Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Atheists are less likely to commit a crime?

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why, you may ask?
Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged moral superiority of atheism. Here's some of the real reasons for this:
1. Rich people are less likely to commit crimes
2. More educated people are less likely to commit crimes
3. Atheists generally are wealthier
4. Atheists generally are more educated

There is a social stigma of atheists being immoral. They want to prove this wrong.

However, I can guarantee you that if the majority of society were atheistic, and the education rates and household income were the same as they are now, and there was no kind of stereotype of atheist immorality for them to be determined to prove wrong, it's probable that the crime rate would be about the same as it is now.
Also, if most theists were educated and wealthy while atheists were uneducated and poor, there'd be a high overall atheist crime rate.

What proof do I have of this, you may ask?
Well, take the Soviet Union. According to Wikipedia it had a 60% atheist population. They had a 99% literacy rate but a poor economy.
The nation did, in 1990, have a high rate of alcoholism.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...
The Soviet Union also had a high rate of corruption and theft, despite its high atheist population. It had a low murder rate, but this was due to a vigilant police force, strict gun control, and being sent to Gulag, not atheism.
http://www.photius.com...

My conclusion is that atheism does not equal a lower incarceration rate. People who are atheists are often atheists due to other factors which in turn contribute to a lower crime rate. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that atheism is morally superior just by looking at crime rates.
Thank you.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:14:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most of the time, atheists bring this kind of thing up to argue against the alleged moral superiority of religion. Our argument is that, despite the claim that religion makes people more moral, we're generally all the same when it comes to morality. Atheism provides no moral guidance. So claiming that crime would be about the same even if atheists were the majority is a knock against religion, not atheism.
EndlessVoid
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:36:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 2:05:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Why, you may ask?
Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged moral superiority of atheism. Here's some of the real reasons for this:
1. Rich people are less likely to commit crimes
2. More educated people are less likely to commit crimes
3. Atheists generally are wealthier
4. Atheists generally are more educated

There is a social stigma of atheists being immoral. They want to prove this wrong.

However, I can guarantee you that if the majority of society were atheistic, and the education rates and household income were the same as they are now, and there was no kind of stereotype of atheist immorality for them to be determined to prove wrong, it's probable that the crime rate would be about the same as it is now.
Also, if most theists were educated and wealthy while atheists were uneducated and poor, there'd be a high overall atheist crime rate.

What proof do I have of this, you may ask?
Well, take the Soviet Union. According to Wikipedia it had a 60% atheist population. They had a 99% literacy rate but a poor economy.
The nation did, in 1990, have a high rate of alcoholism.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...
The Soviet Union also had a high rate of corruption and theft, despite its high atheist population. It had a low murder rate, but this was due to a vigilant police force, strict gun control, and being sent to Gulag, not atheism.
http://www.photius.com...

My conclusion is that atheism does not equal a lower incarceration rate. People who are atheists are often atheists due to other factors which in turn contribute to a lower crime rate. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that atheism is morally superior just by looking at crime rates.
Thank you.

The crime rates are usually used in response to the alleged moral superiority of theism. Which in practice yields no net benefit. Your argument concedes that wealthy well-educated atheists have relatively low crime rates, which is already a knock on religion as it demonstrates that religion is not required for social order in principle.

To make things worse, the data you give show the crime rates to be roughly the same, irrespective of religious belief, a failure of religion to provide superior morals in practice.

Given that atheism inherently has nothing to say regarding morals (it's like a placebo which does nothing), that says a lot against theism.

IF you really wanted to show accurate trends, then you would compare atheists & theists within the same society, and within the same socio-economic classes within those same societies, and then compare the relative rates of crimes.

For example, if there are 100 atheists to 500 theists in socio-economic 'Band A', and there were 10 atheists in jail and 20 theists in jail from that same band, then you have a decent case for saying theism offers a superior societal context.

Your argument from the Soviet Union however does nothing like this, it doesn't control at all for any of the innumerable variables that could be at play, nor does it even conclude any trends. It's just an embarrassingly bad argument from yourself.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 2:42:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 2:36:19 PM, EndlessVoid wrote:
At 12/22/2014 2:05:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Why, you may ask?
Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged moral superiority of atheism. Here's some of the real reasons for this:
1. Rich people are less likely to commit crimes
2. More educated people are less likely to commit crimes
3. Atheists generally are wealthier
4. Atheists generally are more educated

There is a social stigma of atheists being immoral. They want to prove this wrong.

