Study: Religious belief can cause damage to a society

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...798944,00.html

Quote:

---

The Times, England: "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

---

Be nice to each other in responding to this one, please. ;)

Quote:

---

“Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

---

Cue me falling out laughing.

Quote:

---

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

---

About time. Of course, theres no way that would make it into mainstream America. It would be interesting to study why religion has that effect.

I look at this, and a blank gets drawn.

It really seems to make no sence, prolly written by a stonghardt atheist or somthing. I look at this particular paragraph:

Quote:

---

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

---

The author goes out of his way to name off Christians. If anyone who was actually doing this study new a lick about Christianity, they would know that the core phiolosiphy of the religon is base on love and peace. Kill your enemy with kindness", "Love thy neighbor", and the whole God taking a mortal death to display obidence and servitude is greater than violence and retribution in the end. (Now I mean spiritually, not physically. As Jesus did die, and most would not mark that up as a win, the whole ressurection is part of the victory)

This whole article seems totally off, and to me, it serves as a blow to the credibility of whomever wrote this. I mean, the whole thing seem like it was written with an extreme bias. Read it carefully, and just try and blame every factor on a religon. Higher STD rates being blamed on religon? Yeah, cause Christianity really tells you to go sleep around :rolleyes2

Ugh, I can't belive this got published.

Bipper

How was this study conducted is what I want to know. Did they just look at stats as a whole from nations or did they get into actual specific communities in each nation and conduct polls in each one.

I think religion has no part in this and it is just a social problem. Religion does not lead to these things but society itself does through media among other things. We all know the Italian mob is a murderous bunch but low and behold they believe and all of that stuff. Yet there are just as many who do believe that follow it. It is more of a cultural thing for the most part and that religion doesn't acutally play a big part in it at all.

Quote:

---

The author goes out of his way to name off Christians.

---

Gee, could that be because it's the majority religion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

I look at this, and a blank gets drawn.

It really seems to make no sence, prolly written by a stonghardt atheist or somthing.

---

We should point out that the person who wrote the article is just repeating the findings of the study, which are that certain social ills are more common in places that have strong religious beliefs.

Quote:

---

I look at this particular paragraph:

Quote:

---

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

---

The author goes out of his way to name off Christians. If anyone who was actually doing this study new a lick about Christianity, they would know that the core phiolosiphy of the religon is base on love and peace. Kill your enemy with kindness", "Love thy neighbor", and the whole God taking a mortal death to display obidence and servitude is greater than violence and retribution in the end. (Now I mean spiritually, not physically. As Jesus did die, and most would not mark that up as a win, the whole ressurection is part of the victory)

---

Many strands of modern Christianity have very little to do with Jesus' actual teachings. Does it strike you as odd that many of the most gung-ho war supporters in America are also hardcore religious believers? Many of the most religious areas in the United States are also the most prone to teen pregnancies and the like. Not to mention the bombing of abortion clinics and the like.

Quote:

---

This whole article seems totally off, and to me, it serves as a blow to the credibility of whomever wrote this. I mean, the whole thing seem like it was written with an extreme bias. Read it carefully, and just try and blame every factor on a religon. Higher STD rates being blamed on religon? Yeah, cause Christianity really tells you to go sleep around :rolleyes2

---

Obviously they're not saying religion tells you to go do certain behaviours, but the study found that those behaviours are more common in religious areas regardless. Clearly, this is in strong dispute with the oft-repeated mantra that religion helps to lower the incidence of such behaviours.

Oops. I also wanted to know how each community was selected if such an occurance actually happened. With out doing these things I consider the study 100% crap. They didn't dig deep enough into social morals and how socialist each government is and what each society places a high value in. There are too many other factors that are never even brought up for me to consider this study anything but crap...or at least mention of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Gee, could that be because it's the majority religion?

---

Could be, but why jump out kicking and flayiling at christians? Seems like it was done to stir up the 'controverse side' of this article. Anything that reaches for atention, looses credibility in my book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

We should point out that the person who wrote the article is just repeating the findings of the study, which are that certain social ills are more common in places that have strong religious beliefs.

---

We should also point out that they did *write* the article and there for ARE liable of its symantical meaning.

Quote:

---

Many strands of modern Christianity have very little to do with Jesus' actual teachings. Does it strike you as odd that many of the most gung-ho war supporters in America are also hardcore religious believers? Many of the most religious areas in the United States are also the most prone to teen pregnancies and the like. Not to mention the bombing of abortion clinics and the like.

---

Assuming that opening statment is true, then they would not be Christians. No, it does not strike me odd as most people whom have religously enforced morals are gung-ho war supporters in the wake of such wars as Iraw, and world war II. Does it supprise you that morals create a stronger drive for wars than political reasons? The same can stand true for the abortion clinics.

As for the higher rates of teen pregnancies, that just seems completley wrong. I could see it, as being teens are rebellious against thier upbringings and going on such things as adolessence. From my experience, there are a lot more teen pregnecies popping up in the ghettos and slummy areas of this country, and other countries. As per this is actually a fact, edczxcvbnm brings up a good point on religons. Its one thing to claim to study them, its another to follow them.

Quote:

---

Obviously they're not saying religion tells you to go do certain behaviours, but the study found that those behaviours are more common in religious areas regardless. Clearly, this is in strong dispute with the oft-repeated mantra that religion helps to lower the incidence of such behaviours.

---

well, if one does not practice a religion, can you say they are seriously of that religon, or religous? I don't see how this study really holds any credibility when its opening statment is "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today." Look at it carfully, that alone makes not a lick of sence. They say the the RELIGOUS BELIEFS cause these actions...nicely done. *bravo*

This study needs to be looked at more closley, as it seems to have a conception based on starting controversy.

Bipper

I think since he using only one country he really is not justifying anything, he uses other countries to show contrast, yet he uses none to support what he is saying about the US. Couldn't someone as easily did the same thing, but twisted the argument the other way and use the Vatican City for an example country?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

well, if one does not practice a religion, can you say they are seriously of that religon, or religous? I don't see how this study really holds any credibility when its opening statment is "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today." Look at it carfully, that alone makes not a lick of sence. They say the the RELIGOUS BELIEFS cause these actions...nicely done. *bravo*



Bipper

---

"RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society"

Can. Not does.

I agree with a lot of things in this article. Religion tends to breed close-mindedness. Heavily religious people tend to see the world as "I'm right, and the rest of those godless heathens are wrong." This in turn leads to violence, and other violent crime.

Religion also breeds a kind of "sheep" instinct in people. Once they're pacified enough by their religion, they will believe just about anybody who comes along claiming to be speaking in the name of their respective god(s). Which once again can lead to violence.

As for the sexuality thing, I think that partially comes from the person's desire to distance themselves from their parents. Pretty much ever teenager wants to be different, especially from their parents, so they'll start doing things their parents said not to do, hence the sex. Although this part is a little more hazy than the violent parts.

All I know is that religion is a serious hindrance to learning and free thought, due to its "Believe me, god damnit" outlook. And I do feel that it is a problem for a civilized society. A kind of throwback to our ancient roots for whenever we couldn't figure something out, a "god" did it. You'd think that in a reasonably intelligent society (hahaha, I know, just bear with me here) that we could just dispose of such an idea, and move to more rational ideas. Religion is not needed for a moral basis. It's irrational to just harm somebody, or to rape somebody, or to steal. Just because someone's an athiest doesn't mean their immoral. Religion is a completely uselss construct meant to give certain people more power over the weak minded.

And, for fun, I'll end on a quote by Voltaire. "Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...798944,00.html

Quote:

---

The Times, England: "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. “I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,” he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

---

Be nice to each other in responding to this one, please. ;)

---

lol Yet another angry atheist writes a letter how America invovles religion within its government(which it doesn't).

