[goMac]

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews...&article=7

I find it interesting that the right declares that this country's moral compass should be related to religion, when it seems the countries that support science over religion seem to be doing a better job of tackling social issues.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by goMac

IHS :: HNN :: God would be an atheist: Why can't we all be Japanese?

I find it interesting that the right declares that this country's moral compass should be related to religion, when it seems the countries that support science over religion seem to be doing a better job of tackling social issues.

I did a similar study back in college. Countries where Christianity is dominate have much higher divorce rates.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac

IHS :: HNN :: God would be an atheist: Why can't we all be Japanese?

I find it interesting that the right declares that this country's moral compass should be related to religion, when it seems the countries that support science over religion seem to be doing a better job of tackling social issues.

The article is, to say the least, sorely lacking. For example, while it is true that Japan -supposedly the "ideal" by this article- is not a Christian-majority nation, calling it atheist is laughably inaccurate. Talking about "social issues" when using only two of them as a barometer also fails to be remotely intellectually honest. Although it is true that the US has a problem with premature sexual activity, if we were to truly measure all of the social problems that result from it -and not just teenage pregnancy- then I can guarantee you that the author of this article would not be so keen to use Japan as the ideal.

No, this is just an atheist with an axe to grind against Christianity, and so he's trumped up some statistics and twisted them in a truly impressive manner. Nothing else of any substance here; move along.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by hyteckit

I did a similar study back in college. Countries where Christianity is dominate have much higher divorce rates.

Yeah, but they probably have higher marriage rates too.</just sayin'>

[thunderous_funker]

While its lacking in scientific clout, I do find the argument the author is making to be insteresting. As a person who grew very religious only to become an athiest later in life, I have often followed the same line of thinking that there is something fundamentally antisocial and counterproductive in the belief systems of many religions.

Its not a facet of spiritual people, per se, but of certain religions, IMO.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The article is, to say the least, sorely lacking. For example, while it is true that Japan -supposedly the "ideal" by this article- is not a Christian-majority nation, calling it atheist is laughably inaccurate. Talking about "social issues" when using only two of them as a barometer also fails to be remotely intellectually honest. Although it is true that the US has a problem with premature sexual activity, if we were to truly measure all of the social problems that result from it -and not just teenage pregnancy- then I can guarantee you that the author of this article would not be so keen to use Japan as the ideal.

Nah, suicide is way better than pregnancy.

[thunderous_funker]

Pet Peeve: why is the divorce rate often cited as an indicator of societal health? Seems to me that a certain percentage of divorce is a very healthy indicator--it means people are not staying in unhealthy, unhappy relationships!!

Show me a place with statistically zero divorce rate and I'll show you a place with all kinds of festering social problems like abuse, depression and chemical dependency.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The article is, to say the least, sorely lacking. For example, while it is true that Japan -supposedly the "ideal" by this article- is not a Christian-majority nation, calling it atheist is laughably inaccurate. Talking about "social issues" when using only two of them as a barometer also fails to be remotely intellectually honest. Although it is true that the US has a problem with premature sexual activity, if we were to truly measure all of the social problems that result from it -and not just teenage pregnancy- then I can guarantee you that the author of this article would not be so keen to use Japan as the ideal.

No, this is just an atheist with an axe to grind against Christianity, and so he's trumped up some statistics and twisted them in a truly impressive manner. Nothing else of any substance here; move along.

Eh, I don't think the article definitively proves that religion is bad, but it is what it is. For whatever reason, countries where more of the population says they believe in God tend to have more of these social problems than countries where less of the population believes in God. It could be that believing in God makes people have more problems, that having more social problems makes people believe in God more, or (almost certainly the largest reason) that there are third factors galore.

On the other hand, this does definitively prove that believing in God does not put an end to social problems, which some people frequently suggest.

But I know of no evidence that this author had an axe to grind against Christianity, and twisted statistics. That's really not fair. The study (which I remember seeing - and being discussed here - months ago) was published in a legitimate peer-reviewed journal housed at a religious college (Creighton).

