You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #110: Getting back to my original point... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
theredpen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-01-07 07:26 AM
Response to Reply #97
110. Getting back to my original point...
OK, there are a zillion definitions of spiritual (a problem noted by the survey, actually). There are also differing flavors of atheism; Bishop Shelby Spong's non-theistic version of Christianity has been labeled "atheist" by some when "non-theistic" is more accurate. Non-theistic may or may not be sufficiently free of "religion" to qualify as atheist to some people; usually Secular Humanism passes the "atheist religion" test, but I've know some people are agree with every point of the Humanist manifesto and refuse to accept that any of their belief qualify as a "religion" because they are atheist.

The upshot of this is that "religious" has a zillion definitions, too.

Apparently "Protestant," which denotes a branch of religious Christianity, can also be atheist now because some Unitarians consider themselves protestant. That's OK, because some people identify as Jewish or Catholic or other culturally but don't believe any of the supernatural claims associated with those traditions.

This is not to say that none of this web of confusing and misleading labeling couldn't be sorted out, but this study doesn't do that.
I agree with you on what criteria should be looked at, but I disagree that "religion has strongly influenced their practice of medicine" would not apply to some atheists, as many atheist Unitarians would probably respond yes to this, as would atheist Buddhists and some atheist humanists, and any who consider their well thought out philosophy as a religion.
You're right, of course. The net result of all this ambiguity is that this study tells you only about correlations between how people self-identify and what kind of people they'll serve, and those correlations are pretty weak.

I mean, if you want to take your points to their extreme conclusion, then every respondent in this survey could be an atheist, in which case, it still proves nothing about atheists. This title of the OP was wrong about the conclusions of this study.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC