5
   

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

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 02:48 pm
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?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 02:53 pm
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,
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/Intrepid2/Believers.jpg
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 02:54 pm
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?
Read it and decide for yourself if it has merit.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 02:58 pm
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,
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/Intrepid2/Believers.jpg



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.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:13 pm
Quote:
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


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.

I would be interested to see 'religionists' broken out into fundamentalist, conservative, and liberal religions in such a future study.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:15 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:21 pm
Chumly wrote:
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.


Yup, you must be sleepy. William Shatner is not a member of this forum.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:26 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:27 pm
Setanta wrote:
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,
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y75/Intrepid2/Believers.jpg



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.


FYI...The name is Intrepid NOT Bill.

Adherents.com is a growing collection of over 43,870 adherent statistics and religious geography citations: references to published membership/adherent statistics and congregation statistics for over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc. The religions of the world are enumerated here.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:30 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:32 pm
Setanta wrote:
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.


Just curious Setanta - would you guess that more people believe in something (as in "belief system"), or that there are more non-believers?
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:35 pm
J_B wrote:
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.
If the study in question was viewed in isolation, your viewpoint as per causality would have more merit, however for more definitive causality scenarios I suggest historical impetuses such as found in religious censorship, religious war, religious pogroms, religious bigotry, religious prejudice etc. Further all the US's military forces have the participation (and hence tacit endorsement) of the Christian Clergy and the US president GWB himself often evokes god in his morally questionable doings.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:36 pm
I would "guess," as with any matter of human endeavor, that there is a fringe element fanatically adhering to any belief set, a fringe element fanatically opposed to any belief set, and that the majority of those to whom beliefs are ascribed fall in a range between the extremes. To the extent that, patently, no one can know everything, even only in matters which impinge on their daily lives, i'd be willing to stipulate that all people believe something about something. 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--which would be the only reason to bring it up in the context of the discussion from which this intillectual boil formed.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:36 pm
Setanta wrote:
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.


That is because I am courteous and you are not. It was quite evident that you meant me because you quoted my post. Rolling Eyes

Since you are playing your childish games again. I will refrain from posting to you. Then, you won't have to post silly things rather than have a decent discussion.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:38 pm
And, wonderfully for you, Bill, you'll have a feeble excuse not to post a link to your source. Isn't that special ? ! ? ! ?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:40 pm
Setanta wrote:
And, wonderfully for you, Bill, you'll have a feeble excuse not to post a link to your source. Isn't that special ? ! ? ! ?


I am only responding here because I did post a link to my source. If you spent more time looking at the posts rather than at reasons to write sarcasm, you might have seen it. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:43 pm
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.
0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:44 pm
Setanta wrote:
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 inherentÂ….
Yup, religiosity does not imply agreement on good and evil, nor a sense of morality.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 03:55 pm
Setanta wrote:
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.


That is where I got the chart!!!!! sheesh
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 May, 2006 04:02 pm
Intrepid wrote:
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.


What then did you mean by a difference when you wrote these words and put the emphasis on "IS"?
Intrepid wrote:
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 07:47:04