Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates

[G.T.]

You didnt flesh out any flaws in the data interpretation, you asserted flaws and they turned out to be a deflection.

1st, you don't understand what Rates are and why they're used to mitigate your point about more evangelicals GETTING married.
2nd, you didn't look back to a time-period when more non-evangelicals DID marry, and prove your assertion that the rates were higher for the non-evangelicals.

THAT would have been the beginning of what a defense of your point may have looked like, and you didn't do it leaving what you call a "flaw," a mere assertion.

There are still plenty of other holes in your assertions, but those are the easiest and until you prove you have some sort of intelligence to even BEGIN making an argument...that's all I really need to begin with.

You are the one making the point that this data shows how terrible evangelicals are. All I did was point out inconsistencies in the data and your interpretation of it.

You havent established the inconsistency, you merely asserted it and did not provide the relevant data to support your assertion.

Also, this data is not being used to show how terrible evangelicals are...it's merely evidence. It's not a case. You extrapolated that all on your own.

You are using it to show how terrible evangelicals are.

Try and separate these different thoughts, Marty.

I think evangelicals are terrible, in a sense, but not in all sense. 100% truth.

I think that the sense evangelicals are terrible in, has dozens of reasons attached to it.

This OP is a drop in the bucket to the plethora of other reasons, and nothing hinges on it.




Do you understand? Let me know if you have any clarifying questions.

I understand rationalizing when I see it.

Me too.

It looks something like...

"lets not compare marriage rates to marriage rates because less people get married and if more people got married then we would see a higher rate in the non-evangelicals as established with the numbers/data i wont post because i dont know them and am just asserting things out of my booty-hole"

Or...

"they pick on evangelicals because theyre meanies. not because of weird shit like...their evangelical behaviors"

Rationalizing is something we are supposed to do, mind you. It's the second clause of the definition when it becomes a problem, Marty.

ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. 1.
   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

 

[DOTR]

It seems like people are reveling in this alleged failure by Evangelicals. Sucks to be those revelers.

It makes liberals happy no doubt to succeed here. And they are the ones who did it to them. Just another successful operation...every broken family results in more liberal voters in their mind.

 

[martybegan]

You are the one making the point that this data shows how terrible evangelicals are. All I did was point out inconsistencies in the data and your interpretation of it.

You havent established the inconsistency, you merely asserted it and did not provide the relevant data to support your assertion.

Also, this data is not being used to show how terrible evangelicals are...it's merely evidence. It's not a case. You extrapolated that all on your own.

You are using it to show how terrible evangelicals are.

Try and separate these different thoughts, Marty.

I think evangelicals are terrible, in a sense, but not in all sense. 100% truth.

I think that the sense evangelicals are terrible in, has dozens of reasons attached to it.

This OP is a drop in the bucket to the plethora of other reasons, and nothing hinges on it.




Do you understand? Let me know if you have any clarifying questions.

I understand rationalizing when I see it.

Me too.

It looks something like...

"lets not compare marriage rates to marriage rates because less people get married and if more people got married then we would see a higher rate in the non-evangelicals as established with the numbers/data i wont post because i dont know them and am just asserting things out of my booty-hole"

Or...

"they pick on evangelicals because theyre meanies. not because of weird shit like...their evangelical behaviors"

Rationalizing is something we are supposed to do, mind you. It's the second clause of the definition when it becomes a problem, Marty.

ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. 1.
   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

No you are going to the whole dictionary thing. Pathetic.

 

[Crepitus]

Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates, According to a Report Compiled by Baylor for the Council on Contemporary Families

Feb. 5, 2014

WACO, Texas (Feb. 5, 2014) -- Despite their strong pro-family values, evangelical Christians have higher than average divorce rates -- in fact, being more likely to be divorced than Americans who claim no religion, according to findings as cited by researchers from Baylor University.

The research is part of a new report released by the Council on Contemporary Families.

The council report coincides with the 50-year anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, national origin, religion or gender. The council's report, which included findings by a dozen researchers, dealt with changes in the past half century for each of the populations affected by the law: religious groups, racial and ethnic minorities and women.

Baylor's portion of the report dealt with 50 years of religious change, from 1964 to 2014. Other findings by Baylor were:

Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates, According to a Report Compiled by Baylor for the Council on Contemporary Families

ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Baylor University is a private Christian university and a nationally ranked research institution, characterized as having "high research activity" by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The university provides a vibrant campus community for approximately 15,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship.
------------------------------------------------
What do you have to say about this , Christians. There doesn't seem to be very many article about this as I assume the Evangelicals and Fundy's do not want to advertise it.

