NationStates Jolt Archive

Not only does this show that people who are religious aren’t bitter, it shows that those who are religious are more likely to be financially secure and happy with their employment. Additionally, it shows yet again that the more unlikely you are to be in church the less likely you are to be satisfied with your lot in life...

Among Americans who believe their personal finances are getting better, 67% say that faith and religion are Very Important in their lives. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also found that, among those whose finances are getting worse, 55% consider faith and religion that important.

The survey also found that those who are optimistic about their finances are also more likely than others to pray, read the Bible, and attend Church. Fifty-one percent (51%) of those who say their finances are getting better say they attend religious services at least once a week. Only 31% of those who are pessimistic about their finances attend so faithfully.

Most (56%) of those who are pessimistic about their finances say they rarely or never read the Bible. Most (58%) who are optimistic say they read the Bible at least once a week. That figure includes 22% who read daily or nearly every day.

Similar patterns were found across a variety of definitions of economic optimism or pessimism.
Among those who are worried about losing their job, 47% consider faith and religion Very Important. Among those not worried about job loss, 58% consider it that important.
Among those working for companies that are laying people off, 22% attend Church or religious services at least once a week. Among those who work for companies that are hiring new workers, 45% attend services that often.

Among those happy with their job, 18% read the Bible daily or nearly every day. Among those who are unhappy with their jobs. Just 9% read that faithfully.

Overall, among all Americans, 59% say that faith and religion are very important in their lives. That figure includes 67% of women and 51% of men; 73% of Republicans, 57% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party. Eighty-six percent (86%) of African-Americans consider faith that important along with 55% of White Americans and 58% of other Americans. So do 58% of Investors and 60% of non-Investors. Those over 65 are more likely to consider faith and religion Very Important than younger voters.
link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/those_who_feel_good_about_their_finances_more_likely_to_attend_church)

Doesn't that seem the opposite of what most of the secular humanists would have us believe? These people seem to be LESS likely to be bitter than their neighbors, not more so. What say you?

Not only does this show that people who are religious aren’t bitter, it shows that those who religious are more likely to be financially secure and happy with their employment. Additionally, it shows yet again that the more unlikely you are to be in church the less likely you are to be satisfied with your lot in life...

[Snip]

link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/those_who_feel_good_about_their_finances_more_likely_to_attend_church)

Doesn't that seem the opposite of what most of the secular humanists would have us believe? These people seem to be LESS likely to be bitter than their neighbors, not more so. What say you?

I'm not saying I critizise those who attend church, but I've seen my uncle, who's a minister, say and do things against fellow 'Christians' that are unbecoming of a self-procalimed 'man of God'. Yet, I've seen a lot of people that do not attend church and do not proclaim being from any religious denomination and be better human beings than my own uncle. I don't go to church and I consider myself a happy, go-lucky person.

So let me see if I've got this straight. If you apply to comments to people he wasn't talking about, you find out that his comments weren't true.

I once said that when looking at women, the majority of them menstruate. But recently I saw a study that looked at people, in general, but not only do most of them not menstruate, but, in fact, almost half of them aren't even women. Crazy, I know, but it's true.

well i have to say that a little bit of faith DOES have its positives sides
I have had bad financial crap of my own causing, and now after a bit of faith and prayer, things are turning to the better

well i have to say that a little bit of faith DOES have its positives sides
I have had bad financial crap of my own causing, and now after a bit of faith and prayer, things are turning to the better

How did faith and prayer improve your finances? Do you charge people to pray for them?

So let me see if I've got this straight. If you apply to comments to people he wasn't talking about, you find out that his comments weren't true.

Who's comments? If you are talking about Obama's comments, he already said himself that he wasn't talking about religious people, he said he was sorry for the words he used. I'm talking about all the people that 'think' that people turn to religious via bitterness or financial depression or (as we found out a couple of months ago) emotionally unhappy with life in general. So now we see that not only are religious people emotionally happier with their lot in life, they feel they are financially better off factually as well.


I once said that when looking at women, the majority of them menstruate. But recently I saw a study that looked at people, in general, but not only do most of them not menstruate, but, in fact, almost half of them aren't even women. Crazy, I know, but it's true.

Do you just like to hear yourself talk irl too? Or do you just do it here?

well i have to say that a little bit of faith DOES have its positives sides
I have had bad financial crap of my own causing, and now after a bit of faith and prayer, things are turning to the better

Good for you, Praise God. :)

How did faith and prayer improve your finances? Do you charge people to pray for them?

What do we have here? A Christian that doesn't think God actually answers prayers? Awww, that's sad.

What say you?

I say that you misunderstood Obama. He said that people in the situations in Pennsylvania were bitter and turning to things like religion to help ease the bitterness, not that they were bitter or poor because they were religious. There's an enormous difference between the two statements, believe me.

What do we have here? A Christian that doesn't think God actually answers prayers? Awww, that's sad.

From what it seems to me God only answers the prayers of those who help inflate his ego even more.

I once said that when looking at women, the majority of them menstruate. But recently I saw a study that looked at people, in general, but not only do most of them not menstruate, but, in fact, almost half of them aren't even women. Crazy, I know, but it's true.

LOL. Apparently black people in America tend to live in a lower socioeconomic bracket that provides fewer opportunities for advanced education, white-collar jobs and adequate healthcare. This trend diminishes the whiter people get. Conclusion: Being white makes you happier.

[ETA]:

Psychologists have long suspected that many die-hard fans are lonely, alienated people searching for self-esteem by identifying with a sports team. But a study at the University of Kansas suggests just the opposite -- that sports fans suffer fewer bouts of depression and alienation than do people who are uninterested in sports.

Do you just like to hear yourself talk irl too? Or do you just do it here?

Aww, someone doesn't like getting pwned by logic!

What do we have here? A Christian that doesn't think God actually answers prayers? Awww, that's sad.

If God spends all His time giving people raises and helping teams win the Super Bowl, no wonder most of the world is such a mess.

Even as an atheist, I'm surprised at how weak those stats are. 51% of people who say their finances are improving attend church once a week? Apply even a conservative margin of error (not to mention that what people "think" is happening with their financial status and what really is are two different things) and it's basically a coinflip. Which would indicate to me that by and large, religious attendance at least makes no difference.

I say that you misunderstood Obama. He said that people in the situations in Pennsylvania were bitter and turning to things like religion to help ease the bitterness...

And after listening to Reverend Wright, I say Obama must be talking from experience here.

Full disclosure: I'm a conservative agnostic, my finances are much improved over 8 years ago... when I was a liberal Democrat.

Conclusion #1: Becoming a Republican generates wealth! :p

Conclusion #2: A statistical sample of 1 isn't any good.

Conclusion #3: Polls are like sphincters... every asshole has one.

So, about 60% of americans, regardless of finances, consider religion very important to them.

Of those who believe their finances are improving, 67% hold their religion very important

Of those who believe their finances are not improving, 55% hold their religion very important.

Those figures are so close to the baseline that it barely falls outside the margin of error.

What say you?
No big surprises there. In my mind, the link between Christianity and financial prosperity is one of selfish ambition. People who do "well" financially are those who really want to be rich, and who have put time and resources into attaining personal wealth. This same attitude translates seamlessly into the traditional desire for eternal life that Mainstream Christianity professes to satisfy. Thus, rich Christians.

Mind you, Humanists tend to be equally selfish. This isn't something that the religious alone are to be blamed for; it's a problem in our nature as humans. My extreme annoyance with Christianity, though, is that despite seeing this, they go on to turn a blind eye to the shambolic pseudoreligious in their midst and allow these kinds of "Christians can be wealthy too!" arguments to try to augment their own political authority.

What do we have here? A Christian that doesn't think God actually answers prayers? Awww, that's sad.

Yes. It's true, I don't think that when a child dies it's because their parents didn't pray hard enough. I don't think that when my three-week old neice suffered terribly before dying that she died because my sister wasn't a good enough Christian. Apparently, I have more faith in a loving God, than you do.

Or, you could just read the words of Christ where he tells us that it's the hypocrites who blather on about what they want and that God already knows what we want and need. But, hey, He's only Christ. Why listen to what Christ said?

Who's comments? If you are talking about Obama's comments, he already said himself that he wasn't talking about religious people, he said he was sorry for the words he used. I'm talking about all the people that 'think' that people turn to religious via bitterness or financial depression or (as we found out a couple of months ago) emotionally unhappy with life in general. So now we see that not only are religious people emotionally happier with their lot in life, they feel they are financially better off factually as well.

Obama was answering a question. The question was about people who are financially devestated but still don't vote for a candidate that will help them. Obama's reply was that no one does help them so they cling to other issues. He didn't say it was the reason the believe those things, but why they vote on them over their financial needs.



Do you just like to hear yourself talk irl too? Or do you just do it here?

Yes, I know that it upsets you that I make you look silly in debate after debate, but don't you think you should wait until I actually defeat you before you start with the sour grapes?

Even as an atheist, I'm surprised at how weak those stats are. 51% of people who say their finances are improving attend church once a week? Apply even a conservative margin of error (not to mention that what people "think" is happening with their financial status and what really is are two different things) and it's basically a coinflip. Which would indicate to me that by and large, religious attendance at least makes no difference.


I think the reason my problems are going away is because i worship god directly, and at any time i feel the need
Church is a waste of time, if youre going to program yourself to only feel spiritual when you have others watching you, dont bother, true faith is a constant thing

Gott Mitt Uns

So, about 60% of americans, regardless of finances, consider religion very important to them.

Of those who believe their finances are improving, 67% hold their religion very important

Of those who believe their finances are not improving, 55% hold their religion very important.

Those figures are so close to the baseline that it barely falls outside the margin of error.

Stop analyzing the data, you heathen. This proves conclusively, that... that... um, well, frankly, it proves nothing, but shhhhh... let's pretend like there is a point here.

I think I feel financially safer because of God.

He sends me a check every month or else those pictures from His trip to Thailand will be released...

Yes, I know that it upsets you that I make you look silly in debate after debate, but don't you think you should wait until I actually defeat you before you start with the sour grapes?


He must be going for the american-style 'pre-emptive strike'

"Hit the enemy hard and fast, before he actually gives you a reason to do it"
:D

I think I feel financially safer because of God.

He sends me a check every month or else those pictures from His trip to Thailand will be released...
You should do it. A deity pornography website would make you very financially secure indeed.

Since we're attributing financial status to faith. Jews in the US are by and large the wealthiest group. And since God answers prayers, clearly, Jesus Christ was a false prophet.

Or perhaps faith and wealth are unrelated and a correllation is caused by something else, like, oh, I don't know, a disproportionate system that favors JudeoChristian religions.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2703_132/ai_111403491

I should probably start a thread, since this is clearly proof.

Since we're attributing financial status to faith. Jews in the US are by and large the wealthiest group. And since God answers prayers, clearly, Jesus Christ was a false prophet.

Or perhaps faith and wealth are unrelated and a correllation is caused by something else, like, oh, I don't know, a disproportionate system that favors JudeoChristian religions.

Or...IT'S A MIRACLE!

I think the reason my problems are going away is because i worship god directly, and at any time i feel the need
Church is a waste of time, if youre going to program yourself to only feel spiritual when you have others watching you, dont bother, true faith is a constant thing

Gott Mitt Uns

So people with problems don't worship hard enough?

So people with problems don't worship hard enough?
I think what s/he was implying was that s/he made things better by being less of a sheep rather than it having anything to do with the quantity or quality of worshipping. 'course I could be wrong.

no suprises. it's much easier to be content when you follow the herd.

