NihilusZero
Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008 From: Nashville, TN Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual The comments to the article do a decent job of explaining why the statistics are misleading as presented. the silliest one is the first graph that shows a whopping 8% to 2% difference between atheists in peaceful vs violent countries, as if 8% of the population is of any significance in how a country comports itself. Fair point. But the tallying of specifically atheists was just one facet that they made in determining the degree of secularization of the nation as a whole. quote:
ORIGINAL: CruelNUnsual Then get to questionable definitions of what does or doesnt constitute a violent country, and the vast population differences between countries, and the entire premise of the statistics is shot to hell. Well, to avoid a semantic argument over that, they described what they factored: quote:
The index was collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit for a new thinktank called the Institute for Economics and Peace. It uses a weighted mix of 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy. And...the point I'm trying to make is that it's already made clear (if just from the study itself) that it made no premise other than what the statistics showed...one which is proven by the numbers. Does it unilaterally mean religiousness = violence? Obviously not. Does it even mean that the direct introduction of greater secularism to a country will yield a more peaceful outcome? No. The study seemed to take great care not to make unnecessary inferences but many people are arguing against it as if it did.
_____________________________
"I know it's all a game I know they're all insane I know it's all in vain I know that I'm to blame." ~Siouxsie & the Banshees NihilusZero.com CM Sex God du Jour CM Hall Monitor
|