Would the world be a better place without religion?

[TheBeardedDude]

 

From the Journal of Palliative Medicine: there's an interesting little lit. review under the section Spirituality and patient perspectives.

 

 

 

 

Well that's the hypothesis. Let's look into the data.

 

 

 

Same goes for Nationalistic ideologies: it's a problem with humanity, not religions.

 

 

And how many of these benign theists (are we now neglecting agnostic/atheistic religions?) do this? We've established that some do and some don't, but can we quantify how many and relate it to other variables? Which is why i value MonDie's contibution - it's an attempt to tease out the salient features of religiosity. I also value your contribution: it's so pleasant to talk data on a religion thread for once.

 

 

 

Will do. I'll exchange it for your dataset?

 

 

Maybe not in your life, but i'm sure there's monks in Tibet at this moment saying the converse.

 

 

 

Well i asked for it: gonna take me a while to pick through all this.

 

 

 

Cool beans. But why PCA? My first thought was regression with and then without religiosity as a predictor. So we don't get tempted into p-hacking maybe we should decide on some variables before more analysis? I like violent crime and suicide rates; what's your thinking on population rank? Be nice to include something on human rights and female subjugation. This could be fun.

 

"From the Journal of Palliative Medicine: there's an interesting little lit. review under the section Spirituality and patient perspectives."

 

I'll give it a look but what I am saying is that with atheists and agnostics making up a small proportion of the population (at least in the US), demand for in hospital comfort isn't going to be very high. The "non-religious" category in the US is up to maybe 1 in 5 adults, but a lot of those people (maybe at least half) are still some form of spiritual.

 

"Same goes for Nationalistic ideologies: it's a problem with humanity, not religions."

 

Yes, I never intended to imply that group-think and defense of extremists is limited to religion. I think I said something to that effect in my first post on the thread. What I am saying is that while other groups (like nations) create division too, the positives outweigh the negatives. Whereas I don't think that true for religion.

 

"And how many of these benign theists (are we now neglecting agnostic/atheistic religions?) do this?"

 

Answering the parenthetical: Yeah, I am ignoring the "agnostic/atheistic" religions for the time being because they don't represent a majority of the religious. For instance, while I don't know much about Buddhism, many of its adherents in the eastern world are still theists but Buddhists in the western world appear to have abandoned the gods portion of Buddhism. In any event, if the less violent religions were the ones that dominated the religious landscape, my answer might be different.

 

"And how many of these benign theists (are we now neglecting agnostic/atheistic religions?) do this? We've established that some do and some don't, but can we quantify how many and relate it to other variables? Which is why i value MonDie's contibution - it's an attempt to tease out the salient features of religiosity. I also value your contribution: it's so pleasant to talk data on a religion thread for once. "

 

How many of the benign theists? I don't have a number but any number of moderates defending extremists is too high.

 

And yes, I am quite aware of the complexities of looking at these issues. The point I am emphasizing (my opinion) is that while some find benefit in religion, religion wholesale isn't providing an overall benefit to humanity in the 21st century that outweighs the negatives.

 

"Cool beans. But why PCA? My first thought was regression with and then without religiosity as a predictor. So we don't get tempted into p-hacking maybe we should decide on some variables before more analysis? I like violent crime and suicide rates; what's your thinking on population rank? Be nice to include something on human rights and female subjugation. This could be fun."[]/b]

 

I did a PCA because I wanted to look at all of the variables I could as quickly as possible to see if there was a pattern. But yes, a pairwise comparison and a series of linear regressions could also be helpful as well as the inclusion of different variables.

[Prometheus]

I'll give it a look but what I am saying is that with atheists and agnostics making up a small proportion of the population (at least in the US), demand for in hospital comfort isn't going to be very high. The "non-religious" category in the US is up to maybe 1 in 5 adults, but a lot of those people (maybe at least half) are still some form of spiritual.

 

I get what you're saying now. I thought you were implying that dying secular people didn't need as much emotional support (which is all 'spiritual' support really is).

 

 

Yes, I never intended to imply that group-think and defense of extremists is limited to religion. I think I said something to that effect in my first post on the thread. What I am saying is that while other groups (like nations) create division too, the positives outweigh the negatives. Whereas I don't think that true for religion.

