Godlessness may be a social virtue

[ID_10T]

September 27, 2005

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

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.”



Very interesting.

It reminds me that the words "under god" were only put into the pledge of alligence to separate the Americans from the godless Communists of the era.

[hapacheese]

Interesting read, but bogus science. :)

The only example they give of a "religious" society is the US. But the ills of a society can hardly be boiled down to a single thing. Is it the proliferation of arms? Is it more of a cultural issue born of the "frontier spirit" that forged America? Is it due to the lack of long-standing history? Is it due to radical segregation during the country's formative years?

The list goes on, but I think you get the point.

[h2orowe]

Ok, this is just plain stupid. If they were really as religious as they said, they wouldn't murder, have preamarital sex, or anything like that; anyone can say "I'm Christian" or "I'm Jewish", anyone can say they are that religion and do something against it, and what is it? Another statistic. I honestly am sick of this big debate, it'd be better if people themselves found what to believe in, rather than being told in churches, temples, synagogues, and scientific studies.

[stillbornsinger]

agreed, as much as I'd like to see some statistics saying that ;)

its hokey science... There are way to many other variables, and the US is the only country cited as a religious country.

It would be interesting though to see some statistical data on historic and present countries comparing them with their religions in mind.

I don't really believe the US is that religious either, there are a lot of people that would answer "yes" in a survey asking them if they were Christians, much less are actually church going. And of those actual church going people, how many actually practice it in their everyday life?

[stillbornsinger]

Ok, this is just plain stupid. If they were really as religious as they said, they wouldn't murder, have preamarital sex, or anything like that; anyone can say "I'm Christian" or "I'm Jewish", anyone can say they are that religion and do something against it, and what is it? Another statistic. I honestly am sick of this big debate, it'd be better if people themselves found what to believe in, rather than being told in churches, temples, synagogues, and scientific studies.


Two things... First who is to say premarital sex is really wrong? If two consenting adults wish to engage in those kinds of activities and are prepared to handle the potential consequences... Why does anyone one else care? (I will encourage my children to have sex while in college, before they get married... just in a safe manner with someone they trust)

Second- If you are sick of this debate, why did you open the thread?

Why did you reply?

[Arctic_Slicer]

In a thread on another forum about the Canada descision to leagalize gay marriage someone said "In my opinion Christainity is more detrimental to society than homosexuality". That is one of the quotes that I will probabally never forget because it speaks volumes about the subject.

[Star Market]

There are two kinds of lies. First, there are lies. Second, there are statistics.

This reminds me of another "study" I read. Someone examined interest rates in the 1980's and rates of AIDS infection. Regressing one on the other, they found a highly statistically significant correlation between interest rates and AIDS. As interest rates rose, the numbers of AIDS infections rose also. Therefore, the conclusion was that the best way to combat AIDS was to lower interest rates. And if you believe that, you are a f**king moron.

It's a little something Nobel Prize winning economist Clive Granger called "spurrious regression." When you take two completely and totally unrelated non-stationary processess (unit-root processes to be exact) and regress them on one another you'll always get a statistically significant correlation between the two....except that it's completely and totally garbage.

That being said, I'd like to take a look at their data. I can tell you right off the bat that most crime data is more than likely non-stationary (and according to the NYTimes, the lowest in 30 years, so I'd assume trending down). I'm also willing to bet that "spiritual capital" is also a non-stationary process giving the increasing growth rates of church congregations indicating an upward trend. So, if they're statistically analyzing two non-stationary processes that do not share a common unit-root (and really, what the hell kind of unit-root process would crime and God share anyway?), of course they're going to get statistically significant correlations between the two that say all sorts of silly things.

In case you're wondering, yes, I'm a geek. Three years of applied statistics and econometrics will do that to you.

[God Hates You]

That would be a good thing, after all Jihad wouldn’t exist and nobody has to worry about being blown up by some Arab dude with dynamite….sausages strapped to his chest.

[stillbornsinger]

But you can't argue with statistics like these...

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

All hail FSM (http://www.venganza.org/) ... ARRRRRRR!!!

[CNagy]

The only example they give of a "religious" society is the US. There are way to many other variables, and the US is the only country cited as a religious country.
One important thing to remember is that you can't (well, you can, it's just dumb to) dismiss a study based on an article written about it. The US is the only example cited in the article, which is in the Times and I assume meant for an American audience. If the study intended to be legitimate, it would by necessity have to include all developed countries. Spain, last I checked, is also rather religious, for example.

Without having the study itself onhand, there are a few things that are difficult to determine. Firstly, what rates are they comparing? If it is a straight number of murders per year comparitively between countries, the United States will always come out on top as any one of our states is pretty much the equivalent size of a European country.

I feel the study has some merit, and I am generally a religious person. Christians can be the worst people, and while some may say that such people are "not Christian," those people have no right to judge either. In any case, even discounting "bad Christians" alot of these conclusions make sense.

Premarital Sex: There is no fruit as sweet as that which is forbidden. Premarital sex is universally regarded as a sin by Christians, and thus it is offlimits to their children who, during their rebellious teen years, might use sex as a weapon. Even for the less devout, there is a sort of excitement that comes with breaking the rules; the more rules you have, the more rules will be broken.

STDs, Abortions, Teen Pregnancy: Directly related to the above. The Christian stance on Sex Education in school has always been "Don't Talk About It." The idea is that even broaching the subject will put sex into the minds of children, who will then fornicate with one another as their hormones demand. In truth, assuming that a policy of silence will work to suppress human biology is stupid, but that is another issue for another time. It is not uncommon, for example, to find teenage girls in the Great Plains region who are unaware of why they have menstrual cycles. A lack of education also adds to the allure of sex-- it goes from being a pleasurable, but ultimately biological, act to a rather mysterious and romanticized act. The lack of education leads to a lack of protection, and thus STIs (they've been reclassified as Infections.) Having a child outside of marriage is the same as parading your sin around to anyone and everyone, whereas an abortion is a quiet solution that no one need know about.

Homicide and such: There is less of a direct correlation here, I think. While Christianity might not encourage or incite murder, the intolerance of most Christians cannot be ignored as a cause of stress for society as a whole. When religion is a dividing factor, in a country or a community, there is tension because of it. While it might not directly lead to murder or crime, it can contribute to the myriad of pressures that people are already feeling-- turning what would be a less violent response into a more violent response, for example.

I am, of course, ignoring the contribution of proclaimed Christian organizations, such as the Ku Klux Klan, as that is a rather obvious case of religion leading to murder.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Ruth Gledhill is a twit twisting whatever view of religion she has, which is blatently obvious in the article, to whatever fits her views and trying to get people to say "Hmmm interesting."

People are people regaurdless of religion, race or government. People are going to kill, steal, rape, or lie regaurdless of any kind. What you need to do is sort it out and find the ones out there who are decent humans.

I dunno I don't see the point in the article other then trying to get rid of ever religion or making everyone an athiest. It doesn't bug me that a person is an athiest and I can have an honest arguement with the person. This is their own choice and I can't do a lot to change a person's mind. What does piss me off is an athiest who makes it their personal goal to prove the non-existance of God.

Here's a though. Why don't you take a couple of laps around Jupiter and after you are done with that take a refreshing swim inside of the sun.

As far as I know there hasn't been any solid proof of non-existance.

[l337m45t3r]

Arrrrgh! Fear the godly power of His Noodly appendage!

[stillbornsinger]

As far as I know there hasn't been any solid proof of non-existance.

And there hasn't been any solid proof of non-existance of the tooth fairy either.

I never enter the fray of a debate with the intention of proving there is no such thing as a supreme being. My goal is to demonstrate the problems in the logic and arguements religious people use. Also to present what is at stake with regards to these issues. Both my personal freedoms and world events are shaped by religious groups involvement with government and more often then not in a negative way.

cnagy- does make an excellent point about STD's etc. I think it is completely asinine for condoms to not be availible at every highschool and for real sexual education to be taught and not just the abstinence campain.

[PopCulturePooka]

As far as I know there hasn't been any solid proof of non-existance.
Can you prove that there isn't a giant pink invisble and intangible elephant Sitting behind you?

I do believe there is. Prove there isn't


Anyway the study is a crock, using two things that MAY be related. However the article doesn't mention WHY they are

America = Religious
America = Social Problems.

Doesn't mean Religion = Social Problems.

[Collapse]

If Godlessness may be a social virtue, then where do some people put their faith upon? People believe on something, whether it's fate, destiny or some shit.

So, let's say there's no god indeed. People place their faith upon..? Just a question.

[Star Market]

Rather than criticize the article in Times, let us look directly to the study itself:

Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html) by Gregory S. Paul

Rather than argue the existence of God (or a deity/deities) or the need for religious values (I say this in a universal and not just strictly Judeo-Christian since) as a moral compass for society, I would rather criticize the study on its methodology. Paul did do something smart:

"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."

