|
silu73
|
12-04-2007, 03:25 AM
Post subject: The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,009
|
|
I don't want to start some sort of American-Bashing here but I found this Poll really interesting. Maybe they only interviewed people who live or originated from the bible belt but the results just seem bizarre.
More People Believe in the Devil, Hell, and Angels Than Believe in Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/har...ex.asp?PID=838
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
bigred
|
|
PROFESSIONAL TROLL
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nest of Douchebags
Posts: 2,184
|
|
Why couldn't they have just seceded?
|
|
LOL OPERATIONS
|
|
euphoricism
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Your place or my place
Posts: 3,610
|
|
guarantee that's a skewed poll.
|
|
|
|
givememyleg
|
|
WHO YA GONNA CALL?!??
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ISHPERMING MISHIGEN
Posts: 5,041
|
|
screw that, i'll start the bashing then. fuck americans.
|
Get your own badge! Click profile at the top and FTR Badge from the left nav.
"The Dragon in My Garage" by Carl Sagan
I say onto you, I've felt the dragon! I felt the touch of his tail, the breath of his fire, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that the dragon exists!
|
|
euphoricism
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Your place or my place
Posts: 3,610
|
|
Lots of problems with a poll like that. I wouldn't put any validity in it whatsoever.
A) only 2k people responded
B) people who answer online polls tend to have a specific reason to do so (ardent believes are going to be WAY more likely to answer a survey like that, most "rational people" [and thats a terrible word choice for this but i cant think of anything better] are just going to ignore the email.
C) Question phrasing, without seeing the poll it's hard to say if the questions were biased.
Basically, the "moral majority" is neither. Just louder.
|
|
|
|
ProZachNation
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over there!
Posts: 801
|
|
I just watched An Inconvenient Truth, there are some stupid fucking people out there who would rather stick there head up there ass then believe in science.(An yes I know in a lot of ways the movie was a propaganda movie but it did have very truthful and information)
I read a paper awhile ago on how the science community needs to take a serious look at the terminology they use as it relates to the public. I would guess less than 5% of the public can read a scientific paper and get anything meaningful out of it, and this is why there is such a gap between public beliefs and scientific knowledge.
An example of what the paper talked about was instead of saying Theory say Law. In Science speak a Theory is repeatable and taken as the truth, but when the public hears the Theory of Evolution theory to them means a guess. Why not call it the Law of Evolution.
Maybe a little off topic but thats my rant being a biology major, and hearing fucking asshole politicians not give two shits about global warming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wiki
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
|
euphoricism
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Your place or my place
Posts: 3,610
|
|
an inconvenient truth was just loaded with horseshit.
|
|
|
|
will641
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: getting my swell on
Posts: 1,610
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by euphoricism
an inconvenient truth was just loaded with horseshit.
|
dido. I support doing things that are good for the environment, but this is a crock.
"The debate is over. We won." - Al "I invented the internet" Gore
A really funny thing I saw in the news was a vegan guy from PETA was interviewed about the movie, and he even thought it was bullshit. But, the thing he was mad about was that apparently producing meat produces way more "carbon emissions" than cars do. He went on to say some crap about how Gore was a hypocrite for not being a vegetarian.
I am not claiming that as fact, as I do not care enough to verify it, I just thought it was really funny and decided to throw it out there.
|
|
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Lots of problems with a poll like that. I wouldn't put any validity in it whatsoever.
A) only 2k people responded
B) people who answer online polls tend to have a specific reason to do so (ardent believes are going to be WAY more likely to answer a survey like that, most "rational people" [and thats a terrible word choice for this but i cant think of anything better] are just going to ignore the email.
C) Question phrasing, without seeing the poll it's hard to say if the questions were biased.
Basically, the "moral majority" is neither. Just louder.
|
I appreciate what you're trying to say here, euph, but I think you're mistaken.
Point A) - 2,000 people is a perfectly large sample size for a poll. If you're equating it to poker sample sizes, that's a false assumption - in this poll there is no variance (or, if you like, the "don't know" answers form a sort of variance/deviation). Most opinion polls in the UK are of 1,000 people and no-one claims this isn't satisfactory. I know UK TV ratings figures used to be based on just 3,000 households though I imagine, in the multi-channel age, this figure must have gone up to more accurately represent the smallest proportions where problems with sample sizes are genuine - in this survey, even 1% represents 20 people.
Point B) - Harris is a well-established and respected value-neutral polling company who are obliged to be as objective as possible in both the people they polled and the way the questions were phrased. Certainly the former is well planned and organised - they are obliged to get an accurate and proportional representation of all different demographics.
Point C) - the questions are included - look above each of the tables for the words inside inverted commas. For example, the first two are simply "Please indicate for each one if you believe in it, or not" and the next two "To what extent do you believe that the following represents the word of God?". Pretty straightforward and non-leading.
|
|
|
|
Frink
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Florida gulfcoast
Posts: 33
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by givememyleg
screw that, i'll start the bashing then. fuck americans.
|
How's the weather up there in your patch of tundra? :P
|
|
I have no sig. Quit looking down here.
|
|
will641
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: getting my swell on
Posts: 1,610
|
|
I don't get what is so hard to believe about that? Here are 3 reasons of mine why it could be true. This is disregarding the survey and any flaws with it.
1) People are stubborn in their religious beliefs (based on personal experience)
2) Intelligence does not directly translate into obvious things. By this I mean that there are tons of smart religious folks who could give you amazing information about history, literature, and even science, but when it comes to things like evolution, they are morons, and this leads to #3.
3) There is a deep strain of religious idiocy in America, that is not as apparent in places like Europe and China. Again, this is from observation, but I am pretty sure that a very few number of people in Europe and an even less number of people in China are creationists.
|
|
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
|
|
thizzSantaCruz
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Santa Cruz
Posts: 894
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by euphoricism
Lots of problems with a poll like that. I wouldn't put any validity in it whatsoever.
A) only 2k people responded
B) people who answer online polls tend to have a specific reason to do so (ardent believes are going to be WAY more likely to answer a survey like that, most "rational people" [and thats a terrible word choice for this but i cant think of anything better] are just going to ignore the email.
C) Question phrasing, without seeing the poll it's hard to say if the questions were biased.
Basically, the "moral majority" is neither. Just louder.
|
I appreciate what you're trying to say here, euph, but I think you're mistaken.
Point A) - 2,000 people is a perfectly large sample size for a poll. If you're equating it to poker sample sizes, that's a false assumption - in this poll there is no variance (or, if you like, the "don't know" answers form a sort of variance/deviation). Most opinion polls in the UK are of 1,000 people and no-one claims this isn't satisfactory. I know UK TV ratings figures used to be based on just 3,000 households though I imagine, in the multi-channel age, this figure must have gone up to more accurately represent the smallest proportions where problems with sample sizes are genuine - in this survey, even 1% represents 20 people.
Point B) - Harris is a well-established and respected value-neutral polling company who are obliged to be as objective as possible in both the people they polled and the way the questions were phrased. Certainly the former is well planned and organised - they are obliged to get an accurate and proportional representation of all different demographics.
Point C) - the questions are included - look above each of the tables for the words inside inverted commas. For example, the first two are simply "Please indicate for each one if you believe in it, or not" and the next two "To what extent do you believe that the following represents the word of God?". Pretty straightforward and non-leading. |
I doubt a sample size of 2000 people is statistically significant to the whole population of the US.
|
|
Flopping quads and boats like its my job
|
|
silu73
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,009
|
|
Quote:
|
I doubt a sample size of 2000 people is statistically significant to the whole population of the US.
|
I have only studied for Stats101 but as far as I know if conducted properly polls like this are pretty accurate.
This Harris Poll® was conducted online within the United States between November 7 and 13, 2007 among 2,455 adults (aged 18 and over). Figures for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, region and household income were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was also used to adjust for respondents’ propensity to be online
|
|
|
|
MNMP2
|
|
Straight
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 156
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ProZachNation
I just watched An Inconvenient Truth, there are some stupid fucking people out there who would rather stick there head up there ass then believe in science.(An yes I know in a lot of ways the movie was a propaganda movie but it did have very truthful and information)
I read a paper awhile ago on how the science community needs to take a serious look at the terminology they use as it relates to the public. I would guess less than 5% of the public can read a scientific paper and get anything meaningful out of it, and this is why there is such a gap between public beliefs and scientific knowledge.
An example of what the paper talked about was instead of saying Theory say Law. In Science speak a Theory is repeatable and taken as the truth, but when the public hears the Theory of Evolution theory to them means a guess. Why not call it the Law of Evolution.
Maybe a little off topic but thats my rant being a biology major, and hearing fucking asshole politicians not give two shits about global warming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wiki
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
|
|
Your post is ignorant. In the science world THEORY means exacatly that - theory. Theory means an idea/ presupposition that is not exactly proven. LAW means a scientific idea that is outright proven and also cannot be disproven in any way. It is LAW. Sush as gravity.
I like also how you admit that this movie is propaganda but then say people are stupid for not believing in it......
|
|
|
|
Pelion
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 3,206
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MNMP2
Your post is ignorant. In the science world THEORY means exacatly that - theory. Theory means an idea/ presupposition that is not exactly proven. LAW means a scientific idea that is outright proven and also cannot be disproven in any way. It is LAW. Sush as gravity.
|
Sorry but that just isn't true. For gravity the terms "Newtons theory of universal gravitation, and Newtons law of universal gravitation" are used pretty interchangeably with "theory" probably being slightly more popular. You also claim that "LAW" means "a scientific idea that is outright proven and also cannot be disproven in any way" when in fact the law of gravitation has already been proved false in the very high energy/potential limit (e.g. for black holes). In those cases the "theory of General Relativity" must be used because it is more accurate than the "Law of Gravity".
|
|
gabe: Ive dropped almost 100k in the past 35 days.
bigspenda73: But how much did you win?
|
|
sauce123
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Dizzy
Posts: 2,405
|
|
All hail Helmuthia, our Glorious Lady of Donkaments
|
|
I got more flava than fruitstripe gum
|
|
flomo
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mashing potatoes
Posts: 878
|
|
an earlier poll by them said that most americans think europeans are smelly
so the poll must be accurate
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Protect dog
|
|
|
swiggidy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Waiting in the shadows ...