Why listen to what Christ said?

i've often wondered this.

Jews in the US are by and large the wealthiest group..

Hell you'd be rich to if you followed a religion that puts a $ sign on everything you do
it worked and still works for Judaism, and now its working for Scientology:D

which will be the worlds next capitalist religion?

I think the reason my problems are going away is because i worship god directly, and at any time i feel the need
Church is a waste of time, if youre going to program yourself to only feel spiritual when you have others watching you, dont bother, true faith is a constant thing

Gott Mitt Uns

Oh please! Seriously, if you have to sprout that nonsense in another language, at least make sure to spell it correctly. It's "mit uns" not "Mitt Uns"!

Oh please! Seriously, if you have to sprout that nonsense in another language, at least make sure to spell it correctly. It's "mit uns" not "Mitt Uns"!

And here I was thinking it was mittens...

Even as an atheist, I'm surprised at how weak those stats are. 51% of people who say their finances are improving attend church once a week? Apply even a conservative margin of error (not to mention that what people "think" is happening with their financial status and what really is are two different things) and it's basically a coinflip. Which would indicate to me that by and large, religious attendance at least makes no difference.

As an atheist, that doesn't shock me. Faithful or no has no impact on your economic standing. Go figure!

Hell you'd be rich to if you followed a religion that puts a $ sign on everything you do
it worked and still works for Judaism, and now its working for Scientology:D

which will be the worlds next capitalist religion?

Ah, I see. When it's Jews it's because they're greedy and when it's Christians it's because God delivers? If the Jews are refusing to recognize the Savior and God is down here materially rewarding people for faith, one wonders why God would allow Jews to be more successful? Does God agree with them?

Yes. It's true, I don't think that when a child dies it's because their parents didn't pray hard enough. I don't think that when my three-week old neice suffered terribly before dying that she died because my sister wasn't a good enough Christian. Apparently, I have more faith in a loving God, than you do.

Or, you could just read the words of Christ where he tells us that it's the hypocrites who blather on about what they want and that God already knows what we want and need. But, hey, He's only Christ. Why listen to what Christ said?

You're quite sure of your answer. Too bad you didn't read MORE of what Jesus said...

Matthew 21:21-22
And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Luke 11:12-13
or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

And exactly what that poster said, that they stopped and turned back to God and started to pray and things started to turn for the better...Could be straight from Jesus lips:

Matthew 6:31-33
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Just like the the poster (she?) said happened. I'm not surprised Jesus turned out to be true, you shouldn't be surprised either, it's sad that you are.

In other words: God, being omnipotent, knows what you want and need.

But God, being an egomaniac, wants you to beg for it.

Cause, you know, it would be bad just to take your own initiative and fill a need you see, without sufficient toadying first.

You're quite sure of your answer. Too bad you didn't read MORE of what Jesus said...

Matthew 21:21-22
And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Luke 11:12-13
or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

And exactly what that poster said, that they stopped and turned back to God and started to pray and things started to turn for the better...Could be straight from Jesus lips:

Matthew 6:31-33
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Just like the the poster (she?) said happened. I'm not surprised Jesus turned out to be true, you shouldn't be surprised either, it's sad that you are.

Hmmm...

Maybe Jesus didn't realize that he really wanted you to babble on like heathens. Eh, he was probably just wrong. Surely, it's that. It can't be you.

Matthew 6
5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.
9"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

I mean, it's almost like Jesus told us explicitly how to pray and that we didn't need to ask for things. Nah, clearly, Jesus was wrong when he told us explicitly what to say when praying.

His comment about the mountain was about faith. But hey, you're right, it's probably entirely literal and people who suffer just don't have enough faith. When you're grandmother died. It was because you didn't have enough faith.

I wish you'd stop causing all those kids to die in Africa, murderer. Get some faith and get to work. I mean, it's not like Christians are selfishly praying for more money when they could be saving African babies.

You're quite sure of your answer. Too bad you didn't read MORE of what Jesus said...

Matthew 21:21-22
And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Luke 11:12-13
or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

And exactly what that poster said, that they stopped and turned back to God and started to pray and things started to turn for the better...Could be straight from Jesus lips:

Matthew 6:31-33
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Just like the the poster (she?) said happened. I'm not surprised Jesus turned out to be true, you shouldn't be surprised either, it's sad that you are.

have you ever tried asking a mountain to cast itself into the sea? i would lol heartily if you made a request for eggs and got a carton of scorpions.

In other words: God, being omnipotent, knows what you want and need.

But God, being an egomaniac, wants you to beg for it.

Cause, you know, it would be bad just to take your own initiative and fill a need you see, without sufficient toadying first.

I always love this argument. Clearly, all the suffering in the world only happens to people who don't have enough faith. Except, magically, the same people who believe this, discount their own suffering as "God's will".

This was a real conversation I had with a pastor. "New Orleans was an act of God. God protects the righteous and punishes the wicked."

*raises hand* "Pastor, isn't your wife dead?"

"God has a plan that we can't all be aware of."

I always love this argument. Clearly, all the suffering in the world only happens to people who don't have enough faith. Except, magically, the same people who believe this, discount their own suffering as "God's will".

This was a real conversation I had with a pastor. "New Orleans was an act of God. God protects the righteous and punishes the wicked."

*raises hand* "Pastor, isn't your wife dead?"

"God has a plan that we can't all be aware of."

did you ask about the pious new orleansians too?

have you ever tried asking a mountain to cast itself into the sea? i would lol heartily if you made a request for eggs and got a carton of scorpions.

It cracks me up that so many Christians have such a shallow view of God. That double-think that claims that Christians can pray enough and get what they pray for, but when they don't, it's just a part of the greater plan. Oh, and, of course, Christians are busily praying for their loved ones, but do nothing to end the suffering in Africa.

did you ask about the pious new orleansians too?

They're obviously the ones who got out. (For the record, I actually asked him about his wife in private. I didn't embarrass him in front of his flock.)

What do we have here? A Christian that doesn't think God actually answers prayers? Awww, that's sad.

He answers. Sometimes the answer is "no."

I always love this argument. Clearly, all the suffering in the world only happens to people who don't have enough faith. Except, magically, the same people who believe this, discount their own suffering as "God's will".

This was a real conversation I had with a pastor. "New Orleans was an act of God. God protects the righteous and punishes the wicked."

*raises hand* "Pastor, isn't your wife dead?"

"God has a plan that we can't all be aware of."


I think that if there IS a God, then It has a plan we can't (that is, it's so universally vast, complex and intricate that we don't have the cranial capacity to) be aware of.

But if we can't be aware of it, then it's clear that all scripture is bunk and all priests are charlatans, because that's exactly what they claim - that they're aware of God's plan and can tell us how to make It happy.

"If it's all part of the plan, pastor, then so is me kicking you in the crotch." *KICK!!!*

He answers. Sometimes the answer is "no."

And sometimes the answer is "yeaaaaaPSYCHE!!!"

But mostly the answer is *crickets chirping*

Anyway, I get the same frequency of "yes" answers if I ask my cat.

Crap... MY CAT IS GOD!!!

He answers. Sometimes the answer is "no."

Everyone once in a while you and I agree about something. This is one of those times. ;)

Jews it's because they're greedy and when it's Christians it's because God delivers? If the Jews are refusing to recognize the Savior and God is down here materially rewarding people for faith, one wonders why God would allow Jews to be more successful? Does God agree with them?


pay attention to religion, god told the jews that if they worship him he will bless them,,,and if they defy him he will curse them
....then they go kill jesus
been cursed ever since

God isnt with them because they dont worship him, they dont even acknowledge that jesus was the 'saviour',...to them, the son of god has still not come to earth, they are still waiting for their saviour,...but they still go ahead and use the christian calender based off time set from the birth of christ

I dont know what power they pray to, and i dont want to know

And sometimes the answer is "yeaaaaaPSYCHE!!!"

But mostly the answer is *crickets chirping*

Anyway, I get the same frequency of "yes" answers if I ask my cat.

Crap... MY CAT IS GOD!!!

so is my psychosis. i'm a fucking deity, w00t!

You're quite sure of your answer. Too bad you didn't read MORE of what Jesus said...

Matthew 21:21-22

Mark 11:24

Luke 11:12-13

Matthew 6:31-33

Really? THat's what Jesus said? Because from here that looks like what Matthew Mark and Luke said Jesus said.

Or, more likely, what someone said Matthew Mark and Luke said Jesus said.

Anyway, I get the same frequency of "yes" answers if I ask my cat.

Crap... MY CAT IS GOD!!!


your cat is talking to you

lay off the drugs man, when pets start talking you know youre tripping hard:D

pay attention to religion, god told the jews that if they worship him he will bless them,,,and if they defy him he will curse them
....then they go kill jesus
been cursed ever since

God isnt with them because they dont worship him, they dont even acknowledge that jesus was the 'saviour',...to them, the son of god has still not come to earth, they are still waiting for their saviour,...but they still go ahead and use the christian calender based off time set from the birth of christ

I dont know what power they pray to, and i dont want to know

Heh. Whatever power it is, it's more powerful than God, apparently. Or perhaps, just perhaps, God isn't as petty as some Christians would have us believe.

Since we're measuring faith with money according to the OP, clearly God "cursing them" doesn't seem to be such a bad thing, right? Perhaps faith is about spiritual success and has nothing to do with how successful you are.

He answers. Sometimes the answer is "no."

Ding, ding, ding!!

pay attention to religion, god told the jews that if they worship him he will bless them,,,and if they defy him he will curse them
....then they go kill jesus
been cursed ever since

You know, I have a bachelors AND a doctorate from ivy league universities, I make a lot of money, still have my youth, and screw a VERY pretty lady with regular frequency.

I'm not feeling that cursed.

God isnt with them because they dont worship him, they dont even acknowledge that jesus was the 'saviour',...to them, the son of god has still not come to earth, they are still waiting for their saviour,...but they still go ahead and use the christian calender based off time set from the birth of christ

Um...no, no they don't. Jewish religious observances are still based on the Jewish calender. Always have been. And it's year 5758. I don't speak latin either, but I still say A.M./P.M. like everyone else. It's simple convenience.

Everyone once in a while you and I agree about something. This is one of those times. ;)

Nice little turnaround. So, basically, if I ask God for money, he'll give it to me unless he says no. And, clearly, he says yes to Jews more often than Christians. Interesting.

[snip]
I mean, it's almost like Jesus told us explicitly how to pray and that we didn't need to ask for things. Nah, clearly, Jesus was wrong when he told us explicitly what to say when praying.

Give us this day our daily bread... Yup, praying for stuff is what Jesus taught us.

His comment about the mountain was about faith. But hey, you're right, it's probably entirely literal and people who suffer just don't have enough faith. When you're grandmother died. It was because you didn't have enough faith.

I wish you'd stop causing all those kids to die in Africa, murderer. Get some faith and get to work. I mean, it's not like Christians are selfishly praying for more money when they could be saving African babies.
You keep wanting to turn this into a different topic like; "Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people," but its not that topic, no matter how much you obfuscate the issue. Lets read it again...
well i have to say that a little bit of faith DOES have its positives sides
I have had bad financial crap of my own causing, and now after a bit of faith and prayer, things are turning to the better

The poster said they caused their own problems, and that they refocused their attentions back toward God and that now, their troubles are starting to clear up and they are apparently thankful for that. How is that not EXACTLY what Jesus said would happen if they turned their attention back onto God?

