Monday, January 25, 2010

"Believers are the Happiest" : Should we be surprised?

The Pew Forum in the US (2009) and Professor Andrew Clark and Dr Orsolya Lelkes in Europe (2008), respected researches all, report that the results of their studies indicate those with a strong belief in God tend to report being “Very Happy” with their lives more often than do atheists.

If you search through atheist / skeptic blogs that reported on these studies you’ll find a few that are quite angered by the results, or are skeptical about their veracity, and/or try to come up with various ways to either justify or explain away the result. They are wasting their time. in their excitement they lost sight of their scientific side. You see, by only reading about the result one isn’t getting the entire picture. The devil is in the details… that is the actual statistics..

I had some difficulty finding the raw stats from either study, but managed to find this chart which gives summary stats. Note that on the “0-10” axis “0” means “Dissatisfied” and 10 means “Very Happy” with ones life.

While the differences aren’t dramatic, indeed believers and the most religious do have a higher percentage (approx 42%) of people who say they are “Very happy” with their lives, the highest happiness range, than do those describing themselves as atheists (approx 37%).

You’ll also note the most religious also have the most (approx. 17%) who are in the “Dissatisfied with life” column compared to atheists (approx 15%); while in the middle ranges…the “Satisfied / Happy with life” ranges … approx 49% of atheists are represented versus only 42% of believers.

BUT, and here is the clincher, when you take the “Satisfied/Happy” and “Very Happy” combined stats, the most religious score 84% combined while atheists score 86% combined.

So what exactly does this mean? It means that while 5% more religionists report being “Very Happy” with their lives than do atheists, on an overall positive life scoring atheists are generally more satisfied with their lives. To corroborate these findings, here is the charted result of a World Values Survey which also gauged religiosity and happiness.

Once again, the most religious people (those saying religion is very important to them) report being “Very Happy” more frequently than do people who hold religion of no importance. But on the combined happiness scale of “Very” and “Quite” happy, the most religiously afflicted score 81% while least religious (which includes atheists, agnostics, skeptics and humanists) scored 86%.

Ok, so bottom line – the more religious one is the more frequently they consider themselves “Very Happy” than do non-religious/non-believers. But on an aggregate happiness / satisfaction quotient, they are not only NOT generally happier than atheists they are slightly less so.

Should we be surprised that religious fanatics report being ecstatic about their lives more frequently than secularists? Frequent church attendence, the group dynamic of a shared myth/ self induced spiritual experience, will have a positive effect on the sense of comfort and happiness of these dependent people. Additionally the less one is forced to focus on reality, and can ignore it; the less they feel in control of their lives because it is controlled for them by a Sky Daddy -- the less they worry about life. After all, belief that simply by praying -- “God will deliver [insert one or more] a new job / my next meal / a new car / a roof over my head.” -- tends to take a lot of stress out of ones life; never mind that invariably they are more likely to be chronically unemployed, impoverished, on foot and homeless than an atheist. The annual Pew Forum report on religiosity by state which consistently reports higher crime, teen pregnancy, poverty, unemployment, and the lowest education levels in the most religious states supports this contention.

Finally, when one puts their faith in a god who works in strange and mysterious ways, they are more inclined to accept their lot in life as “God’s Will” and be delighted with it, even if it puts them below the poverty line and their kid’s life span is negatively impacted by their diet or substandard healthcare.

Which brings us to George Bernard Shaw’s famous line: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." I might also point out that the very happiest man in most towns is the village idiot.
[[[ thanks to Rachel h. for her email to me which prompted this article]]]


NewEnglandBob said...

Do not overlook that it is very possible that those who are more religious and believe in supernatural nonsense are very capable of telling lies for the survey taken.

RobDiesel said...

