up a fake group of people that did something that you think was hypocritical and called them out for it? It's difficult enough trying to communicate with real people without having to create fake ones to attack.

I'd have to know what their reasons are, but on this board, it seems to be mostly a smug superiority complex that relies on tangibility for legitimacy.

I bolded the first part which is what I think is the most important.. without knowing their reasons I don't think it's at all fair to call them hypocritical.

As to smugness, any time someone takes the position of "I am right, you are not, here are the reasons I think so", it's going to sound smug or superior, especially in the context of a forum where things like body language or tone of voice can soften a statement are absent. But to assume that's the actual case for an individual is unfair.

Correlation does not equal causation, too, but you would have to be ignorant not to at least consider the correlation if not debunking it.

Well it's usually up to the person proposing the correlation to prove it, not for everyone else to debunk it.

I never said there needed to be truth to it in order to be constructive. Parents tell their kids they have to bee good fot Santa to give them gifts. Is that such a bad thing?

Alright my bad. For children no I don't think it's that bad, but I do think it's bad for society in general to accept and act on things that aren't right.

I'll believe that when I see it.

stuck_in_chuk posted the link to the specific one I had in mind.

I didn't say you had to be a beleiver, i actually said some people do not, and some people chose not to.

You said a non-believer can't or won't, implying that at least some have to be a believer to grasp a concept, I disagree.

I agree, but my statement wasn't meant to be a blanket across all countries and cultures, it was an observation based on my previous correlation.

Well to be a correlation with respect to the "quality" of a society and its foundation in Christianity it has to be a blanket statement about all countries or cultures in general. Otherwise it amounts to a statement about all countries about which the statement is true, but not about the ones where the statement is false, which doesn't actually provide any information (countries are better off when founded on Christian principles, except when they aren't better off).

[photon]

Originally Posted by cyclone3483

yes you were

No not really, I detailed why I found it funny.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Lithium

Thanks Azure, I'm glad somebody can laugh about religious debate with me.

It was hilarious. More people laughed than are admitting so.

[peter12]

These discussions get somewhat more silly and repetititve each time someone trots them out. Look, here's what I think... regardless of who you are ,everyone should be careful when giving up part of their individual will to any type of higher authority, whether it be religious or secular. Every individual should have the personal fortitute to examine the responsibilities and consequences of deciding to live under authority. This goes for any type of religion, but in my mind it also has to go for the secularists.

Atheism or theism is not the cause of most conflicts, it's the result of too many individuals deciding they would prefer someone else to make their decisions for them. That's what led to Stalinism, that's what led to the Third Reich and that's what led to many religious excess and crimes. We ALL have to be careful as to who tells us to do.

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by Azure

Was I the only one who laughed at what Lithium posted?

I thought it was funny. I could just imagine ralph wigum saying that.
It also sounds like a cartoon from "another random day".

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

High human development

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

Low Human Development

167. Burundi
168. Congo
169. Ethiopia
170. Chad
171. Central African Republic
172. Mozambique
173. Mali
174. Niger
175. Guinea Bassau
176. Burkina Faso
177. Sierra Leone

I'm quite sure that the countries at the bottom of that list have considerably higher levels of religious belief than the ones at the top.

I realize this is in response to the statement that said Christian Countries have better standards of living but isn't this assertion also incorrect.

To say that Countries are Poor because they have they are religous seems backwards. Isn't it more likely that as the worse off people are the more they need some promise (true or not) that their life (this one or the next one) will be better. They need some reason for their suffering. Following that people in rich countries no longer need to see the need to have a deity because they can aquire whatever they want on their own.

A better statement would be Poor people have greater use for religion whether or not there is a God.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

I realize this is in response to the statement that said Christian Countries have better standards of living but isn't this assertion also incorrect.

To say that Countries are Poor because they have they are religous seems backwards. Isn't it more likely that as the worse off people are the more they need some promise (true or not) that their life (this one or the next one) will be better. They need some reason for their suffering. Following that people in rich countries no longer need to see the need to have a deity because they can aquire whatever they want on their own.

A better statement would be Poor people have greater use for religion whether or not there is a God.

This isn't about "Christian" countries having a better standard of living, it's about the least-religious societies on earth having the best standard of living.

Is there a connection there? Well that's open to interpretation, but it doesn't change the facts.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This isn't about "Christian" countries having a better standard of living, it's about the least-religious societies on earth having the best standard of living.

Is there a connection there? Well that's open to interpretation, but it doesn't change the facts.

But making that statement in a discussion about Problems/Benefits and the implication being that there is a correlation that the more religious a society is the worse off it will be is very misleading.

--This rock protects us against Tigers
Really, How does it work
-- I don't see any Tigers around here
I would like to buy that rock

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

But making that statement in a discussion about Problems/Benefits and the implication being that there is a correlation that the more religious a society is the worse off it will be is very misleading.

--This rock protects us against Tigers
Really, How does it work
-- I don't see any Tigers around here
I would like to buy that rock

I don't really care if it's misleading. It's a fact. If you think it's wrong, challenge it. If you agree it's correct but I shouldn't be allowed to say it in the context of this discussion, I disagree. It's true. That's all there is too it.

I happen to believe there is a correlation.

--This rock protects us against tigers
Really, how does it work
--I don't see any tigers around here
I do. There is a tiger over there, a tiger over there and a tiger over there.
-- Ah, but I believe it works, and that's what really counts.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Azure

Spin it this way....

Since nobody really 'knows' whether or NOT God exists....you must have 'faith' that he does, or doesn't exist.

Or how else can you be SO sure to even call yourself an atheist?

I think it depends what question you are asking when it comes to theist/agnostic/atheist.

Do you believe in a god?
Anyone can answer this question without faith. No (atheist). Yes (theist). Unknowable (agnostic).

Is there a god?
The answer to this question requires faith. Since neither side can prove that there is or isn't a god. Or in the case of agnosticism the question is unanswerable.

My personal answer to the first question is, no. My answer to the second question is, it's highly unlikely. I consider the agnostic position to be one of knowing the existence of god is unknowable. Some people consider agnosticism to be that and/or that they don't know but will consider evidence if presented. However I think the latter of that definition is unnecessary. That means we are all agnostic to Bigfoot, unicorns, flying tea pots etc. and I think that is silly. For a subject that doesn't have any evidence supporting it the default position is to not believe in it, but to have ones mind open to the possibility that it could exist provided with adequate evidence. Believe in existence without such evidence is faith. Therefore I considering myself an atheist.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Burninator

I think it depends what question you are asking when it comes to theist/agnostic/atheist.

Do you believe in a god?
Anyone can answer this question without faith. No (atheist). Yes (theist). Unknowable (agnostic).

Is there a god?
The answer to this question requires faith. Since neither side can prove that there is or isn't a god. Or in the case of agnosticism the question is unanswerable.

My personal answer to the first question is, no. My answer to the second question is, it's highly unlikely. I consider the agnostic position to be one of knowing the existence of god is unknowable. Some people consider agnosticism to be that and/or that they don't know but will consider evidence if presented. However I think the latter of that definition is unnecessary. That means we are all agnostic to Bigfoot, unicorns, flying tea pots etc. and I think that is silly. For a subject that doesn't have any evidence supporting it the default position is to not believe in it, but to have ones mind open to the possibility that it could exist provided with adequate evidence. Believe in existence without such evidence is faith. Therefore I considering myself an atheist.

In my way of thinking there are only two answers regarding god. I am either gnostic [I know god] or I'm agnostic [I don't know god]. All other classifications are lacking, whether it denies the possibility [atheist] or accepts god by faith [religion] although I do see the good aspects of both.

Atheists can approach life with no baggage and so can be freer.
The religious are at least trying to know god and
may even get past relying on faith.
Both have probably experienced some aspect of god but didn't understand what it was. Myself I'm still looking for more understanding but this is how I see things now.

As for more religious countries lagging behind less religious countries, I remember at one time the more Catholic nations in Europe seemed to lag behind the protestant nations.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

whether it denies the possibility [atheist]

You misrepresent atheists here. A weak atheist is wide open to the possibility but just says there isn't any reason to think there's a God, and even the strongest atheist probably wouldn't deny the possibility if you propose a sufficiently abstract enough definition of God. As I said before the definition of God in play makes a difference.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I am either gnostic [I know god] or I'm agnostic [I don't know god].

Even this definition of agnostic is incomplete.. a strong agnostic wouldn't just say I don't know god, they'd say I don't know god and no one else does because the question of god is unknowable. A weak agnostic would say I don't know god but someone else might.

Picky picky I know, but definitions are important.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

This isn't about "Christian" countries having a better standard of living, it's about the least-religious societies on earth having the best standard of living.

Is there a connection there? Well that's open to interpretation, but it doesn't change the facts.

So where does Russia, China, Vietnam and North Korea stack up?

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

So where does Russia, China, Vietnam and North Korea stack up?

In the case of the study quoted they were covering democracies. If religious freedom is restricted in a country then you can't measure the religiosity of its people (well you can but the result will be wrong).

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

In the case of the study quoted they were covering democracies. If religious freedom is restricted in a country then you can't measure the religiosity of its people (well you can but the result will be wrong).

How about Albania then? They now have religious freedom after having atheism forced upon them, and it is still the biggest stinkhole in Europe and is still overwhelmingly athiest.

If we're just looking at democracies, then we are going to be skewing the results by culture as well as most long standing democracies are also in western societies which tend to be money driven.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

In the case of the study quoted they were covering democracies. If religious freedom is restricted in a country then you can't measure the religiosity of its people (well you can but the result will be wrong).

Hmmm.... sounds a bit fishy.

Looked it up myself and we have China at .777 somehow.

And the Saudis at .812

Russia at .802

and Vietnam at .733


So 3 pretty much Athiest countries getting their butts whipped by the most religious country in the world.

Religious = undeveloped and non-religious = developed fails the smell test.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

How about Albania then? They now have religious freedom after having atheism forced upon them, and it is still the biggest stinkhole in Europe and is still overwhelmingly athiest.

Probably wasn't included since this transition happened during the timeframe of the data being collected I think. Or information from Albania wasn't available.

From the study:

Data sources for rates of religious belief and practice as well as acceptance of evolution are the 1993 Environment I (Bishop) and 1998 Religion II polls conducted by the International Social Survey Program (ISSP), a cross-national collaboration on social science surveys using standard methodologies that currently involves 38 nations. The last survey interviewed approximately 23,000 people in almost all (17) of the developed democracies; Portugal is also plotted as an example of a second world European democracy.

If we're just looking at democracies, then we are going to be skewing the results by culture as well as most long standing democracies are also in western societies which tend to be money driven.

A fair comment, though by comparing prosperous democracies that all have similar cultures you are reducing the impacts of those things on the results; trying to isolate the variable in question and reducing the influence of things like diseases that are easily treatable or whatever.

The study doesn't claim to be exhaustive, definitive, or to establish anything.. it's simply a study that responds to the common claim that religious societies are "better".

This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.