The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

For my part I offer a society steeped in religious beliefs- the Vatican State. I think we can then compare their murder or violent crime rate with your list.

Actually the Vatican State has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world, which isn't surprising considering it is offical population is only a couple of hundred people. They have a staggering 133% crime rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2639777.stm

Just goes to show even in the most religious place on Earth the darker sides of human nature still exist.

Anyway, I think all this was all originally brought up in response to the claim that being religious some how makes you a better person. Crime and immoral behaviour was being linked to absence of religion and atheism by some posters.. Someone, possible Scofflaw, pointed out that vast vast majority of crime is carried out by those who would fall under the heading of religious, and countries with the highest numbers of atheists also have low crime figures.

Yes the link that being atheists means you are less likely to commit criminal or immoral acts is weak, but that wasn't really the point. The point was the link between being religious and law-abiding and moral is also equally weak.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

Actually the Vatican State has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the world, which isn't surprising considering it is offical population is only a couple of hundred people. They have a staggering 133% crime rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2639777.stm

Just goes to show even in the most religious place on Earth the darker sides of human nature still exist.

Hah! Good one
Mind you claiming that people coming temporarily into the Vatican society are part of the citizenry of the Vatican is stretching it. One might by the same reasoning claim that if Us troops murdered people in cold blood in Iraq that it was the fault of the Iraqi people who are mostly muslim.
And the "crimes" mentioned are bag snatching and pickpocketing not "violent crime" as was the original claim.

Anyway, I think all this was all originally brought up in response to the claim that being religious some how makes you a better person.

Nope it was brought up because it was claimed that when non belief goes up then violent crime goes down.

Crime and immoral behaviour was being linked to absence of religion and atheism by some posters..

Not by me.

Someone, possible Scofflaw, pointed out that vast vast majority of crime is carried out by those who would fall under the heading of religious, and countries with the highest numbers of atheists also have low crime figures.

This may well be true but it is not what he claimed.

Yes the link that being atheists means you are less likely to commit criminal or immoral acts is weak, but that wasn't really the point. The point was the link between being religious and law-abiding and moral is also equally weak.

Not the point that was made but point taken. maybe it is because they are not being religious? Maybe it is because they are pretending to be religious but in fact not following what their religion states? for if they were truely religious wouldnt they be by definition moral? Otherwise care to please point out the "immoral" rules that religions have?

Scofflaw

ISAW wrote:

And the "crimes" mentioned are bag snatching and pickpocketing not "violent crime" as was the original claim.

I have made no claims about the Vatican except that it is not a useful comparison to a nation-state. You're balancing a lot of rubbish on a couple of inaccurate assertions, by you, about what I've claimed. Given you've already attributed a post by JC to me, and then been snarky when it was pointed out to you, I suppose I need not be surprised.

ISAW wrote:

Nope it was brought up because it was claimed that when non belief goes up then violent crime goes down.

Not by me, in the sense that you claim that I claim it (see below).

ISAW wrote:

Not by me.

Yes, you've butted into an ongoing discussion, without bothering to find out what the discussion is about, like the loud bloke in the pub.

ISAW wrote:

This may well be true but it is not what he claimed.

Not what who claimed?

ISAW wrote:

Not the point that was made but point taken. maybe it is because they are not being religious? Maybe it is because they are pretending to be religious but in fact not following what their religion states? for if they were truely religious wouldnt they be by definition moral? Otherwise care to please point out the "immoral" rules that religions have?

In the course of a discussion with wolfsbane, wolfsbane claimed that lack of religion was linked to raised levels of crime. You even initially noted that wolfsbane made the original claim:

ISAW wrote:

Mind you he made the original claim.

I responded with one claim:

Scofflaw wrote:

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go. The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers. Anecdotal evidence is of no interest to me.

Here I am making a specific claim with respect to the article I posted the link to (and no, it's not up to me to summarise it if you're too lazy to read it), because I have brought this specific article up with wolfsbane before in the course of this thread. It's an accurate claim as far as it goes - you are trying to make out that I'm claiming it as some kind of general rule, which I'm not (there aren't, as you say, the necessary wider comparisons, both historically and geographically to do so). That isn't what I'm claiming, so please stop trying to put words in my mouth - if you want to argue with yourself, have the good manners to keep me out of it.

The article compares prosperous democracies for a good reason - which is that poor and undemocratic countries have too many complicating factors to make a religious/non-religious comparison viable.

What you have taken out of context is a reference to an earlier discussion, which would be OK if you'd then said anything sensible about it.

ISAW wrote:

Now who is mentioning "states"?

Yes, the nation-state or country is the basis of comparison in the article. Do you understand the difference between "the state" in terms of government and "the nation-state" as a geographical entity?

Scofflaw

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

Hah! Good one
Mind you claiming that people coming temporarily into the Vatican society are part of the citizenry of the Vatican is stretching it.

My reading of it was these statistics were for the actualy Vatican population, all 500 of them, and sure there was a double murder there in 1998.

Anyway, all a bit beside the point

ISAW wrote:

Nope it was brought up because it was claimed that when non belief goes up then violent crime goes down.

Yes, and that was claimed to counter the idea that religious people are good and moral and atheists have no reason to be, so therefore are going to commit crimes if they can get away with it

ISAW wrote:

Not by me.

I know, you are kinda wading into this discussion mid-stream

ISAW wrote:

This may well be true but it is not what he claimed.

Actually I think that is exactly what he, or who ever posted the original comments, claimed

ISAW wrote:

for if they were truely religious wouldnt they be by definition moral?

No, thats the point myself Scofflaw and others have been making for a while with an on going discussion with Wolfbane.

It is an incorrect assumption, often made by religous people themselves, that a deeply religious, or even just a mildly religious person is automatically a moral person, and that an immoral person is someone who is simply not following the religion.

What you actually find is that religious people can often interpreate their religions teachings exactly the way they wish to do what they want and still consider themselves following morality. And in a lot of cases technically they are. Morality in religion is just as subjective as morality outside of religion, except religion has the added bonus that everyone who follows the religion believes their interpretation of the moral code is the correct and true one.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Morality in religion is just as subjective as morality outside of religion, except religion has the added bonus that everyone who follows the religion believes their interpretation of the moral code is the correct and true one.

It might be more to the point to say that:everyone who follows the religion believes their interpretation of the moral code is the correct and true one because it has been authenticated by their deity who made us all so it must be correct.

Scofflaw

Asiaprod wrote:

It might be more to the point to say that:everyone who follows the religion believes their interpretation of the moral code is the correct and true one because it has been authenticated by their deity who made us all so it must be correct.

Out of interest, are there any religions that do not prescribe morals? Any gods that say "well, I'm not going to tell you what to do apart from the worshipping"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

Scofflaw wrote:

Out of interest, are there any religions that do not prescribe morals? Any gods that say "well, I'm not going to tell you what to do apart from the worshipping"?
Scofflaw

Not that I know of since it is not usually the god who issues the moral directives but some mortal who is in communiion with the said god. This kind of stuff is at best always secondhand information and all to often has been passed on down by the said mortal as a way of making him special to his fellow man. The drive for power and recognition can be a terribly destructive force as we have seen. If I were to hazzard a guess, I would say the best chance of finding a non-moral issuing god would be in the earth religions or beliefs such as the Bushmen, Amazon tribes like the Yanomani (not sure of spelling),possibly also in Indian and African tribes, as well as the island tribes throughout micronesia. Yoga Philosophy also has a lot to say on this issue, but alas, I am no expert here. I believe myself that morals are derived from shared concepts, customs, beliefs and universal principles and are probably genetically hardwired into us.

