Player1x3 said:
pearljammer said:
Player1x3 said:
|
pearljammer said:
They really arent that different. For example, you have 20 atheitsts and 200 theists. Now only 50 theists make more than lets say, 200k per year. That would be 25%. And for atheists, you have 10 of them who make over 200k a year, so thats 50%. So, on averige atheitsts make more money. As for your studies the results are similar just the gap is smaller, but the point stays. Religious people, are in general, more satisfied with their lifes and atheists are more likely to be sad and miserable.
The magnitude is grossly different. To ignore that is to ignore the vast importance of other variables. Willfully ignorant and inexcusable.
Funny how you say your beleifs are far from criticizing and in the next paragraph you say your an anti-theist, which is solely based simply on criticizing and hostility towards religion.
Given the context, it's incredibly easy to see that was not what I had meant - I made a mistake in typing it:
"Where is this even coming from? My belief is far from criticizing. It's criticized every day to better model our understanding. "
I'm saying that my beliefs are far from being free of criticism. Because of that, models are adjusted continually to reflect that.
An honest congenial discussion is dependent on one another not purposely misreading another's quote.
|
|
|
|
Odd to respond to this being nearly two weeks after the fact
I won't respond to the other points as they are simply beside the original point I was making: That this study, while probably accurate, made over-attributal conclusions given the importance of other variable displayed in other studies. To ignore the difference in magnitude is to ignore the importance of other variables - which can only be described as willfully choosing results to match a desired conclusion.
To say that it's just smaller and sweep any reasons being under the rug is disingenuous. Note that I have not said that their conclusions, wholely, are wrong. Just simply that they were either a) naive in attributing the difference simply to religiosity or b) that they were willfully ignoring other variables. It was a deeply flawed study because of it.
It's patently obvious.
Perhaps we should exchange PMs rather than fully revive this dead thread?
@Kain: Why, then, bump it twelve days after it had died?
