Official Religious Debate Thread

[Veritas]

As well, this article is biased by grouping all people who claim to be religious through rituals.

Do you have a better method of empirically determining who is religious?

[Smegma]

As well, this article is biased by grouping all people who claim to be religious through rituals.

Do you have a better method of empirically determining who is religious?

At least a general questionnaire to attain religious views as to how devoted or understanding they are of their God.

Does much better than "hey, you go to church?" As well, people who don't go to religious rituals aren't necessarily not religious.

[Veritas]

As well, this article is biased by grouping all people who claim to be religious through rituals.

Do you have a better method of empirically determining who is religious?

At least a general questionnaire to attain religious views as to how devoted or understanding they are of their God.

Does much better than "hey, you go to church?" As well, people who don't go to religious rituals aren't necessarily not religious.

While that would be a better metric, I'd imagine the number of people who don't attend a service and are religious would offset those who attend a server and aren't religious. The correlation is strong enough to be a valid point.

[VijchtiDoodah]

http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html
Just an interesting little finding.

I saw this article today at digg. Good stuff.

No religion, no zealots.

Did you even read the article? As well, this article is biased by grouping all people who claim to be religious through rituals.

Did you even read the article? The writer clearly has two sets of data; one has to do with atheism specifically, which has nothing to do with religious rituals. Considering that the point of the article was to refute the idea that secularization leads to violence, this is not biased at all.

Furthermore, if you look at the actual questionnaire used for the data, you'll find that the questions are tailored to the majority religion in the society being tested. Thus, for the question dealing specifically with the frequency of attending religious ceremonies (V186), this example is given as an appropriate format for questions in Islamic societies: "(NOTE: In Islamic societies, ask how frequently the respondent prays!)" and I would assume that similar substitutions are made for other religions. Even if not, the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) all have some form of religious service and the question is left up to the subject to interpret as they see fit. For the few countries with widespread indigenous beliefs in which traditional services or prayer may not accurately reflect religious belief, only Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Cameroon were included in the survey and in those countries indigenous beliefs are still a minority.

[Smegma]

http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html
Just an interesting little finding.

I saw this article today at digg. Good stuff.

No religion, no zealots.

Did you even read the article? As well, this article is biased by grouping all people who claim to be religious through rituals.

Did you even read the article? The writer clearly has two sets of data; one has to do with atheism specifically, which has nothing to do with religious rituals. Considering that the point of the article was to refute the idea that secularization leads to violence, this is not biased at all.

Furthermore, if you look at the actual questionnaire used for the data, you'll find that the questions are tailored to the majority religion in the society being tested. Thus, for the question dealing specifically with the frequency of attending religious ceremonies (V186), this example is given as an appropriate format for questions in Islamic societies: "(NOTE: In Islamic societies, ask how frequently the respondent prays!)" and I would assume that similar substitutions are made for other religions. Even if not, the world's major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism) all have some form of religious service and the question is left up to the subject to interpret as they see fit. For the few countries with widespread indigenous beliefs in which traditional services or prayer may not accurately reflect religious belief, only Tanzania, Zimbabwe, and Cameroon were included in the survey and in those countries indigenous beliefs are still a minority.

Are the article was simply to state "Atheist countries are, in fact more peaceful" by means of their own definitions. Once again, religious rituals =/= religious people, at least it is not fair to the people who have a deeper understanding than attendance. The data should not specifically hinge on Religious Ceremonies attended.

[VijchtiDoodah]

The data should not specifically hinge on Religious Ceremonies attended.

I fail to see how you have a problem with using attendance or prayer to objectively, albeit indirectly, measure the level to which a person's life is defined by their religion. Why don't you propose an alternative question instead?

[Smegma]

The data should not specifically hinge on Religious Ceremonies attended.

I fail to see how you have a problem with using attendance or prayer to objectively, albeit indirectly, measure the level to which a person's life is defined by their religion. Why don't you propose an alternative question instead?

Its quite hard to obtain an objective answer on this notion, however, most of the questions purposed would hardly even interest a religious person (as per my definition). Anyone can pray, anyone can go to church, anyone can partake in a ritual (even atheists).

I do not need to offer an alternative if I find problem with their methods.

[Veritas]

The data should not specifically hinge on Religious Ceremonies attended.

I fail to see how you have a problem with using attendance or prayer to objectively, albeit indirectly, measure the level to which a person's life is defined by their religion. Why don't you propose an alternative question instead?

Its quite hard to obtain an objective answer on this notion, however, most of the questions purposed would hardly even interest a religious person (as per my definition). Anyone can pray, anyone can go to church, anyone can partake in a ritual (even atheists).

I do not need to offer an alternative if I find problem with their methods.

The fact that anyone can do it does not mean they do so in a statistically significant manner. As Vijchti said, I find it hard to see how attendance and prayer is not a good indication of religion in a society.

[Smegma]

The fact that anyone can do it does not mean they do so in a statistically significant manner. As Vijchti said, I find it hard to see how attendance and prayer is not a good indication of religion in a society.

Because that standard represents a vague identification with religion (at its heart). I probably only have found a handful of people I've met that are religious, but many I know go to church.

