Kasz216 said:
100 people is... pretty standard. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js6169e/7.4.html for example uses it for all the examples. If your doing a full qualatative study? You generally see a sample size of like... 15 people. This was a study where they had to bring people in individually. Not some mass internet email survey question like in the link you posted. B) Except... you didn't post any articles... so... i'm not sure i get your point. You posted news reports about some articles.. If you have scientific journal access. review that first study. Check out that study the news article talks about... and look at their literature review. Otherwise, i'm not sure how this is going to help you. I mean, i could post the names of the studies from there... but if you can't read them... what's the point? I mean shit, Grahm Haidt 210, Noreyzarin and Shariff 2008,
C) Your point is that religious people are generally more generous because they're always god primed? I'm not sure what your point is. The fact that they are always god primed means that in practice they are going to donate more to charity and act more charitable when not prodded to be. Which again, was my original statement. You are going a long way and reaching to simply just agree with me. D) Again... the results do speak for themselves... you just need to learn how to scientifically read results. What do the results say? Without prodding. Religious people give more money. (Again, my original point, which you now seem to be agreeing with.) They aren't much effected by compassionate videos, a tiny bit, not alot. While atheists give almost nothing when not prodded, but give a lot more when prodded by sick children. That's all the research says. Anything past that is inference by the researchers. Even the researchers would tell you as such. E) Is murder universally immoral? There have been plenty of societies who thought it perfectly ok for a husband to kill his wife for example. Or a man to kill his slave. Or hell another person's slave. What makes murder universally immoral? If morallity doesn't come from society... where does absolute moral points come from?
Though in short... this arguement is just silly now, because you've done enough deflecting and rolling around to the point of where you've adopted MY original point and are pretending it's your own. That is... "on average the less religious you are the more prodding that is needed to get you to help others." |
Re-read my statement, because you didn't understand any of it.
What don't you understand about "not statistically significant?" I mean, I understand you have some learning disability, but are you incapable of comprehending explicit statements here?
Priming was not an admittance that religious people are more charitable. You obviously didn't read my point or deliberately ignored it ( as usual ). I alluded to the two futher studies concerning authoritative priming and moral priming, which confirm that it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with what sort of priming factors are involved. In both regards, BOTH types of people were more charitable.
LOL@linking a medical source for a PSYCHOLOGICAL study.
LOL@news articles not being articles.
Like I said, it finds that religious people respond mechanistically to charity i.e. funds set aside without thought. Emotionless, compassionless, just simply handing over money because they feel like they must. It isn't born of compassion or altruism, it's based on indoctrination.
Arguing for murder using the 1800s as an example? Haha, in this time murder is universally accepted as an immoral behavior. Morals change as society changes. (Note society, not religion.)
Again putting words in my mouth.
You seem to be quite clueless. I won't be replying anymore to someone so set on peddling bullshit. Peace.