79 replies to this topic

[Happy Jack]

February 16, 2012 Gallup

In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths

Jews and Mormons have the highest wellbeing of any of the faith groups examined in this analysis, while those with no religious identity have the lowest overall wellbeing.

Analyzing the six wellbeing sub-indexes reveals the areas in which certain groups excel and others fall behind. Jews score proportionately higher on the Basic Access sub-index. Muslims score higher on the Life Evaluation and Physical Health Indexes, compared with the other faiths. Protestants, on the other hand, score lowest on the Life Evaluation Index and the Physical Health Index, compared with the other faith groups. (See page 2 for descriptions of the sub-indexes.)



Religious Intensity Greatest for Mormons, Lowest for Jews

Mormons are by far the most religious of these groups, with 73.4% categorized as very religious. Protestants, Muslims, and Roman Catholics are next in order of religiousness, although less than half of the latter two of these groups are classified as very religious. Americans who identify with other non-Christian religions, Jews, and those who have no formal religious identity are the least religious of any of the faith groups. As noted, the relative effect of religiousness on wellbeing generally persists despite these overall differences.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/Religious-Higher-Wellbeing-Across-Faiths.aspx

[Happy Jack]

[Spatial Ed]

Retarded people are happier than others too.

[Regatta Dog]

Retarded people are happier than others too.

I can vouch for that.

[Mike G]

Retarded people are happier than others too.

Classic

[Mark K]

Interesting Mormons got an identical score to Muslims. The Muslims call it a "seamless garment" -that their religion addresses all aspects of life. The Mormons exert about the same level of control over their adherents, and score the same in that test.

I think Mormonism is the only truly American iteration of Christianity. It developed almost entirely here. In a way, they are the American Jews too. Have their own persecution stories, and a search for a Zion. Perhaps that's why so many of them are into Israel. The same guy who did the "American Jesus" did this:

http://www.mcnaughto...ar?artpiece=316

"Coming to Zion"

[Happy Jack]

No they did not. Jews and Mormons tied.

[Mark K]

No they did not. Jews and Mormons tied.

I got that wrong, but the Muslims rank closest among those with high religious intensity.

[Saorsa]

Interesting Mormons got an identical score to Muslims. The Muslims call it a "seamless garment" -that their religion addresses all aspects of life. The Mormons exert about the same level of control over their adherents, and score the same in that test.

I think Mormonism is the only truly American iteration of Christianity. It developed almost entirely here. In a way, they are the American Jews too. Have their own persecution stories, and a search for a Zion. Perhaps that's why so many of them are into Israel. The same guy who did the "American Jesus" did this:

http://www.mcnaughto...ar?artpiece=316

"Coming to Zion"

Tell ya what. Take what you value most, put it on a handcart and walk from Illinois to Utah.

You will learn the strength of faith.

[Spatial Ed]

Just think how happy the Mormons would be if they could drink beer.

[B.J. Porter]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

[Bent Sailor]

Yup, Jews & Mormons have the highest "well being" in said poll. Jews manage to get it without the intensity required by the Mormons. I reckon it pays better to be a Jew based on that evidence. Better well-being, less need to cry at fast & testimony meetings.

I share BJ Porter's reservations about the merit of such studies. Reporting how good you feel does not mean one feels good. The study simply shows that Mormon's and Jews are more likely to say they feel good than others. Perhaps they are simply less honest?

[d'ranger]

I thought Republicans were happier? We used to have a poster named Malarkey who would trot that one out.

Are all Mormons Republican? Maybe, but Jews and Muslims?

[Mark K]

Interesting Mormons got an identical score to Muslims. The Muslims call it a "seamless garment" -that their religion addresses all aspects of life. The Mormons exert about the same level of control over their adherents, and score the same in that test.

I think Mormonism is the only truly American iteration of Christianity. It developed almost entirely here. In a way, they are the American Jews too. Have their own persecution stories, and a search for a Zion. Perhaps that's why so many of them are into Israel. The same guy who did the "American Jesus" did this:

http://www.mcnaughto...ar?artpiece=316

"Coming to Zion"

Tell ya what. Take what you value most, put it on a handcart and walk from Illinois to Utah.

You will learn the strength of faith.

Or, you could save a lot of time by taking up self-flagellation. Be sure to report back on that, m'kay?

Seriously, the closest thing I know of in "mainstream" Christianity to the life-style of Mormons is the Catholic Opus Dei, "The Work". A sect within the church that emphasizes integration of religion into daily life for Catholics. They also feature mortification of the flesh as a path to spirituality.

[Saorsa]

Interesting Mormons got an identical score to Muslims. The Muslims call it a "seamless garment" -that their religion addresses all aspects of life. The Mormons exert about the same level of control over their adherents, and score the same in that test.

I think Mormonism is the only truly American iteration of Christianity. It developed almost entirely here. In a way, they are the American Jews too. Have their own persecution stories, and a search for a Zion. Perhaps that's why so many of them are into Israel. The same guy who did the "American Jesus" did this:

http://www.mcnaughto...ar?artpiece=316

"Coming to Zion"

Tell ya what. Take what you value most, put it on a handcart and walk from Illinois to Utah.

You will learn the strength of faith.

Or, you could save a lot of time by taking up self-flagellation. Be sure to report back on that, m'kay?

Seriously, the closest thing I know of in "mainstream" Christianity to the life-style of Mormons is the Catholic Opus Dei, "The Work". A sect within the church that emphasizes integration of religion into daily life for Catholics. They also feature mortification of the flesh as a path to spirituality.

You are, as a minimum, misinformed.

The mormon migration was due to persecution. Self-flagellation and the mortifications of Opus Dei isn't in the same league. One can remain a catholic without those self inflicted insults. The migration was from external pressure.

Seriously, that comparison is irrational.

[B.J. Porter]

I thought Republicans were happier? We used to have a poster named Malarkey who would trot that one out.

Are all Mormons Republican? Maybe, but Jews and Muslims?

Republicans are supposed to have better sex; while Liberal girls are much easier they just lay there. I think that was what one of his studies proved.

[Mark K]

Interesting Mormons got an identical score to Muslims. The Muslims call it a "seamless garment" -that their religion addresses all aspects of life. The Mormons exert about the same level of control over their adherents, and score the same in that test.

I think Mormonism is the only truly American iteration of Christianity. It developed almost entirely here. In a way, they are the American Jews too. Have their own persecution stories, and a search for a Zion. Perhaps that's why so many of them are into Israel. The same guy who did the "American Jesus" did this:

http://www.mcnaughto...ar?artpiece=316

"Coming to Zion"

Tell ya what. Take what you value most, put it on a handcart and walk from Illinois to Utah.

You will learn the strength of faith.

Or, you could save a lot of time by taking up self-flagellation. Be sure to report back on that, m'kay?

Seriously, the closest thing I know of in "mainstream" Christianity to the life-style of Mormons is the Catholic Opus Dei, "The Work". A sect within the church that emphasizes integration of religion into daily life for Catholics. They also feature mortification of the flesh as a path to spirituality.

