Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Good behaviour doesn't require superstition.
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 1 of 49 (469234)
06-04-2008 4:46 PM


From another thread:
Wumpini writes:
If that is the case then we should all become atheists. That also means we should do whatever we want to do. There would be no universal moral law in the universe. Whatever benefits us or pleases us most in this life, we should pursue. It means the only right and wrong that exists is dictated by society.
http://EvC Forum: How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution? -->EvC Forum: How Do Scientists Believe in God and Evolution?
It's a commonly expressed view by religious people that without their religion, human behaviour would have no guidelines. In other words, without the fear of hell and the promise of heaven, people will just do whatever they want to do.
Interestingly, it's only recently, in the last few decades, that any countries in the world have had significant proportions of their populations who declare themselves to be non-religious. So, the obvious question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not the countries with the highest levels of non-theism are experiencing more problems of "evil" than their more traditional, still religious, counterparts.
Let's discuss it. And to start with, what is more evil than murder?
List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia
Scroll down to this century, and see which countries lead us in this particular evil.
Are the leading infidel countries the offenders?
Homepage - adherents
Oops. They're clearly not, but it doesn't look too good for the devoutly Christian areas of South and Central America, does it.
Edited by bluegenes, : fix link

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by obvious Child, posted 06-05-2008 2:05 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 4 by ikabod, posted 06-05-2008 5:14 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-08-2008 1:14 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 7:02 PM bluegenes has replied

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4115 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 2 of 49 (469307)
06-05-2008 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
06-04-2008 4:46 PM


The data doesn't suggest that atheism has anything to do with murder rates. I'd have a hard time calling Japan, Singapore, Morrocco or Burma heavily atheistic. Perhaps it's more of an issue of which religion is dominant. Furthermore, the data also suggests that states that are weak and are poorly governed have higher rates of homicide regardless of religion. Then there is the whole issue of misreporting. What is really interesting is that the US in the 60s had a much higher rate then Northern Ireland. Or perhaps the deaths caused by that conflict aren't included in general homicide numbers?
Wumpini's argument is completely full of crap anyways for the most part. If his argument was correct, atheists should represent the majority of those in jail. Given the current data, they are severely unrepresented given their portion of the population. He is correct though that right and wrong exist based on what society's dictates. But that has always been true everywhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2008 4:46 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2008 2:50 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 3 of 49 (469314)
06-05-2008 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by obvious Child
06-05-2008 2:05 AM


obvious child writes:
The data doesn't suggest that atheism has anything to do with murder rates.
Not much, directly, but with Russia as the exception, the countries with high disbelief rates generally do pretty well. The same goes for other things, like average life expectancy (Russia is the exception, again).
Then there is the whole issue of misreporting. What is really interesting is that the US in the 60s had a much higher rate then Northern Ireland. Or perhaps the deaths caused by that conflict aren't included in general homicide numbers?
The deaths due to the conflict were included in the numbers. Here's something interesting in relation to the U.S.
The percentage of evil infidels in the U.S. has about doubled over the last 20 years, and the murder rate has shot down in that period.
It's not a direct connection at all, but I'm pointing out here that so far as serious misbehaviour is concerned, countries losing their religion certainly do not seem to decline morally.
There are other interesting statistics about the U.S. and religion that I'll bring in later (guess where the highest divorce and abortion rates are found).
Perhaps it's more of an issue of which religion is dominant.
I don't think so. Predominantly Buddhist Thailand has a higher murder rate than nearly all the leading infidel countries, as do most of the very Christian and Muslim countries. There are stats for India in the previous decade, and its rate is higher than the infidels (Russia excepted, probably).
All this probably has to do with the tendency of religion to thrive around poverty, turbulance and ignorance. I'm not suggesting that actual church goers are more likely to kill than non-church goers. It's more complicated than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by obvious Child, posted 06-05-2008 2:05 AM obvious Child has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 4 of 49 (469339)
06-05-2008 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
06-04-2008 4:46 PM