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by thunderous_funker

Pet Peeve: why is the divorce rate often cited as an indicator of societal health? Seems to me that a certain percentage of divorce is a very healthy indicator--it means people are not staying in unhealthy, unhappy relationships!!

Show me a place with statistically zero divorce rate and I'll show you a place with all kinds of festering social problems like abuse, depression and chemical dependency.

Yeah. I'm a firm believer that both divorce and abortion - generally regarded as social ills - are actually signs that people, rather than governments, are controlling their destinies, which is a good thing in the long run. I wonder what other alleged social problems may actually be signs of health. Premarital sex and cohabitation? Public drunkenness? Lewd and lascivious behavior?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah. I'm a firm believer that both divorce and abortion - generally regarded as social ills - are actually signs that people, rather than governments, are controlling their destinies, which is a good thing in the long run. I wonder what other alleged social problems may actually be signs of health. Premarital sex and cohabitation? Public drunkenness? Lewd and lascivious behavior?

:clap:

Sounds like you've got quite a weekend planned. What time should we meet up?

[Big Mac]

The major reason why Americans have high rates of divorce is because American pop culture transformed and mutilated the popular perception of marriage. People do not view it as a life-long commitment, as those of the Greatest Generation (and generations previous to it) did. The decay of marriage in America has nothing to do with belief in God.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by goMac

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews...&amp;article=7

I find it interesting that the right declares that this country's moral compass should be related to religion, when it seems the countries that support science over religion seem to be doing a better job of tackling social issues.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The major reason why Americans have high rates of divorce is because American pop culture transformed and mutilated the popular perception of marriage. People do not view it as a life-long commitment, as those of the Greatest Generation (and generations previous to it) did. The decay of marriage in America has nothing to do with belief in God.

My study wasn't limited to the US, so you can't blame "American pop culture". Atheist living in the US have much lower divorce rates than Christians living in the US, so you can't blame "Amercian pop culture".

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe...

Someone is going to have to show some actual proof of that stat, because that sounds 100% ass-pulled.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Someone is going to have to show some actual proof of that stat, because that sounds 100% ass-pulled.

Nationmaster is a good source for that kind of thing. This has murder rates per capita. US = 4.2 per 100,000, the European countries on that list average to around 1 per 100,000. That's pretty close to 5 times.

Whether it has any relationship to religiosity seems doubtful, but who knows.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Millennium

No, this is just an atheist with an axe to grind against Christianity, and so he's trumped up some statistics and twisted them in a truly impressive manner. Nothing else of any substance here; move along.

You know it's one thing to be atheist. And another to hate Christianity.

The latter is someone attempting to still convince themselves.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Nationmaster is a good source for that kind of thing. This has murder rates per capita. US = 4.2 per 100,000, the European countries on that list average to around 1 per 100,000. That's pretty close to 5 times.

Whether it has any relationship to religiosity seems doubtful, but who knows.

Once again, this is a shell game. The quote is 5 times higher than Europe, not specific European countries. The US does not have 5 times the homicide rate as Europe.
(an entire continent).

Conversely, if I want to cherry pick stats, France may have 5 times the homicide rate as Delaware. How useful is that information to anyone?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Conversely, if I want to cherry pick stats, France may have 5 times the homicide rate as Delaware. How useful is that information to anyone?

Well why don't you look up the stats then big stuff? Instead of using words like "may".

[davesimondotcom]

This just proves that athiests are too lazy to commit crime and have sex. They are probably too ugly for sex too.

Hahaha

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The article is, to say the least, sorely lacking. For example, while it is true that Japan -supposedly the "ideal" by this article- is not a Christian-majority nation, calling it atheist is laughably inaccurate. Talking about "social issues" when using only two of them as a barometer also fails to be remotely intellectually honest. Although it is true that the US has a problem with premature sexual activity, if we were to truly measure all of the social problems that result from it -and not just teenage pregnancy- then I can guarantee you that the author of this article would not be so keen to use Japan as the ideal.

