XogGyux wrote:Why are you bringing more abstract construct into this? Why does the book club need hope and how does hope even fit with the book club
Precisely. So, your comparison of book clubs to religion as social organizations falls flat. Book clubs foster many things, a good book (including whatever one's "the good book" is) can even do this on an individual level, but rarely will they foster a groupwide sense of hope. Religion provably has given that sense of inspiration, that will to fight onward, to vast groups of people.
And I just did.
You repeated the same tired, long-refuted, "I just read Hitchens you guys" points.
The official stance of the religions to which the majority of the population in this world belong to are all against abortion on record (islam/christianity/hindu)
This is false. Islam is not anti-abortion. Abortion is widely interpreted as permissible in the first four months, because the four month point is when the soul is believed to form per several hadiths. Also, neither Christianity nor Hinduism has an "official stance," so much as the stances of various denominations. In short, this is another example of you not doing the research, which is sort of funny in a supposed scientific materialist.
under any circumstances and only protestant have a slightly (SLIGHTLY) more liberal outlook to types of contraceptive.
Most Protestants are fine with contraception beyond abortion. Mainline Protestants (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) are generally pro-choice as well, though these churches have been waning in membership in recent decades.
WOW. The Hypocrite. Pants-of-dog guy has been pointing to his research paper proudly for over a week now and you have not bother to mention that obvious problem that is co-founding variables... I post something and 10secs latter you are all over the methodological flaws of my post.
I hate to break it to you, but claiming your "study" is on par with the one Pants-of-Dog posted is the height of arrogance. They accounted for confounding variables, despite your repeated and absurd claim that book clubs would provide the same social benefit. You clearly did not, considering the difference appears to be mostly diet and smoking-related.
It turns out the correlation coefficient of the correlation between religiosity and life expectancy is -0.77. This mean there is an inverse STRONG correlation between religiosity and life expectancy (for the record weak association is 0-0.3, moderate is 0.3-0.7 and strong is 0.7-1).
Considering anyone can pop whatever numbers into Excel and make a graph, and it contradicts a peer-reviewed study posted above, I'd love to see what your data is based on. Enlighten us, sensei.