Almost 75% of Americans believe in Virgin Birth of Jesus

[darthearth]

A new Pew Research poll is out that describes the attitudes and views of Christmas held by the American public. I was most surprised at the near three quarters majority who believed in the virgin birth of Jesus. Astonishing isn't it? I would have expected far fewer but am happy to see it as I'm a Christian who believes in the virgin birth. Even 66% of 18-29 year olds.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/18/celebrating-christmas-and-the-holidays-then-and-now/

[Korashk]

It's a damn shame.

[conniption]

75% of Americans need to read a biology text book.

[LouBerry]

I think it's great. If you want to believe in something that gives you hope and makes your life happier, that's wonderful.

[Charlie48]

75% of 2,001 Americans..... Pretty minuscule sample there. 75% of Americans probably aren't Christians anyway.

[AgentHomo]

It's truly sad that 75% of all Americans are ignorant to scientific fact and still believe in some fairy tale imaginary being somehow born from a virgin vagina. I really hope in my lifetime I will see the downfall of religion and all the horrors it has plagued the world.

[Sanctum]

It's truly sad that 75% of all Americans are ignorant to scientific fact and still believe in some fairy tale imaginary being somehow born from a virgin vagina. I really hope in my lifetime I will see the downfall of religion and all the horrors it has plagued the world.

You probably cant assure yourself of why you are leaving or where you are gonna go after your death thats why you are uttering these words which are unfortunately common.

[Kahn]

It's truly sad that 75% of all Americans are ignorant to scientific fact and still believe in some fairy tale imaginary being somehow born from a virgin vagina. I really hope in my lifetime I will see the downfall of religion and all the horrors it has plagued the world.

Imagine God. Now forget everything you know about "him."

"How could they see anything but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads?"

[Sugaree]

75% of Americans need to read a biology text book.

Because the birth of Christ has any significance to the discipline of biology...how?

It's truly sad that 75% of all Americans are ignorant to scientific fact and still believe in some fairy tale imaginary being somehow born from a virgin vagina. I really hope in my lifetime I will see the downfall of religion and all the horrors it has plagued the world.

Correction: you want to see the downfall of Christianity because it has ONE thing you disagree with. You blew up that one thing in the Duck Dynasty thread in ROTW, and it's quite clear you're bigoted toward Christians, but I'm sure if it was a Buddhist who said that, you would then paint all Buddhists the same. I don't understand people like you. I don't know what's more unfortunate: the fact that religious bigots exist or the fact that anti-religion bigots exist.

[Emerald Dream]

Let's calm down and relax a little here.

This is VT Daily Chronicle, not Ramblings of the Wise. Although it's kind of sad that many people here have a "look, there is a thread about religion...let me go run out of my way to go bash it" attitude.

It's not a debate, and please don't make it one. There is plenty of that elsewhere.

To be honest though, I wouldn't take these poll results the least bit seriously (not to bash religion at all). Like stated earlier, the sample size for these questions was extremely small. You can skew whatever you want by picking and choosing who to ask.

[ksdnfkfr]

Yeah to me 75% of Americans means 235 million people.

[Josef_]

Now, I wonder what the numbers are for 14-19 year olds? Probably a lot lower than 66%, I'd concur. It seems to be the 'thing' to be Atheist, nowadays. Though when you approach someone (most I have, not everyone), they can't back up completely why they are atheist. Hmm.

[darthearth]

75% of 2,001 Americans..... Pretty minuscule sample there. 75% of Americans probably aren't Christians anyway.


......To be honest though, I wouldn't take these poll results the least bit seriously (not to bash religion at all). Like stated earlier, the sample size for these questions was extremely small. You can skew whatever you want by picking and choosing who to ask.


The sampling error was only 2.6 percent.

[Emerald Dream]

The sampling error was only 2.6 percent.

No one is going to get an accurate representation of America by only polling 2001 people, which is stated in the link:

"These are among the key findings of a new Pew Research Center survey conducted Dec. 3-8, 2013, among a representative sample of 2,001 adults nationwide."

That sample size is wayyyyyy too small to be taken the least bit seriously.

[conniption]

Because the birth of Christ has any significance to the discipline of biology...how?

I was referring to the fact that it'd be physically impossible for a virgin to get pregnant and give birth. A biology textbook would surely help these people understand how humans reproduce.