No, this is just an atheist with an axe to grind against Christianity, and so he's trumped up some statistics and twisted them in a truly impressive manner. Nothing else of any substance here; move along.

SO TRUE!

I could come out with a study tomorrow using the original article called "Atheist countries treat females as inferior" (or any of the social problems ailing Japan)

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

Once again, this is a shell game. The quote is 5 times higher than Europe, not specific European countries. The US does not have 5 times the homicide rate as Europe.
(an entire continent).

Conversely, if I want to cherry pick stats, France may have 5 times the homicide rate as Delaware. How useful is that information to anyone?

Huh? You said you didn't believe the "5 times" claim made in the article, so I found a source that, although it doesn't include the overall European rate, looks consistent with the "5 times" claim. At this point, if you want to continue saying this author is lying, it's up to you to find some evidence that supports your contention.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Huh? You said you didn't believe the "5 times" claim made in the article, so I found a source that, although it doesn't include the overall European rate

LOL! In other words, you didn't prove the author's claim! Find me where the overall European crime rate is five times lower than the US- what I asked someone to prove to begin with. You didn't.

looks consistent with the "5 times" claim.

No, it looks like the US has a higher homicide rate than individual nations of Europe (to be expected), which have far smaller blocks of 100,000 people to cull stats from. We've been over this shell game before.

These numbers don't compare equal numbers of people, or conditions. Look at the chart you posted. The Baltic states of Europe alone greatly offset the picture for overall Europe, just as high crime American inner cities offset the rest of the US. The shell game is to seperate the problem areas out of Europe by only looking at cherry-picked regions rather than compare 280,000,000 Europeans to an equal number of Americans (something that would actually mean something).

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Troll

Well why don't you look up the stats then big stuff? Instead of using words like "may".

It's called an example. Do try to keep up.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

It's called an example. Do try to keep up.

Well I reckon it's a bullsh!t example.

And here's the proof.

Murders/100,000
Delaware: 3.2
France: 1.7

So, try again

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Troll

Well I reckon it's a bullsh!t example.

And here's the proof.

Murders/100,000
Delaware: 3.2
France: 1.7

So, try again

6 year old stats. Delaware was 2.0 in 2004.

I didn't find any recent numbers for France, and I notice you don't source yours. It was an example, not a statement of fact, and thought it proves absolutely nothing (my point that you didn't grasp in the first place), the homicide rates aren't that far different.

And you still haven't proven that the US has five times the murder rate of Europe, because such a ridiculous stat doesn't actually exist.

In the map that goes with the source BRussel linked to, the US shows up as always, as one big convenient shade of color, as though it's all the same, for stat mongers to have their way with. Meanwhile, Europe shows up as individual nations, as it should.

But it illustrates the folly of a direct comparison between the two. No individual nation in Europe has 280,000,000 people to cull stats from. Take Europe, and compare a region containing 280,000,000 people, and the shades aren't all that far off.

The US may have a slightly higher homicide rate than a similarly populated chunk of Europe that's actually a fair comparision, but not by anything like 5 times. Also, the rates of violent crimes, rapes, and property crimes in most European nations have long equaled or surpassed the US- ours have been trending down while Europe's have been trending up.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

6 year old stats. Delaware was 2.0 in 2004.

I didn't find any recent numbers for France, and I notice you don't source yours.

Nationmaster. Given that you replied to BRussell's post citing Nationmaster, I took it that you'd read the link. 2 is bigger than 1.7 right?

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

And you still haven't proven that the US has five times the murder rate of Europe, because such a ridiculous stat doesn't actually exist.

I wasn't trying to prove that. I was simply taking issue with your statement that the crime rate in Delaware could be lower than France.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

the US shows up as always, as one big convenient shade of color, as though it's all the same, for stat mongers to have their way with. Meanwhile, Europe shows up as individual nations, as it should.

The USA is one country. Europe is not!

[Kevin]

teen pregnency

Most atheists don't care about abortions. It's hip!

So I wouldn't say teen pregnancy so much as teens actually having kids.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's hip!

Uh, ok.