is it valid to compare these two sets of data ?
firstly we must remove unpremeditated murder , murder due to mental condistions , and murder sactioned by religion from the totals ....
next what was the religious views of each murderer at the time of the murder...
further we need to consider the nature of the crime in each country ..
in the USA which is the greater deterant to murder , Hell or the chance of being caught by a modern high tech police force , upon whom the public and media will place pressure to solve the crime.
where as
in some developing world country which is the greater deterant to murder , Hell or the chance of being caught by a low tech police force, know to suffer high levels of corruption and cohersion , who much of the public will avoid , and no free media ..
me thinks this is a classic case of picking to sets of data and trying to show a effect , which places a desired slant on the infomation , while there is no showing of any real corelation between the sets of data .
one might equally do atheists eat more shellfish , work on sundays , covert ox / bmw , or not turn the other cheek ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2008 4:46 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bluegenes, posted 06-05-2008 5:49 AM ikabod has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 5 of 49 (469342)
06-05-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ikabod
06-05-2008 5:14 AM


ikabod writes:
me thinks this is a classic case of picking to sets of data and trying to show a effect , which places a desired slant on the infomation , while there is no showing of any real corelation between the sets of data .
I'm not claiming a simple correlation in the data. You may never have come across the type of religious person who thinks that their country will go to ruin if people cease to believe, but there are lots of them. I'm pointing out that life and behaviour in Sweden, Norway or France cannot be said to be worse than life in the most religious societies in the world.
So far, the answer to any question like "what will become of the world if it loses religious belief" seems to be that it will probably be a slightly better place.
Let's see how the societies with the most infidels fare here:
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia
Homepage - adherents
Russia, as ever, will be an anachronism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ikabod, posted 06-05-2008 5:14 AM ikabod has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 6 of 49 (469849)
06-08-2008 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
06-04-2008 4:46 PM


Non-theists better at stable relationships than theists.
As this thread is about the consistent and widespread delusion amongst religious people that their religions promote good behaviour, here's another demonstration of how false that is.
quote:
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
From a religious site
Why do we have to listen to so much "family values" rubbish from our religious brethren when they are the ones most likely to be dysfunctional?
Can any of the conservative Christians here on EvC attempt to defend this apparent hypocrisy?
I'm not surprised that there's been no Christian response to this thread so far. When it comes to surveys and statistics, the indication is that the world would be better off without the organised superstition we call religion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2008 4:46 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 2:52 AM bluegenes has replied
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2008 9:08 AM bluegenes has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 7 of 49 (469859)
06-08-2008 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
06-08-2008 1:14 AM


Re: Non-theists better at stable relationships than theists.
This is not to mention the fact that the states currently with some kind of gay marriage ban also are the states with the highest divorce rates. This is ignoring Nevada, of course, for obvious reasons.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-08-2008 1:14 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by bluegenes, posted 06-08-2008 7:12 AM Taz has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 8 of 49 (469875)
06-08-2008 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
06-08-2008 2:52 AM


Re: Non-theists better at stable relationships than theists.
Taz writes:
This is not to mention the fact that the states currently with some kind of gay marriage ban also are the states with the highest divorce rates.
Exactly what would be expected according to my info. above, of course. Meaning, basically, that what you call the "red"* states, those most likely to have majorities against same-sex marriages, have the highest percentage of "born again Christians" and therefore the highest divorce rates. I think those states may also have the highest abortion rates, although that's from memory.
What this thread shows is that when a society starts to lose faith in traditional religion, far from descending into moral confusion, things generally get better. But, of course, I'm talking mainly about behaviour in relation to the most serious things, like murder. For conservative Christians, it is things like cohabitation without marriage (open fornication :eek and open same sex relationships (anti-Leviticus :eek that matter.
I'll look up the stats, because I'm pretty sure that the most infidel countries in the world have lower divorce and abortion rates than the U.S. as a whole. They are also amongst the best at looking after their poor.
It seems like your conservative Christian communities are dragging you backwards, and causing some of the problems they complain about. Mad. And they want to take over biology teaching
The problem for fundies, as a U.S. writer whose name eludes me once said, is not whether or not they descended from apes, but whether or not they might soon be overtaken by them.
*"red", presumably so called to confuse the rest of the world, where "red" means left wing, and "blue" means right wing. It's like your unique month/day/year dating system, when everyone else does it (logically) in ascending or descending order. Being irrational is the privilege of a super power - look at the ridiculous system of measures the British hung onto throughout superpowerdom (empire) and are only just shedding now, for example, to screams of protest from our conservatives, who have trouble with the complexities of applying a decimal numerical system to a decimal measures system, while finding it easy to remember that there are 36 inches in a yard and 1760 yds. in a mile. Sorry about the O.T. rant. It's Sunday morning. I should be in a pulpit somewhere!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 2:52 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Taz, posted 06-09-2008 5:27 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 9 of 49 (469879)
06-08-2008 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by bluegenes
06-08-2008 1:14 AM