But you, a fellow Christian, felt the need to challenge their simple one line testimony instead of simply thanking them for sharing the information of their good blessings with us... how very forgiving of you :rolleyes:

He answers. Sometimes the answer is "no."

and the frequency is always the same as random chance. and the answer is always your own interpretation of insignificant random occurrences anyway. ever heard a voice telling you yay or nay? no? didn't think so. yes? there are medical professionals to help with that.

The poster said they caused their own problems, and that they refocused their attentions back toward God and that now, their troubles are starting to clear up and they are apparently thankful for that. How is that not EXACTLY what Jesus said would happen if they turned their attention back onto God?

Yes, because I'm sure that's exactly why things turned around. Nothing else could have been the cause.

He answers. Sometimes the answer is "no."

Someone praying: God, please don't let my mother die

*mother dies*

Someone else: God, please don't let my mother die

*mother lives*

Now why would god favor one person over another? That's an asshole thing to do.

Well, I guess there is a reason they say ignorance is bliss.

I'd rather be angry and depressed, and have my eyes open than be blissfully unaware of the horrors of this world.

Give us this day our daily bread... Yup, praying for stuff is what Jesus taught us.

Heh. Wow. I'm not sure how willing you should be to amend the words of Christ. He taught us to make a specific prayer that encouraged us to be thankful for our bounties. Now, it's asking for "stuff". Hmmm... now, remember that God is watching. When you pray, do you ONLY use that prayer, per Christ's instruction, or do you ask for things specifically?


You keep wanting to turn this into a different topic like; "Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people," but its not that topic, no matter how much you obfuscate the issue. Lets read it again...

Well, according to you, they just don't ask hard enough.

And topics sometimes float a bit. You claimed that God rewards those who ask right, which OF COURSE implies that those who suffer just don't have enough faith. It clearly answers why bad things happen.



The poster said they caused their own problems, and that they refocused their attentions back toward God and that now, their troubles are starting to clear up and they are apparently thankful for that. How is that not EXACTLY what Jesus said would happen if they turned their attention back onto God?

But you, a fellow Christian, felt the need to challenge their simple one line testimony instead of simply thanking them for their sharing the information of their good blessings... how very forgiving of you :rolleyes:

According to him, he never changed his attention, but rather abandoned the Church. I felt the need to ensure he didn't become so proud as to suggest his success is because he's a better Christian than other less successful people.

Interestingly enough, I must be a great Christian because I'm very blessed.

Someone praying: God, please don't let my mother die

*mother dies*

Someone else: God, please don't let my mother die

*mother lives*

Now why would god favor one person over another? That's an asshole thing to do.

Not only that but:

Someone else entirely: Vishnu, please don't let my mother die

*mother lives*

A whole other person: Doctor, do everything you can to save my mother

*mother lives*

Not only is god an asshole for listening to some prayers and not others, but he even listens to prayers to other gods, and also seems to sometimes help those who don't pray at all.

What an inconsistant motherfucker..

Still doesn;t work, because it's a statistical sample of one.

It would be as bad as if I extrapolated from myself. I'm an agnostic (ex-Christian) who's never had serious financial trouble. In fact, since I became an independent being, I've been unreasonably fortunate in my financial life. I've even helped a (lapsed) Catholic get out of debt (which she got into before she lapsed).

I'm not rich, but I'm comfortable. More comfortable than a lot of people seem to be nowadays.

Therefore, doubting God is clearly the path to prosperity.

Or, you know, maybe, just maybe, it's a combination of work ethic, persistence, determination, and just being fricking brilliant and frugal that's the key to material comfort, and it has nothing to do with your religion.

Naah. It's gotta be the sky spirits. WoooooOOOOOoooooOOOOOooooo...

Heh. Wow. I'm not sure how willing you should be to amend the words of Christ. He taught us to make a specific prayer that encouraged us to be thankful for our bounties. Now, it's asking for "stuff". Hmmm... now, remember that God is watching. When you pray, do you ONLY use that prayer, per Christ's instruction, or do you ask for things specifically?

Perhaps you would like to put a warning at the top of your posts... one that reads, "STRAWMEN AHEAD"


Well, according to you, they just don't ask hard enough.
When did I say that? I didn't, thats YOUR idea of what you are arguing against, but its not the idea I'm arguing for... But keep up the good work, I don't want you to feel like you aren't accomplishing anything.

And topics sometimes float a bit. You claimed that God rewards those who ask right, which OF COURSE implies that those who suffer just don't have enough faith. It clearly answers why bad things happen.

More strawmen on your part. I only said that Jesus said people could ask... You are the one that interpreted that information provided to us as a prayer for excessive wealth or something like that...


According to him, he never changed his attention, but rather abandoned the Church. I felt the need to ensure he didn't become so proud as to suggest his success is because he's a better Christian than other less successful people.

And you assumed that position because you don't want him (her?) to judge other Christians... Oh the irony.


Interestingly enough, I must be a great Christian because I'm very blessed.

Do you need a towel to wipe off your own horn now or are you still busy blowing it?

and the frequency is always the same as random chance. and the answer is always your own interpretation of insignificant random occurrences anyway. ever heard a voice telling you yay or nay? no? didn't think so. yes? there are medical professionals to help with that.

That's not fair, I'm sure studies have been done that show people who are prayed for are more likely to recover from health problems...

Several studies of prayer effectiveness have yielded null results. A 2001 double-blind study of the Mayo Clinic found no significant difference in the recovery rates between people who were (unbeknownst to them) assigned to a group that prayed for them and those who were not. Similarly, the MANTRA study conducted by Duke University found no differences in outcome of cardiac procedures as a result of prayer.

In another similar study published in the American Heart Journal in 2006, Christian intercessory prayer when reading a scripted prayer was found to have no effect on the recovery of heart surgery patients; however, the study found patients who had knowledge of receiving prayer had slightly higher instances of complications than those who did not know if they were being prayed for or those who did not receive prayer

Well...crap.

That's not fair, I'm sure studies have been done that show people who are prayed for are more likely to recover from health problems...



Well...crap.


Yes, but the indications are that it doesn't matter WHAT is prayed to, God, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu, or Me.

So the motive force must be something else.

Perhaps you would like to put a warning at the top of your posts... one that reads, "STRAWMEN AHEAD"

Uh-huh. I will when I use one. Perhaps you should employ the internet search engine at your fingertips and find out what a strawman is. But, hey, nice job avoiding the point. You continue to think that if you just mention a fallacy and make an accusation you don't need evidence. You continue to be wrong, But that explains why you keep getting your behind kicked in debates.

I'll ask again, do you follow the instruction of Christ or do you pray for things specifically? (see when it's my argument that I'm asking you to address it can't be a strawman, but, hey, let's pretend you knew that.)


When did I say that? I didn't, thats YOUR idea of what you are arguing against, but its not the idea I'm arguing for... But keep up the good work, I don't want you to feel like you aren't accomplishing anything.

You said God answers your prayers and quoted a passage that says that if you ask hard enough you'll get anything you want. But, hey, why start being honest about what you said? Keep flipping around. There's no rules about that in the Bible anywhere.

More strawmen on your part. I only said that Jesus said people could ask... You are the one that interpreted that information provided to us as a prayer for excessive wealth or something like that...

No, you didn't. You quoted (out of context) Jesus saying if you asked you'd get it. Excessive wealth? The passage you took out of context claiming it supported you said you could pray for a mountain to move and it would. Excessive wealth is child's play in comparison.

And you assumed that position because you don't want him (her?) to judge other Christians... Oh the irony.

I didn't judge him. I simply spoke to him about it. S/he understood even if it went over your head.

Do you need a towel to wipe off your own horn now or are you still busy blowing it?

Follow along. I am blessed and it's humility that makes me realize it. I'm incredibly blessed and thankful for it. As to the Good Christian bit, I'm not the one who believes material reward is granted for being a Good Christian. That's you. By your logic, I MUST be a good Christian.

Let's be clear, since you're confused. My name is Jocabia and I believe that you are judged by the Lord when you die. I believe that your success on earth is not a reflection of your faith or whether your faith is right. Interestingly enough, it's only really blessed and thoroughly proud people who claim their blessings are evidence of being in the favor of the Lord.

Yes, but the indications are that it doesn't matter WHAT is prayed to, God, Allah, Buddha, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulhu, or Me.

So the motive force must be something else.

Did you...um...read what I posted?

He answers. Sometimes the answer is "no."

Sometimes? And how do you know it's him anyway, and not some temp at his desk while the boss is off at golf? Or heck, an answering machine.

You're quite sure of your answer. Too bad you didn't read MORE of what Jesus said...

Matthew 21:21-22
And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Luke 11:12-13
or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

And exactly what that poster said, that they stopped and turned back to God and started to pray and things started to turn for the better...Could be straight from Jesus lips:

Matthew 6:31-33
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Just like the the poster (she?) said happened. I'm not surprised Jesus turned out to be true, you shouldn't be surprised either, it's sad that you are.

Hmmm... who would ever gather from this post that you were trying to claim that God will grant your prayers if you have enough faith.

Well, gosh, a bunch of out of context quotes that you used to give the impression that whatever you pray for you get. In fact, one of them appears (when out of context) to say exactly that.

Let's hear your next bit of spin. Psst... this is the part where you change your argument again, all the while telling me what a bad Christian I am. I, for one, cannot wait.

Hmmm... who would ever gather from this post that you were trying to claim that God will grant your prayers if you have enough faith.

Well, gosh, a bunch of out of context quotes that you used to give the impression that whatever you pray for you get. In fact, one of them appears (when out of context) to say exactly that.

Let's hear your next bit of spin. Psst... this is the part where you change your argument again, all the while telling me what a bad Christian I am. I, for one, cannot wait.

You've shown that you don't need to wait for me to say anything, just make up some argument or another that you want to attack and assign the opposing position to me, like you have grown accustomed to.

The fact is, those bolded words there are not my words, they belong to Jesus. You said Jesus said one thing, I showed you Jesus saying something else, now you want to pretend that your interpretation of what Jesus said there is my argument, not his... Clearly, you've missed the obvious flaw in your position, and that is that you've assigned to me a position that is not mine. Frankly, I think its you who has to go look up what a Strawman is if you think what you've done isn't a strawman...

<snip>

Unsurprising. Quite a few psychological studies state that religion improves one's outlook on life, that more religious people are more likely to be happy with their lot in life. That doesn't go for everyone though. Like me, for example.

So, about 60% of americans, regardless of finances, consider religion very important to them.

Of those who believe their finances are improving, 67% hold their religion very important

Of those who believe their finances are not improving, 55% hold their religion very important.

Those figures are so close to the baseline that it barely falls outside the margin of error.
Not forgetting that perhaps people who do feel their financial situation is worsening might have had strong religious beliefs prior. Their faith in their Deity may have been shaken by their worsening financial position (praying to God certainly hasn't helped them, has it?), hence their weaker beliefs.

Unsurprising. Quite a few psychological studies state that religion improves one's outlook on life, that more religious people are more likely to be happy with their lot in life. That doesn't go for everyone though. Like me, for example.

Agreed. That is a possibility that I consider very likely. The only statistic they came up with that would not be linked to that "happy with my outlook on life because of my religion" idea would be the percentage of people working in places where they don't feel like they will be laid off soon. That one is harder to explain with just 'feeling good' because I have religion, but even so... Thanks for posting. Maybe someone else caught it too, like you and I did (and if I missed it I apologize), but I've been busy arguing with people that claim I said Jesus makes believers rich if they pray hard enough ... lol

What do we have here? A Christian that doesn't think God actually answers prayers? Awww, that's sad.