[darthearth]

No one is going to get an accurate representation of America by only polling 2001 people, which is stated in the link:

"These are among the key findings of a new Pew Research Center survey conducted Dec. 3-8, 2013, among a representative sample of 2,001 adults nationwide."

That sample size is wayyyyyy too small to be taken the least bit seriously.

Then perhaps you can inform the professionals at Princeton Survey Research Associates International. I'm sure they would love to know that their scientific statistical methods were in error.

[Miserabilia]

About the same percentage of americans that is overweight and can't point their own country on a map...

[tovaris]

Yeah thats because humans yust apere in the body of a wooman without any outside biological material.

[AgentHomo]

About the same percentage of americans that is overweight and can't point their own country on a map...

And support a bunch of redneck idiots on TV.

[Emerald Dream]

Then perhaps you can inform the professionals at Princeton Survey Research Associates International. I'm sure they would love to know that their scientific statistical methods were in error.

Not saying I agree or disagree with the so-called "results"...but this can in no way be taken seriously or as credible. You can pick and choose who you want to poll in a sample size that small.

Believe what you want, though. :)


ETA: oh wait, my mistake thinking that "Princeton" here had anything to do with Princeton University. They don't. This is just a company that uses the same name and does a lot of "random" polling over the telephone. Regardless, 2001 polled out of millions of people. Probably even less credible now, sorry.

[darthearth]

Not saying I agree or disagree with the so-called "results"...but this can in no way be taken seriously or as credible. You can pick and choose who you want to poll in a sample size that small.

Believe what you want, though. :)


ETA: oh wait, my mistake thinking that "Princeton" here had anything to do with Princeton University. They don't. This is just a company that uses the same name and does a lot of "random" polling over the telephone. Regardless, 2001 polled out of millions of people. Probably even less credible now, sorry.

I can't believe you are continuing with this. What qualifications have you to make these judgements? This was a Pew Research poll, they are highly respected!

Please inform us what the correct sample size should have been. Please give a scientific and statistical argument for that sample size and refute the methods of the professionals. Can't do this? Then I suggest you reexamine your remarks.

All polls I have ever read were of a comparable sample size. Have you forgotten the 2012 elections so soon? I doubt that you or I know anywhere near the statistical knowledge that Pew Research does. I'm the OP and ask that you absolutely stop making these remarks that appear to be completely unfounded on my thread.

[Emerald Dream]

I can't believe you are continuing with this.

Please inform us what the correct sample size should have been.

I'm the OP and ask that you absolutely stop making these ignorant remarks on my thread.

LOL make up your mind about whether I should respond or not. :)

Census figures (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)

So just going on 2012 statistics from the US Census...there are 313,914,040 people in the United States, 76.5% of which are adults. That would make roughly 240,144,200 people eligible for this poll.

2001 divided by 240,144,200 is 0.00000833.

So, 0.00000833% of eligible people in the United States were polled for this.

We'll let everyone else reading this determine whether this is scientific or credible. This is ridiculous to present as a representation of what America as a whole thinks.

And no, I am no longer "continuing with this." You responded to me, after all. Just because a polling company has a fancy name, doesn't make the poll credible or the ones conducting it "professional."

I am not saying what I believe as far as the poll goes. In fact, I would probably agree with some of it. However, with a lot of scientific discovery in the world over the years and the rise of digital information at everyone's fingertips (access to that scientific information)...some of these numbers are way too high. If I took my own "random" sample of 2001 people, I would get totally different numbers. In fact, everyone would get different numbers if they did their own poll with a sample size that microscopic.

I am not saying the idea is bad. I am just saying this poll is crap. It's just 2001 people. 0.00000833%. What sample size would I use? I don't know, because I am not qualified. These people shouldn't be either, just polling 2001 people.

I am trying to figure out what the 2012 elections have to do with anything. The pool for that is not everyone who is eligible to vote, but rather everyone who actually DID vote. You can't count votes from people who didn't vote....since they are not eligible to be counted.

I'll respect your wishes and not respond after this, though. Asking for a response and also asking for none is rather confusing, though.

[darthearth]

LOL make up your mind about whether I should respond or not. :)


I asked that you desist from making unfounded criticism, not that you should not respond at all.


So just going on 2012 statistics from the US Census...there are 313,914,040 people in the United States, 76.5% of which are adults. That would make roughly 240,144,200 people eligible for this poll.

2001 divided by 240,144,200 is 0.00000833.