In other words, he didn't run a regression; a smart move on his part, because something tells me that they would be spurrious. However something tells me he isn't a trained statistician or econometrician because of what happened next:

"Correlations of raw data are used for this initial examination."

If you don't know whether or not these variables are integrated (stationary or non-stationary) or cointegrated (a lineary combination of non-stationary data becoming stationary), correlation analysis can be misleading. You'll find statistical significance when there isn't any. Or you'll find no statistical significance when there's supposed to be. Variables may be correlated in the short run and not correlated (cointegrated) in the long run. Or they might not be correlated in the short run but correlated (cointegrated) in the long run. Stationarity of the data is not discussed (and considering the journal and its audience, I think the concept would have gone over their heads anyway), but it's an important issue because the study reads as if he used time series data. Stationarity tends to be problem using such data.

In plain English: his statistical method is flawed because we don't know the nature of the data, therefore his conclusions are suspect.

[stillbornsinger]

If Godlessness may be a social virtue, then where do some people put their faith upon? People believe on something, whether it's fate, destiny or some shit.

So, let's say there's no god indeed. People place their faith upon..? Just a question.

As an Atheist, I put my "faith" in my fellow human being, in myself, and in my love for life. I would like to live my life in a manner that maximizes my enjoyment and happyness while having a positive impact on other people's lives. Perhaps I believe in hope? Hope for the future? Enjoyment of past memories.

I don't think you need a religion to teach you that... And I don't think that I need to have faith in any external force to add value to my existance. Just happy to be here.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Can you prove that there isn't a giant pink invisble and intangible elephant Sitting behind you?

I do believe there is. Prove there isn't


Fine.

*Pulls out breathilizer*

Blow into this and tell me how much you had to drink. :D

[CNagy]

Religion does teach some basic moral values. The problem with modern religion is that it comes part and parcel with alot of intolerant baggage. Love thy neighbor but fags are going to hell. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, yet Christians are almost always the quickest to place blame on a group of people for their "wicked" ways.

The reason religion is becoming socially detrimental is that the morals that it used to instill into people have already become part of society while losing their original religious context. Thou shalt not kill? Is there any child in any developed nation, religious or not, that couldn't list off a basic series of "bad" things like murder? There might be, but I'm pretty sure the average kid knows the difference between right and wrong.

So what do you get when religion's main virtue (its virtues) is no longer unique to it? You get a lot of unnecessary hatred justified in the name of the Lord. You get the Catholic church saying condoms are sinful, thus opening followers of its faith to a STI market. You get fundamentalism. As the place and purpose of the church becomes less and less apparent, people like Pat Robertson step up to flex the Religious Right Might to push their own agenda and justify their existence.

All just my opinion, though. Having read the study, I feel it was carried out rather well. Considering his audience isn't likely composed of statisticians, I believe the intent of clearing the major statistic hurdles was met without going too indepth. I'm also sure a copy of the data is available online somewhere, since any study (but especially one like this) always has plenty of other people who will then go through the data looking for mistakes.

[CNagy]

Anyway the study is a crock, using two things that MAY be related. However the article doesn't mention WHY they are

America = Religious
America = Social Problems.

Doesn't mean Religion = Social Problems.

Uhm... how do we know if they are related or not until a study is done? And if we know they are related, why do a study? Hell, why is social science even used? The study states that there has been next to no research done in this area, so everything up until now has been an opinion unsupported by facts.

[Trump]

This article and this studay are just another piece of crap to ignore. There's far too much of that in the world today.

[Star Market]

You're right cnagy, his audience isn't composed of a bunch of staticians, and I think I mentioned that earlier. And something tells me that when he submitted his paper to be published, that the Journal of Religion and Society isn't going to have a hardcore statisician on the editorial board since having looked at other papers in the journal, statistical analysis makes up a very small portion of their publications.

My main beef with his methodology, is that without determining and addressing the nature of the data or using two incompatible pieces of data, you can come to the wrong conclusions. I don't have the kind of time to actually look up this guy's data and redo his correlation analysis, but based on his description of the data he found, he used a mixture of all kinds of data that really don't go together unless they're transformed in some manner. And since his correlation used "raw data" we can infer that none of the incompatible information was transformed to make them compatible. Therefore, his conclusions are suspect.

...notice how I completely and totally dodge the more important discussion about religion...