Zombrex

Asiaprod wrote:

It might be more to the point to say that:everyone who follows the religion believes their interpretation of the moral code is the correct and true one because it has been authenticated by their deity who made us all so it must be correct.

True, that makes more sense with relation to religion, since nearly everyone, religious or otherwise, normally believes their morals are correct.

I meant the point in relation to the responses you get on this forum where religious posters dismiss religious people who do "immoral" things as simply not following the teachings of the religion, such as the Bible.

Actually what is happening is that these "immoral" people are not following the religion within the interpretation the posters here have. The immoral people probably believe they are still following the religion based on their own interpretation of it.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

True, that makes more sense with relation to religion, since nearly everyone, religious or otherwise, normally believes their morals are correct.

I meant the point in relation to the responses you get on this forum where religious posters dismiss religious people who do "immoral" things as simply not following the teachings of the religion, such as the Bible.

Actually what is happening is that these "immoral" people are not following the religion within the interpretation the posters here have. The immoral people probably believe they are still following the religion based on their own interpretation of it.

Here's a splendid example of such reasoning, relevant to the current discussion:

Atheistic, pro-evolution democracies, however, cannot logically associate the immorality of America with pure Christianity, and thus assume that atheism is more beneficial for a society. A country comprised of true Christians would be mostly void of such things as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, thievery, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:21; Matthew 19:9; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5-9; Galatians 5:19-23; Ephesians 4:28; 5:25,28; 6:4). Only those who break God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped. [NOTE: This is the kind of society that America’s Founding Fathers envisioned—one based upon the unchanging, moral principles of the Bible. In reality, America was founded to be a republic, not a democracy (see Miller, 2005).]

The God of the Bible cannot logically be blamed because “theists” or “Christians” forsake His commands and do that which is right in their own eyes (cf. Judges 17:6). Furthermore, simply because the more atheistic, pro-evolution democracies do not permit their godless philosophy of life to produce the true fruits of the “survival of the fittest” mentality, but rather choose to live according to moral guidelines similar to those found in the Bible (e.g., not murdering, stealing, lying, etc.), does not mean that alleged low rates of crime, murder, etc. is the fruit of true atheistic thought. In short, unrighteousness, whether it stems from atheism or a corrupted form of Christianity, produces bitter fruit that will eventually bring about the wrath of God.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

I have made no claims about the Vatican except that it is not a useful comparison to a nation-state. You're balancing a lot of rubbish on a couple of inaccurate assertions, by you, about what I've claimed.

You didnt mention "nation state" in your claim you mentioned "societies"

It is clear that 1. I brought up the Vatican as a counter point. 2. My replies above to which you refer were in relation to Wickednight and not to you.
If you have a problem with that then please care to indicate where I suggested that YOU brought up the Vatican?

Above i quote you exact words. Care to mention what is meant by YOUR words:

The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

to me it seems to insinuate that as unbelief goes up that violent crime goes down. do you deny this is what you actually meant? If you meant something else then would please state that and clarify the issue?

Given you've already attributed a post by JC to me, and then been snarky when it was pointed out to you, I suppose I need not be surprised.

No I DIDNT! I replied to a post with a lengthy quotation from you which to me clearly shows that you were replying to someone else. I did not mention the "someone else" was JC but for anyone following the thread they would know. Furthermore before you posted the above personal accusation that I in any way deliberately or otherwise attributed JC' spost to you I acknowledged that if there was any confusion (and you admitted there was none in you case but others not following the discuaaion might be none the wiser) it was not intended.

If you are suggesting that I in any way deliberately accused you of stating something from someone else then you had better say so! Otherwise i have already explained BEFORE you raised the issue that I in no way deliberately attributed anything to you you did not state and even if not deliberate or accidental taken in context of what I posted it is clear to me that a reasonable person could determine from the quotation I gave that I referred to someone else.

that is all I will state on that issue. If you have any further problems with it either take it to PM or complain about me.

Not by me, in the sense that you claim that I claim it (see below).

You claimed that as unbelief goes up than violent crime goes down:

The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

Do you deny stating the above?

Yes, you've butted into an ongoing discussion, without bothering to find out what the discussion is about, like the loud bloke in the pub.

Look at my original p[ost. It refers to your reply to a claim made by someone else about measuring the distance to nearby stars. It does not claim that you stipulated that the distance to stars more than 30 light years away cant be measured by parallax, which is the prior discussion that I did in fact read. Are you suggesting that I lied about reading the prior point (as it turns out a point made by JC ) ?

Not what who claimed?

Not what YOU claimed.

In the course of a discussion with wolfsbane, wolfsbane claimed that lack of religion was linked to raised levels of crime. You even initially noted that wolfsbane made the original claim:

What wolfsbane (the original claim) stated was:

I deny that unbelievers are just as likely to be moral as believers.

I responded with one claim:

Heere is what you responede with

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go. The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

Here I am making a specific claim with respect to the article I posted the link to

No you are not! Not above you weren't since you had not posted the supporting evidence. You may NOW be making that claim with reference to that article since by now you supply the reference. But you didnt supply it when you classimed it.

As I pointed ou the reference you did supply in no way convinces me that an admittedly slewed sample represents "general populations" or "societies" as you claim. It does not give convincing evidence that as atheism goes up violent crime goes down. At best it suggests a correlation in some minorities of western democracies.

(and no, it's not up to me to summarise it if you're too lazy to read it), because I have brought this specific article up with wolfsbane before in the course of this thread.

You beought the article up in relation to your clweim that as ahheism goes up violent crime goes down. I asked you where it states that. You are now claiming that it states that somewhere in an article but you refuse to show where? Not very convincing.

It's an accurate claim as far as it goes

Originally you stated

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour

You have not produced stats which show "societies" get less violent and less criminal as percentage of believers goes down. It isnt really accurate to say that at all is it?

- you are trying to make out that I'm claiming it as some kind of general rule, which I'm not (there aren't, as you say, the necessary wider comparisons, both historically and geographically to do so).

Again i repeat you own words with emphasis added by me:

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go.

If you did not mean that it applies generally then why did you specifically state "as general populations go"?

That isn't what I'm claiming, so please stop trying to put words in my mouth - if you want to argue with yourself, have the good manners to keep me out of it.

YOUR own words were "as general populations go" dont blame me for putting words in your mouth. You wrote them!

The article compares prosperous democracies for a good reason - which is that poor and undemocratic countries have too many complicating factors to make a religious/non-religious comparison viable.

I dint ask the motivation for using a minorities of countries/states/societies. i pointed out that it does not mean you have proven the general rule that : as nonbelief increases violent crime decreases.

What you have taken out of context is a reference to an earlier discussion, which would be OK if you'd then said anything sensible about it.

Your own words. If the context is wriong then care to please explain what you meant by the following and how I got you wrong?

We should compare stats - but I think you'll find them in my favour, as far as general populations go. The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

Yes, the nation-state or country is the basis of comparison in the article. Do you understand the difference between "the state" in terms of government and "the nation-state" as a geographical entity?

Obfuscation. Please explain your above claim about non belief going up being related to crime going down.

]

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

My reading of it was these statistics were for the actualy Vatican population, all 500 of them, and sure there was a double murder there in 1998.

What is the source for you 500. And for the murders? I am sure there are several thousand Vatican citizens

Anyway, all a bit beside the point

No it isnt! you can still derive a murder rate from the stats. Just as you can for Ireland with 4 million and normalise it with the Us which has say 250 million. Two murders per two thousand over eight years is about one per 32,000. How high is the US rate?

Yes, and that was claimed to counter the idea that religious people are good and moral and atheists have no reason to be, so therefore are going to commit crimes if they can get away with it

the counter claim "when non belief goes up then violent crime goes down," is also a claim. I asked for evidence that this claim is true. A single citation was offered which is itself open to criticism in relation to the above counter claim. I havent seen any other evidence.

I know, you are kinda wading into this discussion mid-stream

Thank you for your kind consideration. I really was not looking forward to reading all 95 pages up to this point to ensure that I knew everything that was discussed. Nor do I think it is necessary. If my point is not relevant feel free to shoot it down. If it is invalid because I "dont know what came before" then show me where before and why it is invalid.

Actually I think that is exactly what he, or who ever posted the original comments, claimed

But as you just said I was not in the discuaaion then! I came in when the counter claim was made. Even if the original claim was not valid that does not mean the counter claim stated is automatically valid.

No, thats the point myself Scofflaw and others have been making for a while with an on going discussion with Wolfbane.

It is an incorrect assumption, often made by religous people themselves, that a deeply religious, or even just a mildly religious person is automatically a moral person, and that an immoral person is someone who is simply not following the religion.

I didnt say religious "person". I suggested that religious means according to rules. These rules are assumed to come from a good and just God. As such God is a moral authiority. So religious in the believer sense is "moral". I suppose you could also religiously follow atheism in the sense that your beliefs do not change. How one can claim their lack of belief does not change is difficult for me though

What you actually find is that religious people can often interpreate their religions teachings exactly the way they wish to do what they want and still consider themselves following morality.

As can non religious people. But let me ask you then what is this "morality" they are following when you mention them "following morality"? What is the definition of this "morality"? From whence does it eminate?

It is an incorrect assumption, often made by religous people themselves, that a deeply religious, or even just a mildly religious person is automatically a moral person, and that an immoral person is someone who is simply not following the religion.

And in a lot of cases technically they are. Morality in religion is just as subjective as morality outside of religion, except religion has the added bonus that everyone who follows the religion believes their interpretation of the moral code is the correct and true one.

Nope. Not in every religion! REligions with dogma discount subjective morality. they "inform" concience. Indeed in Christianity Judaism and Islam do not have a subjectively normal morality. thats over two billions of the global population.

J C

Quote Wicknight
As I have explained before (a few times at this stage), evolution doesn't advance, it adapts. And adaptation may improve a species ability to survive and function in a particular environment, but that improvement is irrelevant on its own without the context of the environment to which it is adapting.

I actually AGREE with you on this one.
As I have ALSO explained many times before, Evolution DOESN’T advance.
In fact, it’s supposed ‘diversity generation mechanism’ (mutation) actually DEGRADES genetic information.

However, the fact that Evolution doesn’t advance (a fact on which you also apparently agree) is logically devastating for a mechanism that Evolutionists maintain accounts for the ‘advancement’ evident between Muck and Man.

Natural Selection does indeed ADAPT populations to changing environments and/or allows populations to exploit new ecological niches – but it uses extant pre-existing genetic diversity to do so.

Quote ISAW
Newton? Would this be Isaac Newton? The Arian heretic Isaac Newton?
When you argue from authority be sure to check out when you begin that the authorities you use are not heretics.

Yes, indeed this is the Great Sir Isaac Newton – ‘the father’ of Physics.

Yes, Sir Isaac was a Deist – but that doesn’t in any way lessen his authority as one of the greatest scientific brains that ever lived. It also doesn’t invalidate the fact that he was a Creationist.

I may disagree with Sir Isaac Newton’s lack of Christian orthodoxy but that doesn’t reduce my respect for him as a Creation Scientist of the highest calibre.

Creation Science is indeed at least several hundred years old as I have already pointed out and contains within it’s ranks people from all Christian denominations, other mono-theists and people with no particular religious conviction.
Therefore Creation Science ISN’T confined to ONLY Born Again, Bible Believing Christians (as some contributors to this thread have tried to intimate).
Creation Scientists concentrate exclusively on the scientific evidence for Creation. They have a strict division between their scientific activities, based upon repeatably observable evidence, and their personal religious convictions, based upon their various faith positions.


Quote ISAW
And Arian Heritics.

I think that you are confusing the scientific observations of top Creation Scientists such as Sir Isaac Newton, with their religious convictions. While it is true that many Creation Scientists are saved Christians – others may not have been saved.
While it is a source of great regret for me that this may be the case, I believe that this in no way invalidates the Creation Science research activities of such people.


Originally Posted by J C
I am a Christian who BELIEVES on the Lord Jesus Christ and a Creation Scientist who KNOWS that ‘muck didn’t evolve into MAN’
Quote ISAW
You "Know" it? you don’t just believe it? You actually know because you have factual evidence?

Yes I KNOW that ‘muck didn’t evolve into Man’ based upon the Laws of Probability and large numbers as well as much repeatably observable evidence.


Quote ISAW
What do you mean by "evolve"?
do you believe ther were no species capable of breeding with human beings and that god came along and actually placed the first human man and woman on the Earth?

By ‘evolve’ I mean the gradual development of two or more distinct kinds from one common ancestor.

I KNOW that there were no species capable of breeding with Human Beings and I BELIEVE that God actually directly placed the first human man and woman on the Earth


Quote ISAW
Before the Hipparcos sattelite, there were about 50 stars whose distances were measured to within 1% accuracy using ground-based telescopes, out to a distance of about 10 light-years. Distances to about 1000 stars within 50 light-years were known to within 10% accuracy.

This is precisely my point that triangulation from Earth is only able to DIRECTLY MEASURE stars less than 50 Light Years away.


Quote ISAW
Thanks to Hipparcos satellite, distances to a handful of Cepheids are now known directly. Hipparcos was able to measure the parallaxes for 400 stars within 30 light years to 1% accuracy, and 28,000 stars within 300 light years to 10% accuracy. About 7 or 8 Cepheids are among these, including the North Star, Polaris

For 118,000 selected stars, Hipparcos measured their parallax accurate to .001 second of arc. That's the apparent diameter of a coin at a distance of 5000 kilometers, or putting a quarter in New York and viewing it from San Francisco or the amount the hair on a person a meter away appears to grow in one second.

