1. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #147858 by pdiff on March 21, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Bonzai:

From the paper
'All respondents are asked, "Do you consider yourself as belonging to any particular
religion or denomination"?, where it is made clear that belonging to means identifying with,
rather than official membership.'

There wasn't any formal religion specified. They identified 9% who answered no to the above, yet still said they prayed at least once a week. I concede your point, however, that these people must believe in something, but not in an agnostic or deist sense. To pray they must believe in an intervening type deity, which is pretty hard-core in my book. Perhaps they are afraid to admit their level of religiosity in the more atheistic European culture. Similar to being timid about admitting atheism in American culture.

Pdiff

2. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #147362 by pdiff on March 20, 2008 at 8:10 am

Tumara Baap Said: "The article was about religious versus non-religious. The non-religious and atheists are not the same. "

This might be more true in context of the article and data. I found the inconsistency between the numbers they reported interesting. According to the paper, 40% were identified as "not belonging to a particular religion", but only 35% are reported as "never praying". Evidently there are a substantial number of people who don't have religious affiliations, but pray anyway. Who or what the hell are they praying to? :-) FSM?

Pdiff

3. Religion 'linked to happy life'

Comment #146084 by pdiff on March 18, 2008 at 3:39 pm

Epinephrine asked above "how much happier?" Good question. Thought I'd take a look and here are some thoughts. BTW: the paper can be found at:

http://www.ugr.es/~teoriahe/RePEc/gra/paoner/per06_03.pdf

My interpretation of the results may be off, but I am pretty confident here. They are running logistic regressions on survey data. This results in regression coefficients (see Table 4, for example). Positive coefficients reflect increased life satisfaction (as measured by the survey) and negative ones indicate decreased satisfaction. The "religiosity" coefficient is .179 and evidently significant. First a word on significance. I don't care what you are looking at, but give me 29,000 observations and I can guarantee you a significant result :-) So I take their reporting of significance with a grain of salt. As for the coefficient itself, if we take the exponential of it, exp(0.179), we get 1.19. This is the odds ratio for the effect of religiosity. In other words it is a comparison of the odds of be satisfied for religious versus not religious (based on the respective probabilities). An odds ratio of 1.0 would indicate no difference. You can see here that 1.2 isn't much of a change from 1.0 (although their huge sample size makes this significant). As a comparison, in table 4 the coefficient for the effect of being unemployed is -0.734 (odds ratio = .48). A much bigger effect. You are half as likely to be satisfied if you are unemployed and more than double the relative change due to religiosity. Or how about bad health: Coefficient = -1.384, odds ratio = .25. Unsurprisingly, that's a massive hit on "life satisfaction". Perhaps the best comparison is "Highest Income Quartile": coefficient = .578, Odds ratio = 1.78, a more than four times increase in satisfaction odds over religion. And who said money can't buy happiness? :-) Bottom line: Small increase due to religion, significance likely due to large sample sizes.

Pdiff

4. How Evolution REALLY Works

Comment #112623 by pdiff on January 17, 2008 at 3:19 pm

somersetsimon: Very cool. Thanks for the link!

Pdiff

5. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112550 by pdiff on January 17, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Hmmmm .... So all we have to do is stand outside the theater, collect ticket stubs from people coming out, pool our collections, and claim our money! Would make a nice donation for the RDF! :-)

Pdiff

6. How Evolution REALLY Works

Comment #112545 by pdiff on January 17, 2008 at 12:44 pm

nickthelight: true, but there are other more obvious simulations out there. This is a favorite of mine by Karl Sims (and it's 14 years old to boot!).

http://web.genarts.com/karl/evolved-virtual-creatures.html

Pdiff

7. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77772 by pdiff on October 10, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Wow! I think IanG is one of the few who actually understood what Sam was trying to say. It is also nice to see a more balanced set of positions on the topic here. Over on Pharyngula, the PZ fanboys are busy nodding their heads in PZ agreement while PZ himself attacks without thinking. Maybe it's the whole "Cephalopod awareness week" thing that's gone to his head. Pharyngula is usually an interesting read, but between his Sam rants and his continued infatuation with Dembski ...

8. I'm gonna be a MOVIE STAR

Comment #65335 by pdiff on August 23, 2007 at 4:54 pm

The writers include Kevin Miller, a well known right wing talk show personality. So this is no surprise an it is pretty obvious this is a new tact by the ID crowd to push their agenda.

On the other hand, a law suit by Dawkins or Myers is probably a desirable outcome on their part. It may have even been an objective for making such a film. Foisting their opponents into the public sphere with a negative light as the attackers and nay sayers will appear to support the premise of the movie and allow them to immediately claim " See, see. It's true. The academics are trying to censor us!" It plays directly into their hands. The best strategy is to let this farce launch, and promptly sink as it inevitably will (can you actually remember the last Ben Stein movie? :-)

On the other other hand, at least the right wing nuts can't continue to brand Hollywood as that evil liberal satan. They'll be part of that crowd now too :-)

Pdiff

9. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #44242 by pdiff on May 23, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Bizarro sayeth: "Keep in mind that many people attempted to kill Dr. Falwell during his life. Most of them were radical atheists."

Uhhh, you care to back up that with some references. I can find no information on such in my cursory search of the usual sites. Hardly seems like something that would be ignored by the faithful crowd.

And you can drop the Dr. bit. He never earned a doctorate in anything.

Pdiff

10. Liberty U student plotted to set off explosives, police say

Comment #44083 by pdiff on May 23, 2007 at 9:36 am

Many college or high school kids may mess with explosives or similar (yes, I include myself at that age), but when they do so with an expressed intention of harm to others it ceases to be "messing around".

Glad they caught him and kudos to the "family" member who had the guts to turn him in.

Pdiff

11. Supporters of abortion have no future in Church, Pope tells faithful

Comment #39636 by pdiff on May 11, 2007 at 11:55 am

"Instead, he came out with all guns blazing, ..."

Ha! Ha! Sorry, but the visual of that got me laughing! The "Pope-inator" is on the move again! Doesn't do much for the "love of Christ" rhetoric :-)

Ok, Ok, Guess I need to lay off the video games for a while ...

Pdiff

12. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33147 by pdiff on April 19, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Quoteth Burly Gates:Hey Pdiff, since it's not causing any *physical pain*, what's wrong with a little old "community subversion" now and then?

Merriam Webster: "Subvert - to pervert or corrupt by an undermining of morals, allegiance, or faith"

Sorry, not something I will stand by and watch. And, as far as I can tell, such things can quickly lead to a path of "physical pain". Besides, this gut wrenching feeling isn't exactly pleasant :-)

Pdiff

13. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33129 by pdiff on April 19, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Weefree and Neil S:

I feel quite entitled to sneer and make noise. Admittedly, it's a knee jerk reaction, but I have endured Wilson and his minions attempts to subvert the community I love and have enjoyed for nearly 2 decades. He is known here as a bigot and racist with a good dose of homophobia thrown in.

Don't believe me? Try his "Slavery: As it was" where he'll tell you those poor black people happily enjoyed being slaves and were better off as such. After all, it's sanctioned in the Bible.

Or how about his "The Case for Classical Christian Education" where he'll tell you that education can only be a religious endeavor. This is a common chorus from the followers of his "college". Oh, and by the way, government schools should be done away with or "made" Christian.

Not happy yet? Try "Future Men" where he promotes the virtuous ideals of physical aggression for males, subservient roles for females, and the evils of effeminate boys.

This list could go on as he has written a pile of such things. Guess it helps to be your own publisher! I apologize if some of us appear to be callus, but you should know who you're dealing with before fawning all over him. At least do us a favor and pull his stuff from the library. I hate to see him get any more financial support for his re constructionist attacks on my community.

Pdiff

14. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32887 by pdiff on April 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Well, well! So the infamous D. Wilson tries to rank himself with the big boys, eh? :-) Guess the Moscow Daily News wasn't satisfying enough for you. Think you're up to a one-on-one with Sam? I'd love to see that. Better bring your Depends though, Douglas. If you ever had to face off with the likes of Harris or a Dawkins, you'd be wanting them...... They aren't the "Old time hippies" you're used to dancing with the rural burb of Idaho.

Pdiff

15. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28529 by pdiff on March 29, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Stay tuned for Francis Collins tonight on Fresh Air (NPR). That should get the blood boiling :-) I'd like to see the two of them together sometime.

Pdiff

16. God Loves My New Lexus

Comment #4185 by Pdiff on November 2, 2006 at 3:42 pm

bold>David S: "I was wondering if the people that visit this site had seen the episode. I think I would not have minded the mocking if they were mocking the ideas that Dawkins actually has. Instead they seem to buy into the same misinformation that the public already has of both atheism and evolution."