Re: Non-theists better at stable relationships than theists.
bluegenes writes:
Why do we have to listen to so much "family values" rubbish from our religious brethren when they are the ones most likely to be dysfunctional?
Can any of the conservative Christians here on EvC attempt to defend this apparent hypocrisy?
I am a fundamental conservative born again child of God trying to live a life like Christ did.
But before I try to address anything in this thread I would like to know if you believe all religion is the same?
You seem to use the word Christian and Religion as one interchangeable word.
Could you please define religion?
Could you please define Christian?
Could you please define born again Christian? (message 8)
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bluegenes, posted 06-08-2008 1:14 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by bluegenes, posted 06-08-2008 10:02 AM ICANT has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 10 of 49 (469887)
06-08-2008 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by ICANT
06-08-2008 9:08 AM


Non-theists have lower divorce rates than born again fundies.
ICANT writes:
But before I try to address anything in this thread I would like to know if you believe all religion is the same?
No, I don't.
You seem to use the word Christian and Religion as one interchangeable word.
No, I don't, obviously. A Christian is not a religion, is it? And a religion is not a Christian, is it? And the adjective "Christian" cannot mean the noun "religion" can it?
I think you meant "Christianity". If you're going to discuss words and definitions, ICANT, you need to be precise.
If you did mean Christianity, then no, I do not use Christianity and religion as one interchangeable word, even if it sometimes seems so to you.
Could you please define religion?
For the purposes of this thread? Use standard dictionary definitions under which Christianity, Hinduism, and Scientology, for examples, would fit, but football or a political cause, for examples, wouldn't.
Could you please define Christian?
The noun (a Christian) or the adjective? Never mind, and use standard dictionary definitions for both.
Could you please define born again Christian? (message 8)
As used in the Barna research reported on the web page I linked to in post 6. For your convenience:
U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas
They presumably count those who describe themselves as born again Christians as being born again Christians, which is sensible, isn't it?
God Bless
May the Force be with you.
Edited by bluegenes, : added nice provocative title

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by ICANT, posted 06-08-2008 9:08 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2008 3:45 PM bluegenes has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 11 of 49 (470120)
06-09-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by bluegenes
06-08-2008 10:02 AM