Even after achieving the absolutely amazing resolution of 0.001 arc seconds (which is the ability to see and measure something the size of a coin over the distance between New York and San Francisco), only the distances of 118,000 stars THAT ARE LESS THAN 300 LIGHT YEARS AWAY have been measured directly!!
Could I point out that 300 Light Years is certainly within a Biblical Timeframe of less than 10,000 years!!


Quote ISAW
Before Hipparcos, no Cepheid distances could be determined directly using the parallax method, but had to be measured using an intermediate method known as the "Cluster Method," in which the bulk motion of a cluster of stars is used to obtain their distance.

The entire Cepheid Hypothesis is precisely that, just a Hypothesis that Cepheid variables have a relationship between their brightness and their "period" (length of pulsation).
The handful of Cepheid distances now definitively known, do not constitute a statistically significant sample from which to draw scientifically valid conclusions about the distances of all other Cepheids.

The Universe is probably infinite – reflecting the infinite majesty of it’s Creator – and the fact that there WASN’T a Big Bang.
However, we cannot scientifically conclude that any observed Supernova is any more than about 300 Light Years away.

So the idea that SN1987A was 164,000 Light Years away is wishful thinking (on the part of Evolutionists) – and it is certainly NOT irrefutable evidence of an old Universe.

Scofflaw

Hi ISAW,

we seem to have got crossed wires somewhere along the line. Let me just check that we are where I think we are:

1. You point out that I have claimed that "the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers".

2. You have taken this to be a general claim, and have asked me to back it up ("Well you claim it you produce the stats").

3. I have denied that the comment was intended as a general claim - it's intended as a comment on the stats in the article I linked for your benefit. As far as I'm aware this is the only comparative study of its kind, and has been linked in this thread, and in others, before now. It is possible that wolfsbane would have asked me what statistics I referred to, in which case I would happily have posted the link for him. You got there first.

So, as far as I'm concerned, you've taken a sentence of mine out of context, and are using it to claim that I have made a universal claim that the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

If what you want is that I back down from such a claim, congratulations! I never made it.

I don't claim that the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers in any general way, except insofar as I have seen statistics that show that to be the case. Certainly there is no a priori reason why societies composed largely of atheists would necessarily be less violent/criminal than those composed of theists, or at least none that I'm aware of.

If you know of any other statistics that consider religion/unreligion in the light of social indicators/crime stats, do please link them. If not, feel free to admit that the available statistical evidence supports my point of view rather than wolfsbane's, as I said.

regards,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

The Vatican, from Wikipedia:

On 31 December 2002 there were 555 people with Vatican citizenship, of whom all are dual-citizens to other countries (the majority being Italian). The Lateran Treaty states that in the event a Vatican citizen has their other nationality revoked, they will be automatically granted Italian citizenship. This would have been important had the authorities in pre-Solidarity Poland decided to strip Pope John Paul II of his Polish citizenship.

Amongst the 555 were:

1. 1 x Pope.
2. 57 x Cardinals.
3. 293 x members of the clergy who serve as diplomatic envoys abroad.
4. 56 x lesser ranking clergy members who work in the Vatican.
5. 104 x officers, NCOs and men of the Papal Swiss Guard.
6. 44 x lay persons. Unlike other Vatican citizens, they can marry and have families.

From the CIA world factbook:

Population: 932 (July 2006 est.) Growth rate: 0.01%

Note that the CIA factbook estimated the Vatican population at 900 in 2002, when it is known to have been 555 as per above - their estimates appear to be based on natural population increases. American intelligence again.

Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

In fact, it’s supposed ‘diversity generation mechanism’ (mutation) actually DEGRADES genetic information.

Not in every case JC, as has (repeatably) been explained to you before.

J C wrote:

However, the fact that Evolution doesn’t advance (a fact on which you also apparently agree) is logically devastating for a mechanism that Evolutionists maintain accounts for the ‘advancement’ evident between Muck and Man.

You are making the same mistake in not understanding what evolution does.

When I said evolution doesn't advance I didn't mean it did the opposite. Evolution adapts, this is a form of advancement within a specific environmental context. But using the term "advance" is incorrect not because evolution doesn't do it, but because it is simply the wrong word to use. What ever evolution does these changes are irrelivent without the context of the environment it does it in, so saying something is more advanced that something else makes no sense in evolutionary terms.

Not sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you, I doubt you understand or care about understanding how evolution actually works.

J C wrote:

but it uses extant pre-existing genetic diversity to do so.

No, it doesn't. It uses new genetic diversity. "Pre-existing" genetic diversity doesn't make any sense as a concept.

J C wrote:

Yes I KNOW that ‘muck didn’t evolve into Man’ based upon the Laws of Probability and large numbers as well as much repeatably observable evidence.

Well that doesn't really make sense since you have been shown evidence, real world evidence, that abiogensis is not only possible but it actually takes place (self-replicating molecules have been created in labs), and evolution creating new genetic complexity has also been observed.

These are the two reasons you state why evolution is not possible, yet these two things have been observed and studied by science.

So one can only draw that conclusion that your unwillingness to accept the evidence in front of you is based on religious belief, not science, as I suspect the vast majority of Creation Science is.

It is all very well to say that Creation Science is interested in all the same evidence as proper science, but when faced with evidence that contradicts the CS's pre-concieved ideas of what must be happening they either ignore it or attempt to come up with other fantastical explinations for it (normally along the line of "God made it like that to test our faith").

Can you not see why proper science then dismisses CS as nothing more than a thinly vailed religious excersise, since it is clearly not interested in scientific truth, only interested in furthering its religious dogma and propaganda.

It is not science because science demands that you follow the evidence to the truth, and that the evidence decides that path, not your religion or personal mystical beliefs.

J C wrote:

This is precisely my point that triangulation from Earth is only able to DIRECTLY MEASURE stars less than 50 Light Years away.

That "point" is rather meaningless (and wrong, 100 light years is the limit to measurement on Earth) in the context you were using it, which was to (rather foolishly) attempt to prove the science cannot know the true distance of stars over 6,000 light years (ie stars made before creation of the YEC Earth. That is completely wrong.

We can, and have, measured stars hundreds of thousands of light years away from Earth.

J C wrote:

The handful of Cepheid distances now definitively known, do not constitute a statistically significant sample from which to draw scientifically valid conclusions about the distances of all other Cepheids.

Yes, actually do.

J C wrote:

However, we cannot scientifically conclude that any observed Supernova is any more than about 300 Light Years away.

Yes we can, actually we can with a very high degree of precisesness. Unless all the laws of physics are actually wrong. Which they aren't.

J C wrote:

So the idea that SN1987A was 164,000 Light Years away is wishful thinking (on the part of Evolutionists) – and it is certainly NOT irrefutable evidence of an old Universe.

Its not wishful at all, its a fact And it is irrefutable evidence of an old universe. A very old universe.

Of course as science goes on and more and more overwhelming evidence mounts against a literal Biblical creation I expect we will see more and more Creationists, especially YEC simply refuse to listen, as you are doing now, and bury their heads in the sand with their fingers in their ears, simply chanting passages from Genesis over and over.