I was cracking myself up a little as when I started reading the article, I was thinking "well of COURSE they are happier, they have a complete disconnect from reality" and then I got to the end of your entry and read the similie about the drunk. hehe

Perhaps there is a correlation here? The more educated and worldly you are, the lesser the chances that you are deeply religious.
Also, the higher the chances that you actually see the world for what it is with all its ups and downs. That could make one a bit less excited about the prospects.

RobDiesel said...

There is also what Dawkins said, that as an atheist you live your life to the fullest because you only have one life. You don't "struggle through" this one for a reward in the next.

Of course, it doesn't mean that I DO live life to the fullest, but I probably have a deeper appreciation for what I see and experience.

That's something that might be difficult to quantify in statistics.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

And of course, 28% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

I've never put much stock in surveys. I'm not necessarily any happier now that I'm an atheist than I was when I was a Christian. It's definitely nice to be free of the fundamentalist aspects of my faith. I don't know that I would lump all the believers together as "religious fanatics", I've known some extremely casual believers in my day.

Thanks for your analysis of the data.

Leo said...

Whenever I get the "religious people are happier" line, I usually respond with the Shaw quote. I've used it so much it's become a reflex.

Anyway, given humanity's social nature, and the social nature which is often inseparable from religion, it wouldn't surprise me that religious people are happier. Happiness can become mania, and even a hard lined skeptic has trouble resisting being pulled in by a crowd of people brimming with hysteria. It's not always so extreme, but I imagine it's the same thing across the spectrum. Those ultra dogmatic individuals, who often are so extreme in their beliefs they've driven almost everyone away, are usually very unhappy. The social aspect is key to religious happiness. Evolution favors, in humans, social connections, and doesn't care in this instance whether what those connections are based on is superstition or not.

I think it's easier to get people together using easy, superstitious, childish ideas than to create a group founded on reason/critical thinking. I think such a group can be superior to a one founded on religion, but it's more difficult to create and maintain, at least in the current society. Also, when a group lacks a severe, all-encompassing authority figure to bring everyone in line, the group will almost inevitably lack the focus of a religious group. It'll be composed of more individualistic thinkers and thus coming to a consensus is more difficult. In instances of pure scientific ideas perhaps it's easier, but even than can be tricky to find focus. A somewhat related instance can be seen in the Democratic party, or in the attempts at organizing national Atheist/Agnostic groups. It's been called "like trying to herd cats".

To use an almost unbearably bad metaphor, it's like social thermodynamics - it's less likely for a group to come together when the effort/energy/thought required is higher.

Rachelle said...

If you're happy and you know it, clap you hands. LOL!

I laugh and smile a lot and from time to time it confuses the religious nuts I encounter. They think I'm one of THEM til I set the record straight.(One woman who struck up a conversation with me in a grocery store line told me I seemed like "a good Christian"...Based on what? The fact that I was polite?)... For some odd reason they can't fathom that an atheist can be happy or fulfilled. order to be happy, one must "believe" in fairy tales and bullsh-t man-made gods. Sorry, but ignorance is NOT bliss. LOL!

Glenn Livingston said...

Hi Again Hump :-)

One thing you may also wish to consider is whether being happy as a goal unto itself is even a laudable pursuit?

As a psychologist, I can tell you there's a unique group of mental problems we call "character disorders"... people who maintain their happiness at the expense of others.

Of course, this most obviously can include child and spouse abusers, and other egregious offenders, but even less serious offenses make the point (e.g. people who drive while only very modestly impaired, etc).

I've always preferred the pursuit of contentment, which carries with it a longer term outlook and respect for others.

Being happy is easy if you're willing to ignore others' needs ("Hell is Other People"), being content requires maturity, frustration tolerance, intellectual reasoning, and persistence.

When I used to work with patients to help them achieve their goals, it was often necessary to DECREASE their level of happiness and help them to feel more disturbed and discontent with themselves and their lives, because they were maintaining an illusion, and weren't recognizing the price being paid for this (by others and by themselves)

Now, lest you think this is all sour grapes or the words of a grumpy old man, I'm actually very content with my life at present, though on a day to day basis I have moments of severe unhappiness, interspersed with moments of bliss, and other quite ordinary and non-eventful emotional states.