Not a huge surprise. As a group Evangelicals are intolerant, uncompromising, and judgemental. None of those things is conducive to long term relationships.

Coming from a progressive asshole who is intolerant, uncompromising, and judgemental your hypocrisy makes me fucking laugh.

How nice for you.

Just a suggestion, get an eye exam soon?

 

[martybegan]

Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates, According to a Report Compiled by Baylor for the Council on Contemporary Families

Feb. 5, 2014

WACO, Texas (Feb. 5, 2014) -- Despite their strong pro-family values, evangelical Christians have higher than average divorce rates -- in fact, being more likely to be divorced than Americans who claim no religion, according to findings as cited by researchers from Baylor University.

The research is part of a new report released by the Council on Contemporary Families.

The council report coincides with the 50-year anniversary of the passage of the Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal to discriminate against individuals on the basis of race, national origin, religion or gender. The council's report, which included findings by a dozen researchers, dealt with changes in the past half century for each of the populations affected by the law: religious groups, racial and ethnic minorities and women.

Baylor's portion of the report dealt with 50 years of religious change, from 1964 to 2014. Other findings by Baylor were:

Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates, According to a Report Compiled by Baylor for the Council on Contemporary Families

ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Baylor University is a private Christian university and a nationally ranked research institution, characterized as having "high research activity" by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The university provides a vibrant campus community for approximately 15,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship.
------------------------------------------------
What do you have to say about this , Christians. There doesn't seem to be very many article about this as I assume the Evangelicals and Fundy's do not want to advertise it.

Not a huge surprise. As a group Evangelicals are intolerant, uncompromising, and judgemental. None of those things is conducive to long term relationships.

Coming from a progressive asshole who is intolerant, uncompromising, and judgemental your hypocrisy makes me fucking laugh.

How nice for you.

Just a suggestion, get an eye exam soon?

Had one last week. Slight increase to my prescription, but only enough to replace my regular glasses, can keep my old sunglasses.

 

[G.T.]

You havent established the inconsistency, you merely asserted it and did not provide the relevant data to support your assertion.

Also, this data is not being used to show how terrible evangelicals are...it's merely evidence. It's not a case. You extrapolated that all on your own.

You are using it to show how terrible evangelicals are.

Try and separate these different thoughts, Marty.

I think evangelicals are terrible, in a sense, but not in all sense. 100% truth.

I think that the sense evangelicals are terrible in, has dozens of reasons attached to it.

This OP is a drop in the bucket to the plethora of other reasons, and nothing hinges on it.




Do you understand? Let me know if you have any clarifying questions.

I understand rationalizing when I see it.

Me too.

It looks something like...

"lets not compare marriage rates to marriage rates because less people get married and if more people got married then we would see a higher rate in the non-evangelicals as established with the numbers/data i wont post because i dont know them and am just asserting things out of my booty-hole"

Or...

"they pick on evangelicals because theyre meanies. not because of weird shit like...their evangelical behaviors"

Rationalizing is something we are supposed to do, mind you. It's the second clause of the definition when it becomes a problem, Marty.

ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. 1.
   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

No you are going to the whole dictionary thing. Pathetic.

That's not the data that supports your assertion.

 

[Ethos Logos Pathos]

they know that is no excuse at all...

I never said it was an, excuse, I merely pointed out a reality re: imperfect humans who are Christians...

 

[martybegan]

You are using it to show how terrible evangelicals are.

Try and separate these different thoughts, Marty.

I think evangelicals are terrible, in a sense, but not in all sense. 100% truth.

I think that the sense evangelicals are terrible in, has dozens of reasons attached to it.

This OP is a drop in the bucket to the plethora of other reasons, and nothing hinges on it.




Do you understand? Let me know if you have any clarifying questions.

I understand rationalizing when I see it.

Me too.

It looks something like...

"lets not compare marriage rates to marriage rates because less people get married and if more people got married then we would see a higher rate in the non-evangelicals as established with the numbers/data i wont post because i dont know them and am just asserting things out of my booty-hole"

Or...

"they pick on evangelicals because theyre meanies. not because of weird shit like...their evangelical behaviors"

Rationalizing is something we are supposed to do, mind you. It's the second clause of the definition when it becomes a problem, Marty.

ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. 1.
   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

No you are going to the whole dictionary thing. Pathetic.

