4 ms·

I actually am the OP, and I just wanted to say that while I suspect we disagree on some fundamentals... I am extremely impressed by the quality, tone and effort

I actually am the OP, and I just wanted to say that while I suspect we disagree on some fundamentals... I am extremely impressed by the quality, tone and effort to link to research evidenced in your two replies. As you deduced, I missed your initial reply because we both posted at the same time. For what it's worth, I'm also in Canada and my best friend is a Christian. She was not born into it and has always been really great about being willing to admit when she doesn't know the answers to something. This has, in turn, inspired me to be less of a judgemental asshole. Don't get me wrong: I still have a really hard time with the idea that intelligent people can justify worshipping malevolent invisible sky wizards. And a lot of my bias against religious influence in modern society comes from the organizations themselves, and not their members. Evil priests, etc are over-staying their welcome. However, I am heartened to know that research suggests religious people are less likely to be criminals. Happy to acknowledge that I learned something. I do wonder if causation/correlation are skewed, here... as in, would those people still be good if they'd grown up in secular families? Anyhow... great chat. Feel free to update if you think of anything else.

kelvin0 8y ago
What constitutes a 'Criminal Act' in generally accepted terms? We can probably agree that there are some cases which generally considered 'bad': Stealing, Killing and others. But even some instances of these 'bad' acts are also up to debate (stealing to feed your kids, killing in war or self defense...). But it's also worth noting that what constitutes a criminal act is largely dependent on the laws that are enacted by a majority (this is also a broad generalization). Taking into account that a majority votes these laws, these laws will also reflect that same majoritie's Religious (or lack thereof) beliefs. This 'hypothetical' religious majority will probably never vote for laws which 'criminalizes' their beliefs and actions! Thus it's quite easy to see that Religious folks from this majority will never be deemed criminal. As a thought experiment: imagine that attempting to obstruct or make it more difficult for someone to have an abortion was illegal. How many more religious people would become 'criminals'? In conclusion, one person's definition of criminal is another's person definition of a 'hero'. Claiming that religious people are less likely to be criminals is based on shaky assumptions in my opinion.

kelvin0 8y ago

What constitutes a 'Criminal Act' in generally accepted terms? We can probably agree that there are some cases which generally considered 'bad': Stealing, Killing and others. But even some instances of these 'bad' acts are also up to debate (stealing to feed your kids, killing in war or self defense...). But it's also worth noting that what constitutes a criminal act is largely dependent on the laws that are enacted by a majority (this is also a broad generalization). Taking into account that a majority votes these laws, these laws will also reflect that same majoritie's Religious (or lack thereof) beliefs. This 'hypothetical' religious majority will probably never vote for laws which 'criminalizes' their beliefs and actions! Thus it's quite easy to see that Religious folks from this majority will never be deemed criminal. As a thought experiment: imagine that attempting to obstruct or make it more difficult for someone to have an abortion was illegal. How many more religious people would become 'criminals'? In conclusion, one person's definition of criminal is another's person definition of a 'hero'. Claiming that religious people are less likely to be criminals is based on shaky assumptions in my opinion.