Science, and technological innovation would've never happened without religion.

Thats the problem I have with atheist. They exclude something and it isn't all atheist just the bastards who have time on their hands to complain via article style. I mean dang... get over it move on with your life.

Also WTF? does murder rates and the USA being devout have to do with why religion hurts society? USA has high murder rates because we give ordinary citizens the right to bare arms. I mean from AK-47 to the D.Eagle fromt here to the Uzi from that to the .50 caliber rifles. I mean heck you can buy a M16 Rifle.

What does that have to do with the hypothesis that religion hurts society.

Such a bias eassay. Well a crappy one I would say. Compared two things htat had no relations with each other? i didn't know religion advocated go kill pepole./

Very few people in the USA has murdered someone due to religious composition due to that fact that religion is part of our private lives.........

Anyway this "study" was just too extreme on one side or the other and showed no balance nor moderation and a weak thesis.

I didn't know by my church according to this article causes more violence. I mean we set up church in the most violent neiborhoods. thats what most churches in major cities do!!!! why? to help!!!! I mean thats were the chruches needs to be in chrisstainity. The whole point of christainity is helping your fellow man, and the community, and how to live. Christainity strongly I mean strongly stresses contributing to society..

No the authur did go out of his way to say it. I just wanted to get my 2 cents in on his opinions. Bah my head hurts from the ty extremnism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Quote:

---

The author goes out of his way to name off Christians.

---

Gee, could that be because it's the majority religion?

---

theres Islam,Scientology,there is also buddhism and hinduism and no one talks crap about
why the hell does hinduism have a caste system? But yeah lets bash on christains.


I mean come on this type of mind thought is pathetic. Christainity is always talked down about becuase of hte crusades. Were European leaders hid behind a religion to gain power,land,and wealth for their own greed. The Islams did the exact same and evetually the two groups met and boom the crusade wars. When can people get there head out their butts and study some world history besides Europe,america,middle east,.. I mean study for once look back for once.

thats another 50 cents in...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jebus

"RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society"

Can. Not does.

---

yes, fall on that one little word, to make the article sound safe. That is why I refeared to the articles symantical value. The author acts in a way to make political correctness seem important to him, then he gougess nearly baseless facts into the article.

Quote:

---

I agree with a lot of things in this article. Religion tends to breed close-mindedness. Heavily religious people tend to see the world as "I'm right, and the rest of those godless heathens are wrong." This in turn leads to violence, and other violent crime.

---

Religon by no means creatse closed mindedness. Beliveing outside the realm of what simple science tells us is far from it. Those with belifs, granted, are usually a bit close minded to the beliefs of others, but this seems like a hypocritical stand point for an out spoken athiest.

With me, it is not the "Godless heathens" that are wrong, it is thouse whom live a corrupt life, much as you would probally say is evil, I am sure. The teachings of Jesus, are very prone to find the peaceful solution, and yet there were plenty of wars using the lords name in vain. It is not the religon, or its influence on people. It has, and will always be peoples corrupt influence on a religon.

Quote:

---

Religion also breeds a kind of "sheep" instinct in people. Once they're pacified enough by their religion, they will believe just about anybody who comes along claiming to be speaking in the name of their respective god(s). Which once again can lead to violence.

---

You can really say this about any government or any assembly that needs leadership. People will follow a cause they feel is just, or are comfortable with (on synominous with thier ideals). Thus rendering this argument completley useless. Also, the sheep analoogy is kinda humerous, as it is used alot in Christianity. Not to say that your metephor shares the same with Jesus's. (Hilarious, I mistyped Jebus there) :D lol

Quote:

---

All I know is that religion is a serious hindrance to learning and free thought, due to its "Believe me, god damnit" outlook. And I do feel that it is a problem for a civilized society. A kind of throwback to our ancient roots for whenever we couldn't figure something out, a "god" did it. You'd think that in a reasonably intelligent society (hahaha, I know, just bear with me here) that we could just dispose of such an idea, and move to more rational ideas. Religion is not needed for a moral basis. It's irrational to just harm somebody, or to rape somebody, or to steal. Just because someone's an athiest doesn't mean their immoral. Religion is a completely uselss construct meant to give certain people more power over the weak minded.

---

I say the same for science. It is, afterall, a near religon for the faithless. There is no "belive me, god damnit" outlook to religon. It is a way of life that requires faith, but to put it in such a primal manner is just insulting. I see more hostility in the anti religous banterings of athiests than any peice for religon. For every slander that throw on religon, there is an equal slander to any ladder of power.

Quote:

---

And, for fun, I'll end on a quote by Voltaire. "Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

---

I will end with a verse followed by my own quote: "For God sent his son into the world, not to condemn, but that the world might be saved through him" If only other idealistics were that peaceful in conveying thier ideas.

I'm on a break in class so I don't have time to respond to everything in this thread. I'll post more later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Could be, but why jump out kicking and flayiling at christians? Seems like it was done to stir up the 'controverse side' of this article. Anything that reaches for atention, looses credibility in my book.

---

Because Christians are by far the most dominant religion in these areas.

Quote:

---

We should also point out that they did *write* the article and there for ARE liable of its symantical meaning.

---

Er. What?

Quote:

---

Assuming that opening statment is true, then they would not be Christians. No, it does not strike me odd as most people whom have religously enforced morals are gung-ho war supporters in the wake of such wars as Iraw, and world war II. Does it supprise you that morals create a stronger drive for wars than political reasons? The same can stand true for the abortion clinics.

---

it's fine for you to have your judgment that they're not following the principles of what Christianity is supposed to be, and in point of fact I agree with you. However, it is still a direct result of organized religion.

Quote:

---

As for the higher rates of teen pregnancies, that just seems completley wrong. I could see it, as being teens are rebellious against thier upbringings and going on such things as adolessence. From my experience, there are a lot more teen pregnecies popping up in the ghettos and slummy areas of this country, and other countries. As per this is actually a fact, edczxcvbnm brings up a good point on religons. Its one thing to claim to study them, its another to follow them.

---

well, here's an old thread about the occurrence of teen pregnancies in red states. As red states tend to be the most heavily religious, it's pretty much interchangeable.

Quote:

---

well, if one does not practice a religion, can you say they are seriously of that religon, or religous? I don't see how this study really holds any credibility when its opening statment is "RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today." Look at it carfully, that alone makes not a lick of sence. They say the the RELIGOUS BELIEFS cause these actions...nicely done. *bravo*

---

They're not saying they cause the actions, they're saying those actions are highest in areas where self-identified religious belief is highest. Correlation does not imply correlation, and all the study concludes is that it *may* be a contributing factor. Read the article again.

Quote:

---

This study needs to be looked at more closley, as it seems to have a conception based on starting controversy.

---

It looks to me like people are looking at the study and attributing meanings to it which it does not actually imply so they can dismiss it in an attempt to make themselves feel more comfortable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

Science, and technological innovation would've never happened without religion.

---

Er. What? It was the Catholic Church that excommunicated Galileo because he dared to suggest that the world revolved around the Sun. It's in the name of religion that people today still insist on ignoring evolution, global warning and other scientific facts. Yeah, chalk another one up for religion alright, science is sure better off because of it.

Quote:

---

yes, fall on that one little word, to make the article sound safe. That is why I refeared to the articles symantical value. The author acts in a way to make political correctness seem important to him, then he gougess nearly baseless facts into the article.

---

He doesn't present them as facts, he presents them as conclusions in a study. And, how are they "baseless"? There seems to be a preponderance of evidence pointing to exactly those conclusions.

Quote:

---

I say the same for science. It is, afterall, a near religon for the faithless. There is no "belive me, god damnit" outlook to religon. It is a way of life that requires faith, but to put it in such a primal manner is just insulting. I see more hostility in the anti religous banterings of athiests than any peice for religon. For every slander that throw on religon, there is an equal slander to any ladder of power.

