SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New research by the University of Manchester has found that people are less likely to attend religious services regularly if their income rises.
Dr Ingrid Storm analysed survey data on more than 20,000 people in Britain to compare their income and religious attendance.
Her research is the first of its kind to use data on the same people measured over time, from 1991 to 2012.
Dr Storm found that a rise in income of about £10,000 a year (£880 a month) meant that people were 6 percentage points less likely to attend services monthly.
But a fall in income had no effect on people's monthly attendance at churches, mosques and other places of worship, the research showed.
She said that a reason that people turned away from religious services when their income increased was that they had less need for the social support found in religious communities.
People who are busy have less time for extra-curricular activities.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:32AM (48 children)
People who are busy have less time for extra-curricular activities.
Not quite: people who have more income usually have a better education, meaning they're less likely to believe in fairy tales.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cubancigar11 on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:35AM (8 children)
If you lived in a country with mass corruption. In my country the more rich you are due to corruption, more likely you are to spend your time under a religious leader, placating yourself that you aren't going to hell.
(Score: -1, Troll) by aristarchus on Thursday April 06 2017, @08:19AM (7 children)
We have to cut some slack to the Cubancigar, since he is most likely under the contra-influence of the cult of the Cubans, Castroism. Of course, if he is not, he is under the influence of Madame Cleo and her magical fortune-making plan! Or, perhaps, our young and very svelte cuban is under the influence of Prosperity Gospel, which says you should give all your money, and I mean, all your money, to your pastor, because if God loves you, he would want you to be rich, and therefore . . . OK, Calvinism made more sense to me.
But back to the Cuban, so to speak, living la vida loca: no doubt he is a devotee of Santería. The White horse, the end of times, voting Republican in a country where you are not even a citizen, Keke! It all makes sense now! Black Jesus, and more. In lieu of a long and boring Religious Studies Course at a Community College near you where you might actually learn something, I recommend Talking Heads, "Papa Legba", on the album True Stories. Just saying. Poor Cuban. He is of such little learning, even of his own culture! I hope he is not made into a zombie. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096071/ [imdb.com] Of course, almost all conservatives are already zombies. Moral zombies. Legislative Zombies. Ayn Rand Paul Ryan Rand Zombies. Surely you see the pattern. Now concentrate on the patterns of the chicken blood, and the goat's head, and the Cuban Cigar 11!
(Score: 0, Funny) by aristarchus on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:11AM (6 children)
Every time you mod me down, Jesus kills a kitten. I hope you are happy with yourself, since both you and the horribly killed kitten are going to end up in the same hell, with no debit cards! Who do you think is going to survive this scenario?
(Score: 3, Touché) by LoRdTAW on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:35PM (1 child)
Dude. Where do you get your drugs?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:44PM
Dude. Where do you get your drugs?
Dude, from Earth! They grow right out of the ground. It's fantastic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:57PM
Wait, so I get to spend eternity with a bunch of kittens and no debit cards?
Sign me up!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:42PM
Don't care about the kittens.
Don't care about Jesus.
Don't care about your feelings.
Don't give a damn about your feelings.
Just back off, take your hands off of that little boy, pull your pants up, and surrender peacefully.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @02:44PM (1 child)
Where is the -1 full retard mod when you need it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:06PM
Everyone knows you never go full mod, you late Anonymous Coward!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:44AM
They usually have more schooling as well, which is not necessarily the same as having a better education.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Soylentbob on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:48AM (13 children)
people who have more income usually have a better education, meaning they're less likely to believe in fairy tales.
Not quite: The article states that a fall in income does not have any effect on attendance, which indicates they were actually comparing the shift in income, not only the absolute income.
Still, it makes sense to me. Religion is a lot about sharing with the less fortunate. This is much easier to appreciate if you are a less fortunate yourself. Once people earn more, they convince themselves that they deserve the higher income through hard labour, and that they don't want/need to share. It's hard to go back from that position once you lose the better income, and it's hard to get back to believe once you started thinking analytical about religion.
