Does God Believe in Richard Dawkins?

[cryptoracist]

In The God Delusion, Dawkins appears to blame faith for all the worlds woes but misses the mark on many vital points as I read in the following articles.

Not to mention all the good that faith has done for humanity.

How good are atheists at compassion and charity? It is the religious organizations of the world that are providing social services when the gov't can't or won't... who will run the soup kitchens and house deserted pregnant teens? It won't be the cold hearted atheists... that I can assure you.. I argue that even with all the wars and ills of life that Dawkins attempts to blame soley on religion that we also must look directly at the benfits of faith.

And how the faithless continue to benefit from the faithful in more ways than they care to acknowledge...

Check out this article
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/202/story_20279_1.html
then this one
What Dawkins gets wrong about God... (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/202/story_20279_2.html)
then hopefully you'll see where I'm coming from :negro:





Blaming Faith for All the World's Woes...

But The God Delusion overstates the case against religion by blaming faith for practically everything wrong with the world. Suppose we woke up tomorrow morning and found that every denomination had disappeared. The Israelis and Palestinians would still be at each other's throats: their conflict is about land, liberty, and modernity, not faith. (Israel is among the world's most secular nations; the fact that most Israelis are not particularly religious has hardly reduced tensions.) If neither Hinduism nor Islam had existed in 1948, the partition of the Subcontinent might still have occurred and been as awful. Very strong ethnic hostilities, combined with resource scarcity, were at work. September 11? The key fact is not that the United States was attacked that day by Muslims. The key fact was that the country was attacked by Arabs, and there would be radical Arab hostility to American suzerainty in the Persian Gulf even if religion vanished.

Though Dawkins rightly catalogs religion's many deficiencies, he fudges or simply skips over virtues. Set aside whether or not God exists: it is factual that religion is at the core of much of the world's philanthropy. Faith has underscored many social equity movements, from abolitionism in the United States to Gladstone's social equality movement in Dawkins' United Kingdom to the present day, in which religious organizations such as World Vision ask that the wealth of the West be shared with the poor of developing nations. Obviously a person need not be religious to be philanthropic, but the knowledge that religion inspires generosity should not be sneezed at.

[Halo]

How good are atheists at compassion and charity? It is the religious organizations of the world that are providing social services when the gov't can't or won't... who will run the soup kitchens and house deserted pregnant teens? It won't be the cold hearted atheists... that I can assure you.. I argue that even with all the wars and ills of life that Dawkins attempts to blame soley on religion that we also must look directly at the benfits of faith.
You see, crypto, thing is who the fuck said those where good values? Oh, a faith atheists don't belive in... Of course by your/their morals (of those with religious faith), atheists are not good, but for atheists/those who seek the truth, you are the ones who are evil for you make wrong choices because you do not search what is truly right.

[cryptoracist]

You see, crypto, thing is who the fuck said those where good values? Oh, a faith atheists don't belive in... Of course by your/their morals (of those with religious faith), atheists are not good, but for atheists/those who seek the truth, you are the ones who are evil for you make wrong choices because you do not search what is truly right.
Who would debate that compassion and charity aren't good values? Isn;t that a universally accepted truth? :confused:

[Halo]

Who would debate that compassion and charity aren't good values? Isn;t that a universally accepted truth? :confused:
There are no universally accepted truths when it comes to morals.
Except maybe good is good, bad is bad, it is good to practicise good, and good to find what good is.

[The Red Hammer]

Some cristians i have seen(Babtist)
Think low of people like pregnant teens
Repent now or you will burn in hell forever!:rofl:
How stupid can someone be to belive that the earth is 6000 years old?
I only like christian evolutionists!

[Fade the Butcher]

How good are atheists at compassion and charity?

Sam Harris responds to this in Letter to a Christian Nation.

While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious.

Other analyses paint the same picture: the United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious adherence; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious literalism, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms. . . .

Of course, correlational data of this sort do not resolve questions of causality -- belief in God may lead to societal dysfunction; societal dysfunction may foster a belief in God; each factor may enable the other; or both may spring from some deeper source of mischief. Leaving aside the issue of cause and effect, however, these statistics prove that atheism is compatible with the basic aspirations of a civil society; they also prove, conclusively, that widespread belief in God does not ensure a society's health.

Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing world. The dubious link between Christian literalism and Christian values is belied by other indices of social equality. Consider the ratio of salaries paid to top-tier CEOs and those paid to the same firms' average employees: in Britain it is 24:1; in France, 15:1; in Sweden, 13:1; in the United States, where 80 percent of the population expects to be called before God on Judgement Day, it is 475:1. Many a camel, it would seem, expects to pass easily through the eye of a needle.

[cryptoracist]

Some cristians i have seen(Babtist)
Think low of people like pregnant teens
Repent now or you will burn in hell forever!:rofl:
And this is why I'm so sick of this type of un-Christlike Christians... you see I give em hell on The Phora whenever they rear their ugly heads... because good loving Christians have to keep showing what Christ was about and He wasn't about the judgemental bitchfests we've seen illustrated by many Christians here.

Real Christians would do as Christ would... and that is to love and accept preg teens without judgement. The rest are just faking in Jesus name just to be in some boring social cliche.


How stupid can someone be to belive that the earth is 6000 years old?
I only like christian evolutionists!
I now consider myself a Christian evolutionist after learning more about it from another fine Christian here at The Phora. :negro:

[cryptoracist]

Sam Harris responds to this in Letter to a Christian Nation.

[/b]
On a more practical note... right off the top of your head... name me one charitable non-Christian org in our state.

Just one. :negro:

[Helios Panoptes]

I hate charity, social equity movements, and social welfare programs. If you intended to make me dislike Christianity, then mission accomplished.

[Helios Panoptes]

Faith has underscored many social equity movements, from abolitionism in the United States to Gladstone's social equality movement in Dawkins' United Kingdom to the present day, in which religious organizations such as World Vision ask that the wealth of the West be shared with the poor of developing nations.

The effects of instituting that idiotic plan would be terrible.

[Halo]

I hate charity, social equity movements, and social welfare programs. If you intended to make me dislike Christianity, then mission accomplished.
I mean aren't all those dysgenic? How can they be good? They bring more suffering than not in the long run!

[Northern_Paladin]

With differences come inequalities. If God wanted equality for all he would have created us all the same. Creating social equality would involve denying the significance of differences between individuals and groups. Which is why social equality movements have never achieved their goal. It would also defeat the purpose of living in a society since society itself requires stratification which is inequality.

[cryptoracist]

I don't know who was asking for equality... :confused:

I spoke on charity... I can afford to give some of it away... I'll be making more... that is the ideal Christian attitude IHMO

Of course if you don't have excess in your financial situation than it would be an unfair strain. I know that giving to a 3rd world country won't make them my financial equal, d'uh. :p

But since I have it to give, why not?

That's my position on charity... but it's not charity if you are already poor so these people shouldn't engage in charity.

And no one shoul engage in charity with the intent of making everyone financially equal, just give away what you already have too much of.

Now, Christians are great with giving away their time and energy and comforts to help others. I'm saying that atheists are not usually that selfless... that's all I'm saying.

[cryptoracist]

While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Insofar as there is a crime problem in Western Europe, it is largely the product of immigration. Seventy percent of the inmates of France's jails, for instance, are Muslim. The Muslims of Western Europe are generally not atheists. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest in terms of the United Nations' human development index are unwaveringly religious.
And what about China? Slaughtering Tibetan monks just for sitting still in the woods?

Is this another "benefit" of atheism?
How can we call it succesful gov't to kill off bald men sitting cross legged trying not to hold a thought? Why abolish that? :confused:

What would be the advantage to banning that kind of religious practice?

To what end?

[Petr]

While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality.
Sam Harris is a neurobiologist who shouldn't try his hand in sociology. Of course he deceptively omits negative examples from Eastern Europe and things like abortion statistics.

Steve Sailer put it well:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=131944&postcount=26

"Still, it's not implausible to guess that the Europeans are spending down their enormous inheritance of Christian morality and aren't making any new deposits. You can coast for a long time on the civilization your ancestors built, but not forever."


Petr

[cryptoracist]

Sam Harris is a neurobiologist who shouldn't try his hand in sociology. Of course he deceptively omits negative examples from Eastern Europe and things like abortion statistics.

Steve Sailer put it well:

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=131944&postcount=26

"Still, it's not implausible to guess that the Europeans are spending down their enormous inheritance of Christian morality and aren't making any new deposits. You can coast for a long time on the civilization your ancestors built, but not forever."