You are, as a minimum, misinformed.

The mormon migration was due to persecution. Self-flagellation and the mortifications of Opus Dei isn't in the same league. One can remain a catholic without those self inflicted insults. The migration was from external pressure.

Seriously, that comparison is irrational.

You advocated an arduous journey as a path to faith. My reply was rational in that context. The comparison is about working religion into all aspects of life, which Mormons and Muslims strive for. The mortification of the flesh was something just for you.

[Saorsa]

Interesting Mormons got an identical score to Muslims. The Muslims call it a "seamless garment" -that their religion addresses all aspects of life. The Mormons exert about the same level of control over their adherents, and score the same in that test.

I think Mormonism is the only truly American iteration of Christianity. It developed almost entirely here. In a way, they are the American Jews too. Have their own persecution stories, and a search for a Zion. Perhaps that's why so many of them are into Israel. The same guy who did the "American Jesus" did this:

http://www.mcnaughto...ar?artpiece=316

"Coming to Zion"

Tell ya what. Take what you value most, put it on a handcart and walk from Illinois to Utah.

You will learn the strength of faith.

Or, you could save a lot of time by taking up self-flagellation. Be sure to report back on that, m'kay?

Seriously, the closest thing I know of in "mainstream" Christianity to the life-style of Mormons is the Catholic Opus Dei, "The Work". A sect within the church that emphasizes integration of religion into daily life for Catholics. They also feature mortification of the flesh as a path to spirituality.

You are, as a minimum, misinformed.

The mormon migration was due to persecution. Self-flagellation and the mortifications of Opus Dei isn't in the same league. One can remain a catholic without those self inflicted insults. The migration was from external pressure.

Seriously, that comparison is irrational.

You advocated an arduous journey as a path to faith. My reply was rational in that context.

No, you are absolutely wrong. It was not the path to faith. It was the path of faith. The faith was there before the journey was begun and it did not falter.

The mortification of the flesh would be a path to faith by it's practicioners. It is not required of the faith or forced by others.

[Mark K]

No, you are absolutely wrong. It was not the path to faith. It was the path of faith. The faith was there before the journey was begun and it did not falter.

The mortification of the flesh would be a path to faith by it's practicioners. It is not required of the faith or forced by others.

No, you said that one would learn the power of faith. Go back and look.

Some things are irrational in faith. In life too. For instance, you prove there are more horses ass's than there are horses.

[Happy Jack]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

BJ ... come on... The .2% in prison is the percent of the prison population not the percent of atheist in prison.

The divorce statistic is from Barna which is a religious organization of some sort, who knows what methodology or motive they have.

The wealth study is based on the religiosity of the country vs per capita income. It says nothing about the correlation within each country between religiosity and income. In addition the US is the exception to even that statistic.

For a bright guy you have a surprising number of stupid moments.

[Happy Jack]

Religions in America

http://religions.pew...-traditions.pdf

---------------------

Mormons in America a new PEW poll

summary http://www.pewforum....nfographic.aspx

full report http://www.pewforum.... in America.pdf

---------------------

Religious Knowledge Survey

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

http://www.pewforum....dge-Survey.aspx


---------------------

Income vs Religion

http://www.pewforum....ous-Groups.aspx

[Another Redhead]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

Oh come on B.J. - religion is all about correctness of belief and how you FEEEEEEEEEEL, not about how you actually act.

Besides, practicing buddhists are actually the happiest. http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/3047291.stm

[B.J. Porter]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

BJ ... come on... The .2% in prison is the percent of the prison population not the percent of atheist in prison.

Speaking of stupid comments, what does that means??? The statistic I quoted is the percentage of prison population - meaning of the people in prison, less than 1% of them are atheists. That is precisely the stat I meant, because in theory there should be a roughly equivalent percentage of atheists in prison compared to the real world (8-15%). That there isn't is significant. It could mean a couple of things - either atheists are getting religion in prison (so there are fewer atheists there) or fewer atheists go to prison. The latter seems more probable. According to the religious nuts we have no morals or moral foundation, so shouldn't you expect MORE atheists in prison, not less?

And the Barna study?

1) ANY study is subject to some bias. For example a CDC study shows that the less important religion is the less likely you are to be married in the first place. That being said, one possible conclusion is that since fewer atheists marry on average, perhaps they tend to be a bit more careful about the process. Much like the prison population...fewer atheists marry will skew the marriage stats.

2) Barna is a religious group serving religious clients - what profit is it to them to prove that atheists have the lowest divorce rate? A statistic developed by someone that hurts their own position...usually better than those that don't. What would you trust more - a stat from the Tobacco Institute that showed you smoking was bad for you, or good for you? Oh that's right, you're a big fan for Petroleum Institute's research on Global Warming...

BTW I looked for data disputing the Barna numbers. There was some tangentially supporting data. And I couldn't find a single sold disputation of it in spite of the HUGE efforts of many, many religios web sites trying to explain why it was wrong.

Gotta get the kids to school, don't have time for more now.

[Saorsa]

No, you are absolutely wrong. It was not the path to faith. It was the path of faith. The faith was there before the journey was begun and it did not falter.

The mortification of the flesh would be a path to faith by it's practicioners. It is not required of the faith or forced by others.

No, you said that one would learn the power of faith. Go back and look.

Some things are irrational in faith. In life too. For instance, you prove there are more horses ass's than there are horses.

Hmmm, yes, I should have put a conditional in there. I certainly wouldn't have expected you to do anything and inadvertently left it out.

[NGS]

Mormon CEO says his faith leads him to support Ron Paul for President.

“Every member of the church interprets its teachings how they like,” said Johnson. “For me liberty is a key part of those teachings, and agency and freedom of the individual to act are key parts of the teachings. For me they seem to mesh well wish a more libertarian view.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz1nIqH6OMI

[Jon Eisberg]

Mormon CEO says his faith leads him to support Ron Paul for President.

“Every member of the church interprets its teachings how they like,” said Johnson. “For me liberty is a key part of those teachings, and agency and freedom of the individual to act are key parts of the teachings. For me they seem to mesh well wish a more libertarian view.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.c.../#ixzz1nIqH6OMI

Uh-oh, looks like Mitt's Happiness & Well-Being just got dialed down a notch...

One time it certainly may not "Pay to be a Mormon", however, is when you're running in a general election for President, and attempting to drum up electoral college votes in the Deep South...

The Mormon Menace (released imminently by Oxford University Press) tells a largely unknown and remarkable story. Patrick's book is not a history of the Latter-day Saints in the South, but an analysis of southern anti-Mormonism. He might have subtitled the book Awash in a Sea of Baptist Haters but chose to not be so impolitic. At first glance, one might object that there were not all that many Mormons (or Mormon missionaries, for that matter) in the American South at this time. However, southerners were incredibly alarmed about the threat Mormon polygamy posed to innocent white women allegedly at great risk of being seduced by traveling elders. Patrick notes that vigilante attacks against Mormons "far exceeded the combined number of attacks against all other religious outsiders in the South, including Jews and Catholics, during this time period." Following the lead of R. Laurence Moore, Patrick suggests one can learn a great deal about the religious "center" of a society by examining the experience of the religiously marginalized.

One great strength of the Mormon Menace is its intelligent engagement with a variety of literatures. Rereading the introduction, I found insights about American vigilantism, southern politics, race, and religious difference. Patrick argues that "anti-Mormonism provided one set of bonds that helped reforge national unity after the Civil War and Reconstruction, and gave southerners common cause with northern reformers and politicians who had been their bitter enemies only a few years earlier." In short, this is first and foremost a book for historians of the American South, not a narrow offering for historians of Mormonism. I would recommend it as absolutely essential reading for anyone studying the place of religious minorities in the South or the history of American vigilantism.

A final note. Well-written and intelligently edited books are always a greater pleasure to read, even for historians. Patrick's book excels in this respect. The narrative is strong, and some of the illustrations are downright shocking (turn to pp. 138-39).

In the late 1800s, southerners were mostly unique in employing violence to ward off the "Mormon menace." Patrick's book prompted me to think about the contemporary nature of anti-Mormonism in the United States, especially in the South. LDS adherents remain a small minority in Dixie (the "real" Dixie, not southern Utah), comprising less than one percent of the population in all states of the former Confederacy save Virginia and Texas. I occasionally hear people talk about LDS growth in this region of the country but do not know whether it's true. Also, I often ask Latter-day Saints about their missionary experiences. Since Mormon missionaries are quite inured to rejection and unfriendly responses, I rarely hear complaints about anti-Mormon attitudes. The exception has been among former missionaries who served in the Deep South. Perhaps southern evangelicals retain their long-standing animus against Mormons, fortunately without the violence documented in The Mormon Menace. I also note a fair amount of theological anti-Mormonism (or simply generic anti-Mormonism, based on not very much) among my students. Since we began our annual summer pilgrimages to Zion, several well-meaning acquaintances in southern Alabama have expressed spiritual concern on our behalf, whereas our New England friends mostly worry about our access to coffee.

http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2011/02/mormon-menace.html

[Happy Jack]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

The PEW study puts the number of Americans that identify themselves as Atheists at 1.6% not 8-15%

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf


BJ ... come on... The .2% in prison is the percent of the prison population not the percent of atheist in prison.

Speaking of stupid comments, what does that means??? The statistic I quoted is the percentage of prison population - meaning of the people in prison, less than 1% of them are atheists. That is precisely the stat I meant, because in theory there should be a roughly equivalent percentage of atheists in prison compared to the real world (8-15%). That there isn't is significant. It could mean a couple of things - either atheists are getting religion in prison (so there are fewer atheists there) or fewer atheists go to prison. The latter seems more probable. According to the religious nuts we have no morals or moral foundation, so shouldn't you expect MORE atheists in prison, not less?

And the Barna study?

1) ANY study is subject to some bias. For example a CDC study shows that the less important religion is the less likely you are to be married in the first place. That being said, one possible conclusion is that since fewer atheists marry on average, perhaps they tend to be a bit more careful about the process. Much like the prison population...fewer atheists marry will skew the marriage stats.

2) Barna is a religious group serving religious clients - what profit is it to them to prove that atheists have the lowest divorce rate? A statistic developed by someone that hurts their own position...usually better than those that don't. What would you trust more - a stat from the Tobacco Institute that showed you smoking was bad for you, or good for you? Oh that's right, you're a big fan for Petroleum Institute's research on Global Warming...

BTW I looked for data disputing the Barna numbers. There was some tangentially supporting data. And I couldn't find a single sold disputation of it in spite of the HUGE efforts of many, many religios web sites trying to explain why it was wrong.

Gotta get the kids to school, don't have time for more now.

The PEW study puts the number of Americans that identify themselves as Atheists at 1.6% not 8-15%

http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/affiliations-all-traditions.pdf

[Spatial Ed]

Hard to be an atheist these days. So much discrimination. No wonder very few self identify as one.

[Dog]

Hard to be an atheist these days. So much discrimination. No wonder very few self identify as one.

Discriminating on the basis of one’s belief is bad….sometimes.

[Bus Driver]

I guess for people who see the world as binary and divide the citizenry as "us" and "them" it is easy to be focused on being on the winning team.

Yay, team!

[Spatial Ed]

Hard to be an atheist these days. So much discrimination. No wonder very few self identify as one.

Discriminating on the basis of one’s belief is bad….sometimes.

So true, but its human nature.

[craigiri]

No they did not. Jews and Mormons tied.

Little mislead, eh, when non-religious Jews are as "happy jack" as ANY mormons and happier than any other religion!

I guess you could headline it any way you want.

In the case of Mormons, I'd think that not drinking and smoking - plus the generally higher socio-economic scale - would make them even further ahead.....

[craigiri]

The PEW study puts the number of Americans that identify themselves as Atheists at 1.6% not 8-15%

http://religions.pew...-traditions.pdf

You probably have not met many non-religious Jews, eh?

They ID as Jews, but are certainly more toward the Atheist side of the scale! Or, maybe Buddhist, but would not usually ID as such.

[Spatial Ed]

Whats the thread count of Mormon underwear? That could have significant impact on the happiness of the wearer.

[craigiri]

Whats the thread count of Mormon underwear? That could have significant impact on the happiness of the wearer.

Another inconvenient factoid....Happy, why limit things to America? The happiest countries in the world are generally secular and have the lowest church attendance - Denmark, Sweden, Norway, etc.

Explain...your theory....

[MoeAlfa]

Jewish is a culture and an ethnicity. Jewish nonbelievers identify as Jews, not so, atheists of Christian background.

[craigiri]

Jewish is a culture and an ethnicity. Jewish nonbelievers identify as Jews, not so, atheists of Christian background.

I'd say there are a vast pool of folks who are "christian by birth" and would profess faith to some degree because they don't want to disappoint their parents and peers........

This stuff works on a scale - NOT on 3 columns like Happy Jacks tables.....

Heck, I always noticed smiles on the faces of the cult members I knew. (Hari Krisna, Jews for Jesus, etc.)

[Spatial Ed]

I think the happiness the Mormons enjoy, and other fundamentalist sects like Muslims, is the result of their lifestyle choices more than their faith. They simply live a much healthier lifestyle. All the vices they abhor and we enjoy only give us temporary pleasure and many have long term consequences that lead to unhappiness.

[Happy Jack]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

I've seen the Atheist activists making the criminality claim over the last few years, only the statistic is fatally flawed.

They start by combining respondents that say other, agnostic or no affiliation with atheists. There is no basis for doing so.

The second flaw is that they are reporting 1997 prison data but quoting more current Identification data. So I looked to see what surveys were closer to the prison data's date.

One is ARIS 2001 which lists atheists at .5%

http://commons.trinc...-2001-codebook/

The same survey from 1990 lists agnostic but no atheists. Possibly self identifying as atheist was less acceptable much like self identifying as gay would have been.

http://commons.trinc.../nsri-codebook/

And finally, buried in the wiki page you linked to was this data

Encyclopedia Britanna: 1995 0.3% atheists, (also according to Encyclopedia Britannica, in 1900 there were "0%" atheists in America

Notice that it says there were 0% in 1990. Confirmation of my theory about the reluctance to self identify as Atheist.

