Field Marshall Bradley
Veteran
Yup. This is exactly the precursor to when Rome fell.
New study shows 1/3 of all american adults under 30 are athiest
- Thread starter nalej
- Start date
Yup. This is exactly the precursor to when Rome fell.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
The link YOU provided found that the study which YOU provided had a invalid hypothesis and was full of methodical errors therefore making that whole study INVALID, therefore its not proving a dam thing.
How? How can you be this dumb? It was simply a meta-study to collect data..a global one spanning 38 nations and it compared U. S. states to each other over 12 years. There have been plenty more like it that all bear the same results. The results are not disputable. Higher religiosity is positively correlated with higher stds, crime, teen pregnancies, etc. among industrialized societies. That is fact, like water is made of an oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms. As to why that is, I'm not even making a statement on.You are arguing against a strawman that no one is making. I'm not trying to explain why things are what they are. Neither is the Creighton study. All I'm saying is what this hard, indisputable, statistical data proves is that religion is not a requirement for morals, and the notion that if religiosity declines, so does morals is bogus because the least religious industrialized societies tend to have lower rates of these indicators.
when rome was falling people got more religious because they saw it as the end of world.
"As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or least the abuse, of Christianity had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman empire. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister. A large portion of public and private wealth were consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion, and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity. Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition kindled the flame of theological factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny, and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of the country."
Edward Gibbon Da Gawd.
TL,DR: "Christianity pussified, corrupted and dis-unified the Roman Empire leading to destruction be its enemies".
My atheist friend just got married at a Country Club, how does that make you feel friend?
You are arguing against a strawman that no one is making. I'm not trying to explain why things are what they are. Neither is the Creighton study. All I'm saying is what this hard, indisputable, statistical data proves is that religion is not a requirement for morals, and the notion that if religiosity declines, so does morals is bogus because the least religious industrialized societies tend to have lower rates of these indicators.
how is that fact, when the whole study was full of errors? and furthermore more when have i said that you need religion to have morals? or that religion and morals go hand in hand? FIND MY QUOTE ON THAT, Matter fact am the one that said that its less of religion thing and more of just morals thing , but you came in here with your study trying to prove i dont know what .
Misleading thread title is misleading and full of excrement.
now there's a difference between no religious affiliation and atheist?
didn't i tell you that already and you shrugged it off as non-sense?
funkdoc is a "nonreligious" person who goes to any length necessary to defend and coddle religion as much as possible. its fukking disgusting.now there's a difference between no religious affiliation and atheist?
Well good for your friend, what exactly does that prove. The atheist movement, will never be big. Most people simply don't care, but that doesn't mean that they are Atheist.
yea, i noticed that already, it's some confusing shyt
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Being secular or not believing in a religion does not mean someone doesn't believe in a deity or higher being/power/force.
I'd take a truly secular Muslim or Christian over some of these "Whole Foods Chakra Herbs Good Vibration" Atheists and Deists any day.
I'd take a truly secular Muslim or Christian over some of these "Whole Foods Chakra Herbs Good Vibration" Atheists and Deists any day.
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
and furthermore more when have i said that you need religion to have morals? or that religion and morals go hand in hand? FIND MY QUOTE ON THAT, Matter fact am the one that said that its less of religion thing and more of just morals thing , but you came in here with your study trying to prove i dont know what .
I'll try to explain again. You responded to the article in the op about a decline in religiosity by equating religiosity with morals, and positing the decline of America due to a loss of religiosity and morals.I pointed out the fact that religion is not a prerequisite for morals and to support this, I cited the Creighton study. Pointing out that the study doesn't prove the influence of secularism and religiosity and doesn't claim to is irrelevant. What it does prove is that these indicators of morality--crime, stds, teen pregnancies, suicide, etc. are higher in the more religious industrialized societies than in the less religious. And all the Creighton study did was compile these stats. They exist with or without the Creighton study. So therefore, once again all I'm saying is religiosity is not a prerequisite for morality, so you tying this decline of religiosity in the U. S. to a decline in morality is erroneous. Do you understand?
Type Username Here
Not a new member
Anyone who says that religion is a prerequisite for morality fails to take into account that most of our modern day morals is a result of scientific progress and ethics related to that.
"Don't fukk a 9 year old girl because now you can live longer due to medicine (so no need to procreate early) and we discovered that doing such a thing would bring physical and mental anguish on a child of that age." Religion encouraged this behavior, science and philosophy vanquished it.
"Don't fukk a 9 year old girl because now you can live longer due to medicine (so no need to procreate early) and we discovered that doing such a thing would bring physical and mental anguish on a child of that age." Religion encouraged this behavior, science and philosophy vanquished it.
It's not a movement man. It's evolution. I was just replying to your retarded post, don't try to make me out to be the moron here. Atheist/Agnostic/Unreligious might as well be the same thing.
I pointed out the fact that religion is not a prerequisite for morals and to support this, I cited the Creighton study. Pointing out that the study doesn't prove the influence of secularism and religiosity and doesn't claim to is irrelevant. What it does prove is that these indicators of morality--crime, stds, teen pregnancies, suicide, etc. are higher in the more religious industrialized societies than in the less religious. And all the Creighton study did was compile these stats. They exist with or without the Creighton study. So therefore, once again all I'm saying is religiosity is not a prerequisite for morality, so you tying this decline of religiosity in the U. S. to a decline in morality is erroneous. Do you understand?
when did I say the decline of America was because of loss of religiosity??Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
Never mind. Good night sir.