8 ms·

> One interesting question, which will only begin to be answered in the next several decades, is whether the rates of religious adherence within these European

> One interesting question, which will only begin to be answered in the next several decades, is whether the rates of religious adherence within these European countries correlate with anything. For instance, do countries with low religious adherence have any sort of markedly different character or outcomes than countries with high religious adherence? Oh yeah. And you won't have to wait several decades to find correlations, either. At least as far as violent crime is concerned, the answer seems to be "things will get better": https://www.quora.com/Are-atheists-more-or-less-likely-to-be-criminals-than-theists https://www.quora.com/Are-atheists-more-or-less-likely-to-be... (quora link, but many references cited)

jawns 9y ago
You don't see any confounding variables there?
- pmarreck 9y ago
  Please explain the confounding variables present across multiple sources of this information, especially given that the predominant religion is (by design) supposed to influence, and be a hallmark of approved/condoned, behavior. I've heard "ethnic/racial homogeneity" oft-referenced as a criticism, but you can't just say that- you have to show that homogeneity is separately correlated with reduced crime, without regard to religious orientation. Once you do that, THEN you can levy this criticism.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pgeorgi 9y ago
Assuming for a moment that atheist are the friendlier folks in general, what makes you think that people become atheists after leaving christianity behind? When taking an atheist perspective (I'm not an atheist, but I hope I can fake it well enough for a moment for the purpose of this discourse), I'd describe the shift that happens in "Western" societies as "swapping one superstition for another", not "leaving superstition behind". Or did Tarot cards, miracle healers and summoning the dead (and the like) become atheist tools and practices recently?
- pmarreck 9y ago
  There is no such thing as the "atheist perspective." This is a misnomer and a straw-man used by the self-professed faithful. There is either the rational perspective, or the not-rational (baseless belief-based) perspective. Point me out a single thing an atheist claims that is not rational, and you will realize I'm correct. Point me out a single piece of human knowledge that was gained via pure belief instead of via evidence, and you will realize I'm correct. You know what other successful systems are rational? Our medical/scientific knowledge and methods, and our legal knowledge and methods. That also makes them atheist simply because they are empirically-based and not belief-based (regardless of whether practitioners thereof have any theism, Zeusism, Zoroastrianism, or any other belief).
  - simula67 9y ago
    Define rational. Science takes many things for granted under faith : there is an observable universe, it operates under decipherable rules etc. So you seem confused
    - pmarreck 9y ago
      > there is an observable universe wait, this is not self-evident? > it operates under decipherable rules we already know this is not proven. taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational (for now). Rational: Agreeable to reason and based on objective empirical evidence and observation. Things outside the reach of this: The irrational. Subjective experience. Etc. The key here is, you can believe whatever you want, but to act against someone else, I think you need a rational basis. Rationality, where it exists, should be given a wide berth.
      - simula67 9y ago
        > this is not self-evident Self-evident is just a lazy term meaning I believe it without evidence. You could for example, be living in the matrix and the real world could operate under different art of rules or maybe no rules. Science puts these types of questions aside for expediency > taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational Not true. Some of what is called taste can be boiled down to rational analysis. For example, photogeaphers have rules which helps them take good photos On a fundamental level, science and rationality depends on premises unproven. It is a great tool to examine the universe and it nature, but that does not mean it can answer every question. It was never intended to
mistermann 9y ago
> And you won't have to wait several decades to find correlations, either. At least as far as violent crime is concerned, the answer seems to be "things will get better": Considering the stats in the Quora link are only a correlation, is it proper to say things will get better? Indeed, you did precede it with "seems", but I think it's preferable to be explicit when making predictions or offering advice.
- pmarreck 9y ago
  You're correct, and that's exactly why I used seems. Strong, but not conclusively causal.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    Not that it matters, and it likely wasn't your intent, but this style of "conversationally but not technically" (for lack of a better term) writing bothers me, as it's not crystal clear what the intended message or information is. I'm noticing this style of writing is becoming increasingly common in the media as well, which might explain why so many people believe things that aren't true. I'll get off my soapbox now.
    - pmarreck 9y ago
      If only it were possible to establish factual causal relationships with 100% certainty 100% of the time... sadly we do not have that utopia and must thus deal with language that speaks in terms of degrees of certainty
      - mistermann 9y ago
        What I'm referring to is the increasing frequency of newspaper and TV to use language that technically doesn't claim things to be fact, if you parse the words veeeeeeeery carefully, but a casual reader (aka the vast majority of the public) might easily conclude what is presented is fact, rather than just possibilities or allegations. Or in other words, language that hides uncertainty from the consumer. As I noted, this probably wasn't your intent, but I'd like to think it doesn't hurt to point out. Sometimes clarity matters, sometimes it doesn't. For example, not that it particularly matters, even in this conversation, based on your last comment I'm still left with somewhat of a feeling that you don't necessarily agree with this notion. On one hand, who cares right? On the other hand, large portions of the general public absolutely believe with 100% certainty things that are at best allegations at this point, because they have read or watched so many news stories that intentionally or not are worded to make possibilities sound as if they are facts. I think this is a very big deal, and if the higher caliber of people on HN don't, to me that also is a big deal.
raducu 9y ago
Crime,religion, health/life expectancy/education are correlated with wealth. Do you think atheists countries have higher life expectancy because of atheism or wealth?
- pmarreck 9y ago
  OK... Where does the United States fit into this hypothetical wealth/crime graph vs. where it would be on a hypothetical religion/crime graph? (I'm guessing it would be high in all three, casting doubt on your "wealthy countries have lower crime" assertion)
  - raducu 9y ago
    I said correlation, not an exact known equation. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-levels http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-l... Countries with least crime: Malta, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Sout Korea, UAE, Belarus, Georgia, Bahrain, Quatar. Countries with most crime: Maldives, Venezuela, Afghanistam Kenya, South Africa... I'd say the most important factor is wealth, not the single factor.

jawns 9y ago

You don't see any confounding variables there?

pmarreck 9y ago
Please explain the confounding variables present across multiple sources of this information, especially given that the predominant religion is (by design) supposed to influence, and be a hallmark of approved/condoned, behavior. I've heard "ethnic/racial homogeneity" oft-referenced as a criticism, but you can't just say that- you have to show that homogeneity is separately correlated with reduced crime, without regard to religious orientation. Once you do that, THEN you can levy this criticism.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pgeorgi 9y ago

Assuming for a moment that atheist are the friendlier folks in general, what makes you think that people become atheists after leaving christianity behind? When taking an atheist perspective (I'm not an atheist, but I hope I can fake it well enough for a moment for the purpose of this discourse), I'd describe the shift that happens in "Western" societies as "swapping one superstition for another", not "leaving superstition behind". Or did Tarot cards, miracle healers and summoning the dead (and the like) become atheist tools and practices recently?

pmarreck 9y ago
There is no such thing as the "atheist perspective." This is a misnomer and a straw-man used by the self-professed faithful. There is either the rational perspective, or the not-rational (baseless belief-based) perspective. Point me out a single thing an atheist claims that is not rational, and you will realize I'm correct. Point me out a single piece of human knowledge that was gained via pure belief instead of via evidence, and you will realize I'm correct. You know what other successful systems are rational? Our medical/scientific knowledge and methods, and our legal knowledge and methods. That also makes them atheist simply because they are empirically-based and not belief-based (regardless of whether practitioners thereof have any theism, Zeusism, Zoroastrianism, or any other belief).
- simula67 9y ago
  Define rational. Science takes many things for granted under faith : there is an observable universe, it operates under decipherable rules etc. So you seem confused
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    > there is an observable universe wait, this is not self-evident? > it operates under decipherable rules we already know this is not proven. taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational (for now). Rational: Agreeable to reason and based on objective empirical evidence and observation. Things outside the reach of this: The irrational. Subjective experience. Etc. The key here is, you can believe whatever you want, but to act against someone else, I think you need a rational basis. Rationality, where it exists, should be given a wide berth.
    - simula67 9y ago
      > this is not self-evident Self-evident is just a lazy term meaning I believe it without evidence. You could for example, be living in the matrix and the real world could operate under different art of rules or maybe no rules. Science puts these types of questions aside for expediency > taste, for example, has no discernible rules. therefore taste is irrational Not true. Some of what is called taste can be boiled down to rational analysis. For example, photogeaphers have rules which helps them take good photos On a fundamental level, science and rationality depends on premises unproven. It is a great tool to examine the universe and it nature, but that does not mean it can answer every question. It was never intended to

mistermann 9y ago

> And you won't have to wait several decades to find correlations, either. At least as far as violent crime is concerned, the answer seems to be "things will get better": Considering the stats in the Quora link are only a correlation, is it proper to say things will get better? Indeed, you did precede it with "seems", but I think it's preferable to be explicit when making predictions or offering advice.

pmarreck 9y ago
You're correct, and that's exactly why I used seems. Strong, but not conclusively causal.
- mistermann 9y ago
  Not that it matters, and it likely wasn't your intent, but this style of "conversationally but not technically" (for lack of a better term) writing bothers me, as it's not crystal clear what the intended message or information is. I'm noticing this style of writing is becoming increasingly common in the media as well, which might explain why so many people believe things that aren't true. I'll get off my soapbox now.
  - pmarreck 9y ago
    If only it were possible to establish factual causal relationships with 100% certainty 100% of the time... sadly we do not have that utopia and must thus deal with language that speaks in terms of degrees of certainty
    - mistermann 9y ago
      What I'm referring to is the increasing frequency of newspaper and TV to use language that technically doesn't claim things to be fact, if you parse the words veeeeeeeery carefully, but a casual reader (aka the vast majority of the public) might easily conclude what is presented is fact, rather than just possibilities or allegations. Or in other words, language that hides uncertainty from the consumer. As I noted, this probably wasn't your intent, but I'd like to think it doesn't hurt to point out. Sometimes clarity matters, sometimes it doesn't. For example, not that it particularly matters, even in this conversation, based on your last comment I'm still left with somewhat of a feeling that you don't necessarily agree with this notion. On one hand, who cares right? On the other hand, large portions of the general public absolutely believe with 100% certainty things that are at best allegations at this point, because they have read or watched so many news stories that intentionally or not are worded to make possibilities sound as if they are facts. I think this is a very big deal, and if the higher caliber of people on HN don't, to me that also is a big deal.

raducu 9y ago

Crime,religion, health/life expectancy/education are correlated with wealth. Do you think atheists countries have higher life expectancy because of atheism or wealth?

pmarreck 9y ago
OK... Where does the United States fit into this hypothetical wealth/crime graph vs. where it would be on a hypothetical religion/crime graph? (I'm guessing it would be high in all three, casting doubt on your "wealthy countries have lower crime" assertion)
- raducu 9y ago
  I said correlation, not an exact known equation. http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-levels http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Crime-l... Countries with least crime: Malta, Singapore, Japan, Taiwan, Sout Korea, UAE, Belarus, Georgia, Bahrain, Quatar. Countries with most crime: Maldives, Venezuela, Afghanistam Kenya, South Africa... I'd say the most important factor is wealth, not the single factor.