Reply With Quote
I don't agree.
You do have an agenda. You don't like Christianity. You might not want to admit it, though.
I've only heard talk of him, MFD, do you have any of his material so I can see if the comparison is accurate?THAT'S who he reminded me of....thanks!
I don't agree.
You do have an agenda. You don't like Christianity. You might not want to admit it, though.
Last edited by smeagol; 10-05-2005 at 06:14 AM.
Again I don't agree. MFD supported his arguments with quotes from the Bible and insults. Jochhe, although quoting the Bible often, provides much more than that when he defends his point. You may not like his arguments, but you cannot say he does not provide support to his POV.
When was the last time anybody on this board changed his/her mind, or admitted he/she was wrong?
In this simple quote lies the answer to the entire jochhe vs scott discussion.
Proclaiming yourself to be a Christian means little if you are not leading a Christian life. I actually means nothing. 15 years ago, I proclaimed myself a Christian but had no clue what that meant, and I certainly did not lead a Christian life. Therefore, the conclusions from your study, Scott, should be taken with a grain of salt.
My crowning you the world's smartest man is based on your ability to see threw my "obvious BS" without providing any facts or evidence to the contrary.I get up in the middle of the night (3:15 here) to let the dogs out and I see this...what am I to do, ignore it?
You are overly defensive to have to throw in that sarcastic comment (worlds smartest man), do you have an inferiority complex? My study says most people that have one won't admit it.
You take great exception to having your observations challenged, if there had been even a shred of believability in it, it wouldn't have been.
Christians 200 times more likely to be incarcerated... if I didn't know better I would have thought you pulled that straight out of Grimm's Fairy Tales. Could you throw in a Howard Dean primordial scream after posting such nonsense in the future? If you're going to sashay into the world of humorous writing, do it right.
I don't take objection to having my observations challenged - when Jelly questioned them I was happy to provide sources and data. I do take objection, however, to people challeging my work on the basis of "I don't agree with it so it can't be right."
You've managed to build a nice reputation on this board of being someone who readily dismisses everything you don't agree with while staunchly supporting the things you do agree with, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. As I've said numerous times, that is certainly your choice - but it doesn't bode well for your credibility (granted, this is an internet message board and you may not terribly care about your credibility. My "online reputation" isn't a great concern to me either - but I come here to engage in meaningful discussion, which is hard to do without credibility).
As I've also said to you specifically, in more than one thread, if you are interested in engaging in a meaningful discussion supported by facts and data, I would more than happy to participate. But by now I've come to expect the typically jochhe comments like this one:
Christians 200 times more likely to be incarcerated... if I didn't know better I would have thought you pulled that straight out of Grimm's Fairy Tales.
Had my research shown that Atheists were 32183921312 times more likely to commit crime than Christians, that is what I would report if the topic came up. You may believe that I don't "like" Christianity, but you'd be wrong. I may not be a Christian, but that is not the same as "disliking" it. But I suppose you will chalk that up to "not admitting it."
Actually I can say that he doesn't not provide support to his POV, because at least in reponse to me, he never has. Can you point to the support he provided in this thread? Does "they must not be real Christians" count as support? Or is his continued "I don't agree so it must be BS" counted as support?Again I don't agree. MFD supported his arguments with quotes from the Bible and insults. Jochhe, although quoting the Bible often, provides much more than that when he defends his point. You may not like his arguments, but you cannot say he does not provide support to his POV.
I acknowledge that proclaiming to be a Christian doesn't mean you are leading the "christian life" in the eyes of certain people. However, the is a wide disparity among people of what they believe the "Christian life" to be. If you ask a born again Evangelical and a life-long Catholic, they are going to have very different answers. Furthermore, just because you call yourself Christian doesn't mean that even life a "moral" life. I don't think, nor have I ever attempted to claim, that Christianity promotes an immoral lifestyle. Hence where I have made the statements that Christianity hasn't been shown to help reduce crime - but I won't make the statement that Christianity is the cause of crime.Proclaiming yourself to be a Christian means little if you are not leading a Christian life. I actually means nothing. 15 years ago, I proclaimed myself a Christian but had no clue what that meant, and I certainly did not lead a Christian life. Therefore, the conclusions from your study, Scott, should be taken with a grain of salt.