Now move to 1997 and the prison data. I just showed that atheists were just coming out of the closet so to speak. But consider a prisoner being asked by the prison system to identify their religion. If in general society there is a reluctance to admit you are Godless it seems reasonable that a prisoner would be even more fearful of a backlash from other prisoners and guards.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the actual number of Atheists in prison was closer to their representation in the general population.

Your claim is unsupported by the facts. Sorry B.J.

Now, if you can dig up a 2012 prison identification survey to compare to the new PEW study we might have a better picture.

[Saorsa]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

I've seen the Atheist activists making the criminality claim over the last few years, only the statistic is fatally flawed.

They start by combining respondents that say other, agnostic or no affiliation with atheists. There is no basis for doing so.

The second flaw is that they are reporting 1997 prison data but quoting more current Identification data. So I looked to see what surveys were closer to the prison data's date.

One is ARIS 2001 which lists atheists at .5%

http://commons.trinc...-2001-codebook/

The same survey from 1990 lists agnostic but no atheists. Possibly self identifying as atheist was less acceptable much like self identifying as gay would have been.

http://commons.trinc.../nsri-codebook/

And finally, buried in the wiki page you linked to was this data

Encyclopedia Britanna: 1995 0.3% atheists, (also according to Encyclopedia Britannica, in 1900 there were "0%" atheists in America

Notice that it says there were 0% in 1990. Confirmation of my theory about the reluctance to self identify as Atheist.

Now move to 1997 and the prison data. I just showed that atheists were just coming out of the closet so to speak. But consider a prisoner being asked by the prison system to identify their religion. If in general society there is a reluctance to admit you are Godless it seems reasonable that a prisoner would be even more fearful of a backlash from other prisoners and guards.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the actual number of Atheists in prison was closer to their representation in the general population.

Your claim is unsupported by the facts. Sorry B.J.

Now, if you can dig up a 2012 prison identification survey to compare to the new PEW study we might have a better picture.

I would suspect that a survey of prisons would lead to a low number of atheists due to the number of folks who find god before going to the parole board.

As with other religious beliefs, there is plenty of room for hypocrisy.

[craigiri]

I would suspect that a survey of prisons would lead to a low number of atheists due to the number of folks who find god before going to the parole board.

As with other religious beliefs, there is plenty of room for hypocrisy.

Yeah, one lady tried that with GW in Texas.

He mocked her as he pulled the death switch.......

These threads are worse than useless.

We could list many a fantasy - over the ages - which 95% or more of the population believed in. If I believe there is a "life force" I'm probably deemed to believe in God. If I believe in electrical charges in the brain and in vibes...the same probably goes.

I think Happy just cannot accept the fact that fewer and fewer Americans are going to church - despite all the pressure. Nor can he address why countries which are famously secular are happier...

Heck, I think it's provable that those who are a member of the "club du jour" are often happier than the outcasts. I'd guess that in WWII Germany and in many other such situations, the "majority" would test happier, since the are less subject to getting shipped off.

[craigiri]

I think the happiness the Mormons enjoy, and other fundamentalist sects like Muslims, is the result of their lifestyle choices more than their faith. They simply live a much healthier lifestyle. All the vices they abhor and we enjoy only give us temporary pleasure and many have long term consequences that lead to unhappiness.

Some truth in that......

Also, it is certainly uplifting to have community (didn't hillary say that it takes a village?) and others who think the same as you do...

I've said it before and will repeat - Mormons are WAY UP on my list of religions which also subscribe to the Real World....I'm not talking about their dogma, just their actual life styles and actions. I'd trust a mormon way before some of the others......

[Dog]

Yeah, one lady tried that with GW in Texas.
He mocked her as he pulled the death switch.......

Really?

[notallthere]

February 16, 2012 Gallup

In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths

Jews and Mormons have the highest wellbeing of any of the faith groups examined in this analysis, while those with no religious identity have the lowest overall wellbeing.

Analyzing the six wellbeing sub-indexes reveals the areas in which certain groups excel and others fall behind. Jews score proportionately higher on the Basic Access sub-index. Muslims score higher on the Life Evaluation and Physical Health Indexes, compared with the other faiths. Protestants, on the other hand, score lowest on the Life Evaluation Index and the Physical Health Index, compared with the other faith groups. (See page 2 for descriptions of the sub-indexes.)



Religious Intensity Greatest for Mormons, Lowest for Jews

Mormons are by far the most religious of these groups, with 73.4% categorized as very religious. Protestants, Muslims, and Roman Catholics are next in order of religiousness, although less than half of the latter two of these groups are classified as very religious. Americans who identify with other non-Christian religions, Jews, and those who have no formal religious identity are the least religious of any of the faith groups. As noted, the relative effect of religiousness on wellbeing generally persists despite these overall differences.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/Religious-Higher-Wellbeing-Across-Faiths.aspx

Why did you post this in PA?

[craigiri]

He mocked her as he pulled the death switch.......
------
Really?

It depends on whether you define this as such....

'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'


From an interview with Tucker Carlson and as quoted in the Houston Chronicle.
"In the year following her execution, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson questioned Governor George W. Bush about how the Board of Pardons and Parole had arrived at the determination on her clemency plea. Carlson alleged that Bush, alluding to a televised interview which Karla Faye Tucker had given to talk show host Larry King, smirked and spoke mockingly about her."


Even you, Doggie, will admit that seems like typical GW.....

[Dog]

He mocked her as he pulled the death switch.......
------
Really?

It depends on whether you define this as such....

'Please,' Bush whimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'


From an interview with Tucker Carlson and as quoted in the Houston Chronicle.
"In the year following her execution, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson questioned Governor George W. Bush about how the Board of Pardons and Parole had arrived at the determination on her clemency plea. Carlson alleged that Bush, alluding to a televised interview which Karla Faye Tucker had given to talk show host Larry King, smirked and spoke mockingly about her."


Even you, Doggie, will admit that seems like typical GW.....

No, actually it doesn’t sound at all like GWB. The man was disappointing in many ways but his compassion was not one of them…BTW, it’s not necessary to provide cites for all the irrelevant shit, only for your assertion. Got one?

It’s rhetorical don’t even try…We all know you don’t.

[B.J. Porter]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

I've seen the Atheist activists making the criminality claim over the last few years, only the statistic is fatally flawed.

They start by combining respondents that say other, agnostic or no affiliation with atheists. There is no basis for doing so.

The second flaw is that they are reporting 1997 prison data but quoting more current Identification data. So I looked to see what surveys were closer to the prison data's date.

