dsgrue3 said:
A) It's a small sample size and there is no disputing that. B) They were fake dollars. Start reading: http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-compassion.html C) No idea to what you're referring. D) Your evidence that Robb Willer or Laura Saslow are atheists and set out to prove a certain hypothesis? Let me guess, none. Of course not, because I have the exact words from the authors of the study itself disproving exactly as you have said. "Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "We hypothesized that religion would change how compassion impacts generous behavior," said study lead author Laura Saslow, who conducted the research as a doctoral student at UC Berkeley. Furthermore, it goes on to state this: "Saslow, who is now a postdoctoral scholar at UC San Francisco, said she was inspired to examine this question after an altruistic, nonreligious friend lamented that he had only donated to earthquake recovery efforts in Haiti after watching an emotionally stirring video of a woman being saved from the rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed." E) That isn't what is confirmed by the study at all and it has become abundantly clear that you A) Misunderstood the findings or B) Never read them. And LOL@moving the goalposts coming from the guy when pressed for a source on theists being more moral than atheists talks about some study about charity under the guise of morality when the two are not the same. Work on retaining your own thoughts so I don't have to abuse you by parroting your nonsense back to your face. No, the reality of the situation is that atheists are indeed more altruistic than their theist counterparts. This is simply common sense. The religious animosity toward homosexuality, other religions (and non), condemnation of "sinners", raping and sodomizing children, etc.
I found a separate study about giving money that seems similar to what you were describing, but it doesn't involve Africa. http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~ara/Manuscripts/Shariff_Norenzayan.pdf Findings:
Although unprimed atheists left slightly less than did unprimed theists ($0.97), this trend was weak and was not statistically significant,t(23)51.34, p5.19, prep5.73. Self-reported belief in God, as a continuous measure, was not a good predictor of how much subjects left in the control condition.
In summary, implicit priming of God concepts did increase prosocial behavior (i.e., increased how much subjects left for an anonymous stranger), and this effect was observed for both theists and atheists.
|
A) It's only a small sample size if you've never taken a class in expiermental methods. 100 candidates is generally a high number as far as a school or research boards IRB is concerned for such a project.
B) That was specifically the faulty reporting I was talking about. Like... the exact article. Which is why i asked if you had scientific journal access. Though regardless, I would point out that it's a scientific given that people act similarly with fake money as they do real money. Simply because greedy people are generally greedy through self justification.
C) The fact that research keeps showing this... over... and over again.
D) Nice job deflecting. I guess i remembered that part wrong. Thought it was because SHE was upset at how she donated in regards to Haiti. It still in no way diminishes the actual points that you did a nice job trying to deflect from though. Again, look back up at D and ask yourself... "Which is more likely."
Seems pretty obvious.
E) How isn't charity morality? It's the one thing that's more or less been seen as universally moral. Sacrificing for others. So unless you don't believe in moral relativism... I can't think of a better measure.