That's not the data that supports your assertion.

Not data, tactics. The longer you try to explain something the dumber you look.

 

[G.T.]

Try and separate these different thoughts, Marty.

I think evangelicals are terrible, in a sense, but not in all sense. 100% truth.

I think that the sense evangelicals are terrible in, has dozens of reasons attached to it.

This OP is a drop in the bucket to the plethora of other reasons, and nothing hinges on it.




Do you understand? Let me know if you have any clarifying questions.

I understand rationalizing when I see it.

Me too.

It looks something like...

"lets not compare marriage rates to marriage rates because less people get married and if more people got married then we would see a higher rate in the non-evangelicals as established with the numbers/data i wont post because i dont know them and am just asserting things out of my booty-hole"

Or...

"they pick on evangelicals because theyre meanies. not because of weird shit like...their evangelical behaviors"

Rationalizing is something we are supposed to do, mind you. It's the second clause of the definition when it becomes a problem, Marty.

ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. 1.
   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

No you are going to the whole dictionary thing. Pathetic.

That's not the data that supports your assertion.

Not data, tactics. The longer you try to explain something the dumber you look.

That's not the data that supports your assertion, Marty. Keep rationalizing. lol!

 

[martybegan]

I understand rationalizing when I see it.

Me too.

It looks something like...

"lets not compare marriage rates to marriage rates because less people get married and if more people got married then we would see a higher rate in the non-evangelicals as established with the numbers/data i wont post because i dont know them and am just asserting things out of my booty-hole"

Or...

"they pick on evangelicals because theyre meanies. not because of weird shit like...their evangelical behaviors"

Rationalizing is something we are supposed to do, mind you. It's the second clause of the definition when it becomes a problem, Marty.

ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. 1.
   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

No you are going to the whole dictionary thing. Pathetic.

That's not the data that supports your assertion.

Not data, tactics. The longer you try to explain something the dumber you look.

That's not the data that supports your assertion, Marty. Keep rationalizing. lol!

There's that "gotcha" attempt again....

 

[Penelope]

they know that is no excuse at all...

I never said it was an, excuse, I merely pointed out a reality re: imperfect humans who are Christians...

Are you saying they are victims? A lot of people are sick of Evangelicals and fundy's involvement in our politics.

 

[G.T.]

Me too.

It looks something like...

"lets not compare marriage rates to marriage rates because less people get married and if more people got married then we would see a higher rate in the non-evangelicals as established with the numbers/data i wont post because i dont know them and am just asserting things out of my booty-hole"

Or...

"they pick on evangelicals because theyre meanies. not because of weird shit like...their evangelical behaviors"

Rationalizing is something we are supposed to do, mind you. It's the second clause of the definition when it becomes a problem, Marty.

ra·tion·al·ize
/ˈraSHənlˌīz,ˈraSHnəˌlīz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
gerund or present participle: rationalizing

1. 1.
   attempt to explain or justify (one's own or another's behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate.

No you are going to the whole dictionary thing. Pathetic.

That's not the data that supports your assertion.

Not data, tactics. The longer you try to explain something the dumber you look.

That's not the data that supports your assertion, Marty. Keep rationalizing. lol!

There's that "gotcha" attempt again....

The record is clear, dude.

You pointed out a possible flaw that you couldn't establish and did not research, and got called on it.

Then instead of supporting it...you're doing "this"...thing...whatever it is.

 

[martybegan]

No you are going to the whole dictionary thing. Pathetic.

That's not the data that supports your assertion.

Not data, tactics. The longer you try to explain something the dumber you look.

That's not the data that supports your assertion, Marty. Keep rationalizing. lol!

There's that "gotcha" attempt again....

The record is clear, dude.

You pointed out a possible flaw that you couldn't establish and did not research, and got called on it.

Then instead of supporting it...you're doing "this"...thing...whatever it is.

You ignored the flaw to suit your own interest. Then you went dictionary to attempt to back up your ignorance.

 

[G.T.]

That's not the data that supports your assertion.

Not data, tactics. The longer you try to explain something the dumber you look.

That's not the data that supports your assertion, Marty. Keep rationalizing. lol!

There's that "gotcha" attempt again....

The record is clear, dude.

You pointed out a possible flaw that you couldn't establish and did not research, and got called on it.

Then instead of supporting it...you're doing "this"...thing...whatever it is.

You ignored the flaw to suit your own interest. Then you went dictionary to attempt to back up your ignorance.