Not always. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b69LiTM_7k0)

You've shown that you don't need to wait for me to say anything, just make up some argument or another that you want to attack and assign the opposing position to me, like you have grown accustomed to.

Yeah, gosh. I don't know why I thought the stuff you quoted in your posts were your position. How silly of me. It can't be that you're once again being dishonest. Nah. That can't be it.


The fact is, those bolded words there are not my words, they belong to Jesus. You said Jesus said one thing, I showed you Jesus saying something else, now you want to pretend that your interpretation of what Jesus said there is my argument, not his...

Um, you quote someone to support your point, you are making that argument. Stop pretending like you weren't. I claimed Jesus didn't say you get everything you pray for. You responded by quoting him out of context to give the impression that is untrue. Jesus isn't in this thread. You are. It's your argument. Lie about it all you want, but you're not fooling anyone, least of all yourself, and certainly not God. You know what you meant. God knows what you meant. And it's pretty clear in your posts. You really want to continue to pretend you meant something different? Hey, when you're praying for forgiveness just tell God, some guy on the internet really had you nailed so you HAD to change your position or else you would looked like you were actually blaming suffering on those that suffer.

You really want to pretend that when I said that Jesus said, strangely enough, exactly what he said, and that it supported that God doesn't grant prayers like wishes, you didn't claim otherwise and give quotes that said (out of context) even if you pray to toss the mountain into the sea it will happen.

Clearly, you've missed the obvious flaw in your position, and that is that you've assigned to me a position that is not mine. Frankly, I think its you who has to go look up what a Strawman is if you think what you've done isn't a strawman...

They certainly did belong to Jesus. Only one of us took them out of context. I take them like they all play together, which is why when I generally quote Jesus I give more context than you did. You just quoted and left them sitting out of context, making it seem like Jesus said that whatever we pray for we get.

Heh. You know why people generally accuse one of misrepresenting their argument but don't clarify? Becuase I nailed it and you know if you even attempt to "clarify" your position, I'll show exactly how full of crap you are. So just keep saying I'm misrepresenting you, by quoting you, in context, and demonstrating what's wrong with it. Be careful not to talk about what exactly I have wrong or why it's a strawman. That would look too much like you know how to debate.

And be careful not to answer my question. That would be too clear as well, and you know I'll show exactly how often you contradict yourself. When you're being dishonest it's very important not to be too clear.

The whole irony of this study is that the Bible has so much to say about empowering the weak, poor, and unhappy, e.g. "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth." (Mathew 5:5). Perhaps people who are worse off are consequently less religious BECAUSE they find religion to have not helped them in the past.

Not always. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b69LiTM_7k0)

Oh, don't worry. His position has changed since then.

Yeah, gosh. I don't know why I thought the stuff you quoted in your posts were your position. How silly of me. It can't be that you're once again being dishonest. Nah. That can't be it.

I assume you're not lying. I assume you are wrong on a regular basis for a different reason than lying.

You really want to pretend that when I said that Jesus said, strangely enough, exactly what he said, and that it supported that God doesn't grant prayers like wishes, you claimed otherwise and gave quotes that said (out of context) even if you pray to toss the mountain into the sea it will happen.

You might wish you said that, but that's not what you said... you said: Or, you could just read the words of Christ where he tells us that it's the hypocrites who blather on about what they want and that God already knows what we want and need. But, hey, He's only Christ. Why listen to what Christ said?

And I pointed out to you a couple of places where Jesus says something different than what you said. I didn't even go to the parable about the old lady bugging the bad judge to give her justice and he finally does, not because he is good but just to shut her up... In effect, Jesus telling us to bother God with frequent prayers until they are answered. You just want to misdirect the argument to what you think I believe instead of addressing how what Jesus said isn't what you said.

They certainly did belong to Jesus. Only one of us took them out of context. I take them like they all play together, which is why when I generally quote Jesus I give more context than you did. You just quoted and left them sitting out of context, making it seem like Jesus said that whatever we pray for we get.

I used more than enough quotes of Jesus to show that what you had said about him previously was erroneous.

Heh. You know why people generally accuse one of misrepresenting their argument but don't clarify? Becuase I nailed it and you know if you even attempt to "clarify" your position, I'll show exactly how full of crap you are. So just keep saying I'm misrepresenting you, by quoting you, in context, and demonstrating what's wrong with it. Be careful not to talk about what exactly I have wrong or why it's a strawman. That would look too much like you know how to debate.

No, this is simply your inability to recognize your own misunderstandings, yet again. You are consistent at it though, I don't expect you to do otherwise.

And be careful not to answer my question. That would be too clear as well, and you know I'll show exactly how often you contradict yourself. When you're being dishonest it's very important not to be too clear.

How I pray is irrelevant and frankly, none of your business and has nothing to do with the topic at hand except for your attempt to change the topic. Who I pray too I've already made it clear.

I assume you're not lying. I assume you are wrong on a regular basis for a different reason than lying.

I assume when you argue against me when I claim that the Lord doesn't grant every request using out of context quotes of Jesus suggesting that He does, in fact, grant every request, then you claim you agreed all along, that you're lying. You've done lots to support that notion and nothing to disspell it.

I further assume that when you present quotes of Jesus to argue against me and then claim you never intended to make that argument yourself, that you also lying. Again, you've done much to support that notion and nothing to disspell it.

You might wish you said that, but that's not what you said... you said: Or, you could just read the words of Christ where he tells us that it's the hypocrites who blather on about what they want and that God already knows what we want and need. But, hey, He's only Christ. Why listen to what Christ said?

Jesus did say both of those things, did he not? Or are you claiming Christ didn't say that? That Christ didn't say what I quoted?

And I pointed out to you a couple of places where Jesus says something different than what you said. I didn't even go to the parable about the old lady bugging the bad judge to give her justice and he finally does, not because he is good but just to shut her up... In effect, Jesus telling us to bother God with frequent prayers until they are answered. You just want to misdirect the argument to what you think I believe instead of addressing how what Jesus said isn't what you said.

Again, are you claiming that Jesus never said what I claimed he said? Heh, like the apostles, you're excellent at misunderstanding. Yes, Jesus was saying that God is like a bad judge that grants your prayers if you're annoying enough.

Heh, wait, you are saying what I said isn't what Jesus said. Hmmm... let's check.

Matthew 6
Jesus: 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

Me: it's the hypocrites who blather on about what they want and that God already knows what we want and need.

Whoops, you are behaving like pagans, not hypocrites. And Jesus said babbling not blather. But considering this was in another language, my statement was just about as close to word for word as you get. Despite that, keep claiming Jesus never said it, even after you admitted he did. That's just another losing argument.


I used more than enough quotes of Jesus to show that what you had said about him previously was erroneous.

It was erroneous? Jesus did not say that? Hmmm... I wonder where I found that quote. Interestingly, if what I said Jesus said wasn't from Jesus, then why did you reply, rather than correcting me, begin with "You're quite sure of your answer. Too bad you didn't read MORE of what Jesus said..." More of what Jesus said? Well, gee, but I thought Jesus never said what I claimed. How could you show me "MORE of what Jesus said"? Again, here's the part where you change your claims, AGAIN, and talk about what a bad Christian I am.


No, this is simply your inability to recognize your own misunderstandings, yet again. You are consistent at it though, I don't expect you to do otherwise.

You're hilarious. Golly, you sure have me. I misunderstood that Jesus said exactly what I claimed. I misunderstood that I claimed you don't get everything you want and you quoted things out of context that suggest you do. Yep. Like I said, you're not fooling me. You're not fooling you. You're not fooling anyone else reading. And, God knows what you meant.

How I pray is irrelevant and frankly, none of your business and has nothing to do with the topic at hand except for your attempt to change the topic. Who I pray too I've already made it clear.

How you pray has nothing to do with the topic at hand? You attacked ME about what I believe about prayer or did you forget?

Let's end the dishonesty right here.

Yes. It's true, I don't think that when a child dies it's because their parents didn't pray hard enough. I don't think that when my three-week old neice suffered terribly before dying that she died because my sister wasn't a good enough Christian. Apparently, I have more faith in a loving God, than you do.

Or, you could just read the words of Christ where he tells us that it's the hypocrites who blather on about what they want and that God already knows what we want and need. But, hey, He's only Christ. Why listen to what Christ said?

Hmmm... seems like I plainly said that you can't expect that every prayer you make comes true, because if they did then it would suggest that suffering is caused by a lack of faith.

Now, let's see if you took it that way and disagreed.

You're quite sure of your answer. Too bad you didn't read MORE of what Jesus said...

Matthew 21:21-22
And Jesus answered them, "Truly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what has been done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, 'Be taken up and thrown into the sea,' it will happen. And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith."

Mark 11:24
Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

Luke 11:12-13
or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"

You made more arguments to the original point, but you also spoke to exactly the point I made. I claimed that not everything you pray for comes true and that suffering isn't caused by a lack of faith. Your reply and it's intent is obvious.

But, hey, keep lying about it. I'm sure lots of people and God are entirely fooled.

Oh, don't worry. His position has changed since then.

Not my old pal GB... never.

Nah his position didn't change. It never changed. You were just obviously too stupid to understand what he clearly meant the first time.

Nah his position didn't change. It never changed. You were just obviously too stupid to understand what he clearly meant the first time.

Who? Me?

Not my old pal GB... never.

GB?

Nah his position didn't change. It never changed. You were just obviously too stupid to understand what he clearly meant the first time.

Of course. When I said that you don't get everything you pray for and said I was wrong and posted a whole bunch of quotes that seem to say you do get everything you pray for, he wasn't making that argument. Jesus was. See, it's this special kind of claiming authority by pretending that his interpretation can't be questioned because it's really Jesus I'm arguing with.

Sometimes intellectual dishonesty isn't particularly intellectual.

I just can't see how anything you say or wish for with God would make much difference. For me, admittedly as an atheist, it's really in your actions and from what I understand, you do not receive your reward on earth, you receive it in heaven.

It's why I always found it odd when a priest says 'Let us now pray for forgiveness'.

Well, just don't do bad things, praying for forgiveness, well either He's going to forgive you or not, a plea after the fact jut seems pointless.

Perhaps thanking God for your blessings is about as much as you would need to do, asking for specific actions by Him, especially if you also believe He has a plan, seems a little pointless.

I can see that religious people might be more content, saying 'It's in God's hands', if you truly believe it, I can see the comfort in that to some extent.

See, the thing that I find so amusing with prayer is that sometimes, the answer is yes, and sometimes, the answer is no.
So basically, it doesn't make the least bit of difference if you pray or not, because in either case you may or may not get what you would like.
The only difference it seems to be making is that people seem to feel it has effect, regardless of the clean facts. It's a bit like reading tarot cards, or horoscopes : if you believe in it, you will assume it works, and take random things as proof.

;)

The implication of the OP being that it's better to be a believer than a non-believer because you will be financially more successful and happier than a non believer. In short, I believe, the OP is offering this as a good reason to believe in god (of some kind).

But whether or not you're more financially successful than others because you pray, or even that you're more happy because you're religious, doesn't have any bearing or not on the statements 'there is a god/there is not a god'.