The Universe proves you wrong JC. Not science, not even humanity, but simply the universe itself proves that you are wrong. The laws of physics, which prove the distances of stars, proves you wrong. The laws of chemisty, which prove abogesis happens, proves you wrong. The laws of biology, which proves evolution can increase genetic complexity, proves you wrong.

You can choose to ignore all this, bury your head in the sand, and refuse to accept anything that was not written down in a book 4000 years ago by a few men in a Middle Eastern desert, as religion has done time and time again, but the world moves on without you.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote:

No it isnt! you can still derive a murder rate from the stats. Just as you can for Ireland with 4 million and normalise it with the Us which has say 250 million. Two murders per two thousand over eight years is about one per 32,000. How high is the US rate?

Its 6.8 murders for every 100,000 people (1997).

And the Vatican has a population of about roughly 500 people, so its muder rate is actually, put into context with the American statistics, 6 murders for every 12,000 citizens, which is nearly 100 times higher than America's.

But as I said, this is all a bit pointless since the Vatican city only has a handful of citizens so arguing over its crime and murder rate is silly because the sample size is far to small to draw any conclusions over the effect of strong faith on morality or the ability to be law abiding.

ISAW wrote:

the counter claim "when non belief goes up then violent crime goes down," is also a claim

I'm not sure that was actually the claim that was made. I think, from my reading of the posts, the claim was if atheism and non-religion leads to immoral behaviour why are countries with high rates of atheism also countries with low crime rate. The example was being used to disprove the original hypotheis, that lack of religion leads to immorality.

Wolfbain - "I deny that unbelievers are just as likely to be moral as believers. Just look around you. That all have a conscience is true, but that conscience is more often overruled in the unbeliever than in the believer."

Scofflaw - "The least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers."

This was the counter claim to respond to wolfbains original statement. It isn't attempting to say that atheism drives down crime, only that the idea that atheism increase crime and immorality is obviously wrong.

ISAW wrote:

Nor do I think it is necessary.

Well it kinda is because you seem to be miss-understanding what was originally said.

ISAW wrote:

If it is invalid because I "dont know what came before" then show me where before and why it is invalid.

Your point is invalid because you seem to be assuming a meaning from what was said that doesn't appear to actually be there in the context of the discussion.

ISAW wrote:

Even if the original claim was not valid that does not mean the counter claim stated is automatically valid.

Well for the counter claim to disprove the original claim, that atheists are more likely to be immoral and criminal, you only need to find one example where that isn't true, which was given.

ISAW wrote:

So religious in the believer sense is "moral".

True, but to an atheists such as myself that kinda makes a mockery of the term "morality", since to a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children he is doing the work of God and as such is carrying out a moral action. Which is one of main objections to people puting a lot of weight into the "morality" of a taught religion.

ISAW wrote:

I suppose you could also religiously follow atheism in the sense that your beliefs do not change.

Atheism isn't a religion, so I'm not quite sure how someone would religiously follow it

ISAW wrote:

As can non religious people. But let me ask you then what is this "morality" they are following when you mention them "following morality"? What is the definition of this "morality"? From whence does it eminate?

From humanity, as does all morality. Morality is a system of human interaction, derived from both lower levels of human consciousness (emotion) and higher levels (logic and reason), and (at least to an atheists) it itself comes from human interaction, not a supernatural god or gods.

ISAW wrote:

REligions with dogma discount subjective morality.

That is a myth, taught by the religions themselves to give the illusion of order and control (sorry if that sounded a bit conspiricy theory, I don't mean it in an actual orderd "we know what we are doing" fashion, like people on the ground making this up).

The reality is that subjective reading of the teachings of religions, from the Bible to the Quar'an is wide spread, and in fact fundamental to the spread of these religions.

ISAW wrote:

Indeed in Christianity Judaism and Islam do not have a subjectively normal morality. thats over two billions of the global population.

If that was the case then you would have no future suicide bombers being taught Islamic fundamentalism and hatred for non-Muslims in a Mosque in Iran when British Muslims are being taught in a Mosque in towns around Britian to respect the civil law of the country and respect for non-Muslims.

You wouldn't have Catholics in Ireland having protected sex with a condom when Catholics in a poor African village are having unprotected sex despite the huge risk of catching HIV.

Morality with in a religion, just like morality in all of humanity, is subjective.

wolfsbane

Dear Folks

I'm sorry I can't devote more time to follow up all the responses both on the moral and theological aspects of Creation/Evolution. If I just stick to some of the main points arising, it is not that the others aren't worthy of reply. Thank you all so much for engaging in depth; I hope we have at least a clearer understanding of the issues.

On the morals issue:
Wicknight said:

Actually what is happening is that these "immoral" people are not following the religion within the interpretation the posters here have. The immoral people probably believe they are still following the religion based on their own interpretation of it.

But are they justified in believing so? Can they offer a reasonable defence of their position, or are they just pulling a few verses here and there to suit their ideas? (The Bible calls this practice, 'Twisting the Scriptures'). Not all things are equally clear in the Bible, but it is clear enough that all sorts of immoral practices are banned. Murder, kidnap, prostitution, drunkenness, etc.

It would be like me claiming the Highway Code authorized me to park at the traffic lights, because it tells me to stop when the light is red. Yes, it could be said it allows me to park - but reading the code as a whole, I see it is only a temporary park that is required, only when the light is red.

I can get the Scripture to tell me to kill all of God's enemies, finding that mandated in His commands about the Amalekites. But a fuller reading shows me that was one specific occasion, only applicable to the Amalekites at that time.

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Not if I put an acid trap into the bottom of the antfarm, into which 90% of the ants were going to fall.

Rebel ants. Ants that hate and despise their creator.

Your experiences, like my experiences, are irrelevant to settling questions like this, both because they are statistically insignificant, and because our perception and memory of them are highly subjective.

In the real world of Iraq, for example, it appears that it is necessary to be wary of the godly young Marines, as well as the godly insurgents. Clearly the experience of a Palestinian is likely to reflect rather more badly on Jews than my experience of them - both are irrelevant to judgements on the religion itself.

Certainly there is context to be considered, as your Iraq example highlights. If I was fornicating on the street, I am unlikely to be attacked by the godless thugs I mentioned: I would probably be cheered on by them. But if it was in Bradford, for example, then I might very well be beaten up by incensed Muslims.

However, the point is: given normal circumstances, going about my lawful business, I am much more likely to be harmed by a godless man than a religious one. Those commited to religious beliefs are thereby commited to moral postions on many things, such as theft, personal violence, etc. Those not commited to religious beliefs may have similar moral convictions, but most do not.

Doesn't make it logical, though, does it? Is the Inquisition a logical outcome of Christianity? Certainly it's a historical one.

I take your point. But I can easily show how the Inquisition was against all that the Scripture reveals. It was not a logical outcome of holding to Scripture. You say Social Darwinism is not a logical outcome of Darwinism, but is it clearly opposed to what that system set out? Had the Social Darwinists not a reasonable case to make, if evolutionary theory were true?

Why would you find that strange?! I'm not suggesting that the flood c.5600BC corresponds exactly to what is written in Genesis, but then you know I don't consider Genesis reliable in that sense. On the other hand, the entry of 10 cubic miles of water per day, raising the level of the Black Sea by several hundred feet, certainly fits the outline story well enough.