 

I personally see no positives to nationalism, but that's another discussion again.

 

I think one of the (many) problems advocating for the positives of religion are that many atheists aren't aware of the fundamental difference to the way one perceives their experience different mind states can bring. I have an easier time explaining it to people who have taken psychedelics because they are able to accept the idea that there are multiple ways of experiencing reality, whereas many atheists see one and only one way. Note: i'm not saying there are multiple realities, just that there are multiple ways to relate to that reality.

 

 

Answering the parenthetical: Yeah, I am ignoring the "agnostic/atheistic" religions for the time being because they don't represent a majority of the religious. For instance, while I don't know much about Buddhism, many of its adherents in the eastern world are still theists but Buddhists in the western world appear to have abandoned the gods portion of Buddhism. In any event, if the less violent religions were the ones that dominated the religious landscape, my answer might be different.

 

OK. Well i'll have to reconsider absolutely everything i have said thus far if we are only considering theistic religions. I'm aware there is a 'wisdom' tradition in Christianity, but it's so obsessed with its image of god that its very obscure. It is interesting to look at some of the Christian traditions that existed up to the Byzantine Empire - almost unrecognisable as Christianity. But i digress...

 

Just for the record, strictly speaking Buddhism is agnostic - it's tenants don't depend on the existence or non-existence of god(s).

 

Regarding the dominance of violent religious traditions, it could be easily understood in terms of meme theory. Religions willing to employ any means to spread the gospel, including violence, would out compete religions who don't try to spread, or have limits to their proselytising. Hopefully the secular landscape can redress that problem.

 

 

How many of the benign theists? I don't have a number but any number of moderates defending extremists is too high.

 

And yes, I am quite aware of the complexities of looking at these issues. The point I am emphasizing (my opinion) is that while some find benefit in religion, religion wholesale isn't providing an overall benefit to humanity in the 21st century that outweighs the negatives.

 

Restricting ourselves to theistic traditions, maybe.

 

What would be the solution? I suggest we should try to decompose religions into constituent parts. Only some people will follow any religion because they are fundamentally convinced of its doctrine. Most follow it because they were born into it and it becomes part of their identity. By breaking religion apart we could try to keep benign elements while discarding malignant elements.

 

This is currently happening with the Church of England. Many do not take the Bible literally, will allow secular morals to overrule biblical morals, but still like to get together for a sing-song and sermon. I've met a few CofE followers who don't even believe in god (even a couple of Catholics - not regressed Catholics, people who insist they are Catholic but don't believe in god. Weird stuff).

 

 

I did a PCA because I wanted to look at all of the variables I could as quickly as possible to see if there was a pattern. But yes, a pairwise comparison and a series of linear regressions could also be helpful as well as the inclusion of different variables.

 

I'll look into it, but it should be a while before i can. Maybe i'll save it for christmas day.

[TheBeardedDude]

 

I get what you're saying now. I thought you were implying that dying secular people didn't need as much emotional support (which is all 'spiritual' support really is).

 

 

 

I personally see no positives to nationalism, but that's another discussion again.

 

I think one of the (many) problems advocating for the positives of religion are that many atheists aren't aware of the fundamental difference to the way one perceives their experience different mind states can bring. I have an easier time explaining it to people who have taken psychedelics because they are able to accept the idea that there are multiple ways of experiencing reality, whereas many atheists see one and only one way. Note: i'm not saying there are multiple realities, just that there are multiple ways to relate to that reality.

 

 

 

OK. Well i'll have to reconsider absolutely everything i have said thus far if we are only considering theistic religions. I'm aware there is a 'wisdom' tradition in Christianity, but it's so obsessed with its image of god that its very obscure. It is interesting to look at some of the Christian traditions that existed up to the Byzantine Empire - almost unrecognisable as Christianity. But i digress...

 

Just for the record, strictly speaking Buddhism is agnostic - it's tenants don't depend on the existence or non-existence of god(s).

 

Regarding the dominance of violent religious traditions, it could be easily understood in terms of meme theory. Religions willing to employ any means to spread the gospel, including violence, would out compete religions who don't try to spread, or have limits to their proselytising. Hopefully the secular landscape can redress that problem.