---

There is no "believe me, god damn it" element to religion? That's funny, all the religious people around have a "Believe in God or you're a dirty sinner and you're going to hell" attitude. And science has a preponderance of evidence pointing to its conclusions and the fact that we've been able to use it to do things that would have been impossible without it makes it pretty much invaluable.

Also, I've never read any atheist writings anywhere near as hostile as some of the stuff I've come out of so-called "religious" institutions. Here's an example.

More later.

Oh, THIS guy. He's been around for ever bashing christianity every way he can. No one in the social science community even takes him seriously. Once, a classmate of mine brought in this article of his, and the teacher actually LAUGHED. She said, and I quote, "I know him personally, and he has this talent of taking one truth, one half-truth, and then drawing a completely unrelated conclusion from it."

The woman's had PhDs in sociology, psychology and theology for the last 30 years. She was teaching a year as a hiatus of sorts. "Slacking off" as she put it. I'll take her word for it.

Now, this social article fails to take into account several things. FIRST of all, social decay seems to be a trend in all societies that are developing technologically. Violence/etc. occures just as much in "atheist" countries. (The USSR when it stood, China, various other places in Asia, etc.) You tell me CHINA doesn't have a high violent crime rate, and I'll laugh in your face.

It's about access to wealth. As they say: power corrupts. The creation of social strata of varying power. All religion does is get in the way of social change on occasions, which bogs down the evolution of a culture, but it doesn't contribute to amoral behavior. Except, appearantly, with Catholic Priests... but even that's a matter of "those with power vs. those without".

Also, the degradation of personal responsibility, as generated by concepts such as "affirmative action".... seem to hurt the social strata. But that's another debate all together.

Eh...this is stupid. You see, criminality rates are not determined by religion, but by the language spoken.

A-HAH! How have I arrived to such conclusion?

Easy, I have found out Spanish makes people criminals. To do this, I have compared the criminality rates of Colombia with those of countries that don't speak Spanish, like Monaco, Vatican City, Samoa and Gambia. Obviously, the fact Colombia has more criminality has to do with Spanish language. Nothing to do with the fact it's one of the major producers of drug, or with it's corrupt goverment, or with the mafias. No, no, it's Spanish language.

Wow, I am a genious. Can I get my study published on an important web site and see people actually taking me seriously?

This is BS. I can't even read the entire thing. It's ridiculous and it holds no merit. Some people apparently aren't aware that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

Actually, Shadow Nexus, your harshly sarcastic responce is a prime example of how stupid some people's studies are. You did a much better job than I of explaining how idiotic this article really is. Sometimes, the pen is mightier than the sword. And sometimes, mockery is the mightiest of all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

I'm on a break in class so I don't have time to respond to everything in this thread. I'll post more later.

---

have a donut ;)

Quote:

---

Because Christians are by far the most dominant religion in these areas.

---

Dominant or not, saying "Christainity and other religons suck", entails a enirly different conotation than simply saying "religons suck". That is my point, I am not diggin, I am merely reading what is right on the paper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

We should also point out that they did *write* the article and there for ARE liable of its symantical meaning.

---

Er. What?

---

Sorry, symantics aint a good word; connotation would be better, Or entailing to the fact that the article can litterally say one thing, but completley imply another. (see last respose with the religon sucks example).

Quote:

---

it's fine for you to have your judgment that they're not following the principles of what Christianity is supposed to be, and in point of fact I agree with you. However, it is still a direct result of organized religion.

---

I think that is the real debatable point here. I really see some irony in that statment. People who claim to be Christians, but do not practice Christianity, are not Christians. Then you say it is still a result of organized religon? explain?

Quote:

---

well, here's an old thread about the occurrence of teen pregnancies in red states. As red states tend to be the most heavily religious, it's pretty much interchangeable.

---

That is all fine and dandy, but I belive it has more to do with the adolecence of the situation. I do agree with Jebus here. I can see religon being pulled into this now, as per Jebus's post. Its like the old saying, you can't have good with out evil. It seems to work like a sperctrum. Somthing bad happens in a warzone, yeah it sucks. If somthing bad happens in a peaceful place, it is horrid in relation.

Quote:

---

They're not saying they cause the actions, they're saying those actions are highest in areas where self-identified religious belief is highest. Correlation does not imply correlation, and all the study concludes is that it *may* be a contributing factor. Read the article again.

---

Read it again, and see my first problem on this post. The one dealing with the sematincs of the article.

Quote:

---

It looks to me like people are looking at the study and attributing meanings to it which it does not actually imply so they can dismiss it in an attempt to make themselves feel more comfortable.

---

Quite the opposite, I am merley look at the article, and not the study. The study may be fine; but the article is pretty mouthy if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

yes, fall on that one little word, to make the article sound safe. That is why I refeared to the articles symantical value. The author acts in a way to make political correctness seem important to him, then he gougess nearly baseless facts into the article.

---

He doesn't present them as facts, he presents them as conclusions in a study. And, how are they "baseless"? There seems to be a preponderance of evidence pointing to exactly those conclusions.

---

Again, I blame this merely on the way the article is presented. As I say in my previous post, it looses alot of credibility imo.

Quote:

---

There is no "believe me, god damn it" element to religion? That's funny, all the religious people around have a "Believe in God or you're a dirty sinner and you're going to hell" attitude. And science has a preponderance of evidence pointing to its conclusions and the fact that we've been able to use it to do things that would have been impossible without it makes it pretty much invaluable.

---

Yeah, science is realy noble in itself. In my mind, science and religon coexsist just fine. I am talking about athiest science, which is fine in most respects, but as far as thier aditude towards others goes, is downright rude and frustrating. The have a "You belive in GOD? Your a fool!" aditude. Granted, there are the overzealous christains, but I run into more overzealous athiests (mainly online) than I do christians.

Quote:

---

Also, I've never read any atheist writings anywhere near as hostile as some of the stuff I've come out of so-called "religious" institutions. Here's an example.

---

touch'e :D I am talking in my personal experiences. I am not so naive to say that they don't exist. Hell, even the Satan is supposed to be claim to be Jesus when he comes. :)

Quote:

---

More later.

---

:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

This is BS. I can't even read the entire thing. It's ridiculous and it holds no merit. Some people apparently aren't aware that correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

---

He has such a talent for summing everything up in such few words! :D Cookies to nik0!

Bipper GOES

Basically, I don't think erligion has an effect one way or another. Why? because it doesn't touch people's hearts. They don't let anything that's taught get there. Why? Because almost all religions do not answer the important questions in a reasonable manner, thus people don't really believe, thus they don't really care that much. If people believed their religion to be true, they would follow whatever holy writings they're supposed to believe in.

I think most of the bases here have been covered. But I must just put in this little tid bit of info.

I live in Northwest Ohio, and particually my area is heavily religious. My town has... .err... 5-7 churches in it. We got a population of under 2000 if memory serves. Just about every one in town is some form of christian. I talk with them a lot.

They do not have the "I am right you are wrong, god dammit" attitude. In fact they are more open minded then my sisters are.. and they are self-proclaimed atheists(they think god is a bunch of crock).

Here the more the person is religious the less violent and the kinder they are. If you need help, no matter the problem, the first people you would go to are generally the more religious ones. I am one of the few exceptions, but I am sure you have gleaned from my posts that I am at least somewhat religious.


Anyways I may not be a christian, but when I hear people bash them it riles my blood. Just cause you have meet some that are hard headed doesn't mean they all are. Do not try to stereotype. Because I can pull the same BS with atheists. The mud slogging game goes both ways. But it is dirty and I would rather stay away from it.


