so much better i think

But then who would you complain about?

george bush

You come off as one of those stereotypical kids that say they're an atheist just to be a rebel...

it would be crappier than it is now

it would be total anarchy. why do you think the idea of god was invented in the first place? its to keep people under control

I think if people stopped paying lip service the existence of a benign God we could all be far more honest with each other and start worshipping Mammon full time.

quote:Originally posted by enter_brain_here:

it would be total anarchy. why do you think the idea of god was invented in the first place? its to keep people under control

No, the reason the ancients imagined gods is because they didn't understand the world around them. The issue of control is just a development that happened as different beliefs duked it out against each other. There are many ways to control the masses -- religion is just one way.

Buddist...

700 years more developed.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

700 years more developed.

so dam true. Bloody christians and your intelligent design shit. Science classes my ass!!!

I was referring to the theocratic dark ages.

I am not going to put my sentient will in an organization that has burned people at the stake for healing the sick.

[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 11-27-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

You come off as one of those stereotypical kids that say they're an atheist just to be a rebel...



you sound like one of those people that tells everyone else that they are just trying to be a rebel, while on the inside you hope that everyone thinks you're a rebel for calling everyone else a fake rebel

It wouldn't be better, most people look to religion as a cure for the fear of dying, I agree with Paradise, you just want to rebel. Religion keeps people sain as well and establishes some type of civilized manner I mean some people may even think "What the hell...it doesn't matter if I kill anybody, there is no heaven/hell so here it goes"

There is much more I just don't feel like adding more. Religion is a good moral base for majority of people. The world wouldn't be better.

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

so much better i think

It would be like this -

"who wants to form a new illuminati?

join me chaoswyrm and we will purge the world of the cultists, and free mankind for the next stage in cultural evolution."

If you are serious or not of "purging" anybody from the planet doesn't matter. One day those words could haunt you becaue somebody may not like you and would have paid no mind to purging you from the planet.

That's what a world without God will be like. No justice, no order, no peace but constant fear of being "purged" for the sake of non-conformity. Which can only be the next logical step to "political correctness"



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Paradise Lost:

You come off as one of those stereotypical kids that say they're an atheist just to be a rebel...

oh yeah one of them,

it would be more rebellious if i said i wanted to be a christian, since about 70% of the people who live around me are atheist

If no one had spiritual or even religious convictions or faith, we would be existing in a world which was not too terribly different from our present world, except for the following changes:

1.) Governments would be the ultimate and final "authority", there would be no "Higher power" to give higher allegiance due to a the ramifications of your life after death, where Governments could not touch you. (This is Religion's BIGGEST control method, the inescapability of it's law)

2.) Laws would be based strictly on moral and ethical debates revolving around purely practical and worldly ramifications, there would be no veiled religious or spiritual undertones to any chosen morality.

3.) Religions would stop being a source of conflict between people and nations, but the nature of humanity would take over and that void would be filled by other prejudices, intolerances, greed, politics, etc...therefore we would have just as many wars, with less "righteous" excuses and more accountability for the true causes.

4.) All the money people spend building churches, temples, mosques, etc, and all the money they spend buying religious/spiritual books, supplies, and paraphenalia would go to other sources that could provide the same opiate effect for the human soul in crisis...drugs, entertainment industry, etc.

In short, the names would change and the masks would look different, but the world would still be full of the same people, full of prejudice, ignorance, hate, selfishness, narcissism, arrogance, pride, greed, lust, violence, etc...Belief in God is a neutral factor in the world...it is how people act on their beliefs that makes the world what it is...and people who act poorly, will do so on any belief.

No one should be purged from the earth for either believing or not believing in God...if purgings of living humans were to occur, it should be based on the criteria of whether that individual adds or subtracts from the collective enlightenment of our human race. Enlightenment does not just mean spiritual, it also means intellectual, artistic, aesthetic, and emotional enlightenment.

Example: George W. Bush - Verdict: Subtracts

Example: George Lucas - Verdict: Adds

Clearly one can not purge based on sweeping generalizations of grouping such as "Christian" or "Democrat" or any other title of a doctrine, dogma or platform. Each person should be judged on their own personal merits, not by which groups they are a part of.

