It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Separate Studies Conclude: Atheism = Peace, Religiosity = Higher Sociological Problems

page: 12
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sandwiches
 


I never said all atheists are bad, and many of your moral values come from Christianity does it not?

You chose to follow some things of it, and to not follow others.

BTW, many atheists do the same thing as many religious people do. They try to claim their belief is superior hence it is better to follow their belief. That is the purpose of the OP isn't it? How is that any different from the religious fanatics?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]




posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I am sorry but these sort of "research" are nothing but a scam, and shows these people would rather ignore history, than learn from it.

Atheism gave us Communism. Communism is an atheist, and a materialistic point of view of the world, in which humans are seen as robots without a soul/spirit.

Yet Communism, an atheist belief, has caused more death in the 19th and 20th century than all world wars, and other conflicts from around the world put together.

Atheism is not a synonym of peace... I apologize for raining in this padade, or should I write parady?



[edit on 30-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



You sure you're not talking about 'capitalism'?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AwakeinNM

And that's the beauty of the duality we live in.


It's all relative. Without the fundamentalists we wouldn't know tolerance.

Until it affects you in your life, why worry?

As above, so below. As below... so above! Quantum observation. Change within yourself, meditate to be at peace and the world will be at peace. Ignore a perceived threat and it disappears. Try it.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kharron

You sure you're not talking about 'capitalism'?




Mankind has used Capitalism for millennia...

Ancient people, including native Americans would trade with other tribes, or amongst themselves yet people like you want to claim that was Socialism?...


Capitalism is the natural economic system of the world.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by sandwiches
 


I never said all atheists are bad, and many of your moral values come from Christianity does it not?

You chose to follow some things of it, and to not follow others.

BTW, many atheists do the same thing as many religious people do. They try to claim their belief is superior hence it is better to follow their belief. That is the purpose of the OP isn't it? How is that any different from the religious fanatics?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]


Nobobdy i mean no atheist or agnostic or whatever, the persons who dint believe in God didnt ask you to believe in their belief. I mean its about not believing anything which doesnt relate with evidence and rational thinking.

People who believe in God and worship certain God of religion have a righ to do so. Nobody is arguing about that here. Also who dont want to believe in God and religion also has a right to do so.
Dont equate the person who doesnt believe in religion with communists. Capitalism has its share too. Us and UK which are basically christian country is taking on muslim countries in the name of war on terrorism . This is the present scenario which is going to lead to World War3.

So stop blaming them. All has their share. But simply a man doesnt believe a God doenst mean he is a man with no moral concept. People are killing in the name of God as well and will continue to do so.

The real thing is in tolerance towards others. Just tolerate people who have their own views.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I will study the report to which you linked. However even though the entire population was not sampled, a large enough base should be sampled to get a good statistical basis for the entire population. In short, if you sample 10,000 random people, you would get some idea of the statistics for the entire population. If you sample 100,000 random people, you get a better idea. Anyway your numbers should add up; otherwise, your sampling and data collection method is flawed. For example if your results show that 48% of your sample is female, and 47% of your sample is male, then there is a problem because your total of your sample is 95%. Where is the other 5% (maybe still making up their minds - bad joke - I know). However I think you see the gist of my contention, Gregory Paul's numbers are not really adding up. If the figures I computed were 95% or more of the population, then I would not question his figures. Figures ranging from 29% to 65% leave too much unaccounted.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse

Alright I have to stop assuming but I had to enter the conversation somewhere.


Of course, I come from a Christian land so have Christian values... but I've since learned the 10 commandments are directly copied from the Egyptian Book of the Dead.
I also wonder if most beings would inherently know right from wrong. I mean, it's only logical that if you steal something someone has to work to replace it. And if you steal a guy's girl you've a likelihood of being punched in the face.

One thing infinity has given me is I don't like to kill bugs any more if I can avoid it. So now.. I'm infinitely religious. I wonder what a fundamentalist would be like? They'd go around knocking on doors showing pictures of tetrahedrons and phi ratios, I guess.