As for the article. Fairly interesting, though it didn't take everything into account, and until they had filtered out other variables it may have been best to refrain from publishing an article due to the fact that such reactions as are evident here would have been easily predicted.

Also please bear in mind that not every self-proclaimed christian is a christian. Though this also goes both ways(not all self-proclaimed atheists/agnostics are what they claim).

I lost my train of thought. So please exuse how rambling it is. Whatever I have it is really messing with my thought process. Not to mention it looks like I wil lose another finger nail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Quote:

---

it's fine for you to have your judgment that they're not following the principles of what Christianity is supposed to be, and in point of fact I agree with you. However, it is still a direct result of organized religion.

---

I think that is the real debatable point here. I really see some irony in that statment. People who claim to be Christians, but do not practice Christianity, are not Christians. Then you say it is still a result of organized religon? explain?

---

How are the actions of Pat Robertson et al not examples of organized religion at work? They are organized, and they are directly related to religious beliefs. Even if they contradict the principles of the original founder of the religion, they are still acting on their religious beliefs, even if those beliefs have nothing to do with the teachings of the founder. I'm baffled by what you say here.

For the purposes of this study, people who claim to be Christians are Christians. You can debate their claims all you want, but the conclusion of this study is that areas that claim to be religious are on the whole less socially advanced than those that do not.

Quote:

---

That is all fine and dandy, but I belive it has more to do with the adolecence of the situation. I do agree with Jebus here. I can see religon being pulled into this now, as per Jebus's post. Its like the old saying, you can't have good with out evil. It seems to work like a sperctrum. Somthing bad happens in a warzone, yeah it sucks. If somthing bad happens in a peaceful place, it is horrid in relation.

---

Well, seeing as religious groups are the ones most vehemently pushing abstinence-only agendas, it doesn’t seem to me to be surprising that religious areas have the highest incidences of teen pregnancy, as abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work.

Quote:

---

Read it again, and see my first problem on this post. The one dealing with the sematincs of the article.

---

“It can.” It’s not saying it does. Do you have a problem with the implication that it’s a possibility? That’s what I’m getting from your post.

Quote:

---

Quite the opposite, I am merley look at the article, and not the study. The study may be fine; but the article is pretty mouthy if you will.

---

All the article does is repeat the study’s conclusions. How is that mouthy?

Quote:

---

Yeah, science is realy noble in itself. In my mind, science and religon coexsist just fine. I am talking about athiest science, which is fine in most respects, but as far as thier aditude towards others goes, is downright rude and frustrating. The have a "You belive in GOD? Your a fool!" aditude. Granted, there are the overzealous christains, but I run into more overzealous athiests (mainly online) than I do christians.

---

Evidently you never read sites like Free Republic, then. They’re out there, but due to the rather liberal attitude of most roleplaying games, you won’t find as many of them on, say, Final Fantasy sites.

And again, to pretty much everyone else who has posted, where does the article say that religion DOES cause these things? It just says that it’s a possibility. Evidently, some of you are not equipped to deal with that suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Now, this social article fails to take into account several things. FIRST of all, social decay seems to be a trend in all societies that are developing technologically. Violence/etc. occures just as much in "atheist" countries. (The USSR when it stood, China, various other places in Asia, etc.) You tell me CHINA doesn't have a high violent crime rate, and I'll laugh in your face.

---

China is not a free society, which I consider to be a more important factor than its religiosity or lack thereof. And I believe the conclusion of this study was precisely that violence does not occur as frequently in less religious countries. Europe is less religious than America and seems to have less violence in pretty much every study I’ve ever observed. If you have contradicting statistics, I’d like to see links.

Quote:

---

It's about access to wealth. As they say: power corrupts. The creation of social strata of varying power. All religion does is get in the way of social change on occasions, which bogs down the evolution of a culture, but it doesn't contribute to amoral behavior. Except, appearantly, with Catholic Priests... but even that's a matter of "those with power vs. those without".

---

While I agree that access to wealth is a strong factor in things like this, and that power corrupts, I’d dispute your conclusion. As an example, religion is being used to justify hate speech against gay people, and it is also being used to justify abstinence-only education. It isn’t that difficult to deduce from this that violence against gay people or teen pregnancies would be more common in areas with such religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prancing Mad

Basically, I don't think erligion has an effect one way or another. Why? because it doesn't touch people's hearts. They don't let anything that's taught get there. Why? Because almost all religions do not answer the important questions in a reasonable manner, thus people don't really believe, thus they don't really care that much. If people believed their religion to be true, they would follow whatever holy writings they're supposed to believe in.

---

A lot of people in America actually do believe this crap quite literally. They honestly believe that they’ll only go to heaven if they vote for politicians who oppose gay rights and abortions. It’s not really that far removed from hijackers who think they’ll go to heaven for flying planes into the World Trade Center. The afterlife is a strong motivator in people’s behavior. I think you severely underestimate it.

I am just commenting on what the man just said about religion and gays/abstinance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teh Man

Blah blah blah stuff stuff stuff

---

Yeah...this is already going down hill as I am too lazy to do a real quote :D

Anyways religion has nothing to do with that except that the majority of those people use that as an excuse to justify what they believe. In the end it isn't real christianity or religion at all as they teach you to accept others that are different from you even if they are 'sinners'.

So when ministers at churches say that gay people are all going to hell and people need to vote for candidates who oppose gay rights, that’s not a case of religion influencing society? Riiiight.

You hit the point, exactly. RELIGION IS USED. Exploited. If religion wasn't there, they'd use darwinism to bash gays. Or some economical bull**** (like atheist homophobes do). Whatever, they'd find an excuse. After all, the bible doesn't even have anything against gays, except in a section that is nulled by the bible itself. Hate looks for excuses, it doesn't like little things like "fact" getting in the way. And hate exists wherever diversity exists, and diversity exists wherever freedom exists. Hence: FREEDOM is the cause of crime.

Oh, and where do you find less religious societies with less violence? Ah, yes, places that DON'T have nearly 100 seperate cultures within their borders. Of course the United States have that conflict.... we have the KKK and the Panthers living in the same neighborhoods. If you can't see that creating violence, you need help.

http://www.venganza.org

I agree. Not with everything in the article. But with the thought that Christianity can be dangerous. When you start denying scientific laws (laws, not theories), because of your faith you're not only living in a fantasy you're practicing the occult. You're holding back society. Just like the dips who prosecuted Galileo. Am I the only person who stops to think during history class at the thought of people being murdered for arrogant and ignorant Christians and what they might have become and gets aggrivated? I feel like it. I feel like, while we might not have repeated history, we're certainly drumming to the same rhythm.

My brother goes to a Christian school. We talk a lot. He's seen dangerous faith in Christianity. He dignifies it. But, just like sheep, some people haven't the brain power to do so. I think it was Aristotle that predicted democracy would lead to a mob-rule. When people vote exclusively for one party because of their heritage, that's what we have. I don't think my brother is dangerous. But, if he began prosecuting me for not being Christian I would be scared. If he started voting strictly conservative and calling me unpatriotic for not being completely conservative I'd be terrified. If he denied Darwinism because it contradicts Christianity, I don't think we'd talk anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

So when ministers at churches say that gay people are all going to hell and people need to vote for candidates who oppose gay rights, that’s not a case of religion influencing society? Riiiight.

---

I am Catholic and I have never heard a priest say that. They talk about forgiveness in the churches I have visited. This is not to say that there are not a few wack jobs in the bunch.

DEBUNKED!!!!11!...like this fagtarded article....but not so much by me as it was udsuna...or whatever. I really just wanted to put my 2 cents in with experience.