I'm convinced that also in the middle east, if we (the western countries) wouldn't constantly destabilize them and their economics, people would embrace more liberal lifestyles. (Would take time because the ruling classes would try to keep religion as a means of control in place, but eventually...)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by letssee on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:48PM (8 children)
Religion is a lot about sharing with the less fortunate.
This is rather wishful thinking, sadly. I still go with the 'less need for fairytales (it will be better in the afterlife)' theory.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:22PM (7 children)
Religion is a lot about sharing with the less fortunate.
This is rather wishful thinking, sadly.
While religion has certainly been involved in lots of bad things over the centuries, your comment is really off the mark. For many, many people, "sharing with the less fortunate" is a major element of what they do within their religion. Churches around the U.S. operate tons of food pantries/food banks, "soup" kitchens to feed the hungry, homeless shelters, daycare or after-school programs for poor kids, etc., etc. And given that stats show that over 15% of Americans rely on donations from food banks at least occasionally, this is not a minor service that religious folks are doing.
Of course secular organizations exist that do this stuff too. But the point is that many religious institutions choose to help people in such ways. Many religious people choose to make donations to such organizations because of their concern for the "less fortunate." All of this actually exists and helps out millions of people in need each year. We can be critical of all sorts of aspects of religion, but that doesn't mean a lot of people don't find other personal value in it.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:36PM (6 children)
Scenario 1: Someone who is unable or unwilling* to support himself ekes out a miserable existence which eventually ends because nobody is there to "help".
Scenario 2: Someone who is unable or unwilling* to support himself is given a steady stream of freebies, enabling him to pass on his genes to three children and seven grandchildren who eke out ten miserable existences.
Which scenario minimizes total human suffering?
* The distinction doesn't change the outcome.
(Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:45PM (2 children)
Clearly the first one. If the poor consider their lives a net-loss, they could end it. And for the giving, many of them bath in the feeling of "doing good".
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 06 2017, @04:27PM (1 child)
Ah, yes, I forgot. A "bath" of feelings outweighs any attempts to actually understand problems and evaluate solutions. I guess that's why we still have Democrats.
But my point was: are you truly "doing good" if the outcome of your emotion-based actions is to multiply and prolong suffering?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:46PM
Maybe, just in case, we should come up with, oh, I dunno, some kind of "final solution" to deal with all these genetically substandard poors?
(Score: 3, Touché) by http on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:02PM
What kind of existance should we guess your parents had, miserable or not miserable? How about your grandparents?
More importantly, could we tell that from looking at your life?
Your failure of imagination is staggering.
I browse at -1 when I have mod points. It's unsettling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:32PM
In response to your sig: apparently not.
Your scenarios here, with their lack of creativity and obvious slant towards your desired outcome, illustrate that while you may not be a clinical sociopath you are at least a student of sociopathic philosophies. Better stock up, because there are way more liberals with guns than you think and way more conservatives who would reject your philosophies as horrifying.
(Score: 2) by cykros on Friday April 07 2017, @05:22AM
Scenario 3: The entire world's arsenal of nuclear weapons is set off simultaneously, evenly spaced around the globe. All humans are killed off near instantly, and thus there would be none in the future to ever suffer at all.
Your approach to ethics is in need of a re-think. Perhaps consider maximizing human joy (as a positive idea) instead of minimizing human suffering (a negative one). Or take a more nuanced approach based on an adaptive array of criteria. All life ends in loss, often with accompanied pain, yet that's not a reason to self-destruct as a species (or individual, for that matter).
It'd be nice if people would drop the dogmatic approach to religion that has them literally believing in some absurd things, but it is possible to practice with a shared set of stories, ritual tradition, and culture, and arguably it's an almost inescapable aspect of human existence, given our social nature. It'd be perhaps better if we consider a more enlightened approach to religion that moves beyond a lot of medieval baggage and use as a tool of manipulation and control.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:07PM
Religion is a lot about sharing with the less fortunate.
Ah, that explains why Christians need a permanent underclass.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 06 2017, @05:52PM (2 children)
Religion is a lot about sharing with the less fortunate.
Oh bullshit. Here in America, at least, this just isn't true. Prosperity Doctrine is the most popular theology here, and it teaches that God will make you rich if he loves you, so rich people are better people. Our churches here are full of big SUV-driving pompous jerks sipping Starbucks while listening to preachers tell them about God will make them richer if they believe and tithe enough, so the church can build ever-grander facilities.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:49PM
Yeah. When I saw the title of the page, my mind immediately went to the Prosperity Gospel lot.
ISTM that their scripture has ripped out The Beatitudes. [gotquestions.org]
They have removed Matthew 25:31-46 [gotquestions.org]
"For I was hungry and you gave me food [...] as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me" and replaced that with several of The Seven Deadly Sins [gotquestions.org]--now cast in a positive light.
If The Nazarean encountered them, he wouldn't recognize them as his disciples.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday April 07 2017, @03:51AM
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:16AM (15 children)
People are also usually opportunistic. God and religious beliefs can become a hindrance to selfish behavior, that is until they are in need, get sick, or face death.
It is true that some education will help you sort through some bullshit, especially from those who would exploit others through religion, but it doesn't mean that everything is bullshit. The more you actually know about science, in particular quantum physics, the less likely you are to discount the seemingly impossible.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:37AM (7 children)
Sentient life and the Universe itself is somewhat of a mystery, so who is to say what is ferry tale?
There is no good evidence that a god or gods exist, so I do not believe in such a thing. I also don't believe in leprechauns or fairies, yet people probably wouldn't question me if I called those things silly.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:56PM (6 children)
Here we go again.
> There is no good evidence that a god or gods exist
There is no smell for square roots either. The problem being the undefined meaning of smell for square roots. The problem in the incredibly stupid assertion I am responding to, is that 'to exist' means 'to belong to the universe', while 'god' means 'to belong outside it'. Therefore 'god exist' is undefined, and proof unattainable.
Proof for the above: hypothetical god comes from heaven and transform earth in one big golden orb, he is
1. a god
2. the god
3. a skilled manipulator of the laws of the universe
4. a skilled manipulator of minds
5. something else
can you disprove any of 1..5? nope. End of story. Stop bothering yourself with the falsest religion on earth, atheism. Believe in no god if you want, It is a completely different matter and nobody can tell you anything.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 07 2017, @12:16AM
Stop bothering yourself with the falsest religion on earth, atheism.
Compared to what? Or are you claiming all religions are equally true and false?
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Friday April 07 2017, @09:02PM (4 children)
'god' means 'to belong outside [the universe]'
Premise 1: God is outside the universe.
Premise 2: There is no outside the universe.
Conclusion: There is no god.
Thanks for clearing that up for us.
Stop bothering yourself with the falsest religion on earth, atheism.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Believe in no god if you want
I can't speak for others, but I have no such belief. Someone else said, correctly, "There is no good evidence that a god or gods exist." That observation does not constitute an "ism" or "belief".
There is no good evidence that pink elephants dance on the rings of Saturn. If you agree, does that make you a believer in no-pink-Saturn-elephantism?
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Thursday April 13 2017, @09:13PM (3 children)
> Premise 1: God is outside the universe.
> Premise 2: There is no outside the universe.
> Conclusion: There is no god.
Exactly.
The god outside the universe does not exist like a chess player does not exist anywhere in a game of chess. You have a peculiar way to agree with me.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Thursday April 13 2017, @11:02PM (2 children)
I am not aware of any evidence that we are in a game of chess or any other "game", or that there is any "player" beyond our universe, manipulating us or even just observing.
If I were to become aware that we are being "played" like a bunch of expendable chess pieces for some super-entity's amusement, I would probably resent it at best.
Is that what you meant by agreeing with me?
(Score: 2) by marcello_dl on Saturday April 15 2017, @02:11PM (1 child)
You are discussing strong implications which I am not making.
My point is, your demonstration that a transcendent god does not exist is pure tautological application of the definition, not proof of anything beyond it.
The chess example proves that not existing for a universe tells NOTHING about the HYPOTHETICAL dimension such an universe is an abstraction of. So your not having evidence of things pertaining to a dimension where the concept of evidence is not even defined does not enlighten me much.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday April 16 2017, @12:05PM
You are just a character in a book I am writing. Since you didn't know that, it proves me right.
You see, anyone can throw out unfounded nonsense and claim it is true. That doesn't raise it above the level of nonsense however. Your words appear to be English but your sentences do not convey sufficient information to even figure out what you are trying to claim, much less why you think it is so.
You talk about "outside the universe" but there is no reason to think the term "outside the universe" means anything. So you are spouting undefined phrases, attaching your own definition, then saying "see my claim is true by definition". You're wandering in meaningless circles.
Let us get back to the elephants. Are you or are you not a no-pink-dancing-Saturn-elephantist?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:54PM (1 child)
If you visit New York City you can save yourself a lot of money, time waiting in line, and an aggressive anal probe from the Department of Homeland Security by avoiding the boat to Liberty Island and taking the Staten Island ferry instead, which is free. You pass within a 100 yards of the Statue of Liberty and can take great shots, better than you could from Liberty Island itself; as such there's no reason to go to Liberty Island because they don't let you go up into the crown anymore.
That's a real ferry tale.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday April 07 2017, @03:14AM
I did visit New York City once. Even without your warning, I know better than bothering going back, at least without being paid a lot of money.
(Score: 2) by SomeGuy on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:25PM (2 children)
Any form of rational thinking. Yes, the universe is full of unknowns, and on some occasions one must even accept theories as "correct" until proven otherwise in order to just get things done. But filling in the unknown with baseless fantasy is horribly, horribly incorrect.
2+2=?
Lets say you don't understand math, so you do not know the answer. Without understanding, the possible answers could be infinite.
So you say "2+2=happy magic sky fairy"
What makes that any more correct than any of the other possible incorrect answers? Because you want it to be that answer? Because the real answer is a harsh, cold fact? Because you can use your fake answer to manipulate others in unspeakable ways?
Unfortunately there is a natural tenancy for humans to anthropomorphize what they don't understand. Draw some tiny little happy mouth, happy little eyes, and happy little hands on it, and the unknown mystery dances around making them feel good. So that somehow must be correct, right?
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday April 07 2017, @03:25AM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08 2017, @04:41PM
You presume not enough. The very word "faith" means sticking your head in the ground and not questioning anything. That is extremely naive and stupid.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 06 2017, @06:00PM (1 child)
The more you actually know about science, in particular quantum physics, the less likely you are to discount the seemingly impossible.
There's an enormous difference between believing there may be something out there beyond what our science can detect, and constructing an elaborate belief system based on nothing but hearsay from ancient people transcribing oral traditions from illiterate peasants.
(Score: 2) by jimtheowl on Friday April 07 2017, @03:33AM
There is also no need to bundle the two in the same argument. I am mostly interested in the former, whether or not it leads into insights about the later.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:43AM (1 child)
Opiate of the masses. Hope in a hopeless life. A penny in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs. Etc...
Religion has always been primarily of interest to the poor, and the reason is almost certainly that they are the ones who need hope, who need to believe that their existence isn't as awful as it seems. Once your daily existence is less awful, you have less need for the fairy tales.
The corollary, of course, is that the upper classes have always known how to exploit this. Get enough pennies from paupers, and you can build yourself a nice little diocese, bishopry or Vatican.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:11PM
Going to boost you to Score:6, Insightful
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @11:45AM
Yup. Just shows that you cant trust the conclusion of any study/survey/etc.
The outcome proves the incoming agenda.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @12:09PM (1 child)
Not really. They just tend to believe in other fairy tales, usually involving an invisible hand.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday April 06 2017, @07:12PM
God's giving hand jobs now?!?!?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday April 06 2017, @01:30PM
people who have more income usually have a better education, meaning they're less likely to believe in fairy tales.
Yup. The original article sounds like a classic case of "if you cut their legs off, they go deaf" [cc.com].
(Score: 2) by Anne Nonymous on Thursday April 06 2017, @03:27PM
Joe goes to church and prays for a job so he can feed his family. God provides. Joe got what he wanted, so he can stop going to church.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06 2017, @09:23PM
No, what it really means is that most people actually find their true security in their wallet/bank account, not in their God.