You may be basing this view on the popular image of the serial killer as a person with a messianic complex. I can’t say how accurate that view is. But I don’t understand lumping other criminals like rapists into the same category. That’s a groundless assumption. There are lots of people who commit those crimes and it only makes sense that most of them have some form of theistic view in a country where about 80 percent of the people are Christian.
There’s a positive link between intelligence and income.
There’s a positive link between intelligence and atheism.
There’s a reverse link between income and criminal activity.
So yes, it is most likely that atheists in the modern day US are less likely to commit crime. However, the key ingredient seems to be intelligence more than it is atheism.
What is the obvious flaw in finding out if people are happy by asking them? Could you suggest some objective test for this?
Perhaps suicide and depression can be used as measurements of happiness. Both are negatively correlated with religious practice.
At any rate, your assertion that the statistics on family stability are based on self-report is incorrect. See the citations regarding lower divorce rates among the religously active, keeping in mind the correlation between parental divorce and higher rates of negative behaviors in children.
They also note the following numbers on divorce rates from the same site:
Jewish: 30%
Born-Again Christians: 27%
Other Christian: 24%
Atheist and Agnostic: 21%
Let’s look at the U.S. compared to other developed democracies as well. I doubt you’d want to argue that, generally speaking, the U.S. is substantially more religious in outlook than say, Australia, France, New Zealand, Canada etc…,
Given your idea that religion increases ‘morality’ and would hence reduce crime (assuming that criminal acts are immoral) we should see lower crime rates in the U.S. than in these other places. Except we don’t. And we do notice that lethal crime is far more prevalent in the U.S. then in more atheistic nations. What about other things often thrown into the ‘morals’ bin. STDs in teenagers and teenage pregnancies.
Teen pregnancies in the U.S. are at 1671 births per million. In NZ (the next highest western democracy) they are at 972 per million. A fairly large difference. (sourced at nationmaster.com)
More cites?
Does anyone have any relaible statistics on the relative distribution of faiths (or lack thereof) among inmates in the US prison system? I would think that it would parallel the distribution in the general population if faith/agnostisicm/atheism were morally neutral.
Any skewing from the general population may indicate a lack of moral fibre among those following that specific philosophy/religion.
Generally speaking, there are certain universalities that pervade most human societies’ codes of ethics.
It is wrong to kill. (At least from your own group, most of the time)
It is wrong to steal. (At least from your own group)
It is wrong to rape. (Nearly all the time)
Nearly everything else is quibbling over the protocol and circumstances of these events. They are derived from the direct observation of the suffering they cause.
All other “morals” and “ethics” are derived from an external religious source. For example, Christians often have major issues regarding sex and it’s practice. Other faiths don’t care all that much about that issue at all but take extreme care about what one eats, or how one grooms their hair.
What you would have to determine to answer this question is figure out if an atheistic population violates the big three tenants more than a religious one. You would also have exclude societally approved exceptions to those rules, like war or starvation. You would also have to exclude political motivations, as those could easily fall into that gray area.
As others have already noted, there is a correlation between atheism and intelligence. Intelligent, thoughtful people would, on the whole, be generally more cognizant of their actions on a daily basis. So It would be a safe hypothesis to state that they would be less likely to engage in blatant criminal behaviour than religious people.
I have read that better educated people are more likely to be atheists. I would venture that better educated people have slightly lower tendency to commit crimes, since they would have on average a better economic chances.
I have no data on moral sense at all, but I suspect the difference between atheists and religious people is minimal. Atheists may think their morals through a bit more, though. The religious, whatever they might think, do not get their morals from God or the bible; they get them from themselves and their environment, just like everybody else.
By the way: the correct spelling is “atheist”, not “athiest”.
We were discussing those with high levels of religious practice, not merely religious affiliation. It is rather hard to argue that religion causes people to engage in one kind of behavior if it doesn’t cause them to do anything else - like go to church.
And the same problem exists with your cites about the US pregnancy rates vs. other developed countries as with the atheist countries who have murdered large numbers of their citizens. If you are going to argue “the US is more religious than Japan and has higher pregnancy rates”, then you can argue with equal plausibility “the Soviet Union was less religious than the US and killed some tens of millions of its own people”.
Not really. One is making a comparison between religiosity and adherence to a pervasive “moral” edict by the general population; the other is making a correlation between governmental actions and religiosity.
So how much of that do you attribute to the religiosity of the United States and how much do you attribute to the immunity of the U.S. to the mid/late 20th century political upheavals?
I would say the wars and revolutions of the 20th century have a lot more to do with the body count than atheism/religion. I would also say that the OP was asking about more common criminal activities than genocides, but when the only tool you have to beat people over the head with is a hammer and sickle…
My wife introduced me to her while explaining that she was editing her list of people she may sleep (if given the opportunity) without repercussions. She chose wisely.
Back to the thread topic: Ifind it alternately amusing and vexing to participate in threads like these, given, oh, the Inquisition, or the story of Elisha & the 42 she-bears.
Forgive my intrusion into your squabble about who is the better person.
1, Those who believe in God.
2. Those who don’t believe in God.
It seems that some believe a Christian might/should be a better person.
That would require making judgment upon another(sin)
I am a Christian and a sinner. I believe in the Cross and everything it stands for. And I am still a sinner!
For those of you that don’t understand that, I will pray for you.
I am at peace with the Lord.
Judging others is something that Christianity has always been brutally enthusiastic about. Basically, you are ( unintentionally I’m sure ) arguing for the inferior morality of Christians ( assuming that one buys the idea that sin = immoral of course ) by claiming the sinfulness of something that is the norm for them.
Well, yes. Christianity doesn’t tend to produce good behavior from it’s followers, and it doesn’t stand for good things anyway IMHO. Is there supposed to be a point to this sort of claim ?
Since the “Lord” is a construct of your own imagination and egotism I’m sure you are. And prayer isn’t going to impress unbelievers.
That would probably be religious people… Or possibly people who think people aren’t moral inherently, and need the thread of hell-fire / the awe-inspiring example of sacrifice of christ or something like that just to make the right moral judgements. I for one am extremely sceptical that that is the case.
As far as I’m concerned, judging each other is what people do, and we should. We should take a hard critical look at each other and ourselves.
Good for you. I guess that means you should pray for me, but please don’t feel obliged. I really don’t care if you do or not.
