Do better in what sense?

Is this what you were referring to?

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

 There is this one.

Aarrgh! Didn't recognize the URL from the first link - I didn't click on it....

Trying to do to many things at once...

I'll keep digging. I know that I saw some studies referenced in a couple of books. When I get time, I'll pull them off the shelf and see if I can't find some references. Do you have any other specifics on the study you are looking for?

This raises the question: would this be a good group project? There's no reason to rely on someone else's analysis if we can gather and crunch the numbers ourselves.

 I've cited the one everyone's been citing here several times, mostly for these results:

and

and

I mean... gee... what else do you want?  You're the one always on about how bad abortion is, and there's your correlation.  More religion = more abortion.  Furthermore, there's your general trend that you keep saying doesn't exist.  Furthermore, he goes out of his way to point out that no nation has ever managed to combine religiosity, denial of evolution, and good societal health.  I mean... shit.  Couldn't you just admit there's a pattern?  It wouldn't be the end of the world, Pineapple.

Oh, yeah, and there's this:

I mean, really Alison, what more do you want?  You've got the following:

* No existing high/high low.  (religiosity/denial of evolution, societal dysfunction)

* Several great examples of low/low high.

* Charts with nice statistically relevant trends.

Seriously.  Here it is, in plain English:

And for crying out loud...

You read the whole thing, right?  Yes, the U.S. is singularly dysfunctional and singularly religious among developed countries, but the point is not how fucked up America is.  It's that there is a TREND supported by voluminous data which seems very hard to contradict.  The trend is simple:

So the whole "variables" thing only applies to the studies I post?

Not a lot of societies have a "popular denial of evolution". To my knowledge the only democriaces with "popular" [I take that to mean >50%] denial of evolution, is the U.S and Turkey.

So take out the "denial of evolution part" and you get countries that have strong religiousity and high rates of societal health.

The conclusion is that

That's it. That was the purpose of the study which is different from what you're using it for.

The data was to test THAT, not what you're saying.

In order to show what you're saying, you would have to do way more calculations, and take into account much more variables.

I've already posted that the study said it wasn't testing what you say it concludes.

Yep, Hamby you are so much smarter than dumb little naive Alison. Dumb ol Alison who minored in mathematics [pfft what does THAT have to do with stats anyway?]. What does SHE know? She's just a dipshit Deist

Yeah, asking for "calculations" and "variables" and performing "regressive analysis" are for pussies anyway.

Anyway, what Hamby doesn't realize is poor little inferior Alison actually agrees with the study. That study shows that belief in God/creator is not required for a good society. That's it. That's exactly wat the study says, and that's ALL it says.

It didn't go for correlation/cause which is what you NEED for your view.

 Alice in wonderland indeed.

Kay, I'll just check out his Palenotlogy website, but I can't find his e-mail.

Do you have a copy of the full study?

Try this one:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html

Just because I'm young doesn't mean I'm stupid.

Also quality over quantity, my dear

Sorry... I can't be online 24/7.  Gotta work sometimes, you know.  Bad economy and all.

I read this response a long time ago in detail, and skimmed it just now.  The author raises some good points, but I think he also might be overstating some of what he calls methodological flaws.  I do not have a copy of the original full study, and so I cannot say anything conclusively.  All I can do is point out that even the follow-up's author concedes that his objections do not disprove the conclusions.  They simply call for more precise research.

As I've said before, the argument (my argument, at least) that religion is not just unnecessary, but also bad for society does not hinge on this or any other existing study.  I've tried really hard to explain this to you before.  There are things we know for certain about individual psychology and group psychology.  We know for certain what religion is and what it promotes in individuals and groups.  It doesn't take much to look at these basic factors and reach the obvious conclusion:  Societies that are based on these kinds of beliefs and behaviors will not be as functional as those that don't.

Remember, you are the one who keeps bringing up statistics and demanding numbers, not me.  You asked which study I cited, and I told you.  I pointed you to the conclusions I was referencing.  If it turns out that this study is, in fact, less than strongly indicative of a trend, fine.  I base my argument on well-established principles of human psychology, not on statistics.  Where the statistics appear to support my conclusion, I mention them.

Furthermore, I'm inclined to say that there are more conclusive meta-studies out there.  I'm just having trouble locating them at the moment.  I know it's really important to you, but I'm not a statistician, and demonstrating statistically what I can deduce from the principles of science is not high on my list of things to do.

Chin up, though.  I'm digging for more compelling numbers for you.  Give it time.  I'm working 50 hours a week these days.

No, I'm convinced you're serious.  If convincing you was my top priority at this time, I think I could do it, but I simply don't have the time or the energy to track down every bit of information I pored over to reach the conclusion myself.

For what it's worth, I'm going to talk to a friend of  mine who's a PhD in the philosophy of evolutionary biology.  I'm pretty sure he's done a few research projects that have involved the kind of data you're looking for.  If he has some good resources, I'll pass them along.

I've been thinking more and your reference to "the obvious conclusion" kinda reminded me of Micheal Behe's "obvious conclusion after pouring over the data."

You still have to prove it. And to prove it, you need studies, which is what I asked for.

Your first post contradicts this.

And the possibilty of you changing your mind?

Nothing will ever convince you anyway. Why should we waste our time trying? It's like trying to talk a bigot into accepting that homosexuality is not immoral.