Chaos summed it up pretty much

Also, there would be a hell of alot more crimes being commited. You would be surprised how many people don't kill their wives/selves, all because there afraid of the afterlife. This is just an example

Yes, but there would be alot of disorder.

People beleive in God nowadays to escape the thought of death, becuase the unknown scares them. If people who are now religious found out that there was not life after death, and that there was nothing they could do about it, there would be more crime, (as Ares said).

People look up to a higher power, and it makes them happy, even if their religion is corrupt, they don't care because they are content with feeling happy and thinking they will live after death. I guess ignorance is bliss sums it up.

quote:Originally posted by Ares:



Also, there would be a hell of alot more crimes being commited. You would be surprised how many people don't kill their wives/selves, all because there afraid of the afterlife. This is just an example

The vast majority of people that committ murders or other violent crimes (hell, any crime), are theists who believe in an afterlife.

There goes your theory.

no, chaoswyrm, the highest power wouldn't be governments, human beings won't lose their moral compas the instant religion is removed, the highest power will, and always has been, human beings inner sense of right and wrong.

and don't try and say "well who's gonna tell people what's right and what's wrong?" we learn this shit instinctively, it comes from living around people, we all know what's acceptable and what isn't because we have parents and friends and family.

the world would be a better place in the round, progress would shoot ahead, as we will have more people focussing on the here and now instead of the magical superstition land.

also, christians and muslims and whatever are all taught to regard themselves as superior to other humans, not because they intrinsically ARE, but because they believe a certain set of lies!

if religion was removed, then their would be more demand for REAL knowledge, as knowledge would be the thing that sets them apart.

i can't explain properly because it is very late but the gist is there

quote:no, chaoswyrm, the highest power wouldn't be governments, human beings won't lose their moral compas the instant religion is removed, the highest power will, and always has been, human beings inner sense of right and wrong.

Funny. I was just reading about this.

http://home.swbell.net/revscat/perilsOfObedience.html

Countries with less religion have less violent crime.

EDIT: SOURCE: "Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'"



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.

http://tinyurl.com/buhsw



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 11-28-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

no, chaoswyrm, the highest power wouldn't be governments, human beings won't lose their moral compas the instant religion is removed, the highest power will, and always has been, human beings inner sense of right and wrong.



You do realize that you are idealizing to the point of arguing where no argument exists, right? "Highest authority" implies there is no other tangible authority body that has more say over human law and punishment codes. No one gives a hoot about "inner sense of right and wrong" or humanity's "moral compass"...those are all IRRELEVENT to what the ultimate authority of law on the face of the planet is. They will affect the quality and quantity of those laws, but not the existence of the governing body.

With the removal of Religion and Theistic spirituality, you remove the secondary government which has a "higher power" than man and his laws to justify it's codes superceding any particular code of a nation or tribe.

Your argument is for argument's sake, and detrimental to your own intended cause. If you want to seek fights, seek them with people who are your enemies, not with people who are giving objective points of view based on experiencial and experimental information from a lifetime of studying human nature.

You'd be surprised just how many "moral compasses" are hardly moral, and how rare a thing ethics really are in this world...Not everyone is a "good" person as you would like to believe, nor is learning "right from wrong" so uniform and reliable...if it were, the Prison Systems would be much cheaper to maintain than they currently are, and would not be so overcrowded with people whose "moral compasses" are broken, irregardless of religion...but the gross majority of reformed criminals who make it out of the penal system in the United States get reformed by (wait for it.....) Finding Jesus...that's right, Belief in God and the Christian faith helps reform those who's "moral compass" is already tuned incorrectly....

Interesting, no?

Unfortunately, you ignored information such as that in your diatribe...maybe it's my objectivity and willingness to see the strengths and weaknesses of all sides that frighten you and provoke your attacks against me...and seemingly only me.



[This message has been edited by ChaosWyrm (edited 11-28-2005).]

Act/Rule Utillitarianism = new moral compass

I really don't think you can preach about moral authority when the organized religion you belong to has been responsible for countless murders.

^^Chaoswyrm, yet the emperical evidence speaks to the contrary. See my post above yours.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

You do realize that you are idealizing to the point of arguing where no argument exists, right? "Highest authority" implies there is no other tangible authority body that has more say over human law and punishment codes. No one gives a hoot about "inner sense of right and wrong" or humanity's "moral compass"...those are all IRRELEVENT to what the ultimate authority of law on the face of the planet is. They will affect the quality and quantity of those laws, but not the existence of the governing body.