Interestingly, of all flood myths, the closest comparison I know of to Genesis is the Greek myth of Deucalion and his ark, although I believe the story also has many points of correspondence with the epic of Gilgamesh.

That's my point: one cannot say that the Genesis account is reliable, yet argue for a local flood. One can be a liberal and say it is a garbled account of a local flood; one can say it is all just a legend; but one cannot hold to it as the Word of God and that it was a local flood. The physical details do not permit it.

Yes, the Flood story is found in many cultures throughout the world, as one would expect if it were an historical event. The accounts vary, again as one expects as history is distorted without God's supervision and preservation.

It is a big area, and roughly in the right place for the Black Sea flood, particularly if one doesn't assume that "on the mountains of Ararat" actually means on top of one.

It wouldn't allow the covering of all the high hills, as the account describes. Several hundred feet up a mountain still leaves Noah looking up at many high hills.

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Then I'm not understanding the difference. If a straight couple can have loving sexual intercourse that doesn't and cannot produce children, why can't a gay couple have loving sexual intercourse that doesn't and cannot produce children. You say God demands that sex take place inside a straight marriage because the purpose is to produce children, which cannot happen in a homosexual relationship. But if a straight couple are having sex that cannot produce children is that not exactly the same thing?

Hmmm, I think I may know where you are getting your strange idea of Christian sexuality. As I understand it, what you have outlined as my position is in fact the Roman Catholic one. I said nothing about the production of children as the justification of heterosexual sex. It is one reason, alongside the unity it expresses, the utter giving of oneself to another. So even where children are not a possible outcome - infertility, contraception, hysterectomy - sex is a proper part of married life.

Christians have never had masterbated, recieved or given blowjobs, had anal sex or normal sex with steps taken to stop conception, just for pleasure? I find that very hard to believe

As I said above, those things are part of God's provision for married life.

Well all modern biological and psychological evidence would disagree with you on that one. But I suppose if you don't "buy it" ....

Really? All? I doubt that from even what little I have read. I gathered the thing was very much undecided.

Also I never got the "my mother made me a queer" logic. Why would being very close to your mother make you attractive to men. Surely it would be being very close to your father that would make you attractive to men?

Not being homosexual, I can't think what would attract another man. But it is clear that many homosexuals are attracted to the effeminate types - maybe looking for female traits without the female threat that goes with it?

But its only immoral because God says its immoral. There is no logical reason for it to be immoral, its not hurting anyone, it doesn't cause pain or suffering to anyone etc. If God didn't care it would not be immoral. So I ask again, why does God care what a homosexual couple does with relation to sex, when, as you said, he doesn't care what a heterosexual couple does with relation to sex even if that sex isn't and cannot produce children.

God cares because it is a violation of His image in man. A violation of His honour.

But thats not the same as saying there should be no right or wrong. It just a realisation that all morality must come from humanity itself, even religious morality. To an atheist your morality is no different, it also comes from humanity, not from God.

Which is to acknowledge atheistic morality is just a matter of one's choice at the time; varying from individual to individual and from time to time. So right and wrong are only true for the individual, and only now.

Secondly I don't believe that any creature should have to owe obedence to any other. That is slavery, and immoral (in my logical and emotional opinion).

But that doesn't apply to the creature and its Creator. They are not both creatures.

If God created all of us, and then sat back content in the knowledge that he did this, that he helped a lowly species, that would be fine in my book. But he didn't, he created us and then expects us to give him worship in return. It seems strange that a being of perfect goodness would expect or require reward for his goodness.

That is a reasonable requirement from a Creator, leaving aside the infinite joy and good He gives to those worshipers - His love and fellowship forever.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

It is one reason, alongside the unity it expresses, the utter giving of oneself to another. So even where children are not a possible outcome - infertility, contraception, hysterectomy - sex is a proper part of married life.

Yes, but thats my point. Children are the only difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, if you remove the possibility of children there is no different. The "utter giving of oneself to another" is common in both heterosexual sex within a committed loving relationship and homosexual sex in a committed loving relationship.

So why is one the hight of morality, and the other the hight of immorality.

This is an example of one of the main reasons I find religion so distasteful, there is no logical difference between the emotional relationship of a heterosexual couple and that of a homosexual couple, but because it was written down in a book 3000 years ago that one is immoral and the other isn't we are still stuck with this ridiculous notion of morality thousands of years later.

wolfsbane wrote:

I gathered the thing was very much undecided.

You would be wrong.

wolfsbane wrote:

But it is clear that many homosexuals are attracted to the effeminate types

No, heterosexuals are attracted to effeminate types, they are called "women"

wolfsbane wrote:

- maybe looking for female traits without the female threat that goes with it?

What is the female "threat"? That doesn't make any sense, why not then just go for a female with female traits.

You might be unaware of the actual history of this "theory," that too much attention and love from the mother turns a man gay, but the pre-Victorian theory was that, rather than having much to do with effecting your sexual attraction, this attention from your mother made you into a woman, because you ignored the things that make a man, like hunting and war etc, and following suit you liked men because "women" like men and you were essentially actually turned into a woman.

This idea of course ignores everything we know about biology and pyschology and is ridiculous nonsense. It is also easily proved wrong by any example of a gay man who was raised without a mother, of which I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of examples.

So even if you don't believe homosexuality is genetic (why wouldn't you, except maybe because it is too hard to admit that God actually made homosexuality as part of nature?), you can rest assured it isn't because homosexual men spent too much time helping their mother with the ironing.

wolfsbane wrote:

God cares because it is a violation of His image in man.

How? You saying God is straight so everyone else must be straight? Who does God have sex with?

wolfsbane wrote:

Which is to acknowledge atheistic morality is just a matter of one's choice at the time;

As is theist morality. You may believe that God makes you make these choices of morality or you may not, but it is still your choice, at the time.

wolfsbane wrote:

So right and wrong are only true for the individual, and only now.

Again, as is theist morality. But what you can and do get is groups of people with similar morality outlook forming moral standards together, as part of society (and to an atheists, as part of religion)

wolfsbane wrote:

But that doesn't apply to the creature and its Creator. They are not both creatures.

Are you saying slavery is slavery unless the master is a god? That doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter who is doing it, is still slavery.

And, in my athiests going-straight-to-hell wisdom, I believe slavery of any form is immoral and evil, even if it is a God doing the enslaving.

wolfsbane wrote:

That is a reasonable requirement from a Creator

That might be a reasonable requirement from a "Creator" but not from a perfect being of love and kindness. It is the requirement of someone who seeks and demands recongition for what he does, which is selfish in my view. It is not done for others, it is done for oneself, for the glory of oneself.

wolfsbane wrote:

His love and fellowship forever.

True, but that love is not given freely, it is given under condition, condition of worship and obedence, condition to follow laws that have no logical purpose except the whim of your God.

Kinda makes me glad I don't believe in God to be honest

5uspect

Wolfbane said: "Which is to acknowledge atheistic morality is just a matter of one's choice at the time; varying from individual to individual and from time to time. So right and wrong are only true for the individual, and only now."

