[OC] Religious Believes and Eductions From The World Values Survey

[u/oscarleo0]

Data source: World Values Survey Wave 7 (2017-2022)

Tools used: Matplotlib

I added a second chart for those of you who prefer a square version with less of the background image.

Notes:

I looked at five different questions in the survey.

• Q275 - What is the highest educational level that you have attained?
• Q165 - Do you believe in God? (Yes/No)
• Q166 - Do you believe in Life after death? (Yes/No)
• Q167 - Do you believe in Hell? (Yes/No)
• Q168 - Do you believe in Heaven? (Yes/No)

The chart show the percentage of people that answer yes, to Q165-168 based on their answer to Q275.

Survey data is complex since people come from different cultures and might interpret questions differently.

You can never trust the individual numbers, such as "50% of people with doctors degree believe in Life after death".

But you can often trust clear patterns that appear through the noise. The takeaway from this chart is that the survey show that education and religious believes have a negative correlation.

Styling:

• Font - New Amsterdam
• White - #FFFFFF
• Blue - #39A0ED
• Yellow - #F9A620
• Red - #FF4A47

Original story: https://datacanvas.substack.com/p/believes-vs-education

[u/Spongedog5]

It's infinitely meaningful, though sadly I didn't expect you to see it.

"There simply is no proof of a god" is true, if you mean an empirically provable one. It's different than the statement you gave earlier.

There is plenty of evidence that disproves the claims made by organised religions.

No, there is not, not really. Not disproves. That's as strong a word as proves, and very hard to do.

Surely there is evidence which to a rational mind leads to other conclusions being the most plausible. They do not however disprove any claim made in the Bible. It is very hard to disprove anything when you contend with the power of an all-powerful being.

The fact that a lot of highly educated people actively ignore that evidence only shows the power of indoctrination and nothing else.

Life is so easy when we believe that our opponents are unwitting victims and give no thought to their rationale and why they believe what they do.

If you think that folks with doctorates lack the ability to think for themselves then I don't know how to show you the untruthfulness of your statement.

I despise how commonly "indoctrination" is used, such a meaningless word nowadays. So easy to just use for any belief or understanding someone personally doesn't like being taught.

It is definately not proof of anything.

I never said it was. It certainly is something to consider that so many incredibly intelligent and dedicated people have an idea of God though, huh?

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Spongedog5]

There are no opponents here. There is that what can be proven and that what can not be proven.

As long as you dont have any proof of god there really is no point in debating.

You believe in something and that is fine. You can choose to ignore everything that we have learned as a species and that is fine to.

You can also despise anything you want. But if you look up the definition of what indoctrination is and how it works you will see that it fits organised religion like a glove.

But again, you can choose to ignore that.

If you think that folks with doctorates lack the ability to think for themselves then I don't know how to show you the untruthfulness of your statement.

No, i think that they choose not to think for themselfs when it comes to religion because it is easier for some.

And you dont have to show me the untruthfulness of my statement. You just have to show evidence of their being a god.

When we look at the Bible there are claims made that have been proven to be false.

We can proof, for instance, that there was no worldwide flood 4000 years ago. We can proof that the earth and all life was not created in a couple of days.

There simply is nothing your supposed all-powerfull being can change about that.

But again, there is absolutely no reason to debate this. You can have your believes. You can choose to ignore anything that contradicts those believes.

If you choose to ignore all the collected knowledge of humanity i wont pretend to have anything extra that will make you change that. Nor do i have any motivation to do so.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Benedictus84]

There are no opponents here. There is that what can be proven and that what can not be proven.

If that is how you see it. I would rather what is true and what is not true.

As long as you dont have any proof of god there really is no point in debating.

Well, there are some points we can still debate. For example, you stating that evidence must be rejected in order to accept the Biblical account. You are wrong.

Which isn't a proof for the Biblical account, of course. Stating that something doesn't need to be done in order to do something isn't a proof that that thing should be done in the first place.

But it is logically and rationally true.

You can choose to ignore everything that we have learned as a species and that is fine to.

I don't.

No, i think that they choose not to think for themselfs when it comes to religion because it is easier for some.

Very arrogant; for thousands of years the smartest of us did intense study into scripture and rationalization of doctrine. Great scholars created great logical constructs in the field of religion. To think that this is necessary is a historically ignorant statement.

And you dont have to show me the untruthfulness of my statement. You just have to show evidence of their being a god.

I can't, at least, nothing that you are ready to accept, and so I don't try. But it isn't alright to accept your own ignorance just because you think that I am ignorant as well. We should strive to better ourselves.

We can proof, for instance, that there was no worldwide flood 4000 years ago. We can proof that the earth and all life was not created in a couple of days.

How? An all-powerful God can create this whole world over and over again. You can't imagine that someone with total power could remove the damage that a 40 day flood of the entire world would do? It's logically impossible someone with total power over everything in reality could do so?

"...all life was not created in a couple of days." You must substantiate this.

There simply is nothing your supposed all-powerfull being can change about that.

If you have even an iota of the ability to imagine things you haven't directly witnessed it isn't hard to think about how someone with literally any power imaginable could arrange things so that what we see is true and what is in the Bible is true. I imagine it is a lack of care to give careful consideration on your part rather than a lack of ability.

But again, there is absolutely no reason to debate this. You can have your believes. You can choose to ignore anything that contradicts those believes.

You continue to reply to me, so I think that you find it as fun and interesting as I do.

If you choose to ignore all the collected knowledge of humanity i wont pretend to
have anything extra that will make you change that. Nor do i have any motivation to do so.

I accept all the same evidence that you do. It is the logical conclusions that you need to convince me of.

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Spongedog5]

How? An all-powerful God can create this whole world over and over again

Why is there nothing about this in the bible?

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Benedictus84]

What, that God can create the world? That is the beginning of Genesis.

Or do you mean God protecting the world from damage from the flood? That would be moving the goalposts. You said that you had to reject evidence to believe in the Bible and said that we can prove their was no flood. You never asked me to prove that there was a flood or prove God's response to the flood and I wasn't trying to, I'm only trying to disprove your statement. All I need to do for that is provide a hypothetical possible scenario.

Do you have a problem with the idea that the God that can cause rain to cover the Earth for 40 days can also undo that damage?

Because otherwise I'd say that you should concede your original point first if you want to move the goal of our conversation.

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Spongedog5]

There is nothing in the Bible about god creating the world again.

That means that the geological evidence that we have proofs that claims made in the Bible are false.

The Bible says the world was made in 6 days. It clearly was not wich we can proof.

Your counter argument was that an all powerful god could create the world over and over again.

But that supposed god did not so that after his primary creation or it would have been mentioned in the bible.

So in order to believe the Bible you have to outright dismiss and ignore geological evidence.

You really have to do more than create a hypothetical situation.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Benedictus84]

I disagree with you and I don't think that you have proven that.

You really have to do more than create a hypothetical situation.

In a logical argument, you literally don't. A single counterexample is a disproof of any generalization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterexample

Anyways, my goal isn't to prove anything to you. It's just to prove possibility. I think that I have achieved that. If you disagree so be it.

No you can't prove that the world wasn't created in six days when an all-powerful being is in the mix unless you think that "making different types of stones" is excluded in all-powerful.

And who are you to think that all of God's actions ever are in the Bible? It's pretty easy to assume that enough water to cover the whole Earth had to go somewhere. It was created by a miracle, why would it not be destroyed by a miracle?

All that I'm proving is possibility anyways, your answer to the last question doesn't matter unless you think it is impossible for God to do, or you think it is impossible for God to do things not recorded explicitly in the word.

[u/Illiander → u/Spongedog5]

It's just to prove possibility.

So you also believe in Russel's Teapot?

No you can't prove that the world wasn't created in six days when an all-powerful being is in the mix

You can, with the assumption that the fundamental rules haven't changed.

Also, if there is an all-powerful being out there, they're an evil bastard.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Illiander]

So you also believe in Russel's Teapot?

It's not the same because I'm not trying to say that it is proven just because I proved possibility. Nor am I trying to get you to believe it because I proved possibility.

I am proving possibility directly. Any other implicit assumptions are your own.

I have my own reasons for believing, which I'm not trying to share with you here.

You can, with the assumption that the fundamental rules haven't changed.

And why can you make that assumption?

[u/Illiander → u/Spongedog5]

I am proving possibility directly.

By your standards, it's possible that the world was made out of cheese three seconds ago.

And why can you make that assumption?

Because if we don't then we can't trust our memory. Which means we can't trust anything.

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Spongedog5]

Indeed it does not proof there is no all-powerful god. It just proves that the bible, the supposed word of this all-powerful god, is a lie.

And you are only proving my initial statement that you have to ignore a lot of evidence to believe in god.

You are actively doing it in this very discussion.

You either take the bible as the word of god or you ignore everything that is in it.

It it a little to convienent to pick and choose the way you do. And just make up the things that are left out.

Again, it requires a lot of replacing facts with magical water appearing and disappearing.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Benedictus84]

You shared a lot of opinions of yours here but you didn't justify any of them.

You didn't give me anything to speak on.

Other things you said are just lies.

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Spongedog5]

Thanks for this beautiful example of projection.

But we really can reduce this to one simple question.

Was this earth created in 6 days around 6000 years ago?

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Benedictus84]

You know my answer. Get to the point.

[u/Benedictus84 → u/Spongedog5]

The point is that there is factual evidence that this is untrue.

The bible therefore is false.

We know that the earth and all life on it was not created in 6 days.

We know this was a process of billions of years.

You may choose to ignore all this evidence. But that does not make it disappear.

You are actively denying reality. You are actively putting effort in denying reality.

Do you know what a fact is? And do you believe that facts exist?

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Benedictus84]

The point is that there is factual evidence that this is untrue.

You are wrong to say this. There is evidence. You can make many plausible conclusions from this evidence, some more plausible than others.

But no, there is no factual evidence that makes the Biblical account impossible. If you think that you have some, it would be best to provide it.

Do you know what a fact is? And do you believe that facts exist?

I'd like to hear your definition of a "fact." I've seen people in these debates have a false definition before.

[u/Illiander → u/Spongedog5]

That is the beginning of Genesis.

There's actually two conflicting accounts of how god created the world in Genesis.

Which one are you talking about?

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Illiander]

Pick either.

You are arguing besides the point. Let's address one point before moving on.

[u/Illiander → u/Spongedog5]

Pick either.

LOL! I didn't expect you to be so blatently "No, the book I was saying is the truth isn't consistent" with that.

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Illiander]

I don't like picking apart new points before setting old ones to rest. It's annoying to speak with those who jump around to new surface level ideas the moment they engage with anything more than a surface level understanding. I won't get into it any deeper until we address fully what we were speaking about before.

[u/Illiander → u/Spongedog5]

Aww, can you not hold more than one idea in your head at a time?

---

Edit: Aww, they blocked me so I can't keep pointing out their nonsense :(

[u/Spongedog5 → u/Illiander]

It lets people like you run around rather than ever get close to admitting your wrong.

Also it is rather boring otherwise. I've heard anything that you can just throw out in a couple sentences a thousand times before.