I know it's the norm, but I still cringe when I ask people what they want and they say they just want to "be happy".

What I want to say (but don't in order to maintain decorum, and also because I understand the above insights were hard won through decades of reading, research, and clinical practice) is "have you ever heard of a Happy Moron?"

Hitler was happy when his Final Solution was relatively unchallenged. My dog is happy when I let him crap the rug.

Can't we all just recognize we live in a difficult world, and just embrace the challenge it provides while warmly supporting one another, instead of continually retreating into fantasy and pressuring others to do the same?

Does it really serve us to strive for happiness in every moment?

Some religious people seem to understand this in a more mature way and try to facilitate this in their flock. In fact, I know one in particular who does it much better than I'm able to with my entirely secular approach.

But as a whole, I'm concerned that religion fosters the pursuit of "eternal bliss", and in and of itself this is a fatal flaw which prevents us from making progress towards these ends.

Food for thought,

Dr G :-)

Leo said...

Glenn - There are those who say that happiness should not be the highest goal. I agree that personal contentment (or something similarly phrased) is a better thing to strive for. It's not an easy thing to state though, lest people misunderstand.

"Now, lest you think this is all sour grapes or the words of a grumpy old man, I'm actually very content with my life at present, though on a day to day basis I have moments of severe unhappiness, interspersed with moments of bliss, and other quite ordinary and non-eventful emotional states."

I don't think it's sour grapes at all - I understand what you mean.

Dromedary Hump said...

Hey everyone, thanks for your very insightful & thought provoking comments.

Each of them contributes to this article and opens the door to some really intriguing possibilities on the implications of "happiness" and religiosity.

Kudos to you, and thanks again.


Matthew said...

Hi All,

A Christian here.

-Reformed/Calvinistic, non Cessationist.

Just wanted to let you know that God does not believe in athiests.

As Christians we accept one foundational truth – God – and everything else makes sense. An atheist denies God and has to accept incredible explanations for everything else. It takes more faith to deny God than to believe in Him.

What do you conceive God to be like? Some would say to believe at all in a personal God requires a giant leap of faith – but I am convinced that belief in God is a far more reasonable position than atheism. Nature, the personal experience of literally billions of people, and something innate in the heart of man all testify to the existence of God.

"Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist."
CS. Lewis

All the best,
The Narrow Way

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dromedary Hump said...

I counted at least four (4)time honored Xtian platitudes in the above post taken from the most hackneyed xtian apologetics sites.

Can anyone find them?


They have to be platitudes that:
A) we've all heard from mindless theists countless times and are deemed witty by theists;
B) that are inane at face; and
C) make no sense and are easily debunked by anyone who has a modicum of intellect.

Good luck, and may the best authority on mindless hackneyed Xtian platitudes win :)

Contents under pressue said...


Argumentum ad populum is not a valid assertion to prove god's existence.

For example, centuries ago, people honestly believed that the world was flat, and that the universe revolved around the world. At least that was considered "fact" until the age of exploration, and Galileo.

If we take your argument further - such as looking at Galileo's eventual persecution by the church - all I see is religious dogma attempting to curtail real inquiry into the world.

And you talk of "billions" of people who have felt some sort of divine presence in their lives, but who's experience is real and whose isn't?

Wars have been fought and millions slaughtered in the name of one zealot after another who have killed in the sincere, heartfelt belief that their experience of the divine is more "authentic" than that other guy.

So really, what makes your religion any more valid than the others?

Then there is your quoting of C.S. Lewis. Funny thing is, he also said this:

"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

Contents under pressue said...