Petr
haha very good point... all that Christianity spends well at Wal-Wart, huh?

The wealth and security of US culture as we know it depends heavily on Christianity. Heavily.

[Petr]

Fade once argued that Social-Democratic Scandinavians are still more genuine Christians than right-wing Americans... he's an expert in spinning arguments from all possible directions.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Sam Harris is a neurobiologist who shouldn't try his hand in sociology. Of course he deceptively omits negative examples from Eastern Europe and things like abortion statistics.

Harris is right. Atheists are far more numerous than most people think. Trig has data about this posted in another thread.

[The Red Hammer]

And this is why I'm so sick of this type of un-Christlike Christians... you see I give em hell on The Phora whenever they rear their ugly heads... because good loving Christians have to keep showing what Christ was about and He wasn't about the judgemental bitchfests we've seen illustrated by many Christians here.

Real Christians would do as Christ would... and that is to love and accept preg teens without judgement. The rest are just faking in Jesus name just to be in some boring social cliche.


I now consider myself a Christian evolutionist after learning more about it from another fine Christian here at The Phora. :negro:
Then you are fine!

[Fade the Butcher]

And what about China? Slaughtering Tibetan monks just for sitting still in the woods?

I don't recall ever suggesting that religion was the only cause of violence in the world.

Is this another "benefit" of atheism?

Atheism is the absence of belief in god. It does not imply any positive approach towards the world. Most people reject the idea that Elvis is still alive. Presumably, this includes George W. Bush. Are Elvis deniers therefore responsible for the War in Iraq?

How can we call it succesful gov't to kill off bald men sitting cross legged trying not to hold a thought? Why abolish that? What would be the advantage to banning that kind of religious practice? To what end?

I don't know of many atheists who call for Buddhism to be banned.

[Boleslaw]

Sam Harris responds to this in Letter to a Christian Nation.

His data is both inaccurate and also based on the fallacy of assuming correlation equals causation. The largest percentages of atheists live in the former USSR and China, and China's health care system is not exactly the envy of the world.

As Petr stated, he makes a poor sociologist, as do you.

[Boleslaw]

http://webapp.uvt.nl/fsw/spitsjohn.nb_lib.frmToonPersbericht?v_id=2928

"The atlas shows that Europeans, generally, are quite happy and – in spite of secularization – still religious: 75% consider themselves religious...More than 60% of the Dutch call themselves religious. The importance of God however gets a score of only 4.9 in the Netherlands compared to 9.2 on Malta. Three quarters of the Croatians believe in angels, one third of the Turks believe in re-incarnation. In Russia and Sweden less than 10% attends a religious service on a monthly basis."

Harris doesnt realise that the state of religious belief in Europe is quite complex. For example, over 50% of East Germans dont believe in God yet the majority still believes in miracles. Huh????????????

It's been noted that large numbers of Europeans still visit holy sites like the Vatican, Fatima, and Lourdes in record numbers. Also the large crowds of Europeans that attended John Paul II's funeral, and then came to welcome Pope Benedict at Colonge had some journalists talking about a religious revival in Germany. I've already posted threads about how the number of baptism has recently risen within the past year in Germany and France. And so on.

[Petr]

Singaporean-Chinese world traveller Tan Wee Cheng makes an interesting observation: the Chinese in well-developed capitalist countries are more superstitious/religious than those living in ill-developed Communist China:

http://weecheng.com/


Religion in China today : What do they believe in ?

Before this trip, I had thought that people in developing countries like China would be more superstitious and devoted religiously, as a result of lesser contact with modern technology and godless television. This is not so. In fact, I am very surprised by the total lack of belief in any religion by anyone 50 years and below. Most people view religions as primitive beliefs and acts of devotion, as feudal and manifestations of illiteracy and backwardness. Very few educated people would like to be associated with religions, although most don’t mind making a simple prayer in temples when they are there - most likely during a sightseeing trip. That’s no different from an American tourist throwing a coin into fountains in Rome or Paris (or anywhere else) for luck. What causes this change in a country famous for beautiful temples, built over centuries by very devoted people ? And this contrasts drastically from economically more successful and developed Chinese societies like Taiwan and Hong Kong, where religion has become an important facet of life. Perhaps, it is the feeling of loss and confusion caused by a hectic urban lifestyle that make religion very important in maintaining a personal sense of worth and meaning - something that China is lacking, but certainly moving towards.


Petr

[Hakluyt]

His data is both inaccurate and also based on the fallacy of assuming correlation equals causation. The largest percentages of atheists live in the former USSR and China, and China's health care system is not exactly the envy of the world.

As Petr stated, he makes a poor sociologist, as do you.
That's exactly right. The more we come into contact with this Harris the more amateurish he appears. Some more data:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5865/gaullupreligion2005py9.jpg

While you believe that bringing an end to religion is an impossible goal, it is important to realize that much of the developed world has nearly accomplished it. Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on earth.
:rolleyes:

[Petr]

"When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

- G.k. Chesterton


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10950526/


Higher Education Fuels Stronger Belief in Ghosts

Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
Fri Jan 20, 10:00 AM ET


Believe it or not, higher education is linked to a greater tendency to believe in ghosts and other paranormal phenomena, according to a new study.

Contrary to researchers' expectations, a poll of 439 college students found seniors and grad students were more likely to believe in haunted houses, psychics, telepathy, channeling and a host of other questionable ideas.

The results are detailed in the January-February issue of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine.

'Not Sure'

The survey was modeled after a nationwide Gallup Poll in 2001 that found younger Americans far more likely to believe in the paranormal than older respondents.

The new study was done by Bryan Farha at Oklahoma City University and Gary Steward Jr. of the University of Central Oklahoma.

In general college students checked the "Believe" box less than the general population surveyed by Gallup. But the lack of "Don't Believe" responses among college students was lower for six of the 13 categories: psychic or spiritual healing, haunted houses, demonic possession, ghosts, clairvoyance and witches. That means a higher percentage of college students put themselves in the "Not Sure" column on these topics. [Table of results]

Less skeptical

More significantly, the new survey reveals college is not necessarily a path to skepticism in these realms.

While 23 percent of college freshmen expressed a general belief in paranormal concepts—from astrology to communicating with the dead—31 percent of seniors did so and the figure jumped to 34 percent among graduate students.

"As people attain higher college-education levels, the likelihood of believing in paranormal dimensions increases," Farha and Steward write.

The media are likely responsible for some people's beliefs in alien abductions and other paranormal concepts, the scientists write, based on their survey of existing studies. And some people tend to selectively confirm whatever ideas might be in their heads. Even smart people might believe in something offbeat because, in part, they're good at defending whatever they believe.

...

[Petr]

And I wonder what Fade would make out of this comparison - the Scandinavia has perhaps the highest standard of living in the world, and is also one of the most liberal and anti-racist areas in world.

(Fade has often emphasized that compared to the US, Western Europe has some true-believer egalitarians...)


Petr

[Boleslaw]

"When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

- G.k. Chesterton

Not to be a nitpick, but there's little evidence showing that Chesterton ever said such a thing. Dale Alqhuist actually wrote a letter about this to First Things magazine.


Higher Education Fuels Stronger Belief in Ghosts

Yes disbelief in God does not mean disbelief is all sorts of weird BS. According to Andrew Greeley's studies(and btw Greeley is a professionally trained sociolgist, unlike Harris), belief in superstitions actually rise whenever atheism rates are higher.

Interesting enough, he also did another study in the 70's showing that Catholics with higher education were more likely to agree with the Church's official teachings on artifical birth control. Bit of trivia for all of you!

[Boleslaw]

Singaporean-Chinese world traveller Tan Wee Cheng makes an interesting observation: the Chinese in well-developed capitalist countries are more superstitious/religious than those living in ill-developed Communist China:


That's true with almost all ethnic diasporas from officially atheist Communist countries. The same was true with ethnic diasporas from the Soviet bloc, where religion and the Church played key roles in the social life of these communities.

[Petr]

Yes disbelief in God does not mean disbelief is all sorts of weird BS. According to Andrew Greeley's studies(and btw Greeley is a professionally trained sociolgist, unlike Harris), belief in superstitions actually rise whenever atheism rates are higher.
Behold the wisdom of great atheist thinker, Nobelist Francis Crick: :p

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html


'Directed Panspermia' suggests that life may be distributed by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick and Orgel argued that DNA encapsulated within small grains could be fired in all directions by such a civilization in order to spread life within the universe. Their abstract in the 1973 Icarus paper reads:

"It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite."

"As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."



Petr

[Fenrir]

Yes disbelief in God does not mean disbelief is all sorts of weird BS. According to Andrew Greeley's studies(and btw Greeley is a professionally trained sociolgist, unlike Harris), belief in superstitions actually rise whenever atheism rates are higher.

It seems religion is "built in" to the human mind. Religion and belief in the supernatural doesn't ever really go away; it just changes form. It's probably a psychological survival mechanism to cope with the horror of reality and our overall insignificance in the world.

Too much reality is a terrible thing... why smart people suicide...

[Boleslaw]

That's exactly right. The more we come into contact with this Harris the more amateurish he appears. Some more data:

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/5865/gaullupreligion2005py9.jpg


Exactly. I like how your charts marks the difference between being a convinced atheist and simply not being religious.

Also, I wonder if Harris' "data" ever accounts what people, despite their disbelief, feel about religion in general. They may not be religious, or even believe in God, but do they openly disrespect faith as Harris does?

Chances are they dont. Most atheists and nonreligious people Ive met and known actually generally had respect for religious devotion or aspects of it, they just didnt feel it had personal meaning to them. Same attitude I had when I was atheist, I didnt believe in God personally, but I had nothing but respect for many teachings and other aspects of various religions(Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.).

Disbelief in god does not necessarily mean disregard for religion per se, as even Ralph Reed, an agnostic, states:

http://www.amconmag.com/2003/10_06_03/article.html

"I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and those of Buddhists. I note, however, that over millennia people of extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed to feel oneself mentally superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I’m not up to it."

And Reed is definately addressing assholes like Dawkins and Harris when he makes these remarks:
"Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of geometry: no mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking—in practice they compartmentalize and behave as well as anyone else.)...

...That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the masses."

Although it should also be noted studies like these actually depends on how one defines religious faith and devotion. Classifying the religiousity of say Thomas Aquinas through the paradigm of using the religiousity of the common Medieval peasent as your basis would probably reveal Aquinas falling below the mark.

In fact Ive noticed this flaw in many "studies" concerning the differences of religious belief among different groups. I remember one study showing that Americans are more devout than Europeans by claiming that Americans take the Bible more literally than Europeans. But America, through its Protestant heritage, is more inclined towards that perspective. Europeans, on the other hand, are not. Their religious heritage(with the exception of Northen Europe and England) is more Catholic/Orthodox based, which is rooted in an allegorical approach to scriptures. So all that study proved was that Europeans and Americans view religion differently, not that one group was more devout than the other.

Many critics of the "America vs. Europe" debate when concerning religion have long noted that the definitions of being "religious" or "devout" are heavily biased in favor of the American perspective towards faith. As noted before, many studies trying to show religiousity are based on how often one attends religious services. Yet American Christians place greater importance in regularly attending religious services than Christians in other cultures. French Catholics on the other hand, dont place as much importance to it. The French writer Charles Peguy, who was a staunch Catholic, never attended mass in his life for example. Now which group of Christians is more devout? You really can't say.....all you can say is that French and American Christians differ as to how they define being "devout".

There have been studies that have shown that attitudes towards certain aspects of religion and/or religious teachings differ among certain ethnic groups. For example, its been shown that Italian Catholics are more in favor of lifting the ban on contraceptions than say Irish Catholics. Which ethnicity is more devout? While Italians may disagree with the Papacy on contraception, on other areas they whole-heartedly agree with the Pope. Same basic thing can be said about any ethnic group within the Catholic Church.

Then of course there are issues dealing with what sociologists term "the U-effect", which long story short indicates that several factors(age, income, etc) tend to affects your level of religious devotion at different stages in your life. Most famous example of this is how religious devotion tends to be stronger in younger and later years.

And on and on and on and on. Point is, religious devotion is a very complex issue from a sociologcal point of view. To make any kind of generalised statements about it clearly shows you lack any real perspective on the issue, which means you're full of shit. Thank you!

[Petr]

Who are you going to call?


"Coming closer to the present, Katz emphasises how much of the theory that fed into psychology and psychoanalysis was not about a sexual unconscious but a paranormal one. He invites us, in the 1870s at the height of the supposed battle between religion and science, to a seance which Darwin and Galton attended together. Co-evolutionary theorist Alfred R Wallace was preoccupied with spiritualism, eventually to the exclusion of other forms of investigation."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2766&highlight=swedenborgians


Petr

[cryptoracist]

Exactly. I like how your charts marks the difference between being a convinced atheist and simply not being religious.

Also, I wonder if Harris' "data" ever accounts what people, despite their disbelief, feel about religion in general. They may not be religious, or even believe in God, but do they openly disrespect faith as Harris does?

Chances are they dont. Most atheists and nonreligious people Ive met and known actually generally had respect for religious devotion or aspects of it, they just didnt feel it had personal meaning to them. Same attitude I had when I was atheist, I didnt believe in God personally, but I had nothing but respect for many teachings and other aspects of various religions(Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, etc.).

Disbelief in god does not necessarily mean disregard for religion per se, as even Ralph Reed, an agnostic, states:

http://www.amconmag.com/2003/10_06_03/article.html

"I do not offer myself as one intimate with the gods, and on grounds of reason would be hard pressed to choose between the views of Hindus and those of Buddhists. I note, however, that over millennia people of extraordinary intellect and thoughtfulness have taken religion seriously. A quite remarkable arrogance is needed to feel oneself mentally superior to Augustine, Aquinas, Isaac Newton, and C.S. Lewis. I’m not up to it."

And Reed is definately addressing assholes like Dawkins and Harris when he makes these remarks:
"Here is the chief defect of scientists (I mean those who take the sciences as an ideology rather than as a discipline): an unwillingness to admit that there is anything outside their realm. But there is. You cannot squeeze consciousness, beauty, affection, or Good and Evil from physics any more than you can derive momentum from the postulates of geometry: no mass, no momentum. A moral scientist is thus a contradiction in terms. (Logically speaking—in practice they compartmentalize and behave as well as anyone else.)...

...That being said, at worst the religions of the earth are gropings toward something people feel but cannot put a finger on, toward something more at the heart of life than the hoped-for raise, trendy restaurants, and the next and grander automobile. And few things are as stultifying and superficial as the man not so much agnostic (this I can understand) as simply inattentive, whose life is focused on getting into a better country club. Good questions are better than bad answers. And the sciences, though not intended to be, have become the opiate of the masses."

Although it should also be noted studies like these actually depends on how one defines religious faith and devotion. Classifying the religiousity of say Thomas Aquinas through the paradigm of using the religiousity of the common Medieval peasent as your basis would probably reveal Aquinas falling below the mark.

In fact Ive noticed this flaw in many "studies" concerning the differences of religious belief among different groups. I remember one study showing that Americans are more devout than Europeans by claiming that Americans take the Bible more literally than Europeans. But America, through its Protestant heritage, is more inclined towards that perspective. Europeans, on the other hand, are not. Their religious heritage(with the exception of Northen Europe and England) is more Catholic/Orthodox based, which is rooted in an allegorical approach to scriptures. So all that study proved was that Europeans and Americans view religion differently, not that one group was more devout than the other.

Many critics of the "America vs. Europe" debate when concerning religion have long noted that the definitions of being "religious" or "devout" are heavily biased in favor of the American perspective towards faith. As noted before, many studies trying to show religiousity are based on how often one attends religious services. Yet American Christians place greater importance in regularly attending religious services than Christians in other cultures. French Catholics on the other hand, dont place as much importance to it. The French writer Charles Peguy, who was a staunch Catholic, never attended mass in his life for example. Now which group of Christians is more devout? You really can't say.....all you can say is that French and American Christians differ as to how they define being "devout".

There have been studies that have shown that attitudes towards certain aspects of religion and/or religious teachings differ among certain ethnic groups. For example, its been shown that Italian Catholics are more in favor of lifting the ban on contraceptions than say Irish Catholics. Which ethnicity is more devout? While Italians may disagree with the Papacy on contraception, on other areas they whole-heartedly agree with the Pope. Same basic thing can be said about any ethnic group within the Catholic Church.

Then of course there are issues dealing with what sociologists term "the U-effect", which long story short indicates that several factors(age, income, etc) tend to affects your level of religious devotion at different stages in your life. Most famous example of this is how religious devotion tends to be stronger in younger and later years.

And on and on and on and on. Point is, religious devotion is a very complex issue from a sociologcal point of view. To make any kind of generalised statements about it clearly shows you lack any real perspective on the issue, which means you're full of shit. Thank you!
You know, I wouldn't mind seeing a study analyzing atheism and rates of depression/suicide as compared to those who believe in God.

I bet we'd see literal advantages in mental health for those who believe in God.

And I can almost guarantee you without even needing a study that suicide rates for religious people are substantially less... for that alone, for the peace of mind, the emotional stability and I bet this leads to less physical decay and heart failure.

Accepting God's love for you could help you to live longer... how can atheists continue to disregard this?

[cryptoracist]

I don't recall ever suggesting that religion was the only cause of violence in the world.



Atheism is the absence of belief in god. It does not imply any positive approach towards the world. Most people reject the idea that Elvis is still alive. Presumably, this includes George W. Bush. Are Elvis deniers therefore responsible for the War in Iraq?



I don't know of many atheists who call for Buddhism to be banned.Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that you recently posted something to the effect that "all religion should be banned".
I could be wrong, I could've mixed you up with another poster, soo let me ask you directly: do you believe that religion should be banned?

[Boleslaw]

There are numerous studies showing that religious devotion of one form or another helps improve health.

As for mental health, this medical study (http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/mjm/issues/v03n02/v03p086/v03p086fs.htm) should interest you Crypto. It concludes:
"The present study finds that there is a definite relation between religiosity and mental health in the study population, with mental health improving as the personal importance of religion increases. The relationship is underestimated, however, unless the mutual dependence of religiosity and mental health on physical health (or its correlates) is taken into consideration.

The results supports those of many other studies that have found an association between measures of religiosity and mental health. Kaldestad et al. (1) found a relationship between psychological health and religiosity. Coke (2) and Ho et al. (3) found a higher total life satisfaction in those with a higher religiosity. Koenig et al. (6) found those with a low frequency of church attendance to have a greater likelihood to have psychiatric disorders. Kendler et al. (4) conducted a study considering the relation between religious devotion and mental health in twins. Religiosity, defined as personal devotion, was found to be inversely related to depression. There was no relation found, on the other hand, between religiosity and the presence or absence of psychiatric disorders. The mental health score of the Duke Health Profile is heavily weighted towards the assessment of depression and anxiety, so the findings of Kendler et al. (4) are consistent with the present study.

Jensen et al. (5) found that scores on tests that measure self-esteem and emotional maturity were higher, and that depression was lower, in those that had a higher religiosity. Moreover, this relation was independent of specific denomination."

And so on. You'll have to read the entire study yourself.

[Petr]

Also, I wonder if Harris' "data" ever accounts what people, despite their disbelief, feel about religion in general. They may not be religious, or even believe in God, but do they openly disrespect faith as Harris does?
Btw, Sam Harris is Jewish. This may explain some of his freewheeling arrogance towards Western religious traditions.


Attacks on religious conservatism take the same form, as in the recent polemics of celebrity Jewish atheist Sam Harris. Writing in the November 13 issue of Newsweek about the “untold damage to our politics” done by religion, Harris railed against a straw man — actually a parody of a straw man:

“Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen — and many who themselves get elected — believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah’s Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.”

What a pathetic simplification of a grand tradition possessing depths far beyond anything in Harris’s telling.

http://www.forward.com/articles/much-lies-beyond-the-grasp-of-arrogant-atheism/


Petr

[Boleslaw]

Btw, Sam Harris is Jewish.
Which adds further irony as to why so many "racialists" here choose to cite him.



What a pathetic simplification of a grand tradition possessing depths far beyond anything in Harris’s telling.


That's a great summary of Harris', along with Dawkins and Fade's little charades against religion.

[Boleslaw]

The only "study" I know of that shows that religion makes soceities worse is that bogus one done by Gregory Paul and was famously promoted by the article "Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1798944,00.html). I'm wondering if this is the study Harris is using to make his conclusions.

However this study has undergone massive criticism.

Here's a massive critique of the study here:
http://magicstatistics.blogspot.com/2005/09/from-our-bulging-how-not-to-do.html

And who the hell is Gregory Paul anyways? Well why dont we find out:

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1470370.htm

"The author, Gregory Paul, is an American dinosaur palaeontologist, who has used data from the International Social Survey Program, Interpol, and other research bodies, to compare murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy between religious and secular prosperous democracies...

..GREGORY PAUL: Being a palaeontologist, I've for many years had to deal with the issue of creationism verus evolutionary science in this country."

Yeah that's right, the guy who did this "study" is a palaeontologist! Although he's rationale for conducting this "study" is remarkably similar to those advanced by the likes of Fade. Fade is pissed that Creationists disbelieve in Evolution, therefore he starts targeting religion altogether. How pathetic!

And same the report above interviews Gary Bouma, Professor of Sociology at Monash University in Melbourne as saying:
"This kind of argument goes around and around and of course it comes up again now in the context of the "intelligent design" debate when he is deciding to, as a palaeontologist to make a contribution, but he doesn't stick to his field of palaeontology, he goes into the field of what I would call sociology without preparation or evidence or discipline and make some assertions about it....

...He hasn't provided the argument about how it is that religion might explain this kind of association, why it is that more religious country would be more prone to the kinds of social disorganisation that he mentions, such as a high murder rate and a high teenage pregnancy rate."

Yes not "sticking to his field" and making wild assertions about it is classic behavior for these anti-religious nuts. As Petr noted, Harris is a neurobiologist.

[Ahknaton]

Which adds further irony as to why so many \"racialists\" here choose to cite him.
Not really. There are plenty of Jewish authors cited regularly by racialists. One of the authors of \"The Bell Curve\" was Jewish, as is Arthur Jensen (half).

[Boleslaw]

I still find it ironic, but your point is well taken.

[Boleslaw]

Behold the wisdom of great atheist thinker, Nobelist Francis Crick: :p

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-04zzz.html


'Directed Panspermia' suggests that life may be distributed by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Crick and Orgel argued that DNA encapsulated within small grains could be fired in all directions by such a civilization in order to spread life within the universe. Their abstract in the 1973 Icarus paper reads:

"It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite."

"As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet."



Petr

Yes there is a double-standard here. This reminds me of Benjamin D. Wiker's article from Crisis Magazine that talks about the double-standards many have towards belief in angels and belief in aliens:


http://www.crisismagazine.com/november2002/feature7.htm

Yet the dismal result of the high-tech search for extraterrestrials only stirred advocates all the more, resulting in the optimistic but defensive battle cry: "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." While this might warm the dwindling fires in the enthusiast’s heart, it pays little service to reason. To be blunt, since it was the negative result of a century-long search for aliens, the absence of evidence is evidence for absence. What else would it be?

A naysayer might ask, "But if what you’re saying is true, doesn’t the lack of scientific evidence for angels prove that angels don’t exist?" Such a riposte merely deflects attention from the seriousness of the self-inflicted wound. Again, whether or not angels exist, scientists were actively looking for extraterrestrials, convinced without a shred of evidence that they must exist. The simple truth remains: Over the span of the 20th century, science systematically eliminated the possibility of extraterrestrials in our solar system, and their existence elsewhere has dwindled from an absolute necessity to a dim chance.

Further, those who compare angels to aliens forget that angels are by definition immaterial beings. What kind of a scientific test would one devise to locate a being who, because it is not embodied, has no location? Extraterrestrials, on the other hand, are supposed to be material organisms; if they exist, we should be able to detect them the same way we detect any other physical body.

For the nonbeliever already convinced that angels don’t exist, to be forced to admit that he has no more reason to believe in aliens than in angels is an admission of defeat. This admission is all the more important precisely because extraterrestrials function for secularists as material substitutes for angels. In the great religion of secularism, aliens have now been reduced to, at best, a matter of faith.

[Fade the Butcher]

His data is both inaccurate and also based on the fallacy of assuming correlation equals causation.

This is a straw man. Harris actually explicitly states his otherwise. His point was simply that there is no evidence that atheism is indictative of social dysfunction. Indeed, it is religion that is positively correlated with such things.

The largest percentages of atheists live in the former USSR and China, and China's health care system is not exactly the envy of the world.

This is false.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=16604

"As a result of periodic repression of religion by various dictators (Guest, 2003), survey data of religious belief in the most populated country in the world – China -is extremely unreliable (Demerath, 2001:154). Only very recently has sound scholarship begun to emerge, and even that is of limited scope (Yang, 2004). Estimates of high degrees of atheism in China are most likely gross over-exaggerations (Overmyer, 2003). That said, according to Barrett et al (2001), 8% of the Chinese are atheist. According to Marshall (2000), 10% of those in China identify as “atheist.” According to Johnstone (1993), 59% of those in China are nonreligious. According to O’Brien and Palmer (1993), between 10-14% of those in China are “avowed atheists."

"A 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC found that 24% of those in Russia do not believe in God. According to Inglehart et al (2004), 30% of those in Russia do not believe in God, but only 5% self-identify as “atheist” (Froese, 2004). According to Greeley (2003), 48% of Russians do not believe in God, although only 19% self-identify as “atheist.”

As Petr stated, he makes a poor sociologist, as do you.

Hardly. Once again, you are simply wrong.

[Fade the Butcher]

That's exactly right. The more we come into contact with this Harris the more amateurish he appears. Some more data:

No, Harris is right.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

[Fade the Butcher]

And I wonder what Fade would make out of this comparison - the Scandinavia has perhaps the highest standard of living in the world, and is also one of the most liberal and anti-racist areas in world.

I don't see any causal relationship between the two. The United States was simultaneously the most liberal and racist state in the world for over a century.

(Fade has often emphasized that compared to the US, Western Europe has some true-believer egalitarians...)


Petr

This is mostly attributable to the historical fluke that was the Second World War.

[Fade the Butcher]

Btw, Sam Harris is Jewish. This may explain some of his freewheeling arrogance towards Western religious traditions.

Sam Harris is an atheist.

“Those with the power to elect presidents and congressmen — and many who themselves get elected — believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah’s Ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the Earth and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, by the hand of an invisible God.”

LOL. It's true.

[Boleslaw]

Fade, your own source notes that their numbers are largely estimates.

[Boleslaw]

Sam Harris is an atheist.

You do realise that many Jews are atheists Fade? Issac Deutscher even described Trostsky as a "non-Jewish Jew".

[Fade the Butcher]

Fade, your own source notes that their numbers are largely estimates.

Reposting this here for Perun's benefit:

Atheism and Societal Health

Indeed, countries containing high percentages of non-believers are among the most healthy and wealthy nations on earth (Paul, 2004). Of course, we must always distinguish between those nations where non-belief has been forced upon the society by dictators (“coercive atheism”) from those societies wherein non-belief has emerged on its own without governmental coercion (“organic atheism”). Nations marked by coercive atheism -- such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, and former Soviet states -- are societies marked by all that comes with totalitarianism: poor economic development, intellectual censorship, widespread corruption, ubiquitous depression, etc.. However, nations marked by high levels of organic atheism – such as Sweden, the Netherlands, and France -- are among the healthiest, wealthiest, most educated, and most free societies on earth.

Consider the Human Development Report (2004), commissioned by The United Nations Development Program. This report ranks 177 nations on a “Human Development Index,” which measures societal health through a weighing of such indicators as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rate, per capita income, and educational attainment. According to the 2004 Report, the five highest ranked nations in terms of total human development were Norway, Sweden, Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands. All five of these countries are characterized by notably high degrees of organic atheism. Furthermore, of the top 25 nations ranked on the “Human Development Index,” all but one country ( Ireland) are top-ranking non-belief nations, containing some of the highest percentages of organic atheism on earth. Conversely, of those countries ranked at the bottom of the “Human Development Index” -- the bottom 50 -- all are countries lacking any statistically significant percentages of atheism.

Concerning the infant mortality rate specifically (number of deaths per 1,000 live births), irreligious countries have the lowest rates, and religious countries have the highest rates. According to the CIA World Factbook (2004), out of 225 nations, the top 25 nations with the lowest infant mortality rates were all nations containing significantly high percentages of organic atheism. Conversely, the 75 bottom nations with the highest infant mortality rates were all very religious nations without any statistically significant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning international poverty rates, the United Nations’ Report on the World Social Situation (2003) found that of the 40 poorest nations on earth (measured by the percentage of each nation’s population that lives on less than $1.00 a day), all but one (Vietnam) are highly religious nations with statistically minimal or insignificant levels of atheism.

Concerning homicide rates, Fajnzylber et al (2002), looked at 38 nations (excluding those in Africa) and found that of the top ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but one (United States) were highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the bottom ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but one ( Ireland) are highly secular nations with high levels of atheism. Fox and Levin (2000) looked at 37 nations (again excluding Africa), and found that of the top ten nations with the highest homicide rates, all but two (Estonia and Taiwan) were highly religious nations containing statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism. Conversely, of the bottom ten nations with the lowest homicide rates, all but two ( Ireland and Kuwait) were relatively secular nations with high levels of organic atheism.

Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization’s report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia( viii ). Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning literacy rates, according to the United Nations’ Report on the World Social Situation (2003), of the 35 nations with the highest levels of youth illiteracy rates (percentage of population ages 15-24 who cannot read or write)( ix ), all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism.

Concerning gender equality, nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism are among the most egalitarian in the world, while highly religious nations are among the most oppressive. According to the 2004 Human Development Report’s “Gender Empowerment Measure,” the top ten nations with the highest degrees of gender equality are all strongly organic atheistic nations with significantly high percentages of non-belief. Conversely, the bottom ten are all highly religious nations without any statistically significant percentages of atheists. According to Inglehart and Norris’s (2003) “Gender Equality Scale,” of the top ten nations most accepting of gender equality, all but two (United States and Colombia) are nations marked by high levels of organic atheism; of the bottom ten (those least accepting of gender equality), all are highly religious nations marked by statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism( x ). According to Inglehart (2003), countries with the most female members of parliament tend to be countries characterized by high degrees of organic atheism (such as Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands) and countries with the fewest female members in parliament tend to be highly religious countries (such as Pakistan, Nigeria, and Iran).

In sum, countries marked by high rates of organic atheism are among the most societally healthy on earth, while societies characterized by non-existent rates of organic atheism are among the most destitute. Nations marked by high degrees of organic atheism tend to have among the lowest homicide rates, infant mortality rates, poverty rates, and illiteracy rates, and among the highest levels of wealth, life expectancy, educational attainment, and gender equality in the world. The only indicator of societal health mentioned above in which religious countries fared better than irreligious countries was suicide.

Of course, it is essential to clearly state that I am in no way arguing that high levels of organic atheism cause societal health or that low levels of organic atheism cause societal ills such as poverty or illiteracy. If anything, the opposite argument should be made: societal health causes widespread atheism, and societal insecurity causes widespread belief in God, as discussed by Norris and Inglehart (2004) above.

The causes of the glaring differences in societal well being among the world’s rich and poor nations are numerous (Diamond, 1999; Landes, 1999). Certainly among them include the birth and development of the industrial revolution, the lingering residue of colonialism and international conquests, and international trade policies that heavily favor the interests of wealthy/first world nations and their multi-national corporations over the interests of developing/third world nations. Again, to suggest that widespread belief or non-belief in God is the cause of societal health or societal pathology is not my intention. Rather, I am simply seeking to clearly establish that high degrees of non-belief in God in a given society clearly do not result in societal ruin, and high levels of belief in God do not ensure societal well-being. This is an important fact to stress because politically-active theists often equate atheism with crime, immorality, and societal disintegration. From Muslim fundamentalists in Iran to Christian fundamentalists in Indiana, the argument is loudly trumpeted that belief in God is “good for society” – an ultimate panacea -- while rejection of the belief in God is bad for society. The above discussion reveals that this thesis is baldly incorrect.

[Fade the Butcher]

You do realise that many Jews are atheists Fade? Issac Deutscher even described Trostsky as a "non-Jewish Jew".

So what? He rejects the savagery found in the Old Testament. That is more than we can say for you or Petr.

[Boleslaw]

So what?
You're trying to refute Petr's argument that Harris is Jewish by claiming he's atheist. Nevermind that many Jews are atheists, yet doesnt change the fact they are Jewish. Being Jewish means being part of a religion and a culture at the same time. If you're mother is Jewish, you're considered Jewish.

Im sure you were all aware of this during your rants about Jews on the old Phora.


He rejects the savagery found in the Old Testament. That is more than we can say for you or Petr.
How cute!

[Fade the Butcher]

You're trying to refute Petr's argument that Harris is Jewish by claiming he's atheist.

Judaism is a religion. Harris is an atheist. Is Harris of Jewish ancestry? Yes. So what?

Nevermind that many Jews are atheists, yet doesnt change the fact they are Jewish. Being Jewish means being part of a religion and a culture at the same time. If you're mother is Jewish, you're considered Jewish.

This only follows if we define Judaism purely in terms of lineage. That's obviously ridiculous. It is entirely possible for gentiles to convert to Judaism. It is similarly possible for people of Jewish ancestry to reject their religion and cease their identification with the Jewish community.

Im sure you were all aware of this during your rants about Jews on the old Phora.


How cute!

What does Harris being of Jewish ancestry have to do with anything? Dawkins isn't Jewish.

[Boleslaw]

What does Harris being of Jewish ancestry have to do with anything?

Petr brought the issue up.


Dawkins isn't Jewish.

I didnt saying anything about Dawkins being Jewish.

[Fade the Butcher]

Petr brought the issue up. I didnt saying anything about Dawkins being Jewish.

What is the revelance of Harris being of Jewish ancestry? Is Dennett Jewish?

[cryptoracist]

Sam Harris is an atheist.



LOL. It's true.
LOL it all started when you damn near embraced him as your own for being atheist then when it comes out hes a jew you let go and flung him across the room :p

What is the revelance of Harris being of Jewish ancestry? Is Dennett Jewish?
Because you love him so, remember? Don't stop hugging now.

Embrace your jewish guru... dont be skeered. :D It's only a little joo. It washes off... :p

[cryptoracist]

I think I'm confused now, too.

What is the relevance of his jewishness? :confused:

Now you've made me confused myself... :o

[Fade the Butcher]

LOL it all started when you damn near embraced him as your own for being atheist then when it comes out hes a jew you let go and flung him across the room Because you love him so, remember? Don't stop hugging now.Embrace your jewish guru... dont be skeered. It's only a little joo. It washes off...

I don't have any problem with Harris being of Jewish ancestry.

[cryptoracist]

Dawkins is so ridculous he borders on mentally dangerous at times...

Check out this statement by Dawkins that implies that being raised Catholic is worst than being sexually abused as a child!

You'll never believe it but look1!!!

Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. --Richard Dawkins, as told to Emily Hourican, in The Dubliner. Via Mark.
http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/10/richard-dawkins-has-lost-my-respect.html



What a callous, wrongheaded statement.

The Catholic upbringing, terrifying children with fears of Hell and telling boys who will inevitably masturbate that masturbation is a terrible sin, can indeed be harmful. But Dawkins is way, way out of line comparing it to -- no, considering it worse than -- the sexual abuse of children.

I found it when I was researching to find if he is jewish, too. And I'm still looking for that little fact to reference it's source...BRB ;)

edit:
^ oops, not anymore since I just found out that it wouldnt irk Fade one bit even if I do find it :p so... the search is off

[Fade the Butcher]

"When a Man stops believing in God he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes anything."

- G.k. Chesterton

According to the Bible, bats are birds. Indeed, one can really be led to believe almost anything on the basis of faith. :p

"These, moreover, you shall detest among the birds; they are abhorrent, not to be eaten: the eagle and the vulture and the buzzard, and the kite and the falcon in its kind, every raven in its kind, and the ostrich and the owl and the sea gull and the hawk in its kind, and the little owl and the cormorant and the great owl, 18and the white owl and the pelican and the carrion vulture, 19and the stork, the heron in its kinds, and the hoopoe, and the bat."

Leviticus 11:13-19

[Fade the Butcher]

Dawkins is so ridculous he borders on mentally dangerous at times...

Would any of these children have been molested by Catholic priests if it were not for the religion of their parents?

http://www.thedubliner.ie/template.php?ID=15

Richard Dawkins assesses the legacy of the Catholic Church in Ireland, and enters a plea for a religion-free society.

I am delighted that one of the leading Roman Catholic seminaries for the training of young priests in Ireland is closing down because it can't get any recruits. When I read that in the newspaper, it left me smiling for the rest of the day. However, if the Catholic Church does die in Ireland - and I devoutly hope it will - I hope that it will not be replaced by some other idiotic superstition like New Age-ism or some other kind of religion.

The Roman Catholic Church is one of the forces for evil in the world, mainly because of the powerful influence it has over the minds of children. The Catholic Church has developed, over the centuries, brilliant techniques in brain washing children; even intelligent people who have had a proper, full cradle-Catholic upbringing find it hard to shake it off when they reach adulthood. Obviously many of them do - and congratulations to them for it - but even some really quite intelligent people fail to shake it off, powerful evidence of the skill in brainwashing that the Catholic Church exercises. It's far more skilled than, for instance, the Anglican Church, mere amateurs in the game.

The Catholic Church also has an extraordinarily retrogressive stance on everything to do with reproduction. Any sort of new technology which makes life easier for women without causing any suffering is likely to be opposed by the Catholic Church. Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience. I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse.

The word atheism sounds negative; let me call it rationalism. It is a rational view of the world where you stand up proudly, in your humanity, you look life straight in the face, you look the universe straight in the face, you do your level best to understand it, to understand why you exist, what the universe is about, you recognise that when you die that's it, and therefore life is very, very precious and you devote your life to making the world a better place, to leading a good life so when you die you can say to yourself I have led a good life. Now, that seems to me to be a worthwhile goal to put in place of the medieval superstition which is religion. Belief in God doesn't have to be a bad thing, but I think it's a very demeaning thing to the human mind to believe in a falsehood, especially as the truth about the universe is so immensely exciting.

At the beginning of the 21st century, we humans have a real opportunity to learn about and understand the universe, the world, humanity, life, in a way that none of our predecessors have ever come close to. That is a huge privilege, and belief in God simply gets in the way of that. Religion is an irrelevance, it's a distraction, it's a rather boring, parochial falsehood that stands in the way of the glories of true understanding.

In conversation with Emily Hourican

[Fade the Butcher]

"Still, it's not implausible to guess that the Europeans are spending down their enormous inheritance of Christian morality and aren't making any new deposits. You can coast for a long time on the civilization your ancestors built, but not forever."


Petr

We don't execute people for homosexuality, adultery, or working on the sabbath.

[Hakluyt]

No, Harris is right.

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html
Well, the Gallup data shows us very well how people respond when given a distinction between non-religiousness and atheism. Harris' specific claim had to do with these Western countries being the least religious in the world. That's untrue. He cites Iceland, for whatever reason, but we know that Icelanders are the most religious people in Europe.

Even if Western Europe was the greatest home of atheism in the world, which it is not, this would not serve to negate their substantial self-identifying religious components, which dwarf those of eastern Europe and eastern Asia.

According to Gallup only one western European country is more non-religious than religious: Norway. Throughout the rest of Europe only the Czech Republic figures in. These loners have plenty of friends around the world in Israel, Thailand and Japan, however.

[Petr]

I don't see any causal relationship between the two.
Of course you don't. And I truly don't see any causal relationship between atheism and social well-being. If anything, the riches (based on the hard work of ancestors) eventually make people proud and imagine that they can get along without God.

Like Sailer put it, Europeans are spending down their moral inheritance, and there is a widespread feeling even among themselves that their culture is past its peak. The Fall of the House of Usher, the Faustian bargain of materialism.

Mat 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?


Petr

[Petr]

According to the Bible, bats are birds. Indeed, one can really be led to believe almost anything on the basis of faith. :p
This is an excellent example of dumb Biblical interpretation that atheists, being utterly anachronistic and lacking in sense of tradition, do all the time: :rolleyes:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

"Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly."


Petr

[Der Sozialist]

Like Sailer put it, Europeans are spending down their moral inheritance, and there is a widespread feeling even among themselves that their culture is past its peak. The Fall of the House of Usher, the Faustian bargain of materialism.


In America—Blacks are the most "immoral" group. They are the most promiscuous, they consume the most drugs and engage in the most violence yet you would be hard pressed to find an atheist among them. In fact, bar Hispanics, Blacks are probably the most Christian "group" in the United States—they are overwhelmingly protestant and many attend church weekly.

Now, Whites and Asians are among the most "moral"—they are the least promiscuous, consume less drugs and engage in less violent activity yet they are far more likely to be irreligious or atheistic than Blacks.

[Fade the Butcher]

This is an excellent example of dumb Biblical interpretation that atheists, being utterly anachronistic and lacking in sense of tradition, do all the time: :rolleyes:

"Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either."

^^ That is to say, the Bible is wrong, and the omniscient god who inspired it is either nonexistent or was ignorant of their descent. The author of Leviticus assumed bats were birds simply because they fly. That's like assuming a dolphin is a fish because it swims. Understandable, if we assume the Bible was inspired by scientifically illiterate Hebrews, and not the creator of the universe.

[Petr]

^^ That is to say, the Bible is wrong, and the omniscient god who inspired it is either nonexistent or was ignorant of their descent. The author of Leviticus assumed bats were birds simply because they fly. That's like assuming a dolphin is a fish because it swims.
Anachronistic definition-games. You really seem to expect that God Allmighty would have to pander - in advance - to every human classification theory that is going to be invented.


If this is how "perfection" is to be understood -- if the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data -- then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Well, the Gallup data shows us very well how people respond when given a distinction between non-religiousness and atheism.

The Zuckerman study is far more detailed and takes this into account.

Harris' specific claim had to do with these Western countries being the least religious in the world. That's untrue.

From the Zuckerman study cited above:

"The nations with the highest degrees of organic atheism (atheism which is not state-enforced through totalitarian regimes but emerges naturally among free societies) include most of the nations of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel."

He cites Iceland, for whatever reason, but we know that Icelanders are the most religious people in Europe.

This is false.

According to Zuckerman, 16-23% of the population of Iceland are atheists/agnostics/non-believers. The Poles, Irish, and Romanians are far more religious.

Even if Western Europe was the greatest home of atheism in the world, which it is not, this would not serve to negate their substantial self-identifying religious components, which dwarf those of eastern Europe and eastern Asia.

This isn't true either.

"According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 65% of those in Japan do not believe in God. According to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God and 55% do not believe in Buddha, however a very strong majority have engaged in some form or Shinto, Buddhist, or Japanese folk/cultural ritual, such visiting a shrine or temple on the previous New Year’s Day. According to the 1999 Gallup International Poll, nearly 29% of the Japanese chose “none” as their religion. According to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion, but most follow “the customs of Japanese traditional religion."

"Barret et al (2001) report that 15% of North Koreans are atheist. According to Johnstone (1993), 68% of North Koreans are nonreligious, however, for similar reasons discussed above concerning China, this high estimate should be met with skepticism."

"A 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC found that 30% of those in South Korea do not believe in God. According to Eungi (2003), 52% of South Koreans do not believe in God."

"As a result of periodic repression of religion by various dictators (Guest, 2003), survey data of religious belief in the most populated country in the world – China -is extremely unreliable (Demerath, 2001:154). Only very recently has sound scholarship begun to emerge, and even that is of limited scope (Yang, 2004). Estimates of high degrees of atheism in China are most likely gross over-exaggerations (Overmyer, 2003). That said, according to Barrett et al (2001), 8% of the Chinese are atheist. According to Marshall (2000), 10% of those in China identify as “atheist.” According to Johnstone (1993), 59% of those in China are nonreligious. According to O’Brien and Palmer (1993), between 10-14% of those in China are “avowed atheists.”

According to Gallup only one western European country is more non-religious than religious: Norway.

This is false.

According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 64% of those in Sweden do not believe in God. According to Norris and Inglehart (2004) 48% of those in Denmark do not believe in God. According to Inglehart et al (2004), 31% of those in Norway do not believe in God.

Throughout the rest of Europe only the Czech Republic figures in. These loners have plenty of friends around the world in Israel, Thailand and Japan, however.

Country Total Pop.(2004) % Atheist/actual # Agnostic/Nonbeliever in God (minimum - maximum)

1 Sweden
2 Vietnam
3 Denmark
4 Norway
5 Japan
6 Czech Republic
7 Finland
8 France
9 South Korea
10 Estonia
11 Germany
12 Russia
13 Hungary
14 Netherlands
15 Britain
16 Belgium
17 Bulgaria
18 Slovenia
19 Israel
20 Canada
21 Latvia
22 Slovakia
23 Switzerland
24 Austria
25 Australia
26 Taiwan
27 Spain
28 Iceland
29 New Zealand
30 Ukraine
31 Belarus
32 Greece
33 North Korea
34 Italy
35 Armenia
36 China
37 Lithuania
38 Singapore
39 Uruguay
40 Kazakhstan
41 Estonia
42 Mongolia
43 Portugal
44 United States
45 Albania
46 Argentina
47 Kyrgyzstan
48 Dominican Rep.
49 Cuba
50 Croatia

[Fade the Butcher]

Anachronistic definition-games. You really seem to expect that God Allmighty would have to pander - in advance - to every human classification theory that is going to be invented.

It seems that modern zoologists are more omniscient than the authors of the Bible since they are well aware that bats are not birds. Of course, I don't hold this error against the authors of the Bible, as such mistakes about the natural world should be expected from ordinary men of their times ignorant of their surroundings.

If this is how "perfection" is to be understood -- if the Bible is supposed to be prepared for our every change in natural understanding of unalterable data -- then all we'd have to do to make the Bible "wrong" is change our terminology on things. If the Bible says, "the sky is blue," we can change our definition of what is "blue" and then say that the Bible is wrong.

This is actually a good test of the veracity of the Bible. It is not immediately obvious that bats are not birds since they fly. Insects are also winged creatures who fly, but the authors of the Bible apparently recognized they were not birds and did not include them. The ostrich doesn't fly either, but it was included and classified as a bird. An omniscient god would presumably know that bats are not birds simply because they are winged creatures. The Bible is simply wrong.

[Fade the Butcher]

Of course you don't. And I truly don't see any causal relationship between atheism and social well-being. If anything, the riches (based on the hard work of ancestors) eventually make people proud and imagine that they can get along without God.

Millions of people apparently get along without god just fine. I happen to be one of them.

Like Sailer put it, Europeans are spending down their moral inheritance, and there is a widespread feeling even among themselves that their culture is past its peak. The Fall of the House of Usher, the Faustian bargain of materialism.

According to the Bible, genocide is wonderful. Homosexuals and children who backtalk their parents should be executed. Working on the sabbath is a capital crime. Adultery warrants the death penalty. So does worshipping other gods and prostelytizing atheism. Are you sure morality comes from the Bible? :p

[Fade the Butcher]

http://pharyngula.org/images/the_creationist_method.jpg

[Donny the Punk]

This is an excellent example of dumb Biblical interpretation that atheists, being utterly anachronistic and lacking in sense of tradition, do all the time: :rolleyes:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/batbird.html

"Let's start with the simple answer. Obviously, Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly."


Petr
Ah, beat me to it. Fade, for all his professed knowledge of scientific method, knows very little about science itself. Two points must needs be addressed here. First, are the kinds of classifications Fade relying on consistently reliable? Linnean classification relied on morphological similarities that ostensibly implied homology between structures. Very well, but much of that inference has been overturned by more recent molecular data. For instance, modern systematists no longer recognise the class Reptilia because it is a paraphyletic taxon. Fungi, once considered plants, are now considered to be more closely related to humans evolutionarily. Prokaryote is becoming an antiquated term, replaced by Archea and bacteria. Creatures shift in and out of these groups with as much rapidity as changes in names and definitions take place.

Second, we may ask what goes into building a phylogeny. Modern phylogenetic systematics is based on cladistics which define taxa only according to synapomorphies. This doesn't solve any 'problems' with the Linnean system, however, as there are still unresolved disputes over whether to use ultrametric trees or phylograms. Ultimately, scientists are defining which characteristics matter depending on the method they prefer (the Kuhnian 'paradigm', if you will) and classifying accordingly, much like two people might organise the same shoes differently depending on whether they choose colour or lace length as the determining variable. So to answer the initial question, modern systematics searches for the oldest common ancestral form, but the decision to search for that particular commonality reflects nothing more than a specific human interest, not some objective fact that animals should be classified according to criteria x, y, z.

If Fade were to apply his own spurious reasoning to all things equally, he could only conclude that 'Biology is simply wrong.'

[Petr]

Millions of people apparently get along without god just fine.
What is that supposed to prove?

I happen to be one of them.
People like you are morally and spiritually unable to maintain civilization. And that is not merely a cheap personal slam, but my sincere conviction - atheistic societies have no long-term future. They may last for a generation or two - like the Soviet Union did - before falling apart.

In his book, The Greek View of Life, G. Lowes Dickinson presents us with "a summary of the conclusions of Plato":

He traced the evil in social life to the decay of religious belief. Though no one was more trenchant than he in his criticism of the popular faith, no one, on the other hand, was more convinced of the necessity of some form of religion as a basis for any stable policy. The doctrine of the Physicists [atomists] that the world is the result of matter and of chance has immediate and disastrous effects in the whole structure of social life.To reconstruct religion he was driven back on metaphysics and elaborated the system which from his day to our own has never ceased to perplex and fascinate the world, and whose rare and radiant combination of gifts, speculative, artistic and religious, marks the highest reach of the genius of the Greeks and perhaps of mankind.
http://www.grecoreport.com/the_judeo-pagan_tradition.htm

According to the Bible, genocide is wonderful. Homosexuals and children who backtalk their parents should be executed. Working on the sabbath is a capital crime. Adultery warrants the death penalty. So does worshipping other gods and prostelytizing atheism.
Do you oppose death penalty? Do you think that all war is murder?