Re: Non-theists have lower divorce rates than born again fundies.
bluegenes writes:
ICANT writes:
You seem to use the word Christian and Religion as one interchangeable word.
No, I don't, obviously. A Christian is not a religion, is it? And a religion is not a Christian, is it? And the adjective "Christian" cannot mean the noun "religion" can it?
I think you meant "Christianity". If you're going to discuss words and definitions, ICANT, you need to be precise.
If you did mean Christianity, then no, I do not use Christianity and religion as one interchangeable word, even if it sometimes seems so to you.
I did not mean Christianity. I used the word I meant (please notice I did not say a Christian) to use as I feel you use the two interchangeably. But that really doesn't matter I just want to know what we are talking about before I open my mouth and insert foot.
bluegens writes:
For the purposes of this thread? Use standard dictionary definitions under which Christianity, Hinduism, and Scientology, for examples, would fit, but football or a political cause, for examples, wouldn't.
ICANT writes:
Could you please define religion?
(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
Religion Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
ICANT writes:
Could you please define Christian?
1 a: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ
Merriam-Webster online.
ICANT writes:
Could you please define born again Christian?
No definition in Merriam-Webster online.
In Christianity, the terms born again, regenerated or transformed are synonymous with spiritual rebirth ” i.e. salvation. It means having a personal faith in Jesus Christ.
Born again - Wikipedia
The only one of these I will not accept is the born again Christian.
There is only one place to find out what that phrase means and it is not in a dictionary or encyclopedia.
In the book of John Jesus made the born again statement and then explained how it took place.
John writes:
3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Jesus explained verse 5 in verse 6. He said you had to have a flesh birth, which Nicodemus already had.
He told him he had to be born again and this birth was by the Spirit.
Therefore it is a spiritual birth and is accomplished when the Holy Spirit seals the soul (spirit) until the day of redemption.
Ephe 4:30 (KJV) And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
Jesus also said in John:
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Now when you put this together you have.
A born again Christian is a person who has been born from above when the Holy Spirit came in and sealed their soul until the day of redemption that is following Jesus continually.
I get in trouble all the time with this definition because it cuts down to about 4% or less of all those self proclaimed Christians in the world.
I know a lot of people that fit into this definition of a born again Christian. The thousands I know that God is first in their life do not have problems with their mates or with their brothers and sisters in Christ. We are going to all live together for eternity so we might as well learn to get along now.
I have found problems arise when people have the attitude I, Me, and Mine is all that counts and makes no difference who it hurts.
Now if you want to say the group that fits the definition of Christian as per Merriam-Webster is a bunch of hypocrites that are probably worse that a lot of atheist I would have to agree.
I have atheist friends that would never do or say some of the things that many of these so called Christians do.
Just because a person professes something does not mean he/she possesses said something.
If you go down to the nursery and buy a four foot orange tree take it home and plant it and a couple of years later it blooms and then proceeds to produce a grapefruit you will know you don't have an orange tree. They look a lot alike but the fruit is different.
A professing Christian may look like and practice many things the Possessing Christian does. The difference is in the fruit that they produce.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bluegenes, posted 06-08-2008 10:02 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by bluegenes, posted 06-09-2008 3:59 PM ICANT has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 12 of 49 (470121)
06-09-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICANT
06-09-2008 3:45 PM


Re: Non-theists have lower divorce rates than born again fundies.
ICANT writes:
I did not mean Christianity. I used the word I meant (please notice I did not say a Christian) to use as I feel you use the two interchangeably.
How the hell can someone use an adjective and a noun interchangeably?
From the rest of your post, I sort of gather that you're disowning 96% of the self described Born-Agains (all the evil divorcees included, no doubt) and identifying with a pure spiritual elite.
Well, at least that way it won't be too crowded in the Born-Again heaven.
Nevertheless, don't you find it interesting that infidels are better at fidelity than all those pseudo born again fundies?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2008 3:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ICANT, posted 06-09-2008 10:46 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 13 of 49 (470135)
06-09-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by bluegenes
06-08-2008 7:12 AM


Re: Non-theists better at stable relationships than theists.
bluegenes writes:
What this thread shows is that when a society starts to lose faith in traditional religion, far from descending into moral confusion, things generally get better.
My explanation for this trend is this. A person that relies on a particular religion to be moral has the mentality of a child, morally speaking that is. A child has no impulse control. It doesn't know right from wrong. The only thing that comes close to a moral behavior in a small child is the semi-wanting to please the parents.
We treat children like children because they don't know any better. We tell them what's right and what's wrong. If they insist on doing wrong, we threaten them with punishment. Some of us reward them for doing right. Over time, hopefully they will develop a sense of conscience.
Religious people who insist on a moral vacuum without their particular brand of religion assumes that everyone has the moral sense of a child. When we were little we were punished or threatened with punishment if we did wrong. When we are adults, we are threatened with eternal damnation. When we were little we were awarded for doing right. When we are adults, we are offered eternal salvation in heaven for doing right.
I dare to say that societies that steer away from religion are societies that have grown up for real. They no longer see the need to offer punishment and reward for immoral and moral behavior. They have principles. They truly know the difference between right and wrong rather than being told what's right and wrong.
This is exactly the same reason why societal progresses have always been made with independent free thinkers rather than followers of christ. And every step of the way, followers of christ have always tried to bring us a step backward. The gay marriage issue is just another demonstration of this pattern of religious people unable to tell the difference between right and wrong and having to rely on a 2 thousand year old book.
I think it's about time we demand that people grow up already.
And they want to take over biology teaching
I see the evo vs creo debate as more than just an intellectual debate. I see it as a moral debate. Creos want to bring us to an intellectual dead end, the same dead end that kept Europe in the dark ages for 800 years when science was declared as blasphemy. Seriously, do we really want our children to stop thinking and use "goddunit" as an explanation for everything? It's a moral issue!

