Atheism, Religion and related discussion


Not really. see if you read the study, the sample group is quite small:

The study fails to mention how many of these participants are Muslim (which is a huge oversight on their behalf since they then later claim in the summary that their study indicates something about Muslims). This not only highlights that the peer reviewing on this particular journal may not have been up to the expected standards (possibly due to shared biases) but also means the best way to estimate the size is to take the estimated percentage of the population (6%) and apply it to the overall pool.

That tells us that the results in the study were probably for 125.1 people, and we have no way of knowing how many of them may have been influenced by other factors shown in the study (being male for example) and that makes up about 0.00000781875% of the global Muslim population. So using this as a measure of Muslims as a whole is slightly less accurate than using myself and Watson as measures for what all Australians are like.

But, the issues with the study do not stop there. The study was conducted over a survey which asked very transparent questions:

Which relies upon an assumption of equal honesty by all participants, and not say it being a matter where some groups know that they’re not supposed to say certain things that they believe in on an official record. They may be raving homophobic lunatics at home or when at a political rally, but know that publicly they need to present an image of being above having biases etc. (Also known as the Shy Tory Factor)

So this could be simply be the adolescent Muslims in Belgium are more honest than the others.

This is why you should always share your sources, they may not be as reliable as you think.


Here is some interesting facts about Islam and Christianity :smiley:

The Koran vs The Bible:


“The Religion of Peace” isn’t a very good site to use, to be honest. From their homepage, they describe their doctrine as: “TROP is a non-partisan, fact-based site which examines the ideological threat that Islam poses to human dignity and freedom,” which of course is complete nonsense.

Edit: lol, beat me to it with your edit.


Agree, i just read it :flushed:, i will remove it from my post.

Hahaha i read it at the same time as you, will search some more, because i don’t know if Islam is worse or better than Christianity when it comes to homosexuality.


I knew from the Title when It said, that it would be kinda one sided and biased but i was surprised it does a much better job than most of the christian websites out there although still it shows its turns.

I take most of the info from Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and other sources of universities. Like Howard school of divinity and University of Jerusalem both have good sources. You can be calm about other bullshit not being there since things are in an academic format.


It’s a interesting subject, from what i understand the Koran and the Bible is very similar when it comes to homosexuality, so it’s hard to say who is worse or better to how the religion is treating homosexuals.

But in some counties like Iran islamic laws is harsh or strict, more than the Koran is saying, i just read about this in a norwegian online newspaper site:

So i will think be a homosexual in Iran is not easy :flushed:, but i don’t know if other muslim countries is worse than christian countries when it comes to homophobia.


One of the big fallacies of trying to compare the Qu’ran with the Bible or the Torah is that generally all the sects who use these books have their own approaches and own additional texts.

The Catholic Church has libraries of additional texts with rules, ideas, etc and those have changed over time.
Jews have many, many texts and are very up front that even their Rabbis can’t agree on how to interpret them all or what approach is best.
Islam has the Haddiths, which number in the thousands and often somewhat contradictory.

On top of this, there is the general tendency for groups to debate what the core message or goal is, for example many people of all these faiths argue that many of the taboos are either misinterpretations of text or wildly outdated (for example, pork is no longer unsafe to eat due to modern food processing).

Ultimately it’s very hard to accurately list all the differences simply because of the wide diversity within the group and even double standards there. For example being gay in Saudi Arabia is, indeed, very dangerous - unless you’re a Saudi Prince in which case it’ll be overlooked and the worst that’ll happen is you’ll be encouraged to keep your proclivities to out of country trips.


The studies posted are from the university of Antwerp and the university of Leuven. It has been published in peer reviewed journals. It has been discussed in other articles as well.

I’m not saying you are wrong, that your criticisms are invalid, as my knowledge is limited in this subject. But to discard these studies on those items is a bridge to far, I think. As I said, it has been quoted and used in many other articles. Also, the other articles show the same result, it’s not just this one.

And that’s just an assumption.


Peer review, particularly on “soft sciences” like sociology, psychology, etc is far from infallible. The peers are humans and thus have biases, agendas, etc. So if the people sent to review assume, like many people do, that Muslims are more homophobic then they are less likely to challenge a study that says Muslims are more homophobic. (Particularly when there are papers written during the same period about the rise of Islamophobia in Belgian government and institutions)

I have friends who do peer reviews, and frankly I don’t think they would have approved this one due to the lack of clarity on the information such as how many students were in each group and which groups had the most and least overlap.

I mean just last year there was a study that said Psychology studies are super unreliable and then a year later a study came out that said the study about unreliable studies was unreliable. And of course, there was the Cello Scrotum issue (as hilarious as it sounds)

But you yourself discarded them when people pointed out they show men are more likely to be homophobic. What I’ve done is not discard them, but challenge them and point out potential problems. This is what the peer reviewers were supposed to do, but in this case failed to do, and thus resulted in the publication of a less than robust study.

No, an assumption would be me saying “The Muslim subjects were just more honest”. What I wrote is speculation that could be a hypothesis if you could work out a reliable instrument to test it (and then get funding and cooperation to do the testing).

And important part of studies, which again, is a responsibility of the people doing the study and the peer review, is to consider as many alternative theories as possible and to either account for them in the study (they made no effort to do so) or bring them up in the study with an expression that they should be explored before the study is felt to be a conclusive review.

There are doubtlessly many interesting things people could learn by studying what sociological factors correlate with homophobia in all it’s many forms, but this study you cited doesn’t substantiate this claim:

Which was the actual point.


I believe that to be %1000 true.


I feel like you’re ignoring the context here. The studies have to be valid for them to be valid proof of a claim. If I’m not allowed to dispute something I know to be spurious evidence in an argument then what the fuck is the point of the debate?


i don’t normally call people out on logical fallacies, but this is an appeal to authority. because they are sociologists and researchers, i cannot question their study?

god’s not real. i can say that because this is a thread about religion and atheism and therefore not off topic huehuehuehuehuehue

in all seriousness, these researchers aren’t god and are human so… again, they are not perfect


I have no qualms with people saying they believe or don’t believe in a higher power. The only true fact here is that none of us will likely ever know either way while we’re alive on this earth. It is not something that can be proven or disproven. So I will not take a big ol dump on anyone’s personal belief on the subject.


Incorrect. People claim that you should not make amazing claims (such as a generalization about 1.6 billion people) without extraordinary proof. Someone claimed there were multiple peer reviewed studies proving that Muslims more homophobic. They were asked to provide the studies so that people can review the claims themselves. When challenged they are able to produce one study that:

  1. Did not study all Muslims, only an unspecified number of adolescent Muslims in Belgium
  2. Did not prove anything, rather made inferences based off responses to a simple survey with a transparent goal and no protection/control questions to guard against misleading responses
  3. States in the study that it is only focusing on a particular group of Muslims (adolescents in Belgium) during a specific time (2008 - 2011) looking for a general trend

The study does not prove what was originally claimed and has many weaknesses that should be considered before we credit it with “proving” anything. Peer review does not mean a source is beyond critique, rather it is simply a method that is meant to provide a basis level of quality control and reduce the number of unreliable studies published.

If there was an understanding they were not to be challenged then scientific process as we know it could not continue since much of it involves challenging well established models and offering a better resolution.

Assumptions that simply pointing to a piece of paper and claiming it is infallible and indisputable are not really helpful for anyone whether they’re religious fundamentalists or people who just believe whatever they’re told so long as “a study” says it’s true.


First it was source required.
Then it was studies.
Then it was peer review studies.
Then somewhere in there came talk of peer reviewed studies by reputable universities.

I’m not saying the info provided is iron clad and proven to be absolutely beyond reproach but you can pick apart just about any study ever done with the constant moving of goal posts and ever changing requirements. When someone is that stuborn to even CONSIDER an alternate idea to their own, there’s just no point in even discussing it with them.


We are considering it.


Someone’s not.


I said to provide the studies so we can see them, then did the rest. The only person I see citing the prestige of the university’s is the people who don’t want the study’s challenged or actually analysed.

The studies in this case, are extremely unreliable and do not in any way shape or form prove the initial claim made. So nobody is going to be convinced by them.

Perhaps a better point to focus on is that the people who want the studies to be held up as proof that they are right should have considered the alternatives. They should have considered the study didn’t review a large sample size, they should have considered that the study didn’t provide complete data, they should have considered the study used a an unreliable instrument, etc.

Before you demand others “at least consider” your point of view you should take the time to consider it yourself and then consider people’s criticisms of it.

This literally did not happen - what happened was someone made an extraordinary claim then provided a study that failed to prove it. The goal post, as quoted in my post, was always the same. Perhaps you should have taken the time to consider that before posting.

Also yes, you can pick apart any study ever done - that’s kind of the point of publishing them. Studies do not exist so that people on the Internet can announce their biases are fact now, they exist so they can be analysed, built up upon and be helpful to science, society and the useful arts.

I have given the opposing side far more consideration than they have mine, given I’ve cited numerous additional texts they can review and now all you are doing is saying that it’s not fair that linking to a random study doesn’t mean everyone has to agree with you without question. You can actually learn things from reading my posts, you aren’t going to learn anything from people posting that if they aren’t considered right all the time it’s not fair.

If you don’t want to participate in the discussion, don’t post. If you don’t like people discussing the topic, don’t click on the thread. The forum does not exist to be a podium for people to shout their biases and then demand that they be accepted as fact.


Never said that. Did post.

Never said that either. Clicked on thread.

Happens all the time in every thread.

The rest…well…whatever.


Obviously I understand that the outcome of scientific studies aren’t absolute and they should be challenged. I neither agree or disagree with the reports in question, and I don’t care greatly about the topic. I just find it amusing that they were requested as if published studies are the only credible source of information. If I recall Quinn even made a somewhat dubious comment that it had to be peer-reviewed. It doesn’t matter because it seems people were only interested in scrutinising their findings and criticising the method. People, who I might add, aren’t themselves publishers or peer reviewers of scientific material. Now that’s their right, but when you’re accusing scientists of having an agenda I would recommend you first consider yourself. I am willing to believe there is no weight of evidence that could convince certain members of this forum to sway from their opinions. So I ask this, why bother requesting studies in the first place? If you’re going to criticise something you should at least attempt to identify both it’s faults and merits.

On another note why was my comment flagged?