[Veritas]

The fact that anyone can do it does not mean they do so in a statistically significant manner. As Vijchti said, I find it hard to see how attendance and prayer is not a good indication of religion in a society.

Because that standard represents a vague identification with religion (at its heart). I probably only have found a handful of people I've met that are religious, but many I know go to church.

You've met a handful of people that are religious by your standard. The many that go to church indicate a religious affiliation, general affinity with the presented ideas and therefore are religious on some level. The fact that it doesn't conform to whatever your standard is doesn't mean the data is meaningless.

[Smegma]

You've met a handful of people that are religious by your standard. The many that go to church indicate a religious affiliation, general affinity with the presented ideas and therefore are religious on some level. The fact that it doesn't conform to whatever your standard is doesn't mean the data is meaningless.

I have above posted that I agreed with their conclusion in accordance with their definitions. I just disagree with their definition. As well, I do not wish to have those view religious people by this definition and it may be misconstrued if I did not bring this up (it still may be).

[VijchtiDoodah]

Your problem is the assumption that church attendance or prayer are necessarily the direct measure of religion in this study -- they are only indicators within a general population and are therefore an indirect measure, and one that appears to be much more accurate than you think.

[Smegma]

I think however, in accordance to my definition, is vastly inaccurate. My stance still remains.

[VijchtiDoodah]

Right. What is your definition of devotion to religion, then?

[Veritas]

You've met a handful of people that are religious by your standard. The many that go to church indicate a religious affiliation, general affinity with the presented ideas and therefore are religious on some level. The fact that it doesn't conform to whatever your standard is doesn't mean the data is meaningless.

I have above posted that I agreed with their conclusion in accordance with their definitions.

I must've missed that, my bad.

[Smegma]

Right. What is your definition of devotion to religion, then?

It would be quite difficult to define that, though I have an inkling at the moment that it would include some mystic connection. They would not need to subscribe to any views of any mystic sect, though display some knowledge of this type of connection. Though, I would hardly call attending a religious ritual devotion, sure I suppose it can be in the right circumstances, however the act itself does not conclude this.

[VijchtiDoodah]

You have trouble defining what religious devotion is, yet you're absolutely certain it isn't worship, organized or otherwise. A funny thing since some of the central traditions (or commandments) of at least three of the largest world religions include worship, and if it's a part of the religion -- necessary or not -- it's a likely indicator of religious devotion.

What you seem to be describing with such difficulty is, in fact, simple mysticism: communion with the spirits through, among other practices, prayer and meditation. Religion, however, is a coherent system of practices and beliefs of which mysticism is only one part of the whole. Worship, in many religions, accounts for another portion of that whole.

As far as personal definitions go, you may continue to imagine definitions to whatever words you like, but there is a point at which they're simply incorrect, Smegma, and you're better off using words whose definitions more closely match the concept you're describing. In which case, you're free to argue that mysticism is a more important aspect of religion than prayer or worship, but not that religion is mysticism or some other combination of practices that is contrary to what religion is commonly understood to be.

[Smegma]

Common definition doesn't make it so. I do not argue that rituals can be practiced by the religion, but merely that religious practices do not show devotion. I did not say that to be religious you must be a mystic. However, you must show more than just action. At the very least, intention must be considered.

Sure it can indicate some possible religious activity, though as I said, it is still too vague. No doubt the practices are PART of the religion, I have never disagreed to this.

[VijchtiDoodah]

What is a definition if it is not a common one? If you invent your own definitions, then the language you're speaking is not the same as ours. In the end you're uttering unnecessarily confusing nonsense, obfuscating what you're saying,and therefore sabotaging your own attempts to be understood.

This is like defining the color red to be something more like violet and then traipsing around under the illusion that your definition is truth, if only a personal one, and meanwhile wondering why people are so confused about your use of the word. "But I define red to be something other than the accepted definition of red," you say, to which the rest of us respond, "No, you've only renamed violet." Except in this case you're at a loss to explain what, exactly, your definition is.

Regardless of what your misunderstanding is or what your personal definition of religion is, if you prefer to look at it that way, even if religious practices such as prayer or worship do not directly indicate religious devotion, the study assumes that they are still indirect indicators by virtue of the fact that a population that is more devoted to its many faiths often prays or worships at a higher rate than a population that is less devoted. This is true even if prayer or worship have nothing to do with devotion -- it is enough that there is a correlation between the two. That appears to be your real problem with the so-called "definition" that the study uses.

[{LAW} Gamer_2k4]

Aren't you sciency types always saying that correlation != causation? The amount of ice cream sold is directly proportional to drowning deaths, for example, but that doesn't mean one causes the other.

And I have to stand by Smegma with his statement that church attendance isn't the same thing as being religious.  I know at least one person specifically who isn't a Christian, and goes to church only for the social aspect of it, and I know that there are many more people like her.  I also know for a fact that a vast amount of people believe that some higher power exists (read: are not atheists), but aren't anywhere close to being religious.  Finally, I know that if people of almost any major religion always followed the tenets of that religion, the world would be a lot more peaceful place.

You can say a lot of things by finding correlations, but a good amount of those things are completely false.