The studies on Muslims, so far, have shown that religiosity is associated with criminality

[LuisDantas]

There's not much evidence and more research is needed, but there's a clear mechanism difference between the protective factors of religiosity in Islam vs Christianity. Would anyone care to take a guess why and perhaps people have more to add?

Eh. I just might at that...

In a nutshell, Islaam's so-called religiosity is anything but. It is instead worship of monotheism, which is something else entirely and actually quite anathema to religion. Common, if very destructive and very widespread mistake.

I have just one question.
Why do you guys keep mocking Muslims and Christian people? is it not time to stop the mocking and let people believe what they want? do you take pleasure in mocking religious people?

Speaking for myself, I find it deeply disgusting to have to resort to pointing out how immoral and how dangerous much of Christianity and Islaam are.

I deeply long for the day when that is not necessary. But there is a responsibility to beliefs, and there is a duty not to be passive accomplices of those who weaponize and corrupt their own beliefs.

Interdependent Origination, you know.

 

[charlie sc]

I speculate this is because those Muslims who drink, even if infrequently, are the religious doubters, whereas this would not indicate religious doubt in Christianity. Remember your other study from another thread measuring the criminality of religious doubters?

Yeah good observation. I didn’t even think about that

 

[sooda]

Yeah good observation. I didn’t even think about that

How many people did they interview in Saudi Arabia and how long were they there? I'd also be curious about their methodology in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iran and Iraq.

 

[LuisDantas]

I find it to be incorrect, because no matter if it is a Muslim or Christian, it is the human being who does the criminal act, not the religion.
It would be much better if it did not say anything about what religion these people have.

Let it be known that I emphatically disagree, and I very much wish you reconsider.

It is dangerous and probably immoral to insist on the path that you are encouraging.

Religion does not do criminality, only people do. and if they do criminality they should not be seen as religious I the first place.

Indeed.

Which is exactly why we should not hesitated to point out that there is a huge need for challenging the claims of certain doctrines of being of a religious nature.

 

[charlie sc]

How many samples did they have in this "study"?

The two measuring criminality, combined, over 17k

 

[Spirit of Light]

Let it be known that I emphatically disagree, and I very much wish you reconsider.

It is dangerous and probably immoral to insist on the path that you are encouraging.


Indeed.

Which is exactly why we should not hesitated to point out that there is a huge need for challenging the claims of certain doctrines of being of a religious nature.

I do not say people must follow the same path as me, far from it, i support all religions and the people who follow it the way it was supposed to be followed.
But what i say is that if there is nonbelievers, why should they make the critique of a religion they do not follow themselves? Of course, they can point out people who do wrong within a religion, but then they would maybe get a better answer if they contacted that person, instead of making all religion and its followers to be bad religions and people.

 

[sooda]

The two measuring criminality, combined, over 17k

Where is the link?

 

[LuisDantas]

Researches in Muslim communities, unfortunately, tend to have very unreliable results for various reasons.

Not least among them the existence of a formally established concept of Shirk and the very widespread, unashamed teaching that the reputation of Islaam itself should be protected at the expense of both truth and the well-being of actual Muslims.

The end result is a very well documented reluctance to admit the actual facts, or even hypotheticals, that might reflect badly on Islaam or Muslims. It seems to develop into full-blown attachment to fiction and full delusions very often, even.

 

[sooda]

Researches in Muslim communities, unfortunately, tend to have very unreliable results for various reasons.

Not least among them the existence of a formally established concept of Shirk and the very widespread, unashamed teaching that the reputation of Islaam itself should be protected at the expense of both truth and the well-being of actual Muslims.

The end result is a very well documented reluctance to admit the actual facts, or even hypotheticals, that might reflect badly on Islaam or Muslims. It seems to develop into full-blown attachment to fiction and full delusions very often, even.

How many did they interview in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[charlie sc]

Studies in America show a higher rate of violent crime (per capita) in bible belt states,
View attachment 30206
And

Misinformation and Facts about Secularism and Religion

they also account for higher drug abuse rates.

Every so often someone puts a freedom of information request to the prison service in the US. They show a higher percentage of christian inmates than the general population and a lower percentage of non christian inmates than the general population.

Yes, I think this is explainable from my last post. Low religiosity in Christianity tends to associate more with crime. I don't think it's religion causing people to commit more crime, but it's obviously not helping, or even making things worse, if someone haphazardly believes.

 

[LuisDantas]

I do not say people must follow the same path as me, far from it, i support all religions and the people who follow it the way it was supposed to be followed.

Then maybe you should not try to curb fair (to say nothing of necessary) criticism of destructive beliefs? I just don't see how you can easily avoid falling into hypocrisy otherwise.

But what i say is that if there is nonbelievers, why should they make the critique of a religion they do not follow themselves?

Mostly because we live in the same world and are subject to interdependent origination with the believers.

Really, it is no deep mystery or anything. Maybe I am missing something?

If anything, there is a moral and, yes, religious duty to make our part in weeding out corrupted beliefs in order to preserve and heal religion - and even and perhaps above all prestiged pseudo-religion.

Of course, they can point out people who do wrong within a religion, but then they would maybe get a better answer if they contacted that person, instead of making all religion and its followers to be bad religions and people.

Yes, that may happen on occasion. But there is no wisdom in failing to realize that such will not always be the case.

 

[charlie sc]

How many did they interview in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan?

I gave 3 in the OP. They're all open source.

edit* sorry I misread your post. I don't have my glasses on Ah, ummm, I'll take a look. Though research is lacking in this field outside these studies for Muslims.

 

[LuisDantas]

How many did they interview in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan?

I have no idea. Then again, I do not particularly expect that to make the numbers appear better for Islaam.

Quite on the contrary, actually, if the research methods can be made to work unhindered.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, I think this is explainable from my last post. Low religiosity in Christianity tends to associate more with crime. I don't think it's religion causing people to commit more crime, but it's obviously not helping, or even making things worse, if someone haphazardly believes.

I dont see it, bible belt states are renowned for the high religiosity.

Edit : or so religious folk would have us believe

 

[sooda]

I gave 3 in the OP. They're all open source.

Did they interview Christians in U.S. prisons?

 

[charlie sc]

Did they interview Christians in U.S. prisons?

No. From the last study in the OP, they took and analysed the data from Pew Research Centre. Pew Research Centre that performed face to face interviews. The first two were performed by them using students.

 

[sooda]

No. From the last study in the OP, they took and analysed the data from Pew Research Centre. Pew Research Centre performed face to face interviews. The first two were performed by them using students.

Makes no sense to me.

 

[charlie sc]

Makes no sense to me.

The last study in the OP measured attitudes towards extreme violence. The first two measured criminality. They all found some correlation with either extreme violence or criminality vs religiosity. If religion had no part in it, then there would be no correlation. To be fair, these are correlation studies so they cannot demonstrate a cause and the research extremely lacking. There are many limitations, but not enough to negate that some kind of association is going on.

 

[Augustus]

I understand that religion does not do criminality and people do, but people are influenced by ideas, rituals, social circles, society, etc. As an example, after WW2, Milgram was curious why soldiers in the Nazi army could do unspeakable things and many said, in their trial, they were ordered to but didn't want to(as I recall). So, he designed an experiment to see just how much people have be influenced by authority figures(this type of study is not allowed anymore). He was told by experts that only a few psychopaths would choose to hurt someone or kill someone if they were told to by an authority figure. He did it anyway and found quite a few people were willing, or unwilling but did it anyway, to kill someone if an authority figure told them to even though they didn't want to. So, to say just people kill people is somewhat lacking in complexity, because human behaviour is quite complex and fallible.
This is why the sciences are so important. We can understand our behaviour and how it relates to everything else. Let's not think knowledge is burdensome

The findings of this experiment are rejected by many scientists these days.

For example, a more recent study (link) that analysed the interviews of participants in the experiment found that most of those who followed the orders did so under the assumption that they weren't actually causing any real harm.

Another study (SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals) showed that people were more likely to apply a higher voltage if politely asked to continue after questioning the directive. The more 'authoritarian' the message, the more likely they were to continue to resist. As such, they questioned whether or not obedience to authority was what was really being studied.

 

[sooda]

The last study in the OP measured attitudes towards extreme violence. The first two measured criminality. They all found some correlation with either extreme violence or criminality vs religiosity. If religion had no part in it, then there would be no correlation. To be fair, these are correlation studies so they cannot demonstrate a cause and the research extremely lacking. There are many limitations, but not enough to negate that some kind of association is going on.

Well, I have lived in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Libya and there was very little crime. I could go to the souks at night unaccompanied without fear.