 

 

 

Restricting ourselves to theistic traditions, maybe.

 

What would be the solution? I suggest we should try to decompose religions into constituent parts. Only some people will follow any religion because they are fundamentally convinced of its doctrine. Most follow it because they were born into it and it becomes part of their identity. By breaking religion apart we could try to keep benign elements while discarding malignant elements.

 

This is currently happening with the Church of England. Many do not take the Bible literally, will allow secular morals to overrule biblical morals, but still like to get together for a sing-song and sermon. I've met a few CofE followers who don't even believe in god (even a couple of Catholics - not regressed Catholics, people who insist they are Catholic but don't believe in god. Weird stuff).

 

 

 

I'll look into it, but it should be a while before i can. Maybe i'll save it for christmas day.

 

"I get what you're saying now. I thought you were implying that dying secular people didn't need as much emotional support (which is all 'spiritual' support really is)."

 

Right, I am not saying that atheists and agnostics don't want or need it but I am saying the demand for it, given the size of those populations, is minimal.

 

"I personally see no positives to nationalism, but that's another discussion again.

 

And I personally see no positives to religion.

 

"I think one of the (many) problems advocating for the positives of religion are that many atheists aren't aware of the fundamental difference to the way one perceives their experience different mind states can bring."

 

I'm not sure that is true. Many of the atheists I know are formerly religious.

 

"I have an easier time explaining it to people who have taken psychedelics because they are able to accept the idea that there are multiple ways of experiencing reality, whereas many atheists see one and only one way. Note: i'm not saying there are multiple realities, just that there are multiple ways to relate to that reality. "

 

But, once again, what you're talking about isn't the core element of a religion. Nor is this unique to religion. One can attain enlightenment without religion.

 

"Just for the record, strictly speaking Buddhism is agnostic - it's tenants don't depend on the existence or non-existence of god(s)."

 

Depends on the version of Buddhism you ascribe to. Some sects of it are theistic because they believe that there are gods that exist (Buddha isn't/wasn't a god, but he was challenged by them from what I understand of the stories associated with him).

 

"Regarding the dominance of violent religious traditions, it could be easily understood in terms of meme theory. Religions willing to employ any means to spread the gospel, including violence, would out compete religions who don't try to spread, or have limits to their proselytising (sic). Hopefully the secular landscape can redress that problem."

 

And this would be what I consider to be perhaps the greatest threat religion poses, thus it weighs heavily in my assessment that the world would be better off without religion considering you have so many sects that create conflict over which one of them has the better imaginary friend that loves them more.

 

"What would be the solution? I suggest we should try to decompose religions into constituent parts. Only some people will follow any religion because they are fundamentally convinced of its doctrine. Most follow it because they were born into it and it becomes part of their identity. By breaking religion apart we could try to keep benign elements while discarding malignant elements."

 

Even those raised in a religion affiliate it with their self-identity and many of them would at least proclaim to be willing to die for it (whether that is true or not is irrelevant).

 

"This is currently happening with the Church of England. Many do not take the Bible literally, will allow secular morals to overrule biblical morals, but still like to get together for a sing-song and sermon. I've met a few CofE followers who don't even believe in god (even a couple of Catholics - not regressed Catholics, people who insist they are Catholic but don't believe in god. Weird stuff)."

 

I think it comes from education. Even those who are religious but are well educated don't tend to be on the extreme ends of any spectrum.

[MonDie]

I'm adding to the peculiar finding for the modesty facet of Agreeableness, especially after noticing that the non-religious and the narcissistic, both less Agreeable, show an opposite pattern of emphasis on the facets of Agreeableness.

I already linked this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614445/table/T2/

Here are the facet-level loadings for each disorder. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2614445/table/T3/

I noticed that the high-Extraversion, low-Neuroticism disorders (narcissistic and histrionic) are relatively low in modesty given their Agreeableness, whereas the reverse (e.g. schizoid, schizotypal, avoidant, dependent) show relatively high modesty. Indeed, the avoidant personality actually has heightened modesty in spite of the slighlty lower Agreeableness. As it turns out, avoidant personality disorder is the second most common in Asperger's sufferers after the obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (see below).

 

Table 4 of "Psychiatric and psychosocial problems in adults with normal-intelligence autism spectrum disorders"

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705351/table/T4/

 

The prevalence of obsessive-compulsive personality disorder is shocking given that it involves high Conscientiousness or possibly even extreme Conscientiousness, whereas those on the spectrum are generally less Conscientious and the non-religious even less so.

 

---

 

With regard to Prometheus' concerns about providing comfort to the dying, he might be intrigued by the relevance to autism. From the above link:

 

 

 

Autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) (or pervasive developmental disorders (PDDs), in the DSM-IV) are impairing developmental disorders characterized by aberrations in the domains of social interaction, communication and stereotyped or repetitive behavior patterns, estimated to affect about 1% of the general population [1]. The DSM-IV includes the following ASDs: autistic disorder (AD) (pervasive problems/deficits in all three domains), Asperger's disorder (AS) (pervasive deficits in social interaction and in behaviours in the presence of a normal verbal development) and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD NOS).

 

Remember this one?

 

Mentalizing deficits constrain belief in a personal god

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364254/

 

The empathy quotient, which atheists scored lower on, measures a skill that would be highly relevant to anyone comforting the dying. The mentalizing deficits in autism are not a deficit in their propensity to empathize per se, but a deficit in understanding what somebody else is thinking or feeling and how to respond appropriately to produce the desired response. Remember that autism is highly heritable, so mentalizing skill is likely highly heritable too. It is one of the three domains, but the domains are intercorrelated, for example verbal ability and face reading ability, measured below via the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test, a measure of autism that has come to be considered a valid proxy for mentalizing ability.

 

The Eyes Test as a Measure of Individual Differences: How Much of the Variance Reflects Verbal IQ?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3389807/

Edited December 13, 2016 by MonDie

[Moontanman]

 

• [mass noun] A state of happiness and satisfaction:

•  

  ‘he found contentment in living a simple life in the country’

• ‘Happiness comes from contentment within and no amount of money will change that.’

• ‘And they increasingly look to their work as their main source of satisfaction and contentment.’

• ‘Being in tune with nature is the easiest and only way of ensuring a life of contentment and happiness.’

• ‘Is it hard to find calm, satisfaction, contentment, happiness inside oneself?’

• ‘Her faith was a central part of her long life and through it she found much peace, strength and contentment.’

 

I'm surprised you have to ask TBH.

 

'The sermon on the mount' is the most obvious example I can think of, perhaps you can think of a different interpretation.

 

 

You seem to struggle with comprehension, I said:

 

 

Let's add cherry picking, to your previous disingenuous argument, the bait and switch, of which the following is another example.

I said societies; is this another disingenuous argument, or another example of your poor comprehension?

I'm sure you'd be the first to complain if I compared a peaceful Buddhist monastery to Stalin's post war Russia.

All the atrocities you claim for religions were perpetrated in that secular society.

 

Perhaps you'd like another go, at explaining how this statement is false.

 

 

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I never claimed secular societies were perfect, but secular societies can only threaten you with death. Believers think death is just the start of eternal torture (Abrahamic religions, others have their own punishments after death) I am not aware of any secular dogma that requires humans to abuse, kill, or enslave other humans for relatively benign behavior, I mean really, picking up sticks on the sabbath?

 

BTW cherry picking is quite the poisoning the well don't you think? If you are going to accuse me of cherry picking please have the decency to be specific. I see no cherry picking by myself. But if I have pot meet kettle...

[Prometheus]

'm not sure that is true. Many of the atheists I know are formerly religious.

 

Exactly. One of the fundamental problems of monotheistic religions seems to be that they are prescriptive rather than transformative.

 

But, once again, what you're talking about isn't the core element of a religion.

 

It's the core element of some religions, maybe not any monotheistic ones though.

 

 

Depends on the version of Buddhism you ascribe to. Some sects of it are theistic because they believe that there are gods that exist (Buddha isn't/wasn't a god, but he was challenged by them from what I understand of the stories associated with him).

 

The school of Buddhism with the most emphasis on gods i have seen is Tibetan: they rarely require adherents to believe in gods. In that sense it is agnostic. From scriptures it is clear that the Buddha believed in devas, which are god-like beings (supernatural powers) but also clear that their existence is irrelevant to what he was teaching.

 

By the same token s Confucianism theistic? It certainly has a plethora of what may be called gods, but none of them are anything like the monotheistic gods.

 

 

And this would be what I consider to be perhaps the greatest threat religion poses, thus it weighs heavily in my assessment that the world would be better off without religion considering you have so many sects that create conflict over which one of them has the better imaginary friend that loves them more.

 

We agree that its a human trait to form groups and prejudice based on those groups.

 

Your solution is to try to minimise the amount of groups we have. My solution is to try to convince humans to grow up and stop acting like monkeys.

 

I was about to say that yours seems more realistic before thinking about the practicalities of actually getting the entire world to stop forming religious groups.

 

 

...proselytising (sic).

 

I'm not American if that's about a z.

 

 

Even those raised in a religion affiliate it with their self-identity and many of them would at least proclaim to be willing to die for it (whether that is true or not is irrelevant).

.

.

;

I think it comes from education. Even those who are religious but are well educated don't tend to be on the extreme ends of any spectrum.

 

So we know the solution to this problem.

[MonDie]

I got more caffeine than expected yesterday. Anyway, I've realized that honesty-humility is the likely answer. Neuroticism is a broad factor. There is a three-factor solution called the Big Three wherein Neuroticism basically gets its own factor called Negative Emotionality; the other factors end up sharing: Positive Emotionality (E+O) and Disinhibition (A+C). Neuroticism finally has a split at the six-factor level, which is described by the HEXACO inventory. Apparently honesty-humility is correlated with straightforwardness and modesty.

 

For anyone who's curious, this publication should have a section on the "hierarchical" nature that reviews the breakdown at the two- three-, four- and five-factor levels.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26716761

 

Your solution is to try to minimise the amount of groups we have. My solution is to try to convince humans to grow up and stop acting like monkeys.

 

Actually apes, not monkeys (see above). Religions don't have to be mutually exclusive as if being right or wrong is an all-or-nothing matter, and many Hindus seem to embrace this. The math isn't hard. If you assume that all religions differ in ways that aren't merely superficial, then you can assume that the religion dice have at least as many sides as there are religions, and probably more sides given that no side has been rolled twice. Analyzed this way, the likelihood of any current religion being the 100% true religion has to be less than 50%.

The Abrahamic idea that there can only be one messiah has led to what look like irreconcilable divisions based on ideas about whether the messiah has come and who he was. I actually have a solution, not that any traditional Christian would ever buy it. We will only ever know the idea of Jesus or Muhammad, and indeed "believing in" is an action that is performed on the idea within your brain, unlike "kicking" where you can kick a rock and actually kick Gaia, goddess of the Earth, because that rock just so happened to be Gaia. Seen this way, there could actually be overlap between beliefs regarding Jesus and Muhammad to the extent that the ideas of each share commonalities. Whacky, right?

[dimreepr]

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

 

 

Not intentionally, maybe you need to explain why you think I am, failing that perhaps answer my questions.

 

I never claimed secular societies were perfect

 

 

Maybe not but you certainly seem to be implying they're more perfect than a religious one.

 

but secular societies can only threaten you with death

 

 

And torture, lots of imaginative torture.

 

Believers think death is just the start of eternal torture (Abrahamic religions, others have their own punishments after death)

 

 

Since you don't believe, why do you care?

 

I am not aware of any secular dogma that requires humans to abuse, kill, or enslave other humans for relatively benign behavior, I mean really, picking up sticks on the sabbath?

 

 

I'm not aware of any religions that currently requires any of this either.

 

BTW cherry picking is quite the poisoning the well don't you think? If you are going to accuse me of cherry picking please have the decency to be specific. I see no cherry picking by myself. But if I have pot meet kettle...

 

 

Oh please, it would be harder to pick a post when you haven't.

 

Imagine, if you can, that my contention is correct and that the various bibles are all trying to teach contentment and that forgiveness is a necessary part of being content, gods judgement (hell) makes it so much easier to forgive, because justice will be served even if they seem to be getting away with it.

 

When one is content heaven is here and now; when one is discontent hell is ones life.

[Prometheus]

Whacky, right?

 

I don't know, you've lost me with your posts to be honest. What do you conclude from these studies regarding whether a society would be better without religion? Or were you more focused on whether religion is beneficial to individuals (regardless of societal effects). Or is your conclusion 'it's complicated'?

Edited December 14, 2016 by Prometheus

[Itoero]

I'm not aware of any religions that currently requires any of this either.

It's not required no. Do you know what happened in Germany during the 2015/2016 New Year's Eve celebrations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

[dimreepr]

It's not required no. Do you know what happened in Germany during the 2015/2016 New Year's Eve celebrations?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

 

What???

 

I've skimmed this link and have yet to find a reference to religion, please be specific.

Maybe when you're sober...

[MonDie]

 

I don't know, you've lost me with your posts to be honest. What do you conclude from these studies regarding whether a society would be better without religion? Or were you more focused on whether religion is beneficial to individuals (regardless of societal effects). Or is your conclusion 'it's complicated'?

 

I guess the point is that religious thinking does not have to be divisive, but it has become divisive because most people see religions as mutually exclusive - and wrongly in my opinion. Ideas always have areas of overlap, and it is only those external things, the things which those beliefs pertain to, that are distinct from one another. Seeing how no god is directly observable and that Jesus and Muhammad are both dead, the core differences between religions are differences in ideas rather than differences in distinct external things.

[Itoero]

What???

 

I've skimmed this link and have yet to find a reference to religion, please be specific.

 

Maybe when you're sober...

You are a funny person.

"On 7 June, a Federal Criminal Police Office report confirmed that most of the perpetrators were of North African origin and had arrived in Germany during the European migrant crisis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

 

"By religious affiliation, the overwhelming majority of entrants were Muslim (including Sunni Muslims, but also non-Sunni minorities), with a small component of non-Muslim minorities (including Yazidis, Assyrians, Mandeans, etc). "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis

[dimreepr]

 

I guess the point is that religious thinking does not have to be divisive, but it has become divisive because most people see religions as mutually exclusive - and wrongly in my opinion. Ideas always have areas of overlap, and it is only those external things, the things which those beliefs pertain to, that are distinct from one another. Seeing how no god is directly observable and that Jesus and Muhammad are both dead, the core differences between religions are differences in ideas rather than differences in distinct external things.

 

When we drop the idea of god as a necessary part of religion, maybe some of the division can be forgotten and the overlaps can be explored instead of derided by both sides.

You are a funny person.

"On 7 June, a Federal Criminal Police Office report confirmed that most of the perpetrators were of North African origin and had arrived in Germany during the European migrant crisis."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

 

"By religious affiliation, the overwhelming majority of entrants were Muslim (including Sunni Muslims, but also non-Sunni minorities), with a small component of non-Muslim minorities (including Yazidis, Assyrians, Mandeans, etc). "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis

 

I did suggest you sober up first, but OK, what religious texts demands this of them?

Edited December 14, 2016 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

I did suggest you sober up first, but OK, what religious texts demands this of them?

Religion causes a breeding ground for 'f*cked up' behavior...its not the direct cause.

[dimreepr]

Religion causes a breeding ground for 'f*cked up' behavior...its not the direct cause.

 

 

No one expects the Spanish inquisition.

 

[Moontanman]

 

Not intentionally, maybe you need to explain why you think I am, failing that perhaps answer my questions.

 

 

Maybe not but you certainly seem to be implying they're more perfect than a religious one.

 

 

And torture, lots of imaginative torture.

 

 

Since you don't believe, why do you care?

 

 

I'm not aware of any religions that currently requires any of this either.

 

 

Oh please, it would be harder to pick a post when you haven't.

 

Imagine, if you can, that my contention is correct and that the various bibles are all trying to teach contentment and that forgiveness is a necessary part of being content, gods judgement (hell) makes it so much easier to forgive, because justice will be served even if they seem to be getting away with it.

 

When one is content heaven is here and now; when one is discontent hell is ones life.

