Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
110 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wonder why the US is an outlier in this chart (Original Post) Goblinmonger Sep 2012 OP
interesting Laurajr Sep 2012 #1
Godless Communists exboyfil Sep 2012 #2
The US in #2 in wealth and #2 in nonbelief in evolution. rug Sep 2012 #3
Um, what Y axis are you looking at Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #4
Correction, as she no longer reads your posts. I wonder why. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #7
Those dumbass legislators... rexcat Sep 2012 #9
Putting someone on ignore is not blocking them. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #14
There are two levels of ignore... rexcat Sep 2012 #21
Just ignore his passive-aggressive bullshit. Notice his "back to the basement with you" comment? cleanhippie Sep 2012 #37
I find... rexcat Sep 2012 #48
That is the most "precious" post. You can be quite delightful. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #62
If she wants to correct something, I'll gladly have that discussion. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #11
No need on my part. Just felt like having fun pointing out your bullshit. No rescue necessary. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #15
Yeah, it is a shame Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #24
You dealt it. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #26
Did you really not get the sarcasm in my post? Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #29
Then leave her out, dude! Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #31
Like I said above Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #33
GM, its just more of the same passive-aggressive bullshit. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #34
Leave her out of your lies. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #36
... EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2012 #38
Thank you. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #42
So the question is EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2012 #47
Yes, a group of Indiana legislators who voted to mandate creationism in public school education. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #53
Yes , the legislators in Indiana who voted for mandatory teaching of creationism in public schools Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #59
Wow, a post so nice EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2012 #63
My browser crashed, hence the two replies. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #77
Yes duplicitous EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2012 #83
oh, SNAP!!!!! +1000000000000000000 cleanhippie Sep 2012 #86
Yeah, I got the same nebulous legal threat, too. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #87
Smear away, spread your lies. Karma doesn't apply to you, after all. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #96
She painted a group of people skepticscott Sep 2012 #98
That's hilarious coming from you, the high priest of intolerance. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #100
.................. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #103
Ah, so you're not prejudiced skepticscott Sep 2012 #104
I didn't say she said that. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #40
Which would be a response to this post Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #43
Are those legislators creationists? n/t Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #45
I tried the same approach in post #9... rexcat Sep 2012 #56
And LEAVE BRITTANY ALONE!!!!!! cleanhippie Sep 2012 #52
Stop it... rexcat Sep 2012 #58
How do you know I haven't? Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #60
I used my other way of knowing, and we ALL know you didn't cleanhippie Sep 2012 #85
If you want her left out, why the fuck did you bring her up in the first place? cleanhippie Sep 2012 #57
I didn't. Your your goblin vendor friend did. That's "why the fuck." Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #61
Try having your wife fight her own battles. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #84
What battles? She kicked your intolerant asses. I'm just mopping the floor. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #95
More like she ran and hid like an ostrich. cleanhippie Sep 2012 #97
I was going to ask if you were posting while drunk Heddi Sep 2012 #109
I decided to alert the post... rexcat Sep 2012 #110
... rexcat Sep 2012 #50
Look at the little kitten. He rolls over when he's tickled Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #94
See post #37... rexcat Sep 2012 #102
Post removed Post removed Sep 2012 #107
What criteria was used to determine which nations appear on the chart? Jim__ Sep 2012 #5
Here's the supporting data for the paper muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #13
Thanks. That information definitely makes it look like the data for the chart was cherry-picked. Jim__ Sep 2012 #18
No; the data from Argentina etc. was from 2011 from a poll for Reuters muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #19
This message was self-deleted by its author Jim__ Sep 2012 #54
Let's just accept your assertion: Jim__ Sep 2012 #65
That's a peer reviewed paper muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #66
As stated in post #65, I wasn't referring to that paper; but to the chart in the OP. Jim__ Sep 2012 #67
Your implication that the countries used in the graph were incorrectly chosen muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #69
No. My original question was what criteria were used to choose the countries on the ... Jim__ Sep 2012 #70
No; you didn't read #13 properly muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #71
And you didn't read #18 properly. Jim__ Sep 2012 #72
This message was self-deleted by its author Jim__ Sep 2012 #64
I don't get it. pinto Sep 2012 #6
I don't think there is anything to get. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #8
Yet it's my comprehension that you want to question? Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #10
Been there, done that. Time to get over yourself, seller of goblins. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #16
Are fundamentalist, literalist Christians a sizeable, influential group in the U.S., or not? trotsky Sep 2012 #12
Is the sky blue? Is the Pope catholic? Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #17
The point is to correct misperceptions and inform people. trotsky Sep 2012 #20
Obviously not a good thing... rexcat Sep 2012 #22
Dude, seriously, your wife, along with your father-in-law, Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #25
I like them both and love them both. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #28
"personal attacks and smear campaigns" Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #30
It is actually. You finally got something right. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #32
Now where have I heard that before... rexcat Sep 2012 #51
That's a pretty serious allegation. trotsky Sep 2012 #35
Oh, trottles, do get over yourself. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #39
So you have no evidence to back up your insulting accusation? trotsky Sep 2012 #49
ST is still mad because we kicked out of the clubhouse EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2012 #41
Pretty much every time he responds to me Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #44
Yep EvolveOrConvolve Sep 2012 #46
Exactly. His passive-aggressive bullshit, along with his homophobic comments, coupled with... cleanhippie Sep 2012 #55
The "clubhouse"! LOL You called the basement the "clubhouse" Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #78
If we are being specific Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #80
Oh, really? Are you back pedalling now or sideways pedalling? Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #81
I just wanted people reading to know what happened. Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #82
Wow. Oregonian Sep 2012 #90
Are you serious? Man, I'm just way too tired for this level of bs... eqfan592 Sep 2012 #106
For the math minded, one might ask why the grapher would have tried to fit to a parabola when dimbear Sep 2012 #23
A hyperbola would have an asymptote muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #68
yup! ....... ya learn something new everyday madrchsod Sep 2012 #27
I don't "believe" in Evolution. jeepnstein Sep 2012 #73
+100 Well said. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #79
Do you have examples of any of that skepticscott Sep 2012 #105
The model used to draw the regression line is invalid. Jim__ Sep 2012 #74
I don't think that makes it look any better for us. n/t Goblinmonger Sep 2012 #75
What exactly is it about this data that bothers you so much, Jim? trotsky Sep 2012 #76
Question? LARED Sep 2012 #88
Religiosity is well correlated with GDP, with, again, the USA being an outlier muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #89
The question NOW is Oregonian Sep 2012 #91
Attitude to climate change, I fear muriel_volestrangler Sep 2012 #92
Indeed, I believe it was a Missouri or Texas congressman Oregonian Sep 2012 #93
BTW, to really drive home the correlation between religion and poverty, set aside dimbear Sep 2012 #99
Forget the US. Why do only 3 countries have more than 80% that understand evolution? BlueStreak Sep 2012 #101
I'd put Turkey as an outlier, too. Igel Sep 2012 #108

Laurajr

(223 posts)
1. interesting
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 11:57 AM
Sep 2012

The Easter European countries, formally communist countries believe in evolution at a higher rate than the USA.

exboyfil

(17,862 posts)
2. Godless Communists
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 12:54 PM
Sep 2012

Surprised that Japan has dropped so low on per capita GDP. At one point I thought they were close to being equivalent.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
4. Um, what Y axis are you looking at
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:14 PM
Sep 2012

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)
7. Correction, as she no longer reads your posts. I wonder why.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:14 PM
Sep 2012

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)
9. Those dumbass legislators...
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:34 PM
Sep 2012

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)
14. Putting someone on ignore is not blocking them.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:10 PM
Sep 2012

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)
21. There are two levels of ignore...
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:51 PM
Sep 2012

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)
37. Just ignore his passive-aggressive bullshit. Notice his "back to the basement with you" comment?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:43 PM
Sep 2012

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)
48. I find...
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:27 PM
Sep 2012

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.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
11. If she wants to correct something, I'll gladly have that discussion.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:37 PM
Sep 2012

I don't need to foster any patriarchy by supporting your need to come to her rescue.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
15. No need on my part. Just felt like having fun pointing out your bullshit. No rescue necessary.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:13 PM
Sep 2012

Looks like you lost your chance to have those discussions. What a shame.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
24. Yeah, it is a shame
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:17 PM
Sep 2012

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)
26. You dealt it.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:39 PM
Sep 2012

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)
29. Did you really not get the sarcasm in my post?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:01 PM
Sep 2012

I couldn't give two shits about whether your wife wants to engage in a dialogue or not.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
33. Like I said above
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:19 PM
Sep 2012

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)
34. GM, its just more of the same passive-aggressive bullshit.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:37 PM
Sep 2012

If anyone is deserving of ignore, it is that one.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
36. Leave her out of your lies.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:43 PM
Sep 2012

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!

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
53. Yes, a group of Indiana legislators who voted to mandate creationism in public school education.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:45 PM
Sep 2012

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)
59. Yes , the legislators in Indiana who voted for mandatory teaching of creationism in public schools
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:05 PM
Sep 2012

She did not refer to creationists, in general. In fact she didn't use the word "creationists".

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
63. Wow, a post so nice
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:56 PM
Sep 2012

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)
77. My browser crashed, hence the two replies.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:13 PM
Sep 2012

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)
83. Yes duplicitous
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:03 PM
Sep 2012

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.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
87. Yeah, I got the same nebulous legal threat, too.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:48 PM
Sep 2012

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)
96. Smear away, spread your lies. Karma doesn't apply to you, after all.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:49 PM
Sep 2012

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)
98. She painted a group of people
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 07:08 PM
Sep 2012

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)
100. That's hilarious coming from you, the high priest of intolerance.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:38 PM
Sep 2012

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)
103. ..................
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:28 PM
Sep 2012
You call us "apologists". I have no need to apologize for my lack of prejudice. I dislike right-wing religious bigots.


 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
104. Ah, so you're not prejudiced
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:05 AM
Sep 2012

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)
40. I didn't say she said that.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:51 PM
Sep 2012

The irony of you criticizing my reading comprehension is not lost.

This part

"We cling to creationism at an alarming rate"

is what I was saying is the point of the chart.

This part
And, as one of the hosts of this group said, creationists are dumbasses.

would be a reference to this post
4. What a bunch of dumbasses.

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)
43. Which would be a response to this post
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:03 PM
Sep 2012
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12187623#op

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.

rexcat

(3,622 posts)
56. I tried the same approach in post #9...
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:49 PM
Sep 2012

to no avail! You might as well be

It is the creationist who voted for the creationist legislators.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
57. If you want her left out, why the fuck did you bring her up in the first place?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:49 PM
Sep 2012

passive-aggressive much?

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
61. I didn't. Your your goblin vendor friend did. That's "why the fuck."
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 09:10 PM
Sep 2012

Try reading the thread if you want to join in.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
95. What battles? She kicked your intolerant asses. I'm just mopping the floor.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 12:35 PM
Sep 2012

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)
97. More like she ran and hid like an ostrich.
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:27 PM
Sep 2012

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)
109. I was going to ask if you were posting while drunk
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:14 PM
Sep 2012

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)
110. I decided to alert the post...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:22 PM
Sep 2012

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.

Response to rexcat (Reply #102)

Jim__

(14,074 posts)
5. What criteria was used to determine which nations appear on the chart?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 01:28 PM
Sep 2012

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)
13. Here's the supporting data for the paper
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 03:25 PM
Sep 2012
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2006/08/08/313.5788.765.DC1/Miller.SOM.pdf

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:

Poll data about the acceptance of evolution in Russia is mixed: a 2005 poll reportedly found 26% of Russians accepting evolution and 49% accepting creationism, but a 2003 poll reported that 44% agreed with "Human beings are developed from earlier species of animals&quot , and a 2009 poll reported (PDF) that 48% of Russians who "know something about Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution" agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the theory. (In comparison, only 41% of Americans agreed.)

http://ncse.com/news/2010/06/creationism-russia-005566


Respondents were prompted with "There has been some debate recently about the origins of human beings. Please tell me which of the following is closer to your own point of view" and presented with:

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:

First, the structure and beliefs
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 Church—have 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 states—the “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)
18. Thanks. That information definitely makes it look like the data for the chart was cherry-picked.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:20 PM
Sep 2012

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 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%).


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)
19. No; the data from Argentina etc. was from 2011 from a poll for Reuters
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:08 PM
Sep 2012

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__

(14,074 posts)
65. Let's just accept your assertion:
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:16 AM
Sep 2012
Trying to combine 2 different sources (with slightly different questions asked) on one graph would also be misleading.


And let's look at the sources for the data for the Miller et al survey:

The data for the United States for the years 1988, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1997, and 1999 were collected in national random-digit telephone surveys of approximately 2,000 respondents
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)
66. That's a peer reviewed paper
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:39 AM
Sep 2012

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)
67. As stated in post #65, I wasn't referring to that paper; but to the chart in the OP.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 05:49 AM
Sep 2012

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)
69. Your implication that the countries used in the graph were incorrectly chosen
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:02 AM
Sep 2012

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)
70. No. My original question was what criteria were used to choose the countries on the ...
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:22 AM
Sep 2012

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)
71. No; you didn't read #13 properly
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:51 AM
Sep 2012

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)
72. And you didn't read #18 properly.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:27 AM
Sep 2012

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)

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
10. Yet it's my comprehension that you want to question?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:36 PM
Sep 2012

Perhaps go to the link and read some of the comments if you have trouble getting the point.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
16. Been there, done that. Time to get over yourself, seller of goblins.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:16 PM
Sep 2012

Start dealing with facts instead of slime and your credibility might improve.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
12. Are fundamentalist, literalist Christians a sizeable, influential group in the U.S., or not?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 02:52 PM
Sep 2012

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)
17. Is the sky blue? Is the Pope catholic?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 04:18 PM
Sep 2012

So, the point is? Oh, did one of his HS students figure it out? How exciting.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
20. The point is to correct misperceptions and inform people.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 05:34 PM
Sep 2012

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)
22. Obviously not a good thing...
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:05 PM
Sep 2012

to some. All the comments from this person have been snarky at best and in the least, infantile.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
25. Dude, seriously, your wife, along with your father-in-law,
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:21 PM
Sep 2012

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)
28. I like them both and love them both.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:54 PM
Sep 2012

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.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
35. That's a pretty serious allegation.
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:38 PM
Sep 2012

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?

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
49. So you have no evidence to back up your insulting accusation?
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:27 PM
Sep 2012

What a surprise. Well, it seems pretty clear then who's actually waging the smear campaign.

EvolveOrConvolve

(6,452 posts)
41. ST is still mad because we kicked out of the clubhouse
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 07:51 PM
Sep 2012

After he made homophobic comments and defended the indefensible. I thought he'd gotten over it, but evidently not.

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
44. Pretty much every time he responds to me
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:04 PM
Sep 2012

it confirms why I voted to block him and makes it clear that the decision does not need to be changed.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
55. Exactly. His passive-aggressive bullshit, along with his homophobic comments, coupled with...
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 08:48 PM
Sep 2012

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)
78. The "clubhouse"! LOL You called the basement the "clubhouse"
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 03:18 PM
Sep 2012

"After he made homophobic comments and defended the indefensible." More smear. Keep it up. You could probably get a job with the National Enquirer.

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
81. Oh, really? Are you back pedalling now or sideways pedalling?
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:04 PM
Sep 2012

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)
82. I just wanted people reading to know what happened.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:10 PM
Sep 2012

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.

dimbear

(6,271 posts)
23. For the math minded, one might ask why the grapher would have tried to fit to a parabola when
Wed Sep 26, 2012, 06:15 PM
Sep 2012

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)
68. A hyperbola would have an asymptote
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 06:58 AM
Sep 2012

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.

jeepnstein

(2,631 posts)
73. I don't "believe" in Evolution.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 08:42 AM
Sep 2012

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.

 

skepticscott

(13,029 posts)
105. Do you have examples of any of that
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 12:09 AM
Sep 2012

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)
74. The model used to draw the regression line is invalid.
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 09:17 AM
Sep 2012
Here is wikipedia's GDP per capita entry. The 3rd column is based on CIA data (CIA data was used for the x-axis in the chart). The regression model that it uses was y = A(1 - B/x). It computed the value of B as 9260. So, for any nation with a GDP per capita of less than 9260, this chart predicts that a negative percentage of the population would believe in evolution. Look at the wikipedia data. There are a large number of countries with less than $9,260 in GDP per capita - including India and China which have a fairly high level of the population that believe in evolution.

The model should not predict invalid results.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
76. What exactly is it about this data that bothers you so much, Jim?
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 10:07 AM
Sep 2012

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)
88. Question?
Thu Sep 27, 2012, 11:34 PM
Sep 2012

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)
89. Religiosity is well correlated with GDP, with, again, the USA being an outlier
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 06:49 AM
Sep 2012

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)
91. The question NOW is
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:18 AM
Sep 2012

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)
92. Attitude to climate change, I fear
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:34 AM
Sep 2012

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)
93. Indeed, I believe it was a Missouri or Texas congressman
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 11:40 AM
Sep 2012

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)
99. BTW, to really drive home the correlation between religion and poverty, set aside
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 08:07 PM
Sep 2012

the 'rich' countries that make their money from extractive industries and are hence only temporarily rich.

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
101. Forget the US. Why do only 3 countries have more than 80% that understand evolution?
Fri Sep 28, 2012, 09:46 PM
Sep 2012

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)
108. I'd put Turkey as an outlier, too.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 02:32 PM
Sep 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Wonder why the US is an o...