1. Argumentum ad Populum
2. Quote Mining
3. Atheists need to have a belief in God...?
4. Burden of proof - He claims god exists, he better prove it. And I don't mean with biblical quotes - that would just be circular reasoning

Dromedary Hump said...

not bad...but I was actually looking for the actual platitudes themselves. If you can assign them to the classifications you listed all the better.

Hurry, you're practically there :)

Contents under pressue said...

1. "What do you conceive God to be like? Some would say to believe at all in a personal God requires a giant leap of faith – but I am convinced that belief in God is a far more reasonable position than atheism."

Burden of proof.

2. "God does not believe in atheists. "

And yet here you are, talking to us - does that mean we're your imaginary friends?

3. "Nature, the personal experience of literally billions of people, and something innate in the heart of man all testify to the existence of God."

Argumentum ad populum. Because billions believe, it must be true. If this fallacy were true, then Twilight must be the best book evar.

4. C.S. Lewis quotes

Quote mining.

5. "An atheist denies God and has to accept incredible explanations for everything else."

Strawman argument.

Dromedary Hump said...


i would have made it simple. example:
"god doesnt believe in atheists" is printed on t-shirts which makes it the king of platitudes

It's silly for the reason you sighted, and b. only a moron would proffer what an imaginary god does or doesn't believe in,and c. especially since according to them, god created atheists.

etc., etc.

But CONGRATS, you got the book. Email me your mailing address and to what name you want it inscribed---

Contents under pressue said...

Tempting, but that would have been a borderline argument from riducule :(

I prefer applying my reason like my punches - blunt, unrelenting, and sharp :P

Dromedary Hump said...

LOL! I'm from the school of calling 'em like I see um. :)

send me your info, book will go out in the a.m.

Contents under pressue said...

Sent the email via yahoo mail. Should be two messages - I forgot to mention my name XD

Dromedary Hump said...

Got it!!

Rachelle said...

LOL! I missed a lot in a day. LOL!

Matthew if you're reading...How did you come to the conclusion that of all the myriad "gods," your "God" is the "right one" and the only one that "exists?"

And since your "God"...the "God of Abraham" is the same one the Jews and Muslims and why did you decide to become a Christian?

It's easy to string a bunch of useless quotes together...but I wanna know what YOU really think (if indeed you do).

@GospelToday said...

How could random chemical reactions and great big whooping cranes create rational and logical explanations and proof of what they believe in?

Richard Dawkins attribute his main conclusion to, luck. Yes, that’s right he ascribes it all too “sheer luck” on page 168 in his deluded book. Even more so he goes on page 169 that more “major infusions of luck” are needed to really fill in the gaps.

The Richard Dawkins Delusion (Part 4) - God Yes, Cranes No

Beyond Doubt - Christianity is True - Atheism is False

NewEnglandBob said...

No, GospelToday, you misquote Dawkins from "The God Delusion". This is what is expected from Liars for Jesus™ like you.

On page 168, Dawkins said "This is a recurrent, predictable, multiple phenomenon, not a piece of statistical luck recognized with hindsight.

He goes on later to say that out of the billions of planets it may be sheer luck that life got started on our planet. I am so sorry, GospelToday that you did not comprehend what you read.

Page 169, you, of course take completely out of context.

"Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of luck, with anthropic justification."

Once again you failed to comprehend what was written GospelToday. If one reads the next sentence one can see that it is a comparison to ID lunatics design.

"But whatever else we may say, design certainly does not work."

This shows that Dawkins was making a comparison to the failed ID claims and that he does not claim to know for certain how life got started, how consciousness came about, how the eucaryotic cell originated and other "one-off events". Those are the gaps in certain knowledge that may require luck.

Dawkins summed up this anthropic principle qualification near the end of page 169.

"There are billions of planets in the universe, and, however small the minority of evolution-friendly planets may be, our planet necessarily has to be one of them."

Dromedary Hump said...

Thanks Bob... nicely corrected.

This peculiar lack of reading comprehension by the ultra-religiously deluded, and their sacrament of deception for Jebus is the hallmark of the least intelligent, most threatened, and most desperate of their ilk.