One is ARIS 2001 which lists atheists at .5%

http://commons.trinc...-2001-codebook/

The same survey from 1990 lists agnostic but no atheists. Possibly self identifying as atheist was less acceptable much like self identifying as gay would have been.

http://commons.trinc.../nsri-codebook/

And finally, buried in the wiki page you linked to was this data

Encyclopedia Britanna: 1995 0.3% atheists, (also according to Encyclopedia Britannica, in 1900 there were "0%" atheists in America

Notice that it says there were 0% in 1990. Confirmation of my theory about the reluctance to self identify as Atheist.

Now move to 1997 and the prison data. I just showed that atheists were just coming out of the closet so to speak. But consider a prisoner being asked by the prison system to identify their religion. If in general society there is a reluctance to admit you are Godless it seems reasonable that a prisoner would be even more fearful of a backlash from other prisoners and guards.

It is entirely reasonable to conclude that the actual number of Atheists in prison was closer to their representation in the general population.

Your claim is unsupported by the facts. Sorry B.J.

Now, if you can dig up a 2012 prison identification survey to compare to the new PEW study we might have a better picture.

Oh Jack! You are So Right it must be so awesome to be a Mormon! Where can I sign up?

But seriously - you are quibbling over terminology and semantics. Yes, in America, where a majority people view Atheists as evil incarnate it' not surprising that people are reluctant to identify as such. Also many people that are atheists don't identify as such, for many, many reasons - not the least of which is not really understanding what the label means. But someone that does not go to church, believe in religion, or believe in god is an atheist whether they identify themselves that way or not.

Let me ask you this - what is the functional difference in society between someone with "No religion" and an "Atheist"? Or an atheist and an agnostic that does not practice any religion? Answer - pretty much none.

If it will get some baby powder in your shorts and settle you down a bit, go back to my original comment and replace the word "Atheist" with "Non believer/Non Religious". Guess what - the numbers bear out.

[Mark K]

I think the happiness the Mormons enjoy, and other fundamentalist sects like Muslims, is the result of their lifestyle choices more than their faith. They simply live a much healthier lifestyle. All the vices they abhor and we enjoy only give us temporary pleasure and many have long term consequences that lead to unhappiness.

Their community spirit and organization is most admirable. It is of course socialism, but since it's religious-based, it's not criticized. Somebody mentioned one of them thought Ron Paul represented his views. Must be a Jack Mormon. Ron wouldn't approve of a system of government that dug so deeply into the personal lives of it's people.

[B.J. Porter]

One is ARIS 2001 which lists atheists at .5%

http://commons.trinc...-2001-codebook/

The same survey from 1990 lists agnostic but no atheists. Possibly self identifying as atheist was less acceptable much like self identifying as gay would have been.

http://commons.trinc.../nsri-codebook/

And finally, buried in the wiki page you linked to was this data

OK, I see the flaw in the ARIS project.

They ask the question "What is your religion?"

The answer, for me, if you ask me that question is: "None"

Unlike Saorsa, I knwo that Atheism is NOT a religion, but rather a lack of religion. So if someone called me on the phone for a survey I knew nothing about and asked me "What is your religion?" my honest, truthful and immediate answer would be "None" because I have no religion.

Given that fatal flaw in the survey design I can see why their "Unchurched" numbers are reasonably accurate but the "Atheist" number is whacked. You need to ask the question right.

Jack, you might see those gnats a little more easily if you could sick up a few of those camels you've swallowed. Just sayin', reading glasses aren't going to help the straining.

[craigiri]

No, actually it doesn't sound at all like GWB. The man was disappointing in many ways but his compassion was not one of them…BTW, it's not necessary to provide cites for all the irrelevant shit, only for your assertion. Got one?

It's rhetorical don't even try…We all know you don't.

That's my assertion - that GW, according to Right Wing Pundit Tucker Carlson, openly mocked the Christian Lady who was executed and not granted clemency by him!

Doggie - "Bring 'em on" is the same damn thing. GW was certainly not compassionate - you can't call sending million of troops for multiple deployments compassionate.....

Anyway, my point was that converting and finding God didn't do that lady any good.

Oh, and I believe Tucker Carlson. That is so "GW".....you could not make it up! Of course, neither would he - a right wing champion - have any reason to.

As to GW's compassionate nature:
"As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants — 154 in five years"


" Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"


It's fantastic that this dude destroyed the lives of millions and your saving grace is that he is definitely compassionate.

[Happy Jack]

I would suspect that a survey of prisons would lead to a low number of atheists due to the number of folks who find god before going to the parole board.

As with other religious beliefs, there is plenty of room for hypocrisy.

Yeah, one lady tried that with GW in Texas.

He mocked her as he pulled the death switch.......

These threads are worse than useless.

We could list many a fantasy - over the ages - which 95% or more of the population believed in. If I believe there is a "life force" I'm probably deemed to believe in God. If I believe in electrical charges in the brain and in vibes...the same probably goes.

I think Happy just cannot accept the fact that fewer and fewer Americans are going to church - despite all the pressure. Nor can he address why countries which are famously secular are happier...

Heck, I think it's provable that those who are a member of the "club du jour" are often happier than the outcasts. I'd guess that in WWII Germany and in many other such situations, the "majority" would test happier, since the are less subject to getting shipped off.

Accept? On problem with this war on Christianity is that the bible is being ignored. This is not a religious argument it's a cultural and language argument. Why not toss out Shakespeare as archaic too. So much of our language and idiomatic culture is biblical.

Kids watch Armageddon in the movies and have no clue about it's religious roots

Because if you had ever read the bible you would know this has all been predicted. Of course I accept it you ninny.

[Happy Jack]

February 16, 2012 Gallup

In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths

Jews and Mormons have the highest wellbeing of any of the faith groups examined in this analysis, while those with no religious identity have the lowest overall wellbeing.

Analyzing the six wellbeing sub-indexes reveals the areas in which certain groups excel and others fall behind. Jews score proportionately higher on the Basic Access sub-index. Muslims score higher on the Life Evaluation and Physical Health Indexes, compared with the other faiths. Protestants, on the other hand, score lowest on the Life Evaluation Index and the Physical Health Index, compared with the other faith groups. (See page 2 for descriptions of the sub-indexes.)



Religious Intensity Greatest for Mormons, Lowest for Jews

Mormons are by far the most religious of these groups, with 73.4% categorized as very religious. Protestants, Muslims, and Roman Catholics are next in order of religiousness, although less than half of the latter two of these groups are classified as very religious. Americans who identify with other non-Christian religions, Jews, and those who have no formal religious identity are the least religious of any of the faith groups. As noted, the relative effect of religiousness on wellbeing generally persists despite these overall differences.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/Religious-Higher-Wellbeing-Across-Faiths.aspx

Why did you post this in PA?

Election, Romney, Mormonism.... Duh

[Dog]

No, actually it doesn't sound at all like GWB. The man was disappointing in many ways but his compassion was not one of them…BTW, it's not necessary to provide cites for all the irrelevant shit, only for your assertion. Got one?

It's rhetorical don't even try…We all know you don't.

That's my assertion - that GW, according to Right Wing Pundit Tucker Carlson, openly mocked the Christian Lady who was executed and not granted clemency by him!

Doggie - "Bring 'em on" is the same damn thing. GW was certainly not compassionate - you can't call sending million of troops for multiple deployments compassionate.....

