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

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

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.

Are we talking about different studies? I have no idea what the numbers you are posting mean.

EDIT: I think we are lol.. I was referring to this study: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

I haven't read the other study that was listed so I can't comment on it at all.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

Are we talking about different studies? I have no idea what the numbers you are posting mean.

EDIT: I think we are lol.. I was referring to this study: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

I haven't read the other study that was listed so I can't comment on it at all.

I clicked on Rouges Iceland link and came to the UN HDI page where it is all tallied. Found those countries and compared. That study you have linked is flawed. It is cherry picking facts to suit it's theory.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

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

Who, other than you, said that? What smell test? You just made it up and said it fails.

The point, again, is that the best places to live have little religion and the worst have a lot. Do you dispute this? Given a choice, would you rather live in Mozambique or Finland?

I didn't say anything about the middle, I didn't say anything about some religious places being better than some non-religious. I didn't mention Saudi Arabia or Vietnam.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by photon

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.

I'm just going by what I remember growing up in an atheist home. My definition of god was pretty basic. A man in the sky watching and judging us and sending us to hell or heaven depending on what we did or believed. He was also handy for making wishes if you were weak minded and couldn't stand on your own two feet.
Since than my concepts have changed to the point that any definition is changing or lacking, it can only be experienced. It's like my experience of peace is changing so my definition changes.



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.

Wow, you strong agnostic is almost as hardened as my atheist. I get the difference though.
Oh yeah, I agree definitions are important and I find it frustrating when I say I believe in god, and get lumped in with the religious, but it doesn't have much to do with the accepted Christian model.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Who, other than you, said that? What smell test? You just made it up and said it fails.

The point, again, is that the best places to live have little religion and the worst have a lot. Do you dispute this? Given a choice, would you rather live in Mozambique or Finland?

I didn't say anything about the middle, I didn't say anything about some religious places being better than some non-religious. I didn't mention Saudi Arabia or Vietnam.

I didn't make anything up. Used the HDI link that you nicely provided. Now if I had a choice of Russia (very non-religious) versus Finland (kind of religious)....definitely Finland.

Saudi Arabia vs. Mozambique........guess it would have to be Saudi Arabia.

The study is cherry picking facts to suit it's theory. Maybe we can have look at the number of Pirates and development? Singapore is surrounded by Pirates and they are REALLY developed.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

That study you have linked is flawed. It is cherry picking facts to suit it's theory.

I look forward to your rebuttal paper then.

Seriously, the paper is pretty simple (probably too simple).. there are honest criticisms of the paper, but cherry picking facts isn't one of them.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

I didn't make anything up. Used the HDI link that you nicely provided. Now if I had a choice of Russia (very non-religious) versus Finland (kind of religious)....definitely Finland.

Saudi Arabia vs. Mozambique........guess it would have to be Saudi Arabia.

The study is cherry picking facts to suit it's theory. Maybe we can have look at the number of Pirates and development? Singapore is surrounded by Pirates and they are REALLY developed.

If you think they cherry-picked facts to come to the conclusion that Australia is a better place to live than Burkina Faso then you should point out the cherry picking specifically.

The best places to live have less religion than the worst places to live. Agree or disagree? That's been the point all along. If you disagree with this then just say so.

You don't have to bring up obvious truths like "the United States (religious) is better to live in than North Korea (not religious)". We all know that. It doesn't change my point at all.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by photon

I look forward to your rebuttal paper then.

Seriously, the paper is pretty simple (probably too simple).. there are honest criticisms of the paper, but cherry picking facts isn't one of them.

I guess my first problem with this study is that he does not have a control group. The study fasley isolates religion as the only variable that is different between the countries he is comparing.

Secondly the author keeps reffering to a correlation but gives no R scores to back up the statements of strong corelation.

I only briefly purused the study so it could be in there. But to me it seems like the author made a underlying assumption that all modern democracy's are equal except for their degree of faith. This assumption is incorrect and therefore the conclusions of the study are suspect.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

If you won't follow simple rules of logic when having a discussion and you will automatically assume simple correlations represent cause and effect relationships you sound like someone who has great faith

The failing in your statements is that you have shown no Causality. You haven't even presented any logical reason why the causality you propose is correct. I have and it is that people in despair need hope therefore it is more likely that a poor person or region will be religous. If you take a look at canadian Demographics you will find that the lower income the more likely to believe. They are not poor because they are religios they are religious because they are poor

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by photon

I look forward to your rebuttal paper then.

Seriously, the paper is pretty simple (probably too simple).. there are honest criticisms of the paper, but cherry picking facts isn't one of them.

Typing the paper now.

Seriously, it looks at countries development and checks to see if there is a strong religious content to them. Since the bottom 10 have a strong religious content to them and the top ten do not we get the conclusion...high religion causes low development.

I looked at 4 countries that do not follow this conclusion. Therefore the theory is flawed. High religion does not cause low development. It is probable that religion is consequence of low development. But then does high development erode region? Dubai would be an interesting test case.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If you think they cherry-picked facts to come to the conclusion that Australia is a better place to live than Burkina Faso then you should point out the cherry picking specifically.

The best places to live have less religion than the worst places to live. Agree or disagree? That's been the point all along. If you disagree with this then just say so.

You don't have to bring up obvious truths like "the United States (religious) is better to live in than North Korea (not religious)". We all know that. It doesn't change my point at all.

Fine. Have to agree. But the study is highly suspect. No different than Locke's pirate ratio to global temperatures.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by GGG

If you won't follow simple rules of logic when having a discussion and you will automatically assume simple correlations represent cause and effect relationships you sound like someone who has great faith

The failing in your statements is that you have shown no Causality. You haven't even presented any logical reason why the causality you propose is correct. I have and it is that people in despair need hope therefore it is more likely that a poor person or region will be religous. If you take a look at canadian Demographics you will find that the lower income the more likely to believe. They are not poor because they are religios they are religious because they are poor

Have I even attempted to prove "causality"? I'm pretty sure I have not.

The countries at the top of the HDI list are considerably less-religious than the ones at the bottom.

Do you disagree with that statement? Yes or no? That's all I've said.

If you disagree then say so. If you agree then the point has been made and we can all shake hands and agree.

I see a correlation. If you think it is illogical or that it takes "faith" to believe there is any correlation then I disagree. I don't think you are following the simple rules of logic if you don't see a correlation, so I guess we are even.

[photon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Typing the paper now.

Seriously, it looks at countries development and checks to see if there is a strong religious content to them. Since the bottom 10 have a strong religious content to them and the top ten do not we get the conclusion...high religion causes low development.

I looked at 4 countries that do not follow this conclusion. Therefore the theory is flawed. High religion does not cause low development. It is probable that religion is consequence of low development. But then does high development erode region? Dubai would be an interesting test case.

Once again, I wasn't talking about that information, I was talking about a different study.

Also again correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

And just because some individual data points do not fit the premise doesn't mean the premise is flawed. I can say males are stronger than females and be right even though there are obviously some females that are stronger than males.

[Lithium]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

Was this what you're looking for?

Homer Simpson: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa Simpson: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I guess my first problem with this study is that he does not have a control group. The study fasley isolates religion as the only variable that is different between the countries he is comparing.

Secondly the author keeps reffering to a correlation but gives no R scores to back up the statements of strong corelation.

I only briefly purused the study so it could be in there. But to me it seems like the author made a underlying assumption that all modern democracy's are equal except for their degree of faith. This assumption is incorrect and therefore the conclusions of the study are suspect.

He doesn't claim any kind of strong correlation. I didn't see any R scores either, however I did read an article where a few statisticians did review it and didn't find any flaws with that part of it so I guess for the purposes of the paper it wasn't necessary, because he's not claiming strong correlation.

Control group would be difficult too, but all sociology studies must have this kind of problem

It really isn't a paper that is out to demonstrate any positive statement, it looks simply like an analysis of existing data to discount the claim that religiosity makes better societies, nothing more.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by photon

He doesn't claim any kind of strong correlation. I didn't see any R scores either, however I did read an article where a few statisticians did review it and didn't find any flaws with that part of it so I guess for the purposes of the paper it wasn't necessary, because he's not claiming strong correlation.

Control group would be difficult too, but all sociology studies must have this kind of problem

It really isn't a paper that is out to demonstrate any positive statement, it looks simply like an analysis of existing data to discount the claim that religiosity makes better societies, nothing more.

I think I can agree with the statement the religiosity doesn't make a society better but I also believe that religiosity doesn't make a society worse. Religiosity is an effect rather than the cause.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Have I even attempted to prove "causality"? I'm pretty sure I have not.

The countries at the top of the HDI list are considerably less-religious than the ones at the bottom.

Do you disagree with that statement? Yes or no? That's all I've said.

If you disagree then say so. If you agree then the point has been made and we can all shake hands and agree.

I see a correlation. If you think it is illogical or that it takes "faith" to believe there is any correlation then I disagree. I don't think you are following the simple rules of logic if you don't see a correlation, so I guess we are even.

My problem isn't with the data. I would agree with the data. My problem is that in the course of this discussion people have been implying causality and using the data to say the that because a society is less religious it will be better off. This is the implication that is misleading

[photon]

Originally Posted by GGG

I think I can agree with the statement the religiosity doesn't make a society better but I also believe that religiosity doesn't make a society worse. Religiosity is an effect rather than the cause.

I can agree with that (which is why I keep saying correlation isn't causation).

I do think there are some things with a religious mindset that are problematic (or at least the style of religion I was raised up in), but it might be more a case of religion fitting into a slot rather than the slot being created by religion.

[Thor]

Wow away for a few days and bam. Lithium yes I laughed very hard at your post way back on page 3.

Probably pointless for me to reply to page 3 stuff, my homies already did x10 better job anyhow in this debate.

[Thor]

Speaking of the debate on societies without much religion:

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment
http://www.amazon.com/Society-withou...d_bxgy_b_img_a

Gonna pick that up and give it a read.