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

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Communism is based on non-religion since they did not want competition with their own propaganda agendas, and looking at Russia and China we can’t say they did very well in an atheist environment.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


As I've stated and the second video admits to, society is too complex to collect all the datapoints necessary to reach a definitive conclusion. But each of the studies using different datapoints all arrive at similar conclusions. This indicates that there is likely something to the conclusions.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
reply to post by traditionaldrummer

 

Communism is based on non-religion since they did not want competition with their own propaganda agendas, and looking at Russia and China we can’t say they did very well in an atheist environment.

Plenty of other countries that are predominantly atheist do extremely well. The difference between them and Russia and China is the lack of a totalitarian and statist agenda.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

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.

I am not presently worried or concerned about the small sample set (it may be statistically valid if conducted properly), but what I am talking about is that your samples should show the entire population, As my example above, only 60% of the population shows up in the report, what about the other 40%. If one column shows 4% of the population and the second column shows 31% of the population, I want some information concerning the other 65% of the population. Just as in my example above, if you were to hand in a report like my example to a manufacturer of engines, would you blame him for asking what about the other 40% of the engines?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by PowerSlave
Athesists always seem to come off as elitist or proclaim themselves as intellectually superior and of a stronger mind. Spewing off dribble that suggests religious people are weak minded.

I'm fine with Atheists. But I don't think I have ever met one in person. At least not one that introduced them self to me and said: "by the way I'm an Atheist".

Please - tell me how you meet all these intelligent superior Atheists.

No need to go out and meet anyone, there is enough self proclaimed atheists on the internet. This site for instance has several, just look at the history of threads debating this very topic.

Just about every thread will include at least one post from someone stating how weak people are who believe in god/religion.

Outside of the internet I often get into discussions with different people about many things including religion, evolution, politics etc.. Most people will share their particular beliefs when involved in a discussion.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
I am not presently worried or concerned about the small sample set (it may be statistically valid if conducted properly), but what I am talking about is that your samples should show the entire population,

Presumably, but one doesn't necessarily require the entire population if all that is needed for a correlation is a few particular columns. To continue the engine analogy, I don't necessarily need the metal readings on bearing metals to discover what's happening with the pistons. I can reasonably exclude a significant chunk of the data population to reach significant findings.

Originally posted by m khan

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

I grew up Christian. So don't bother giving me the almighty Christian "speech".

Through time - research - and study - - - it is by my own choice and acquired knowledge - - I do not support or believe in Christianity or the basis of it.

I can 100% declare - I have never been verbally abused by a non-Christian. The reverse is a different story.

From what i have found is atheists are more likely to be the evil in society.

Enough said. Though 90% of humans are murderers.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Plenty of other countries that are predominantly atheist do extremely well. The difference between them and Russia and China is the lack of a totalitarian and statist agenda.

So there is a lot more to it than just religion. I would suggest that all of it is just human nature and the utopias and hells are all a part of our basic nature. I blame nothing on religion in general. The vast majority of religious people in the world are peaceful, generous and forgiving. When you see religion used in a negative way it is ALWAYS done for very non-religious reasons but with religion as the motivator of the ignorant.

Many countries you may talk about are the way they are not because of atheist ideas, but long cultures that most likely have religious bases to those cultures even though people today might align with atheistic views. Also many of these countries do not have a large population and might be equal to that of a large city in other countries so it is hard to use them as a example in comparison.


[edit on 31-5-2010 by Xtrozero]

I feel that the 2012 "end of time" scenarios are nothing more than growing pains. We, born souls, are here to observe the coming collapse of the governments and economies.
Lets face it. The economies and governments are designed to only enrich few in the mass of humanity.

New's reports every day for a lifetime and even more often today report tragedies unknown in history. Something is cracking this walnut of a heart that we share in our "human" world.

Fragile life is something that we share in common with ALL civilizations. Yet we allow our governments to start neverending wars with any nation it chooses.

We are in an age that we can literally cast a vote on an issue and it can instantaneously register on an issue.


Why hasn't this "freedom" been extended to US...us? We can vote to ...?

What we should see as an outcome of the "

the argument in this thread is counter productive. I suggest people start focussing on talking politely if you really are in mood to hear others. If you are here only to preach and offend others this thread is sowing hatred among people.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by m khan

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

I grew up Christian. So don't bother giving me the almighty Christian "speech".

Through time - research - and study - - - it is by my own choice and acquired knowledge - - I do not support or believe in Christianity or the basis of it.

I can 100% declare - I have never been verbally abused by a non-Christian. The reverse is a different story.

You know this is just such a hard thing to put your finger on. When a person does a very bad thing I find it hard to say that the fundamentals of their religion are the driving force. People have a tendency to do things for personal agendas more than anything else.

I also know that atheist have strong beliefs too that run across all the moderate and extreme view points. Hell you can get beat up because you like a different sport team than another person, and one look at our jails shows a rather lack of religious motivation in their past actions.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Presumably, but one doesn't necessarily require the entire population if all that is needed for a correlation is a few particular columns. To continue the engine analogy, I don't necessarily need the metal readings on bearing metals to discover what's happening with the pistons. I can reasonably exclude a significant chunk of the data population to reach significant findings.

I also worked in the aircraft industry and am familiar with the concept of using small data sets (lots of flight data is collected from the first prototype - a data set of one example and its assumed that the characteristics discovered will apply to all aircraft of that type). However if my company would turn in the following report to the Air Force:

Based on our data sampling:
10% weapons will hit the aim point within 1 meter.
10% weapons will hit between 1 meter and 3 meters of aim point
30% weapons will hit between 3 meters and 10 meters of aim point.
10% weapons will miss aim point due to mid air detonation.
60% Total

The Air Force would then say: "We don't give a rat's tutu on how you collected the data or how big or small your data set is, we want to know what is going to happen to the other 40% of the weapons". That is what I am saying, I don't give a rat's tutu on how big or how small you data set is or how you collected the data. Your data does not account for the entire population (29% for USA to 65% Japan), I want to know something about the beliefs of the unaccounted population,

Originally posted by Xtrozero

You know this is just such a hard thing to put your finger on. When a person does a very bad thing I find it hard to say that the fundamentals of their religion are the driving force. People have a tendency to do things for personal agendas more than anything else.

