Googling For God. - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Googling For God. (2884 Views)
Difference Between Working For God And Working For Church / Seun, Finally I Want To Give You An Undeniable Proof For God's Existence. / Lady Without Legs Backs Her Baby, Leads A Praise Session For God. Pics Go Viral (2) (3) (4)
| Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 1:33pm On Sep 23, 2015 |
Visit New York times url below for more statistical analysis. Pretty interesting. www.nytimes.com/2015/09/20/opinion/sunday/seth-stephens-davidowitz-googling-for-god.html?referrer= IT has been a bad decade for God, at least so far. Despite the rising popularity of Pope Francis, who was elected in 2013, Google searches for churches are 15 percent lower in the first half of this decade than they were during the last half of the previous one. Searches questioning God’s existence are up. Many behaviors that he supposedly abhors have skyrocketed. Porn searches are up 83 percent. For heroin, it’s 32 percent. How are the Ten Commandments doing? Not well. “Love thy neighbor” is the most common search with the word “neighbor” in it, but right behind at No. 2 is “neighbor porn.” The top Google search including the word “God” is “God of War,” a video game, with more than 700,000 searches per year. The No. 1 search that includes “how to” and “Walmart” is “how to steal from Walmart,” beating all questions related to coupons, price-matching or applying for a job. Of course, we should be careful not to draw overarching conclusions about religion from what people search for on Google. Even decades-long search trends might not reflect real developments, and the composition of people making searches changes over time. Although I think it is pretty clear that various trends are pointing away from God, the best evidence is probably not the search data I started with but long-term polling data, which has consistently shown an increase in the number of people who identify as atheists or agnostics. While the usual sources are biased in favor of wholesome activities, Internet data is probably biased in favor of debauched activities. That said, search data is illuminating. In fact, the patterns we see reflected there are much stronger than just about anybody expected when researchers first started looking into it. If people somewhere are searching a lot about a topic, it is overwhelming evidence those people are very interested in that topic. Jambalaya recipes are searched mostly in Louisiana; Lakers statistics are searched mostly in Los Angeles; “Seth Stephens-Davidowitz” is searched mostly on my computer. hat said, search data is illuminating. In fact, the patterns we see reflected there are much stronger than just about anybody expected when researchers first started looking into it. If people somewhere are searching a lot about a topic, it is overwhelming evidence those people are very interested in that topic. Jambalaya recipes are searched mostly in Louisiana; Lakers statistics are searched mostly in Los Angeles; “Seth Stephens-Davidowitz” is searched mostly on my computer. In a way, these examples are surprising because you might think that people who know the most would have the least reason to search. But that’s not the way it actually plays out. A high volume of searches by people who already have the most information holds true for religious searches, too. Searches related to the Bible, God, Jesus Christ, church and prayer are all highly concentrated in the Bible Belt. They rise on Sunday everywhere. Sometimes Google search data, because of Google’s status as a kind of universal question service, is perfectly suited to give us fresh insights into our offline lives. Consider this one: What questions do people have when they are questioning God? People may not share their doubts with friends, relatives, rabbis, pastors or imams. They inevitably share them with Google. Every year, in the United States, there are hundreds of thousands of pointed questions, most of them coming from the Bible Belt. The No. 1 question in the country is “who created God?” Second is why God allows suffering. This is the famous problem of evil. If God is all powerful and all good, how could he allow suffering? The third most-asked question is why does God hate me? The fourth is why God needs so much praise. This struck home. Here’s a quick story from Stephens family lore to explain why. At the age of 11, my father’s father asked his rabbi, “If God is so special, why does he need so much praise?” Disappointed with the answer, he stood up, walked out of shul and never returned. Thus began a three-generation male Stephens tradition of making elaborate, over-the-top gestures, having these gestures quickly forgotten by the outside world, and proudly telling these stories over and over again at the dinner table, to eye-rolling girlfriends and wives. We can correlate religious doubts to the geography of suffering. Where there is more pain and unhappiness, are people more likely to ask why God allows suffering? The answer is no. Places with lower life expectancies and more poverty are more religious and thus have more questions about religion in general. But the questions in hard-luck places are not tilted toward the problem of evil, relative to other concerns searchers have about religion. The proportions are the same. Not only is “who created God?” the top question nationally, it is also the top question in every state. Some religious people, most famously Job, have asked why God has made their lives so difficult. Now we have evidence on what challenges elicit such questions. What is the most common word to complete the following question: Why did God make me ___? No. 1, by far, is “ugly.” The other sad answers in the top three are “gay” and “black.” In the United States, there is more interest in heaven than in hell, at least based on searches. There are 1.5 times more searches for “heaven” than “hell,” 2.8 times as many searches asking what heaven looks like than what hell looks like, and 2.75 times as many searches asking whether heaven is real than whether hell is real. Things get really interesting when we look at these patterns among people closer to death. Take the 10 cities with at least 10,000 inhabitants with the largest populations over 65. In these cities, the census tells us that an average of 65 percent of the population is over 65; Facebook tells us that an average of 30 percent of its members in these cities are over 65; and Google tells us the most common word in a search for “diapers” is “adult.” So a significant fraction of Internet searches in these places is from the elderly. Relative to the rest of the country, for every search I looked at, retirement communities search more about hell. In retirement communities, there are a similar number of searches asking to see visuals of hell as visuals of heaven. What happened to religious searches during the four harrowing days in Boston after the marathon bombing in April of 2013? Searches related to “prayer” went up fourfold. I found this very natural and obvious: When tragedy strikes, people turn to prayer. No surprise there, right? One problem: Almost all these searches were of a very specific kind, “pray for Boston,” a phrase created for the occasion, and many people were curious about what this meant. Search rates for the Bible and God were slightly lower during these days. In Boston, total searches for news went up 50 to 160 percent over these tense days. Total searches for religion dropped a bit THIS appears to be a strikingly robust result, and is not limited to liberal cities like Boston. When very bad things happen around the world, people search for news; they do not search for prayers, the Bible, the Quran or anything related to religion. I looked at the war in Ukraine, the civil war in Syria, the tsunami in Japan, and the 2014 Israel-Gaza conflict. In every instance, in the affected country, searches for news increased by between 90 and 280 percent. The top religious searches, be they the “Bible,” “Quran,” “God,” “Allah” or “prayer,” tended to drop or stay about the same. Does this mean that when tragedies strike, people focus on getting information and spend little time praying? I have to believe this is a limitation of search data, that actual prayers rise during tragedies, and that searches just do not capture this behavior. If nothing else, it is a puzzle, as everything I thought I knew about the world and search data led me to expect the opposite. In the era before digital data, there were debates about the relative popularity of celebrities and deities, most famously when John Lennon claimed that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus. Lennon didn’t live long enough to compare Google search counts. Today, it is pretty clear that Jesus does not get the most attention, at least online. There are 4.7 million searches every year for Jesus Christ. The pope gets 2.95 million. There are 49 million for Kim Kardashian. Even if you add searches for crosses and related topics, Ms. Kardashian is still ahead. On social media, it’s the same story. Ms. Kardashian has 26.3 million likes on Facebook; Jesus has 5.6 million; the pope, 1.7 million. This is hardly definitive proof that Kim Kardashian is more popular than Jesus or Pope Francis, or that this country now worships at the altar of the Kardashians, but the differences are nonetheless striking. 3 Likes
|
| Re: Googling For God. by wiegraf: 2:31pm On Sep 23, 2015 |
 |
| Re: Googling For God. by hahn(m): 5:39pm On Sep 23, 2015 |
Interesting. |
| Re: Googling For God. by Dekatron(m): 12:51am On Sep 24, 2015 |
As in, SUPER INTERESTING 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 4:17am On Sep 24, 2015 |
Unfortunately, we don't know for sure if the article is true or false. The NYTimes can lie or falsify/manipulate data/stories just to push an Atheist agenda. 1 Like |
| Re: Googling For God. by wiegraf: 6:21am On Sep 24, 2015 |
italo: You expect such blatant dishonesty? Maybe you mistake them for the catholic church? Or do you remain hopeleslelselselselsy deluded and beyond redemption? You'll throw in the outrage card and claim I'm mocking you. However, I honestly cannot see how a thinking person would miss the obvious inference that [url=http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=jesus%2C%20%2Fm%2F0261x8t&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1]he's using data freely available to he public.[/url] As, among other things, he doesn't work for google, and there very likely are other various bodies observing such traffic. It also should be rather clear this is just the authors column/blog on the site, and his views are in no way necessarily the official stance of nytimes, or even endorsed by them. He might not be on their payroll. He might not even be receiving any sort of direct instructions per se. As they write there nytimes: Common practice on such sites really. there are likely xtians within their network as well. they are very welcome to reply and "push their agenda" as well. Why are you even afraid of his "agenda" that exists only in your head? Or are you paranoid as well as deluded? God and god of war.... |
| Re: Googling For God. by kevoh(m): 6:30am On Sep 24, 2015 |
Nice unbiased article! I still don't understand what the Americans enjoy/obsess about the Kardashians though! |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 8:04am On Sep 24, 2015 |
italo: This article is the product of google statistical analysis of searched wordings as keyed in by users of google search engine. It is not just am article written by a person supporting theistic or atheistic agenda which can easily be on bias payroll but rather a mathematical calculation of the number of keyed in words undertaken by Google search engine itself. It is like saying that [url]alexa.com[/url] is wrong in its calculation of the number of visitors or traffic in a site. NYTimes has been known for being unbiased or less biased media organization. Moreover, You are the one trying to be bias here because, your intent and presuppositions are not well represented the level you are expecting. 1 Like |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 9:18am On Sep 24, 2015 |
wiegraf: You don't need to attack my person, you just have to attack my argument. How can you do that? By proving the following that Google cannot manipulate and falsify the data put forward. Or are you saying Internet data like this cannot and has never been falsified or manipulated? |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 9:25am On Sep 24, 2015 |
menesheh: Let me get you straight. Are you saying that Google, Alexa and NYTimes cannot lie/falsify/manipulate such data? I'm not biased because I didn't say categorically that they are false. I only said we don't know for sure if it's true or false...because big organizations can and do lie/falsify/manipulate all sorts of data to either push an agenda or make profit. e.g Volkswagen...and there are countless more. You're the one who is biased if you can't recognize that I can legitimately doubt what Google says. |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 11:38am On Sep 24, 2015 |
italo: They can actually be bias but such bias may arise during the process of vetting such article for publication, of which every reputable media organizations are fight against such biases. |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 12:45pm On Sep 24, 2015 |
menesheh: At least you are honest. I commend you. However, I put it to you that many "reputable" Media houses have deep-seated bias entrenched in their character and operations... ...and many "reputable" organizations/scientists deliberately lie/manipulate/falsify scientific data just to spread lie as "facts" to push a selfish agenda. Do you agree or disagree? |
| Re: Googling For God. by Nobody: 1:44pm On Sep 24, 2015 |
 |
| Re: Googling For God. by wiegraf: 2:59pm On Sep 24, 2015 |
italo: You see attack where? I know you think I'm satan but my simple point was that only a deluded or paranoid fellow would jump to these your conclusions. Or one used to such, eg a catholic used to being fed lies by his masters. Abi can you show me an instance of google manipulating it's search trend results?? Btw, nice to see you've shifted from "NYtimes is conspiring against jesus" to "google is conspiring against jesus". this even after I pointed out that the article wasn't published by google (abi is he employed by google?), and that his views are not necessarily those of NYtimes. But no, I'm sure google is doctoring results just to make it seem like jesus is becoming less popular. And only in the US and other first world countries. they also employed Judas 2000 years ago to betray jesus, even if that whole story is fictional. At least, you seem to be suggesting that no xtians are smart enough to work for google or be in a position there to catch their filthy lies... And once again, they likely aren't the only ones monitoring web activity. there's a whole industry built around avoiding trackers via a variety of means (see ad blockers, ghotsery etc). Advertisers, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29]govt agencies[/url], rivals of sotrs all get in on the action in some form or the other. the author even uses facebook data in there, no? Is facebook also in on the conspiracy? Were facebook also responsible for faking the apollo moon landings and the grinch stealing xmas? Sure, all this data may not be strictly of the same sort (actually, some are supersets of google searches, especially those of gov agencies, but we can ignore that), and not all of it may be readily available to the public even for a fee, but that should tell you something about doctoring such results. And do feel free to use their data to counter the authors opinions and/or google's/facebook's data. Don't worry, we aren't paranoid and therefore won't see a conspiracy. Lemme guess, your response. All this will fly right by you and..... you: Don't bother as I've done it for you 1 Like |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 10:49pm On Sep 24, 2015 |
italo: I agreed with you that some media organizations are sometimes be biased in their reports and publications doesn't mean that most of them are not trying their possible best to be less bias. The likes of BBC, NY TIMES, ETC. Of which, you can't doubt the fact that most media organizations are almost unbiased or approaching to that height.