 

 

If you are not aware of any religion whose dogma demands these things then you need to go back and read your holy book. Secular society gelded Christianity kicking and screaming into the modern age. Now religion comes to you with this smiling face claiming to be kind and good. But when religious dogma had the power of life and death they exercised that power quite frequently. Killing Jews was practically a regular entertainment or someone of another religion and burning and or hanging of anyone thought to be a witch or in league with Satan or accused of blasphemy.

[Itoero]

Islam immigration causes crime to go up.

Without islam, many countries would be a lot more peaceful.

 

This is before the European migrant crisis which began in 2015.

 

Belgium: Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace.

 

France: About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

 

India: The number of Muslims in jail is highly disproportionate to their population. In the western state of Maharashtra, for instance, Muslims make up 10.6 percent of the population but 32.4 percent of those convicted or facing trial.

 

Italy: Of the 27,000 foreign detainees, one third of them are Muslim. Due to the overcrowding in the cells and the high number of foreign detainees, with so many of them of the Islamic faith, the prison cell could become a place where petty criminals are tempted by jailed members of terror organisations.

 

Netherlands: Research by the Open Society Institute, an advocacy organization, shows that in the Netherlands 20 percent of adult prisoners and 26 percent of all juvenile offenders are Muslim; the country is about 5.5 percent Muslim.

 

Spain: The largest Islamic organization in the country, the Islamic Committee of Spain, has welcomed this initiative, taking into account that 70 percent of those in Spanish jails are Muslims, who number around 54,000. Spain with its 40-million population, which is 94 percent Catholic, has a Muslim community of around 600,000.

 

United Kingdom: In Britain, 11 percent (9,500) of prisoners are (self-described) Muslim in contrast to about 3 percent of all inhabitants, according to the Justice Ministry.

In maximum security Category A jails such as Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire - the subject today of an exclusive report in Live magazine based on unprecedented access to both prisoners and staff - they make up 35 per cent of the inmates, and have converted numerous other prisoners to Islam.

There are 229 Muslims out of a total of 686 youngsters detained at Feltham Young Offenders Institution in West London, according to Ministry of Justice figures.

 

United states: In 2003, when Muslims comprised well under 1% of the American population, it was estimated that 17-20% of the prison population was Muslim. An oft-quoted statistic states that 80% of the prisoners who "find faith" in prison convert to Islam.

 

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Population#Belgium_2

[dimreepr]

 

 

If you are not aware of any religion whose dogma demands these things then you need to go back and read your holy book. Secular society gelded Christianity kicking and screaming into the modern age. Now religion comes to you with this smiling face claiming to be kind and good. But when religious dogma had the power of life and death they exercised that power quite frequently. Killing Jews was practically a regular entertainment or someone of another religion and burning and or hanging of anyone thought to be a witch or in league with Satan or accused of blasphemy.

 

And you have the audacity to accuse me of "being intentionally obtuse".

 

You have yet to address my point directly or answer any of my questions, there's been no argument or rebuttal, just gainsay; you just trot out the same rhetoric 'religion's are bad M'kay'.

 

I've never said otherwise, in fact the question I'd most like you to answer is:

 

Every bad thing you associate with religion is present in a secular society and the ONLY difference between the two is that secularism doesn't try to teach one to be content.

 

 

As you can see I'm acknowledging religions have done bad stuff, you've yet acknowledge the antipode.

 

http://www.polity.co.uk/book.asp?ref=9780745647203

 

Habermas argues that in order to engage in this dialogue, two conditions must be met: religion must accept the authority of secular reason as the fallible results of the sciences and the universalistic egalitarianism in law and morality; and conversely, secular reason must not set itself up as the judge concerning truths of faith.

 

Islam immigration causes crime to go up.

Without islam, many countries would be a lot more peaceful.

 

This is before the European migrant crisis which began in 2015.

 

Belgium: Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace.

 

France: About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

 

India: The number of Muslims in jail is highly disproportionate to their population. In the western state of Maharashtra, for instance, Muslims make up 10.6 percent of the population but 32.4 percent of those convicted or facing trial.

 

Italy: Of the 27,000 foreign detainees, one third of them are Muslim. Due to the overcrowding in the cells and the high number of foreign detainees, with so many of them of the Islamic faith, the prison cell could become a place where petty criminals are tempted by jailed members of terror organisations.

 

Netherlands: Research by the Open Society Institute, an advocacy organization, shows that in the Netherlands 20 percent of adult prisoners and 26 percent of all juvenile offenders are Muslim; the country is about 5.5 percent Muslim.

 

Spain: The largest Islamic organization in the country, the Islamic Committee of Spain, has welcomed this initiative, taking into account that 70 percent of those in Spanish jails are Muslims, who number around 54,000. Spain with its 40-million population, which is 94 percent Catholic, has a Muslim community of around 600,000.

 

United Kingdom: In Britain, 11 percent (9,500) of prisoners are (self-described) Muslim in contrast to about 3 percent of all inhabitants, according to the Justice Ministry.

In maximum security Category A jails such as Whitemoor in Cambridgeshire - the subject today of an exclusive report in Live magazine based on unprecedented access to both prisoners and staff - they make up 35 per cent of the inmates, and have converted numerous other prisoners to Islam.

There are 229 Muslims out of a total of 686 youngsters detained at Feltham Young Offenders Institution in West London, according to Ministry of Justice figures.

 

United states: In 2003, when Muslims comprised well under 1% of the American population, it was estimated that 17-20% of the prison population was Muslim. An oft-quoted statistic states that 80% of the prisoners who "find faith" in prison convert to Islam.

 

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Population#Belgium_2

 

This is just raw data and so is of little use, what happens when things like poverty or culture or oppression... etc. are included?

 

Religion causes a breeding ground for 'f*cked up' behavior...its not the direct cause.

 

 

There are many reasons for bad behaviour and if it's not the direct cause why blame religion, rather than poverty or...?

An oft-quoted statistic states that 80% of the prisoners who "find faith" in prison convert to Islam.

 

 

Why is that a bad thing?

Edited December 15, 2016 by dimreepr

[Itoero]

This is just raw data and so is of little use, what happens when things like poverty or culture or oppression... etc. are included?

What does that matter? The data show that an increased Muslim-population gives increased criminality.

You do know what happened in France, Belgium and Germany?(they raped and killed people) Here in Belgium (and it's like this in many other countries) there are areas 'governed' by Muslims where normal police doesn't go.

And Most Muslims in Belgium don't integrate at all.

 

There are many reasons for bad behaviour and if it's not the direct cause why blame religion, rather than poverty or...?

Because religion is an indirect cause. Since most Muslims don't integrate, they are not really part of the financial world in a country, they have no positive input in society, which causes poverty and criminality.

[dimreepr]

What does that matter? The data show that an increased Muslim-population gives increased criminality.

You do know what happened in France, Belgium and Germany?(they raped and killed people) Here in Belgium (and it's like this in many other countries) there are areas 'governed' by Muslims where normal police doesn't go.

And Most Muslims in Belgium don't integrate at all.

 

Show me the evidence.

 

Because religion is an indirect cause.

 

 

The more important question is, what's the direct cause?

[Prometheus]

What does that matter? The data show that an increased Muslim-population gives increased criminality.

 

By your reasoning margarine consumption increases divorce rates in the US.

 

It matters because you are learning to lie to yourself with statistics.

[Itoero]

Show me the evidence.

Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace.

 

The more important question is, what's the direct cause?

There are a lot of direct causes which caused by religion.

[dimreepr]

Muslims from Morocco and Turkey make up at least 16 percent of the prison population, compared with 2 percent of the general populace.

 

And the evidence is, what exactly?

 

There are a lot of direct causes which caused by religion.

 

 

maybe, now answer my question.

[Itoero]

By your reasoning margarine consumption increases divorce rates in the US.

 

It matters because you are learning to lie to yourself with statistics.

All those Muslims have one thing in common, they are Muslim. Muslims are obviously more likely to show criminal behavior. Why don't those data show that in your opinion?

 

And the evidence is, what exactly?

I gave the link before, did you forget?

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Muslim_Statistics_-_Population#Belgium_2

maybe, now answer my question.2

How can I know the direct cause of a criminal act?

Do you want me to know the cause for a group rape during new years eve in Germany?