However, I can guarantee you that if the majority of society were atheistic, and the education rates and household income were the same as they are now, and there was no kind of stereotype of atheist immorality for them to be determined to prove wrong, it's probable that the crime rate would be about the same as it is now.
Also, if most theists were educated and wealthy while atheists were uneducated and poor, there'd be a high overall atheist crime rate.

What proof do I have of this, you may ask?
Well, take the Soviet Union. According to Wikipedia it had a 60% atheist population. They had a 99% literacy rate but a poor economy.
The nation did, in 1990, have a high rate of alcoholism.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...
The Soviet Union also had a high rate of corruption and theft, despite its high atheist population. It had a low murder rate, but this was due to a vigilant police force, strict gun control, and being sent to Gulag, not atheism.
http://www.photius.com...

My conclusion is that atheism does not equal a lower incarceration rate. People who are atheists are often atheists due to other factors which in turn contribute to a lower crime rate. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that atheism is morally superior just by looking at crime rates.
Thank you.

The crime rates are usually used in response to the alleged moral superiority of theism. Which in practice yields no net benefit. Your argument concedes that wealthy well-educated atheists have relatively low crime rates, which is already a knock on religion as it demonstrates that religion is not required for social order in principle.

To make things worse, the data you give show the crime rates to be roughly the same, irrespective of religious belief, a failure of religion to provide superior morals in practice.

Given that atheism inherently has nothing to say regarding morals (it's like a placebo which does nothing), that says a lot against theism.

IF you really wanted to show accurate trends, then you would compare atheists & theists within the same society, and within the same socio-economic classes within those same societies, and then compare the relative rates of crimes.

For example, if there are 100 atheists to 500 theists in socio-economic 'Band A', and there were 10 atheists in jail and 20 theists in jail from that same band, then you have a decent case for saying theism offers a superior societal context.

Your argument from the Soviet Union however does nothing like this, it doesn't control at all for any of the innumerable variables that could be at play, nor does it even conclude any trends. It's just an embarrassingly bad argument from yourself.

Religion doesn't do squat whenever its followers don't take it seriously, as is the case with most Christians.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
EndlessVoid
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 4:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 2:42:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/22/2014 2:36:19 PM, EndlessVoid wrote:
At 12/22/2014 2:05:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Why, you may ask?
Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged moral superiority of atheism. Here's some of the real reasons for this:
1. Rich people are less likely to commit crimes
2. More educated people are less likely to commit crimes
3. Atheists generally are wealthier
4. Atheists generally are more educated

There is a social stigma of atheists being immoral. They want to prove this wrong.

However, I can guarantee you that if the majority of society were atheistic, and the education rates and household income were the same as they are now, and there was no kind of stereotype of atheist immorality for them to be determined to prove wrong, it's probable that the crime rate would be about the same as it is now.
Also, if most theists were educated and wealthy while atheists were uneducated and poor, there'd be a high overall atheist crime rate.

What proof do I have of this, you may ask?
Well, take the Soviet Union. According to Wikipedia it had a 60% atheist population. They had a 99% literacy rate but a poor economy.
The nation did, in 1990, have a high rate of alcoholism.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...
The Soviet Union also had a high rate of corruption and theft, despite its high atheist population. It had a low murder rate, but this was due to a vigilant police force, strict gun control, and being sent to Gulag, not atheism.
http://www.photius.com...

My conclusion is that atheism does not equal a lower incarceration rate. People who are atheists are often atheists due to other factors which in turn contribute to a lower crime rate. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that atheism is morally superior just by looking at crime rates.
Thank you.

The crime rates are usually used in response to the alleged moral superiority of theism. Which in practice yields no net benefit. Your argument concedes that wealthy well-educated atheists have relatively low crime rates, which is already a knock on religion as it demonstrates that religion is not required for social order in principle.

To make things worse, the data you give show the crime rates to be roughly the same, irrespective of religious belief, a failure of religion to provide superior morals in practice.

Given that atheism inherently has nothing to say regarding morals (it's like a placebo which does nothing), that says a lot against theism.

IF you really wanted to show accurate trends, then you would compare atheists & theists within the same society, and within the same socio-economic classes within those same societies, and then compare the relative rates of crimes.

For example, if there are 100 atheists to 500 theists in socio-economic 'Band A', and there were 10 atheists in jail and 20 theists in jail from that same band, then you have a decent case for saying theism offers a superior societal context.

Your argument from the Soviet Union however does nothing like this, it doesn't control at all for any of the innumerable variables that could be at play, nor does it even conclude any trends. It's just an embarrassingly bad argument from yourself.

Religion doesn't do squat whenever its followers don't take it seriously, as is the case with most Christians.

You still lack an argument for theism providing a better moral context than non-theism. It seems that you are just committing a case of the no true Scotsman fallacy. There has been no established "takes his religion seriously" goalposts set by yourself. Even a relatively minor number of 'serious' theists (let's say, 20% of all assessed theists) would provide a significant anomaly in the data. If you have this anomaly then I would be very interested in seeing it, and just how one would classify a "serious" theist.

Seems highly subjective and nebulous to me. Thus, useless.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/22/2014 4:22:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/22/2014 4:07:24 PM, EndlessVoid wrote:
At 12/22/2014 2:42:07 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 12/22/2014 2:36:19 PM, EndlessVoid wrote:
At 12/22/2014 2:05:39 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Why, you may ask?
Well, it has absolutely nothing to do with the alleged moral superiority of atheism. Here's some of the real reasons for this:
1. Rich people are less likely to commit crimes
2. More educated people are less likely to commit crimes
3. Atheists generally are wealthier
4. Atheists generally are more educated

There is a social stigma of atheists being immoral. They want to prove this wrong.

However, I can guarantee you that if the majority of society were atheistic, and the education rates and household income were the same as they are now, and there was no kind of stereotype of atheist immorality for them to be determined to prove wrong, it's probable that the crime rate would be about the same as it is now.
Also, if most theists were educated and wealthy while atheists were uneducated and poor, there'd be a high overall atheist crime rate.

What proof do I have of this, you may ask?
Well, take the Soviet Union. According to Wikipedia it had a 60% atheist population. They had a 99% literacy rate but a poor economy.
The nation did, in 1990, have a high rate of alcoholism.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...
The Soviet Union also had a high rate of corruption and theft, despite its high atheist population. It had a low murder rate, but this was due to a vigilant police force, strict gun control, and being sent to Gulag, not atheism.
http://www.photius.com...

My conclusion is that atheism does not equal a lower incarceration rate. People who are atheists are often atheists due to other factors which in turn contribute to a lower crime rate. Thus, there is no reason to conclude that atheism is morally superior just by looking at crime rates.
Thank you.

The crime rates are usually used in response to the alleged moral superiority of theism. Which in practice yields no net benefit. Your argument concedes that wealthy well-educated atheists have relatively low crime rates, which is already a knock on religion as it demonstrates that religion is not required for social order in principle.

To make things worse, the data you give show the crime rates to be roughly the same, irrespective of religious belief, a failure of religion to provide superior morals in practice.

Given that atheism inherently has nothing to say regarding morals (it's like a placebo which does nothing), that says a lot against theism.

IF you really wanted to show accurate trends, then you would compare atheists & theists within the same society, and within the same socio-economic classes within those same societies, and then compare the relative rates of crimes.

For example, if there are 100 atheists to 500 theists in socio-economic 'Band A', and there were 10 atheists in jail and 20 theists in jail from that same band, then you have a decent case for saying theism offers a superior societal context.

Your argument from the Soviet Union however does nothing like this, it doesn't control at all for any of the innumerable variables that could be at play, nor does it even conclude any trends. It's just an embarrassingly bad argument from yourself.

Religion doesn't do squat whenever its followers don't take it seriously, as is the case with most Christians.

You still lack an argument for theism providing a better moral context than non-theism. It seems that you are just committing a case of the no true Scotsman fallacy. There has been no established "takes his religion seriously" goalposts set by yourself. Even a relatively minor number of 'serious' theists (let's say, 20% of all assessed theists) would provide a significant anomaly in the data. If you have this anomaly then I would be very interested in seeing it, and just how one would classify a "serious" theist.

Seems highly subjective and nebulous to me. Thus, useless.

Clarification of how to take your religion seriously depends on the religion. For Christianity, it means that one not only accepts God's gift of Salvation but also draws close in a relationship with God, learns to hear God's voice, and does God's will. It is to die to yourself (that is, not live the way you want, but the way God wants for you to live).
I'll be honest: I cannot seriously say that I have reached this point.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid