11–20 of 20 posts
What's a "religiosity scale"?
"Definition: Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day."
What's a "religiosity scale"?
From http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ "Definition: Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ "Definition: Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day."
most atheists seem to think morality is a religious idea. like dawkins.
The second comment on this thread: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ puts it all in context. In short: the graph means what you want it to mean, according to your own background.
The thing to ask now should be to ask is what is the casual relationship, if any, between the two data sets and if there is a way to test the relationship. I think she may also be missing out on the idea of "aggregate" sums.
If you look at the color of the dots, though, you see that richer continents don't overlap; or at least, they seem discrete. That's interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
most atheists seem to think morality is a religious idea. like dawkins.
No? Show me serious writing by an atheist, explaining how morality exists and isn't religious?
Because even if we can't disprove your assertion, we are expected to go along with your idea without question?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? Show me serious writing by an atheist, explaining how morality exists and isn't religious?
So If we don't choose to immediately respond you automatically declare a default victory? Because even if we can't disprove your assertion, we are expected to go along with your idea without question?
I don't care if you "go along with my idea". I do care that many people say something exists, but no one has ever been able to give me a single half-way-decent example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From http://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/2275614130/ "Definition: Religiosity is measured using a three-item index ranging from 0-3, with 3 representing the maximum religious position. Respondents were given a +1 if they believe faith in God is necessary for morality; and +1 if they say religion is very important in their lives; and +1 if they pray at least once a day."
most atheists seem to think morality is a religious idea. like dawkins.
Our own preconceptions set aside, what is obvious is the relation between countries with a Judeo-Christian backgound that are wealthy. Even if many countries have abandoned many of these practises it is still the root of many bases of society (our law system, trust as fundamental to business e.g. contracts, money etc.). Societies stemming from Judeo-Christina values more often have a everyone-has-value society than non-Judeo-Christian based societies. Apart from the actual debate on where wealth comes from (slavery anyone?) it still is interesting to ponder.
