For the 'morally superior' religious

[J8300]

I got a chuckle from this. Somethings I've always suspected, from my readings of the Bible, but had never seen documented before.

These are two very short excerpts taken from "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism" which I downloaded:

MORALITY AND CRIME
The claim that atheists are somehow likely to be immoral or dishonest
has long been disproven by systematic studies. In studies that looked
at readiness to help or honesty, it was atheists that distinguished them-
selves, not the religious. Early in the twentieth century, a survey of
2,000 associates of the YMCA found that those identifying themselves
as atheists or agnostics were more willing to help the poor than those
who called themselves religious (Ross 1950).
When it comes to the more serious matter of violence and crime,
ever since the field of criminology got started and data were collected of
the religious affiliation of criminal offenders, the fact that the unaffil-
iated and the nonreligious had the lowest crime rates has been noted
(Lombroso 1911; Bonger 1943; von Hentig 1948). According to von
Hentig, being unaffiliated is the best predictor of law-abiding behavior.
There is no reason to doubt the validity of this generalization today.

SUMMARY
What we are able to conclude about the modal atheist in Western soci-
ety today is that that person is much more likely to be a man, married,
with higher education. Can we speak about a modal atheist personal-
ity? A tentative psychological profile can be offered. We can say that
atheists show themselves to be less authoritarian and suggestible, less
dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant of others, law-abiding, compas-
sionate, conscientious, and well educated. They are of high intelligence,
and many are committed to the intellectual and scholarly life. In short,
they are good to have as neighbors.

Talk about irony?

The whole thing is 352 pages in PDF format and I can upload it somewhere or email it to anyone who wants to read it.

[Pector55]

There is no reason to doubt the validity of this generalization today.

Disagree 100%. Redo the study. I would be interested in the results.
I know where most crime occurs today. Lots of those people go to church but I wouldn't call them "religious." I wouldn't even refer to myself as a religious person.

On the other hand, how many folks in jail claim to "find religion?" Is that a claim to help sway parole boards? If so, perhaps there is where you should sell these findings. If it is an influence you can remove, I'll send you rep for it. LOL

[schr8er2000]

I agree... it seems that once a criminal is in jail THEY FIND RELIGION.... amazing... maybe we should make everyone go to jail once they become old enough to commit a crime.... then by finding religion the crime rate will plummet....

YEAH .... RIGHT... and the checks in the mail.............

[J8300]

Disagree 100%. Redo the study. I would be interested in the results.
I know where most crime occurs today. Lots of those people go to church but I wouldn't call them "religious." I wouldn't even refer to myself as a religious person.

On the other hand, how many folks in jail claim to "find religion?" Is that a claim to help sway parole boards? If so, perhaps there is where you should sell these findings. If it is an influence you can remove, I'll send you rep for it. LOL

There are 3 studies listed right there for the crime part. Not to mention the 3 pages of references after this one section alone, which admittedly isnt just about the 2 small parts I posted. The first part also mentions "systematic studies", in plural. I doubt there would be a difference today, assuming none of the studies are relatively recent.

Most of the file has more to do with arguments for and against theism. The last section, a small part of which I posted here, is titled 'Atheists: A Psychological Profile'.

Also I doubt it matters what you consider religious personally. Studies like this have to go by what the people say.

[J8300]

I agree... it seems that once a criminal is in jail THEY FIND RELIGION.... amazing... maybe we should make everyone go to jail once they become old enough to commit a crime.... then by finding religion the crime rate will plummet....

YEAH .... RIGHT... and the checks in the mail.............

I think both of you are assuming they didnt ask respondents if they were religious before jail...or maybe I'm assuming they did. Studies are usually pretty thorough and I'm sure some religious psyche scientists would have pointed out that flaw if it existed.

[schr8er2000]

Well I have to disagree with you on this one J8300..,.if they had religion BEFORE they went to jail they would not have done the things that got them there in the first place... ALL religions talk of respecting others and their rights, convictions and property. If they were so religious they would have been in church and not on the street committing crimes...

[Pector55]

There are 3 studies listed right there for the crime part. Not to mention the 3 pages of references after this one section alone, which admittedly isnt just about the 2 small parts I posted. The first part also mentions "systematic studies", in plural. I doubt there would be a difference today, assuming none of the studies are relatively recent.

Most of the file has more to do with arguments for and against theism. The last section, a small part of which I posted here, is titled 'Atheists: A Psychological Profile'.

Also I doubt it matters what you consider religious personally. Studies like this have to go by what the people say.

Looking at the dates of the references, there is dramatically different reasons to believe the results would be different. People in the earlier part of the century would not be as openly secular due to the stigma attached. The same could be said with interracial relationships, being openly gay, etc.

That said, we have no idea how many people simply said "they attended church" or "they were religious" without defining what that is or without knowing that what they said was fact. You cannot say that studies are accurate but it doesn't matter what the definition of "is" "is."

When I was little, I had many Mennonite friends who I would consider religious. On the other hand, I know girls who went to church every Sunday and claimed they were sore when they had to stand up in church on Sunday after we tore it up on Saturday night. That is two completely different perspectives on "religious."

[jmiro]

The author lumped the agnostic with the atheist. Not the same.

[J8300]

Well I have to disagree with you on this one J8300..,.if they had religion BEFORE they went to jail they would not have done the things that got them there in the first place... ALL religions talk of respecting others and their rights, convictions and property. If they were so religious they would have been in church and not on the street committing crimes...

That has to be one of the silliest things Ive ever read. All religions talk of what? How it is ok to own slaves, how its ok to slaughter whole populations in the name of god, how its ok to beat your wife...the list of immoralities contained in the bible goes on nearly forever. The same argument can be made against islam, in fact lots of US xtians have already done it. Ask a xtian how muslims think killing infidels is ok.

I know, my examples come from the old testament etc etc but to quote Jesus "I come NOT TO CHANGE THE OLD LAWS, but to fulfill the prophesies". Maybe not a perfect quote but close enough. Doesnt that mean the things talked about in the OT should still be followed? Sure reads like it.

The NT contains one of the biggest immoralities of them all...the murder of someone else to absolve your sins.

It only makes sense that atheists are more moral than the religious.

[J8300]

Looking at the dates of the references, there is dramatically different reasons to believe the results would be different.

The results didnt change between 1911 and 1948. What makes you think another 50 years would make a difference?

People in the earlier part of the century would not be as openly secular due to the stigma attached.

lol, try being atheist in 2008

The same could be said with interracial relationships, being openly gay, etc.

Both of these are immoral according to the bible.

That said, we have no idea how many people simply said "they attended church" or "they were religious" without defining what that is or without knowing that what they said was fact. You cannot say that studies are accurate but it doesn't matter what the definition of "is" "is."

By your own logic you cannot say they are inaccurate.

When I was little, I had many Mennonite friends who I would consider religious. On the other hand, I know girls who went to church every Sunday and claimed they were sore when they had to stand up in church on Sunday after we tore it up on Saturday night. That is two completely different perspectives on "religious."

Well I suppose if those girls had been torn up by their fathers like Lots daughters you would consider them religious.

Fact is you cant know when the incarcerated were asked about their religion without reading the actual study. I cant find it online without paying for it, but one can generally assume that a mistake like the one proposed would have been found already. Especially after 3 studies came to the same general conclusions, 2 of them 40 years apart.

Rationalizing the improbable is best left for Sundays in church.