[ebuddy]

I would have to say that the crime rate could possibly be a biproduct of a more free society. An unfortunate conundrum. Atheist countries may have lower crime and teen pregnancy, but interestingly, statistics show that in the US, the more religious you are, the less likely you'll be to engage crime and teen pregnancy so... are we comparing the religious to the non-religious adequately? Only if you can suggest that those committing the crimes in the US are religious. Data disagrees;

Substance Abuse

Research on 1,750 urban and rural high school students found that even after controlling for factors like parental control and support, students with no religious affiliation were vastly more likely to be underage drinkers. Among the non-religious, 98 percent of girls and 92 percent of boys were teen drinkers, and 19 percent of girls and 36 percent of boys were heavy drinkers (defined as four or more alcoholic drinks on two or more occasions each week). Among Protestants attending church at least five times per year, the comparable figures were 55 percent and 72 percent, and just 5 percent (boys and girls both) for heavy drinking.
A study of 2,048 ninth graders in Ontario found that religious behavior was the strongest single discouragement to marijuana, tobacco, and alcohol use.
A major Harvard study of inner-city youth found that those with a “strong religious orientation” were 54 percent less likely to use drugs.
A report from the Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reported that religious practice is one of the best predictors of whether a child will stay free of drugs.
Not only does religion keep people away from drugs, it often brings back to sobriety those who stumble. Carl Jung, the pioneering psychiatrist, failed to cure any chronic alcoholics despite years of therapy and eventually concluded that the only escape for serious alcoholics is “a vital spiritual experience” resulting in “huge emotional displacement and rearrangement.” Alcoholics have “a spiritual thirst for wholeness,” he wrote, that cannot be satisfied by therapy, but only by a genuine religious commitment. Recent research has drawn similar conclusions on the importance of spiritual conversion as a path out of addiction.

Sexual behavior;

A large multiple-regression analysis by Tom Smith of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center found that the most important influence by far on levels of sexual permissiveness among Americans is religiosity. Weekly church attendance sharply reduced incidences of premarital sex, and extramarital adultery after controlling for other socioeconomic factors.
Researchers at the Urban Institute and elsewhere have found that the single best indicator of delayed sexual activity and avoidance of pregnancy among inner-city teens is membership in a conservative Protestant church.
Various studies show that religious teens are two to seven times as likely to avoid sexual intercourse as non-religious teens.
Marriage rates of young men are higher, and unwed fatherhood is lower, among religious youth.

Crime;

Dozens of academic studies show that even after adjustments are made for family influence, neighborhood, race, income, and other factors, religious commitment (particularly church attendance) clearly discourages delinquency among youth.
The National Survey of Families and Households tallied adolescent behavior problems like getting into trouble with the police, being suspended from school, running away from home, or developing emotional problems that require seeing a doctor. And researchers found that in every single family type--two-parent, one-parent, married, unmarried, step families, extended families, adopted families, etc.--parental church involvement is associated with significantly fewer behavior problems.
A sampling of 46,000 sixth- through twelfth-graders showed that those who attend religious services at least once a month are only half as likely to engage in vandalism, substance abuse, drunk driving, and other problem behaviors.
Extensive research by Harvard economist Richard Freeman and associates found that, all other factors being equal, inner-city residents who go to church are 59 percent less likely to commit crimes. (Teens are also far less likely to drop out of school, and adults more likely to hold a job, if they are worshippers.)
Church attendance is a more accurate predictor of criminal behavior than whether an individual lived in public housing, grew up in a single-parent household, or had parents who received welfare.
Churchgoing is the factor that most affects who escapes urban poverty, and is associated with “substantial differences in the behavior of youth…. [It] affects allocation of time, school attendance, work activity, and the frequency of socially deviant activity,” according to a book-length study by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Investigations show that the religious are less likely to cheat on their taxes.
A survey of 24,000 magazine readers found that many admitted to serious lapses in ethical behavior--more than four out of ten had driven while intoxicated; 38 percent had cheated on their taxes; a third had deceived their best friend about something important within the previous year. Investigators found two clear patterns in these results: Younger respondents were most likely to engage in illegal or unethical behavior. And the more religious people were, the less likely they were to commit these morally questionable acts.
Inmates in prisons who make a religious commitment are less likely to return to jail after their release.
Historical studies by Christie Davies, James Q. Wilson, and others note that society-wide crime decreases often correlate with religious renewals, and that crime increases often take place when religion is falling from favor.