Posts: 3,777
|
|
The moral majority is fucking retarded.
There was a thing on the news about how victoria's secret is pushing porn on the unsuspecting public, and how porn is a disease and we need to think about our children and protect them from porn.
|
|
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
|
|
Alibi
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: St. Paul or DC
Posts: 449
|
|
i luvs pr0n
|
|
TrapperAB: you know, I really should have named myself after the mandibles of a homeless person
|
|
|~|ypermegachi
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: emo-kid
Posts: 3,580
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by swiggidy
The moral majority is fucking retarded.
There was a thing on the news about how victoria's secret is pushing porn on the unsuspecting public, and how porn is a disease and we need to think about our children and protect them from porn.
|
like anything else, it can be a problem when it becomes an obsession.
|
|
|
|
biondino
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Putney, UK; Full Tilt,Mansion; $50 NL and PL; $13 and $16 SNGs at Stars
Posts: 3,170
|
|
Would you rather your child was heavily into porn or a fundamentalist christian? It's a no-brainer for me 
|
|
|
|
TheFaucet
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 21
|
|
I believe in Porno
|
|
|
|
bigred
|
|
PROFESSIONAL TROLL
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nest of Douchebags
Posts: 2,184
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKNd...eature=related
|
|
LOL OPERATIONS
|
|
mrhappy333
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hartford, CT
Posts: 1,078
|
|
GOD EXISTS, THIS VIDEO PROVES IT!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkhQLt1vbWU
|
|
|
|
givememyleg
|
|
WHO YA GONNA CALL?!??
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ISHPERMING MISHIGEN
Posts: 5,041
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bigred
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slKNd22GGaQ&feature=related
|
bigred is an american
|
Get your own badge! Click profile at the top and FTR Badge from the left nav.
"The Dragon in My Garage" by Carl Sagan
I say onto you, I've felt the dragon! I felt the touch of his tail, the breath of his fire, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that the dragon exists!
|
|
givememyleg
|
|
WHO YA GONNA CALL?!??
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: ISHPERMING MISHIGEN
Posts: 5,041
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
Would you rather your child was heavily into porn or a fundamentalist christian? It's a no-brainer for me |
porn right?
|
Get your own badge! Click profile at the top and FTR Badge from the left nav.
"The Dragon in My Garage" by Carl Sagan
I say onto you, I've felt the dragon! I felt the touch of his tail, the breath of his fire, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that the dragon exists!
|
|
will641
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: getting my swell on
Posts: 1,610
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrhappy333
|
holy crap that is funny
|
|
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
|
|
flomo
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: mashing potatoes
Posts: 878
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
Would you rather your child was heavily into porn or a fundamentalist christian? It's a no-brainer for me |
straighjt porn or gay porn?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigred
Protect dog
|
|
|
will641
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: getting my swell on
Posts: 1,610
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flomo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
Would you rather your child was heavily into porn or a fundamentalist christian? It's a no-brainer for me |
straighjt porn or gay porn? |
wow dude, ummm, that is actually a tough one for me. would i rather my son be gay or a fundamentalist bible thumper? I'm going to have to invoke my 5th amendment rights on that one.
|
|
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
|
|
|~|ypermegachi
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: emo-kid
Posts: 3,580
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by biondino
Would you rather your child was heavily into porn or a fundamentalist christian? It's a no-brainer for me |
if my child was fundamentalist clearly i would have to be too, so the question is invalid! but yeah, pr0n for the win.
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by euphoricism
guarantee that's a skewed poll.
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MNMP2
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ProZachNation
I just watched An Inconvenient Truth, there are some stupid fucking people out there who would rather stick there head up there ass then believe in science.(An yes I know in a lot of ways the movie was a propaganda movie but it did have very truthful and information)
I read a paper awhile ago on how the science community needs to take a serious look at the terminology they use as it relates to the public. I would guess less than 5% of the public can read a scientific paper and get anything meaningful out of it, and this is why there is such a gap between public beliefs and scientific knowledge.
An example of what the paper talked about was instead of saying Theory say Law. In Science speak a Theory is repeatable and taken as the truth, but when the public hears the Theory of Evolution theory to them means a guess. Why not call it the Law of Evolution.
Maybe a little off topic but thats my rant being a biology major, and hearing fucking asshole politicians not give two shits about global warming.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Wiki
In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common statement "It's not a fact, it's only a theory." True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.
|
|
Your post is ignorant. In the science world THEORY means exacatly that - theory. Theory means an idea/ presupposition that is not exactly proven. LAW means a scientific idea that is outright proven and also cannot be disproven in any way. It is LAW. Sush as gravity.
I like also how you admit that this movie is propaganda but then say people are stupid for not believing in it...... |
LOL SELF DEFEATING POSTAMENTS
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