With the removal of Religion and Theistic spirituality, you remove the secondary government which has a "higher power" than man and his laws to justify it's codes superceding any particular code of a nation or tribe.

Your argument is for argument's sake, and detrimental to your own intended cause. If you want to seek fights, seek them with people who are your enemies, not with people who are giving objective points of view based on experiencial and experimental information from a lifetime of studying human nature.

You'd be surprised just how many "moral compasses" are hardly moral, and how rare a thing ethics really are in this world...Not everyone is a "good" person as you would like to believe, nor is learning "right from wrong" so uniform and reliable...if it were, the Prison Systems would be much cheaper to maintain than they currently are, and would not be so overcrowded with people whose "moral compasses" are broken, irregardless of religion...but the gross majority of reformed criminals who make it out of the penal system in the United States get reformed by (wait for it.....) Finding Jesus...that's right, Belief in God and the Christian faith helps reform those who's "moral compass" is already tuned incorrectly....

Interesting, no?

Unfortunately, you ignored information such as that in your diatribe...maybe it's my objectivity and willingness to see the strengths and weaknesses of all sides that frighten you and provoke your attacks against me...and seemingly only me.



im sorry,

so, you're saying that now there are 2 systems which govern human morallity, 1, the law, 2, religious moral codes.

what i am trying to say is that when the second, religious moral codes, are removed, we will still have to obey the law, but what will replace religious moral codes will be our innate sense of right and wrong, not neccessarily an innate one, but maybe more just a simple social type thing of "brotherhood of man".

what i'm trying to say is that there can still be a moral code without the associated superstition and anti knowledge factor which most religions bring with them.

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

^^Chaoswyrm, yet the emperical evidence speaks to the contrary. See my post above yours.



First off, that "study" is hardly scientific, nor is it conclusive. Shall I elaborate?

quote: Your article said:

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.

Religious views are not the only, or even the most prevalent social dynamic between the "test subjects" and there is NO control group...The U.S. is a mostly unique nation as far as it's social dynamics, politics, economics, and sense of identity...You cannot compare such differing countries along one bias while ignoring so many other stimuli which cause differentiation in statistics...

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 proof would be in showing how THE SAME nation is affected by both the Presence AND the Absence of religion with all other factors being identical.

quote: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. These other countries are completely different entities than the U.S.

Look up their laws about these matters, and their governmental and judicial processes...Look up their state health plan and health education programs, look up their gun laws, look up any of a number of other social and economic issues that contribute to all of these criteria on which this "study" was based.

This "social scientist" who published this report is a farse and should be run out of the scientific community for turning his back on science in favor of publishing propaganda.

Show me a report that's clean, conclusive, and with adherance to scientific method or at least logical comparative analysis techniques, then we can talk.

-------------------------------------

Remember, I never said Religion is required, nor did I even support it. I made objective and true observational statements about what would be the "result" of the proposed theoretical world-wide state of affairs. Nowhere did I claim that humans don't have their own "moral compass" or code of ethics, nor did I claim that people would go ape shit and riot like monkeys with their asses set on fire if they didn't believe in God. I stated that Governments would be the ultimate and final "authority" on law and punishment, and that humans would find other motives to fill in for religion's absence when their darker natures took over (wars, violence, etc)

To answer Terminator...Yes, I am stating that there ARE two systems which govern human behavior (1: the law, 2: religious codes and doctrines).

Morality is a personal thing, but everyone's "moral compass" is affected in some way by both of the above systems, either directly or indirectly. Both religion and secular laws tell us it is wrong to steal...but as a child, we don't inherently "know" not to take what we want from another...we get punished for bad behavior by our parents, thus learning what is appropriate or inappropriate...Our parents learned from their parents and so on and so forth...It is not coincidental that familial "laws" often coincide with the laws of religious faiths and secular laws of the area and beliefs to which a family belongs and in which they reside...it's a societal adaptation of behavior.

You want an example of how "moral compasses" are not universal but rather tuned by the environmental factors I delineated above? Let's look at China, where the laws and societal beliefs and customs make the birth of a son so important that the birth of a daughter becomes a tragedy to a family...Unless that daughter was never born...or died at birth, thus freeing up that family to have another child to try for a son again...

Sure, daughters are still born and survive, but for a long time, there was a virtual epidemic of "stillborn" daughters in China, or aborted female fetuses...the numbers are still abnormally high, but not as bad.

Tell me, in a Country where belief in God is outlawed (because it threatens the allegiance of the people to Communism...), who do we blame for the willingness of so many to destroy a life for the sake of their family's honor and continuance? I don't know, honestly, but the information seems to speak volumes about SOMETHING.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

Show me a report that's clean, conclusive, and with adherance to scientific method or at least logical comparative analysis techniques, then we can talk.



I posted a link to a newspaper article not the scientific paper, so you cannot critique the method used. We dont even know what it is and I dont really care enough to search for it.

The the point is clear, countries with less religion have less violent crime. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, buts its obvious that religion is not keeping crime down.

As for your comments on china.. i think it may have to do with the fact they they have a LAW THAT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN. And who is to say that abortion is wrong? Oh right some MEN who claim to be speaking for god. LETS GO STONE SOME WOMEN (you see how rediculous your argument sounds)

religion is only a vast "projection" of not only internal human morallity, but also human greed, human power hunger, in a form that is designed to indoctrinate people.

i think china is right to supress religion. i seriously think it's a better way for humans to be!

but fuck it, its straying too much into politics now

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

I posted a link to a newspaper article not the scientific paper, so you cannot critique the method used. We dont even know what it is and I dont really care enough to search for it. Are you saying that newspaper article grossly misrepresented the "scientific" paper's premise? If so, why did you post it? Furthermore if YOU don't even know what the paper said, other than what the article reported, how do you propose to stand on it's credibility?

quote:The the point is clear, countries with less religion have less violent crime. You can draw whatever conclusions you want from that, buts its obvious that religion is not keeping crime down. Your logic is flawed. The "point" is NOT clear...and religion COULD be keeping the crime down...if religion were removed, who's to say or prove that crime would not indeed be even HIGHER in the United States due to innumerable other sociological, economical, and political factors other than religion? Certainly not you, and certainly not this study mentioned in the report. You are falling victim to false logic and tunnel vision on the matter, and that's precisely what the propaganda relies on. Think for yourself, ask more questions, don't believe the crap just because some guy with a degree said it or some newspaper said he said it.

quote:As for your comments on china.. i think it may have to do with the fact they they have a LAW THAT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN. And who is to say that abortion is wrong? Oh right some MEN who claim to be speaking for god. LETS GO STONE SOME WOMEN (you see how rediculous your argument sounds)

Yes, indeed, they have laws limiting the number of children, that's precisely what I was referring to. Also, you will note I did not personally judge nor condemn the act of abortion, nor the murder of the children who were actually born, then had their umbilical cords tied aroudn their necks or their heads staved in with rocks, or drowned...However, you can clearly see that such things are against the "moral compass" of many people who are not in china, whether it be for religious reasons or simply personal feelings that killing stuff is wrong. This is an Illustration of the differences in moral compasses worldwide to disprove the "brotherhood of man" universal morality ideal presented by Terminator...morality is subjective and is taught, and it is effected both directly and indirectly by our political and theological environmental factors.

The fact that you took the whole thing as an ignorant protest of abortion or some other lobbying for a political agenda only demonstrates to me that your eyes are NOT open to the facts when they are presented, but instead, your blinder of choice is to pick things like the word "abortion" to trigger an off-topic diatribe or assault.

Your little rant has absolutely nothing to do with my "argument" so the only person it showed to "sound rediculous" is you. It's unfortunate, we could have had an intelligent discussion.

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

religion is only a vast "projection" of not only internal human morallity, but also human greed, human power hunger, in a form that is designed to indoctrinate people.

Oh? Indoctrinate them to what end?

I think you just proved my point, chief.

Can you adress my post chaoswyrm?

why can't utillitarianism act as a moral compass?

Also what is your basis for religious moral high ground? There have been so many atrocities comitted in the name of religion.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

Oh? Indoctrinate them to what end?

