/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

[-]

Test levels are on average much lower now than in the past, meanwhile irreligiousity is at record highs.

Testosterone peaks in 20s and rapidly declined in 40s and can only be prevented through sex and strength training, the test levels of 50 to 80 year olds is irrelevant I imagine, most people leave church in their early 20s and come back in their 30s with kids

Interesting study though when you think of easy and jacob

>>655804

This tbh.

If you go to r/atheism or just watch at all the soybois in the left you got enough empirical data to prove otherwise.

High test guys tend to reproduce, soybois and neckbeards don't.

considering literally all numales are libral I really doubt that

Most modern churches are pussified.

They rejected masculinity in favour of decadent soft values.

>>655770

Ehh, sounds a bit too anecdotal, or at least folds into the myth of alpha male hubris. So looks more culturally conditioned and there is no attempt to remove that bias by comparison to a society with high religiosity.

For instance if I remember correctly, Rasputin, though not an example of an ideal Christian, though certainly deeply religious, was really hard to kill, and very strong. Therefore, though we can't evaluate his testosterone levels, it stands to reason that he was high test.

>>655969

All Orthodox clergy are high test

>>655972

Rasputin wasn't clergy nor a monk.

>>655770

Venerable Fulton Sheen talked about how to think about statistics. A great watch: https://youtu.be/FmMBLTz6Pp8

>>655806

>>655804

>>655770

One can argue that non-religion and atheism can be its own form of a religion, I would like to see how that fits into this 'study'.

>>655983

That a Christian belief?

>>655770

Pleasantly surprised by everyone in this thread, if ever you hear about a study whose conclusions are so obviously contrary to common sense, then don't even think twice about it until you see:

1) That the methodology (i.e. sample size, how they quantify "religiosity", normalization for age, race, urban vs rural, other confounding factors) is sound

2) If the methodology is sound, that it's conclusion has been reproduced, preferably multiple times (this basically never happens anymore, people in the cult of scientism really don't care about this disposable little tidbit of the scientific method anymore)

Until proven otherwise, social science should be taken as much more probably wrong than right. I forget the precise figure, but rates of reproducibility are well, well south of 50% for social science (and even the hard sciences for that matter).

>>657287

This as well. To define atheists as strictly irreligious is asinine, most are fervently religious, it's just that theirs is an insane secular religion that denies the supernatural a priori; one can see how zealous they are in their irrational commitment to materialism if ever presented arguments to the contrary.

>>655770

>m-muh dick

lmao@atheists