Whether or not the people who claimed to be Christians met the jochhejam/MadeFromDust standard of Christianity is irrelevant to my research. It isn't a study of "which Christian is the right one?" What matters is that they view themselves as Christians, either the "right" version of Christianity, or the "wrong."
Yourself and jochhe want to read into my study more than it implies. Is it possible to get Christian incarceration rates down with more stringent Bible study so that they are "better" Christians? Maybe, I don't know the answer one way or another and I won't pretend I do (I'll leave the unsupported statements to jochhe). But that is neither here nor there, because my study was focused on the facts as they were.
In closing, you can either believe or not believe my research for whatever reason you want. It really makes no difference to me. My data and analysis methods have gone through peer review and passed with flying colors. I'm not overly concerned with the jochhejam smell test. However, if you intend to question my analysis based soley on a "smell test" type approach, prepare to be called out for it.
In the meantime, you are free to join jochhe in judging which followers of Christ are "real" Christians. Are those type of judgements what makes jochhe a real Christian?
Smeagol, I don't know what board you've been reading but Joch pulls out parts of the bible to support his arguements on a constant basis. Go back and rerread the evolution thread.
I would like to see the stats for christian countries vs communist countries.
Being in a comunist country does not mean you're secular. Russia was mentioned as a secular country earlier in this thread, but that is far from true. Also, introducing a communist country into the fold would involve changing many of the variables beyond religous affiliation.
Societies are worse off with no common sense.
Look at the Catholic church distancing itself from the U.S. religious right...
Times OnlineTHE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching do ent instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.
“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.
The do ent is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US.
Are the Christians committing more crimes because they think God will forgive them?
All I know is that I see a lot of people with the fish on their cars speeding and cutting me off in traffic.
The problem isn't in democracy, or socialism. It's the very nature of a progressive moral society.
Religious fundamentalism is a fixed moral condition. Its very basis is to hold to a particular doctrine and deny everything else as immoral. But a progressive moral society comes to learn that things may not be as we once thought. As we learn more about ourselves, we discover that some things that were considered moral may not have been and that some things that were considered immoral may have been ill-judged.
Western society underwent a transformative period several hundred years ago. The fundamentalist sects that oncecontrolled our society were pushed aside to make way for a human-based form of governance instead of the god-based. This paved the way for a morally progressive society.
The dominant religions at the time had to adapt. Thus many humanist concepts were folded into the sects that could adapt. Others did what they had to in order to survive.
But the structures that ruled Western civilizations for over a 1000 years do not simply forget about their claims of moral authority. Thus while adherants move further along the path of an intergrated world view, the more orthodox churchs attempt to resist the advances.
Over time we have arrived at a place where the advances of society so threaten the conservative factions in religion that there can be no more compromise. They have dug in their heels and torn up the social contract. They will tolerate no further advances and are going to do their utmost to dismantle the ones they can.
It is within modern religion to be accepting of both faith and reason. But it is a choice. Even fundamentalists can recognise the necessity of a secular society in which they can practice their faith as they see fit without imposing it on other people. It is the combination of politics and religion that creates the problem. Not the mere presense or lack of fundamentalist fervor.
how is giving american christians a political voice a problem! Isn't this a country where all views should be expressed or shared without backlash, or are we to deny the christian right a voice in polictical matters... seems that is discriminatory to me to deny a someone a right to voice their opinion..It is the combination of politics and religion that creates the problem. Not the mere presense or lack of fundamentalist fervor.
What happens when "progressives" are wrong? For example, consider the fad known as eugenics...
"how is giving american christians a political voice a problem!"
No problem at all, as long as the Cons utional separation of church and state is rigorously maintained. If the "Christians" want to remove the church-state barrier and install their flavor of Christianity as the USA's official religion, they they will have to go through the democratic processes to amend the cons ution so as to overthrow the separation.
Some of these countries are pretty liberal and it's pretty amazing they have state religions...
The following states recognize some form of Christianity as their official religion (by denomination)
Roman Catholic
Jurisdictions which recognize Catholicism as their official religion:
• Andorra
• Argentina
• Bolivia
• Costa Rica
• El Salvador
• Liechtenstein
• Malta
• Monaco
• Paraguay
• Peru
• Some cantons of Switzerland
• Vatican City
Eastern Orthodox
Jusrisdictions which recognize one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches as their official religion:
• Cyprus
• Finland (along with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland)
• Greece
Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdictions which recognize one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches as their official religion:
• Armenia
Lutheran
Jurisdictions which recognize a Lutheran church as their official religion:
• Denmark
• Iceland
• Norway
• Finland (along with the Finnish Orthodox Church)
Until 2000, Sweden had a Lutheran Church as a state church. The Church of Sweden has now been relegated to the status of a national church.
Anglican
Jurisdictions which recognise an Anglican church as their state religion:
• England - Church of England
Reformed
Jurisdictions which recognize a Reformed church as their official religion:
• Scotland - Church of Scotland
• Some cantons of Switzerland
Let's check out some other studies and reports regarding Christianity(religion) and Crime.
Substance Abuse
Research on 1,750 urban and rural high school students found that even after controlling for factors like parental control and support, students with no religious affiliation were vastly more likely to be underage drinkers. Among the non-religious, 98 percent of girls and 92 percent of boys were teen drinkers, and 19 percent of girls and 36 percent of boys were heavy drinkers (defined as four or more alcoholic drinks on two or more occasions each week). Among Protestants attending church at least five times per year, the comparable figures were 55 percent and 72 percent, and just 5 percent (boys and girls both) for heavy drinking.
Heavy drinking down from 36% to 5% because of Christian influence
-A study of 2,048 ninth graders in Ontario found that religious behavior was the strongest single discouragement to marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol use.
-A major Harvard study of inner-city youth found that those with a “strong religious orientation” were 54 percent less likely to use drugs.
-A report from the Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reported that religious practice is one of the best predictors of whether a child will stay free of drugs.
-Not only does religion keep people away from drugs, it often brings back to sobriety those who stumble. Carl Jung, the pioneering psychiatrist, failed to cure any chronic alcoholics despite years of therapy and eventually concluded that the only escape for serious alcoholics is “a vital spiritual experience” resulting in “huge emotional displacement and rearrangement.” Alcoholics have “a spiritual thirst for wholeness,” he wrote, that cannot be satisfied by therapy, but only by a genuine religious commitment. Recent research has drawn similar conclusions on the importance of spiritual conversion as a path out of addiction.
And the influence on Marriage and Family.
Decades of academic work show that “in the strongest marriages and families, commitment to God burns bright” (as one research collator put it). A few examples:
The very lowest risk of divorce today, numerous studies show, is among couples who attend religious services together. Only 7 percent of couples who attend church once a month or more will divorce within five years, according to the U.S. government’s National Survey of Family Growth. The rate is 2 1/2 times higher for couples who attend church just once a year or less.
Across the U.S., the prevalence of divorce is 17 percent among weekly churchgoers, versus 37 percent among couples who claim “no religion.”
Sexual satisfaction is higher among religious couplesthan others. A University of Kentucky study even found that religiously conservative couples tend to share household chores more fairly. <---that's true too
Pollster George Gallup summarizes that religious people show up in survey research as “a breed apart.” In particular, “they tend to place greater importance on family life than do less spiritually committed persons.”
http://www.taemag.com/issues/article...cle_detail.asp
I wish we didn't. State should be separated from religion, unless we are all furiously wanting to go back into the Dark Ages. I don't know if societes are worse when they believe they have God on their side, there are other elements in the table (poverty, income distribution, unemployment, legal guns), but I do know that I don't want the Executive, Legislative or Judicial powers making decisions based on a religion. Laïcité and secularism, or back into the Dark Ages, that is the question.