I find the evidence for the existence of god (jewish and its derivatives) to be very weak. I find the evidence indicating that it is most unlikely there is a god to be very strong. I can only conclude from the evidence there is no god. It's not like I can choose to believe. I can only choose to profess a belief in god (which I don't), which would make me very unhappy as I would be living what I believed to be a lie.

So even if it's true that the believers are richer and happier, that's absolutely irrelevant to me and all other athiests.

"people who are religeous" is a rather large generalization.
as is "people who are not religeous".
both cover just about every other territory there is.

you'd just about have to generalize about ALL people, to cover either one.

well you could say all human people indiginously born on planet earth are have in their cells the genetic algorythem to have two eyes, one nose, one mouth, two each, arms and legs, one heart, liver and splene, and so forth.

but probably not really a whole lot else (can be accurately and reliably said).
supposedly they have one each brain as well, though this is not always entirely certain either.

=^^=
.../\...

Theres a difference between saying something is true and it being true 'for realz'

For example, Republicans report better mental health, but that doesn't mean they really are more mentally healthy.

In this case, I think it's more of the feel good non sensible vibes that religion gives off that are diluting the religious into thinking they're doing a lot better then they truly are.

Optimistic about finances =/= financially secure.

See, the thing that I find so amusing with prayer is that sometimes, the answer is yes, and sometimes, the answer is no.
So basically, it doesn't make the least bit of difference if you pray or not, because in either case you may or may not get what you would like.
The only difference it seems to be making is that people seem to feel it has effect, regardless of the clean facts. It's a bit like reading tarot cards, or horoscopes : if you believe in it, you will assume it works, and take random things as proof.

;)

You know, I can read tarot cards. Not to tell the future, but to manipulate the damn fool(s) who ask me to read their tarot cards *Evil Grin*

On subject: I don't pray (after all, who would I pray to? Myself?;)), and I am happy, and doing fine financially. Statistics can be used to prove anything.

Perhaps people who are worse off are consequently less religious BECAUSE they find religion to have not helped them in the past.

Or maybe the people who are successful think this has something to do with god, which reinforces their beliefs. Like if you put animals in a skinner's box and feed them at random moments, they will start to show weird behaviour because they think whenever they do some random action (like praying in this isntance) and they are randomly awarded after that, they think this was because of the praying while in reality it was just random, therefore they will start to pray more etc.

Or maybe there is just very little statistical evidence to back up the claims made in the OP.

Soooo ... if I go to church once a week and pretend to believe, my finances will get better?

Or maybe the people who are successful think this has something to do with god, which reinforces their beliefs. Like if you put animals in a skinner's box and feed them at random moments, they will start to show weird behaviour because they think whenever they do some random action (like praying in this isntance) and they are randomly awarded after that, they think this was because of the praying while in reality it was just random, therefore they will start to pray more etc.

Or maybe there is just very little statistical evidence to back up the claims made in the OP.

I agree there is no proof from the survey results that religious people who attend church regularly are in actuality 'richer' financially than the non-religious people who don't attend church regularly. I don't see evidence of that in the answers, income levels is not asked for by the questions. What is answered is that whatever their actual financial condition is those who attend church regularly feel better about their situation (or happy people go to church more often, either way).

One of the few parts that could be used to argue for evidence of 'intervention' might be this part...
Among those working for companies that are laying people off, 22% attend Church or religious services at least once a week. Among those who work for companies that are hiring new workers, 45% attend services that often.

Does God protect the companies that prayers work for? Or do successful companies hire church attenders more frequently and those that don't hire church goers are less successful? Or do people that work for failing companies just stop going to church (which would seem counterintuitive I would think)...

But that's why I posted it, good stuff to 'think' about ;)

Soooo ... if I go to church once a week and pretend to believe, my finances will get better?

Don't know, why don't you try it and find out?

Don't know, why don't you try it and find out?

Ugh. How gauche.

Soooo ... if I go to church once a week and pretend to believe, my finances will get better?

No, but you're more likely to pretend they are better. Cause you have to pretend a loving god is looking after you, right?

No, but you're more likely to pretend they are better. Cause you have to pretend a loving god is looking after you, right?

Got Cynical? :p

Got Cynical? :p

Plenty. Why, wanna borrow some? :p

Plenty. Why, wanna borrow some? :p

Nooo thank you, but I appreciate the offer though. :)

Soooo ... if I go to church once a week and pretend to believe, my finances will get better?According to Creflo Dollar, yes.

I agree there is no proof from the survey results that religious people who attend church regularly are in actuality 'richer' financially than the non-religious people who don't attend church regularly. I don't see evidence of that in the answers, income levels is not asked for by the questions. What is answered is that whatever their actual financial condition is those who attend church regularly feel better about their situation (or happy people go to church more often, either way).

Well, maybe if you're successful in deluding yourself that there is in fact a God , then it might be easier to delude yourself that your finances are ok?

One of the few parts that could be used to argue for evidence of 'intervention' might be this part...
Among those working for companies that are laying people off, 22% attend Church or religious services at least once a week. Among those who work for companies that are hiring new workers, 45% attend services that often.

Does God protect the companies that prayers work for? Or do successful companies hire church attenders more frequently and those that don't hire church goers are less successful? Or do people that work for failing companies just stop going to church (which would seem counterintuitive I would think)...

But that's why I posted it, good stuff to 'think' about ;)

Hmmm, it would really surprise me if correlation in this case equals causation. It could also be possible that people who go to church a lot tend to search more stable jobs or something. Maybe they would also work for a good company if they didn't go to church.

..Hmmm, it would really surprise me if correlation in this case equals causation. It could also be possible that people who go to church a lot tend to search more stable jobs or something. Maybe they would also work for a good company if they didn't go to church.

Think about it this way for a moment.

If you were on your corporate board and the discussion on the table was employee productivity and someone showed a chart that revealed the statistics that companies with workforces that consist of only 22% regular church goers were companies that were downsizing and companies with work forces that consists of 45% regular church goers were companies that are expanding, wouldn't that make you wonder what the rate of your work force was? Of course it would.

Corporations are always looking for ways to improve overall employee productivity and one of those ways is measuring and maintaining employee satisfaction etc., I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that corporate management would find those kinds of statistics interesting.

I wish you'd stop causing all those kids to die in Africa, murderer. Get some faith and get to work. I mean, it's not like Christians are selfishly praying for more money when they could be saving African babies.

I must admit I find it hard to see how anyone could believe in a God who intervenes to get them a better interest rate on their savings, but doesn't lift a finger to save a dying child.

Think about it this way for a moment.

If you were on your corporate board and the discussion on the table was employee productivity and someone showed a chart that revealed the statistics that companies with workforces that consist of only 22% regular church goers were companies that were downsizing and companies with work forces that consists of 45% regular church goers were companies that are expanding, wouldn't that make you wonder what the rate of your work force was? Of course it would.

Corporations are always looking for ways to improve overall employee productivity and one of those ways is measuring and maintaining employee satisfaction etc., I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that corporate management would find those kinds of statistics interesting.

Most management recognize when studies are actually probative or not. This one isn't. It suggests a correllation but does nothing to explore and never attempted to. Fortunately, most companies wouldn't find that interesting at all.

I must admit I find it hard to see how anyone could believe in a God who intervenes to get them a better interest rate on their savings, but doesn't lift a finger to save a dying child.

Yes, but if you ask that question you're a heathen. It can't be that you're reasonable and realize that God's not our waiter. "God, next, I'd like to order a hot wife."

And I didn't even mention the allegory about how if you bug God enough, He gives in just so you'll stop bugging him.

One of the few parts that could be used to argue for evidence of 'intervention' might be this part...
Among those working for companies that are laying people off, 22% attend Church or religious services at least once a week. Among those who work for companies that are hiring new workers, 45% attend services that often.

Does God protect the companies that prayers work for? Or do successful companies hire church attenders more frequently and those that don't hire church goers are less successful? Or do people that work for failing companies just stop going to church (which would seem counterintuitive I would think)...

But that's why I posted it, good stuff to 'think' about ;)

Or are the church-goers so useless that they're the first to be laid off? :p

Alternatively, maybe companies that are laying staff off require the remaining staff to work more overtime, leading to them working at the weekend and/or leaving them less inclined to go to church in their diminished free time. Obviously the opposite applies to companies that are employing.

EDIT: The moral of this story being: "Insufficient data leads to ambiguity"

Yes, but if you ask that question you're a heathen. It can't be that you're reasonable and realize that God's not our waiter. "God, next, I'd like to order a hot wife."

And I didn't even mention the allegory about how if you bug God enough, He gives in just so you'll stop bugging him.

Would this be an opportune time to post an Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28812) article? :)

God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy
'No,' Says God

December 9, 1998 | Issue 34•19

SAN FRANCISCO–For as long as he can remember, 7-year-old Timmy Yu has had one precious dream: From the bottom of his heart, he has hoped against hope that God would someday hear his prayer to walk again. Though many thought Timmy's heavenly plea would never be answered, his dream finally came true Monday, when the Lord personally responded to the wheelchair-bound boy's prayer with a resounding no.

Enlarge Image God Answers Prayers

Wheelchair-bound Timmy Yu, who finally received his long-awaited reply from God.

"I knew that if I just prayed hard enough, God would hear me," said the joyful Timmy, surrounded by stuffed animals sent by well-wishing Christians from around the globe, as he sat in the wheelchair to which he will be confined for the rest of his life. "And now my prayer has been answered. I haven't been this happy since before the accident, when I could walk and play with the other children like a normal boy."

God's response came at approximately 10 a.m. Monday, following a particularly fervent Sunday prayer session by little Timmy. Witnesses said God issued His miraculous answer in the form of a towering column of clouds, from which poured forth great beams of Divine light and the music of the Heavenly Hosts. The miraculous event took place in the Children's Special Care Ward of St. Luke's Hospital, where Timmy goes three times a week for an excruciating two-hour procedure to drain excess fluid from his damaged spinal column.

Said Angela Schlosser, a day nurse who witnessed the Divine Manifestation: "An incredible, booming voice said to Timmy, 'I am the Lord thy God, who created the rivers and the mountains, the heavens and the earth, the sun and the moon and the stars. Before Me sits My beloved child, whose faith is that of the mustard seed from which grows mighty and powerful things. My child, Timmy Yu, I say unto you thus: I have heard your prayers, and now I shall answer them. No, you cannot get out of your wheelchair. Not ever."

Paralyzed in a 1996 auto accident that also claimed the lives of both his parents, Timmy has served as a shining example to his fellow churchgoers at Lord In Heaven On High Church, inspiring others with his simple, heartfelt devotion. Now that Timmy has received an answer, Christians the world over are celebrating his story as a stirring testament to the power of faith.

"The Lord has answered a little boy's plea to know if he would ever walk again, and that answer was no," Rev. H. Newman Gunther of the San Francisco School Of Divinity said. "For years, this boy had been plagued by the question of whether or not he would ever walk, and now Our Lord, in his wisdom and mercy, has forever laid to rest any lingering doubt. Young Timmy can rest assured in the immutable truth that the Lord has bestowed upon him. Now and for all time, he finally knows that he will never escape the cruel prison of his chair of iron, for God hath willed it so. Praise be to God!"

God Answers Prayers jump

God.

Asked for comment, God said: "This kind-hearted child's simple prayer hath moved Me. Never before have I seen such faith. His trusting soul, so full of innocent devotion to Me, hath offered seventy times seven prayers asking, 'God? Can I please walk again?' It was indeed right and fitting that I, in My infinite wisdom, should share with him the One True Answer to this long-repeated question he put before Me."

"My will be done," God added.

Witnesses to the miracle said Timmy begged God for several minutes to change His mind and heal his shattered vertebrae, but the Lord stood firm.

"God strongly suggested that Timmy consider praying to one of the other intercessionary agents of Divine power, like Jesus, Mary or maybe even a top saint," Timmy's personal physician, Dr. William Luttrell, said. "The Lord stressed to Timmy that it was a long shot, but He said he might have better luck with one of them."

Despite all the attention he has received, Timmy remains humble in the face of his newfound notoriety as the only human ever to have a prayer directly answered by God Himself.

"I know that God loves me, because it says so in the Bible," Timmy said. "So right now, I am just glad that God took the time to answer my prayer. If only I could walk, this would be the greatest day of my life."

But yeah, He's got time to help with your mortage...

Doesn't that seem the opposite of what most of the secular humanists would have us believe? These people seem to be LESS likely to be bitter than their neighbors, not more so. What say you?Um... It depends on whom you ask. People who say "Ignorance is bliss" are probably gearing up to say "I told you so."

Or are the church-goers so useless that they're the first to be laid off? :p

So you think God gets his children off the sinking ship first then ... Interesting. ;)

Alternatively, maybe companies that are laying staff off require the remaining staff to work more overtime, leading to them working at the weekend and/or leaving them less inclined to go to church in their diminished free time. Obviously the opposite applies to companies that are employing.

Your instincts seem to be backwards with this one I think. Layoffs come when there isn't enough work for everyone, and contrariwise, people are overworked when there is more work than people and the few have to do all the work while the company is trying to hire more people . Additionally, the 'Hiring' companies would be overworking the labor while they try to hire, and those are the people that would be at work instead of church (if that theory were correct, which I don't think it is because they are in church, apparently)...

EDIT: The moral of this story being: "Insufficient data leads to ambiguity"
Can't argue with that one. I agree. More study is required. And with big differences like that (45% vs 22%), there should be more study.

So you think God gets his children off the sinking ship first then ... Interesting. ;)

I'm sure those people cheer that they were first to lose their jobs. "Hey, I could have stayed on after the layoffs, using those layoffs as a warning to find other work. But instead I don't have a paycheck. Yay!!"

For the record, when a ship is sinking and there's no life rafts, the first people off are most likely to die.

Your instincts seem to be backwards with this one I think. Layoffs come when there isn't enough work for everyone, and contrariwise, people are overworked when there is more work than people and the few have to do all the work while the company is trying to hire more people . Additionally, the 'Hiring' companies would be overworking the labor while they try to hire, and those are the people that would be at work instead of church (if that theory were correct, which I don't think it is because they are in church, apparently)...

Uh, actually, layoffs often occur when they can't afford to keep everyone employed. It doesn't necessarily relate to the amount of work they have. In my company when we were shutting down the workload expanded considerably due to layoffs. I've often reduced the workload of workforces by helping companies become more efficient. To this day, I don't know of a single layoff that occurred due to that effect. This is because the efficiency is most often coupled with an increase in profits (due to the fact that they do more preventive maintenance). In other words, his instincts are smack on.

So you think God gets his children off the sinking ship first then ... Interesting. ;)

I was thinking more of the ship's captain having all the heavy clutter thrown overboard to try and save the ship, but each to their own. :D It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion, just an illustration of how open to interpretation these figures are.

Your instincts seem to be backwards with this one I think. Layoffs come when there isn't enough work for everyone, and contrariwise, people are overworked when there is more work than people and the few have to do all the work while the company is trying to hire more people . Additionally, the 'Hiring' companies would be overworking the labor while they try to hire, and those are the people that would be at work instead of church (if that theory were correct, which I don't think it is because they are in church, apparently)...

Although I dislike citing anecdotal evidence, only a few weeks ago my group was trying to get clearance to employ a new member (and we brought in a temp for a week or two to tide us over). Now several people are in line for redundancy. The workload hasn't lessened, if anything it's increased, but the company's shedding employees to try and make short term savings.

As I said, this is just anecdotal evidence so take it for what it's worth.

Can't argue with that one. I agree. More study is required. And with big differences like that (45% vs 22%), there should be more study.

It'd certainly be interesting to know why, although I suspect there are several factors in play rather than one simple one.

I'm sure those people cheer that they were first to lose their jobs. "Hey, I could have stayed on after the layoffs, using those layoffs as a warning to find other work. But instead I don't have a paycheck. Yay!!"

First ones to leave are the first to get the more durable jobs elsewhere.

For the record, when a ship is sinking and there's no life rafts, the first people off are most likely to die.


Good thing ships have lifeboats then... That's why it's the precious ones first, like children. If it were by your estimation, the children should be left on the sinking ship until last.

[QUOTE=Jocabia;13620225]
Uh, actually, layoffs often occur when they can't afford to keep everyone employed. It doesn't necessarily relate to the amount of work they have. In my company when we were shutting down the workload expanded considerably due to layoffs. I've often reduced the workload of workforces by helping companies become more efficient. To this day, I don't know of a single layoff that occurred due to that effect. This is because the efficiency is most often coupled with an increase in profits (due to the fact that they do more preventive maintenance). In other words, his instincts are smack on.


You don't know of a single layoff that came because there were too many workers for the work being done? Then clearly you aren't in any kind of seasonal industry, like, agriculture, education, manufacturing, tourism or anything else that has an in and out of season, :rolleyes:

I was thinking more of the ship's captain having all the heavy clutter thrown overboard to try and save the ship, but each to their own. :D It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion, just an illustration of how open to interpretation these figures are.

Neither was mine, Jocabia just takes everything way too seriously and turns conversations into pissing matches, but don't be confused yourself, you and I understand the tit for tat ...

Although I dislike citing anecdotal evidence, only a few weeks ago my group was trying to get clearance to employ a new member (and we brought in a temp for a week or two to tide us over). Now several people are in line for redundancy. The workload hasn't lessened, if anything it's increased, but the company's shedding employees to try and make short term savings.

As I said, this is just anecdotal evidence so take it for what it's worth. It'd certainly be interesting to know why, although I suspect there are several factors in play rather than one simple one.

It's also a sign that the company is worried about profits, perhaps too much soo... There may be a reason behind that. First leaks sometimes just look like damp spots ;)

Minor thought. Are people who perceive themselves to be in financial crisis, who realize they are in unstable jobs, and/or who recognize difficulties in finding a job less likely to "have faith"?

My own personal interpretation? It's a lot easier to keep the faith when you're not facing personal hardship, and it's a lot harder to believe that an all loving all knowing all powerful deity is out there watching out for you and making sure everything's going to be ok when you're about to lose your home.

First ones to leave are the first to get the more durable jobs elsewhere.

Based on what? Your assertion? If a company is laying off, typically anyone in danger of being laid off is going to start looking regardless of whether or not they were in the first round. In other words, they all hit the market at the same time, except the people who are still working, get to do it while keeping a paycheck.


Good thing ships have lifeboats then... That's why it's the precious ones first, like children. If it were by your estimation, the children should be left on the sinking ship until last.

A lifeboat in this analogy would be a severence package which rarely happens for people laid off.


You don't know of a single layoff that came because there were too many workers for the work being done? Then clearly you aren't in any kind of seasonal industry, like, agriculture, education, manufacturing, tourism or anything else that has an in and out of season, :rolleyes:

Actually, I work for all of them, and seasonal work is the exception. They are brought on temporarily. It's not a layoff. You're a seasonal work. In that case, temps are getting fired all the time. Nothing like throwing a couple of oranges into our comparison of apples.

Neither was mine, Jocabia just takes everything way too seriously and turns conversations into pissing matches, but don't be confused yourself, you and I understand the tit for tat ...

Jocabia watches you continually try to turn correllation into causation. What was just shown to you is several ways it could be explained that would make it mean the opposite of your claim and why management would be silly to make any moves as a result of this study or to treat as even remotely probative. Agenda wasn't making a serious suggestion, but he was making a point you avoided with a rather weak comment about how people who lose their job are being protected by God.


It's also a sign that the company is worried about profits, perhaps too much soo... There may be a reason behind that. First leaks sometimes just look like damp spots ;)

Companies worry about profits? What's going to happen next? Are women going to menstruate?

I was thinking more of the ship's captain having all the heavy clutter thrown overboard to try and save the ship, but each to their own. :D It wasn't intended as a serious suggestion, just an illustration of how open to interpretation these figures are.

Your point was quite clear. Baldy avoided it by focusing on your example. He tends to do that.

GB?

Garth Brooks. The person in the video Bann-ed linked.

Not only does this show that people who are religious aren’t bitter, it shows that those who are religious are more likely to be financially secure and happy with their employment. Additionally, it shows yet again that the more unlikely you are to be in church the less likely you are to be satisfied with your lot in life...

Among Americans who believe their personal finances are getting better, 67% say that faith and religion are Very Important in their lives. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also found that, among those whose finances are getting worse, 55% consider faith and religion that important.

The survey also found that those who are optimistic about their finances are also more likely than others to pray, read the Bible, and attend Church. Fifty-one percent (51%) of those who say their finances are getting better say they attend religious services at least once a week. Only 31% of those who are pessimistic about their finances attend so faithfully.

Most (56%) of those who are pessimistic about their finances say they rarely or never read the Bible. Most (58%) who are optimistic say they read the Bible at least once a week. That figure includes 22% who read daily or nearly every day.

Similar patterns were found across a variety of definitions of economic optimism or pessimism.
Among those who are worried about losing their job, 47% consider faith and religion Very Important. Among those not worried about job loss, 58% consider it that important.
Among those working for companies that are laying people off, 22% attend Church or religious services at least once a week. Among those who work for companies that are hiring new workers, 45% attend services that often.

Among those happy with their job, 18% read the Bible daily or nearly every day. Among those who are unhappy with their jobs. Just 9% read that faithfully.

Overall, among all Americans, 59% say that faith and religion are very important in their lives. That figure includes 67% of women and 51% of men; 73% of Republicans, 57% of Democrats, and 46% of those not affiliated with either major party. Eighty-six percent (86%) of African-Americans consider faith that important along with 55% of White Americans and 58% of other Americans. So do 58% of Investors and 60% of non-Investors. Those over 65 are more likely to consider faith and religion Very Important than younger voters.
link (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/those_who_feel_good_about_their_finances_more_likely_to_attend_church)

Doesn't that seem the opposite of what most of the secular humanists would have us believe? These people seem to be LESS likely to be bitter than their neighbors, not more so. What say you?

I'd say a discussion about what "secular humanists" believe misses the point.

The point is that in large part, rural America was once upon a time solidly, reliably Democratic. It is now solidly, reliably Republican. Now, this might not be so surprising unless you realize that Republican borrow-and-spend patronage and free trade policies hit of all people small farmers the hardest. So the question becomes: why do rural Americans vote against their self-interest.

The Krugman school of thought is that this poor-person-voting-Republican strain exists, but it's overwhelmingly in the south, and it's a species of some kind of crypto-racism. In essence, this school asserts that Republicans have held a majority because whites in the south, including poor whites who should, economically speaking, be solidly Democrat respond to dog-whistle politics and vote to keep the angry Negro down.

The Thomas-Frank school of thought, by contrast, points out that this does not explain overwhelmingly rural (and often poor, although there are a few megafarmers out there) support for Republicanism outside the South, such as in the Midwest and Mountain West. There is no racism in rural Kansans, if for no other reason than there are no minorities against whom they can form bigoted stereotypes. As such, dog-whistle politics does not explain the total success of the Republican party in these areas. What explains it instead is that rural voters have been trained to vote on "values" issues that signify that the candidate is "one of them". Once in office, however, these candidates vote in ways that destroy the way of life of their constituents.

The contrast, then, is whether or not you accept the idea that Republicans vote Republican because they are deep-down just racists looking for an excuse to punish a black person, or whether you believe that they are responding to what they've been trained to respond to: cultural calls for solidarity. One is actually a heck of a lot less condescending to the people who subscribe to it once you boil it down.

Now it should be of note that your citation has nothing to do with either side of this debate. Economic improvement (ill-defined, at that) has nothing to do with poverty-wealth divides, North-South divides, or urban-rural divides. As such, it has no real bearing on what Obama was really talking about.

Doesn't that seem the opposite of what most of the secular humanists would have us believe?

What would these evil secular humanists have us believe exactly?

I'd say a discussion about what "secular humanists" believe misses the point.

The point is that in large part, rural America was once upon a time solidly, reliably Democratic. It is now solidly, reliably Republican. Now, this might not be so surprising unless you realize that Republican borrow-and-spend patronage and free trade policies hit of all people small farmers the hardest.

That's particularly funny since the Republican party was started by rural farmers.

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin.

The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.
~Republican Party History

You'd think it was designed for rural American values because it is rural American values...

...So the question becomes: why do rural Americans vote against their self-interest.

Just because they choose not to be bribed out of their values voting issues by democratic promises of federal funds doesn't mean they are voting against their self-interest.


The Krugman school of thought is that this poor-person-voting-Republican strain exists, but it's overwhelmingly in the south, and it's a species of some kind of crypto-racism. In essence, this school asserts that Republicans have held a majority because whites in the south, including poor whites who should, economically speaking, be solidly Democrat respond to dog-whistle politics and vote to keep the angry Negro down.

Stereotyping those that disagree with you and assigning their reasons for their disagreeing with you to being the lowest, or worst, possible motives is petty and ridiculous.

The Thomas-Frank school of thought, by contrast, points out that this does not explain overwhelmingly rural (and often poor, although there are a few megafarmers out there) support for Republicanism outside the South, such as in the Midwest and Mountain West. There is no racism in rural Kansans, if for no other reason than there are no minorities against whom they can form bigoted stereotypes. As such, dog-whistle politics does not explain the total success of the Republican party in these areas. What explains it instead is that rural voters have been trained to vote on "values" issues that signify that the candidate is "one of them". Once in office, however, these candidates vote in ways that destroy the way of life of their constituents.

Right, rural people are 'trained' to vote party line :rolleyes: If democrats keep telling themselves crap theories like that they'll never understand rural Americans.

The contrast, then, is whether or not you accept the idea that Republicans vote Republican because they are deep-down just racists looking for an excuse to punish a black person, or whether you believe that they are responding to what they've been trained to respond to: cultural calls for solidarity. One is actually a heck of a lot less condescending to the people who subscribe to it once you boil it down.

Both are condescending, but regardless of that, both are wrong and, frankly, asinine stupid.

Now it should be of note that your citation has nothing to do with either side of this debate. Economic improvement (ill-defined, at that) has nothing to do with poverty-wealth divides, North-South divides, or urban-rural divides. As such, it has no real bearing on what Obama was really talking about.

Exactly right. I never even mentioned Obama by name. I was addressing the view point of secular humanists who have stupid and inaccurate understandings of rural and religious Americans and their condition. And these secular humanist BS theories listed above are perfect examples of whats wrong with secular humanists today, they are out of touch with reality.

What would these evil secular humanists have us believe exactly?

Well you should read the post right above your own, Xenophobialand listed a couple of secular humanists theories that they would have you believe... crappy ones, but still, they are there and they do believe them.

Right, rural people are 'trained' to vote party line :rolleyes: If democrats keep telling themselves crap theories like that they'll never understand rural Americans.

I would think that in order to take the time to "understand" rural americans, they should first show us there's something there to understand...

I'll leave the amusing part of your "history lesson" to stand just as it is, in hopes others would get a private little chuckle as it, just as I did.

I would think that in order to take the time to "understand" rural americans, they should first show us there's something there to understand...

I'll leave the amusing part of your "history lesson" to stand just as it is, in hopes others would get a private little chuckle as it, just as I did.

I personally laughed rather loudly.

...
I'll leave the amusing part of your "history lesson" to stand just as it is, in hopes others would get a private little chuckle as it, just as I did.

Ripon, Wisconsin:
On the evening of March 20, 1854, a group of people met in a small frame school house to protest the opening of the Kansas and Nebraska territories to slavery. Disgusted with the failure of existing political parties and the U.S. Congress to uphold the cause of freedom in the West, they formed a new antislavery party and called it Republican. They came out of the schoolhouse in agreement that one unified front was crucial to the fight against slavery and thus began the Republican Party. "We went into the little meeting held in a school house Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats. We came out of it Republicans and we were the first Republicans in the Union," Alan E. Bovay later wrote. It was his friend, Eastern newspaper publisher Horace Greeley, who boosted the name to national prominence.
http://www.riponmainst.com/riponmainst/hist.html

Republican Party History on Wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

Ripon, Wisconsin:
On the evening of March 20, 1854, a group of people met in a small frame school house to protest the opening of the Kansas and Nebraska territories to slavery. Disgusted with the failure of existing political parties and the U.S. Congress to uphold the cause of freedom in the West, they formed a new antislavery party and called it Republican. They came out of the schoolhouse in agreement that one unified front was crucial to the fight against slavery and thus began the Republican Party. "We went into the little meeting held in a school house Whigs, Free Soilers, and Democrats. We came out of it Republicans and we were the first Republicans in the Union," Alan E. Bovay later wrote. It was his friend, Eastern newspaper publisher Horace Greeley, who boosted the name to national prominence.
http://www.riponmainst.com/riponmainst/hist.html

Republican Party History on Wiki...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party

The funny part is you think that the Republicans were initially the "rural American's party"


You know where most abolitionists were located? New Fucking England. You know how "rural" it is up there?

The funny part is you think that the Republicans were initially the "rural American's party"


You know where most abolitionists were located? New Fucking England. You know how "rural" it is up there?

I showed my proof for where they started and where their first president came from was not N.E., it was a rural man himself...

I showed my proof for where they started and where their first president came from was not N.E., it was a rural man himself...

First meeting and first part president dont mean thats who most of its members were...

First meeting and first part president dont mean thats who most of its members were...

Started rural, first president was a rural man, AND their view point was of religious rural viewpoints (then and today still) and they had to appeal to others (like those in NE with similar minds) or else they wouldn't have won a presidential election so quickly after forming...

Republican Party History
Historians have explored the ethnocultural foundations of the party, along the line that ethnic and religious groups set the moral standards for their members, who then carried those standards into politics. The churches also provided social networks that politicians used to sign up voters. The pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms—alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans. The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party. This was especially true for the pietistic Congregationalists and Presbyterians among them and (during the war), the Methodists, along with Scandinavian Lutherans. The Quakers were a small tight-knit group that was heavily Republican. The liturgical churches (Roman Catholic, Episcopal, German Lutheran), by contrast, largely rejected the moralism of the GOP; most of their adherents voted Democratic
Wiki link again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Republican_Party)

The Yankees, who dominated New England, much of upstate New York, and much of the upper Midwest were the strongest supporters of the new party.

None of that is "rural". Especially not the bolded part.

None of that is "rural". Especially not the bolded part.

Are you arguing it wasn't a rural ideology? Religious and social issues based party? Or do you just want someone to agree that without the large population states (like Massachusetts and New York) voting for them they would never have won anything.

IF it's the later, fine, you have it. Even I know that Lincoln would not have won if he didn't have NEers voting for him.

But the party politics and issues were and still are religious and what is today's rural voter...

Are you arguing it wasn't a rural ideology? Religious and social issues based party? Or do you just want someone to agree that without the large population states (like Massachusetts and New York) voting for them they would never have won anything.

IF it's the later, fine, you have it. Even I know that Lincoln would not have won if he didn't have NEers voting for him.

But the party politics and issues were and still are religious and what todays rural is...

Im arguing both actually. Religion is not something that rural communities have a monopoly on, especially when it came to issues like slavery. The Republican party did not start as a "rural" party, it started as the party that claimed the moral high ground.

Again, thats not a claim rural areas have a monopoly on.

I'm arguing both actually. Religion is not something that rural communities have a monopoly on, especially when it came to issues like slavery. The Republican party did not start as a "rural" party, it started as the party that claimed the moral high ground.

Again, thats not a claim rural areas have a monopoly on.

Slavery wasn't the only issue. Did you even see the parts that said things like; pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms—alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans.

And today it's; abortion, marriage protection, human life dignity (cell research and euthanasia etc.,) and the situation they had then, with the issues being religious morality based, is STILL true today...

Slavery wasn't the only issue. Did you even see the parts that said things like; pietistic churches, heavily influenced by the revivals of the Second Great Awakening, emphasized the duty of the Christian to purge sin from society. Sin took many forms—alcoholism, polygamy and slavery became special targets for the Republicans.

There were many northerners who were against alcoholism in all walks of life, especially apperant when you consider that the "progressives" as they called themselves that started prohibitions were made up of a lot of the middle class, especially women. And the whole US was anti-polygamy at the time, which is why they didnt like Moroms (well, one of the reasons).

There were many northerners who were against alcoholism in all walks of life, especially apperant when you consider that the "progressives" as they called themselves that started prohibitions were made up of a lot of the middle class, especially women. And the whole US was anti-polygamy at the time, which is why they didnt like Moroms (well, one of the reasons).

And most of them went to church on a weekly basis. You and I agree.

And most of them went to church on a weekly basis. You and I agree.

Wait are we arguing the religion aspect or the rural aspect? Because I think its a given that th Republican party was founded by the devout...

Wait are we arguing the religion aspect or the rural aspect? Because I think its a given that th Republican party was founded by the devout...

Read back.... I already granted your demand that I recognise the need for the NE people to quickly become supporters of the newly founded GOP. I assert that their religious issues based heritage remains in Rural america today.

So let me see if I've got this straight. If you apply to comments to people he wasn't talking about, you find out that his comments weren't true.

I once said that when looking at women, the majority of them menstruate. But recently I saw a study that looked at people, in general, but not only do most of them not menstruate, but, in fact, almost half of them aren't even women. Crazy, I know, but it's true.

:fluffle:

None of that is "rural". Especially not the bolded part.

In the 19th century a lot of NY and NE were actually rural, hell there were large (for the time) dairy farms on Long Island.

Wait are we arguing the religion aspect or the rural aspect? Because I think its a given that th Republican party was founded by the devout...

Too bad it sold them out for 30 pieces of silver.

All this thread needs is sex and it will have completed the NSG triangle of sex, religion and politics.

All this thread needs is sex and it will have completed the NSG triangle of sex, religion and politics.

*has sex with thread*
Happy now Ifreann?

*goes away feeling dirty*

*goes away feeling dirty*
Obviously you would feel better if you coined up a bit for confession.
Ugh, and bring me a washcloth, would you?
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/crazy/660.gif

None of that is "rural". Especially not the bolded part.

You've obviously never been to New England if you don't think there's a lot up here that's rural.

this thread makes me lol. great stuff in here, Christians sure are hypocritical but boy they can be funny.

Christians sure are hypocritical but boy they can be funny.
Quite true. Good thing suffering factors in for them.

telephone survey on 1,000 people.
okay so it's not representative of all of America, it's far too small, it's very much a qualitative survey to give a snapshot of what people think.
Now using a survey on religion, a very general subject could gain the opposite results in a different part of the US, e.g. where there are less people registered to a particular faith.
Take the right 1,000 people and you'l gain a different result from another 1,000 people. what i mean is, only certain people will be willing to answer a survey over the phone due to time e.g. they could be busy. Also this means the people have to own a phone, so the homeless folks would not be included in such a survey. I couldn't find exactly where it was made either, so bias could be included into the results.
So any findings found will not be true of all people of the USA, nor will it be accurate.

In spite of these obvious flaws with this research i can say that, what if to follow certain religion, you have to be rich in the first place? As this survey seemed to offer answers based on economic perspectives it's possible that only rich people can afford to use their time to practice religion, therefore they don't have to worry as much about losing their jobs. Because they could gain another one.

21% Evangelical Christian
24% Protestant
23% Catholic
2% Jewish
0% Muslim
5% Atheist
22% Other
3% Not sure
this shows the survey is indeed focused on people from a religious faith anyway.
with a whopping 68% of people asked following a certain religion (with atheist included this comes to 73%).
So any answers gained will be from a religious perspective, not necessarily from non religious people.
If the survey focused purely on religious people then compared the results with non religious people then results would be far easier to understand.

So the small sample size, unequal numbers of religious to non religious, problems with telephone surveys show that this information is not reliable and therefore it's conclusions will not be true of all American people.

That's particularly funny since the Republican party was started by rural farmers.

The Republican Party was born in the early 1850's by anti-slavery activists and individuals who believed that government should grant western lands to settlers free of charge. The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin.

The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan. The name "Republican" was chosen because it alluded to equality and reminded individuals of Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.

In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House.
~Republican Party History

You'd think it was designed for rural American values because it is rural American values...


/facepalm

Um, you might think that, if you didn't bother to look at anything that happened between 1854 and 2008. Once you did, however, you'd notice that the Republican Party, whatever it's founding principles may have been (and as others have noted, one of the major supporters for Republicanism in 1860 were the abolitionists, widely seen at the time as the condescending upper-class hippies of their day), did not remain the party of the rural voter.

In point of fact, if you look at the electoral college map of the realigning election of 1896 here (http://www.presidentelect.org/e1896.html), you'd notice that it's almost a precise inversion of the electoral college map of 2000 (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/map.htm), a race widely seen as vindication of Republicans-as-speakers-for-the-plainspoken-wholesome-All-American-countryfolk mythos.

This is what I was talking about: in 1896, William Jennings Bryan, a man once derided as 2 degrees shy of an anarchist, once carried just about everywhere not solidly attached to the Upper Midwest or Rust Belt industrial sectors. The same places, mind you, that are now considered the place of residence of real America. Now, there are several possible ways of describing how this inversion took place. One is to say that the Republicans started representing the interests of places like Kansas. One doesn't have to look at who benefits from our farm bills or free trade agreements, however, to see that this isn't the case. So we are left with some other ways. One is crypto-racism, which might explain the South but doesn't explain the Midwest. The other is that values have supplanted economics as the foremost considerations of Midwestern voters, or perhaps better put, the attachment of a variety of cultural affinities by the Republican party has helped convinced Midwesterners that, in spite of plain fact, Republican economic policies benefit them.

That second explanation is, I think, on balance a pretty fair assessment.


Just because they choose not to be bribed out of their values voting issues by democratic promises of federal funds doesn't mean they are voting against their self-interest.


This is just the kind of thing I was talking about above. You seem to assume If Democratic, then handout when I made no such insinuations, and in fact my grievances listed were purely positive steps taken by government in order to screw over rural farmers, efforts taken with Republicans leading the charge. The Freedom to Farm act did hurt rural farmers.
Free trade policies do hurt farmers. Economic consolidation by agricultural megacorps and allowed by the Agriculture and Commerce departments do hurt farmers. Letting giant farms get away with disregarding environmental regulations do hurt farmers.

All of these things were brought into being by Republicans. All of these things hurt their constituents. These constituents are the most reliably Republican votes in the country. In what way is this not voting against your own self-interest?


Right, rural people are 'trained' to vote party line :rolleyes: If democrats keep telling themselves crap theories like that they'll never understand rural Americans.


1) Rather than pick out offensive words, one might try to assess their truth content.

2) I grew up on a farm. In rural Idaho. This crap theory from what I saw explains my friend's avowed Republicanism, even while they spent year after year hanging on for dear life economically and one bad harvest from foreclosure. Because that economic desperation motivated them, but not politically: politics was about paying Democrats back for trying to take their guns and destroy their way of life to keep some obscure vole from extinction.

So to be honest, I think I have a fairly good claim to understanding rural Americans. And I think I also have a fairly good standing for calling out your reverse snobbery for the crap that it is.

in 1896, William Jennings Bryan, a man once derided as 2 degrees shy of an anarchist, once carried just about everywhere not solidly attached to the Upper Midwest or Rust Belt industrial sectors.

Excuse my interruption: I'd like to point out that Bryan may have been called an anarchist, but he was nowhere near being one in actuality. In fact, he spoke for Tennessee in the Scopes Trial; hardly an anarchistic position.


One is crypto-racism, which might explain the South but doesn't explain the Midwest.
And how does it not explain the Midwest? In those states, there is an incredible lack of black people; on the surface that may not seem racist because hey, people choose where to live, but if black people are a tiny minority/invisible, there is going to be racism--intentional or not. That's just how most people are.

Excuse my interruption: I'd like to point out that Bryan may have been called an anarchist, but he was nowhere near being one in actuality. In fact, he spoke for Tennessee in the Scopes Trial; hardly an anarchistic position.

That was really my point too: Bryan was labeled a freak and far beyond the norm even given that he really wasn't. Most of what he wanted we now have and consider pretty sensible and sober: a relaxation of the gold standard, economic assistance to the family farmer, regulations on banks to prevent the business cycle from ruining farmers, etc. But the perception Republicans had of him then is almost exactly the same as we attribute to Democrats now, with the primary exception being that it was once lobbed at him because he was speaking for the idiot common man who didn't know any better, whereas now it's lobbed at people who, if the libelers are correct, think the common man is an idiot.


And how does it not explain the Midwest? In those states, there is an incredible lack of black people; on the surface that may not seem racist because hey, people choose where to live, but if black people are a tiny minority/invisible, there is going to be racism--intentional or not. That's just how most people are.

Well, I would say to this that it's just not my experience, nor is it the experience of anyone who actually lives in places like Wichita. While growing up on my farm, there was some latent bigotry of Hispanics, and there was an undercurrent of seperation partly based on religion (the whites were overwhelmingly Mormon; the Hispanics equally overwhelmingly Catholic) and partly on race. But there was no out and out bigotry that characterizes racism, nor was there ever any animus I ever detected against non-present minorities such as members of the Jewish faith or African-Americans.

To say "Well, are you really sure your friends weren't racist" is a question that I guess could be asked, but you have to admit that's a really offensive question to ask a group that prides itself on fair-mindedness. I would say that some people had some assumptions about Hispanics that were definately racist, but these were largely unexamined and heightened only by the fact that the Hispanics kept to themselves in school and in the community. I would not on balance say that there was widespread latent bigotry that pervaded the community.

re Bryan:
All right, I misunderstood the tone of your original statement. But he wasn't labelled a freak by the majority of people; those part of the "Free Silver" movement loved him and those outside it disagreed with him, but I think it would be hyperbole to say that they thought he was insane. Other than the "Free Silver" thing, he was really pretty mainstream. (Although I could be wrong; it's been a while since I studied that era.)
And I'm sorry, but I'm having some trouble understanding your sentence about Republicans/Democrats; if you simplified it a bit, I'd be happy to address it.

re Midwest racism:
I'm not sure how qualified I am to speak on this subject, having only travelled through the region, but I definitely observed rather a lot of casual discrimination. Whether I noticed this because I was an outsider, or I noticed it because I'm one of those overly sensitive Northerners, is difficult for me to judge.

(If I'm pushing the thread off topic, I apologise; it's just that the mention of Bryan caught my eye, what with my AP History exam coming up and all!)

All right, I misunderstood the tone of your original statement. But he wasn't labelled a freak by the majority of people; those part of the "Free Silver" movement loved him and those outside it disagreed with him, but I think it would be hyperbole to say that they thought he was insane. Other than the "Free Silver" thing, he was really pretty mainstream. (Although I could be wrong; it's been a while since I studied that era.)

If you look at the actual editorials of the time, it's not hyperbole at all. It's sometimes difficult to get the tenor of the debate of the time down in a historical textbook, but there's a reason why the 1896 election was such a realigning election: it was the high-water mark of class warfare politics in this country, and it is an understatement to say that Westerners, Southerners, and progressives were furious at Northeastern industrialists for driving them to the brink. One could very well (and it has been done) see the later flirtations with anarchism and violent upheaval in the early 20th century as a direct consequence of frustrating the poor and dispossessed in society that the 1896 election represents. By contrast, Northeasterners looked at themselves as sane sober people hewing a better world out of the West in spite of its actual inhabitants. A good article to look at is the original "What's the Matter with Kansas" written by William Allen White. It was a hugely popular article in its day, and it's all about complaining how Kansas has been somehow taken over by lunatic asylum escapees for throwing sensible Republican officeholders out en masse.


And I'm sorry, but I'm having some trouble understanding your sentence about Republicans/Democrats; if you simplified it a bit, I'd be happy to address it.

I'm saying the class-based rhetoric you saw in 1896 and what you see today is the same language, just with the parties and the names reversed. Once upon a time, the Republican party stood against nutty liberal folk out on the Great Plains and solidly for the sane, sober people of the Northeast and Industrial Midwest. Now, the Republican party stands against the nutty liberal folk out in the Northeast and hippy West Coast in favor of the sane, sober people of the Great Plains. Same language, and almost exactly the same places, but the people who are the plain-spoken Real Americans in the Republican typology has reversed itself. Oddly enough, they've enlisted the voters of William Jennings Bryan to enact the policies of William McKinley.


I'm not sure how qualified I am to speak on this subject, having only travelled through the region, but I definitely observed rather a lot of casual discrimination. Whether I noticed this because I was an outsider, or I noticed it because I'm one of those overly sensitive Northerners, is difficult for me to judge.


Well, that is an attitude that gets you labeled as a Northeastern elite. Beyond labels, however, it may be more accurate than not. My own experience, however, is that it isn't. If it is anything, it's in part the same kind of thing that Obama spoke about in his More Perfect Union speech: it's the resentment that emerges when poor whites see poor minorities advantaged to pay for a stain that the whites themselves never committed. Of course, the other part is class disparity and self-segregation. In my own community, whites owned the land, and Hispanics worked it, which added a racial dimension to what is typically a class dispute: Hispanics were labeled with all the labels typically associated with the proletariat, such as lazy, shiftless, shoddy workers, etc.

My take then is that whites in my community had some attitudes consistent with racism, but not for racist reasons. It's really about class, endemic poverty, and the fact that whites and Hispanics both had very insular religious communities that did not comingle. I'd say that this is true in many parts outside of the old South and increasingly within it.