I think you just proved my point, chief.

how exactly, did i do that?

indoctrination is the end in itself, religion simply wants to keep humanity static, keep them god-fearing and docile.

much like pre 20th century spain.

i'm starting to think you're on the wrong side of the battle, isn't the whole purpose of life to tell the truth and expose lies?

quote:Are you saying that newspaper article grossly misrepresented the "scientific" paper's premise? If so, why did you post it? Furthermore if YOU don't even know what the paper said, other than what the article reported, how do you propose to stand on it's credibility?

Absoulutely not, I simply pointed out that you did not read the research. That means you do not know the method or data used to come to the stated conclusions. Therefore you cannot make any claims about the research. You are the one attacking the credibility, yet you have no basis for this, except some alternative hypotheses with no presented data to back them up.



quote:Your logic is flawed. The "point" is NOT clear...and religion COULD be keeping the crime down...if religion were removed, who's to say or prove that crime would not indeed be even HIGHER in the United States due to innumerable other sociological, economical, and political factors other than religion? Certainly not you, and certainly not this study mentioned in the report. You are falling victim to false logic and tunnel vision on the matter, and that's precisely what the propaganda relies on. Think for yourself, ask more questions, don't believe the crap just because some guy with a degree said it or some newspaper said he said it.

The report was made in multiple newspapers and magazines, this was just one source that I found online. If you paid attention to any news, you would already know this. You have some alternative hypotheses...big deal. Find some data to support them. I have presented data to support the hypothesis that less religion => less crime. You have not presented data.



quote:Yes, indeed, they have laws limiting the number of children, that's precisely what I was referring to. Also, you will note I did not personally judge nor condemn the act of abortion, nor the murder of the children who were actually born, then had their umbilical cords tied aroudn their necks or their heads staved in with rocks, or drowned...However, you can clearly see that such things are against the "moral compass" of many people who are not in china, whether it be for religious reasons or simply personal feelings that killing stuff is wrong. This is an Illustration of the differences in moral compasses worldwide to disprove the "brotherhood of man" universal morality ideal presented by Terminator...morality is subjective and is taught, and it is effected both directly and indirectly by our political and theological environmental factors.

Yeah, so your conclusions about lack of religion were irrelevant. I provided the counter example where in some religious countries women get stoned. I haven't supported terminator's thesis... but humans do have a natural tendency to form societies with laws and morals. And if you look you will see universal apsects to every culture. Theology is not needed to impose morality, society and culture do it on their own.



quote:The fact that you took the whole thing as an ignorant protest of abortion or some other lobbying for a political agenda only demonstrates to me that your eyes are NOT open to the facts when they are presented, but instead, your blinder of choice is to pick things like the word "abortion" to trigger an off-topic diatribe or assault.

You brought up abortion and china. I provided you with the explanation: overpopulation. I am not the one trying to make this a debate on abortion, but you said "Tell me, in a Country where belief in God is outlawed (because it threatens the allegiance of the people to Communism...), who do we blame for the willingness of so many to destroy a life for the sake of their family's honor and continuance? I don't know, honestly, but the information seems to speak volumes about SOMETHING."

Hmmmm. do you want to clarify what you intended that statement to mean?



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 11-29-2005).]

less religion = higher standard of education

high s o education = more productive economy

more productive economy = less poverty

less poverty = less crime

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Can you adress my post chaoswyrm?

why can't utillitarianism act as a moral compass?

Also what is your basis for religious moral high ground? There have been so many atrocities comitted in the name of religion.

Yes I can, now that I know it was directed to me:

Never said utilitarianism couldn't act as a moral compass.

Never claimed religious high ground. In fact, I never claimed any religious affiliation or claimed any religion was superior to lack of religion. In fact, I am a-religious, and despise religion as a rule. I am instead spiritual and have a personal relationship with God, as I have said in at least 2 other threads in this and other forums on ToTSE...

I quite clearly stated here and in many other threads that Religion was a causal factor in many atrocities and acts of violence...in this thread I simply pointed out that in the absence of religion to use as a vehicle for hate and prejudice, humanity would find another vehicle.

You and others seem to be having serious reading comprehension issues based on your pre-disposition towards anyone who doesn't post something that directly agrees with you.

There is no "between the lines" motive or message in my posts, I mean what I say. I don't know how to be more clear about my points, and frankly, repeating the SAME things in answer to questions which I already answered in preceding posts is getting tiresome.

