4 ms·

I completely agree with "an evil dictator of some kind." Many peoples have suffered the injustices of religion, also in agreement. "Nations with higher atheis

I completely agree with "an evil dictator of some kind." Many peoples have suffered the injustices of religion, also in agreement. "Nations with higher atheism are the ones with the least problems." Can you please source that? I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. It is the two-edged sword that cuts and heals, depending on its wielder. Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same. As the article suggests, freedom cannot be given, it must be demanded. There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved.

tomkin 15y ago
> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Here's the problem I have with that. Let's say that I am a member of the SS and being a member provides me with a *moral compass*. OK, wait...those are the *wrong* morals. Right. The attack shouldn't be against people's belief or spirituality – but of the idea that you shouldn't borrow ideas without evaluation or due diligence. > Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same The rosy picture of religion from the western perspective. > There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved. I agree. This is why people need to know *why* religion is being utilized and the implications of it from the very foundation. > Can you please source that? Atheist nations are more peaceful [1] Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate According To Study [2] Atheist vs. Non-atheist Country Crime Statistics [3] Investigating Atheism, Demographics by University of Cambridge [4] [1] http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-... [2] http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countr... [3] http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-States/Crime http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-St... [4] http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html
- lambersley 15y ago
  > I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Moral compass in its simplest form. 'Thou shall not murder' - I'm not sure there is an argument in terms of "right v wrong" > crucial in the abolishment Perhaps a Western view, but looking at the countries who lead the charge, they were strongly influenced by 'the church' > Sources Thank you. I only had a few minutes to quickly skim thru the articles but found a lot on inconclusive data in the studies. Comments below my article: 1) "pretty non-religious" does not equate to atheism 2) Atheism seems to represent non-JudeoChristian, non-Muslim. The countries that are mentioned here aren't exactly 'athiest'. Wikipedia suggest, "84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to Shinto and Buddhism" Norway - Norse Paganism Germany - 55M between Christianity and Muslim Dutch - Christianity still dominant, 39% being religiously affiliated Brits - is there a question here? 3) Comparison of crime statistics between Czech Republic and United States offers very little to support the argument. The USA has a plethora of issues driving higher crime rates than solely religion. 4) Could have some merit but 'belief in God' does not necessarily translate to 'Religious'
  - tomkin 15y ago
    In a comment above, I mentioned the nature of these references at being weak at best. There is an inherit problem with sourcing this kind of data and/or being the "front man" for it for obvious reasons. The very nature of having a large group of people thinking the same way, executing their lives in a way pre-determined is a very bad thing. You can label it however you wish. An atheist is basically someone who has identified what they are not. When you talk about "pretty non-religious", you're talking about unlabelled or not completely adherent atheism. That's still a great thing. Nothing wrong with believing in some thing as long as someone else didn't tell you to. The argument "It's good that a large group of people believe in a single ideology and adhere their life to it" will never have wings among intellectuals. Now, if you take that argument and apply it, you won't go far down the road when you'll invariably have to talk about religion. Do you excuse it? Or accept that it is one of those groups? Excusing it is callous and hypocritical.
    - 15y ago

tomkin 15y ago

> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Here's the problem I have with that. Let's say that I am a member of the SS and being a member provides me with a *moral compass*. OK, wait...those are the *wrong* morals. Right. The attack shouldn't be against people's belief or spirituality – but of the idea that you shouldn't borrow ideas without evaluation or due diligence. > Religion played a crutial part in Slavery, but it was also crucial in the abolishment of the same The rosy picture of religion from the western perspective. > There is no way this is possible without educating the enslaved. I agree. This is why people need to know *why* religion is being utilized and the implications of it from the very foundation. > Can you please source that? Atheist nations are more peaceful [1] Predominantly Atheist Countries Have Lowest Crime Rate According To Study [2] Atheist vs. Non-atheist Country Crime Statistics [3] Investigating Atheism, Demographics by University of Cambridge [4] [1] http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html http://epiphenom.fieldofscience.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-... [2] http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countries-lowest-crime http://www.nairaland.com/121066/predominantly-atheist-countr... [3] http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-States/Crime http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Czech-Republic/United-St... [4] http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html http://www.investigatingatheism.info/demographics.html

lambersley 15y ago
> I believe religion in general does aid in providing some sense of moral compass. Moral compass in its simplest form. 'Thou shall not murder' - I'm not sure there is an argument in terms of "right v wrong" > crucial in the abolishment Perhaps a Western view, but looking at the countries who lead the charge, they were strongly influenced by 'the church' > Sources Thank you. I only had a few minutes to quickly skim thru the articles but found a lot on inconclusive data in the studies. Comments below my article: 1) "pretty non-religious" does not equate to atheism 2) Atheism seems to represent non-JudeoChristian, non-Muslim. The countries that are mentioned here aren't exactly 'athiest'. Wikipedia suggest, "84% to 96% of Japanese adhere to Shinto and Buddhism" Norway - Norse Paganism Germany - 55M between Christianity and Muslim Dutch - Christianity still dominant, 39% being religiously affiliated Brits - is there a question here? 3) Comparison of crime statistics between Czech Republic and United States offers very little to support the argument. The USA has a plethora of issues driving higher crime rates than solely religion. 4) Could have some merit but 'belief in God' does not necessarily translate to 'Religious'
- tomkin 15y ago
  In a comment above, I mentioned the nature of these references at being weak at best. There is an inherit problem with sourcing this kind of data and/or being the "front man" for it for obvious reasons. The very nature of having a large group of people thinking the same way, executing their lives in a way pre-determined is a very bad thing. You can label it however you wish. An atheist is basically someone who has identified what they are not. When you talk about "pretty non-religious", you're talking about unlabelled or not completely adherent atheism. That's still a great thing. Nothing wrong with believing in some thing as long as someone else didn't tell you to. The argument "It's good that a large group of people believe in a single ideology and adhere their life to it" will never have wings among intellectuals. Now, if you take that argument and apply it, you won't go far down the road when you'll invariably have to talk about religion. Do you excuse it? Or accept that it is one of those groups? Excusing it is callous and hypocritical.
  - 15y ago