Who is more criminally dangerous: the theist or the atheist?

[Milton Platt]

I missed that. I thought he was just talking generally about cause vs correlation.

I was, thank you.....

 

[night912]

On Atheism-

1. Abiogenesis is true.
2. Pre-Biotic Evolution is true.
3. It's fine to murder babies.
4. Morality does not exist.
5. Nothing should stop gays from marrying their boy lovers.

Therefore, these feel that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself into self-replicating bits which then magically came to life.

Therefore, we are merely concomitant nimieties of the natural world having developed fairly recently on a minute speck left high and dry somewhere in a dreary and meaningless universe, doomed to oblivion one by one and certainly collectively in a relatively not too distant future.

As a world-famous proponent of this philosophy candidly expressed-
-Ted Bundy, paraphrased and rewritten by Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the National Law (Claremont Institute of the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 3–4

As such, Atheism is a threat to all who love life and choose to live morally.

In that case, weren't you glad that Ted Bundy wasn't an atheist? He would've been a lot worse if he was an atheist, but luckily we was a Jehovah Witness instead.

 

[Maximilian]

In that case, weren't you glad that Ted Bundy wasn't an atheist?

Prove it.

He would've been a lot worse if he was an atheist, but luckily we was a Jehovah Witness instead.

Where's your evidence?

 

[Milton Platt]

On Atheism-

1. Abiogenesis is true.
2. Pre-Biotic Evolution is true.
3. It's fine to murder babies.
4. Morality does not exist.
5. Nothing should stop gays from marrying their boy lovers.

Therefore, these feel that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself into self-replicating bits which then magically came to life.

Therefore, we are merely concomitant nimieties of the natural world having developed fairly recently on a minute speck left high and dry somewhere in a dreary and meaningless universe, doomed to oblivion one by one and certainly collectively in a relatively not too distant future.

As a world-famous proponent of this philosophy candidly expressed-
-Ted Bundy, paraphrased and rewritten by Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the National Law (Claremont Institute of the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 3–4

As such, Atheism is a threat to all who love life and choose to live morally.

virtually none of this has any bearing on being an atheist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods. Atheists are free to believe anything else they wish. There is no requirement to believe or disbelieve any other thing.

But in response to your enumerated points:
1. I personally believe the scientific explanation, which rests upon observation and experimentation provides the best current explanation for the origin of life.
2. . I personally believe the scientific explanation, which rests upon observation and experimentation provides the best current explanation for the diversity of life.
3. Atheists don’t murder babies
4. Secular morality exists. It is possible for a person to have morals without a god. Secular countries have been shown to have less crime that religious ones on the whole.
5. You are correct...generally speaking, atheists tend to not be bigots. Thank you for the complement and the acknowledgement that religion causes bigotry,

 

[Maximilian]

1. I personally believe the scientific explanation, which rests upon observation and experimentation provides the best current explanation for the origin of life.

And Abiogenesis is false.

 

[Maximilian]

2. . I personally believe the scientific explanation, which rests upon observation and experimentation provides the best current explanation for the diversity of life.

Which is why the GTOE is false.

 

[Maximilian]

3. Atheists don’t murder babies

Correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Danton, Lenin, Sanger, Than Shwe, Stalin, Mengele, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu, Honecker, Castro, Pol Pot, Broz Tito, Milosevic, Bonaparte and Mussolini oppressive, sadistic, democidal atheists who, collectively, murdered hundreds of millions of helpless men, women and little children?

Also, wasn't Margaret Sanger Atheist?

 

[Maximilian]

4. Secular morality exists. It is possible for a person to have morals without a god. Secular countries have been shown to have less crime that religious ones on the whole.

Irrelevant because legality is oftentimes divorced from morality. That's why, for instance, abortion and human trafficking are completely legal.

 

[Maximilian]

5. You are correct...generally speaking, atheists tend to not be bigots. Thank you for the complement and the acknowledgement that religion causes bigotry,

Are you a pedophile?

 

[Milton Platt]

Irrelevant because legality is oftentimes divorced from morality. That's why, for instance, abortion and human trafficking are completely legal.

neither abortion nor human trafficking are completely legal.
But you are right, what is moral is not necessarily what is legal and what is legal is not necessarily what is moral.
what does this have to do with anything I have posted? You failed to reference it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Are you a pedophile?

No, sorry. Not everyone has pedophilia on their mind as you do.

what does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[Milton Platt]

Prove it.




Where's your evidence?

where is yours?

 

[Maximilian]

neither abortion nor human trafficking are completely legal.
But you are right, what is moral is not necessarily what is legal and what is legal is not necessarily what is moral.
what does this have to do with anything I have posted? You failed to reference it.

If laws are not predicated on morality then holding up the obedient residents of a secular society as shining examples of morality is spurious.


What's worse, secular societies are not perforce Atheist since Secularism makes absolutely no metaphysical claims.

 

[David T]

There was no premise stated from the start of this thread discussing the problems of psychological studies. You just dismissing these studies by assertions means nothing.

With out understanding the issue does not equate to there is no issue. Address the issues first.

 

[charlie sc]

With out understanding the issue does not equate to there is no issue. Address the issues first.

You have to explain, "the issue," succinctly and comprehensively if you want me to take you seriously. If you want to state it as a fact, then you need to give references.

I'm not going to guess what's going on in your head.

 

[atanu]

I missed that. I thought he was just talking generally about cause vs correlation.

At least you acknowledge.

 

[atanu]

No, I was saying that one must not confuse correlation with causality, and My belief is that there are factors which correlate with both religiosity and criminality. There are factors which affect both, of those things. I am saying that there is most definitely correlation, because it has been shown, but causation has not.

I asked you
“Do you mean to say that you were aware that the papers were saying ‘criminality and religiosity are negatively related’?”

I do not see an honest answer.

 

[Milton Platt]

I asked you
“Do you mean to say that you were aware that the papers were saying ‘criminality and religiosity are negatively related’?”

I do not see an honest answer.

I don't know. I doubt that one is the cause of the other. I repeated my original statement , which you seem not able to comprehend. I said that there may be common factors which affect both religiosity and criminality and those produce the correlation. That would make them both related to the underlying factors, but not necessarily to each other. I don't see how that is difficult to understand.

 

[Revoltingest]

So agnostics. Damn those agnostic fence sitters I knew something was fishy about them.

Sometimes there's no fence to sit upon, ie, taking a position is not
only impossible, it's utterly irrelevant.
(Disclaimer: Weak atheist here, ie agnostic.)
To say that the existence of gods is neither provable nor disprovable
is similar to my belief about whether Harry Potter's belly button is
an innie or an outie. I take the strong position that it's unknowable.

 

[atanu]

I don't know. I doubt that one is the cause of the other. I repeated my original statement , which you seem not able to comprehend. I said that there may be common factors which affect both religiosity and criminality and those produce the correlation. That would make them both related to the underlying factors, but not necessarily to each other. I don't see how that is difficult to understand.

Can you please answer in Yes or No?

"Were you aware that the cited papers in the OP were saying ‘criminality and religiosity are negatively related’?”

I asked because in your first post you wrote as below:

I'm an atheist, but to step in here....it is very important not to confuse correlation and causation. It think that there are many common factors between increased religiosity and increased criminality including level of education, influences as a child, a person't ability to use critical thinking skills, etc. ..........

...