[baslisks]

This is like my report on the more people in a confined arae the more people die. Really it is. More people die in New yourk then in North Dakota. Really its true.

Not religous. More atheist.

[raydude]

Last I checked, Buddhism was a religous belief. So isn't China an example of a religous country w/ a non-dysfunctional society?

Still, there may be something in that proselytizing and outwardly devout sects of religion are damaging to a society. Look for example to the ancient Hawaiians. They had a deeply religious belief system that encompassed gods, demigods, and the spiritualness of the land. They lived just fine. Then other people came along, tried to convince them that there was only 1 God and that land has no spirit and they've been on a downward spiral ever since.

But then again drawing a link between religion and disaster would discount the fact that:

1. The newcomers brought STDs and other diseases, which they would have brought anyway regardless of what religion they were
2. The geographic importance of Hawaii as a naval base and for its natural resources made it a coveted prize for whichever western nation could grab it. Meaning that, despite the efforts of whatever religion to save it, global politics would relegate it to being owned by a stronger nation.

In short, too little attention is paid by the study to other mitigating factors.

[more cheerios]

Wow, I hardly doubt that religion is the sole reason for any of that. There are always contributing factors, no matter what it is. That's about as absurd as blaming homosexuality solely for the spread of AIDS.

[ChronoSphere]

Religion does teach some basic moral values. The problem with modern religion is that it comes part and parcel with alot of intolerant baggage. Love thy neighbor but fags are going to hell. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, yet Christians are almost always the quickest to place blame on a group of people for their "wicked" ways.


Quoted for truth.

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

Problem is that some christians look at the words and try to develop their own meaning to it.

Christians are not a bad lot as everyone thinks them to be.

Or at least they aren't sapposed to be a bad lot anyway.

[PopCulturePooka]

Fine.

*Pulls out breathilizer*

Blow into this and tell me how much you had to drink. :D
How is my belief in a giant invisible intagible pink elephant in your room, and you failure to provide proof that it doesn't exist any different to your belief in all mighty god that I can't 'proove' doesn't exist?

On that same path can you prove that the Rainbow Serpent, the giant multicoloured snake, that is responsible for the Australian Aboriginal creation story, doesn't exist?

[h2orowe]

Two things... First who is to say premarital sex is really wrong? If two consenting adults wish to engage in those kinds of activities and are prepared to handle the potential consequences... Why does anyone one else care? (I will encourage my children to have sex while in college, before they get married... just in a safe manner with someone they trust)

Second- If you are sick of this debate, why did you open the thread?

Why did you reply?
Sorry I didn't reply before. I didn't check the thread again :\ I honestly, don't care what other people do. I'm liberal, I'm pro-choice, I'm for gay marriage, and it's ok if two consenting people have sex out of marriage. What I meant is people who say they're "Christian" but disobey the rules aren't really Christian :\ well shouldn't be counted. I'm not really christian, sure I believe in God and maybe Jesus, I'm not sure, but I don't like organized religion, it seperates people.
I'm just saying it's like if I say I believe in Allah, and than go like disobey all the rules of Islam, I'd be counted as a statistic against them.

[more cheerios]

Sorry I didn't reply before. I didn't check the thread again :\ I honestly, don't care what other people do. I'm liberal, I'm pro-choice, I'm for gay marriage, and it's ok if two consenting people have sex out of marriage. What I meant is people who say they're "Christian" but disobey the rules aren't really Christian :\ well shouldn't be counted. I'm not really christian, sure I believe in God and maybe Jesus, I'm not sure, but I don't like organized religion, it seperates people.
I'm just saying it's like if I say I believe in Allah, and than go like disobey all the rules of Islam, I'd be counted as a statistic against them.
What you have to realize is that the Bible has been interpreted so many times over by man, versions have been changed by man and books have been added in by man.
What's to say our Bible full of rules is partially just a hoax? There's nothing, we're taught to blindly follow that.
I am a Christian but I question a lot that is in the Bible. It's so full of love in some parts and so full of hate, in others.
I truly believe that somewhere down the line, something went wrong and what we have today is not, truly, our Bible.

The definition of a Christian is one whom follows Christ. Just because we don't agree with some stuff, doesn't make us any less of a person. It's just like questioning your humanity doesn't make you any less human.

[CNagy]

Sorry I didn't reply before. I didn't check the thread again :\ I honestly, don't care what other people do. I'm liberal, I'm pro-choice, I'm for gay marriage, and it's ok if two consenting people have sex out of marriage. What I meant is people who say they're "Christian" but disobey the rules aren't really Christian :\ well shouldn't be counted. I'm not really christian, sure I believe in God and maybe Jesus, I'm not sure, but I don't like organized religion, it seperates people.
I'm just saying it's like if I say I believe in Allah, and than go like disobey all the rules of Islam, I'd be counted as a statistic against them.

The thing is, you aren't expected to obey the rules as a Christian. You are expected to try and fail, and be repentant that you failed, all while believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins. So even the un-Christian like Christians are technically Christian, simply because they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

[h2orowe]

:\ man, Christianity sucks....... XD that's so messed up.
I'll kill this guy... and pretend to be sorry.... Hey... God... I'm sorry babe, please, please forgive me. Take me back?
God: Okay Jonathan
Jon: Sweet, angel killing :D

-.- I hate religion.... cuz if it's all true... what the hell.... you have like a 1 in a million chance of picking the right one, and following it exactly. If you want to be saved, hopefully you're born into a family that follows whatever is right.
I wanted to look into Judaism, but I found out you pretty much have to be born Jewish >.<; so yeah, that sorta sucks for me.
Right now I really like Buddhism and Confusiuscism (I forgot the spelling but like I read about it in the book, and that teaches the same morals I have pretty much). I still have trouble following a certain religion, for I feel as if there is a god, he'd rather us enjoy life on here, than try and brainwash others into believing in him..... I forgot where I was going with this so I'll just stop.

[baslisks]

What you have to realize is that the Bible has been interpreted so many times over by man, versions have been changed by man and books have been added in by man.
What's to say our Bible full of rules is partially just a hoax? There's nothing, we're taught to blindly follow that.
I am a Christian but I question a lot that is in the Bible. It's so full of love in some parts and so full of hate, in others.
I truly believe that somewhere down the line, something went wrong and what we have today is not, truly, our Bible.

The definition of a Christian is one whom follows Christ. Just because we don't agree with some stuff, doesn't make us any less of a person. It's just like questioning your humanity doesn't make you any less human.

With questioning humanity. Whats human?

[UlrichRyddle]

Interesting article. There's correlation but no definate connection.

Personally, I'd think that it's not so much religion's fault, as it is humanity's. Being human means that you're not perfect, so obviously everyone's going to screw up somewhere, but I think the biggest human failure is that of intolerance and misunderstanding. Once someone is totally convinced that something is right and that's the way it is, no matter what, until they experience first hand that it's wrong, they'll believe that forever, and probably try to convince others to believe too. But then, you have the people who cannot believe the first person's beliefs, simply because what they've experienced in life just doesn't fit in with it. This is where all of the seperation and hate comes from. All of the damning and condemning comes from some person who couldn't let people just be. The "if you're not with me, then you're against me" mentality of religious extremists is what keeps that fire burning.

I don't practice a religion, it just doesn't work for me, but I certainly don't think religion is wrong. All religions have morals and virtues that are relevant and useful to life. If people can live with the fact that other people will not share all of the same beliefs, and people don't go around forcing their ideals on other people, in some self-righteous "I'll lead you to the light" quest, then everything would be perfect. But this is earth...and nothing's perfect here. Perfection is a physical impossibility.

[Hadal_Blues]

Two things... First who is to say premarital sex is really wrong? If two consenting adults wish to engage in those kinds of activities and are prepared to handle the potential consequences... Why does anyone one else care? (I will encourage my children to have sex while in college, before they get married... just in a safe manner with someone they trust)

Second- If you are sick of this debate, why did you open the thread?

Why did you reply?

ummmm nothing is wrong with it, but most people aren't really capable or even prepared to handle the consequences.

They rather just believe it wouldn't happend, most people simply don't want to deal or think about it.

If they were willing to accept its consequences... abortion wouldn't be necessary to all the people that have used it so far(not making any comment on abortion).

Anyone is free to do it and that includes many dumb people

[Sock Full of Boiled Dimes]

How is my belief in a giant invisible intagible pink elephant in your room, and you failure to provide proof that it doesn't exist any different to your belief in all mighty god that I can't 'proove' doesn't exist?


Woah you are taking this further than I wanted to. All I said was "As far as I know there is no proof of his non-exsistance"

Where did Pink Elephants and Rainbow snakes come into this?

Besides Christianity is ultimatly faith based regaurdless.

I was JUST SAYING and you all had to slam me down...

[Invictus]

The definition of a Christian is one whom follows Christ. Just because we don't agree with some stuff, doesn't make us any less of a person. It's just like questioning your humanity doesn't make you any less human.

