[Pants-of-dog]

@Besoeker

Then what do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker

Then what do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

I misread your previous post. For that I apologise.

[Pants-of-dog]

I misread your previous post. For that I apologise.

No problem.

What do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

[Besoeker]

No problem.

What do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

One with the absence of a belief in any deity is an atheist.

[Pants-of-dog]

One with the absence of a belief in any deity is an atheist.

Okay.

What do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

[Rousse]

Why are you bringing more abstract construct into this? Why does the book club need hope and how does hope even fit with the book club

Precisely. So, your comparison of book clubs to religion as social organizations falls flat. Book clubs foster many things, a good book (including whatever one's "the good book" is) can even do this on an individual level, but rarely will they foster a groupwide sense of hope. Religion provably has given that sense of inspiration, that will to fight onward, to vast groups of people.

And I just did.

You repeated the same tired, long-refuted, "I just read Hitchens you guys" points.

The official stance of the religions to which the majority of the population in this world belong to are all against abortion on record (islam/christianity/hindu)

This is false. Islam is not anti-abortion. Abortion is widely interpreted as permissible in the first four months, because the four month point is when the soul is believed to form per several hadiths. Also, neither Christianity nor Hinduism has an "official stance," so much as the stances of various denominations. In short, this is another example of you not doing the research, which is sort of funny in a supposed scientific materialist.

under any circumstances and only protestant have a slightly (SLIGHTLY) more liberal outlook to types of contraceptive.

Most Protestants are fine with contraception beyond abortion. Mainline Protestants (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) are generally pro-choice as well, though these churches have been waning in membership in recent decades.

WOW. The Hypocrite. Pants-of-dog guy has been pointing to his research paper proudly for over a week now and you have not bother to mention that obvious problem that is co-founding variables... I post something and 10secs latter you are all over the methodological flaws of my post.

I hate to break it to you, but claiming your "study" is on par with the one Pants-of-Dog posted is the height of arrogance. They accounted for confounding variables, despite your repeated and absurd claim that book clubs would provide the same social benefit. You clearly did not, considering the difference appears to be mostly diet and smoking-related.

It turns out the correlation coefficient of the correlation between religiosity and life expectancy is -0.77. This mean there is an inverse STRONG correlation between religiosity and life expectancy (for the record weak association is 0-0.3, moderate is 0.3-0.7 and strong is 0.7-1).

Considering anyone can pop whatever numbers into Excel and make a graph, and it contradicts a peer-reviewed study posted above, I'd love to see what your data is based on. Enlighten us, sensei.

[Besoeker]

Okay.

What do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

Is there a classification for them?

[Pants-of-dog]

What do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

I would call this person an atheist. How about you?

[Besoeker]

What do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

I would call this person an atheist. How about you?

I simply don't know. Atheism isn't about a belief.

[Pants-of-dog]

I simply don't know. Atheism isn't about a belief.

Lol!

You are a hoot!

[Besoeker]

Lol!

You are a hoot!

Maybe so.
You obviously don't get my point.

[Pants-of-dog]

Maybe so.
You obviously don't get my point.

What point is that?

Now, getting back to my point, what do you think these people (The ones that believe there is no god) call themselves?

[Besoeker]

What point is that?

Now, getting back to my point, what do you think these people (The ones that believe there is no god) call themselves?

They can call themselves what they want.
They might believe in faries or goblins or elves...........
I already tod you I don't know.

[Besoeker]

They can call themselves what they want.
They might believe in faries or goblins or elves...........
I already told you I don't know.

[jakell]

What do you call someone who believes that god does not exist?

I would call this person an atheist. How about you?

How about a good ol' forum poll to see what folks think? (Don't forget to have 'don't know' as an option). Should be fun.

BTW, 'atheist' sounds about right to me. I shouldn't think there'll be many detractors.

[Pants-of-dog]

They can call themselves what they want.
They might believe in faries or goblins or elves...........
I already tod you I don't know.

They call themselves "atheists".

Are you now claiming that they are wrong?

-------------

How about a good ol' forum poll to see what folks think? (Don't forget to have 'don't know' as an option). Should be fun.

BTW, 'atheist' sounds about right to me. I shouldn't think there'll be many detractors.

[Besoeker]

They call themselves "atheists".

They can call themselves what they like.

[Pants-of-dog]

They can call themselves what they like.

Are you saying they are wrong to call themselves atheists?

[XogGyux]

Precisely. So, your comparison of book clubs to religion as social organizations falls flat. Book clubs foster many things, a good book (including whatever one's "the good book" is) can even do this on an individual level, but rarely will they foster a groupwide sense of hope. Religion provably has given that sense of inspiration, that will to fight onward, to vast groups of people.

Book club, art class, cooking class, dancing, etc. Who cares. We know that exercise, any type of exercise is beneficial and social support, any type is beneficial as well. I gave you one of virtually millions options. Some are better than others, most are worse than simply running a couple miles a week but still good and most will show some kind of statistical significance of various degrees.

You repeated the same tired, long-refuted, "I just read Hitchens you guys" points.

Sorry I lost the context. Elaborate if you want a comment.

This is false. Islam is not anti-abortion. Abortion is widely interpreted as permissible in the first four months, because the four month point is when the soul is believed to form per several hadiths. Also, neither Christianity nor Hinduism has an "official stance," so much as the stances of various denominations. In short, this is another example of you not doing the research, which is sort of funny in a supposed scientific materialist.

Yeah we all know how caring are Muslims males about their females...

Most Protestants are fine with contraception beyond abortion. Mainline Protestants (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) are generally pro-choice as well, though these churches have been waning in membership in recent decades.

6billion religious people and you are trying to prove a point based on the few sub-factions of a faction of Christianity that are not quite as fanatic...

I hate to break it to you, but claiming your "study" is on par with the one Pants-of-Dog posted is the height of arrogance. They accounted for confounding variables, despite your repeated and absurd claim that book clubs would provide the same social benefit. You clearly did not, considering the difference appears to be mostly diet and smoking-related.

What study? First of all I did not claim what I did is a study. I simply proved a point that correlation means absolute bull crap when it comes to analyzing cause/effect direction or even cause/effect relationship. The fact you coming on me like this means that you either ignored past all that we have discussed or that you simply don't care. You said "they accounted for co-founding variables" that is impossible in an observational study. They can account for "some" but never for all which brings you back to the fact you cannot make causal claims. In case you missed it, the author's conclusions were very vague which went on to say "there is an association" (big deal, there are associations between full moons and weird things). Furthermore, i did link studies which also accounted for co-founding variables that link most religious countries with worse social outcomes, which is the same kind of evidence POD was supplying. Furthermore, you were quick to point out that you thought the study was flawed for the same reasons I criticized POD (which I agree, and it is in fact the point I have been trying to make all along). So it is ironic that you go in a crusade to defend the same kind of flawed study (or more precisely, flawed conclusions, the study seems pretty well otherwise to me) but then dismiss the same kind of study that argues in favor of the opposite effect on the same grounds...

Considering anyone can pop whatever numbers into Excel and make a graph, and it contradicts a peer-reviewed study posted above, I'd love to see what your data is based on. Enlighten us, sensei.

Sensei. I posted the methods and data sources in the previous page. Again this is by no means a study, just a simple correlation analysis to prove a point that correlations are meaningless. Life expectancy was obtained from the wikipedia page, "religiosity" was obtained from a survey (the link to the data was provided when I posted the graph) and I made a third graph showing the same correlation using "church attendance" (which was the same variable used by POD's study to equate to religiosity) instead of "religiosity" from the survey. In the case of "church attendance" I also took it straight from wikipedia. So basically the data source is Wikipedia and a simply correlation analysis which is basic statistics (I even shared the excel sheet to make people's life easier if you want to understand it"). Again I posted all these prior. You either did not care enough of skipped right through the text, either way offering criticism without analyzing the facts thoroughly.

[Besoeker]

Are you saying they are wrong to call themselves atheists?

Like I said, they can call themselves what they want.
Hobgoblins, satanists, ..............