[b]Coming to scientific investigations and the application of methodological naturalism; bringing up bias in the process of such models like laying hypothesis, falsification, criticism and doubt and peer review, makes you demonstrably ignorant to such models. Moreover, what's your main reasons for bringing up bias in scientific methods here. Are you trying to talk down on science which continue to produce effective result of which you can testify to that by typing here on Nairaland. Now pinpoint those scientific facts that you felt science peddle as facts in order to spread conspiracy theories and selfish agenda? Show me your report papers against such lies you've written and published for scientific evaluations and vetting that they turned down? Assuming scientific fact are debunked today, did you feel religion can take that position of which you know religion is not evidence based, they all are faith based. You can't use faith on anything coming to evaluating a proposition to unravel it facts. Lastly, what are those selfish agendas you felt science is pursuing as you said. Mind you that majority of those scienctists are theists. If you are a scientist researching on an observed thesis, you have to wear off your personal beliefs and convictions, then pursue where the evidence can lead you to. If not, other scienctist researching on same topic will turn you down with evidence overriding yours which is still open to more review and evaluation by other scientists via the process of peer review and falsification. [/b] |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 6:25am On Sep 25, 2015 |
wiegraf: You're still attacking my person because you lack answers to my argument. Big media houses, scientists and other organizations are in the habit of lying/falsifying/manipulating data to push selfish agenda. You cannot deny that. So why do you expect everyone to have blind faith (like you) in the declarations of NYTimes/the author/ google? For your information, celebrities like Kim Kardashian (mentioned in the article) are also in the habit of falsifying/manipulating the number of their social media friends/followers...so you 'facebook' argument crumbles. Please read these links to update yourself. http://boostlikes.com/blog/2013/10/10-celebrities-bought-twitter-followers http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/profit-minded/10-people-won-t-believe-fake-followers-twitter-215539518.html http://www.webpronews.com/over-27-of-the-top-10-twitter-accounts-followers-are-fake-2012-08 Now try to come up with an answer to my argument. |
| Re: Googling For God. by wiegraf: 12:32pm On Sep 25, 2015 |
italo: All this has already been addressed, save maybe the nonsense about scientists and habitual falsifications. I don't have the time to address that bit of nonsense, especially with you, so you have fun being denser than a black hole |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 12:48pm On Sep 25, 2015 |
italo: Lame argument |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 3:43pm On Sep 25, 2015 |
menesheh: False! They aren't just "sometimes" biased. They are institutionally biased. Please read these links to see how BBC and NYTimes (amongst others) have a deeply entrenched and institutionalized liberal bias. http://www.cps.org.uk/publications/reports/bias-at-the-beeb/ http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2012/12/27/five-blasts-bias-new-york-times-2012 http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/01/24/exclusive-new-york-times-slammed-for-media-bias-on-billboard-in-front-of-times-square-hq-interview/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10235967/BBC-is-biased-toward-the-left-study-finds.html menesheh: How am I ignorant? Are you saying big organizations and scientists don't deliberately falsify/manipulate data to push selfish agenda? menesheh: I'm not trying to talk down science. I'm talking about falsehood in science because that's what many big organizations use to falsify data and preach lies as fact. By the way, science helps me to type on nairaland and helps terrorists to bomb people too. menesheh: Here is proof that falsification/manipulation of data is widespread among scientists. http://www.wired.com/2013/01/worst-science-misdeeds-2012/ http://kalw.org/post/misdeeds-not-mistakes-behind-most-scientific-retractions http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-scientific-look-at-bad-science/399371/ menesheh: I don't want you to change the topic. Tell me why I should accept everything that was said in the article based on blind faith, like you...when we know that journalists, media houses, celebrities can falsify such data. Simple. menesheh: You miss it! I didn't say 'science' falsified data. I said "scientists." |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 3:47pm On Sep 25, 2015 |
wiegraf: Lies! We all know that scientists are in the habit of falsifying data... ...and celebs buy followers... ...and media houses have institutionalized bias. I have provided evidence of these in my previous post All you have done is attack my person... ...and run away! |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 3:51pm On Sep 25, 2015 |
menesheh: Lame escape strategy! How is it lame? The article cited Facebook followers as proof of dwindling interested in God. And I pointed out how celebs buy followers. |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 5:33pm On Sep 25, 2015 |
italo: Forget escape strategy. You need to reply my last chat with you so that i will tell how irrelevant those your bias topic you are bringing up here are. |
| Re: Googling For God. by wiegraf: 2:04am On Sep 26, 2015 |
italo:  |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 6:36am On Sep 27, 2015 |
wiegraf: Anyone can edit that picture and replace "Arguing with Christians" with "Arguing with Atheists." But both pics would add no logical input to the discussion. We all know that scientists are in the habit of falsifying data... ...and celebs buy followers... ...and media houses have institutionalized bias. I have provided evidence of these in my previous post You are unable to deny it. So you haven't provided a reason everyone should have blind faith, like you in what google, the author and NYTimes said. |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 6:55am On Sep 27, 2015 |
menesheh: I replied all your posts. When we know that internet-based companies like Google can falsify data... We know that celebs buy social media followers... You admitted that reporters can be biased... I have shown how NYTimes have institutionalized liberal bias. Yet you insist everyone should join you and weigraf in having blind faith in Google, NYTimes and the author... Without telling us why. |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 7:09am On Sep 27, 2015 |
italo: So what? What are you hoping to achieve with this bias thing here. "Chinese president went to United States to negotiate bilateral relationship with Obama - BBC new" 'No no Chinese president didn't go to UNITED STATES. MEDIA ORGANIZATIONS ARE BIASED" italo SO WHAT? |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 11:39am On Sep 27, 2015 |
menesheh: So I cannot believe everything they say blindly, like you. Because they can lie and manipulate information. |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 12:19pm On Sep 27, 2015 |
italo: I believed it to some certain degree because of bias but don't worship or take it as the guidelines for my daily dealings. "You cannot believe everything they say blindly", but you are believing a book written some 2 to 3 thousands by anonymous authors with no original as the guiding principle of your life and actions to the extent of worshipping an imagery deity the writers invented. Bible, a book written by human, like NYtimes and are exposed to biases too of which you don't consider such biases because you feel it is divine holy crap. A book you can't verify the writers and those events it contained. The writers of this article in NYtimes article can be verified and those biases can easily be detected as you are trying to do now. You are believing the bible and its contents with faith but you are saying that you can't believe NYtimes that is verifiable, that doesn't require faith to believe. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 3:47pm On Sep 27, 2015 |
menesheh: The bold means you admit there is a possibility that the article is false. We both agree on that...so end of story. menesheh: Off topic. This thread is about the article on NYTimes...which we both agree could be false. menesheh:And the article is yet to be adequately verified, as far as we know...so for now, it requires faith to for it to be believed. |
| Re: Googling For God. by KingEbukasBlog(m): 9:05pm On Sep 29, 2015 |
@italo They failed to notice that the argument was lost when you evidently pointed out that celebs by Facebook fans and reputable media organisations can be biased especially when pushing a certain agenda . E.g AIT against Buhari during the election period  .You did hurt their "intellectual hubris" and they are shamelessly trying to "prove" that the facts are wrong @menesheh: I guess atheists give special definitions to words - "I am here to learn " Pffft |
| Re: Googling For God. by italo: 10:18pm On Sep 29, 2015 |
KingEbukasBlog: That is why weigraf has been keen on attacking my person since he cannot provide answers to my points...and he is too dishonest to admit what the whole world knows: that celebs buy social media followers; media houses can be biased (e.g AIT)and major organizations falsify/manipulate data (e.g Volkswagen).  1 Like |
| Re: Googling For God. by menesheh(m): 10:45pm On Sep 29, 2015 |
italo: why this special attention on bias and celebs buying social media followers on this particular thread. how many times have i seen you talking about this in other articles posted here, even the bible as a written book by men which is still open to cultural and personal bias. If you have any issue or error in statistics you noticed with this NYtimes publication, constructively mail them about such bias or such erroneous article instead of criticizing and arguing blindly. i hope they are in a better position to address you. KingEbukasBlog 1 Like 1 Share |
Black Panther & Perjury: Chadwick Boseman's Death Could Have Been Avoided / Do You Not Know It Is Wrong To Your Pastor 'daddy'? / Ministers Leadership Retreat 2012
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 130 |