I love to see it from them because, to paraphrase Robt. Duval in Apocalypse Now, "... it smells like victory."

Dromedary Hump said...

... the Unholy Trinity of Christian Apologetics:

- Imbecility
- Falsification
- Quote Mining

Shelley said...

Great post, and I love the comments, especially the narcissistic Xtians who claim to know the mind of an imaginary deity. I want some of what they're smoking.

Oh wait. I did that - and recovered nicely from a liftime of Church indoctrination. =)

Dromedary Hump said...

Congrats from your recovery from the religious virus.

@GospelToday said...

Page 168 within the first paragraph of the deluded Dawkins' book;
"The origin of life, by contrast, lies outside the reach of that crane, because [Darwinism] natural selection cannot proceed without it. Here the anthropic principle comes into its own. We can deal with the unique origin of life by postulating a very large number of planetary opportunities. Once that initial stroke of LUCK has been granted - and the anthropic principle most decisively grants it to us - [Darwinism] natural selection takes over: and [Darwinism] natural selection is emphatically not a matter of luck." (emphasis added)

“That initial stroke of LUCK” stated by Dawkins says that he says that he believes in LUCK as a powerful force.

Page 169 within the same deluded Dawkins’ book;
“[Darwinism] Natural selcection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement. It needs some LUCK to get started, and the ‘billions of planets’ anthropic principle grants it that LUCK.” (emphasis added)

Dawkins’ here says that not only does he believe in LUCK as a powerful force, he believes that the “anthropic principle grants” that powerful force of LUCK.

Continuing on with the same deluded Dawkins’ book on page 169;
“Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need MAJOR INFUSIONS OF LUCK, with anthropic justification.” (emphasis added)

Here Dawkins’ is praying to the great Anthropic Principle for MAJOR INFUSIONS OF LUCK to be granted so that Darwinism can be true.

Also, what about those all mighty cranes? Are they not just the cutest thing ever being not ever seen nor ever a clue to their being in existence?

The Richard Dawkins Delusion (Part 4) - God Yes, Cranes No

Beyond Doubt - Christianity is True - Atheism is False

Atheism - An Atheist's Religious Denial of Faith in Their Beliefs

NewEnglandBob said...

@GospelToday: same ignorant post from you gets the same answer.

You Liars for Jesus™ are really clueless.

Dromedary Hump said...

This is called quote mining and selective understanding.

The huge number of plaets, billions of them, that exist in the universe represent a enourmous field of opportunities for life to form. That "The Earth" happens to be one of them, and that we can recognize it, is "luck." It would not be lucky for us had ythe conditions for life on earth NOT come together, but did so on 10, 20, 100, or 1 million other planets.

Look... you're either too stupid to understand this and / or have been fed idiocy from a fundie creationist apologetics site.

Please stop demonstrating your stupidity here. You aren't going to convince thinking people who understand and accept science to suddenly become imbecilic, science denying, supernaturalists. You have however reinforced our understanding of the width and breadth of your undereducation on the subject and selective understanding driven by you deniual of reality and obsession with delusion.

Ofcourse, we are familiar with that theist specific mental defect.

Dromedary Hump said...

among other typos in my post above....
palets = planets

@GospelToday said...

How can you be a thinking person using science and believe in abiogenesis and Darwinism? There can be no rational and logical thinking if we came from abiogenesis and Darwinism because it all requires randomness and from randomness logic and reason cannot occur. For you to use science, logic and reason, you are stealing from the teachings taught within the Holy Bible which is scientifically confirmed and has never been proven incorrect.

Beyond Doubt - Christianity is True - Atheism is False

NewEnglandBob said...

Gospel, you statements are nothing but horseshit. You are extremely uneducated.

The bible has been proven wrong in hundreds of cases of the fantasies it spouts. Evolution has been proven by tens of thousands of fossils, embryology, chemistry, geology, anatomy, medicine, neuroscience,etc. There are probably several hundred thousand pieces of evidence for evolution and not one piece of evidence of your bronze age bible fairy tales.

Mike aka MonolithTMA said...

It always amazes me when some Christians act like belief in evolution leads to atheism, when there are millions of Christians who believe in God and evolution. I suppose they aren't True Christians™.

Anonymous said...

LUCK : an unknown and unpredictable phenomenon that leads to a favorable outcome.
The events or circumstances that operate for or against someone or thing

Phenomenon: an observable fact or event

"LUCK" is something we all seen or have had happen to us at one time or another. Some "LUCKY" person wins the Mega Millions Lotto. With the enormous odds (1 in 175,711,536) stacked against him winning the lotto, the numbers come up and he wins. Another person just misses being in a terrible car accident by seconds. Why, because he stopped at his mailbox for a second, and then proceeded to drive off to work. That short stop at the mailbox was the chance "LUCK" that saved his ass!!!

Shall we just roll over and say that since the odds were so great, the lotto winner (an atheist btw) MUST HAVE won because an invisible deity forced the numbers to organize themselves in that way? It's beyond our understanding so, it must have been god.?

It also MUST BE that the invisible force thing made the man stop at his mailbox first? How else can we explain the fact that this man now gets to enjoy a nice orderly day? Yup, it must be god that made the mans day play out in an orderly fashion. It can't be "LUCK".

It's so convenient to just throw your arms up in the air and say; "If I can't understand it, God (with all its imaginary trappings) caused it!"

GospelToday, I was once like you and used to propose much the same arguments, but they don't stand up! It's a bitter pill to swallow and when you do, the world becomes even more amazing and precious. The truth of reason will set you free. You will have eyes to see and ears to hear. No longer is your brain clogged with primitive myths that obfuscate your thinking.

There are many questions that Dawkins and science do not YET have answers for and they admit it. But they don't roll over and just say; "We don't understand it therefore it must have been magic unicorns!!!"

Until this cruel sadistic deadbeat god (who, according to your book, hasn't stopped in to make alimony payments in over 2,000 years) decides to show up and prove itself with tangible measurable facts, we will and MUST continue looking for REAL answers in the real and natural world, not the imaginary.

Enrico (Henry) S

@GospelToday said...

You stated that the Holy Bible has been “proven wrong in hundreds of cases” yet you’ve given no examples?

Darwinism has no evidence of proof for it with regard to mankind coming from abiogenesis conjectures. Darwinism has never been observed nor will it ever be observed because it does not occur and never has occurred. No one has ever seen one kind of animal change into a different kind of animal because it doesn’t happen. For example, cats will not become dogs (nor the other way around) no matter how long of time one waits for it to happen. Mankind did not evolve from a single cell into men and women through a countless number of Darwinism steps. There is no evidence for it because it did not and does not happen.

People confuse observable evolution of minor changes over time within a kind which has been observed and can be observed with Darwinism which has not nor will ever be observed. This is where people who choose to not think for themselves get lost into the delusional world of people like Dawkins who prey on people who do not think for themselves.

Fossils, embryology, chemistry, geology, anatomy, medicine, neuroscience, etc. all confirm the Holy Bible, not Darwinism.

Beyond Doubt - Christianity is True - Atheism is False

Dromedary Hump said...

Bob, Mike Henry,

Well said. I've nothing more to add.

This is the reason why Dawkins never bothers debating with creationists. Evidence of scientific fact and reality are ignored, then co-opted to imply they support biblical fable. It's the God Virus effect.

One has to wonder if our fundie clown is posting here to try and convince himself, or if he is a talented atheist posing as a mindless fundie.

Biblical scientific ignorance abounds: From earth centricism, to flat earth, to the sky being a firmament; from Genesis' day-evening-morning before the sun was created, to the earth stopping rotation and the "sun standing still in the sky", to the erroneous statement that rabbits chew cud, that grashoppers have four legs, and that disease was caused by demonic posession... the list goes on.

But these buffoons don't see or won't acknowledge these things , they can't. For to admit the erroneous and silly writings of pre-scientific bronze age nomads would be to admit the Bible's error, and thus their god's inadequacy.

When you guys are tired of seeing this guy's idiocy posted here let me know, and I'll delete his posts going forward. If you're having fun with him, like poking a roadkill with a stick, I'll let him slide. ;)

Matthew said...

God resists the proud, but gives saving grace to the humble.


Dromedary Hump said...

Religionists would be better served if their Sky Daddy gave grace to the mentally defective.

NewEnglandBob said...

I take no joy is seeing a troll like that tell one huge lie after another. He has not even tried to give one single fact and he is clueless as far as logic and critical thing is concerned.

I say leave his stupidity there that he has already spewed but I see no need to tolerate more of his twisted mind's feverish output.

Dromedary Hump said...

Ok, Bob. thks.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure if any of you clicked on GospelTodays name but it links to a blog site. The tag line reads; "If there is the slightest possibility of God existing and that He has sent His only begotten Son Jesus to be your savior from your transgressions, wouldn’t it be wise to investigate it for yourself?"

On the site, after each attack on Dawkins, there is a little pop-up scripture reference. Why not scientific pop-ups? All circular logic.

This is NOT someone who is willing to reason logically but rather, I fear, someone who could easily be seen with a bomb strapped to his body running into the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History screaming; "God is great and I will prove it!"

Enrico (Henry) S

Dromedary Hump said... I think you may have something there.

I'll delete his future posts.
No response to them from any of us would be the best way to starve the troll.

Contents under pressue said...


Why is it that when one mentions unbelief, the godbots automatically assume we worship Darwin or Dawkins?

@Gospel, I am deeply offended. I do not spend every waking hour being a slobbering, dimwitted fanboy for these two scholars.

...I save said slobbering for Steve Jobs, and game developers - I cried Hallelujah when Dragon Age and Modern Warfare 2 blessed our humble home, and when I was graced with an iPod Touch.


Dromedary Hump said...

Ah!! Steve Jobs, His will be done.

Anonymous said...

ContentsUP: pwned the n00b and earned "The Price of War" achievement. Level up!

Enrico S

NewEnglandBob said...

Gospel is so ignorant that he has no idea that evolution (what the troll calls Darwinism) has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Dromedary Hump said...

I just went to his "blog."

This guy writes 5,000 word rants and has had only one comment on them in recent history ... and it was from an atheist. LOL!!

Even his own kind must think him a clown.

Anonymous said...

His "Proof"

It's sad because I understand where his head is (or is not). It almost reminds me of my virus infected past many years ago....but I was never that fucked up!

Enrico (Henry) S

@GospelToday said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seek the Truth said...

Man, looks like I came into the debate a bit late. I always find it amazing how almost every atheist "debate" by a theist turns to evolution. Maybe that should be researched too. In any case, I figured that I'd comment on study. There are two things that are important in considering what conclusions to draw from data. First, how many people were surveyed. If this number is not high enough to accurately represent the population, then the conclusions will be skewed. Second, are the results statistically significant? Just because there is a 3% greater number of theists who save "very happy" statistical analysis might show that there really isn't a difference (meaning that they are of the same distributive population). Most won't really care, but you should. As Hump said, the devil is in the details. Having "more" is a meaningless term, statistically more is all that matters.

Dromedary Hump said...

Thanks Seek.
Point taken on statistical reliablity.

All in all, in the scheme of things, assuming it is statistically reliable, the outcome hardley warrants voluntary supernatural delusion... infact, it speaks against it.

marion said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

NewEnglandBob said...

"marion", of course is an advertising bot.

Same text on other blogs with a different name.