Suicides more likely to be atheists

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Feel free to delete whatever you disagree with, since when has a scientifically correct viewpoint stopped you?

Its open data you can google religious affiliation and suicide rate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'd rather you were honest on your own.

Is your lack of citation / page number(s) a concession of deception? I have the report in front of me and there is no mention of "religion" or "atheism" anywhere.

The data are correlated by state, age, and gender. Not religion or lack thereof.

This appears to be an example of intellectual dishonesty and it isn't what I've ever expected from you. Not on this level.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now that I think about it, I think you shouldn't delete your posts. Indeed, I'll maintain my quote of your dishonesty as a demonstration to others what lengths you appear to be willing to go.

 

Like I said, its off an article, I restarted my computer this morning and my cache is erased. You can google religious affiliation and suicide rate and find thousands of supporting articles. Or you can delete it. I really don't feel like searching for that particular article.

 

dishonesty? Please provide evidence then. I'm sure you are not making an unsupported assertion, being all scientifically honest and what not.

 

I don't have the history now. What does your Gallup Poll data say?

 

Ah. I see. Deleted cache. Right.

To all members: The above quoted post of SAM's is an example of intellectual dishonesty. She invented statistics, created a graph, and cited a paper she hoped no one would locate. The PDF of the paper can be found here for all those interested. Please note that the title matches her citation and even a casual glance reveals that the data are correlated by state, age, and gender. Not a single category includes religion, religious affiliation or lack thereof.

One is left to wonder if this is S.A.M.'s first (or last) time at such a deception. Her words clearly require a healthy dose of skepticism.

 

Found it. And I expect an apology.

http://csrp.hku.hk/iasp/s/bertolote.pdf

 

Why would I apologize for your own inept ability to properly cite a source? Your citation above clearly states: "WHO, figures and facts about suicide 1999," not Suicidologi, 2002.

 

Skin:

Duh, I gave the source for the figure. Otherwise, what do the years mean?

But, you accused me of dishonesty. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath here.

 

Moreover, Bertolote and Fleishmann demonstrate a poor methodology in that they attempt to use the WHO report to create a correlate that doesn't exist. That, my friend, is pseudoscience. No wonder you didn't wish to cite the actual source.

 

Its WHO data and used likewise for all such studies. I suggest you complain to WHO instead. And meanwhile take a gander at your Intelligent people are less likely to be theists thread for a similar correlation.

 

You did not. That figure does not exist in the WHO report. It was invented by Bertolote and Fleishmann. They attempt to correlate suicides to "Christian" and "Atheist" nations. At best, they are showing a cultural correlation -not a religious one.

 

Ok, here's a controlled trial

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

Here are some more:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/155/5/413#T2

Another:

http://journals.cambridge.org/actio...B104AF5E91C.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=25493

 

The WHO report stands on its own merit. They made no attempt to correlate suicide to religiosity. That was done by Bertolote and Fleishmann and their methodology was flawed since they fail to show that the actual suicides were committed by either Christians, atheists, or other religious groups mentioned. They correlate to a correlation. Since correlation doesn't imply causation to begin with....

Face it: you were sloppy and dishonest. You cited the wrong source and then attempt to state that the "figure" was from that source when it wasn't.

You would have gained more by owning your error than making excuses.

 

How many honour killings in Muslim countries? They are not encouraged or condoned, they are criminal acts - condemned by the religion and the law.

No, that is paranoia and scaremongering.

You do realise Muslim women use the teachings of Islam (Quran and saying of the Prophet) to back up their claims. Religion is open up to interpretation. And plus I seriously doubt one side was made up entirely of women and the other entirely of men, its never that simple.

Your tone is not helpful. I think a decrease in the practising of religion, church going and other religious-community stuff can easily be linked to the social ills facing society in the 21st century. The West (generally) is even more individualistic, everything is me, me, me! Eastern cultures are more collectivistic.

In the West people send their parents to old care homes, they can't be bothered. In Eastern cultures, brothers and sisters fight eachother to have their mum and dad live with them, it is an honour. The West has a large number of single households, mateys that are not married, no kids, just living on their own. Rare in the East, you will hardly ever see such a thing in Arab countries, Pakistan, India etc.

Social capital is low in the West.

You think I'm some sort of Saudi lackey, I am an enemy of the Saudi state, I hope to carve the country up one day. The Saudis have no monopoly on Islam, in fact in my opinion they are far away from the basic teachings of Islam. Women have every right to drive, it is only the Saudis that ban them, God knows why.