BTW, many atheists do the same thing as many religious people do. They try to claim their belief is superior hence it is better to follow their belief. That is the purpose of the OP isn't it? How is that any different from the religious fanatics?

I agree, it's any type of fanatic that gets me... people on a tirade to change others. Yes, I see your point on the OP... And perhaps finally your reason for bringing atheists down a peg in this thread. Good lookin' out.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
And of course this is what an atheist would like for you to believe, the choice is yours, choose wisely.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I'm literally sick of atheism and religion.

They are they whiny %#$%# at the wonderful party.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by gandhi]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jagdflieger
If the figures I computed were 95% or more of the population, then I would not question his figures. Figures ranging from 29% to 65% leave too much unaccounted.


They're nowhere close to that percentage. In fact, they are remarkably low. But with any study we're forced to work with as much data as we can collect.

I work in a scientific job in which I test oil which has been used in machinery in order to ascertain any mechanical issues. It works like a blood test. Although I most likely sample less than one percent of any given type of make/model of machinery, I can get a picture of how the remaining 99% can be expected to operate and the manufacturers themselves find this data beyond useful despite the limited sample set.

So we can't readily discount the value of the data based on its limited nature. The data summary I linked to gets into some detailed specifics as to how it was collected and so on. The other link apparently provides a method in which to sort the data yourself. It would be interesting if someone else arrived at different findings.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eagleheart56
And of course this is what an atheist would like for you to believe, the choice is yours, choose wisely.


Are you suggesting that the two separate studies I linked to, and another that some other posted provided, are all agenda-driven by atheists? If so, please provide a source to back your claim.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Oh, yeah. I assume you cited the large number of Marxist (communist) countries that deny and ban religions and therefore, according to your thesis, believe in peaceful advancement of their agenda. You did, right? How many countries wa that?



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Oh, yeah. I assume you cited the large number of Marxist (communist) countries that deny and ban religions and therefore, according to your thesis, believe in peaceful advancement of their agenda. You did, right? How many countries wa that?


I'd suggest you check the links I provided for the Global Peace Index in the OP which includes all nations. The other study only uses a limited number of countries but more data points.

We've already gone over the "atheist regime" argument several times in this thread. Check the studies before arguing this point please.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Christianity and most other religions are for brain washed retards.
I like the way a Christian can go on a killing spree then confess to god then he gets to go to heaven, yet all none believers go to hell.
Then you get all the retards in the USA(Borrack Obama included) who think america is gods own country...
Its stuff like this which make normal logical people not believe in this crap, not forgetting the fact religions hold back technological and scientific advancement, to see evidence of this you just have to look at the fact how people thought the world was flat because the religious leaders told them so back in the day.
There is also the topic of Ancient astronauts and the teachings and storys in the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita which seriously makes people consider the FACT religions are for weak minded religous zealots.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Here is your fallacy....PEOPLE are not MACHINES...

You can't equate your job which is to ascertain from a percentage of oil what is wrong with the rest of the MACHINERY, with a poll on a certain percentage of PEOPLE.

This is one of the reasons why I don't believe most polls, because they ASSUME that they know how 99% of the population thinks from questions made to 1% of the population or less...

BTW, I put in caps words not to scream at people, but in this case is rather to show the difference between PEOPLE and MACHINES. Apologies if anyone takes it as screaming, which is not my intention.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
This is one of the reasons why I don't believe most polls, because they ASSUME that they know how 99% of the population thinks from questions made to 1% of the population or less...


Well, you are free to dismiss any scientific findings you wish to based on a limited set of data. But no scientific study includes sampling and testing of each and every person, thing or data point. None. However, with a significant number of people, things or data points one can easily spot trends that apply across the board. This is why I have included two separate studies, using different data sets - and another posted a third study - and all three arrived at similar conclusions. The likelihood that sampling all 6.8 billion people on the planet would render a different outcome is unlikely.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 




I work in a scientific job in which I test oil which has been used in machinery in order to ascertain any mechanical issues. It works like a blood test. Although I most likely sample less than one percent of any given type of make/model of machinery, I can get a picture of how the remaining 99% can be expected to operate and the manufacturers themselves find this data beyond useful despite the limited sample set.


Indeed, yours truly used to develop firmware for mechanalysis (vibration analyzers, data collectors, and balancers). I little familiar with your field. However, in your field a small sample set (1%) is sufficient to get a good idea of how the remaining 99% will behave. Presumably the make/model mechanics of a given machine is the same for all machines of the same make/model. In short if you collect data for 25 engines of V8 Model 247J (made up name), then you have a good idea of how the other 250,000 engines of the V8 Model 247J will operate. However your data does not apply the the V6 Model 263K, it is a different machine. When you deal in extreme variations (such as people), you need to collect a bigger sample set. Also if you were to report the following (based on your sampling):

10% engines will fail within 10,000 miles
10% engines will fail between 10,000 and 25,000 miles
10% engines will fail between 25,000 and 50,000 miles
10% engines will fail between 50,000 and 100,000 miles
10% engines will fail between 100,000 and 250,000 miles
10% engines will "last forever"
(60% engines accounted for)

Then you better be prepared for someone to ask what about the other 40% of the engines. My point is that even though your sample may be relatively small you still have to account for the entire population.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
.......
The likelihood that sampling all 6.8 billion people on the planet would render a different outcome is unlikely.


That is wrong, first of all you are assuming that people don't change their minds, second of all you are assuming that a small percentage of people can account for the majority, which they don't.

BTW, I know very well the scientific method as I have had to use it very frequently, and it works fairly well on non-animate objects, but they do a bad job with people. Polls make assumptions which are wrong.

Polls generalize people into groups even when people do not belong to those groups, and you cannot know what 99% of the people think by knowing what 1% or less of the people think, no matter how many polls you make on 1% of the people...

This sort of thinking underestimates individualism, and yes I know how costly and how long it would take to question everyone, but this sort of thinking lumps people into large groups without really knowing ANYTHING about most of the people being lumped into that group, or groups.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by devilishlyangelic23
i find these studies interesting. the atheists that i've come across have been some of the rudest, intolerant, ignorant people i've met. not to say that all atheists are like that, obviously they arent. but for every 1 peaceful atheist i've met there are at least 10 that are far from peaceful. they're just full of hatred. maybe its the part of the world i live in?


Just curious - - how does someone come across an Atheist?

Was there a discussion going on about religion or something - - they were then invited to join?

In my experience - Atheists/Pagans/Agnostics - - - rarely bring up the subject of their belief.


The way you encounter an atheist is to find someone who is loudly and angrily bashing Christianity and sit there a minute and he will call you stupid and declare that he is an atheist



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jagdflieger
When you deal in extreme variations (such as people), you need to collect a bigger sample set.


Well, maybe, maybe not. If we continue the engine analogy, even if a given make/model is mechanically similar and somewhat predictable they can be operated with a wide degree of variance which can alter predictability. Yet, the findings of the limited data set can still be useful across the board. With people tested according to their country of residence we can assume a reasonable amount of culturally homogenous grouping which should assure a degree of predictability and uniformity.

However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the limited testing may affect outcome. We still have the GPI which tested many more countries but with perhaps less specific polling questions for the people which arrived at similar conclusions for their findings. Another poster referenced a USA-only similar study by state which arrived at similar findings. I, and the guy in one of the videos, freely admit that society is extremely complex and arriving at a certainty of the conclusions of these studies would be nearly impossible to ascertain with such a limited data set, but in each of these types of studies we see similar results. The data collected in all of these studies seems to be pointing in the direction of what is implied in the title of this post.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join