Sponsor |  emortis9 | Apr 6, 12:02am | well...the graphs are misleading at best.
Here is the research that went into the graphs.
youthandreligion.org/research/ [youthandreligion.org/research/]
hmmmm....who is funding this research?
lillyendowment.org [lillyendowment.org]
and the infamous John Templeton Foundation.
templeton.org [templeton.org]
(I was looking for a video of Ann Druyan talking about the Templeton Foundation and couldn't find it. but I found this video...completely unrelated, but a great video)
youtube.com/watch [youtube.com/watch]
Regardless...these are obviously biased organizations..
So this wasn't exactly science...as they claim it was...as much as one(shifty) poll done by an agenda driven research team.
Many more studies would have to be administered by non-bias institutions before I would even consider these results to be "scientific".
Besides...I think they used a mixed-mode sampling design(the people were called for an interview and then could be interviewed if they showed up to the in person interview)...which completely invalidates the findings anyways.
Hogwash I say!!!! |
|
|  |  438731 | Apr 6, 3:30am | They seem to have missed a few:
- Number of wife beatings vs importance of religion
- Number of choir boys fucked vs importance of religion
- Number of bigoted opinions vs importance of religion
And the pre-supposition that drugs and alcohol are bad really annoys me. It's like a Muslim survey claiming the moral high-ground because of the correlation between Islamic indoctrination and wearing a burqua. Pure nonsense to the un-indoctrinated, but complete sense to those infected with that particular religion. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | jengis | Apr 6, 5:48am | 9- What about during sex?
Why do women keep aking him questions? |
|
| 
Sponsor | | northpaw | Apr 6, 8:43am | The article from the first post does cite its source as the UNC Chapel Hill study, and it even links to a pdf of the study at the bottom of the page (footnote 9). That study, in turn, identifies the 1996 Monitoring the Future survey done by the University of Michigan as the source of its data.
If you want to level legitimate criticism at these numbers or graphs, you should explain what you think is the disconnect between real teen behavior and the correlation claimed in this article.
Potential sources of weakness, as I see it:
1) the annual Monitoring the Future survey
- do kids tend to answer surveys like this truthfully? - were the survey questions worded appropriately?
2) the analysis of the MtF survey data performed in the UNC study (regression models are included)
- is the potential bias emortis9 mentioned evident in their analysis? - why did this study choose only 2500 kids to analyze, when its source (MtF survey) polls 50,000?
3) the creation of the graphs from the UNC study's findings
- are the graphs misleading? - was data for the graphs cherry-picked to support an agenda?
As for the suggested correlation, I don't have such a hard time believing, for example, that kids who attend church every week smoke less pot than those who never attend, or that they steal fewer cars, or whatever. I don't think it proves anything about attending church per se - it could just be that churchgoers' parents are much more strict and don't allow their precious snowflakes to go to parties or hang out with deviants, etc. Or it could be that more socially awkward kids tend to go to church more, yet they wouldn't go to parties, cut class, or smoke dope whether they went to church or not. There could be any number of other intervening variables - it's a perfect example of correlation not equaling causation. |
|
| 
Sponsor | | anitab | Apr 6, 9:56am | | 13: *cough* :P |
|
| 
Sponsor | | lesoldham | Apr 7, 7:13am | | The link in post 1 leads to a page that speaks of Richard Dawkins statement that religious upbringing is tantamount to child abuse. The most obvious error from the presentation of the graphs is that NO connection has been made between the behaviors studied and the behaviors of abused children. For all we know abused children, in rebellion against their mistreatment, may be driven to become super moral. However one point was valid. Dawkins has no scientific backing for his statement. |
|
| | | 438731 | Apr 7, 8:31am | | Bullshit Les! The bible is an x-rated book, full of murder, torture and genocide. If you think there is no evidence that such material has an adverse effect on the mind of a young child, then you are more deluded than I thought. And what's worse, children are told that it's all real. Demons, the devil, hellfire, vengeful deities, the lot. It makes me sick that religions get away with this disgusting, evil practice. |
|
|
Sponsor | | emortis9 | Apr 7, 9:57am | "Dawkins has no scientific backing for his statement."
Did Dawkins say he had scientific proof?
I don't recall him saying that... |
|
| 
|  eat | Apr 7, 10:28am | | The author is assuming that Dawkins bases his assertions on scientific evidence. |
|
|
Sponsor | | lesoldham | Apr 7, 11:08am | 18- No Dawkins did not say he had any proof but since Dawkins is preaching logic and scientific method it is natural to expect that he employ these techniques.
17- d4, It has been my experience that young children (under 12 years old) are not exposed to the "x-rated" stories in the Bible. By that age most have been exposed to more violence, murder, torture, and genocide from watching TV than from religious indoctrination.
Nevertheless I couldn't possibly be MORE deluded than you think I am. |
| |
| |
Atheist/Agnostic → Discussion