Please, do a search on posts by me and get a broader picture of my views before jumping to conclusions about what I'm trying to say.

quote:TerminatorVinitiatoR wrote:

how exactly, did i do that?

indoctrination is the end in itself, religion simply wants to keep humanity static, keep them god-fearing and docile.

much like pre 20th century spain.

i'm starting to think you're on the wrong side of the battle, isn't the whole purpose of life to tell the truth and expose lies?



I stated that religion and belief in god were control measures, combined with secular governments, which control the behavior patterns of humans...you seemed incredulous...I clarified...you seemed incredulous, then stated exactly what I did, and now fail to see the whole picture I just painted...so that I have to paint it again...Again I reiterate my words above...put aside your pre-disposition and assumptions and read what I wrote, as opposed to whatever is happening in your head to make my simple and direct posts so utterly incomprehensible to you that you would argue against me by stating my own assertions as arguments against those very assertions...

You're too busy assuming you're view has been attacked and defending it to realize that's not the case. As long as you persist in premising all of your replies on assumed attack where none exists, you will continue to simply "not get it" and be perplexed.

I'm not "on" any "side" of this battle you have imagined and set in motion. The fact that you said such a thing reiterates my admonitions above.

quote:Real.PUA wrote:

The report was made in multiple newspapers and magazines, this was just one source that I found online. If you paid attention to any news, you would already know this. You have some alternative hypotheses...big deal. Find some data to support them. I have presented data to support the hypothesis that less religion => less crime. You have not presented data.

Ok, look, let me make this irrefutable for you. Here is your article's report, in the full --> Journal of Religion and Society, 2005 (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html)

Here is a qualifying excerpt from the section titled "Procedures and Primary Data Sources" wherein the report itself acknowledges and accepts my points and clearly states that it is not what you are claiming it is.

quote:from the report:

[12] Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions. Nor were multivariate analyses used because they risk manipulating the data to produce errant or desired results,<5> and because the fairly consistent characteristics of the sample automatically minimizes the need to correct for external multiple factors (see further discussion below). Therefore correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination.

However the following portion from results addresses some of the concerns I mentioned and makes a much more solid case by comparing the same region with changes to religiosity over time...however it ignores the change in government as well.

quote:[15] A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile-adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6>

Clearly, the report itself is compelling and brings up several points to be researched further...but it is a preliminary study that proves nothing but the need to further investigate the phenomena therein.

All media sources skim and hype things like this, it's best to do the research yourself before you jump on the bandwagon with incomplete data.

I'm not arguing that religion is dangerous, but "belief in god" != "religion"...There is a drastic difference between religion and spirituality. Case in point, to use a country from the very study above...Japan...

Japan is a very spiritual and philosophical country, steeped in rich traditions...To assume that Japan is an atheist country, with no beliefs or traditions not founded in science and the "practical" world, would be ignorant and quite preposterous...

You can, in fact, believe in God or other Guiding spiritual forces, and still not be religious...amazing but true.

quote:Theology is not needed to impose morality, society and culture do it on their own.

Again, I never said it was, and I challenge you to find any place where I said it was needed to impose morality. More examples of your not reading what is written...I'm not sure exactly what you are reading, but it's nothing I wrote...

quote:You brought up abortion and china. I provided you with the explanation: overpopulation. I am not the one trying to make this a debate on abortion, but you said "Tell me, in a Country where belief in God is outlawed (because it threatens the allegiance of the people to Communism...), who do we blame for the willingness of so many to destroy a life for the sake of their family's honor and continuance? I don't know, honestly, but the information seems to speak volumes about SOMETHING."

Hmmmm. do you want to clarify what you intended that statement to mean?



Certainly:

In a country that is not religious, what factor is responsible for the difference in the moral compass of the population versus the moral compass of say, the United States? How do you account for the variance in what is "right and wrong" based on geographical differences? This cuts right to the heart of the assertions made that "morality" is universal...it clearly is not. "Morality" is subjective and regional.

Almost any "Moral rule" has a group or society who's morality goes against it or skirts the fuzzy boundaries of it...This simple fact disproves "universal morality" as anything other than an unrealistic Ideal, much the same as Communism and Religion looked like a good idea on paper, the facts are that humanity does not live up to such ideals.

quote:TerminatorVinitiatoR wrote:

less religion = higher standard of education

high s o education = more productive economy

more productive economy = less poverty

less poverty = less crime

your equations are oversimplified and statistically incorrect in some cases. Again, ideals are wonderful on paper, but hardly ever in practice when dealing with multitudes of people.

