Societies Worse Off 'When They Have God On Their Side'

[scott]

There is a world of difference between someone who casually claims he is a Christian and someone who actually lives the Faith everyday of his life. The former is probably closer to you in his beliefs, the latter is the group you should concentrate your research on (I know this is impossible).

I acknowledge that difference, smeagol. But as I've stated, my research was not focused on degrees of religious intensity, but rather core beliefs. In my book, believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God and Saviour of Man makes you a Christian, whether or not you lead a moral lifestyle.

[scott]

Would it be equally amazing to you that scott has not (a single time) offered the methods he used when doing his research in order to quell the objections?

I haven't offered them because 1) we've discussed them in other threads before and 2) no one has asked.

I'll offer my methods now - they are plain statistics and have been peer reviewed. Two methods were primarily employed, simple arithmetic and linear regression (on my regressions, I saw adjusted R^2 consistently around .74 for each of the model runs). Controlled for a number of factors that are accessible via the full survey data (available to each American via a FOAA request - I have hard and electronic copies). Surprisingly, a larger portion of the inmates said they converted to atheism (if that is really possible) after their incarceration than those converting to Christianity. There are notable increases in post-incarceration religious participation, however, meaning that people who were non-practicing Christians become more interested in religion after they are jailed.

Anything else?

Not good results LG, feasible results.

To me, this pretty much sums you up, jochhe. You consider "feasible" only those things which are consistent with what you already believe.

If I told you that the the name for white boys that has the highest correlation to maternal education is "Dov" you may or not find that feasible - but it doens't matter, because it is true (Levitt, 2005).

The statistics are what they are.

[jochhejaam]

Prison Incarceration website: Attempts to "prove" either simplistic statement: "Religion leads to incarceration" are neither academic in their approach nor statistially supportable.

Originally posted by scott: Well DUH... that is exactly what I've said, isn't it?

Well, no, not exactly scott. read your original quote in this thread below.

Originally posted by scott: the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians.

If you had added what is in the first quote in this post to your original post, (you didn't) then that would have been what you were saying.

As the first quote here states your premise that Christians are over 200 times more likely to be incarcerated is "simplistic" and is "not academically or statistically supportable".

Lends credence to smeagol's comment that the study "should be taken with a grain of salt" and my own position that the research is not believable.

[jochhejaam]

Originally posted by scott: Updated statistics published in 1997 (the ones I used) are published on the same page of link you provided shows that only .2% of prison inmates identify themselves as "Atheist", meaning that 99.8% of the prison population identifies with one religion or another (compared to the 14.1% of Americans who identify themselves as atheists, agnostic, humanist, or secular. Of that 99.8%, 83.3% of inmates identify themselves as Christian (compared to the 76.5% of Americans who identify themselves as Christian).

Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of two non-academic web pages, featuring commentary by self-described atheists, which attempt to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. Some of these statements are addressed here, but that is not the focus of this page. Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise

[scott]

jochhe, I don't know what to tell you except that you are way off base and appear to be going in circles to grasp at straws.

My research does show that Christians are 200 times more likely to be incarcerated - but that doesn't mean that "religion leads to incarceration", in fact I said as much right here:

My study doesn't indicate that Christians are more prone to crime because they are Christians, just that they are more prone to crime...

That is EXACTLY what the study you provided a link to. My two statements are in no way inconsistent. See the difference between causality and correlation. The statement that Christians are more prone to crime is statistically supportable, it is the notion that their religion makes them prone to crime that is not supportable.

Your response only lends credence to the fact that you aren't too bright.

[scott]

Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of two non-academic web pages, featuring commentary by self-described atheists, which attempt to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. Some of these statements are addressed here, but that is not the focus of this page. Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise

I really don't care what two non-academic web pages state, but thanks anyway.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

jochhe, I don't know what to tell you except that you are way off base and appear to be going in circles to grasp at straws.

I didn't ask you to respond scott, I like the thread and I'm posting information I find relevant to the thread, that doesn't equate to grasping at straws.

Your response only lends credence to the fact that you aren't too bright

scott, gratuitous insults tell more about your character than the intelligence of your target, I'll leave the insults to the truly bright poeple.

[jochhejaam]

I really don't care what two non-academic web pages state, but thanks anyway.

I'll edit the paragraph from the Prison Incarceration website so you understand the crux of the post.

Originally Posted by jochhejaam: Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of...commentary ... which attempt(s) to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. ... Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise



scott, are you athiest?

[scott]

I didn't ask you to respond scott, I like the thread and I'm posting information I find relevant to the thread, that doesn't equate to grasping at straws.

You addressed me by name in regards to an issue that was already covered. My statement stands.

scott, gratuitous insults tell more about your character than the intelligence of your target, I'll leave the insults to the truly bright poeple.

I'm not trying to insult you - I really think you are short a few circuits in the reasoning department.

[scott]

I'll edit the paragraph from the Prison Incarceration website so you understand the crux of the post.

Originally Posted by jochhejaam: Prison Incarceration website: We are aware of...commentary ... which attempt(s) to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. ... Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise

I'll rephrase my response so you can maybe finally understand what I've said numerous times:

I haven't taken the position that religion leads to crime or incarceration, and I'm not really concerned if some Shmoe on some atheist website has.

scott, are you athiest?

Yes I am.

[Marcus Bryant]

I haven't the time to go through this thread but perhaps the "atheist" (and agnostic?) population and the "Christian" population have distinguishing characteristics (avg income, age, education, family structure) which might shed some light on the results?

Also, if we are going to draw conclusions about the effect of religion on a society wouldn't we compare the social pathologies of a society that is 'religious' (ie US, I suppose) against those of a society that is not (perhaps a Western European nation such as Holland, Denmark, Germany, etc...)?

[scott]

I haven't the time to go through this thread but perhaps the "atheist" (and agnostic?) population and the "Christian" population have distinguishing characteristics (avg income, age, education, family structure) which might shed some light on the results?

The answer is most certainly yes. I imagine that the variances between the two propensities narrows quite sharply once all those variables are controlled for, most notably education - which demonstrates a high inverse correlation with religiousity.

Controlling for these factors was outlined as Phase II of my study, which I may one day find the time to complete - if someone doesn't beat me to it.

Also, if we are going to draw conclusions about the effect of religion on a society wouldn't we compare the social pathologies of a society that is 'religious' (ie US, I suppose) against those of a society that is not (perhaps a Western European nation such as Holland, Denmark, Germany, etc...)?

From a statistical perspective, I think you are better off comparing the religious versus the non-religious in the same country for multiple countries, simply because it is one less variable to control for and because that variable has a significant impact on the other variables you mentioned above. And obviously what holds true for one population may not hold true for another.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

I'll rephrase my response so you can maybe finally understand what I've said numerous times:

I haven't taken the position that religion leads to crime or incarceration, and I'm not really concerned if some Shmoe on some atheist website has.

You missed it again scott, I edited out the part about the atheist non-academic website and you still insist on addressing that aspect.

Originally Posted by jochhejaam: Prison Incarceration website (not atheist shmoe website): We are aware of...commentary ... which attempt(s) to present statistics in such a way as to indicate that religion leads to crime and incarceration. ... Such a notion hardly requires refutation: available statistics, academic studies (as opposed to positional essays by atheists), and common experience attest otherwise

Paraphrasing the above sentence for clarity; 'presenting statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime and incarceration is folly'.

joch- "scott, are you atheist"
scott- "yes I am"
Raised Catholic, is atheist, say his research show Christians are 200 time more likely to be incarcerated, Prison Incarceration website say that's foolishness, scott has no agenda...

[scott]

Paraphrasing the above sentence for clarity; 'presenting statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime and incarceration is folly'.

You really can't get this through your thick skull, can you?

I haven't presented statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime. You know what else is folly? Presenting statistics that suggest that kangaroos live on Mars. But I haven't presented those statistics either, so who cares?

jochhe, I it is quite clear to me and I imagine to the other readers of this thread that you are not interested in participating in a debate, but justifying your our ignorance. You aren't ignorant because you are a Christian or support Christianity, you are clearly ignorant because you fail to address relevant facts and continue to hark on arguments where there are none.

Just like every other thread I've ever been in with you, it has been a waste of time to try to communciate with you, because you only read what you want to read. Good day.

[jochhejaam]

[QUOTE]

You really can't get this through your thick skull, can you?

I'm sorry scott but I can't get myself worked up into a frenzy to respond to your anger.

scott: I haven't presented statistics that suggest that religion leads to crime.

scott quote: I'll offer my methods now - they are plain statistics Not surprising considering the research I have done that shows Christians as over 200 times more likely to incarcerated than non-Christians

.
^^^That implies the same thing scott,

jochhe, I it is quite clear to me and I imagine to the other readers of this thread that you are not interested in participating in a debate, but justifying your our ignorance.

Like I've stated before, you have great difficulty in maturely handling oppostion or adversity.

You aren't ignorant because you are a Christian or support Christianity, you are clearly ignorant because you fail to address relevant facts and continue to hark on arguments where there are none.

You went 3 consecutive threads and totally avoided the material clearly directed to you and I fail to address facts? okay scott

Just like every other thread I've ever been in with you, it has been a waste of time to try to communciate with you, because you only read what you want to read.

You consider it a waste of time if you can't win someone over to your way of thinking. When I see an avowed atheist post such nonsense as "Christians being 200 times more likely to be incarcerated than non Christians" they had better expect to be called on it.

And good night to you too scottie

[MannyIsGod]

[Marcus Bryant]

From a statistical perspective, I think you are better off comparing the religious versus the non-religious in the same country for multiple countries, simply because it is one less variable to control for and because that variable has a significant impact on the other variables you mentioned above. And obviously what holds true for one population may not hold true for another.

Well, the assertion as I understand it was that a 'religious society' is worse than a non-religious one. What might make sense would be to look at it on a state or MSA level. Perhaps a bit stereotypical, but Texas v. California, Virginia v. Massachusetts, Houston v. Boston, etc...

[Guru of Nothing]

You consider it a waste of time if you can't win someone over to your way of thinking. When I see an avowed atheist post such nonsense as "Christians being 200 times more likely to be incarcerated than non Christians" they had better expect to be called on it.

And then?

[smeagol]

What is the difference?

The diffirence between Mother Theresa of Calcutta and any self-proclaimed Christian who leads a noticable un-Christian life.

Isn't everyone a sinner?

Yes. And?

Aren't you supposed to leave the judging to a different party?

Not sure this question fits into our discussion.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course not, but I wonder how Christ diferientiates between Mother Teresa and people who lead a noticeably un-christian life.

Because Smeagol, for all you know, Mother Teresa never accepted Christ in her heart and some of those unchristians actually have. As I understand it, you would have no idea only Jesus would.

But you know, what do I know?

[smeagol]

Of course not, but I wonder how Christ diferientiates between Mother Teresa and people who lead a noticeably un-christian life.

I somehow think this is not difficult for him.

Because Smeagol, for all you know, Mother Teresa never accepted Christ in her heart and some of those unchristians actually have. As I understand it, you would have no idea only Jesus would.

You are right, I can never be 100% certain about this, but you probably picked the one person Christians and Atheists would agree led a Christ-like life.

But you know, what do I know?

From your posts I can conclude you know a lot about many things.

[Yonivore]

Of course not, but I wonder how Christ diferientiates between Mother Teresa and people who lead a noticeably un-christian life.

It is my belief that He doesn't. We all fall short in the eyes of the Lord. The explanation I like the best is the "jumping to the moon" analogy. If salvation were the moon and our ability to achieve salvation determined by the height of our vertical jump to the moon from the surface of the earth; with the most pure able to jump the highest and the most awful sinner ever barely able to leave the ground, we'd all be pretty much equal relative to the remaining distance between our jumps and what remained between us and the surface of the moon.

Point being, you can't earn salvation, you can only accept it.

Because Smeagol, for all you know, Mother Teresa never accepted Christ in her heart and some of those unchristians actually have. As I understand it, you would have no idea only Jesus would.

I agree in the sense that only God knows what's in the heart of every human.

[MannyIsGod]

It is my belief that He doesn't. We all fall short in the eyes of the Lord. The explanation I like the best is the "jumping to the moon" analogy. If salvation were the moon and our ability to achieve salvation determined by the height of our vertical jump to the moon from the surface of the earth; with the most pure able to jump the highest and the most awful sinner ever barely able to leave the ground, we'd all be pretty much equal relative to the remaining distance between our jumps and what remained between us and the surface of the moon.

Point being, you can't earn salvation, you can only accept it.


I agree in the sense that only God knows what's in the heart of every human.

That is a good analogy. I like the way you put that.

[MannyIsGod]

I somehow think this is not difficult for him.





You are right, I can never be 100% certain about this, but you probably picked the one person Christians and Atheists would agree led a Christ-like life.



From your posts I can conclude you know a lot about many things.

I'm mainly just playing devil's advocate here, but I just feel that Christians shouldn't be so quick to divide themselves into good/bad if they truly understand their faith. And that is what people try to do when to discount Scott's study.

[jochhejaam]

It is my belief that He doesn't. We all fall short in the eyes of the Lord. The explanation I like the best is the "jumping to the moon" analogy. If salvation were the moon and our ability to achieve salvation determined by the height of our vertical jump to the moon from the surface of the earth; with the most pure able to jump the highest and the most awful sinner ever barely able to leave the ground, we'd all be pretty much equal relative to the remaining distance between our jumps and what remained between us and the surface of the moon.

Point being, you can't earn salvation, you can only accept it.

I agree in the sense that only God knows what's in the heart of every human.

Manny: I'm mainly just playing devil's advocate here, but I just feel that Christians shouldn't be so quick to divide themselves into good/bad if they truly understand their faith. And that is what people try to do when to discount Scott's study.

Correct Manny, it would be incorrect to label Christians as good or bad however they can be categorized as strong and weak Christians supported by "let them that are strong bear the infirmities of the weak".

I can't speak for others regarding scott's research but I took exception to the the absurdity of his statement that Christians are 200 times more likely to be incarcerated than non Christians. At face value it's an overt attempt to nullify the positive change that takes place in the heart, mind and lifestyle of those that have genuinely become followers of Christ, and scott being an avowed atheist just adds to the skepticism of his conclusions.