"Growing up godless"--America's secular families raising kids are doing "quite well"

/end discussion. Go buy a recent and reputed book on evolution. It is very random, just like life is very random. You blow at pretending to be an intellect...

 

This might be the biggest farce I've ever read on here.

Just because someone says they believe in a god, does not mean they are religious at all. It does not mean they've ever been to a church in their life. But because they say they believe in a god, you lump them in with people who attend church every Sunday?....That is hilarious. It's also very telling of how disingenuous you are. This, more so than your other threads, shows just how pathetically bias you are and you will bend ANYTHING to suit your agenda.

I don't care if someone says they believe in a god, that means nothing as far as how they live their lives. Saying you believe in god, but never going to church and never actually taking religion seriously means you are living your life exactly as an atheist does except you, when asked, make the statement 'yes i believe there's a god'.

How about you compare those who regularly attend church vs those who are atheist....your results will be such that you wouldn't dare post a thread with the results.

Absolutely laughable that you try and pass this off as 'evidence' that atheism is somehow the moral high ground.

Learn how to interpret data before you make a thread like this, it helps your credibility.

 

If someone believes in a "god" that renders them a believer.

 

So?

That had nothing to do with my post....did you think it did?

 

They do in Japan.

 

yep, even if that God is the Sun God rather then the newer of mans creations, they Son God

.

 

In less secular times automatic weapons with 31 bullet clips weren't readily available. Europe is far more secular than the USA and they don't have as near as many mass shootings as the USA does.

 

Just thought I'd add this in relation to the OP. Seems that there is a time in a child's life that if they are heavily influenced with religion they'll tend to stay religious, to some extent their whole life, whereas if a child is not exposed to religion they'll likely never turn religious.

As thus I never had to teach my children to be atheists. Religious talk was never in my home so when my children were older and their friends and others would talk about religion it made no sense to them. One mother called me up in a rather frantic tone of voice. Apparently my daughter (who was spending time at her friend's house) had asked who Jesus, or god, was and was given the answer about god providing the food on your table, the clothes on your back, and the roof over your head. My daughter, about 7 at the time replied,"Oh, you mean my dad".

 

I don't fit. I was religious once, but now I'm not.

 

Our world would be a utopia if people that claimed to be of some religious faith actually practiced what they are taught to behave in their daily lives. People today only claim the title of their religions as if this protects them from their immoral behavior.

 

Belief is an example of being religious. If you believe in a god you are religious by default.

 

Once again, that has nothing to do with my post.

This thread was started with terribly manipulated data and you seem to support that so it suits your agenda.

 

You said, at post # 152;

I replied with;

And clarified by explaining to you

How is what I said not relevant to your argument?

Perhaps I should state it even more simply for you;

You said

I am saying: If someone says they believe in a god that DOES make them religious. The frequency, scale and type of ceremony, ritual and other nonsense that they participate in because of this belief does not change this fact. There are levels of fanaticism and devotion, but not of being religious. You either are or are not.

Point out the manipulation I have made.

 

If someone claims to believe in a GOD but their behavior does not follow the teachings of their faith is obvious that they are liars. True religious people take their faith teachings very seriously and live their lives according to what their faith teaches them to behave.

 

You would not know the name of GOD if religions did not name GOD.

 

If you believe in alien beings, is that a religion?

 

You are cherry picking a couple statements from my post. They, by themselves, are not the argument I was making.

You haven't, it was the article and the thread creator. I simply pointed out that you seem to be going along with the manipulation.

The manipulation is lumping together people who attend church regularly and are active in their religion and those that simply say they believe there is a god.

These two groups of people could not be more different. In fact, the 2nd group lives their lives exactly as an atheist would save for the response to that one simple question.

You're trying to delve into an argument about what it means to be religious and that is not what my post was about which is why I've claimed that your responses have nothing to do with my post.

 

Wrong. You can be religious and not live up to your expectations, or the expectations of the 'authorities' of your religion, but you're still religious, regardless.

Now you've changed your position from "religious people" to "true religious people" - a subjective, useless (and most importantly) irrelevant description to what I am addressing.

Belief in a god is an act of religiousity. Doesnt matter if you're a poor believer; one that lacks faith, has self doubt, is lazy etc - you are still a believer and that makes you religious.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean religious? If you believe these aliens are supernatural, yes.

 

How does anything you have said change my argument?

How is that manipulation? I have defined religion. All these people fall under the definition of religious. You have not refuted this fact, merely whined about it and called manipulation. Sorry, that's childish, not persuasive. All you have done is attempt to butcher the word in an attempt to simply say 'some people are more religious than others.'

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]
IPA Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

adjective
1.
of, relating to, or concerned with religion:
a religious holiday.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religious

All your statement is is a poor attempt to claim people who are less DEVOUT than you are not religious, which is a subjective and flawed argument. If the standard of what constitutes "religious" was determined by your measure of piety, it would lose all practical sense and meaning. In English, what your argument really is amounts to "some people are MORE religious than others." Which is correct. To say "X people are not religious because I dont think they are faithful enough" misunderstands the meaning of the word.

 

People name God. Not religion. Religion is the word we use to describe the phenomenon of people inventing the name in the first place (and all the other nonsense that is religion)

 

Not so easy... there are educated people who were responsible for atrociuous crimes against humanity, look at stalin, adolf hitler, mao tse tung... but among petty criminals, probably the uneducated ones are more prone to commit crime. Let's just admit that educated criminals tend to be much smarter and do things on a much larger scale.

 

Are you absolutely blind to what is going on around you???

No, perhaps not.

It's the boiled frog syndrome.

It happens so gradually you can't even recognize you are in the soup of your own making and you think everything is fine.

Wake up and take a whiff.

That aroma you smell comes as a result of an erosion of our morals and ethical woof and warp.

And I'd bet you scratch your head and wonder why there are so many random acts of violence in America, why parents can no longer allow their kids to walk even a few blocks to school alone anymore and why Islam is gaining such ground in the West.

What folly.

And no one is laughing.

 

Very good and well written article.

 

That doesn't pass the smell test.

 

This has nothing to do with definitions. This is about data analysis and what is valid and what isn't, proper research vs flawed research.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying you can't draw conclusions based on the way the people have been split up, it's just poor research and poor data analysis.

The claim in the article is that Group A and Group B are distinct in how they live their lives on a day to day basis and the conclusions are drawn from that assumption. This assumption is blatantly false which renders the conclusions worthless. This is some incredibly basic fundamental statistical principles that TONS of people fail to see. I see it ALL the time and this thread is a classic example of it.