Evangelicals Have Higher-than-average Divorce Rates

[G.T.]

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, never-mind the whole correlation vs. causation issue.

It ignores the increase in Marriage rate?

As it pertains to what? What do you think the study even attempts to justify? You didn't even read the study, or see what it concludes...you're merely quibbling over made up shit that you didn't establish.

It's merely showing a rate comparison. An apple to an apple. You're claiming it's apples and oranges and not establishing how with any sort of facts, or data...which is completely ridiculous.

Hell, you didn't even do the research. Maybe the evangelical divorce rate was EVEN WORSE when more of the general population was marrying. But you dont know that...because you didnt even make any attempt to support your assertion of a flaw.

You're not establishing anything. You're just barking at a mirror.

 

[ding]

Barna should, however, acknowledge that the divorce rates for conservative Christians are higher than for liberal Christians. He also doesn't take the further step of acknowledging that perhaps conservative Christianity and conservative religion, in general, are unable to provide a sound basis for marriage - that perhaps there are other, more secular foundations for marriage that conservative Christians are missing. What might they be? Well, an obvious possibility is treating women like fully autonomous equals in the relationship, something which conservative Christianity frequently denies.
Divorce Rates for Atheists Lower Than Christians

---------------------------------------
The Statics Show the Difference
The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians - exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting.
Divorce Rates for Atheists Lower Than Christians

Atheists could also be more likely to just cohabitate instead of getting married, thus ruining the comparison.

You are correct.

Share of married adults varies widely across U.S. religious groups

 

[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...

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

Politics and law were born from, living evangelicals, thousands of years ago so it is not possible to have one without the other.

 

[G.T.]

Barna should, however, acknowledge that the divorce rates for conservative Christians are higher than for liberal Christians. He also doesn't take the further step of acknowledging that perhaps conservative Christianity and conservative religion, in general, are unable to provide a sound basis for marriage - that perhaps there are other, more secular foundations for marriage that conservative Christians are missing. What might they be? Well, an obvious possibility is treating women like fully autonomous equals in the relationship, something which conservative Christianity frequently denies.
Divorce Rates for Atheists Lower Than Christians

---------------------------------------
The Statics Show the Difference
The Barna Research Group, an evangelical Christian organization that does surveys and research to better understand what Christians believe and how they behave, studied divorce rates in America in 1999 and found surprising evidence that divorce is far lower among atheists than among conservative Christians - exactly the opposite of what they were probably expecting.
Divorce Rates for Atheists Lower Than Christians

Atheists could also be more likely to just cohabitate instead of getting married, thus ruining the comparison.

You are correct.

Share of married adults varies widely across U.S. religious groups

Sure, if you don't know what cohabitate means.

"In the U.S., roughly half of all American adults (48%) say they are married, according to the 2014 Religious Landscape Study. Much smaller shares of U.S. adults say they are living with a partner (7%)"



^ your link. Oopsie.


Not to mention that it doesn't even "ruin" the comparison anyhow, because the comparison is per capita which, by design, accounts for the differing overall number.

It was just a dumb point.

 

[ding]

The study in question was on divorce rates. No?

I didn’t realize people got divorced from living together.

My bad.

 

[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.

Politics and law were born from, living evangelicals, thousands of years ago so it is not possible to have one without the other.

Nope, the RCC started Christianity. Then the Holy Roman Empire. We need for the Evans and Fundy's to stay out of politics. The US was not founded on Christianity.

 

[ding]

In fact, I thought it was Marty’s point that the data was skewed because there were less marriages.

Which isn’t a per capita argument. It’s an argument that changing the size of the pool may affect per capita numbers.

But I could be wrong. I’m sure GT will not only tell me I’m wrong but a bad person too.

 

[G.T.]

The study in question was on divorce rates. No?

I didn’t realize people got divorced from living together.

My bad.

Yes, the study in question is divorce rates, now you're catching on! Marty bringing up cohabitation was a non-sequitur, good dingy boy. *throws treat*

Rates, as in percentages. Meaning, the fact that less or more of any segment Marries is meaningless since a percentage is being used as opposed to a whole number.

 

[G.T.]

In fact, I thought it was Marty’s point that the data was skewed because there were less marriages.

Which isn’t a per capita argument. It’s an argument that changing the size of the pool may affect per capita numbers.

But I could be wrong. I’m sure GT will not only tell me I’m wrong but a bad person too.

You're a piece of shit for other reasons.

That aside, using per capita is the exact methodology USED to eliminate the affect of the size of the overall pool.

Y'all seem to have trouble with statistics.

This site is weird because sometimes...one skips past the super obvious things assuming any adult already knows it...when the underlying issue is that you're clearly more daft that anyone could reasonably expect.

 

[ding]

Of course the data probably wasn’t adjusted for persons that remarry and divorce again. Or people who changed their beliefs through their lives.

But hey, if this makes you feel vindicated in your choices, I think it is a wonderful thing to use.

 

[G.T.]

Of course the data probably wasn’t adjusted for persons that remarry and divorce again. Or people who changed their beliefs through their lives.

But hey, if this makes you feel vindicated in your choices, I think it is a wonderful thing to use.

I havent seen anyone here use this study as their vindication for anything.

What you just said, too - regarding the remarries and such...is a problem for the overall divorce rate's accuracy and always has been which is why the "50%" number was always misleading. That's just a given.

 

[ding]

Personally I believe this is as fine a reason as any to ban religions entirely.

Look how wonderful it turned out for those other nations that were ruled by militant atheists.

 

[ding]

There was another study which showed that the US is becoming less religious as being defined by a decline in people’s stated faith.

I wonder what the relationship between religion and the rise and fall of nations would show?

 

[Questioner]

Evangelicals are often like Catholics. No reading ability. Liars on a pulpit own them.
Marriage is a covenant with God and witnessed by many....except in Vegas.

What does human nature and behavior have to do with monogamy as a civilizationary ideal?

 

[Ethos Logos Pathos]

Nope, the RCC started Christianity. Then the Holy Roman Empire.

Yes, thats exactly what I alluded to that you did not try to invalidate. Evangelism under a different name, prior to Evangelism, is still evangelism and those humans are still the first humans to establish politics and laws practiced today in 99% of earth's racist White-controlled societies.

The US was not founded on Christianity.

That's true, since it was founded upon slavery and war.

But it was principled upon, Christianity, as proven by the Evangelical foundation of the laws since 1787.

 

[Penelope]

Nope, the RCC started Christianity. Then the Holy Roman Empire.

Yes, thats exactly what I alluded to that you did not try to invalidate. Evangelism under a different name, prior to Evangelism, is still evangelism and those humans are still the first humans to establish politics and laws practiced today in 99% of earth's racist White-controlled societies.

The US was not founded on Christianity.

That's true, since it was founded upon slavery and war.

But it was principled upon, Christianity, as proven by the Evangelical foundation of the laws since 1787.

Yes it was Rome created Christianity in the 4th century and started the RCC.

The US was created under freedom of religion by the Founders. Many evangelicals ruled the roost. The Founders while baptized, many objected to the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth and were deists and unitarians, they dismissed the trinity and miracles of Christ.

Yes Sessions used Romans 13 (which made me sickened) and they all the time use to use " Slaves obey your master" with the blacks and even women, the man ruled, and the richer the more clout they had. That is what is wrong with the Evangelicals and fundy's, they leaned the income was good and they cling on to God for riches. They need to get out of politics.

They claim to be so pious and upright, but they are the worst members of society, not all, but most, in other words they give Christianity a bad name. its like a cult.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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

So the Christians aren't as good as one would suspect, believing in the God and Jesus. I see it everyday, Christians do horrendous things, and acting badly, in the name of Jesus.

Its a fact of life.

Anything they do "badly" isnt 8n the Name of Jesus. You really should be worried about yourself. You are the only one who matters on Judgement Day

 

[martybegan]

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, never-mind the whole correlation vs. causation issue.

It ignores the increase in Marriage rate?

As it pertains to what? What do you think the study even attempts to justify? You didn't even read the study, or see what it concludes...you're merely quibbling over made up shit that you didn't establish.

It's merely showing a rate comparison. An apple to an apple. You're claiming it's apples and oranges and not establishing how with any sort of facts, or data...which is completely ridiculous.

Hell, you didn't even do the research. Maybe the evangelical divorce rate was EVEN WORSE when more of the general population was marrying. But you dont know that...because you didnt even make any attempt to support your assertion of a flaw.

You're not establishing anything. You're just barking at a mirror.

And you are just relishing in some talking point about a group you don't like.

 

[G.T.]

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, never-mind the whole correlation vs. causation issue.

It ignores the increase in Marriage rate?

As it pertains to what? What do you think the study even attempts to justify? You didn't even read the study, or see what it concludes...you're merely quibbling over made up shit that you didn't establish.

It's merely showing a rate comparison. An apple to an apple. You're claiming it's apples and oranges and not establishing how with any sort of facts, or data...which is completely ridiculous.

Hell, you didn't even do the research. Maybe the evangelical divorce rate was EVEN WORSE when more of the general population was marrying. But you dont know that...because you didnt even make any attempt to support your assertion of a flaw.

You're not establishing anything. You're just barking at a mirror.

And you are just relishing in some talking point about a group you don't like.

It's data, not a talking point and yes, I'm relishing. Their faith is not strong enough to take their Marriage more seriously, and all that points to is that deep-down, they believe in their Earth stuff more than their invisible God stuff.

 

[martybegan]

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, never-mind the whole correlation vs. causation issue.

It ignores the increase in Marriage rate?

As it pertains to what? What do you think the study even attempts to justify? You didn't even read the study, or see what it concludes...you're merely quibbling over made up shit that you didn't establish.

It's merely showing a rate comparison. An apple to an apple. You're claiming it's apples and oranges and not establishing how with any sort of facts, or data...which is completely ridiculous.

Hell, you didn't even do the research. Maybe the evangelical divorce rate was EVEN WORSE when more of the general population was marrying. But you dont know that...because you didnt even make any attempt to support your assertion of a flaw.

You're not establishing anything. You're just barking at a mirror.

And you are just relishing in some talking point about a group you don't like.

It's data, not a talking point and yes, I'm relishing. Their faith is not strong enough to take their Marriage more seriously, and all that points to is that deep-down, they believe in their Earth stuff more than their invisible God stuff.

Correlation is not causation.

And your bigotry is distasteful.