Communism claimed all of these things too...

And if you think only the poor commit crimes, you are a fool. The worst crimes are perpetrated by those with the most power and money in this country for certain, and in other countries as well.

You simply need to step back from your own propaganda and look at the big picture and realize you're an idealist, which is fine...but you seem to be a zealous idealist...which is just as bad as a religious zealot...any conviction strong enough to blind you to anything else is worse than a lie.

When it seems that no one belives anymore and the belivers are being killed jesus will comeback and the disbelivers will be like uh-oh....

i'm sorry chaos wyrm, but i don't feel like i am in the wrong.

expose lies, tell the truth, is what i'm doing, and the supernatural is a big lie!

prove otherwise.

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

i'm sorry chaos wyrm, but i don't feel like i am in the wrong.

expose lies, tell the truth, is what i'm doing, and the supernatural is a big lie!

prove otherwise.

Of course you don't feel like you are in the wrong. It would be preposterous for you to defend what you felt was incorrect. You are entitled to your opinions and beliefs, as well as your ideals. We all are. You believe the supernatural is a big lie, I believe that the innate "goodness" of men and a common and binding "moral compass" is complete poppycock. The difference is that I have experiencial proof that your ideal has holes in it, and I can cite examples to show how humanity includes a large portion of people who don't fit your perceptions...all you can do to "prove" your bias against the supernatural is supply the fact that you haven't experienced it. Proof by failure to find counterexample is an error of reasoning...

I'm far from an advocate of religion, I just recognize it for what it is and what purpose it serves. I'm not opposed to a world without it either, I simply stated in objective terms what I thought said world would be like. You see, most of the problems YOU have with religion stem from Humanity's flaws and how they twist religion to suit the innately selfish and self-serving nature of man...Religion is a symptom, not the disease...

This is where your ideals, in my opinion fall short of the big picture, and is what I've been trying to point out to you. You can attempt to alleviate the symptoms all day long, but the disease will remain.

Expose all the lies you want to, tell all the truth you want to, but realize that you're not the only one who knows truth or can see through lies, and in no way do you know all truth or see through all lies. Else you would already know these things I have pointed out, because they most certainly are truth.

I have no agenda here, other than to try to encourage people to think outside of their little boxes, and to point out holes I see in arguments...

See, I am not arguing that you should believe in God, or religion, or even spirituality...never was...It would be rediculous for me to do so. I am, however contesting your premise of the world being better simply because you subtracted one of the symptoms of mankind's greater malaise.

Now chaos, don't be paranoid, I probably miswrote my post, what is the basis for religion having moral highground?

I'm a little confused here, Could someone tell me what where arguing about?

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Now chaos, don't be paranoid, I probably miswrote my post, what is the basis for religion having moral highground?

I'm a little confused here, Could someone tell me what where arguing about?

Religion does not have moral highground. I'm unsure how you got such an idea from my posts.

I'm actually not quite sure what or why people are arguing now.

So we agree cool.

God told me your all dumb fucks. Deal with it.

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

God told me your all dumb fucks. Deal with it.

Obviously, you have the bat-phone straight to God. /sarcasm

actually the notion of god has about as much factual grounding as the "bat phone"

What would Jesus do???

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

actually the notion of god has about as much factual grounding as the "bat phone"

You do realize you just stated that the notion of god is plausible?

a "bat phone" can be easily implemented and used.

Nice try, but you undermine yourself in your attempt to be "cute", chief.

quote:Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:

Obviously, you have the bat-phone straight to God. /sarcasm



Prove he didnt tell me that.

quote:Originally posted by Fai1safe:

Prove he didnt tell me that.

He told me that he dind't tell you that. You calling him a liar?

i think without religion the world wouldn't be much different, people find a reason to do to another what they do and if religion's not up for it, they'll find other reasons

Probably a century or so more advanced than we are now.

quote:Originally posted by dark-easterbunny:

i think without religion the world wouldn't be much different, people find a reason to do to another what they do and if religion's not up for it, they'll find other reasons



exactly