Kasz216 said:
dsgrue3 said:
Kasz216 said:
A). Your continued arguement of this point is just pure ignorance to social science Research methods...
B) Every article? No... but quite a few do. If you follow science in the media at all, you sould know this. They always get studies wrong and exagerrate what they say.
C) Your source wasn't a counter source. That was talking about... God priming. Do you know what god priming is? If you had journal access you could look at that first article and find a numbr of supporting studies. Since pretty much all research studies begin with a literature review. Well that and the fact that said study was actually 3 studies that all came to the same conclusion.
D) Again... this seems to be pure ignorance to social sciences. Social sciences collect data and then infer results. Because you can't measure motivations and emotions like you can say, gravity.
E) Again, do you or do you not believe in moral relatvism? If you do. Specific examples that have more or less always held consistant as moral are the only things you can measure to judge morality.
If you have two groups except one group thinks it's morally right to drink cofee, and the other thinks it's morally incorrect to drink coffee.... no comparison can be made on morallity based on drinking coffee. This goes all the way up to crazy things like always forcing women to cover their heads. If you believe in moral relatvism... you can't use those things for comparison.
It's clearly obvious that your the one who doesn't know anything about research. Nor apparently moral relatvism. Which is odd... being a moral absolutist who is an atheist honestly just makes you a pretty illogical atheist..
It's like being an atheist and believing in modal realism.
Your just giving up one "fantasy" for another.
|
Getting really tired of education you on matters you pretend to know.
A) Lol.
start reading: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/fact_sample.html
This sample is not befit of the masses and is simply born of convenience. Do you understand what this means or no?
B) Okay, you've posted no articles. I've posted 2. Again you bring forth nothing but suppositions. Do you have a rebuttal or not?
C) You argue that god priming is dissimilar when it isn't at all. You neglect to admit that religious folks are naturally primed, it permeates their life at all times. That study cited continues to show another study where priming is not born of God constructs, but of authoritative constructs and the same results are found, and again with simple moral constructs, and again...same results. Set aside your devotion to myopia and read my source.
D) There is no confirmation bias here. Results speak for themselves, despite my disagreement with the methodology.
E) Morality isn't as simple as you'd like with reductionist nonsense like relativism. Naturally it is relative because it is subjective, but there are certain absolutes with morality - murder for instance is universally immoral.
Lol, now you're not only putting words in my mouth but attacking this imaginary straw man. Hahah.
Do you have anything to bring to the table in regard to sources or just endless suppositions?
|
A) Not sure why you thought that would prove your point. I find hilarious that you think a respected peer journal would just publish a study that didn't have an adequte sample size. I mean, maybe your not familiar with the current journal scene but competition to get into peer reviewed journals is harder then it's ever been, to the point of where a bunch of other "Scam" journals have been started up specifically to get peoples money.
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."
|