Another interesting comparison I'd like to see is the charitible contributions of these "atheist" countries;

Altruism

Another distinguishing characteristic of religious people, Gallup reports, is that they are “far more involved in charitable activities.” His surveys show that 46 percent of the religiously active are involved in voluntary work with poor, elderly, or sick persons, versus just 22 percent of the non-religious. Gallup also finds that “highly spiritually committed” persons “tend to be more tolerant of persons of different races and religions,” and that “they do not turn inward; rather, they are vitally concerned about the betterment of society.”

Statistics from the charitable clearinghouse Independent Sector show that among people who attend church weekly, 71 percent are volunteers of some sort, to the tune of 3.4 hours per week on average, and that they donate 3.8 percent of their income to others. The comparable figures for people who never attend church: 40 percent volunteer, giving an average of 1.6 hours per week, and 0.8 percent of their income goes to charity.
A major study done for the Girl Scouts of America found that religious youngsters are much likelier than the non-religious to avoid anti-social acts and to engage in altruistic activities. Rich kids who are religious and poor kids who are religious “have far more in common with each other” than religious and non-religious kids in the same socioeconomic group do, according to the study authors.

[Dakar]

What is considered non-religious?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews...&amp;article=7

I find it interesting that the right declares that this country's moral compass should be related to religion, when it seems the countries that support science over religion seem to be doing a better job of tackling social issues.

You're not comparing the "religious right" with the "atheist left" adequately. There are several sources of information (as provided above) that suggest the more religious you are, the less likely you'll be to engage the societal ills you've misspelled.

What you should find interesting is that the right is... well, right.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

What is considered non-religious?

good question. The separation seems to be those that are actively engaged in religion as opposed to those who either casually attend church function or not at all.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

good question. The separation seems to be those that are actively engaged in religion as opposed to those who either casually attend church function or not at all.

So unfortunately, non-religious ≠ atheist.

(And I'm not asking for an answer, but the next question is, where do you draw the line for 'casual'? Going to Church twice a month? Once a month? What if people are legitimately religious but don't think Church is a 'requirement'... this could go on and on...)

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac

IHS :: HNN :: God would be an atheist: Why can't we all be Japanese?

I find it interesting that the right declares that this country's moral compass should be related to religion, when it seems the countries that support science over religion seem to be doing a better job of tackling social issues.

1) As has been said before, places like Japan are far from being athiest.
2) I'm not sure I'd want to live in Japan. I intend on vacationing there soon though.

Originally Posted by Kevin

You know it's one thing to be atheist. And another to hate Christianity.

The latter is someone attempting to still convince themselves.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Most atheists don't care about abortions. It's hip!

So I wouldn't say teen pregnancy so much as teens actually having kids.

The masterbaiter at work again...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Dakar

So unfortunately, non-religious ≠ atheist.

(And I'm not asking for an answer, but the next question is, where do you draw the line for 'casual'? Going to Church twice a month? Once a month? What if people are legitimately religious but don't think Church is a 'requirement'... this could go on and on...)

Reading the post I submitted might be a good start to understanding the data Dakar. It seems it's not as black and white as you may want it to be. The data suggests a continuum of succession into the Church and out of crime or vise-versa. It's actually quite clear.

Truth be told, picking apart the logical fallacies of the OP could go on and on, but I suppose if you're atheist it wouldn't really behoove you to do so.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug

1) As has been said before, places like Japan are far from being athiest.

Well let's play along for a moment.

What we do know about Japan is they have a very strong sense of loyalty and duty. It's fairly likely that these virtues contribute to their notable positive statistics in spite of their non-religiousness.