But how does one know how to follow Christ, if not through His words in the Bible? See the referenced saying of Christ below. I'm afraid the Bible comes in rather a whole package. You can either accept it for what it is, or reject it as hooey. Christ was either who He said He was (and hence well worth obeying to the last letter) or possibly the most deluded individual in human history. There's no room therein for fence-sitting.

So even the un-Christian like Christians are technically Christian, simply because they accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.

Christ said:

If you love me, keep my commandments.

Hence, Christians are expected to obey the commandments of the Bible to the fullest extent of their abilities. The idea is that God will know if your efforts to keep the commandments are insincere.

[Frayed]

If you read the study it is actually testing whether social functioning can occur in the absence of religion, and the data suggests that it can. There is nothing wrong with this conclusion providing you are aware that they are not actually claiming that the absence of religion causes social functioning, simply that they can co-occur (Remember, co-occurence need not be causal). This counters the thesis made by many religious advocates.
Despite what someone from either persuasion suggests, the findings do not suggest that non-religiousness is better or that religiousness is inferior. Just that religiousness is not required for social functioning. The study makes no mention of whether it is desirable.

[more cheerios]

And if the Bible is changed drastically by a council of reverends, we're expected to follow it? This has happened in the past, you know. Notice the difference in the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible.

[CNagy]

But how does one know how to follow Christ, if not through His words in the Bible? See the referenced saying of Christ below. I'm afraid the Bible comes in rather a whole package. You can either accept it for what it is, or reject it as hooey. Christ was either who He said He was (and hence well worth obeying to the last letter) or possibly the most deluded individual in human history. There's no room therein for fence-sitting.

Christ said:

If you love me, keep my commandments.

Hence, Christians are expected to obey the commandments of the Bible to the fullest extent of their abilities. The idea is that God will know if your efforts to keep the commandments are insincere.

For God so loved The world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that he who believes in him will not die but have Eternal life. Humans are flawed creatures, expected to try and keep those commandments and repent when they fail to do so. Christianity also considers the Old Testament an accurate historical document; between the two, there are enough contradictions that wars could be fought in the name of Christ, that people can keep their prejudices while having a sincere love of Christ and the belief that he is the Messiah.

[stillbornsinger]

If you read the study it is actually testing whether social functioning can occur in the absence of religion, and the data suggests that it can. There is nothing wrong with this conclusion providing you are aware that they are not actually claiming that the absence of religion causes social functioning, simply that they can co-occur (Remember, co-occurence need not be causal). This counters the thesis made by many religious advocates.
Despite what someone from either persuasion suggests, the findings do not suggest that non-religiousness is better or that religiousness is inferior. Just that religiousness is not required for social functioning. The study makes no mention of whether it is desirable.


One only needs to look towards Japan to see a society that functions quite well without religion. The only religions you could really say Japan follows as a whole is buddhist/shinto, but they don't really do a whole lot more than just celibrate the holidays. The Christian population of Japan is less than 5%

[DarkFire168]

Isn't our problem really TOO much religious diversity? The UK has Protestants, Catholics, Anglicans and Muslims basically. The Meditarranean area has almost all Catholic and Muslim belief bases. But the US has just about every religion the modern would has to date. With so many conflicting ideas about good and evil, moral and immoral, etc. doesn't that mean we'd have different statistics? Because we have more variables that is.

[stillbornsinger]

Darkfire- I don't think that is a valid connection either. Look at Singapore, I'd say they are far more religiously diverse than the states are. At any given place in Singapore you're probably within walking distance to a Mosque, Church, and Shrine. (Some of the nicest ones I've seen as well)

There arn't many places in the US where you can find all three of those (and more) within sight of each other.

Singapore seemed to be doing pretty well too, I never felt unsafe while there.

[Idlethought]

I think organized religion should be abolished. Simple as that, it causes too many conflicts. Instead people should learn to just believe in what feels right to them while keeping in mind the laws of their country. Too many declare that theyre doin shit in the name of god or in the name of jesus, jesus and god dont cosign your ass. Its ramblin time.

I was raised a catholic. I HATE catholicism. Why? for the simple fact that i was forced to go to church as a kid every sunday and it bored me to tears. Now that I've grown up ive come up with reasons to back up my dislike of catholicism, but just cause I dont like catholics doesnt mean im gonna call every catholic i see an asshole. I dont know where im going with this. Ramblin is fun