Talk:Bible Belt/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 6 July 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

I also have friends

I also have friends that grew up near Sherman who can confirm that the fundamentalism runs deep there. Thankfully, I currently live and study in Austin, a nice enclave of non-fundies (though "non-fundy" does not necessarily equate with "rational"). OneForLogic 13:29, 2 September 2008 (EDT)

I’ve compared Slave states with the Bible Belt and there’s no question that they’re connected. I can’t prove or disprove the claim that no morality except sexual morality counted in the Bible Belt.

First, the true believer must have an unquestioning faith in the religious teachihngs of their church, usually expressed as an unquestioning adherence to the Bible as most helpfully interpreted by that Christian church, even if that unquestioning faith required one to suspend his willingness to reason and his ability to accept reality and facts. Second, morality was solely defined as (women's) sexual fidelity, augmented at times with an injunction for men to support their wives and children, in return, of course, for their unconditionaly obedience. As always, the rich and powerful were exempt from both of these rules. [1]

They certainly attack enthusiastically a wide range of sins today. Proxima Centauri 15:51, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Not sure what you are going on about, but that "reference" is just someone's essay. And it's full of typos. ħuman 19:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

Rewrite Needed

Low-quality snark - Snark spread irregularly, giving a disjointed feeling - Statements lacking citations - Information laid out badly - - - - I may attempt a rewrite soon but I'm a newbie (to editing) and could use help. Madattak (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This article does not come close to meeting the standards for something called a "rational wiki". If the author is so ignorant he is unaware of the Ecological Fallacy, which is what his stupid inferences are based on, he should not be writing here. If you want to know if fundamentalist Christians have a higher divorce rate than the mean for the country, you would need to look at divorce rates for fundamentalist Christians, not try to make an inference based on aggregate state-level divorce statistics for states where fundamentalist Christians are more common than elsewhere. You would also need to be rigorous in your definition of what constitutes a fundamentalist Christian, say distinguishing persons who attend church regularly and live their faith from people who, when asked, just say "I'm a Baptist" because they were brought up in a Baptist family. And if you are really interested in the differential effect, you would need a multivariate model to excise variance caused by being an observant Christian from other variables that contribute to divorce. But given that this whole Wiki is obviously written by liberal arts dufuses, I have no real expectation such a thing would be done. 151.151.109.19 (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

This argument smacks of moving the goalposts; basic but valid analysis shows that religiosity is correlated with divorce, so your reply is "do moar analysis". No, you want to counter it, you put in the work. CorruptUser (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Not bronze-worthy

This entire article has some serious issues. If no one objects, I am going to remove the bronzebrain pending a full rewrite. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 13:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate real quick? Тy^Talk. 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) You have my support. Some of it is a bit silly. I think RW is now mature enough to do these articles in serious detail.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It is silly, and I agree to the rewrite. I just wanted to know what he is planning. Тy^Talk. 13:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on anything too major; the article just seems poorly written in general IMO. Maybe it's just me. I see a few typos and cheap conservapedia-like ad hominem cheap shots that could be worded better at least. I can work on it when I get behind a real computer (I'm on my phone now). PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 13:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)