Yep, agree with you there. Even sadder that SP probably has more influence here in the States than most media ...

Pdiff

17. God Loves My New Lexus

Comment #4168 by Pdiff on November 2, 2006 at 2:28 pm

Sheez! No wonder atheists get a bad rap. I enjoyed it, laughed a bit, and took it for what it was meant to be.

My advice: If you didn't like this, then you definitely don't want to see the latest South Park. Not that you would be enclined to anyway ...

Pdiff

18. Dawkins v God - stop the fight

Comment #4077 by Pdiff on November 2, 2006 at 9:03 am

Christian J Burnham: "Reviewer: Who's to say who is right? Dawkins can't appreciate the intellectual contortions fitting of a worthy intellectual. He exhibits arrogance in proclaiming that his answer is superior. Is he not aware that many cultures hold that 3+2 has a continuous value lying somewhere between -1 and 14? Why pin it down to so concise a value?"

LOL!! Please Christian!
Don't make me spew my tea all over the keyboard laughing so hard!
It's too early in the morning here :-)

Pdiff

19. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3915 by Pdiff on November 1, 2006 at 12:43 pm

CC: "Is this the same Darwinian science that teaches that African Americans are sub-species? '[Man] has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more fitly called, sub-species.'"

While I may be wrong, I think you are mis-reading the quote (from Darwin's "Decent of Man", for those unfamiliar with it). You seem to be implying that Darwin is calling "Negroes" (his verbage) as inferior with his use of the term sub-species. In fact, he was not. The term then, as now, refers to groups of individuals within a species showing distinct geneteic traits. If you read the full passage (see http://www.darwin-literature.com/The_Descent_Of_Man/23.html for example) he never implies the superiority of one race over another. Even if he did (as would be common at the time), it was his opinion, not the "science" of the theory of natural selection.

CC: "Organized religion has its faults, but sometimes it's science that ignores the obvious truth (like all people are equal in value)."

I am not aware of any instances where current science implies all people are not equal in value. In fact, science has in the past, and though today, continually shown no reason to believe otherwise, whether based on gender, race, ethnicity, sexual preferences, etc, etc. That's a far cry from the book you are apparently promoting, where white, anglo males are the definition of "people" (and even those must be of the same beliefs as your professed book).

CC: "I don't hate science, but I hate the fact that science refuses to believe something until it's 'proven'".

While you may not hate science, you apparently do not fully comprehend the scientific method. That's not surprising as the popular media does not either and, almost uniformly, mis-states it every time. So , at the risk of being redundant with many others, science does NOT "prove" things. It merely weighs the evidence for or against a set hypothesis or model. A scientific mind's "belief" is based on the plausibility of the model given the evidence. If the evidence is so overwhelming that the plausibility is essentially a certainty (for example, the earth is round), then some might say it has been "proven", but technically, it has not. Now, before we hear the argument that this means God is still then a possiblity, I will argue, "yes, that is true", and Dawkins does as well, but it is highly improbable. Should we take that seriously? I don't know. Would you take the idea that the earth is flat seriously? It too has some small possibility of being true...

CC: "When you let the Bible speak for itself (rather than some man, denomination or church) you'll find more enlightenment and truth there long before it's later verified by science."

I see. So your argument is "we got there first, so we're right and you're wrong". Regardless, I think we could agree there are some ideas in the Bible that seem good. But, can we agree on which ones? Which ones do you choose to use? The "Don't screw your neighbor's wife" one, or the "murder anyone who doesn't observe sabath" one. I'm sure both seemed reasonable 4000 years ago, but today, they do not. The Bible is a compilation of ideas over numerous centuries and, as such, is hopelessly out of date for the current world. Could we weed out the chaff to get the good stuff? Sure. But then, I (and probably most people) don't need a Bible to do so. Do you (we) really need a book (and the threats that come with it) to be a good person or don't you have the ability act civilized all by yourself. I myself can definitively say "No, I do not need the book!". My parents raised me (in a non-religious manner) to know right from wrong just fine. Which is more than I can say for the majority of "religious" people I've observed on the planet.

CC: "God created science, and the more we learn about science--the more we all learn about Him."

"Him?" There you go with all the male dominance stuff again. Why not "Her" or "It"?

Now, be good out there ...... :-)

Pdiff