In all honesty, their system probably reeks of the sort of devotion and conscience most likely found in a hard-core religious person.

Hence, their numbers.

(They do have some freaky-deeky porn, though. It's bad to repress...)

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Reading the post I submitted might be a good start to understanding the data Dakar. It seems it's not as black and white as you may want it to be. The data suggests a continuum of succession into the Church and out of crime or vise-versa. It's actually quite clear.

I did my best to skim it and gleam some info (particularly the last parts). My thinking (and completely baseless, I might add) is that there would probably a statistical distinction between atheists & the non-religious (what in reality seems to be the more casual religious), the same way as there is a statistical distinction between the highly devout and the not-so-highly.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Truth be told, picking apart the logical fallacies of the OP could go on and on, but I suppose if you're atheist it wouldn't really behoove you to do so.

Agnostic, really, and I think you'll see I'm being decently objective here.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Well let's play along for a moment.

What we do know about Japan is they have a very strong sense of loyalty and duty. It's fairly likely that these virtues contribute to their notable positive statistics in spite of their non-religiousness.

In all honesty, their system probably reeks of the sort of devotion and conscience most likely found in a hard-core religious person.

I think you're extrapolating a little too much, at both ends.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug

I think you're extrapolating a little too much, at both ends.

Like I said, I'm making the false assumption that its an atheist society, so I'm doing a bit o' work to compensate.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE

LOL! In other words, you didn't prove the author's claim! Find me where the overall European crime rate is five times lower than the US- what I asked someone to prove to begin with. You didn't.


No, it looks like the US has a higher homicide rate than individual nations of Europe (to be expected), which have far smaller blocks of 100,000 people to cull stats from. We've been over this shell game before.

These numbers don't compare equal numbers of people, or conditions. Look at the chart you posted. The Baltic states of Europe alone greatly offset the picture for overall Europe, just as high crime American inner cities offset the rest of the US. The shell game is to seperate the problem areas out of Europe by only looking at cherry-picked regions rather than compare 280,000,000 Europeans to an equal number of Americans (something that would actually mean something).

You're truly insane.

[Dakar]

I might not be reading that right, but it sounds like he's saying, "If you'd compare places in the U.S. & Europe that are similar, you'd get similar stats"

Well, duh. The point is the US & Europe aren't completely similar, right? Doesn't the US have a higher standard of living?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I would have to say that the crime rate could possibly be a biproduct of a more free society. An unfortunate conundrum. Atheist countries may have lower crime and teen pregnancy, but interestingly, statistics show that in the US, the more religious you are, the less likely you'll be to engage crime and teen pregnancy so... are we comparing the religious to the non-religious adequately? Only if you can suggest that those committing the crimes in the US are religious. Data disagrees;

I don't doubt that those statistics are mostly true. I've seen some of those before. But:

1. If I recall, the positive associations with religion work mainly when you use fairly intense measures of religiosity. If you just use self-identified "religiousness" as the measure, it mostly washes out.

2. If that is true, how do you explain the fact that more religious countries, as this article shows, and more religious regions of the US itself, have more social problems like crime and divorce and teen pregnancy. One possibility is that social problems are causing religiosity rather than the other way around: When people see lots of social problems around them, as in the American south, they are driven to religion, and when there are less social problems, as in the Northeast, religion is less appealing to them. I don't know, but there's an anomaly there.

[davesimondotcom]

I hear that atheists listen to that Rock and/or Roll music too. Bastards.

[Dakar]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

I hear that atheists listen to that Rock and/or Roll music too. Bastards.

And play the videotronic games, too! Don't forget that!

[Landos Mustache]

Big surprise. The more you tell someone not to do something the more they want to do it. ALL the people I know in very strict households (not just religious ones) always end up rebelling later on.

And as I have mentioned before my friend works at a catholic school. This same school also has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the provence.

My parents were pretty lenient so I never felt the need to rebel.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

You're not comparing the "religious right" with the "atheist left" adequately. There are several sources of information (as provided above) that suggest the more religious you are, the less likely you'll be to engage the societal ills you've misspelled.