You didn't establish the flaw, you merely asserted one and then ran away.

It's hard, Marty...I know. The whole mirror thing.

 

[james bond]

If true, then the believers have to do a lot of repenting. Oof. This is like getting hit in the solar plexus real hard.

 

[martybegan]

Not data, tactics. The longer you try to explain something the dumber you look.

That's not the data that supports your assertion, Marty. Keep rationalizing. lol!

There's that "gotcha" attempt again....

The record is clear, dude.

You pointed out a possible flaw that you couldn't establish and did not research, and got called on it.

Then instead of supporting it...you're doing "this"...thing...whatever it is.

You ignored the flaw to suit your own interest. Then you went dictionary to attempt to back up your ignorance.

You didn't establish the flaw, you merely asserted one and then ran away.

It's hard, Marty...I know. The whole mirror thing.

How is my responding "running away"

We have reached the point of two opinions not being able to resolve.

 

[G.T.]

That's not the data that supports your assertion, Marty. Keep rationalizing. lol!

There's that "gotcha" attempt again....

The record is clear, dude.

You pointed out a possible flaw that you couldn't establish and did not research, and got called on it.

Then instead of supporting it...you're doing "this"...thing...whatever it is.

You ignored the flaw to suit your own interest. Then you went dictionary to attempt to back up your ignorance.

You didn't establish the flaw, you merely asserted one and then ran away.

It's hard, Marty...I know. The whole mirror thing.

How is my responding "running away"

We have reached the point of two opinions not being able to resolve.

Because you're not supporting your assertion, you're merely going "neener neener," same as all thread.

You asserted a flaw, and didnt support it with comparative numbers. Where are they, Marty?

Oh right, you dont have them.

Shocker, and thats the point.

 

[martybegan]

There's that "gotcha" attempt again....

The record is clear, dude.

You pointed out a possible flaw that you couldn't establish and did not research, and got called on it.

Then instead of supporting it...you're doing "this"...thing...whatever it is.

You ignored the flaw to suit your own interest. Then you went dictionary to attempt to back up your ignorance.

You didn't establish the flaw, you merely asserted one and then ran away.

It's hard, Marty...I know. The whole mirror thing.

How is my responding "running away"

We have reached the point of two opinions not being able to resolve.

Because you're not supporting your assertion, you're merely going "neener neener," same as all thread.

You asserted a flaw, and didnt support it with comparative numbers. Where are they, Marty?

Oh right, you dont have them.

Shocker, and thats the point.

I pointed out issues with methodology, that you ignore because "fuh fuh fuh evangelicals suck. fuh fuh fuh"

 

[G.T.]

The record is clear, dude.

You pointed out a possible flaw that you couldn't establish and did not research, and got called on it.

Then instead of supporting it...you're doing "this"...thing...whatever it is.

You ignored the flaw to suit your own interest. Then you went dictionary to attempt to back up your ignorance.

You didn't establish the flaw, you merely asserted one and then ran away.

It's hard, Marty...I know. The whole mirror thing.

How is my responding "running away"

We have reached the point of two opinions not being able to resolve.

Because you're not supporting your assertion, you're merely going "neener neener," same as all thread.

You asserted a flaw, and didnt support it with comparative numbers. Where are they, Marty?

Oh right, you dont have them.

Shocker, and thats the point.

I pointed out issues with methodology, that you ignore because "fuh fuh fuh evangelicals suck. fuh fuh fuh"

For starters, it's not a flaw if the numbers are comparative to a time when more of the general population married.

Not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp, Marty.

 

[martybegan]

You ignored the flaw to suit your own interest. Then you went dictionary to attempt to back up your ignorance.

You didn't establish the flaw, you merely asserted one and then ran away.

It's hard, Marty...I know. The whole mirror thing.

How is my responding "running away"

We have reached the point of two opinions not being able to resolve.

Because you're not supporting your assertion, you're merely going "neener neener," same as all thread.

You asserted a flaw, and didnt support it with comparative numbers. Where are they, Marty?

Oh right, you dont have them.

Shocker, and thats the point.

I pointed out issues with methodology, that you ignore because "fuh fuh fuh evangelicals suck. fuh fuh fuh"

For starters, it's not a flaw if the numbers are comparative to a time when more of the general population married.

Not sure why that's so hard for you to grasp, Marty.

it's flawed because it ignores the increase in marriage rate in general, nevermind the whole correlation vs. causation issue.