I also know that atheist have strong beliefs too that run across all the moderate and extreme view points. Hell you can get beat up because you like a different sport team than another person, and one look at our jails shows a rather lack of religious motivation in their past actions.

I like your posts by the way.

Yes people of any belief tend to strongly defend them. However - those more accepted by a society tend to be more openly vocal with an entitlement attitude IMO.

It is my opinion - most Atheists are not going to openly start a discussion - - - but are primarily put in the defense mode.

I would not consider myself Atheist per se - - but know the scenario I described.

I believe in a Creator - - not a person - - but an Energy Consciousness/Intelligence. Everything that exists is a creation of thought energy. To consider that every thought is an action - - makes each individual creation/soul 100% responsible for what they themself creates.
There is no "go to guy" to blame or get redemption by forgiveness.

Needless to say when asked my religion - - I simply answer "I am a child of the Creator" - - and leave it at that (or try to leave it at that).

Another "[SNIP]" thread by an atheist. Do an ATS-search and you`ll find dozens of these.

Its staggering how insecure these folks are. I guess the Universe is a huge place when one believes its empty and creatorless

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 5/31/2010 by TheRedneck]

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

As I've stated and the second video admits to, society is too complex to collect all the datapoints necessary to reach a definitive conclusion. But each of the studies using different datapoints all arrive at similar conclusions. This indicates that there is likely something to the conclusions.

People are not datapoints, people are individuals with different beliefs, and different ideas. Just because people live in a certain area doesn't make most of them think a certain way. For example, I know people in Wyoming who are Socialists, and are even against the Second Amendment, or the right to bear arms.

Polls can, and have been manipulated, and people have been indoctrinated into believing the lie that we can ascertain what the majority of people think by just knowing what a small percentage thinks.

People have been slowly degraded into numbers, and datapoints, but we are complex spiritual, and sentient beings who can change our minds at any time and for almost any reason.



[edit on 31-5-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

People are not datapoints, people are individuals with different beliefs, and different ideas. Just because people live in a certain area doesn't make most of them think a certain way

Well then, how do we find out accurate information about sociological issues without polling and testing people? How do we account for the changing of minds you've referred to without testing and polling people in timely intervals? Being that direct polling of people is NOT the only methods used in these studies how then do you account for the similarities in findings between the studies.

Originally posted by jagdflieger

The Air Force would then say: "We don't give a rat's tutu on how you collected the data or how big or small your data set is, we want to know what is going to happen to the other 40% of the weapons". That is what I am saying

Well that's a fair point. I suspect the author of the report may not have found such data to be as critical as where the remaining missiles might land. Though should it be important the earlier link I had provided apparently has all the data which could be compiled at will. The data should be there although it may not appear in the report.

I used to consider myself an atheist until I realized that it's just a label that comes with a lot of social stigma. The reason I considered myself an atheist is because I definitely would not consider myself religious. I would not go to church and I would not "pray". I don't value the ideals of organized religion because it seems to me it's more about power and control than it is about peace. I refuse to accept the ideology that I need constant guidance from a "God", when I know I have it in me already to know right from wrong. And knowing I have it in me already to know right from wrong is not thinking I'm on the same level as "God" or being "all-knowing". I think that knowing right from wrong is something that we are innately born with; something "God" gave us. But society decided to distort our views of ourselves so that we don't believe ourselves to be conscious enough to make decisions for ourselves, because that way we're easier to control. And when you believe you constantly do things that are wrong, it's easy to believe you need guidance. Interesting coincidence that it's the bible and organized religion that makes people believe that they're constantly doing things wrong ("sinning"). So if you refuse to go by what the bible and religion tries to tell you, then you refuse to believe that you are "sinning". If religious people believe in the bible and what they are preached, then they believe that they are sinning, constantly and daily.


It must be Hell to think so lowly of yourself that you don't know right from wrong to the point where you need serious "guidance" daily, only to find that you do nothing but continue to "sin" anyway.

An atheist would believe that they're not sinning in the first place. As long as an atheist does what they believe in their heart is right, what's the point in them asking for "guidance" that will make them suddenly believe that they're doing wrong?

I am personally offended by the atheism = communism comments. I fully believe that a society based on the premise that you do NOT need guidance to know right from wrong would probably be a much happier and healthier society than one that is forced to believe they do wrong daily. I also believe that communism is now used for the sole purpose of creating hate towards "atheists".

Originally posted by Annee

It is my opinion - most Atheists are not going to openly start a discussion - - - but are primarily put in the defense mode.


I believe in a Creator - - not a person - - but an Energy Consciousness/Intelligence. Everything that exists is a creation of thought energy. To consider that every thought is an action - - makes each individual creation/soul 100% responsible for what they themself creates.
There is no "go to guy" to blame or get redemption by forgiveness.

Needless to say when asked my religion - - I simply answer "I am a child of the Creator" - - and leave it at that (or try to leave it at that).

I think we see this mostly when atheists wear it like a shield in a somewhat aggressive defensive attitude. Tolerance goes both ways and I have little time for either side when they lack it. Moderation and tolerance is the key to a happy life and whatever is the motivator that drives people away from this I dislike.

One question though, I find your words rather interesting when self describing your beliefs and so why not just say you are religious and keep it simple.