What you should find interesting is that the right is... well, right.

So you're saying the religious teens are getting pregnant without having sex, as compared to those evil liberal teens that are having lots of sex? Wow.

Honestly, I don't think it maters how high the rate of teens having sex is as long as teen pregnancies are low. The real problem isn't the sex, it's the teen pregnancies that result from unsafe sex.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by goMac

So you're saying the religious teens are getting pregnant without having sex, as compared to those evil liberal teens that are having lots of sex? Wow.

what the? Um, read the statistics I've provided. They don't say anything about liberal teens. Check strawmen at the door. Thanx.

Honestly, I don't think it maters how high the rate of teens having sex is as long as teen pregnancies are low. The real problem isn't the sex, it's the teen pregnancies that result from unsafe sex.

Oh... and the spread of STDs.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by gomac

The real problem isn't the sex, it's the teen pregnancies that result from unsafe sex.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Oh... and the spread of STDs.

How do you get STDs while having safe sex? Wouldn't sex that results in an STD necessarily be UNsafe?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I don't doubt that those statistics are mostly true. I've seen some of those before. But:

1. If I recall, the positive associations with religion work mainly when you use fairly intense measures of religiosity. If you just use self-identified "religiousness" as the measure, it mostly washes out.

The statistics asked simply about Church attendance and seemed to use this as the gauge. Gallup does much of this polling as well and the outcomes are the same and follow a general continuum off the street, into Church. If you're saying that the only way to know one's dedication to the Church is to follow them to service, then I suppose you question polling data in general. I often do too, but my point was that what data we do have opposes the notion of the OP.

2. If that is true, how do you explain the fact that more religious countries, as this article shows, and more religious regions of the US itself, have more social problems like crime and divorce and teen pregnancy.

Interestingly, you've not cited any data to support this claim BRussell. Is this your opinion? Statistically, families that attend Church more regularly together, stay together. A Christian mantra is; "people that pray together, stay together." This is a well-known phenomena. Nevada enjoys by far the highest divorce rate and is not found in the Bible Belt, but even divorce has a demographic you've not controlled for. Per NCHS; Religion may play a role, since some of the lowest divorce rates are in northeastern states with relatively high household incomes and large numbers of Roman Catholics whose church doesn't recognize divorce. Regarding teen birth, you've not controlled for race. Hispanics according to Planned Parenthood comprise the majority (percentage) of teen births. One cannot argue that when you control by this demographic, things begin to appear a little less like you've suggested. Unfortunately, these societal ills do have a demographic. Per NCHS; the highest rate was for the District of Columbia, 80.7 per 1000, among teenagers 15-19 years.

One possibility is that social problems are causing religiosity rather than the other way around: When people see lots of social problems around them, as in the American south, they are driven to religion, and when there are less social problems, as in the Northeast, religion is less appealing to them. I don't know, but there's an anomaly there.

Another possibility is that hardcore Christians believe in "mission fields" and often go where trouble is. However, to suggest that religion is "less appealing to the Northeast" is already mistaken, but yes it is generally not understood to be in the Bible Belt. Interestingly, I think you're looking more at overall population than you are worshippers. I live in an extremely conservative State in the Midwest that is also not part of the Bible Belt, but you'd be hardpressed in accurately saying religion is "less appealing in Nebraska". The anomoly you're looking for is immigration, race, and other socioeconomic factors. Any census bureau or FBI crime stat you can avail yourself of will use socioeconomic factors for trending crime well before they'd concern themselves with "practicing Christians".

In short, the original post is entirely fallacious in my opinion which is supported by all available data when viewed with common sense.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Troll

How do you get STDs while having safe sex? Wouldn't sex that results in an STD necessarily be UNsafe?

"unsafe" means different things to different people. I believe the more accurate way of stating the above would've been; "The real problem isn't the sex, it's the teen pregnancies and STDs that result from unsafe sex."

... and now for your question; what is safe sex? If a girl is sterile and cannot become pregnant, is the sex safer?