What does the upside down star(pentagram) mean to you?

Reported by whom? What is the meaning of "belief system" in that contention? How do we know that you are not just conveniently puking up some unrelated crap in the attempt to appear to have made a point?

Reported by whom? What is the meaning of "belief system" in that contention? How do we know that you are not just conveniently puking up some unrelated crap in the attempt to appear to have made a point?

Setanta wrote:

Reported by whom? What is the meaning of "belief system" in that contention? How do we know that you are not just conveniently puking up some unrelated crap in the attempt to appear to have made a point?

Um,

Conclusion

[20] The United States' deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.
Source, Gregory Paul

Hey Setanta,

I must be sleepy or something, I just realized you were responding to William Shatner and not Chumly the Electron Wrangler, still I guess my response makes sense even if you had been responding to me.

Intrepid wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Reported by whom? What is the meaning of "belief system" in that contention? How do we know that you are not just conveniently puking up some unrelated crap in the attempt to appear to have made a point?

Um,

Yes, yes, Bill . . . and the source for that is? To what extent is the source able to assert that all those ascribed to a certain belief system can be said to be fervent believers therein? To what extent can this source assert that the data provided is comprehensive? What does the rubric "other" refer to?

Pretty chart, Bill--no evidence, though.

Post a link, Bill, the data is meaningless without statements about how it is amassed and the definitions used. One glaring problem we have here is to know to what extent the putative adherents of any "belief system" (a term left undefined in what you have provided us) can reasonably be said to subscribe to most, let alone any, of the tenets of any stipulated belief system.

Not that I doubt there will eventually be studies attempting show a cause and effect relationship between the correlation described in Paul's article, he clearly states his study is preliminary and only demonstrates a correlation and was not robust enough to establish causality.

Nevwertheless, you respond when i address you as Bill.

How do you know i mean William Shatner when i address a remark to "Bill?" Why do you respond to such remarks? Do you contend that even though you have responded when i addressed you as Bill, you didn't understand the reference to William Shatner?

You always raise more questions than you answer, Bill.

And, wonderfully for you, Bill, you'll have a feeble excuse not to post a link to your source. Isn't that special ? ! ? ! ?

Which is not at all the same as asserting that any given percentage of the world's population adhere to a belief system for which a standard definition of what constitutes good and evil is inherent….

Since you posted your pie chart, you have not provided a link. You have only mentioned aherents-dot-com. That's not the same as providing a link. Since you are unwilling to provide one, i can only assume that your source is horsie poop, and you know it.

snood wrote:

Intrepid - just for the record, I read the same posts as every one else, and I didn't take away from it that you think Christians are better than everyone else, or that they're the only ones who know right from wrong.

Thank you Snood. I was not saying that, as you wisely picked out. I said that there is a difference. I have never said that Christians are better, or worse, than anybody else. I am only speaking to what works for me.

I have also seen young children brought up in Christian and non-Christian homes and there IS a difference in their perception of good and bad. I am not saying that all Christians are good. Just as in anything you have your bad apples. However, when children are brought up in a truly honest religious family they get exposure to others with the same moral values. They have a wider exposure to those things that are considered right and good. No, I am not talking about fanatical religionism.