Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

71 (27.7%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

114 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (23.8%)

Total Members Voted: 251

[Loud Whispers]

REPENT for your STRAWman beFORE it is TOO LATE you FACEbook HYPOCRITES of BABYLON

[wierd]

Look, Facebook itself is already internet VD. They didnt call syphillis the "Social disease" for nothing you know.

It is not suprising that it harbors the most vile intellectual filth that humans can concieve of. Really. Aggregating and concentrating "Like minded" people and their vitriol is like, kinda its purpose for existing. (aside from the obvious, which is to make Mark Zuckerberg filthy fricken rich of course.)

[Flying Dice]

"Like minded" people

You. YOU, sir! You have just been awarded the Noble Prize in Applied Punnery.

[TD1]

I'm doing an assessment on the 4th century bishops and their invective against heathen emperors.

Under Constantius Arianism (belief that God and Jesus are separate) was supported, interestingly, and this was accepted by the Nicene Council (barring the odd one exiled for their blasphemy) and many other Christians.

Shows what a fine line we walk between "blasphemy" and fact.

[Orange Wizard]

Shows what a fine line we walk between "blasphemy" and fact.

Relevant?

[Vilanat]

Going to throw bit quite a toxic bomb here, but according to this study, religious children are less likely to share with others than non-religious children. further more, this correlation strengthen as the child gets older (Having longer time under religious influence) and for children from deeper religious households.

The theoretical assumption this study suggest as to the causation is by indicating that while religious children are less likely to share with others, they identify themselves as more moral than non-religious children (A notion they share with their parents) and as a result, do not feel the need to share with others as they are already moral enough (In their own opinion).
 

[Arx]

Interesting.

(Having longer time under religious influence)

Not actually studied, as far as I can tell. Pretty sure they'd need to test with kids of that age who'd swapped religions or something to be sure.

Can't say I think they come off as particularly neutral, but eh.

It would be interesting to see how this relates to geography, as well. I feel like the Islamic group would tend to draw more heavily from the Middle East, but I have absolutely nothing to back that up.

It's a bit disheartening. Plenty of people screwing up a fundamental message of Christianity.

And with that, I think I might be filtering this thread out of my replies for a bit.

[Baffler]

Going to throw bit quite a toxic bomb here, but according to this study, religious children are less likely to share with others than non-religious children. further more, this correlation strengthen as the child gets older (Having longer time under religious influence) and for children from deeper religious households.

I wouldn't put too much stock in what these people are saying. Sampling bias hits this pretty hard, with almost all of the irreligious children coming from the wealthiest countries they sampled from.

[Rolan7]

I wouldn't put too much stock in what these people are saying. Sampling bias hits this pretty hard, with almost all of the irreligious children coming from the wealthiest countries they sampled from.

How can you tell?  A lot of this is greek to me.

[origamiscienceguy]

That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.

[Orange Wizard]

A lot of the spread post-Constantine was political. Suddenly, instead of being barred from public office (iirc), Christians were suddenly the only group eligible for it. So the nobility and senate flocked to the new official religion. And then status quo ensued for another thousand or so years, in all the countries born out of Rome's collapse.

[Loud Whispers]

A lot of the spread post-Constantine was political. Suddenly, instead of being barred from public office (iirc), Christians were suddenly the only group eligible for it. So the nobility and senate flocked to the new official religion. And then status quo ensued for another thousand or so years, in all the countries born out of Rome's collapse.

Except for all the countries now full of protestants, new pope^tm catholicism, everyone in the east, all the meditteranean muslim countries and so on

That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.

Unsurprisingly suppressing a religion reaffirms its believers and tolerating it allows its proselytizers to spread it, this isn't unique to Christianity m8 this is how all ideologies work and it doesn't even always work like that
If the Saudi Arabians stopped killing missionaries I don't think there'd be an explosion in Christian conversions any time soon

[Bohandas]

That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.

Unsurprisingly suppressing a religion reaffirms its believers and tolerating it allows its proselytizers to spread it

I think the solution may be to laugh at them

[origamiscienceguy]

That kind of sounds accurate throughout history. It seems that the more persecuted Christians are, the more firm the believers get and Christianity will spread stronger (but not faster) But once it's less persecuted, it spreads much faster, but not very strong if you know what I mean. I guess that when Christianity is suddenly persecuted, it will die off a large amount, but if it is suddenly "liberated" (like during Constantine) it spreads like crazy. That's just what I'm thinking.

Unsurprisingly suppressing a religion reaffirms its believers and tolerating it allows its proselytizers to spread it

I think the solution may be to laugh at them

I think that's the same as suppressing it.

[Bohandas]

It doesn't create martyrs. Not proper martyrs at any rate; if done perfectly many may die by their own hands