No trace of human DNA or Deity DNA found in local eucharist

[CaptainFritz28]

No, I did not mean 'extremism'. Try "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" or "complete trust" (the latter could perhaps be restated as an unquestioning belief in something).
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.

[JECE]

Here's one for other crimes, not including murder:
https://www.marripedia.org/effects_of_religious_practice_on_crime_rates

This study links secularization (i.e. the lack of religion i.e. Atheism) with higher homicide and crime rates:
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1729&context=dissertation

Your first source does not look reliable to me. I took the time to find the source data anyway:
https://www.nlsinfo.org/investigator/pages/search

As of Survey Year 2019, eleven survey participants reported being convicted of or pleading guilty to "assault, such as battery, rape, aggravated assault, manslaughter". Only four of these provided information on their present religion:

• A non-Black, non-Hispanic man with no religion who never attends service
• A Black Christian man who attends service about once a week
• A Hispanic Catholic man who never attends service
• A Hispanic Christian woman who attends service several times a week

What conclusion can we draw from this? Nothing.

Your second source literally contradicts your claim that murder rates are highest among atheists or that homicide rates are positively associated with secularization. See page 71:

"Neither the major world religions nor the measure of religious pluralism displays a significant association with homicide, but the proportion atheist is associated with lower rates of homicide (r = -.530, p < .001). Atheism may be correlated with lower rates of homicide since it serves as the antithesis of religious passion which has been linked to higher rates of homicide (Jensen, G. F., 2006, "Religious cosmologies and homicide rates among nations", Journal of Religion and Society, 8, 1-14). Any partial correlation between atheism and homicide will be revealed in the multivariate analysis. As anticipated due to its representation of egoistic individualism, the proportion who believe individuals should be careful rather than trusting of others displays a significant positive association with homicide (r = .532, p < .001). Contrary to what has been hypothesized, secularization displays a significant negative association with homicide (r = -.483, p < .001)."

[JECE]

Fair point. But it is much easier to come to an agreement when both sides have a standard to be held to. It is much easier to determine whether a nation's actions are right or wrong when we have something like the UN's Declaration of Human Rights to measure it against. And if that standard is inherently unchanging, unlike the Declaration of Human Rights which relies on majority approval, then you have a way to evermore empirically determine the correct and incorrect side of an issue.

I should have written that as "there is no way for them to come to an agreement except by fighting it out or having a majority on both sides agree on a settlement."

International relations actually works via consensus. UNGA resolutions are majority votes, but they are non-binding. In any case, no country voted against adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

So again, it's either the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of force.

But wouldn't tyranny of the imaginary be far worse than tyranny of the majority?

[CaptainFritz28]

International relations actually works via consensus. UNGA resolutions are majority votes, but they are non-binding. In any case, no country voted against adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I'm not saying it's how they pass specific policy. I'm saying it's how each individual member determines what is right or wrong. But yeah, as I said, the UN Declaration of Human Rights is flawed because it changes with majority opinion. Doesn't prove my point wrong.

So again, it's either the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of force.

But wouldn't tyranny of the imaginary be far worse than tyranny of the majority?

If the Bible were imaginary, then Christianity would be a tyranny of the imaginary.

But if the Bible were imaginary, then we would have no standard by which to determine if the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of the imaginary is worse. So no, unless you introduce a moral ultimate standard into the equation, anyone may have a different answer.

[CaptainFritz28]

Here's one for other crimes, not including murder:
https://www.marripedia.org/effects_of_religious_practice_on_crime_rates

This study links secularization (i.e. the lack of religion i.e. Atheism) with higher homicide and crime rates:
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1729&context=dissertation

Your first source does not look reliable to me. I took the time to find the source data anyway:
https://www.nlsinfo.org/investigator/pages/search

As of Survey Year 2019, eleven survey participants reported being convicted of or pleading guilty to "assault, such as battery, rape, aggravated assault, manslaughter". Only four of these provided information on their present religion:

• A non-Black, non-Hispanic man with no religion who never attends service
• A Black Christian man who attends service about once a week
• A Hispanic Catholic man who never attends service
• A Hispanic Christian woman who attends service several times a week

What conclusion can we draw from this? Nothing.

Your second source literally contradicts your claim that murder rates are highest among atheists or that homicide rates are positively associated with secularization. See page 71:

"Neither the major world religions nor the measure of religious pluralism displays a significant association with homicide, but the proportion atheist is associated with lower rates of homicide (r = -.530, p < .001). Atheism may be correlated with lower rates of homicide since it serves as the antithesis of religious passion which has been linked to higher rates of homicide (Jensen, G. F., 2006, "Religious cosmologies and homicide rates among nations", Journal of Religion and Society, 8, 1-14). Any partial correlation between atheism and homicide will be revealed in the multivariate analysis. As anticipated due to its representation of egoistic individualism, the proportion who believe individuals should be careful rather than trusting of others displays a significant positive association with homicide (r = .532, p < .001). Contrary to what has been hypothesized, secularization displays a significant negative association with homicide (r = -.483, p < .001)."

I'll concede that point. I didn't do as much research as I should have done before making a claim.

Regarding the first source, it cites 11 different sources. The one you mentioned may only be four examples, but it is just one of the 11.
But yeah, it is not directly related to homicide, just crime in general.

In the second source, I misread something on page 72. I interpreted a triple negative as a double negative.
I still find it rather curious, as reading page 18 of the study gives us this quotation:
"Higher rates of crime and violence will occur in secularized environments as the plausibility of religious values is attenuated, and these religious values cannot spur the morality necessary to reinforce institutional norms."

It appears that atheism leads to higher crime and violence, but less murder. This was a subpoint, however, and substituting "crime and violence" with "homicide" makes the point just as well.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This whole line of argumentation re: crime is faulty.

Poor people commit more crime (incl. violent crime) than rich people - are they less moral? Does it follow that extra money improves one's morality?

Old people are more religious than young people and, on average, commit less crime.

Small town people are more religious than big town people who, on average, suffer from more crime and commit more crime.

The lowest crime places on earth are less religious than average (e.g., Switzerland). Some very high crime places are very religious (e.g., Europe suffered MUCH worse interpersonal violence when it was also much more Christian).

Prisons, full of convicted criminals, have notoriously high rates of religiosity.

I would be extremely reluctant to draw conclusions about the morality (or not) of Christian belief in this way - it's all noise, no signal.

[CaptainFritz28]

You raise a good point. It is a debate of ideologies, so I should not have brought up a statistic that relies on a great many factors other than ideology.

[Jamiet99uk]

You raise a good point. It is a debate of ideologies, so I should not have brought up a statistic that relies on a great many factors other than ideology.

Fair play to you for acknowledging that.

[JECE]

Here's one for other crimes, not including murder:
https://www.marripedia.org/effects_of_religious_practice_on_crime_rates

This study links secularization (i.e. the lack of religion i.e. Atheism) with higher homicide and crime rates:
https://irl.umsl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1729&context=dissertation

Your first source does not look reliable to me. I took the time to find the source data anyway:
https://www.nlsinfo.org/investigator/pages/search

As of Survey Year 2019, eleven survey participants reported being convicted of or pleading guilty to "assault, such as battery, rape, aggravated assault, manslaughter". Only four of these provided information on their present religion:

• A non-Black, non-Hispanic man with no religion who never attends service
• A Black Christian man who attends service about once a week
• A Hispanic Catholic man who never attends service
• A Hispanic Christian woman who attends service several times a week

What conclusion can we draw from this? Nothing.

Your second source literally contradicts your claim that murder rates are highest among atheists or that homicide rates are positively associated with secularization. See page 71:

"Neither the major world religions nor the measure of religious pluralism displays a significant association with homicide, but the proportion atheist is associated with lower rates of homicide (r = -.530, p < .001). Atheism may be correlated with lower rates of homicide since it serves as the antithesis of religious passion which has been linked to higher rates of homicide (Jensen, G. F., 2006, "Religious cosmologies and homicide rates among nations", Journal of Religion and Society, 8, 1-14). Any partial correlation between atheism and homicide will be revealed in the multivariate analysis. As anticipated due to its representation of egoistic individualism, the proportion who believe individuals should be careful rather than trusting of others displays a significant positive association with homicide (r = .532, p < .001). Contrary to what has been hypothesized, secularization displays a significant negative association with homicide (r = -.483, p < .001)."

I'll concede that point. I didn't do as much research as I should have done before making a claim.

Regarding the first source, it cites 11 different sources. The one you mentioned may only be four examples, but it is just one of the 11.
But yeah, it is not directly related to homicide, just crime in general.

In the second source, I misread something on page 72. I interpreted a triple negative as a double negative.
I still find it rather curious, as reading page 18 of the study gives us this quotation:
"Higher rates of crime and violence will occur in secularized environments as the plausibility of religious values is attenuated, and these religious values cannot spur the morality necessary to reinforce institutional norms."

It appears that atheism leads to higher crime and violence, but less murder. This was a subpoint, however, and substituting "crime and violence" with "homicide" makes the point just as well.

Did you bother to check those 11 other sources? There are actually just 9, and at least half of them draw their data directly from the National Longitudinal Surveys that I linked to. All four of the bar graphs in the article name a National Longitudinal Survey as their source.

For the record, you shouldn't have had to do any research before making a claim like that. It's prima facie wrong to suggest that atheists are more likely to murder (or commit any other crime) because of their atheism, and to make such a claim betrays a deep prejudice against atheists. The data that you have dug up is faulty or suggests the opposite of what you were trying to say. But even if the data were good, it is important to remember that correlation does not equal causality.

You can take a hypothesis from the 1960's like the one that you paraphrased from page 19 of the dissertation and test if it fits the available data, but the data on its own can only disprove the hypothesis, as turned out to be the case. If the data fits a hypothesis you still have to do more work to prove a hypothesis.

[CaptainFritz28]

You are beating a dead horse here, while not addressing the substance of the original point I made when I brought up the statistic.

My point was that inherently, Atheism does not condemn murder, crime, or anything else. Atheists may come to their own conclusions, but those conclusions may be contradictory and there is no standard to determine which side is right.

I am curious why the second study would state what I quoted (quoted, not paraphrased) without any argument to the contrary, or any mention of use in testing. It simply stated it as fact.

[Jamiet99uk]

You are beating a dead horse here, while not addressing the substance of the original point I made when I brought up the statistic.

My point was that inherently, Atheism does not condemn murder, crime, or anything else. Atheists may come to their own conclusions, but those conclusions may be contradictory and there is no standard to determine which side is right.

I am curious why the second study would state what I quoted (quoted, not paraphrased) without any argument to the contrary, or any mention of use in testing. It simply stated it as fact.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, Atheism is not a ideology. Atheism is not a structure for anything, nor does anyone say it is (except for theists trying to create a straw man).

Atheism does not condemn murder in the same way that a teapot does not condemn murder.

Atheism does not condemn murder in the same way that a the colour orange does not condemn murder.

Atheism does not condemn murder in the same way that velocity does not condemn murder.

Atheism does not condemn murder in the same way that the Periodic table of elements does not condemn murder.

Atheism and morality are unrelated.

[CaptainFritz28]

It is very much an ideology. It is the belief that there is no God. That is an ideology.
But regardless, you say it is unrelated to morality.
So then my claim that Atheism does not provide a basis for morals is true, which is what I've been getting at this whole time. Atheism is amoral, and therefore fails to provide a basis with which to resolve moral conflicts.

[Jamiet99uk]

It is very much an ideology. It is the belief that there is no God. That is an ideology.
But regardless, you say it is unrelated to morality.
So then my claim that Atheism does not provide a basis for morals is true, which is what I've been getting at this whole time. Atheism is amoral, and therefore fails to provide a basis with which to resolve moral conflicts.

Atheism does not purport to be a basis for morality.

Atheism does not purport to be a system for resolving conflicts.

Your "claim" is technically true but it is also worthless.

[Jamiet99uk]

I hate to go to "the dictionary says" but the Oxford English dictionary defines "ideology" as:

1. A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

- Atheism is not a system at all. It is not an ideology.

[Jamiet99uk]

I'd go into more detail but it's Sunday so I need to get ready to go to Atheist Church and celebrate Atheist Mass in which we all sing songs about the futility of existence and recite verses from a blank notebook.

[CaptainFritz28]

I hate to go to "the dictionary says" but the Oxford English dictionary defines "ideology" as:

1. A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

- Atheism is not a system at all. It is not an ideology.

Merriam-Webster defines it as:
"a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ideology

Atheism is definitely that.

I don't find the exact wording you used anywhere, but it's a close enough paraphrase to Oxford's. So it just depends on the dictionary we use. But since you don't want me to call it an ideology I won't, just so I don't risk hurting your feelings.

[CaptainFritz28]

I'd go into more detail but it's Sunday so I need to get ready to go to Atheist Church and celebrate Atheist Mass in which we all sing songs about the futility of existence and recite verses from a blank notebook.

Well I won't expect a swift response, then. I wouldn't want to interrupt your prayers to nothing.

[CaptainFritz28]

It is very much an ideology. It is the belief that there is no God. That is an ideology.
But regardless, you say it is unrelated to morality.
So then my claim that Atheism does not provide a basis for morals is true, which is what I've been getting at this whole time. Atheism is amoral, and therefore fails to provide a basis with which to resolve moral conflicts.

Atheism does not purport to be a basis for morality.

Atheism does not purport to be a system for resolving conflicts.

Your "claim" is technically true but it is also worthless.

Glad we could clear that up.

Therefore, Atheism fails to explain morality, why humans are moral creatures, or even the concepts of good and evil. This is one of the basic things any worldview must address, and here is one of the places Atheism falls flat.

Atheism cannot explain morality, nor even begin to comprehend it.
Atheism cannot condemn murder. It cannot determine justice from injustice. It cannot say that the Nazis were wrong, or that the slave trade was immoral, or that humans are morally equal.

And because you, Jamie, base your beliefs off of Atheism, you cannot either. Because you may come to your individual conclusion that all of the above moral judgements are true, but for anyone else, your judgements mean nothing.

So you must bring in some ultimate standard to measure things by if you want to have a debate on morals. That may be majority rule, or might makes right, or the UN's Declaration of Human Rights, but you have to say that something is ultimate moral judge, the basis for all good and evil, or else morals come down to the individual and you can condemn no one for their actions.

[Jamiet99uk]

And because you, Jamie, base your beliefs off of Atheism, you cannot either. Because you may come to your individual conclusion that all of the above moral judgements are true, but for anyone else, your judgements mean nothing.

Incorrect.

I do not make any moral judgements on the basis of the fact that I don't believe in God.

I don't have any beliefs which are "based off" Atheism. I'm an Atheist because I cannot conceive of the notion of God existing. Nothing else.

My moral beliefs are unrelated to any of this.

[CaptainFritz28]

Apologies. I made a mistake there. I should not have said that you cannot make moral judgements, but simply that your moral judgements mean nothing to anyone else without a standard to back them.

So while you may condemn murder, that has no bearing on the universal condemnation or support of murder.