Are you sure morality comes from the Bible? :p
Too bad that one of my recent posts that thoroughly dealt with this strawman was deleted.

You are quite probably knowingly attacking a strawman - very few Christians insist that all morality comes from the Bible. I have surely told you before about the dual tradition of Natural and Scriptural revelations.

All men, pagans included, have a sense of natural morality implanted into them. This makes their immorality without excuse, they will be unable to say on Judgment Day that "no-one ever warned me".


Petr

[Petr]

In America—Blacks are the most "immoral" group. They are the most promiscuous, they consume the most drugs and engage in the most violence yet you would be hard pressed to find an atheist among them. In fact, bar Hispanics, Blacks are probably the most Christian "group" in the United States—they are overwhelmingly protestant and many attend church weekly.
The Black religiosity is to a large extent merely heretical "liberation theology." Why do you think that liberal media relentlessly slams right-wing fundie preachers for getting involved in politics, but looks through its fingers when Black preachers like Jesse Jackson preach left-wing politics from the pulpit?

Now, Whites and Asians are among the most "moral"—they are the least promiscuous, consume less drugs and engage in less violent activity yet they are far more likely to be irreligious or atheistic than Blacks.
How exactly do you define "irreligiousness"? Statistics, please.

And Christian fundamentalism has made great inroads among Asian-Americans.

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8846&highlight=christian

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5111&highlight=koreans


Petr

[Der Sozialist]

The Black religiosity is to a large extent merely heretical "liberation theology." Why do you think that liberal media relentlessly slams right-wing fundie preachers for getting involved in politics, but looks through its fingers when Black preachers like Jesse Jackson preach left-wing politics from the pulpit?

I wouldn’t know—I don’t tune into the mainstream media. Most of my news comes from other people (conversations) and websites (like this one) so this is all speculation on my part but Jesse Jackson usually talks about race and race relations and not about replacing evolution [in public schools] with ID/Creationism/whatever or other Christian fundamentalist issues. The only stand I remember Jesse Jackson taking that was truly a Christian one was that of Terri Schiavo [sp?].

How exactly do you define "irreligiousness"?

without faith.

Statistics, please.


When I typed that above post, I typed from my experience but since you were civil in your reply I took the time of finding statistics:

Belief in God [America]:
All Adults: 90%
White: 90%
Blacks: 96%
Hispanics: 85%

[table 2 (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359)]

Looks like I was wrong about Hispanics—they are not very religious at all.

I had to find a separate source for Asian Americans:

Catholic: 21.1%
None / Agnostic: 20.2%
Protestant: 9.6%
Buddhist: 9.1%
Christian: 5.8%
Muslim: 5.2%
Jewish: 0.4%

[source (http://www.asian-nation.org/religion.shtml)]

Their rates of agnosticism/atheism (i.e. irreligious) is far higher than Whites/Blacks/Hispanics.

[Petr]

Ah, beat me to it. Fade, for all his professed knowledge of scientific method, knows very little about science itself.
It is indeed quite annoying to see Fade prancing around like some official representative of science. Even Insidium is more credible than him on this front.


Petr

[Petr]

Yes disbelief in God does not mean disbelief is all sorts of weird BS. According to Andrew Greeley's studies(and btw Greeley is a professionally trained sociolgist, unlike Harris), belief in superstitions actually rise whenever atheism rates are higher.

Interesting enough, he also did another study in the 70's showing that Catholics with higher education were more likely to agree with the Church's official teachings on artifical birth control. Bit of trivia for all of you!
Going through the archives, I found the following study, posted by Fade:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5432&page=7&highlight=dirigible


The European Yokel? :p

Belief in Pseudoscience

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l5

Although S&T are held in high esteem throughout the modern world, pseudoscientific beliefs continue to thrive, coexisting alongside society's professed respect for science and the scientific process. The science community and those whose job it is to communicate information about science to the public have been particularly concerned about the public's susceptibility to pseudoscientific or unproven claims that could adversely affect their health, safety, and pocketbooks (NIST 2002).

Pseudoscience has been defined as "claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (Shermer 1997, p. 33).[31] In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation" (Shermer 1997, p. 17).

Belief in pseudoscience is relatively widespread.[32] For example, at least a quarter of the U.S. population believes in astrology, i.e., that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives. Although the majority (56 percent) of those queried in the 2001 NSF survey said that astrology is "not at all scientific," 9 percent said it is "very scientific" and 31 percent thought it is "sort of scientific" (figure 7-8 and appendix table 7-5 ).

Belief in astrology is more prevalent in Europe, where 53 percent of those surveyed thought it is "rather scientific" and only a minority (39 percent) said it is not at all scientific (European Commission 2001). Europeans were more likely to say that astrology is scientific than to say the same about economics: only 42 percent of those surveyed thought that economics was scientific. Disciplines most likely to be considered scientific by Europeans were medicine (93 percent), physics (90 percent), biology (88 percent), astronomy (78 percent), mathematics (72 percent), and psychology (65 percent). History (33 percent) was at the bottom of the list. (Comparable U.S. data on the various disciplines do not exist.)

In the United States, skepticism about astrology is strongly related to level of education: 74 percent of college graduates said that astrology is "not at all scientific," compared with 45 percent of those with less than a high school education and 52 percent of those who had completed high school but not college. In Europe, however, respondents with college degrees were just as likely as others to claim that astrology is scientific.

Europeans were more likely than Americans to agree that "some numbers are particularly lucky for some people." The percentages were 46 percent and 32 percent, respectively.

Surveys conducted by NSF and other organizations suggest that at least half of the U.S. public believes in the existence of extrasensory perception (ESP), and a sizable minority believes in unidentified flying objects and that aliens have landed on Earth. In the 2001 NSF survey, 60 percent of respondents agreed that "some people possess psychic powers or ESP," and 30 percent agreed that "some of the unidentified flying objects that have been reported are really space vehicles from other civilizations."

Surveys even show increasing belief in pseudoscience (Newport and Strausberg 2001). Of the 13 paranormal phenomena included in a periodically administered Gallup survey, belief in 8 increased significantly between 1990 and 2001, and belief in only 1 (devil possession) declined. Belief in four of the phenomena (haunted houses, ghosts, communication with the dead, and witches) had double-digit percentage point increases between 1990 and 2001[33] (figure 7-9 ).

[cryptoracist]

When I typed that above post, I typed from my experience but since you were civil in your reply I took the time of finding statistics:

Belief in God [America]:
All Adults: 90%
White: 90%
Blacks: 96%
Hispanics: 85%

[table 2 (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359)]




I coulda told you this without the study. I've often joked with that if you want to stop any Black person in the middle of a crime... mention God.

It's the one thing that strikes fear in the heart of almost all Africans. No matter how big or bad. God isn't something we "try " to believe in... it is so automatically ingrained. Not taught, it literally feels that to deny God would be to deny my own existence. That's the base spiriutal level of most Africans.

So, yes. Africans would be the most religious.... I can see stats coming out like that in any country... :negro:

[Petr]

Here I'll give few concrete examples of how figures may be misleading.

"According to Norris and Inglehart (2004), 65% of those in Japan do not believe in God. According to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God and 55% do not believe in Buddha, however a very strong majority have engaged in some form or Shinto, Buddhist, or Japanese folk/cultural ritual, such visiting a shrine or temple on the previous New Year’s Day. According to the 1999 Gallup International Poll, nearly 29% of the Japanese chose “none” as their religion. According to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion, but most follow “the customs of Japanese traditional religion."
In Japan, Christians are greatly over-represented among the educated:

"Despite the gap between faith and science, we can still see several times as many Christians among scientists and academics in Japan as there are in the public at large."

http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20845&highlight=japan

"A 2004 survey commissioned by the BBC found that 30% of those in South Korea do not believe in God. According to Eungi (2003), 52% of South Koreans do not believe in God."
In here, it is the non-Christian Koreans who are responsible for these high rates of atheism - native religions there are practically dying out.

But on the other hand, Christians make a big part of South Korea's population, and their devotion is very notable:


South Korea set to top U.S. as the world's biggest exporter of Christian missionaries

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=5111


Petr