Anyway, my point was that converting and finding God didn't do that lady any good.

Oh, and I believe Tucker Carlson. That is so "GW".....you could not make it up! Of course, neither would he - a right wing champion - have any reason to.

As to GW's compassionate nature:
"As governor of Texas, he set a record in signing death warrants — 154 in five years"


" Nicholas D. Kristof quoted Bush's childhood friend Terry Throckmorton: "'We were terrible to animals,' recalled Mr. Throckmorton, laughing. A dip behind the Bush home turned into a small lake after a good rain, and thousands of frogs would come out. 'Everybody would get BB guns and shoot them,' Mr. Throckmorton said. 'Or we'd put firecrackers in the frogs and throw them and blow them up.'"
It's fantastic that this dude destroyed the lives of millions and your saving grace is that he is definitely compassionate.

Look what he did fighting aids in Africa and today he is more popular in the ME than Obama (which admittedly is not a high bar).
Shooting frogs with a BB gun when he was a kid! are you kidding... I told you not to try.

[Clove Hitch]

Look what he did fighting aids in Africa and today he is more popular in the ME than Obama (which admittedly is not a high bar).

No way. The folks in Maine prefer Obama, still.

[Mark K]

February 16, 2012 Gallup

In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Wellbeing Across All Faiths

Jews and Mormons have the highest wellbeing of any of the faith groups examined in this analysis, while those with no religious identity have the lowest overall wellbeing.

Analyzing the six wellbeing sub-indexes reveals the areas in which certain groups excel and others fall behind. Jews score proportionately higher on the Basic Access sub-index. Muslims score higher on the Life Evaluation and Physical Health Indexes, compared with the other faiths. Protestants, on the other hand, score lowest on the Life Evaluation Index and the Physical Health Index, compared with the other faith groups. (See page 2 for descriptions of the sub-indexes.)



Religious Intensity Greatest for Mormons, Lowest for Jews

Mormons are by far the most religious of these groups, with 73.4% categorized as very religious. Protestants, Muslims, and Roman Catholics are next in order of religiousness, although less than half of the latter two of these groups are classified as very religious. Americans who identify with other non-Christian religions, Jews, and those who have no formal religious identity are the least religious of any of the faith groups. As noted, the relative effect of religiousness on wellbeing generally persists despite these overall differences.



http://www.gallup.com/poll/152732/Religious-Higher-Wellbeing-Across-Faiths.aspx

Why did you post this in PA?

Election, Romney, Mormonism.... Duh

You really can't blame his religion for what he is. His dad was a stand-up guy. A lot of Mormons are, actually.

http://www.aboutmitt...rgeromney.htm#3

Walked away from power over a point of honor.

[craigiri]

Kids watch Armageddon in the movies and have no clue about it's religious roots

Because if you had ever read the bible you would know this has all been predicted. Of course I accept it you ninny.

Yeah, and my brother claims it was foretold in the Bagavad Gita, many thousands of years before your prophesies.

So, let me summarize - people are not stopping their belief in fairy tales due to science, reason, logic and education - rather they are doing do because of the prophesies of the Book or Mormon or the Bible?

Do I have that right?

[notallthere]

Why did you post this in PA?

Election, Romney, Mormonism.... Duh

Separation of Church and State. I would guess most voters do not care what deity in the sky the candidate thanks.

IMHO, this belongs in GA.

[Clove Hitch]

Kids watch Armageddon in the movies and have no clue about it's religious roots

Because if you had ever read the bible you would know this has all been predicted. Of course I accept it you ninny.

Yeah, and my brother claims it was foretold in the Bagavad Gita, many thousands of years before your prophesies.

So, let me summarize - people are not stopping their belief in fairy tales due to science, reason, logic and education - rather they are doing do because of the prophesies of the Book or Mormon or the Bible?

Do I have that right?

Yes.

[craigiri]

today he is more popular in the ME than Obama

Did you really trot that out?
C'mon Doggie - you are really reaching....

So you prefer a US President who is the favorite of Islamists and Dictators? Wow.....a reach for even you!
"Killing Osama bin Laden also contributed to the Arab world’s negative views of Obama. In all six countries surveyed – Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia – the majority of respondents said killing bin Laden made them “less favorable toward the U.S."


Wow, are you sure you are American? I never checked on that.....


All kidding aside, Doggie, I was listening to a non-partisan foreign policy expert the other day...and he was asked what the major changes were from Bush to Obama. While he didn't not a vast difference on some items, he said that the difference in approval of the USA was off the charts - like nothing he ever saw before!


Only you can take one of the most positive attributes of Obama vs. your hero - and somehow weave it into a positive for Bush. That truly deserves a trophy .

[Dog]

today he is more popular in the ME than Obama

Did you really trot that out?
C'mon Doggie - you are really reaching....

So you prefer a US President who is the favorite of Islamists and Dictators? Wow.....a reach for even you!
"Killing Osama bin Laden also contributed to the Arab world’s negative views of Obama. In all six countries surveyed – Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Jordan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia – the majority of respondents said killing bin Laden made them “less favorable toward the U.S."


Wow, are you sure you are American? I never checked on that.....


All kidding aside, Doggie, I was listening to a non-partisan foreign policy expert the other day...and he was asked what the major changes were from Bush to Obama. While he didn't not a vast difference on some items, he said that the difference in approval of the USA was off the charts - like nothing he ever saw before!


Only you can take one of the most positive attributes of Obama vs. your hero - and somehow weave it into a positive for Bush. That truly deserves a trophy .

Amazing, you post shit like this about GWB….“He mocked her as he pulled the death switch”...Then suggest that I‘m the one reaching.

[craigiri]

Amazing, you post shit like this about GWB…."He mocked her as he pulled the death switch"...Then suggest that I'm the one reaching.

I was wrong! OK
He mocked her AFTER he killed her. Not as...or before.

Still, I don't think you will ever reach as far as you did with that one - claiming that Bush is better liked among Islamists. I gotta savor that one for awhile.

[Saorsa]

Kids watch Armageddon in the movies and have no clue about it's religious roots

Because if you had ever read the bible you would know this has all been predicted. Of course I accept it you ninny.

Yeah, and my brother claims it was foretold in the Bagavad Gita, many thousands of years before your prophesies.

So, let me summarize - people are not stopping their belief in fairy tales due to science, reason, logic and education - rather they are doing do because of the prophesies of the Book or Mormon or the Bible?

Do I have that right?

No, as usual you are wrong and so is your brother. It must be hereditary.

Scholars roughly date the Bhagavad Gītā to the period between 200 BCE and 200 CE, the authors having been influenced by the soteriologies of Buddhism, Jainism, Samkhya and Yoga

[Mark K]

How do you have a "Very Religious" non-religious person?

Although I'm sure this get's Happy Jack's rocks off, I find very little merit in studies of this sort.

The biggest problem I have with these sorts of "studies" is that they are self reporting - the "Well Being Index" is calculated from asking you to rate various aspects of your life as well as answering other subject questions honestly. It is not clear if they correct for observational bias; e.g. being more grounded in reality may make you tend to rate your overall life experience lower, even though in reality you are as happy and well off as some chipper kid in a suit that is out knocking on doors.

Obviously Gallup employs a lot of expert statisticians, pollsters, actuaries, etc. to develop more precision in their products than it seems. But when you look at other NON self reported statistics, e.g. Divorce Rates (atheists lowest), imprisonment rates (~.2% atheists in prison vs. 8-10% in the population), national wealth by religiosity ('tis a Gallup poll too) etc. etc. it doesn't support these feel good self reported survey conclusions.

Oh come on B.J. - religion is all about correctness of belief and how you FEEEEEEEEEEL, not about how you actually act.

Besides, practicing buddhists are actually the happiest. http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/3047291.stm

Have to be careful, Buddhism is arguably a philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia....m_(documentary)

[craigiri]

No, as usual you are wrong and so is your brother. It must be hereditary.

Perhaps you will calculate from Happy's written prophesies (depending on which, probably from 800 AD to 1800 in NY State) date back to these times:
"Cave paintings dated to 800 BCE in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, North India, show raiding horse-charioteers, one of whom is about to hurl a wheel, and who could potentially be identified as Krishna.A steatite tablet unearthed from Mohenjo-daro (2600~1800 BCE) depicting a young boy uprooting two trees from which are emerging two human figures is an interesting archaeological find for fixing dates associated with Krishna
......
Anyway, what's a few thousand or few hundred years among friends? Point is, Mormons didn't exist until the con guy found and translated the special Gold Tablets in NY state - so Happy sure ain't the first or the last to predict the End of the World based on scripture..

If you wanna get more specific, I think the Krisna thing suggests that we are in the Age of the Kali Yuga or something like that.

"Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE^[1] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 23 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode"

"Hindus believe that human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga, which is referred to as the Dark Age because in it people are as far away as possible from God."

I'm sure Happy would agree!

[Saorsa]

No, as usual you are wrong and so is your brother. It must be hereditary.

Perhaps you will calculate from Happy's written prophesies (depending on which, probably from 800 AD to 1800 in NY State) date back to these times:
"Cave paintings dated to 800 BCE in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, North India, show raiding horse-charioteers, one of whom is about to hurl a wheel, and who could potentially be identified as Krishna.A steatite tablet unearthed from Mohenjo-daro (2600~1800 BCE) depicting a young boy uprooting two trees from which are emerging two human figures is an interesting archaeological find for fixing dates associated with Krishna
......
Anyway, what's a few thousand or few hundred years among friends? Point is, Mormons didn't exist until the con guy found and translated the special Gold Tablets in NY state - so Happy sure ain't the first or the last to predict the End of the World based on scripture..

If you wanna get more specific, I think the Krisna thing suggests that we are in the Age of the Kali Yuga or something like that.

"Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE^[1] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 23 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode"

"Hindus believe that human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga, which is referred to as the Dark Age because in it people are as far away as possible from God."

I'm sure Happy would agree!

You didn't reference specific gods, you referenced a document. Potentially be identified as Krishna is not the same as identified as Krishna. Hindsight is always perfect and everything has roots.

[Clove Hitch]

No, as usual you are wrong and so is your brother. It must be hereditary.

Perhaps you will calculate from Happy's written prophesies (depending on which, probably from 800 AD to 1800 in NY State) date back to these times:
"Cave paintings dated to 800 BCE in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, North India, show raiding horse-charioteers, one of whom is about to hurl a wheel, and who could potentially be identified as Krishna.A steatite tablet unearthed from Mohenjo-daro (2600~1800 BCE) depicting a young boy uprooting two trees from which are emerging two human figures is an interesting archaeological find for fixing dates associated with Krishna
......
Anyway, what's a few thousand or few hundred years among friends? Point is, Mormons didn't exist until the con guy found and translated the special Gold Tablets in NY state - so Happy sure ain't the first or the last to predict the End of the World based on scripture..

If you wanna get more specific, I think the Krisna thing suggests that we are in the Age of the Kali Yuga or something like that.

"Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE^[1] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 23 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode"

"Hindus believe that human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga, which is referred to as the Dark Age because in it people are as far away as possible from God."

I'm sure Happy would agree!

You didn't reference specific gods, you referenced a document. Potentially be identified as Krishna is not the same as identified as Krishna. Hindsight is always perfect and everything has roots.

Haven't you read the Bhgd. Gita? It's as much about Krisna as the new testament is about Christ. Wait, of course you haven't read it. Okay. So just take my word for it or go read it.

[Saorsa]

No, as usual you are wrong and so is your brother. It must be hereditary.

Perhaps you will calculate from Happy's written prophesies (depending on which, probably from 800 AD to 1800 in NY State) date back to these times:
"Cave paintings dated to 800 BCE in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, North India, show raiding horse-charioteers, one of whom is about to hurl a wheel, and who could potentially be identified as Krishna.A steatite tablet unearthed from Mohenjo-daro (2600~1800 BCE) depicting a young boy uprooting two trees from which are emerging two human figures is an interesting archaeological find for fixing dates associated with Krishna
......
Anyway, what's a few thousand or few hundred years among friends? Point is, Mormons didn't exist until the con guy found and translated the special Gold Tablets in NY state - so Happy sure ain't the first or the last to predict the End of the World based on scripture..

If you wanna get more specific, I think the Krisna thing suggests that we are in the Age of the Kali Yuga or something like that.

"Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE^[1] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 23 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode"

"Hindus believe that human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga, which is referred to as the Dark Age because in it people are as far away as possible from God."

I'm sure Happy would agree!

You didn't reference specific gods, you referenced a document. Potentially be identified as Krishna is not the same as identified as Krishna. Hindsight is always perfect and everything has roots.

Haven't you read the Bhgd. Gita? It's as much about Krisna as the new testament is about Christ. Wait, of course you haven't read it. Okay. So just take my word for it or go read it.

A long time ago when thinking religion was relevant.

Craigiri is the one using krishna as the basis for the age of a document that was not written the thousands of years ago that he claimed.

[pjadams]

I am of the opinion that being agnostic makes the most sense. It eliminates all the killing that religions have promoted and stops pitting one against another. It doesn't say there isn't a god, it just says "it can't be known". I think we can pretty accurately trace the earth's history far enough back in time to imagine a god who might have knocked over the first domino, then stepped back. What has happened since has nothing to with him or with any religion, except for those who act in the name of religion. Free will means we must rely on ourselves to deal with the issues of our existence. Now I'll stand back!

[Happy Jack]

I am of the opinion that being agnostic makes the most sense. It eliminates all the killing that religions have promoted and stops pitting one against another. It doesn't say there isn't a god, it just says "it can't be known". I think we can pretty accurately trace the earth's history far enough back in time to imagine a god who might have knocked over the first domino, then stepped back. What has happened since has nothing to with him or with any religion, except for those who act in the name of religion. Free will means we must rely on ourselves to deal with the issues of our existence. Now I'll stand back!