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by bluegenes, posted 06-08-2008 7:12 AM bluegenes has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 49 (470159)
06-09-2008 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bluegenes
06-04-2008 4:46 PM


It's a commonly expressed view by religious people that without their religion, human behaviour would have no guidelines. In other words, without the fear of hell and the promise of heaven, people will just do whatever they want to do.
I haven't heard too many people that have uttered words like that, even among the self-proclaimed "religious." I think what some people mean, however, comes from a simple philosophical deduction. There is ample evidence to support that people who ascribe to atheism have a set of morals. Everybody has a set of morals to some degree, whether they follow them or not. The philosophical question is that there really is no good reason to have them in a relativistic society beyond pragmatic reasons. But you aren't thinking pragmatically or in practical terms when someone slaughters your mother and butchers your son. There is something deeper in the human soul, if you can reprieve the religious connotation momentarily, when an act of that magnitude is committed.
Simply put, your own question is loaded with presuppositions which in and of itself require clarification. For instance, you freely use the word "good" behavior to show that irreligious folk can be good. But you neglect to define what is good. In fact, you either leave it up to personal interpretation, or you tacitly make an appeal to absolutism. Either way it is a philosophical dead end.
Interestingly, it's only recently, in the last few decades, that any countries in the world have had significant proportions of their populations who declare themselves to be non-religious. So, the obvious question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not the countries with the highest levels of non-theism are experiencing more problems of "evil" than their more traditional, still religious, counterparts.
I don't think there would be anything beyond anecdote when looking at this, trying to determine which countries have the more religious persons per capita versus those that espouse atheism. This is because any and all countries have its religious and their irreligious. Even supposing you accurately estimate, something like that would still be specious because it is asking the wrong question. Mafia's have long prayed the rosary right before bludgeoning a man to death, then rolling the corpse in to a shallow grave. Does that sound like something Jesus would have done? Probably not, but it doesn't seem to stop them.
Part of the problem is that calling oneself "religious," as if it were supposed to indicate a holier-than-thou, higher moral virtue is ridiculous, though I would agree that many people might tend to equivocate it with such a shallow, surface-level notion.
You look in the 80's and you see the Soviet Union, as godless as it gets, juxtaposed by Ireland, a place many people equate with having a predominant religiosity. Was the Soviet Union more apt to murder because of their godless ways? Is there some sort of definitive correlation? The problem is that there is not a simple answer. Because first of all, believing in God doesn't somehow make one's will in alignment with the will of God in the first place. It would be as meaningless as telling someone that I'm an Asian woman when really I'm an African man. Does my saying so make me an Asian woman? Does my saying so make me more moral? Obviously not.
Likewise, we can juxtapose the most godless empires on the planet now, China and North Korea, with the United States, supposedly overflowing with good, little Christian boys and girls. Which has a higher homicide rate? The US. But it doesn't mean anything because these questions are very complex, and could not so succinctly compartmentalized with who is religious and who is irreligious. There really is no correlation, as far as I can tell. The only correlation is how strict a society is, what virtues they hold to, what they refer to as virtuous in the first place, whether religious or irreligious, and how they were raised in general. And even that is too brief of a synopsis to accurately give reasons for the phenomena.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : edit to add

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bluegenes, posted 06-04-2008 4:46 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by iano, posted 06-09-2008 7:27 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 17 by Taz, posted 06-09-2008 7:57 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 19 by bluegenes, posted 06-10-2008 1:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 15 of 49 (470171)
06-09-2008 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 7:02 PM


Hi NJ,
Good to see your name back on the members bar. Kind of comforting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 7:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 7:32 PM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024