Ok, here is what I have been trying to say:

The article is writen just fine (gramatically) however, the way the article interpits upon reading, makes it seem as though it is more of an attack (for lack of a better word atm) on religon. It goes as far as to serpratley point out christianity, which is just wrong. No religon should have been singled out unless it was singled out in the study. I havn't seen any reports from the studies, and jusdgine by the context of the article, I am gonna say it's scope was per the article.

The way the article came across, despite its carful (!?) wording, was a little aggressive. That is what completley turned me off. The fact that most people whom read it, does support this. Defensive stances prolly also had an effect on this, along with scoped logic. Mouthy was not meant to mean hurling insults, but rather covering information in too many words, wich should really be done with caution on such delicate matters.

In programming life, there are two ways to see things. The logistical, and semantical. The way things are, and the way the are implied. That is very synominous with my thinking. I tend to think that atheists dwell on the logistical, while religous types dwell on the semantical (as far as morality and other behavioral/traditional teachings go). I tend to fall in the middle, although I have more faith in the Christain religon, as it seems to be sufficiant for me.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

You hit the point, exactly. RELIGION IS USED. Exploited. If religion wasn't there, they'd use darwinism to bash gays. Or some economical bull**** (like atheist homophobes do). Whatever, they'd find an excuse. After all, the bible doesn't even have anything against gays, except in a section that is nulled by the bible itself. Hate looks for excuses, it doesn't like little things like "fact" getting in the way. And hate exists wherever diversity exists, and diversity exists wherever freedom exists. Hence: FREEDOM is the cause of crime.

---

I strongly disagree with this. If God says something, you can’t argue with it, and God says in the Old Testament that homosexuality is an abomination. Also, I believe a lot of Paul’s writings in the New Testament were critical of homosexuality, so it’s not really nullified by Jesus’ statement that the Old Testament laws no longer applies. At any rate, under some people’s reasonings, God says that homosexuality is an abomination, and there’s nothing that can contradict for that. No reasoning, nothing. God is above reasoning. However, Darwinism is based entirely on observation. Observation points out that animals often exhibit homosexual behaviours. That simple reasoning would invalidate their argument because there wouldn’t be a God to hide behind.

Quote:

---

Oh, and where do you find less religious societies with less violence? Ah, yes, places that DON'T have nearly 100 seperate cultures within their borders. Of course the United States have that conflict.... we have the KKK and the Panthers living in the same neighborhoods. If you can't see that creating violence, you need help.

---

I don’t doubt that diversity doesn’t help matters much. However, England is nearly as diverse as America, and as far as I know doesn’t have anywhere near the violence. On the other hand (again, I’m relying on memory here), Scotland doesn’t have nearly as much diversity as England, yet is the most violent region in the United Kingdom. So if diversity is a contributing factor, it’s not THAT much of a contributing factor.

Also, here again you’re focusing on the “violence” part of the study (which I honestly believe to be the least important part) to the exclusion of the sexual promiscuity, abortions and suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

I am Catholic and I have never heard a priest say that. They talk about forgiveness in the churches I have visited. This is not to say that there are not a few wack jobs in the bunch.

---

It’s a lot more than a few. Trust me, I live in the South.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

In programming life, there are two ways to see things. The logistical, and semantical. The way things are, and the way the are implied. That is very synominous with my thinking. I tend to think that atheists dwell on the logistical, while religous types dwell on the semantical (as far as morality and other behavioral/traditional teachings go). I tend to fall in the middle, although I have more faith in the Christain religon, as it seems to be sufficiant for me.

---

Fuzzy logic applies strictly to programming because it doesn't make sense any where else. I personally think atheists are more moral than religious people. But that's probably just because the aforementioned attentiveness in History class. But that's probably stupid. Nothing is ever that black and white, and I'm just making absurd generalizations.

"All generalizations are false, including this one" - Mark Twain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Fuzzy logic applies strictly to programming because it doesn't make sense any where else. I personally think atheists are more moral than religious people. But that's probably just because the aforementioned attentiveness in History class. But that's probably stupid. Nothing is ever that black and white, and I'm just making absurd generalizations.

"All generalizations are false, including this one" - Mark Twain

---

rofl.

And I honestly don't think it was all that unbalanced an article. It's contrasting conventional wisdom with the conclusions of the study, so it presents both sides of the issue. However, the conclusions of the study make people uncomfortable, so they react in a defensive manner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Trust me, I live in the South.

---

I think my picture about the south means "OH...I KNOW....I...K-N-O-W!" :D I would post but that might get me banned so here is a image.

A nuke is going off with the words smurf THE SOUTH written on it...oh yeah. The sun is out and there are birds in the distance with a beautiful blue sky and lush green grass...but the important part is smurf the south :D

Haha, that image would apply perfectly. Unfortunately, I think the censorship of the F-word would rather prevent it from being posted. ;_;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

So when ministers at churches say that gay people are all going to hell and people need to vote for candidates who oppose gay rights, that’s not a case of religion influencing society? Riiiight.

---

Wow, what this refers to is leviticus 18:22 (I think). The levies, or laws were made to set moral standards and set basic laws to guide the people. This book (leviticus) has a lot of strange, but very logical laws in it. Some are merley religous while others serve ver scientific and phatomable purposes that no one of that time, had much of a grasp on.

Anyways, that aside. Jesus tells us to love our enemies. Opression is not love, and therefore I see many churches in the wrong. I know its a majority that makes the mold, but I am not in that majority. Christains are to be kind to all. Serve the lord and your government at the same time. Those teachings are represeted when Jesus take a coin from a fish's mouth to pay his taxes.


Bipper

Quote:

---

Anything that reaches for atention, looses credibility in my book.

---

Point taken.

Quote:

---

As an example, religion is being used to justify hate speech against gay people, and it is also being used to justify abstinence-only education. It isn’t that difficult to deduce from this that violence against gay people or teen pregnancies would be more common in areas with such religions.

---

Yeah, that does seem to happen quite frequently.

Quote:

---

I am Catholic and I have never heard a priest say that. They talk about forgiveness in the churches I have visited. This is not to say that there are not a few wack jobs in the bunch.

---

It's not generally the catholics saying that. It's the same "born-again" blowhards that hate anyone who doesn't march lockstep with their veiws. :mad: (BTW, that would include catholics).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

So when ministers at churches say that gay people are all going to hell and people need to vote for candidates who oppose gay rights, that’s not a case of religion influencing society? Riiiight.

---

Wow, what this refers to is leviticus 18:22 (I think). The levies, or laws were made to set moral standards and set basic laws to guide the people. This book (leviticus) has a lot of strange, but very logical laws in it. Some are merley religous while others serve ver scientific and phatomable purposes that no one of that time, had much of a grasp on.

---

Leviticus was also disregarded by itself. It's a historical reference, not meant to be used except in that time. Kinda like a book about the holocaust isn't meant to encourage such crimes. Leviticus is a WARNING to never incur such things, not a law system to follow. Which it, itself, said. Much like Saddom and Ghamora (sp?).

Leviticus is part of the bible, considered holy writings. It is just as important as many other parts of the bible. That is like saying that the corinthians were 'just letters'. They were put in the bible to stress points, and the leviticus were laws handed down by God.

Bipper

Leviticus were PUNISHING laws handed down for a people not good enough for him. So that they became more subservient or whatever to his liking. Similar to plagues and mass destruction that he used in other places. An object lesson to everyone else. They were repealed, too.

Punishing laws? They were straight out laws, that had punishments, that would warrent redmetion. Not exactly to make people subserviant, but better servants lol ;)

Either way, the punishments may have been repealed, but to say that that makes the laws nix, would be incorrect.

Bipper

Cool... that means I can sell my daughters into slavery? And I have to burn living cows in my front lawn? Hmm... nice laws.