So, 0.00000833% of eligible people in the United States were polled for this.

We'll let everyone else reading this determine whether this is scientific or credible. This is ridiculous to present as a representation of what America as a whole thinks.


It's called representative statistical sampling. Maybe you will actually learn about it sometime. I hope you do.


And no, I am no longer "continuing with this." You responded to me, after all. Just because a polling company has a fancy name, doesn't make the poll credible or the ones conducting it "professional."


You were continuing with unfounded comments. Comments you can not back up statistically. Again, Pew Research is highly respected in the industry, they are most definitely "professional".


I am not saying what I believe as far as the poll goes. In fact, I would probably agree with some of it. However, with a lot of scientific discovery in the world over the years and the rise of digital information at everyone's fingertips (access to that scientific information)...some of these numbers are way too high.

What does scientific discovery have to do with anything? If people believe in the Virgin Birth, I daresay they would consider it miraculous, is this not obvious? This also seems to indicate you attempt to challenge the statistical method because of your own disbelief that the result could be true given our "access to scientific information", since you choose to assert without appropriate foundation that "some of these numbers are way too high".



If I took my own "random" sample of 2001 people, I would get totally different numbers. In fact, everyone would get different numbers if they did their own poll with a sample size that microscopic.


There would be some limited variability yes. This is why poll averages are good. The sampling error on this poll again was only 2.6 percent. Which is very good.


I am not saying the idea is bad. I am just saying this poll is crap. It's just 2001 people. 0.00000833%. What sample size would I use? I don't know, because I am not qualified. These people shouldn't be either, just polling 2001 people.

You admit that you are not qualified regarding representative sampling, yet you claim it is "crap". Further you claim Pew Research isn't qualified to do what they are internationally known for. I can't believe it. :confused:


I am trying to figure out what the 2012 elections have to do with anything. The pool for that is not everyone who is eligible to vote, but rather everyone who actually DID vote. You can't count votes from people who didn't vote....since they are not eligible to be counted.


And the fact I was referring to tracking polls, not the final election outcome is completely missed.


I'll respect your wishes and not respond after this, though. Asking for a response and also asking for none is rather confusing, though.

I just didn't want to see any more unfounded attacks on the poll methodology. I would not have started a thread that wasted people's time by directing attention to a poll that should not be taken seriously to begin with, thank you.

[Camazotz]

LOL make up your mind about whether I should respond or not. :)

Census figures (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html)

So just going on 2012 statistics from the US Census...there are 313,914,040 people in the United States, 76.5% of which are adults. That would make roughly 240,144,200 people eligible for this poll.

2001 divided by 240,144,200 is 0.00000833.

So, 0.00000833% of eligible people in the United States were polled for this.

We'll let everyone else reading this determine whether this is scientific or credible. This is ridiculous to present as a representation of what America as a whole thinks.

And no, I am no longer "continuing with this." You responded to me, after all. Just because a polling company has a fancy name, doesn't make the poll credible or the ones conducting it "professional."

I am not saying what I believe as far as the poll goes. In fact, I would probably agree with some of it. However, with a lot of scientific discovery in the world over the years and the rise of digital information at everyone's fingertips (access to that scientific information)...some of these numbers are way too high. If I took my own "random" sample of 2001 people, I would get totally different numbers. In fact, everyone would get different numbers if they did their own poll with a sample size that microscopic.

I am not saying the idea is bad. I am just saying this poll is crap. It's just 2001 people. 0.00000833%. What sample size would I use? I don't know, because I am not qualified. These people shouldn't be either, just polling 2001 people...

75% of 2,001 Americans..... Pretty minuscule sample there. 75% of Americans probably aren't Christians anyway.

Hey, I can definitely see why you'd think that the sample size seems unreasonably small, but actually the sample size is very adequate. The Pew Research is a professional, reliable source for polling and gathering statistics. If you end up taking a stats course, you'd learn that the sampling method is more important than the actual sample size if conducted correctly, which you can learn more about here (http://www.dfrank.com/samplesize.htm). Again, not your fault, to a person that's never taken a statistics course, a sample size of 2,000 seems incredibly small, but it's statistically significant and the results are pretty accurate. However, there are potential biases of the way the research could have been conducted (such as the way the question was worded, or that not everyone has a phone in which they can be called by surveyors, etc.)

Anyway, to discuss the topic at hand, I don't have any strong feelings toward the issue. Yes, it's somewhat sad/pathetic to see that a majority of America actually believes that a child can generate in a woman's womb without sexual intercourse. As an atheist, I don't find this fact as troubling as the implications of this belief: people will believe just about anything from an ancient book influenced by an all-powerful being, even if it makes absolutely no scientific or empirical sense.

It's the same attitude that teaches the youth of today that evolution is "just a theory," causing parents to brainwash their children to question scientific evidence but not their own religious dogma. This causes the spread of ignorance, which leads to homophobia, racism, and sexism, among many other harmful beliefs.

About 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution. I sincerely hope by the time I'm old and on my deathbed, that percentage drops to around 2%.

[darthearth]

Yes, it's somewhat sad/pathetic to see that a majority of America actually believes that a child can generate in a woman's womb without sexual intercourse. As an atheist, I don't find this fact as troubling as the implications of this belief: people will believe just about anything from an ancient book influenced by an all-powerful being, even if it makes absolutely no scientific or empirical sense.



It's not so much believing that a child can generate in a womb without intercourse as it is believing that there is a deity that can make things like this happen. Not many would suggest it could have happened without supernatural influence, thus there is no real questioning of science here. And yes, there is a somewhat arbitrariness about which supernatural things are believed in. Like I don't believe in the great flood as written in Genesis because I see no evidence for it when evidence obviously should be easy to see in the geologic record, same reason I do not believe in the stories of the Book of Mormon, there is no archeological evidence that should evidently be there. I also don't believe in Jacob making animals with stripes by putting striped sticks in front of them when they mated or the talking donkey story. Stuff like that are just theologically unnecessary to me, they just seem like stories to tell the kids. Since I am a Christian, I view the virgin birth and physical resurrection as theologically necessary, therefore I believe in them upon the explicit action of a deity.

(insert all arguments for the physical resurrection of Jesus here)

If the resurrection happened then any of the miracles of the gospels could have happened including the virgin birth. But evidence for the resurrection would be another discussion.

[AgentHomo]

It's the same attitude that teaches the youth of today that evolution is "just a theory," causing parents to brainwash their children to question scientific evidence but not their own religious dogma. This causes the spread of ignorance, which leads to homophobia, racism, and sexism, among many other harmful beliefs.

About 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution. I sincerely hope by the time I'm old and on my deathbed, that percentage drops to around 2%.

This. I completely agree.
As for the percentage of people who don't believe in evolution, I would rather see it at 0% than 2%. But that would be the perfect world scenario.

[lijrobert]

I think, if this is an accurate representation of what Americans think, it makes sense. At least my home town, a lot of people still believe that the earth is very young and that God made the first humans no matter what religion they are. As I do live in Alabama, I'm probably exposed to more religious extremes than others, but still this does not shock me.

[sqishy]

Hey, I can definitely see why you'd think that the sample size seems unreasonably small, but actually the sample size is very adequate. The Pew Research is a professional, reliable source for polling and gathering statistics. If you end up taking a stats course, you'd learn that the sampling method is more important than the actual sample size if conducted correctly, which you can learn more about here (http://www.dfrank.com/samplesize.htm). Again, not your fault, to a person that's never taken a statistics course, a sample size of 2,000 seems incredibly small, but it's statistically significant and the results are pretty accurate. However, there are potential biases of the way the research could have been conducted (such as the way the question was worded, or that not everyone has a phone in which they can be called by surveyors, etc.)

Anyway, to discuss the topic at hand, I don't have any strong feelings toward the issue. Yes, it's somewhat sad/pathetic to see that a majority of America actually believes that a child can generate in a woman's womb without sexual intercourse. As an atheist, I don't find this fact as troubling as the implications of this belief: people will believe just about anything from an ancient book influenced by an all-powerful being, even if it makes absolutely no scientific or empirical sense.

It's the same attitude that teaches the youth of today that evolution is "just a theory," causing parents to brainwash their children to question scientific evidence but not their own religious dogma. This causes the spread of ignorance, which leads to homophobia, racism, and sexism, among many other harmful beliefs.

About 50% of Americans don't believe in evolution. I sincerely hope by the time I'm old and on my deathbed, that percentage drops to around 2%.

This. I completely agree.
As for the percentage of people who don't believe in evolution, I would rather see it at 0% than 2%. But that would be the perfect world scenario.

I agree totally, as well.