Religion
Related: About this forumWonder why the US is an outlier in this chart
**HINT: the shitty side of religion that many want to dismiss as just a tiny minority of the religions and religious in the US actually isn't and has a significant effect**
http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=559
Laurajr
(223 posts)The Easter European countries, formally communist countries believe in evolution at a higher rate than the USA.
exboyfil
(17,862 posts)Surprised that Japan has dropped so low on per capita GDP. At one point I thought they were close to being equivalent.
rug
(82,333 posts)So?
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:05 PM - Edit history (1)
that puts the US at #2 in nonbelief?
On edit: I misread your post. My bad. Here's the "big deal":
Every other country that develops lets go of it's crazy believe that evolution isn't true at a rather predictable rate. Except us. We cling to creationism at an alarming rate. And, as one of the hosts of this group said, creationists are dumbasses. This chart just shows us that we have A LOT of dumbasses in this country.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)A specific group of legislators who passed a bill to teach creationism in public schools were dumbasses.
Let's hope your teaching skills are better than your reading comprehension.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)were representing the dumbass creationists which amount to 40+% of the US population. That is not a small subset of the US population. I think Goblinmonger's reading comprehension may far outweigh yours.
As far as she not reading Goblinmonger's posts, that goes for a fair number of us. Did you get permission to speak for her? So here is another the question. How effective can a host of a forum be when they block people in that forum? Don't answer that, it is rhetorical and probably better suited for Meta-discussion.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I agree, at least 40% are dumbasses. Unfortunately, some of those are schoolteachers and some are legislators. I speak for nobody but myself and that requires no permission from others. Back to the basement with you now.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)and she has put us on total ignore. She can't see any posts by us or from us. So much for what you know.
You also must have missed my point. From you comment you were speaking for her!
on edit: at least we do agree on one point, and not the little pointy one on top of your la tête.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)He is so full of shit his eyes are brown. He likes to act like he is somehow above the fray, when in fact, he finds himself under all the shit that gets piled up, only to poke his ignorant little head out to pontificate like some Bill O'Reilly wannabe. At best, he is good for a laugh.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)religious apologists to be annoying, especially when they call themselves atheist or not. I did enjoyed the pointy head thing in my edit. The person who he was speaking for has most of us on total ignore and he does not understand the two functions of ignore on DU.
I do agree with your assessment of the individual in question.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I don't need to foster any patriarchy by supporting your need to come to her rescue.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Looks like you lost your chance to have those discussions. What a shame.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)that someone who, when challenged on what she says, puts someone on ignore. That dialogue would have been spectacular if only I hadn't been an atheist that dares to speak about things rather than the Uncle Tom who strokes the egos of the theists.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Now you get to piss in the wind all day long. That's what happens when you deal in grotesque malice.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)I couldn't give two shits about whether your wife wants to engage in a dialogue or not.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)If she wants to discuss what I say, then she is welcome to.
As for "leaving her out." Is she not responsible for what she posts? If someone who is a host of this forum and finger-wags, tut-tuts, and plays the house nanny to the atheists and keeps saying (incorrectly in my opinion) that we are mean to believers, then she needs to be ready to deal with the fact that she said creationists are dumbasses. I'm not misquoting her; I'm not smearing here. I'm quoting what she said. Deal with it.
Edited to add: And for someone who claims they aren't coming to her defense, that post seemed a lot like a patriarchal scenario of the husband riding to the defense of his wife. She's capable of having the discussion with me if she stops living in her passive-aggressive world of ignoring those that challenge her worldview.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)If anyone is deserving of ignore, it is that one.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)She did not say "We cling to creationism at an alarming rate. And, as one of the hosts of this group said, creationists are dumbasses."
If you can prove me wrong, I'll back off. Otherwise, try making your points without misquoting others, regardless of who they are related to. Try to be accurate and you may be more credible.
Or you can continue your smear campaign with crap like "She's capable of having the discussion with me if she stops living in her passive-aggressive world of ignoring those that challenge her worldview."
Your choice, big boy!
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)In response to this http://www.democraticunderground.com/12187623#op
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)Did your wife call a group of people "dumbasses"?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)She did not mention creationists as a group. That was what others tried to spin her words into, but failed miserably. Some won't let it go and continue to perpetuate the lie. They would like to paint her as a fellow bigot in order to smear her and counter her stand on the intolerance by certain atheists who stalk these hallowed halls.
You know how lonely it gets in the basement with nobody to disagree with, because you, together with the esteemed Goblinmoger and Grand Inquisitor, Laconicsax, banned them all. LOL
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)She did not refer to creationists, in general. In fact she didn't use the word "creationists".
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)You replied to it twice.
Face it man, she called a group of people "dumbasses". I happen to agree with her that, yes, creationists are dumbasses, but it was a good example of her duplicity.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)She called a group of people "dumbasses". Those "dumbasses" happened to be legislators, were probably creationists and were possibly all left-handed. There was no duplicity, as she did not call creationists, in general, "dumbasses". I also do not call all creationists "dumbasses". I know several. Some are dumbasses and some are not. Same could be said for atheists, liberals, conservatives, tinkers and tailors.
So, your smear of "duplicity" is another example of the puritanical intolerance you foster in the basement.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)She talked and talked and talked about improving the tone of her Religion group, all the while tsk-tsking posters for being negative or offensive, or whatever other bullshit she imagined was against whatever arbitrary rules she'd decided needed to be enforced (of course atheists were the only offenders). And then she calls a group of people "dumbasses" and posted multiple flame-bait threads that were all anti-atheist, then seemed shocked (SHOCKED, I tell ya) that someone would point out her duplicity.
Then, when she continued to stalk a group where she was obviously no longer welcome, we blocked her from the group. Of course, that hasn't stopped her from continuing to harass the ones who she feels slighted her, sending unwanted PMs to multiple members and trying to get several of us banned from DU by emailing the admin directly about her perceived grievances. When she couldn't get her way, she threatened me directly with some nebulous legal action for releasing her name to DU (which, it should be pointed out, was actually given up in a PUBLIC post on DU by HERSELF).
Fucking duplicitous. And yes, we're intolerant of intolerance. There's a reason you're no longer welcome in our group.
FWIW: anyone who's a creationist is a dumbass. That's the definition of dumbass.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And, I might add, when it was pointed out to her that SHE was the one that posted the link to the website with pictures and names of the whole family, there was ABSOLUTELY NO apology. No "Hey, I'm sorry I freaked out on you guys." Not a fucking thing. And after all of that, she and ST wonder why I might be a little ticked off and tired of their bullshit.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You're intolerant of tolerance. You are the flip side of the same puritanical coin that created fundamentalism in this country. You do not represent atheists or agnostics, you represent extreme intolerance of anyone who disagrees with you. You despise atheists who embrace people of faith as equals.
You said it yourself "FWIW: anyone who's a creationist is a dumbass. That's the definition of dumbass."
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)with a broad-brushed smear for ONE thing they did. She's never met any of them, never talked to any of them, and knows nothing about what else they do in their daily lives. But she simply decided that every one of them, no matter what else there is about them, is a dumbass. Not that they did a dumbassed thing, but that every single one of them is simply a dumbass.
Defend that, please. Or better yet, tell your wife to come out and apologize for it. Because this isn't going away. We're going to keep bringing it up each and every time she or you or any of your apologist ilk start your scolds about "broadbrushing" or insulting and denigrating people simply because of what they believe.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)I don't tell my wife what to do and I don't care if it goes away or not. The more of you and your toadies who join the fray, the more you demonstrate your ugly methods for all to see. You are bigoted against all atheists who accept people of faith into their lives as equals. You call us "apologists". I have no need to apologize for my lack of prejudice. I dislike right-wing religious bigots. As an atheist myself, I detest atheist bigots. You let the side down. You are an embarrassment to all tolerant atheists.
"We're going to keep bringing it up each and every time she or you or any of your apologist ilk start your scolds about "broadbrushing" or insulting and denigrating people simply because of what they believe."
Who the fuck are we? You and your gang of giggling elbow nudgers?
I think you need to get back to the "clubhouse" and regroup with trottles and king kitten. Maybe do some damage control. Looks to me like you might have some trouble on the home front. I notice a few "apologists" are creeping back in. Gotta keep it pure down there in the basement. Away with you now.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)against homophobes, misogynists, zealots who murder in the name of their "god", child rapists, and religious fanatics who gladly spread falsehoods and try to restrict the rights of others, simply because their sacred texts tell them to? How noble of you. For my part, I don't smile and accept those people into my life as equals, but you're welcome to suck up to them all you wish, here or elsewhere, if your personal code of "tolerance" requires it. But for you to say that I'm bigoted against "all atheists who accept people into their lives as equals" is simply more shameless lying on your part. You have no idea how I treat "all atheists" like that, now do you? And no, I don't call them all apologists. I call people apologists when they try to defend despicable actions and foolish, destructive beliefs by religious people, simply because they're religious, and simply because atheists are the ones pointing out how despicable they are. When you have even a remotely sane conception of what true "tolerance" is, get back to me.
