Each week the New York Times publishes the results of a survey they did in January reflecting the opinions of 3244 subscribers who chose to participate. This week’s question was do you believe in god? 36% said yes, 39% said no, and 25% said not sure.
Which actually means 64% don’t believe in god. If a person says he doesn’t know (which, in fact does not answer the question) he is saying either that he does not believe or he doesn’t know what he believes. The question was “Do you believe in God?” not “Does God exist?”
Nevertheless the results are telling.
LL
Unfortunately, it is only “telling” about subscribers to the New York Times.
The bone box in Israel pretty much proved that religion is not about god anymore.
But just because they don’t believe in god does not mean they are not good Catholics or Lutherans, etc…
Unfortunately, it is only "telling" about subscribers to the New York Times.No, it's telling to the people who read can the Pew Forum research in detail. Apparently that doesn't include you. Lois
Unfortunately, it is only "telling" about subscribers to the New York Times.No, it's telling to the people who read can the Pew Forum research in detail. Apparently that doesn't include you. Lois It's true that I haven't read "can the Pew Forum". I don't know what that is. The opening post, in this thread, was about a survey of subscribers to the NYT (who chose to respond). I see no link to this "can the Pew Forum" of which you speak. What I was trying to say is that you can't generalize from a population of subscribers to the NYT (who chose to respond), to a larger or alternate population. (Well you could, and possibly have, but you most likely would be wrong, in doing so). But since you, apparently read the "can the Pew Forum" in detail, and it told you something, please say what it told you.
Unfortunately, it is only "telling" about subscribers to the New York Times.No, it's telling to the people who read can the Pew Forum research in detail. Apparently that doesn't include you. Lois It's true that I haven't read "can the Pew Forum". I don't know what that is. The opening post, in this thread, was about a survey of subscribers to the NYT (who chose to respond). I see no link to this "can the Pew Forum" of which you speak. What I was trying to say is that you can't generalize from a population of subscribers to the NYT (who chose to respond), to a larger or alternate population. (Well you could, and possibly have, but you most likely would be wrong, in doing so). But since you, apparently read the "can the Pew Forum" in detail, and it told you something, please say what it told you. Here's the link and here is a couple of relevant paragraphs, since you are apparently incapable of recognizing a misplaced word and you are also incapable of finding anything on the Internet, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/ "This large and growing group of Americans is less religious than the public at large on many conventional measures, including frequency of attendance at religious services and the degree of importance they attach to religion in their lives. "However, a new survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, conducted jointly with the PBS television program Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, finds that many of the country’s 46 million unaffiliated adults are religious or spiritual in some way. Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual" but not “religious" (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day. In addition, most religiously unaffiliated Americans think that churches and other religious institutions benefit society by strengthening community bonds and aiding the poor. "With few exceptions, though, the unaffiliated say they are not looking for a religion that would be right for them. Overwhelmingly, they think that religious organizations are too concerned with money and power, too focused on rules and too involved in politics." There is other, similar research discussed on the site. You might be able to find someone to read it to you, since your reading comprehension is obviously so low you can't see your way around a simple typo.
Unfortunately, it is only "telling" about subscribers to the New York Times.No, it's telling to the people who read can the Pew Forum research in detail. Apparently that doesn't include you. Lois It's true that I haven't read "can the Pew Forum". I don't know what that is. The opening post, in this thread, was about a survey of subscribers to the NYT (who chose to respond). I see no link to this "can the Pew Forum" of which you speak. What I was trying to say is that you can't generalize from a population of subscribers to the NYT (who chose to respond), to a larger or alternate population. (Well you could, and possibly have, but you most likely would be wrong, in doing so). But since you, apparently read the "can the Pew Forum" in detail, and it told you something, please say what it told you. Here's the link and here is a couple of relevant paragraphs, since you are apparently incapable of recognizing a misplaced word and you are also incapable of finding anything on the Internet, http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/ ... There is other, similar research discussed on the site. You might be able to find someone to read it to you, since your reading comprehension is obviously so low you can't see your way around a simple typo. I was humorously leaving open the possibility that you had not erroneously transposed a word, so as not to flat out assume that you were just being a dick (as you well know that I am quite capable of reading and comprehending). So, anyway, I do comprehend your apparent point that the general public's stance on religious affiliation is changing. My point remains, however, should YOU be able to comprehend it, is that one should not try to OVER-generalize from a survey of one specific population to the entire national population.
Perhaps this may have had something to do with it. It is a very cleverly constructed collage of separate presentations by a clergy and George Carlin. .
George Carlin vs. Religious Douchebag - YouTube (warning crude language)