Morality is a vague term at best. There are so many conflicts of interest that absolute morality is often impossible in practise.

So maybe some folks a long time ago decided to unify all this variable morality into one common Morality for Dummies guide book and give it the supernatural tamperproof stamp. Religion is born

Fortunately for us some smart folks then created civil law which is based (generally) on the moral views of the voting majority at the time. Laws evolve to adapt to social developments. Morality based on ancient rules and parables is foolish and as we see in theoracys downright dangerous.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Rebel ants. Ants that hate and despise their creator.

Also, Tahitian ants. And ants that have honest doubts. Certainly it would be a big stretch to describe even me as "hating and despising" my "Creator" - or would you so describe me?

wolfsbane wrote:

However, the point is: given normal circumstances, going about my lawful business, I am much more likely to be harmed by a godless man than a religious one. Those commited to religious beliefs are thereby commited to moral postions on many things, such as theft, personal violence, etc. Those not commited to religious beliefs may have similar moral convictions, but most do not.

Unfortunately, no known set of prison statistics bear out what you're saying. For example, these 1999 statistics for England and Wales suggest that the majority of prison inmates consider themselves as belonging to some religion or other. In addition, you are still conflating "no religion" with "atheist/agnostic".

wolfsbane wrote:

I take your point. But I can easily show how the Inquisition was against all that the Scripture reveals. It was not a logical outcome of holding to Scripture. You say Social Darwinism is not a logical outcome of Darwinism, but is it clearly opposed to what that system set out? Had the Social Darwinists not a reasonable case to make, if evolutionary theory were true?

1. clearly the Inquisition was found justifiable by Christians, as were witch-trials, and heresy hunts.

2. in a nutshell, Social Darwinism has two main strands:
a. the belief that white Protestant Europeans had evolved much further and faster than other "races", and should therefore dominate them.
b. the belief that human society is always in a kind of evolutionary process in which the fittest- which happened to be those who can make lots of money--were chosen to dominate. There are armies of unfit, the poor, who simply could not compete. And just as nature weeds out the unfit, an enlightened society ought to weed out its unfit and permit them to die off so as not to weaken the racial stock.

It is difficult to argue that Darwinism is "clearly opposed" to these ideas, as it is to argue that it is "clearly opposed" to, say, Irish nationalism, or custard. It does not relate to them.

In addition, Darwinism is descriptive, not prescriptive, so the idea that it is "opposed" to anything is pretty much null and void.

Can one use evolutionary theory to support Social Darwinism? Not really - actually, the poor have more children than the rich, who are therefore less "fit" in the evolutionary sense. Capitalism/materialism, in fact, is deeply counter-evolutionary, in that it substitutes a materialistic reward system for the "proper" purpose of life, which is more life. Energies that "should" go into breeding and rearing are perverted by materialism into the pursuit of the selfish comfort of the individual - although, again, evolutionary theory is descriptive, not prescriptive, so the "should" and the "proper" are essentially meaningless.

wolfsbane wrote:

That's my point: one cannot say that the Genesis account is reliable, yet argue for a local flood. One can be a liberal and say it is a garbled account of a local flood; one can say it is all just a legend; but one cannot hold to it as the Word of God and that it was a local flood. The physical details do not permit it.

OK.

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, the Flood story is found in many cultures throughout the world, as one would expect if it were an historical event. The accounts vary, again as one expects as history is distorted without God's supervision and preservation.

As a matter of interest, why would God supervise only one locally available version of the Bible, if it is required for salvation? Why doesn't every culture that has a flood myth also have the Bible?

wolfsbane wrote:

It wouldn't allow the covering of all the high hills, as the account describes. Several hundred feet up a mountain still leaves Noah looking up at many high hills.

I'm not sure I understand this point. The "high hills" of the Black Sea basin might have been covered by a local flood. Nothing requires them to be particularly high, any more than the Dublin Mountains are.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [wolfsbane] given normal circumstances, going about my lawful
> business, I am much more likely to be harmed by a godless man
> than a religious one

Complete and total nonsense. We've already shown you (several times) a few large-scale studies in which religious societies have consistently higher rates of crime and dishonesty than non-religious ones. Within the USA, the states with the highest rates of sexually-transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancies, abortions, divorces and domestic violence are the god-feerin', bible belt states. Last year, I referred to a good documentary from PBS about the pitiful state of teenage sex-ed in Lubbock, Texas, and what happened when a teenager tried to do something about it, and had to go up against the self-appointed religious leaders in her town, with the tacit backing of the local hospital who are the people who have to pick up the pieces left behind when the religious abandon people:

http://www.pbs.org/pov/pov2005/shelbyknox/

It's an instructive documentary on the blatant, and thoroughly cynical, amorality of religious leaders. If anybody's interested in this doc, PM me and I'll make it available.

In my own software business, we deal with the Middle-East, the USA and Europe. I find consistently that people from the USA are difficult to deal with and never pay on time, and rarely by the means agreed (so we end up out of pocket). Within the religious Middle-East, it's even worse. The only county which consistently pays our invoice amounts, on time, are the atheistic Scandinavians. In the last few weeks, I've been out of Ireland and taxi drivers, hoteliers and restauranteurs in Malaysia (Islamic, with a heavy christian evangelist presence) and Dubai (Islam, Hinduism) have tried to screw me. The only folks who've not consistently not tried to screw me, are the good citizens of Singapore which is majority Buddhist.

Your assertion that you're likely to be harmed by a godless man than a godly one, is shown, yet again, to be completely false. Have you ever travelled anywhere and actually experienced anything of what you're talking about? Or are you simply restating a pious lie?

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Complete and total nonsense. and The only folks who've not consistently not tried to screw me, are the good citizens of Singapore which is majority Buddhist.

Indulge me while I chuckle to myself:)
Boy am I glad you answered that highly opinionated and bigoted remark Robindch, I am still trying to peal myself off the ceiling after that one. Of all the ridiculouse statement I have had the displeasure of reading on this thread that one wins an Oscar. That is a classic example of why I have very little time for organized Christianity.

<one very angry Buddhist>

Zombrex

robindch wrote:

Complete and total nonsense.

I agree 100% with you, but wolfbanes argument is rather self-fulling, because by definition anyone that does try and harm him is Godless, otherwise they wouldn't try and harm him

TBH I see little point in arguing against this time of illogical arguments. It is cyclical in nature and self-fulling.

I just hope Wolfbane realises that the vast majority of modern morality is secular in nature, rather than religious, and that atheists and other non-religious people can and are as moral if not more moral than many religious people.

robindch

> I see little point in arguing

Up to a point, I agree with you, but (as I've said before), I'm taking part in this discussion to learn for myself how religious people view themselves, how they attempt justify their positions to others (themselves?) and to pick up interesting crumbs like what's been dropped here.

From the EP point of view, I'm trying to understand why some people believe that a dictated social contract (the infallible "religious morality") is preferable to the co-operative social contract model preferred by others. What's striking is that there seems to be a strong correlation between (a) the belief that humanity is innately evil and (b) a belief in a god or gods and the consequent necessity for a dictated, infallible, authoritarian morality.