Atheist: "Here's a study."

Alison: "Not good enough!"

Atheist: "Okay. Here's the following logical argument, backed-up by empirical observations in psychology."

Alison: "Not good enough!"

Atheist: "Okay. Here's a few news reports detailing extremely harmful acts that the perpetrators explicitly state they did in the name of their dogma."

Alison: "NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!!"

The pattern's pretty obvious by now. It will never be good enough to convince you. You've somehow 'scientifically deduced' that there is a magical deity (yet you cannot / will not share how you deduced this), and will not accept anything that might suggest that insisting on such a conclusion is an unhealthy thing to do.

You attend a university. Go get the fucking papers yourself.

Why should Hamby (or anyone else) be doing your legwork for you just so we can hear you say, "This isn't good enough!!!@!!@@" one more time?

Alison: Society is a complex process. This study does not take into account enough variables to make a decision based on it.

Other: OMG you are denying the obvious! We don't need data because it's so obvious

Alison: This country seems to counter your claim, murder [for example] is not rampent here

Other: oh Alison, you are not taking into account other variables, society is a complex process.

Alison: /facepalm

ad nausim.

Using the logic here, I don't seem to need to prove it if it's "obvious"

Post a study to conclude this, or refute the paper that showed that the study in this thread is invalid to show that conclusion.

I am not making the claim. Why the fuck should I dig up a study that supposidly shows YOUR claim.

Heck, apperently I don't even have to read the study. Hamby admitted he never read the full study, and yet he's using it. So why the fuck should I read the study to refute his claim, when he himself has not read the study?

I studied science what you're doing this is the other thing.

I posted an abstract questioning said data.

There are actual *ahem* studies to link smoking to cancer.

That is not healthy to believe in.

Now straight answer for this one from you:

If Christianity teaches these things, they are in the bible etc.... then why is there such a diveregence of Theists? Theists seem to be as diverse as atheists.

Fuck, why is there 15,000 demoninations of Christianity all with different views? We SHOULDN'T see that if religion is so uniform as you seem to suggest it to be.

The study is pseudo-science. The confounding factors are far to complex for this study to say anything other then some people have an anti-religion agenda.

What writings? You mean the ones listed on your vanity page on this site?

It does quite clearly show that secularism provides a society with no ill effects. As to religion=detriment, I'd have to see more material than this one study, personally.

Was that a "there goes the neighbourhood?" Nice try, meany-face.

I think I've been clear on my position regarding the social sciences and their use of statistics. While it obviously has a (limited) place for making a point, I find that the finer the point being made, the less solid one can assert a conclusion. So while I agree with that study's conclusion that secularism has no detrimental effect on a society, I'd be hesitant to say that it affirms a detrimental effect of religion.

Unless, of course, I determine that "detrimental effect" is "annoying Saint Will", because then, we have a 100% correlation between religious institutions and detrimental effect.

I think you can draw a conclusion at most that "religion has no recordable benefitial effect" from the study.

It isn't really designed to show detriments. But I can say that religious persecution of gays directly inhibits part of society from developing by supporting bigotry.

I can also say that "faith healing" initiatives directly suppress societal health, and anti-intellectualism from the fundamentalist movements in religions hampering societal development.

...As well as community funding that goes to religious organizations rather than the communities themselves, and ends up being spent for infrastructural purposes of the churches.

Not to mention the move away from a diversity of ideas, and promotion of making questioning ideas "offensive" by calling them "sacred".

http://whatstheharm.net/christianscience.html

http://whatstheharm.net/faithhealing.html

http://whatstheharm.net/evolutiondenial.html

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22924256-29277,00.html

http://whatstheharm.net/jehovahswitnesses.html

http://whatstheharm.net/religiousfundamentalism.html

http://whatstheharm.net/scientology.html

http://whatstheharm.net/transcendentalmeditation.html

http://whatstheharm.net/cults.html

http://whatstheharm.net/breatharianism.html

Irrationality does not help society. That much is indisputable, and I've yet to speak personally to a theist that would argue for things like breatharianism. Exactly how great a scale of harm though is what the question is.

From the FAQ:

------------

1. Didn't these people bring it on themselves?

Some might argue that a lack of critical thinking is its own punishment. Doesn't someone deserve to befall a bad fate if they proceed thoughtlessly? If you are asking this question, please read this page of names of children. Many of them died through no fault of their own, from easily preventable illnesses. Among the adults elsewhere on the site are many who are unwilling victims of things like belief in witchcraft.

Unwilling victims notwithstanding, we firmly believe in the principle of not blaming the victim. Many people come by their assumptions or beliefs not by conscious choice, but by societal forces, parental ignorance, or other forms of indoctrination. Who is to say that any one of these victims might have been persuaded to drop their irrational beliefs, had they been reached in time?

------------

"What's the harm in..." lists 368,379 people killed, 306,096 injured and over $2,815,931,000 in economic damages

Some of the worst tragedies in history stem from religious irrational belief. The ones below are famous examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_the_Restoration_of_the_Ten_Commandments_of_God

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple

That would probably be accurate as well. Religion thrived off the black death for example. Fear of mortality is probably one of the larger factors that push people into a belief that they can exist eternally.

As well as something to allow you to feel you have some measure of control (prayer) over things you do not understand (deadly disease that spreads due to poor hygiene).

That's reason #1, as far as I'm concerned.