And the influence on Crime (large blocs of text separated for Manny
Crime and Delinquency
Dozens of academic studies show that even after adjustments are made for family influence, neighborhood, race, income, and other factors, religious commitment (particularly church attendance) clearly discourages delinquency among youth.
The National Survey of Families and Households tallied adolescent behavior problems like getting into trouble with the police, being suspended from school, running away from home, or developing emotional problems that require seeing a doctor. And researchers found that in every single family type--two-parent, one-parent, married, unmarried, step families, extended families, adopted families, etc.--parental church involvement is associated with significantly fewer behavior problems.
A sampling of 46,000 sixth- through twelfth-graders showed that those who attend religious services at least once a month are only half as likely to engage in vandalism, substance abuse, drunk driving, and other problem behaviors.
Extensive research by Harvard economist Richard Freeman and associates found that, all other factors being equal, inner-city residents who go to church are 59 percent less likely to commit crimes. (Teens are also far less likely to drop out of school, and adults more likely to hold a job, if they are worshippers.)
Church attendance is a more accurate predictor of criminal behavior than whether an individual lived in public housing, grew up in a single-parent household, or had parents who received welfare.
Churchgoing is the factor that most affects who escapes urban poverty, and is associated with “substantial differences in the behavior of youth…. [It] affects allocation of time, school attendance, work activity, and the frequency of socially deviant activity,” according to a book-length study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Investigations show that the religious are less likely to cheat on their taxes.
A survey of 24,000 magazine readers found that many admitted to serious lapses in ethical behavior--more than four out of ten had driven while intoxicated; 38 percent had cheated on their taxes; a third had deceived their best friend about something important within the previous year. Investigators found two clear patterns in these results: Younger respondents were most likely to engage in illegal or unethical behavior. And the more religious people were, the less likely they were to commit these morally questionable acts.
.
Historical studies by Christie Davies, James Q. Wilson, and others note that society-wide crime decreases often correlate with religious renewals, and that crime increases often take place when religion is falling from favor.
I've only heard talk of him, MFD, do you have any of his material so I can see if the comparison is accurate?
he was like you, but without the erotic avatar
CBF admits his mistakes
i dont know about you
The studies you posted seem to address the issue of the degree in religious intensity. I certainly wouldn't deny that people who are more involved with their religion would be less prone to crime (or any immoral act) than someone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Saviour (thereby making them a Christian by my standards). My research is not concerned with religious intensity. You may determine that the incarcerated are not Good Christians, but they are Christians none the less.
This, however, is in direct contradiction with research I have read that states that single parent households, household income, and parental education levels are the most accurate predictors of criminal tendencies.Church attendance is a more accurate predictor of criminal behavior than whether an individual lived in public housing, grew up in a single-parent household, or had parents who received welfare.
Do you mind providing links to the studies you quoted? I would like to read them.
And one more thing...
I could just as easily use the same counter argument you used against Prisoner's responses about their religious leanings. Wouldn't a more accurate statement be that "The more religious people were, the less likely there were to admit to committing these morally questionable acts in our survey." I would argue that a devout Church-goer has as much of or greater an incentive to lie about whether or not they commit morally questionable acts than a prisoner does to lie about his or her religious preference.Investigations show that the religious are less likely to cheat on their taxes.
A survey of 24,000 magazine readers found that many admitted to serious lapses in ethical behavior--more than four out of ten had driven while intoxicated; 38 percent had cheated on their taxes; a third had deceived their best friend about something important within the previous year. Investigators found two clear patterns in these results: Younger respondents were most likely to engage in illegal or unethical behavior. And the more religious people were, the less likely they were to commit these morally questionable acts.
I only bring that up because I will chose to believe the survey respondants. It's a statistical no-mans land to try to figure out whether or not survey respondants are truthful.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions