The Atheism Thread

[mtnbiker]

in another dimension an apostrophe is proper grammar for plural

Not in any dimensions I'm associated with.

[Flystripper]

Not in any dimensions I'm associated with.

Clack is in all dimensions...infinite... all is possible and everything means nothing

[clackamascoug]

I know you guyes mo... don't have a good reply to an answer... and you revert to grammar bullying.

Just another day around here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I know you guyes mo... don't have a good reply to an answer... and you revert to grammar bullying.

Just another day around here.

I just posted it as an FYI. I report, you decide.

[Clark Addison]

First Sunday in I don't know how long where BYU has a big win and Utah a loss, and church is canceled. There is no God.

[MartyFunkhouser]

First Sunday in I don't know how long where BYU has a big win and Utah a loss, and church is canceled. There is no God.

Welcome. Let's talk starter beer styles.

[Jeff Lebowski]

LOL at you atheists and non-believers.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...RwiGWiV03m3BFs

The more religious that married couples are and the more they engage in faith-related activities at home, the happier they say they are with their sex lives, according to a new study by researchers at BYU and Baylor University.

[Northwestcoug]

LOL at you atheists and non-believers.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...RwiGWiV03m3BFs

I worship at the temple of my wife's body. Does that count?

[MartyFunkhouser]

LOL at you atheists and non-believers.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...RwiGWiV03m3BFs

I'm a believer, so this does not apply to me. RNGesus' randomness is sufficient for us all.

[wuapinmon]

LOL at you atheists and non-believers.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/...RwiGWiV03m3BFs

"Although results are cross-sectional and sequential causation should not be inferred, such mediation is consistent with the relational spirituality framework. This framework asserts that marital sanctification and religious activity contribute to the maintenance of family relationships. In this particular study, sanctification and in-home religious activities were associated with marital dynamics (relationship maintenance behaviors and spousal time) and protective relational beliefs (commitment), which were then associated with sexualsatisfaction. Such mediation may explain why religiosity and marital sexualsatisfaction may be linked despite being seemingly unrelated constructs. Religious activity or sanctification may not directly relate to the sexual functioning and satisfaction of couples. Instead, religiosity might change the marital scripts of spouses. It might encourage them to shift their marital dynamics toward attitudes and behaviors that enhance intimacy generally and sexual functioning specifically within the relationship. Put another way, joint religious activities and sanctification may provide a foundation on which marriedcouples can build and maintain meaningful and positive interactions with each other (Mahoney, 2010). Such positive interactions will likely benefit such couples in many areas of their lives, including their sexual intimacy.As we discuss these findings, we should acknowledge, however, that the association between religiosity and sexual satisfaction have small magnitudes. The indirect relationship magnitudes from spouses’ religious variables to participants’ sexual satisfaction were likewise small. We will discuss this issue further in the limitations section."

[falafel]

I'm a believer, so this does not apply to me. RNGesus' randomness is sufficient for us all.

Yeah, but you worship RNGesus with your son. This study is about couples.

[tooblue]

"Although results are cross-sectional and sequential causation should not be inferred, such mediation is consistent with the relational spirituality framework. This framework asserts that marital sanctification and religious activity contribute to the maintenance of family relationships. In this particular study, sanctification and in-home religious activities were associated with marital dynamics (relationship maintenance behaviors and spousal time) and protective relational beliefs (commitment), which were then associated with sexualsatisfaction. Such mediation may explain why religiosity and marital sexualsatisfaction may be linked despite being seemingly unrelated constructs. Religious activity or sanctification may not directly relate to the sexual functioning and satisfaction of couples. Instead, religiosity might change the marital scripts of spouses. It might encourage them to shift their marital dynamics toward attitudes and behaviors that enhance intimacy generally and sexual functioning specifically within the relationship. Put another way, joint religious activities and sanctification may provide a foundation on which marriedcouples can build and maintain meaningful and positive interactions with each other (Mahoney, 2010). Such positive interactions will likely benefit such couples in many areas of their lives, including their sexual intimacy.As we discuss these findings, we should acknowledge, however, that the association between religiosity and sexual satisfaction have small magnitudes. The indirect relationship magnitudes from spouses’ religious variables to participants’ sexual satisfaction were likewise small. We will discuss this issue further in the limitations section."

As a professor of languages, why do you believe they used the terms "small magnitudes?" Isn't a magnitude, small or otherwise immense?

For example, couldn't it be said that the Great Salt Lake is a body of water of small magnitude, as compared to Lake Michigan.

IMO, you undermine your attempt to undermine by highlighting that particular sentence.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Yeah, but you worship RNGesus with your son. This study is about couples.

We are both religious. She also is a disciple of RNGesus, although I am more faithful. We engage in faith based activities in our home multiple times a day (i.e. clicking on a Pokemon to see if it is shiny). The study does apply to us.

[Bo Diddley]

"Although results are cross-sectional and sequential causation should not be inferred, such mediation is consistent with the relational spirituality framework. This framework asserts that marital sanctification and religious activity contribute to the maintenance of family relationships. In this particular study, sanctification and in-home religious activities were associated with marital dynamics (relationship maintenance behaviors and spousal time) and protective relational beliefs (commitment), which were then associated with sexualsatisfaction. Such mediation may explain why religiosity and marital sexualsatisfaction may be linked despite being seemingly unrelated constructs. Religious activity or sanctification may not directly relate to the sexual functioning and satisfaction of couples. Instead, religiosity might change the marital scripts of spouses. It might encourage them to shift their marital dynamics toward attitudes and behaviors that enhance intimacy generally and sexual functioning specifically within the relationship. Put another way, joint religious activities and sanctification may provide a foundation on which marriedcouples can build and maintain meaningful and positive interactions with each other (Mahoney, 2010). Such positive interactions will likely benefit such couples in many areas of their lives, including their sexual intimacy.As we discuss these findings, we should acknowledge, however, that the association between religiosity and sexual satisfaction have small magnitudes. The indirect relationship magnitudes from spouses’ religious variables to participants’ sexual satisfaction were likewise small. We will discuss this issue further in the limitations section."

What I don't get is why they say not to infer causation, and then make a case for indirect causation.

[wuapinmon]

As a professor of languages, why do you believe they used the terms "small magnitudes?" Isn't a magnitude, small or otherwise immense?

For example, couldn't it be said that the Great Salt Lake is a body of water of small magnitude, as compared to Lake Michigan.

IMO, you undermine your attempt to undermine by highlighting that particular sentence.

Well, since they discuss those facts as limitations of the study and their conclusions, I'd disagree. As for your question about the meaning of magnitude, while it might mean that in an etymological sense of meg/magnus- and -tude (abstract noun suffix) = greatness, it's long been a synonym in scientific literature (especially astronomy) for size, and it's a straight synonym when discussing the "magnitude" of an earthquake. Now, you could make an argument that those uses (stars and earthquakes) are chosen due to the immense size/weight/energy of things being measured, but this is talking about effect size of marriage and religiosity on sexual satisfaction in a social science research paper. I'd say that small magnitude in those terms reflects on the magnitude (size) of the phenomenon being studied.
There was also this:

tooblue.jpg