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

LINK http://www.telegraph...-not-exist.html

[Happy Jack]

No, as usual you are wrong and so is your brother. It must be hereditary.

Perhaps you will calculate from Happy's written prophesies (depending on which, probably from 800 AD to 1800 in NY State) date back to these times:
"Cave paintings dated to 800 BCE in Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh, North India, show raiding horse-charioteers, one of whom is about to hurl a wheel, and who could potentially be identified as Krishna.A steatite tablet unearthed from Mohenjo-daro (2600~1800 BCE) depicting a young boy uprooting two trees from which are emerging two human figures is an interesting archaeological find for fixing dates associated with Krishna
......
Anyway, what's a few thousand or few hundred years among friends? Point is, Mormons didn't exist until the con guy found and translated the special Gold Tablets in NY state - so Happy sure ain't the first or the last to predict the End of the World based on scripture..

If you wanna get more specific, I think the Krisna thing suggests that we are in the Age of the Kali Yuga or something like that.

"Yuga began at midnight (00:00) on 18 February 3102 BCE^[1] in the proleptic Julian calendar, or 23 January 3102 BC in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. This date is also considered by many Hindus to be the day that Krishna left Earth to return to his abode"

"Hindus believe that human civilization degenerates spiritually during the Kali Yuga, which is referred to as the Dark Age because in it people are as far away as possible from God."

I'm sure Happy would agree!

Hey mush for brains. You said I could not accept that fewer people are religious. I merely pointed out your error. I not only accept it I expect it. You really are as dumb as pond scum. You have one automatic partisan response mode.

[craigiri]

You didn't reference specific gods, you referenced a document. Potentially be identified as Krishna is not the same as identified as Krishna. Hindsight is always perfect and everything has roots.

If you had to listen to my Bro for 4 hours about this shit, you'd shorten it too......

[B.J. Porter]

I am of the opinion that being agnostic makes the most sense. It eliminates all the killing that religions have promoted and stops pitting one against another. It doesn't say there isn't a god, it just says "it can't be known". I think we can pretty accurately trace the earth's history far enough back in time to imagine a god who might have knocked over the first domino, then stepped back. What has happened since has nothing to with him or with any religion, except for those who act in the name of religion. Free will means we must rely on ourselves to deal with the issues of our existence. Now I'll stand back!

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

LINK http://www.telegraph...-not-exist.html

Rational and intelligent atheists recognize that you can't "prove" god doesn't exist with 100% certainty, just like you can't "prove" most other wildly improbable fantasies aren't true either. Proving a negative in lack of direct observational evidence is impossible and Dawkins is smart enough to know that.

Did you even watch the clip? Because it your conclusion is..the headline...and not what Dawkins actually said. Not that you would ever take something out of context or distort something to prove your point, I am sure.

[craigiri]

Hey mush for brains. You said I could not accept that fewer people are religious. I merely pointed out your error. I not only accept it I expect it. You really are as dumb as pond scum. You have one automatic partisan response mode.

So, I must have misinterpreted this part where you appeared to say that the cause of it was some fairy tales by people who thought the earth was flat and the god sat right on top of the clouds and sky?

"Because if you had ever read the bible you would know this has all been predicted. Of course I accept it you ninny."


I guess we have a difference of opinion. I see, all around the world, that educated people tend away from the church and scripture. This is true here to some degree and in Europe, Canada, etc.


My take is that as they understand the world more, they find it harder to believe some of the BS they have been fed. Your take is that the prophecy is being fulfilled.


Those are different views. I would suggest that thinking that aliens delivered gold tablets to a con man in NY State and other such stuff is more indicative of "mush" than true functioning neural circuits. But that is just my opinion...and that of Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and many others.....

[Sol Rosenberg]

It (literally) pays to be Alaskan. Might as well pay to be Mormon.

[TornadoCAN99]

I am of the opinion that being agnostic makes the most sense. It eliminates all the killing that religions have promoted and stops pitting one against another. It doesn't say there isn't a god, it just says "it can't be known". I think we can pretty accurately trace the earth's history far enough back in time to imagine a god who might have knocked over the first domino, then stepped back. What has happened since has nothing to with him or with any religion, except for those who act in the name of religion. Free will means we must rely on ourselves to deal with the issues of our existence. Now I'll stand back!

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

LINK http://www.telegraph...-not-exist.html

Yawn!

Old out-of-context News:

This is actually old news – Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world’s most famous atheist, discusses atheism vs agnosticism at length in his book, The God Delusion (you can listen to the relevant section here.) In a recent debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, Dawkins acknowledged that he is not 100% certain of God’s non-existence, and when asked if he is therefore an agnostic, he said that he was.

These statements have to be put into context, however – which Dawkins did in his book and elsewhere. In The God Delusion he outlines 7 stances toward the probability that God exists. He put himself into category 6, a strong atheist but less than 100% certain that God does not exist. He states he is less than 100% certain as a matter of principle – because a mere human cannot be 100% certain of anything. Only fanatical belief results in 100% metaphysical certitude. So he is as strong an atheist as a rational and intellectually honest person can be.

How, then, can we make sense of Dawkins acknowledging that he is also an agnostic. A report of the debate states:

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

In the live debate Dawkins apparently decided not to get into exactly what he meant by that, but again we have the answer in The God Delusion. Dawkins distinguishes two kinds of agnosticism – temporary agnosticism in practice (TAP) and permanent agnosticism in principle (PAP). TAP is the kind of agnosticism you have toward a scientific question that can potentially be answered but we currently lack the information necessary to arrive at a firm conclusion. He gives the question of life on other planets as an example – we will eventually answer this question, but currently do not have enough information to do so.

[mr_fabulous]

I'm happier than all of you silly fucks. This thread provides a valid context. Thanks.

[Happy Jack]

I'm happier than all of you silly fucks. This thread provides a valid context. Thanks.

The insult confirms your perceived happiness is actually anger. The too have very similar brain chemistries.

[mr_fabulous]

I'm happier than all of you silly fucks. This thread provides a valid context. Thanks.

The insult confirms your perceived happiness is actually anger. The too have very similar brain chemistries.

The postulated differences in neurotransmitter levels associated with happiness and depression are in fact quite different (seratonin, dopamine, endorphins) in happy vs unhappy persons, and form the basis of modern pharmaceutical intervention strategies. The only commonality between the systems biology in play is generalizable to norepinephrine, wherein it is associated with both exhilaration and fear.

That said, we'll give you give you an A for effort...

[TornadoCAN99]

I'm happier than all of you silly fucks. This thread provides a valid context. Thanks.

The insult confirms your perceived happiness is actually anger. The too have very similar brain chemistries.

Your (current?) forum name disassociates you from your own actual anger...as evinced by just about every post you've ever made to PA.

[Happy Jack]

I'm happier than all of you silly fucks. This thread provides a valid context. Thanks.

The insult confirms your perceived happiness is actually anger. The too have very similar brain chemistries.

Your (current?) forum name disassociates you from your own actual anger...as evinced by just about every post you've ever made to PA.

Huh?