It seems that religious people might reach, then get stuck at, stage four of Kohlberg's stages of moral development and seek whatever authority figure they can find, whether that's a passing religious leader, tyrant or somebody else. Perhaps also, there's a subconscious merging or conflation of a former (real) paternal authority figure with an (unreal) paternal authority figure in the sky. Quite a few religions provide useful moral get-out-clauses, whereby the true believer's permitted to behave anti-socially -- this comes in the form of confession in catholicism, "saving" in protestantism (regardless of one's actions), or tacit permission to treat kefir (infidels) badly in islam; I'm sure there are many more.

Whatever the root cause is, though, I do find it disturbing that religious people, in general, do think that the only way to get people to be nice to each other is to get their religion to threaten them. Neither does it say much about how successful they think their creator was.

Scofflaw

robindch wrote:

From the EP point of view, I'm trying to understand why some people believe that a dictated social contract (the infallible "religious morality") is preferable to the co-operative social contract model preferred by others. What's striking is that there seems to be a strong correlation between (a) the belief that humanity is innately evil and (b) a belief in a god or gods and the consequent necessity for a dictated, infallible, authoritarian morality.

It seems that religious people might reach, then get stuck at, stage four of Kohlberg's stages of moral development and seek whatever authority figure they can find, whether that's a passing religious leader, tyrant or somebody else. Perhaps also, there's a subconscious merging or conflation of a former (real) paternal authority figure with an (unreal) paternal authority figure in the sky. Quite a few religions provide useful moral get-out-clauses, whereby the true believer's permitted to behave anti-socially -- this comes in the form of confession in catholicism, "saving" in protestantism (regardless of one's actions), or tacit permission to treat kefir (infidels) badly in islam; I'm sure there are many more.

Whatever the root cause is, though, I do find it disturbing that religious people, in general, do think that the only way to get people to be nice to each other is to get their religion to threaten them. Neither does it say much about how successful they think their creator was.

Actually, wolfsbane's argument pro the power of Gospel to change the outlook of an individual criminal is entirely an argument about Stage 1/2 moral reasoning - the criminal, being deficient in moral reasoning, is presented with the concept of either inevitable punishment (Stage 1) or a deal with God (Stage 2). He is correct that an argument based on social contract or abstract principles of morality is unlikely to achieve results.

Religion, then, presents a moral system which may be arbitrary, but nevertheless has a flexibility in dealing with the morally primitive that "rational" moral systems do not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ISAW

Scofflaw wrote:

Hi ISAW,

we seem to have got crossed wires somewhere along the line. Let me just check that we are where I think we are:

1. You point out that I have claimed that "the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers".

2. You have taken this to be a general claim, and have asked me to back it up ("Well you claim it you produce the stats").

3. I have denied that the comment was intended as a general claim - it's intended as a comment on the stats in the article I linked for your benefit.

Nope! You first stated the general claim and when challanged on it you produced some statistics on some specific countries. You stated "the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers". You produced a single paper which does not prove the claim.

As far as I'm aware this is the only comparative study of its kind, and has been linked in this thread, and in others, before now. It is possible that wolfsbane would have asked me what statistics I referred to, in which case I would happily have posted the link for him. You got there first.

Which convinces me that the point is not proven and as they say "further research is needed"

So, as far as I'm concerned, you've taken a sentence of mine out of context, and are using it to claim that I have made a universal claim that the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers.

But that is exactly what you stated i.e. "the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers."
You went on to state that the statictical evidence is in your favour. It isnt!
If you believe you are being quoted out of context what did you mean be the above claim?

If what you want is that I back down from such a claim, congratulations! I never made it.

Please tell me what the words :" "the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers." meant?

I don't claim that the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers in any general way, except insofar as I have seen statistics that show that to be the case.

What does that mean? It is a bit like saying "societies with lower black populations have
less crime" and when challenged on it saying "I dont mean ALL places with blacks, I only mean those where they are statistically higher in crime rates"

First of all you DID make a general claim and second you are now making it into a self defeating argument (as I earlier pointed out) . If you now mean you refer to the subset of humanity where only the argument applies then you are making an empty claim. It is like picking out ten black cities with high crime rates and then claim it only applies to them.

Certainly there is no a priori reason why societies composed largely of atheists would necessarily be less violent/criminal than those composed of theists, or at least none that I'm aware of.

Your claim didnt address reasons it suggested correllations.

If you know of any other statistics that consider religion/unreligion in the light of social indicators/crime stats, do please link them. If not, feel free to admit that the available statistical evidence supports my point of view rather than wolfsbane's, as I said.

your claim that:

"the least violent and criminal societies are also those with the highest percentage of unbelievers."

just is not supported by evidence. Your "evidence" is a weak statistical correlation between an arguable definition of "societies of believers" and "criminal societies"

ISAW

robindch wrote:

> [wolfsbane] given normal circumstances, going about my lawful
> business, I am much more likely to be harmed by a godless man
> than a religious one

Complete and total nonsense. We've already shown you (several times) a few large-scale studies in which religious societies have consistently higher rates of crime and dishonesty than non-religious ones.

I have only seen ONE study. could you please supply the "few" others?
Mind you as I have stated it does not prove the opposite i.e. that atheistic societies have lower crime.

The point made above is about individuals and not groups. Muind you I would argue that in the US Islamics are viewed as the biggest threat to the world. It used to be atheistic commies but now it is people who believe in the same God as Bush!

It's an instructive documentary on the blatant, and thoroughly cynical, amorality of religious leaders. If anybody's interested in this doc, PM me and I'll make it available.

I havent seen it but it seems to me to apply to A leader and not the generality of all leaders.

The only county which consistently pays our invoice amounts, on time, are the atheistic Scandinavians.

Do you ask your customers what religion they are? Maybe you are deling with scandinavian believers and vice versa? also dont manyy scandinavians believe in Paganism?

The only folks who've not consistently not tried to screw me, are the good citizens of Singapore which is majority Buddhist.

Last time I looked Buddism was a religion! But isnt that a false positive? I mean shouldnt you be showing evidence that atheistic societies have less people who cheat?

I would suggest Tahiti when the Brits first arrived. They saw the natives as savage because their women had sex with whoever they wished. then the Brits introduced STD's and murder (something which I believe the locals found alien to them). so ironically it was the christians who introduced sin to the innocent islanders.

Your assertion that you're likely to be harmed by a godless man than a godly one, is shown, yet again, to be completely false.

I would not say false but I would say self defeating. If a "godly man" is one who cares for people and would not harm them and a "godless man" is one who does not care and is selfish to the point of harming others then of course the point is correct! It is only stating the definition. You may as well say "A bad man is more likely to be badder then a good man"

Have you ever travelled anywhere and actually experienced anything of what you're talking about? Or are you simply restating a pious lie?

Do you put much credence in travellers tales? Mind you if he is depending on US TV for news on Iraq and the like he is getting a censored version.

Asiaprod

ISAW wrote:

Last time I looked Buddism was a religion! But isnt that a false positive? I mean shouldnt you be showing evidence that atheistic societies have less people who cheat?

When did you last look, I am one, its not a religion, it pays homage to no god.