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 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?