No, but that by no means implys that sexual immorality or not paying your workers is right. Selling your daughters to slavery was never a law, nor the latter.

If you want to continue this debate vie PM, lets do it there, instead pulling the thread from focus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus

Eh...this is stupid. You see, criminality rates are not determined by religion, but by the language spoken.

A-HAH! How have I arrived to such conclusion?

Easy, I have found out Spanish makes people criminals. To do this, I have compared the criminality rates of Colombia with those of countries that don't speak Spanish, like Monaco, Vatican City, Samoa and Gambia. Obviously, the fact Colombia has more criminality has to do with Spanish language. Nothing to do with the fact it's one of the major producers of drug, or with it's corrupt goverment, or with the mafias. No, no, it's Spanish language.

Wow, I am a genious. Can I get my study published on an important web site and see people actually taking me seriously?

---

Come to America Shadow lol there will be tons of people that will gladly publish your work lol XD.

Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc.

.opt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Quote:

---

it's fine for you to have your judgment that they're not following the principles of what Christianity is supposed to be, and in point of fact I agree with you. However, it is still a direct result of organized religion.

---

I think that is the real debatable point here. I really see some irony in that statment. People who claim to be Christians, but do not practice Christianity, are not Christians. Then you say it is still a result of organized religon? explain?

---

How are the actions of Pat Robertson et al not examples of organized religion at work? They are organized, and they are directly related to religious beliefs. Even if they contradict the principles of the original founder of the religion, they are still acting on their religious beliefs, even if those beliefs have nothing to do with the teachings of the founder. I'm baffled by what you say here.

For the purposes of this study, people who claim to be Christians are Christians. You can debate their claims all you want, but the conclusion of this study is that areas that claim to be religious are on the whole less socially advanced than those that do not.

Quote:

---

That is all fine and dandy, but I belive it has more to do with the adolecence of the situation. I do agree with Jebus here. I can see religon being pulled into this now, as per Jebus's post. Its like the old saying, you can't have good with out evil. It seems to work like a sperctrum. Somthing bad happens in a warzone, yeah it sucks. If somthing bad happens in a peaceful place, it is horrid in relation.

---

Well, seeing as religious groups are the ones most vehemently pushing abstinence-only agendas, it doesn’t seem to me to be surprising that religious areas have the highest incidences of teen pregnancy, as abstinence-only education simply doesn’t work.

Quote:

---

Read it again, and see my first problem on this post. The one dealing with the sematincs of the article.

---

“It can.” It’s not saying it does. Do you have a problem with the implication that it’s a possibility? That’s what I’m getting from your post.

Quote:

---

Quite the opposite, I am merley look at the article, and not the study. The study may be fine; but the article is pretty mouthy if you will.

---

All the article does is repeat the study’s conclusions. How is that mouthy?

Quote:

---

Yeah, science is realy noble in itself. In my mind, science and religon coexsist just fine. I am talking about athiest science, which is fine in most respects, but as far as thier aditude towards others goes, is downright rude and frustrating. The have a "You belive in GOD? Your a fool!" aditude. Granted, there are the overzealous christains, but I run into more overzealous athiests (mainly online) than I do christians.

---

Evidently you never read sites like Free Republic, then. They’re out there, but due to the rather liberal attitude of most roleplaying games, you won’t find as many of them on, say, Final Fantasy sites.

And again, to pretty much everyone else who has posted, where does the article say that religion DOES cause these things? It just says that it’s a possibility. Evidently, some of you are not equipped to deal with that suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Now, this social article fails to take into account several things. FIRST of all, social decay seems to be a trend in all societies that are developing technologically. Violence/etc. occures just as much in "atheist" countries. (The USSR when it stood, China, various other places in Asia, etc.) You tell me CHINA doesn't have a high violent crime rate, and I'll laugh in your face.

---

China is not a free society, which I consider to be a more important factor than its religiosity or lack thereof. And I believe the conclusion of this study was precisely that violence does not occur as frequently in less religious countries. Europe is less religious than America and seems to have less violence in pretty much every study I’ve ever observed. If you have contradicting statistics, I’d like to see links.

Quote:

---

It's about access to wealth. As they say: power corrupts. The creation of social strata of varying power. All religion does is get in the way of social change on occasions, which bogs down the evolution of a culture, but it doesn't contribute to amoral behavior. Except, appearantly, with Catholic Priests... but even that's a matter of "those with power vs. those without".

---

While I agree that access to wealth is a strong factor in things like this, and that power corrupts, I’d dispute your conclusion. As an example, religion is being used to justify hate speech against gay people, and it is also being used to justify abstinence-only education. It isn’t that difficult to deduce from this that violence against gay people or teen pregnancies would be more common in areas with such religions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prancing Mad

Basically, I don't think erligion has an effect one way or another. Why? because it doesn't touch people's hearts. They don't let anything that's taught get there. Why? Because almost all religions do not answer the important questions in a reasonable manner, thus people don't really believe, thus they don't really care that much. If people believed their religion to be true, they would follow whatever holy writings they're supposed to believe in.

---

A lot of people in America actually do believe this crap quite literally. They honestly believe that they’ll only go to heaven if they vote for politicians who oppose gay rights and abortions. It’s not really that far removed from hijackers who think they’ll go to heaven for flying planes into the World Trade Center. The afterlife is a strong motivator in people’s behavior. I think you severely underestimate it.

---

Since when was my religion crap?

Since when was comtributing to oyur community and society a bunch of crap?

I'm baptist and all the churches I went to realy don't bring politics into the church. They contribute to the community around them and if the preacher does say something political its probaly something like..

"The elections will be next week. I urge everyone who can vote. To get out there and vote. I don't care who oyu vote for. As long as you vote.. This goes strongly for our young folks in the church."

But maybe thats becuase I goto a predominately black church that doesn't waste there crappy time on politics int he church and do what they are to do. Yet these people are over looked. There are milllions of churches that don't speak out against atheist. Many churches that contributes a lot to society. Many churches who don't preach slander.. They never get media attention. Its already the baptist church that says the most radical bull that gets media attention.

They only smurfing app0lying for 5% of basicly the christain population in the USA..

I'm sorry if oyur atheist and dealt with assholes that were christains. But oyu have to realise. Some people are just that... Assholes.



We don't allow for such remarks. See you in two weeks.

~Void

I mean there are atheist who are assholes, agnostics who are assholes oyu have people in every single group imaginable to mankind that aare just straight up bastards. There is no way you can say

"Religious people tend ot have the highest population full of asshole closed-minded freaks."

Because that generalization applies to all groups. Which is why this essay is jsut smurfing crud and was meant to attack christainity. Yes verbally attack I mean.

Did I anywhere say that I think all people who practice religion are evil human beings? No. There are exceptions; I've acknowledged that.

Furthermore, "this crap" referred to people who take the bible literally. Good job taking my entire post out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Optium

Post hoc, ergo proptor hoc.

.opt

---

As pointed out three times already in this thread, this study does *not* say that religion is always the cause of these things. Just that it's possible.

Here are some observations from me because I like sticking my nose in it.

1) Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Darwin had his own theories concerning the evolution of animals based on bird watching. While his studies did have some merit to the scientific community, there are also errors and outright guesses he made.

2) Under the right conditions, every scientific Law can be unproven. Even gravity. (Kepler's Law, specifically, is the most easily observed "broken" law of science).

3) Fundamentalists of any type are bad. Even fundamental atheists.

4) Where can I find the study? It'd be an interesting read, and I'd prefer to have the facts and judge them for myself than reading what this article-y guy is saying about them.

5) This is a poorly written article. That doesn't mean much to the topic at hand, but I just wanted to say that to boost myself. I'm a bigman.

Basically, I feel this is one of those studies that probably makes the numbers work for it, because they don't quote any numbers at all in the article itself. However, that could be because (as I already said), it's a poorly written article.

Oh, I forgot 6) The vast majority of the "red" states are also the poorer states in the nation. Lack of money = lack of education = increased likelihood of all the bad things this study talks about = lack of resources to get education = lack of money = loop de loop! What does that mean? Well, why are people religious? (Several people in this thread have already said it.) Why? Hope! God will make the bad stuff go away! Why? Because he promised! What I mean is, one explanation for this is the fact that some people grasp at straws. And sometimes religion is one of those straws.

Also, it was said earlier that there are, literally, hundreds of cultural and ethnic distinctions that have the potential to bring conflict.

Also, there are more Americans than most of the other countries listed. If you have more people, there are going to be more murders, more kids with babies, and look! More religious nuts!

Okay, so now that I've not made much sense, here's my real point. While it's certainly possible that religious involvement on a fundamentalist scale is capable of potentially affecting crime rates and other things, there are innumerable other factors (geography, wealth, enviornment, heredity, secular tradition etc, etc) that ALSO influence the "bad things" in the world, and to a much higher degree.

So, someone wants to tell me that the presence of religion is a problem in developed countries, developed countries like America? Not only that, but it's a problem worth my attention? Let's cure AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, animal abuse, depression, hunger, and plain old meanness in the United States before we start worrying about that. I cannot see how there can be a correlation between social ills and religion as clearly defined as it is between other factors that contribute to social ills.

And to finish, stop lumping human beings together. You can't say "ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTAINS THINK LIKE ERIC RUDOLPH", because that just isn't true. That's like me saying all Germans think like Hitler.

Oh, and before anyone starts with anything, I'm a rather liberal non-denominational "Christian" as in follower of Christ's teachings. I just keep an open mind.

EDIT: Also, this is a mini-rant directed at no one in particular, besides the mean people of the world. I repeat, this is directed at no one in this thread. This is based primarily off of the article, and the some
couple of science speak posts I saw.

EDIT2: Also, I like the word also.

The only bad thing religion seems to have caused would be aethists trying to take out two words out of the Pledge of Aligiance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rengori

The only bad thing religion seems to have caused would be aethists trying to take out two words out of the Pledge of Aligiance.

---

G'job ignoring the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and pretty much every war in history fought over religious grounds. Although I assume you're not being serious here.

I agree there are worse problems than religion, but I think the world would have a lot less problems if religion didn't exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rengori

The only bad thing religion seems to have caused would be aethists trying to take out two words out of the Pledge of Aligiance.

---

Actually, the "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950s as a McCarthyist "protection" from "godless Communism" and WAS NOT included in the original Pledge that read "...one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". It was all about politics and not about the underlying faith of the Pledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

Actually, the "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950s as a McCarthyist "protection" from "godless Communism" and WAS NOT included in the original Pledge that read "...one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". It was all about politics and not about the underlying faith of the Pledge.

---

Never knew that...

Quote:

---

G'job ignoring the Crusades, the Inquisition, 9/11 and pretty much every war in history fought over religious grounds. Although I assume you're not being serious here.

---

Not really, I guess I should just keep my mouth shut.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

I am Catholic and I have never heard a priest say that. They talk about forgiveness in the churches I have visited. This is not to say that there are not a few wack jobs in the bunch.

---

It’s a lot more than a few. Trust me, I live in the South.

---

No, there isn't. I live in the South too, and I have been to all different kinds of churches of all different types of Christianity, and I have never once heard and ministers say that a certain group of people are going to hell. They really don't talk much about hell anymore at all. The sermons are usually about faith and virtues, not about hate. The crazy Christian extremists are pretty much only on the Internet and on T.V. these days, not preaching inside the churches.

You can't blame a group for a few bad eggs. I'm not ignorant enough to believe that all Christians are good people, because I know that's not true. But, I have respect for the good Christians, just like I have respect for the good Atheists, the good Buddists, ect. I don't judge a person by their faith, I judge them by their character.

Just to clarify, I never said I disrespected good Christians. :p

And maybe you're just in a more tolerant region of Louisiana than anywhere I live. I've lived in some pretty intolerant regions of the country. xD

I live in the south too, but I've never been to church in my life so I can't speak one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rengori

The only bad thing religion seems to have caused would be aethists trying to take out two words out of the Pledge of Aligiance.

---

Actually, the "under God" was added to the pledge in the 1950s as a McCarthyist "protection" from "godless Communism" and WAS NOT included in the original Pledge that read "...one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". It was all about politics and not about the underlying faith of the Pledge.

---

Oh, so there is actually somebody else out there who knows that?? Thank god for that.

Er, I thought that was common knowledge by now.

This article is kind of absurd.

A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion. A lot of bad things have been done in the name of things that aren't religion.

Religion itself is not a problem. However, the things that cause religion, the underlying moral premises of religion, are a problem, and, I believe, the cause of most of the problems in the world. Two of the underlying premises are irrationality and collectivism (which go hand-in-hand, so saying their relation is almost redundant).

One modern example of the relation between irrationality and collectivism is in Africa. AIDS is an epidemic there, killing many, and still many men refuse to wear condoms. I've heard people say "It's because their Catholic, and the Pope needs to..." No, the Pope doesn't need to do anything. The men in Africa need to use their own freakin' brains and do what's best for them, and rely on their own judgment instead of the judgment of some 80-year-old man living in comfort some thousands of miles away.

I haven't read most of this thread, but just to toss in my half a cent: You can't determine causality based on a correlational study. That is to say, you can't say "A has a positive relationship with B, therefore A causes B." It doesn't work like that, and those kinds of results aren't accepted in any scientific circle.

In order to determine causality, you'd have to do a true experiment in a controlled environment, which is impossible to do with that kind of theory.

And once again, I'll point out that saying something "can cause" something else is not the same as saying it "does" cause it. It's been pointed out four times now. :p

Well I said I didn't read most of the thread. xP

Though I still think that "can cause" is misleading. There is such a thing as too large of a sample size, and with a sample that large you could find a correlation between pretty much anything. There are way too many variables in that situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShlupQuack

Well I said I didn't read most of the thread. xP

Though I still think that "can cause" is misleading. There is such a thing as too large of a sample size, and with a sample that large you could find a correlation between pretty much anything. There are way too many variables in that situation.

---

!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

And once again, I'll point out that saying something "can cause" something else is not the same as saying it "does" cause it. It's been pointed out four times now. :p

---

"Can cause" is extremely misleading to the point that it shouldn't be used at all. Being beaten as a child "can cause" you to become a murderer, but 99% of people who were abused to some degree as a child don't become murderers.

And as Shlup said - association/correlation is different than causation. It's the same statistical mistake used by political idiots who say "video games cause violence." However, it's much more likely that violent kids will be more likely drawn to violent video games.

Back to this subject - instead of "religion causes violence" or "religion can cause violence", it should be "violent, irrational people will be more likely drawn to religion." Then, you should look at the reason violent people are more likely drawn to religion. It all boils down to irrationality; religion offers a contradiction, a non-objective view of reality. Once objectivity is thrown out the window, you allow for the justification of anything. Therefore, many violent people (say, abortion-clinic bombers, animal-testing center bombers, et cetera) actually feel their violence justified for some irrational reason, religion or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

!!!!!!!!!!

---

Consider this an offical in thread warning. This is EotW and there is a strict no spam policy here. Don't let me see this again or you will be banned.

Moving along since there is this whole thing about it CAN and not it DOES going on let me end this one.

Destorying a Civilization can bring about the best in people.
Raping little children can make them into noble prize winners.
Eating 5000 slices of pizza can make you thin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

Here are some observations from me because I like sticking my nose in it.

1) Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. Darwin had his own theories concerning the evolution of animals based on bird watching. While his studies did have some merit to the scientific community, there are also errors and outright guesses he made.

2) Under the right conditions, every scientific Law can be unproven. Even gravity. (Kepler's Law, specifically, is the most easily observed "broken" law of science).

3) Fundamentalists of any type are bad. Even fundamental atheists.

4) Where can I find the study? It'd be an interesting read, and I'd prefer to have the facts and judge them for myself than reading what this article-y guy is saying about them.

5) This is a poorly written article. That doesn't mean much to the topic at hand, but I just wanted to say that to boost myself. I'm a bigman.

Basically, I feel this is one of those studies that probably makes the numbers work for it, because they don't quote any numbers at all in the article itself. However, that could be because (as I already said), it's a poorly written article.

Oh, I forgot 6) The vast majority of the "red" states are also the poorer states in the nation. Lack of money = lack of education = increased likelihood of all the bad things this study talks about = lack of resources to get education = lack of money = loop de loop! What does that mean? Well, why are people religious? (Several people in this thread have already said it.) Why? Hope! God will make the bad stuff go away! Why? Because he promised! What I mean is, one explanation for this is the fact that some people grasp at straws. And sometimes religion is one of those straws.

Also, it was said earlier that there are, literally, hundreds of cultural and ethnic distinctions that have the potential to bring conflict.

Also, there are more Americans than most of the other countries listed. If you have more people, there are going to be more murders, more kids with babies, and look! More religious nuts!

Okay, so now that I've not made much sense, here's my real point. While it's certainly possible that religious involvement on a fundamentalist scale is capable of potentially affecting crime rates and other things, there are innumerable other factors (geography, wealth, enviornment, heredity, secular tradition etc, etc) that ALSO influence the "bad things" in the world, and to a much higher degree.

So, someone wants to tell me that the presence of religion is a problem in developed countries, developed countries like America? Not only that, but it's a problem worth my attention? Let's cure AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, animal abuse, depression, hunger, and plain old meanness in the United States before we start worrying about that. I cannot see how there can be a correlation between social ills and religion as clearly defined as it is between other factors that contribute to social ills.

And to finish, stop lumping human beings together. You can't say "ALL CONSERVATIVE CHRISTAINS THINK LIKE ERIC RUDOLPH", because that just isn't true. That's like me saying all Germans think like Hitler.

Oh, and before anyone starts with anything, I'm a rather liberal non-denominational "Christian" as in follower of Christ's teachings. I just keep an open mind.

EDIT: Also, this is a mini-rant directed at no one in particular, besides the mean people of the world. I repeat, this is directed at no one in this thread. This is based primarily off of the article, and the some
couple of science speak posts I saw.

EDIT2: Also, I like the word also.

---

This post deserves a big touché.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Man

And once again, I'll point out that saying something "can cause" something else is not the same as saying it "does" cause it. It's been pointed out four times now. :p

---

"Can cause" is extremely misleading to the point that it shouldn't be used at all. Being beaten as a child "can cause" you to become a murderer, but 99% of people who were abused to some degree as a child don't become murderers.

And as Shlup said - association/correlation is different than causation. It's the same statistical mistake used by political idiots who say "video games cause violence." However, it's much more likely that violent kids will be more likely drawn to violent video games.

Back to this subject - instead of "religion causes violence" or "religion can cause violence", it should be "violent, irrational people will be more likely drawn to religion." Then, you should look at the reason violent people are more likely drawn to religion. It all boils down to irrationality; religion offers a contradiction, a non-objective view of reality. Once objectivity is thrown out the window, you allow for the justification of anything. Therefore, many violent people (say, abortion-clinic bombers, animal-testing center bombers, et cetera) actually feel their violence justified for some irrational reason, religion or not.

---

Yarr. This is fair enough; I'll agree to that. ;)

Exactly what my problem was with the study Rasitlin. Worded about a million times better though.

Aslo,

Quote:

---

I agree there are worse problems than religion, but I think the world would have a lot less problems if religion didn't exist.

---

seems a bit harsh, but I can see where you are comming from. As far as the crusades, inquisition, and many other problems lie, they are extremists. The same extreemists you will get with aethism, Judism, Meatball-Monsterism (or whatev). Let us remember that things were also more barbaric in nature than it is now. Now we fight with facts, and attack ones beliefs, instead of running a solid mass through them. I say that these instances, when religon is used as grounds for a war, is a kick in Jesus's face; as we would both agree, they totally take the teachings of Jesus out of context.

Also, I am not all that boned up on the crusades, but I have heard that history, and the church, once again have different stories. I will put that on my google list :)
Bipper

All "extremists" have the same fundamental problem: irrationality. Whether they be Christian, atheist, or whatever. So, to do away with these problems, we must try to stop people from being stupid (good luck).

The only reason religion is involved is because irrationality is also a fundamental premise of religion. Therefore, if irrationality were done away with (or even just limited), then religion would also go away (or limited).

I would like to rectify my earlier statement of exclamation points. I would like to say that I strongly agree with ShlupQuack. I would also like to say that this thread is the best thread in EotW because everyone is being very nice to each other and I am proud of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

Let us remember that things were also more barbaric in nature than it is now. Now we fight with facts, and attack ones beliefs, instead of running a solid mass through them. I say that these instances, when religon is used as grounds for a war, is a kick in Jesus's face; as we would both agree, they totally take the teachings of Jesus out of context.

---

That's quite true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

All "extremists" have the same fundamental problem: irrationality. Whether they be Christian, atheist, or whatever. So, to do away with these problems, we must try to stop people from being stupid (good luck).

The only reason religion is involved is because irrationality is also a fundamental premise of religion. Therefore, if irrationality were done away with (or even just limited), then religion would also go away (or limited).

---

Again, I agree.

Quote:

---

Destorying a Civilization can bring about the best in people.
Raping little children can make them into noble prize winners.
Eating 5000 slices of pizza can make you thin.

---

touché, and well put.

And now that I've seen the original study, I can safely conclude that the Times article has almost nothing to do with it. Evidently the standard of journalism there has degraded immeasurably in recent years:

Quote:

---

This is not an attempt to present a definitive study that establishes cause versus effect between religiosity, secularism and societal health. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

The only reason religion is involved is because irrationality is also a fundamental premise of religion. Therefore, if irrationality were done away with (or even just limited), then religion would also go away (or limited).

---

Not neccesarily. There are some religions out there that are heavily based off of science. Irrationality may limit what types of religion are out there but I seriousally doubt we would see a huge drop. This is of course based off of my community. Most Christians here are very rational.. they just happen to be Christian.

However, to be fair I must say that religion does have a habbit of spawning more known irrationals(at least known to me) then other faiths do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

All "extremists" have the same fundamental problem: irrationality. Whether they be Christian, atheist, or whatever. So, to do away with these problems, we must try to stop people from being stupid (good luck).

The only reason religion is involved is because irrationality is also a fundamental premise of religion. Therefore, if irrationality were done away with (or even just limited), then religion would also go away (or limited).

---

If we knew everything, the world woud be much better. I do agree that thinking rationally is important as well. This article doesn't supprot that ideal very well, and as The Man himself pointed out, is very astray from the study.

What I mearly ment was the underlining irrational behavior is a huge issue on itself. I was trying to sever the constant though-train that assoisated religon with being irrational. There is a difference between being irrational, and religous. To simply say that one's religon can't exist bacause you can't explain it, is just as irrational as saying that to belive a religon without physical proof that can be easily sustained is.

prehpase religon is the most reasonable explanation we can muster :D Maybe our science will end up pointing to a God, Judist or not. Who knows. It would seem irrational to us, but imagine how irrational we would seem to those whom found him. Now I am just being irrational :D
Bipper