"We" by the way, includes all of the people that your loving wife hypocritically accuses of "broadbrushing" or of denigrating others for their sincerely held beliefs, while doing the same thing herself. We're going to keep pointing out what a hypocrite she is, so that every person who ever reads one of her scolding posts is aware of the kind of person they're dealing with. And if you're hoping we go away, hold your breath.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)The irony of you criticizing my reading comprehension is not lost.
This part
is what I was saying is the point of the chart.
This part
would be a reference to this post
Do tell how what I posted is smear campaign. It's pretty much a direct quotation.
This would be the point where you apologize. I'm done talking about cbayer at this point. If she wants to confront what she posted, she is more than welcome to take me off ignore and do so.
But I will continue to talk about your passive aggressive bullshit and claims YOU are making against me that are patently untrue.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Which would be the point where you apologize, as the "Bunch of dumbasses" referred to were legislators. That's where your lack of comprehension, or your disingenuousness comes in. As she said in post 17 of that thread "The Indiana legislators that voted to take this to the assembly are. That's not a broadbrush statement. It's my opinion of them."
Go ahead, try crawling out of that one. Talk about passive/aggressive. You really don't have clue.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)to no avail! You might as well be
It is the creationist who voted for the creationist legislators.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)You should make a youtube video telling us to leave her alone.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)I can't stop laughing and it is starting to hurt!!!!!!!!!!
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)passive-aggressive much?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Try reading the thread if you want to join in.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Back to the basement with you now, oh sorry, the "clubhouse"
The kitten needs tickling and the poodle needs his belly rubbed.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)So she has her head in the sand, and you, well, its obvious where your head is.
Tell me, is ignorance bliss?
Heddi
(18,312 posts)But I see that you were locked out of the thread for having one of your many personal, bigoted attacks against other DU'ers removed by a jury (thankfully). So I will remove the part of my original message where I wondered if you were posting while intoxicated. I will still leave these general questions for you to ponder, and get foamy over because you can't respond with your trademark style of no-subtance snark and abuse.
Why are you so intent on fighting Cbayer's fights for her? Can't she stand up for herself?
You seem very bitter still from being blocked from the Atheist/Agnostic group. Why does that still sting so long after the fact?
rexcat
(3,622 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:15 PM - Edit history (1)
instead of responding to him. His lack of maturity was definitely showing throughout this thread and the bullying will stop in this thread. Here is the jury decision. I was mildly surprised that it his post was locked:
At Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:21 PM you sent an alert on the following post:
Oh kitten, why would anyone want to read his filthy, bigoted drivel?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=48496
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
YOUR COMMENTS:
Calling poster a racist and baiting
A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:31 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Poster's sole purpose to participate in the thread appears to be to bait other DUers and to fling shit. He was mildly amusing for a while, but now he's just boring.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: voted to hide. LLP
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Wow, second time called to JD in 24 hrs on this same fly-paper thread.
Thank you.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)You are so cute.
rexcat
(3,622 posts)that is all.
Response to rexcat (Reply #102)
Post removed
Jim__
(14,074 posts)They have Western Asia and Eastern Asia, Western Europe and Eastern Europe, Northern Europe and Southern Europe and the Americas. Yet, I don't see China, or Russia, or any American nation but the US.
It's sad that the US has such a low-level of belief in evolution. However, I'd be interested to see where it appears on a map of all the nations. Would it still be the most dramatic outlier? Where would the plotted regression curve lie?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)It looks as though they took the non-US data from where there had been surveys, so there may not have been polls from other countries that were suitable for inclusion.
For other countries:
http://ncse.com/news/2010/06/creationism-russia-005566
Some people are referred to as 'evolutionist's' (sic) and believe that human beings were in fact created over a long period of time of evolution growing into fully formed human beings they are today from lower species such as apes;
Some people are referred to as 'creationist's' and believe that human beings were in fact created by a spiritual force such as the God they believe in and do not believe that the origin of man came from evolving from other species such as apes; and
Some people simply don't know what to believe and sometimes agree or disagree with theories and ideas put forward by both creationist's and evolutionist's.
The countries were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States.
The "evolutionist" view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the "creationist" view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%).
http://ncse.com/news/2011/04/polling-creationism-evolution-around-world-006634
Data for the latter here, page 59 onwards: http://www.ipsos-na.com/download/pr.aspx?id=10669
And the Miller 2006 paper: http://home.sandiego.edu/~kaufmann/biol190/Miller_et_al_2006.pdf
Their suggestions for why the USA is strange:
of American fundamentalism historically
differ from those of mainstream
Protestantism in both the
United States and Europe. The biblical literalist
focus of fundamentalism in the United
States sees Genesis as a true and accurate
account of the creation of human life that
supersedes any scientific finding or interpretation.
In contrast, mainstream Protestant
faiths in Europe (and their U.S. counterparts)
have viewed Genesis as metaphorical and
like the Catholic Churchhave not seen a
major contradiction between their faith and
the work of Darwin and other scientists.
...
Second, the evolution issue has been
politicized and incorporated into the current
partisan division in the United States in a
manner never seen in Europe or Japan. In the
second half of the 20th century, the conservative
wing of the Republican Party has adopted
creationism as a part of a platform designed
to consolidate their support in southern and
Midwestern statesthe red states. In the
1990s, the state Republican platforms in
seven states included explicit demands for the
teaching of creation science (1). There is
no major political party in Europe or Japan
that uses opposition to evolution as a part of
its political platform.
...
Third, genetic literacy has a moderate
positive relationship to the acceptance of
evolution in both the United States and the
nine European countries. This result indicates
that those adults who have acquired
some understanding of modern genetics are
more likely to hold positive attitudes toward
evolution. The total effect of genetic literacy
on the acceptance of evolution was
similar in the United States and the nine
European countries.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)Just based on one of those references, data was available from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and South Korea; but not included on this chart:
The "evolutionist" view was most popular in Sweden (68%), Germany (65%), and China (64%), with the United States ranking 18th (28%), between Mexico (34%) and Russia (26%); the "creationist" view was most popular in Saudi Arabia (75%), Turkey (60%), and Indonesia (57%), with the United States ranking 6th (40%), between Brazil (47%) and Russia (34%).
It doesn't seem like it would have been that difficult to include these nations in the chart. If these countries were excluded for a reason, they should say so. Russia, China, and India are rather large chunks of the world's population. At the very least, the chart is not representative of the relationship of these variables across the nations of the world.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:54 PM - Edit history (1)
The data for the chart in the OP was from a paper written for Science in 2006. I don't think using a 33 country study, produced by an academic, rather than a 24 country poll, is 'cherry-picking'. Trying to combine 2 different sources (with slightly different questions asked) on one graph would also be misleading.
And, for completeness, here's the 2011 data, plotted against 2011 GDP/cap (PPP):
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #19)
Jim__ This message was self-deleted by its author.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)And let's look at the sources for the data for the Miller et al survey:
conducted through grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF grants SRS88-
07409, SRS90-02467, SRS92-17876, and SRS99-06416). The U.S. data for 1993 were
collected by telephone interviews with 1,557 adults as a part of the International Social
Science Program, a cross-national program sponsored in part by the National Science
Foundation. The U. S. data for 2003 were collected online using a sample of 2,066 adults
from a probability-based national panel maintained by Knowledge Networks, Inc. The
2003 study was sponsored by a grant from the Foundation BBVA in Madrid, Spain, as a
part of a larger 10-country study of attitudes toward biotechnology. The U.S. data for the
years 2004 and 2005 were collected online using samples of approximately 2,000 adults
from a probability-based national panel maintained by Knowledge Networks, Inc. Both
the 2004 and 2005 studies were conducted as a part of an evaluation of two NSF-funded
projects conducted by ScienCentral, Inc. (NSF grants ESI-0201155 and ESI-0206184).
The U.S. Science and Engineering Indicators data are deposited at the Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR).
The 2002 data from 13,587 adults in Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the
Netherlands, Denmark, Austria, and Poland were collected by personal interview by
T.N.S. (Taylor Nelson Sofres) in the fall of 2002. This survey work was sponsored by the
Foundation BBVA in Madrid, Spain, as a part of a 10-country study of public attitudes
toward and understanding of biotechnology. Requests for access to these data should be
addressed to Director Generale, Fundacion BBVA, Palacio del Marques de Salamanca,
Paseo de Recoletos 10, Madrid, Spain 28001.
The 2005 data from 32 European countries was collected by the European
Commission in its Eurobarometer Survey 63.1, conducted through personal interviews
during the first quarter of 2005. Eurobarometer studies of all member states of the
European Union are conducted twice each year. In recent years, the Eurobarometer has
been expanded to include both the member states and several other nations that are
candidates for membership in the EU or are neighboring states that have decided not to
join the EU. A total of 31,390 adults were interviewed in the Eurobarometer 63.1 study.
The Eurobarometer data are available from the ICPSR in the United States and from
national data archives in most of the member states of the European Union.
The 2001 data from Japan was collected by personal interview in February and
March of 2001 and was sponsored by the Japanese National Institute of Science and
Technology Policy (NISTEP). A total of 2,146 adults were interviewed for this study.
Requests for access to the 2001 data should be sent directly to the National Institute of
Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP), MomMombukagakusyou Building, Marunouchi 2
chome, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan 100-0005.
...
So, based on the different sources for that data, and accepting your assertion: trying to combine 2 different sources (with slightly different questions asked) on one graph would also be misleading; the chart posted in the OP is misleading.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)which has considered whether it's valid to combine the polling data available then. You, on the other hand, were calling one blogger's use of that paper, rather than mixing in data from later years without anyone reviewing their work, 'cherry-picking'.
Obviously, it's not cherry-picking, so you were wrong about that. The paper in Science has been available for years; feel free to pass on to us any professional criticism of its methods; but do that before you say it was 'misleading'.
Does the new graph, based on one poll taken at the same time and designed to compare the countries, giving an extremely similar result to the one before, mean anything to you?
Jim__
(14,074 posts)That chart is not from that paper; nor is any of the data used for the x-axis; nor the assertion of a relationship between the 2 variables being graphed.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)is an accusation purely against the Science paper. J. Miller et al. wrote the paper, and selected the polls that define the countries in the graph.
Jim__
(14,074 posts)chart.
Your original answer included data from countries from around the world. Looking at that data, I said it looked like the data were cherry-picked. You then made the assertion that: Trying to combine 2 different sources (with slightly different questions asked) on one graph would also be misleading. I just ran with that assertion and said that invalidates the data used for the chart - your assertion, if true, does invalidate the data. You then argue against your own assertion by saying a peer-reviewed paper used just such data. Ok, your assertion was incorrect.
My conclusion with respect to the data in the chart was: (a)t the very least, the chart is not representative of the relationship of these variables across the nations of the world.
I hold to that conclusion.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)Since you asked, in #5, more than one question, I provided more than one answer.
You asked "What criteria was used to determine which nations appear on the chart?" and I linked to the the supporting data for the paper, and the paper itself. That allows you to see the criteria used to choose the countries.
Since you also asked "However, I'd be interested to see where it appears on a map of all the nations. Would it still be the most dramatic outlier? Where would the plotted regression curve lie? ", I pointed you to 2 other discussions - one about Russia (about which you'd specifically asked), and one that polled many countries.
You, however, incorrectly claimed the data in the graph was cherry-picked, when it wasn't - it included all the countries in the 2006 paper. I said that the person drawing the graph would not have been justified in adding the 2011 data (if they were even aware of it when they drew their graph, in the same year), because the questions are different. The 2006 paper was peer reviewed, so that independent experts have looked at the data being used and, since it was accepted and published, did not have an objection to combining the results of the polls. As I said, if you can point to any subsequent criticism of that by anyone else (as opposed to your misinformed claims based on your incomplete reading of my posts, let alone the actual paper and data), then it might be relevant. Your BS is not relevant.
I've given you a chart that includes some other nations. You seem aggressively uninterested in it.Did you ever care about the comparison with Russia, China, etc., or was that just a red herring, to allow you to make a false accusation of cherry-picking?
Jim__
(14,074 posts)I did not incorrectly claim the data in the graph was cherry-picked. I said: that information definitely makes it look like the data for the chart was cherry-picked. Then concluded: at the very least, the chart is not representative of the relationship of these variables across the nations of the world.
I didn't say anything about your chart because it adds some plotted points but does not use those new points to recompute the value of A and B. I would expect that the data points for China, India, and Saudi Arabia would change those values. But, look at the OP chart and predict where the belief-levels would be for China, India, and Indonesia. It looks to me like the belief levels for all 3 of them (and a large number of other nations) would be negative. Based on that alone, the original chart is not using a valid model.
Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #13)
Jim__ This message was self-deleted by its author.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Perhaps go to the link and read some of the comments if you have trouble getting the point.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)Start dealing with facts instead of slime and your credibility might improve.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Many people in this group have stated they are an insignificant minority that only seems bigger simply because they are vocal and get the media attention. That liberal, secular-thinking, tolerant Christians are the true majority.
This data (along with repeated surveys over the years) indicates that is a false assumption.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)So, the point is? Oh, did one of his HS students figure it out? How exciting.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)You know, one of the reasons to have a discussion board. To learn from each other - that's a good thing, right?
rexcat
(3,622 posts)to some. All the comments from this person have been snarky at best and in the least, infantile.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)is one of those that posts that the religious right is not representative of what Christianity is and that the progressive wing of Christianity is where most people fit.
Though I understand why, if I had to live with them day-in-and-day-out, I might not want to read what they post on DU but you seem to like them both. You might want to keep up with what they are saying if you are going to gallop in to their defense on your awesome white horse. Or were you so happy you came up with a dig about my HS students that you didn't even think about the point you were making.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)They are two of the most caring and sincere and tolerant people one could ever meet. I don't HAVE to live with anyone day-in-and-day-out. I choose whom I live with.
I have occasional interest in what they post. We all have our own views and respect each other, though we may disagree on certain things.
When I see them attacked by ignorant intolerants, I comment. When I see them maligned and misquoted, I comment and correct the ignorance. When I see you leading the charge, I point out your bullshit. As long as you continue your personal attacks and smear campaigns, I will point that out so that others will get to know you better.
On the other hand, if you just want to post your drivel, without smearing others, I'll just walk on by. Your choice, dude.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)It must be a wonderful dream land you live in.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)"personal attacks and smear campaigns." Let me guess!
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Can you please identify where the "personal attacks" and "smear campaigns" are posted?
You have documentation to back up such an accusation, right? Because if you don't, you would seem to be engaging in your very own smear campaign of personal attacks. And that would be quite hypocritical, don't you think?
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)What a surprise. Well, it seems pretty clear then who's actually waging the smear campaign.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)After he made homophobic comments and defended the indefensible. I thought he'd gotten over it, but evidently not.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)it confirms why I voted to block him and makes it clear that the decision does not need to be changed.
EvolveOrConvolve
(6,452 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)the bullshit going on in THIS thread alone is enough to justify his block. Too bad the rest of DU still has deal with it.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)"After he made homophobic comments and defended the indefensible." More smear. Keep it up. You could probably get a job with the National Enquirer.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)it was transphobic not generically homophobic.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)What a hoot you are "If we are being specific?"
How much time do you spend making this shit up? Transphobic? Another smear! Fucking priceless.
Well, I was trying to be specific as to which pronoun to use when addressing your buddy laconicsax. Remember her/him? The cyberstalking mendacious person who claimed to be a man, yet defended his using my first name by claiming his name was Diane and that made everything OK?
Try selling your goblins to someone else, 'cos I'm not buying.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)And, yes, it was transphobic. You are dancing on that line in this last post.
And it isn't cyberstalking to find out your first name by following a post YOUR WIFE made on DU. That's her mistake if you are really trying to keep things private.
Oregonian
(209 posts)As a newbie here, what did I miss? Or do I want to know?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)dimbear
(6,271 posts)Last edited Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:06 PM - Edit history (1)
a straight line would have been a better fit.
Headscratcher.
*edit: just looks like a parabola, would have been just one quadrant of a hyperbola.......... you get the point.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)which is good, because the recognition of evolution can never go over 100%. Having said that, 'A' should not be more than 100 - in theory, the equation would predict recognition more than 100% for a GDP per capita of $936,000 or more.
Using the data in #19, a straight line would exceed 100% at about $113,000; if the USA is excluded from the data set, at about $91,000.
madrchsod
(58,162 posts)we are a nation of rich dumb asses
jeepnstein
(2,631 posts)It's as solid a scientific fact as we have right now. Belief has nothing to do with it. The problem I have with it is when people take good science and try to load it with a bunch of extraneous opinion to validate their world view. I have the same problem with religion, which is more a matter of belief than proof.
It all boils down to some people and their desire to be right no matter what. They cannot accept a world view where they are not 100% correct all the time. And generally these people come off sounding like jerks when they blind themselves to everything but what they want to see. I try really hard not to be a jerk but some times I fail.
Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that aren't just isolated crap, or are you just flinging shit at the wall and hoping someone equally ignorant comes along and gives you a stroke?
Jim__
(14,074 posts)The model should not predict invalid results.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)Your posts on this thread, while typical of your style, display a clear pattern of grasping for anything - ANYTHING - that can call into dispute a clear conclusion, namely that generally, the richer a country is, the less it accepts religious myth - with the US being an obvious outlier.
Around the world, we find religion (where not officially suppressed by the state) and religious beliefs stronger in poorer and less-developed countries, with the USA again being the exception. This data is no different. So why the intense resistence to this fact?
LARED
(11,735 posts)Last edited Fri Sep 28, 2012, 05:56 AM - Edit history (1)
**HINT: the shitty side of religion that many want to dismiss as just a tiny minority of the religions and religious in the US actually isn't and has a significant effect**What significant effect?
Assuming the data is of any value, it tells us that as an outlier the US does not fit into the model. So either the model is not very good or for reasons not known, the belief in evolution in the US has little relationship to GDP where in other places it might.
What the chart does seem to say is that regional factors play a larger role iin GDP, (notice the grouping of regions in the chart) with religion perhaps a small contributing factor across all regions.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)Using data for "is religion an important part of your daily life?" (Australia, China and Belgium not in poll)
Importance of religion v. GDP/capita:
Importance of religion v. acceptance of evolution:
You can see there's a good correlation between the importance of religion and GDP/capita, but the USA is an outlier (with Saudi Arabia, a fundamentalist but rich state, a bit of an outlier too). The importance of religion and acceptance of evolution are very closely correlated across the world (Russia is a bit of an outlier - not many find religion important, but neither do they accept evolution - though they were the highest of all in the "don't knows" for evolution vs. creationism - if 'creationism' was plotted against importance of religion, they wouldn't be quite so much of an outlier).
So, the point is: despite the claims of several in this group that a literal belief in the Bible is just a minority point of view in the USA, that has little effect on the country, we find that, worldwide, the importance of religion is closely linked to rejection of science, and the importance of religion is linked to GDP/capita - except in the USA, where there is a high importance of religion, especially notable when GDP is considered, and this leads to a high rejection of science in favour of a literal belief in the Bible.
Oregonian
(209 posts)How does this religious, absolutist worldview inform other erroneous, uninformed decisions we make as a country? "We MUST NOT raise taxes! It's our RELIGION to cut spending only!" Or, "We MUST NOT raise the debt cieling, because that means spending more!"
Obviously we need better science education, but I think this graph illustrates that our country, as a whole, is letting irrationality take over.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,302 posts)I found a poll that asked about both evolution and climate change, and they showed that the tendency among political groups is to claim both evolution and climate change aren't real, the further right you go. But it would be interesting to see how the opinions group with other variables.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2011/09/climate-change-evolution-2012/
Oregonian
(209 posts)Who said, during a public hearing, that God promised Noah no more floods, therefore we needn't do shit about climate change, etc.
So to those who ask "so what"? Well....that's WHAT.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)the 'rich' countries that make their money from extractive industries and are hence only temporarily rich.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)That is sick. I knew the US was screwed up with the "Christian Taliban" driving so much of our culture. But I didn't realize so many other countries were screwed up almost as badly.
How can France be only 80%?
How can Finland be under 70%?
How can Germany be 70%?
And the Netherlands?
Igel
(35,298 posts)I'm not sure that the curve they use is the best. Would strengthen your case, of course, but it means not following the analysis but instead the data. Then the US has something in common with Turkey.
Then again, the US also has something very much in common with Japan. It and Japan are the only two non-European countries on the graph. One wonders what would happen if we added more countries. Interestingly, there's a nice cluster effect based on geographical and cultural affinity--some overlap, but the clusters look pretty convincing. In that case, the question would have to be, "Why is Japan more European in this regard than the US?"
That means asking additional questions of the data instead of assuming that the data are drop-out-of-the-sky unbiased and their purpose are somehow the reason for such numbers existing.