Are Religeous People More Moral?

[Webbeardthepirate]

Penn Jillette of magic duo Penn and Teller has a radio show. Clips are availble on the internet each day from http://penn.freefm.com/ Penn Jillette is an avowed athiest and enemy of all that is humbug, which is why they often take delight in showing how their tricks are done. In a recent clip they sited the following statistics from a 1997 survey of prisoners in american prisons. Bad people who go caught being bad and are now paying for their badness. Remember, any crime witha senatnce of less then a year is served in Jail, not prison, so these are people who have broken some serious commandments beyond just not keeping the sabath holy.

75,000 prisoners
29,267 Catholics
26,162 Protostants
5,400 Muslims
1,300 Jews
1,093 Pentecostal
882 Budhists
665 Jahova's Witnesses
298 Mormons
and how many Athiests?
156 out of a population of 75,000 prisoners, in prison.
(0.2% if you are, like me, math impaired)

While 60% of professional Scientists are Athiests and something like 90% of Nobel Prize winners are Athiests.

"Follow the Pattern," says Penn Jillette, "Follow the pattern."

Who has the moral high ground now? Well? Looks like you don't need religeon to not do horrible things after all. The numbers are pretty, if you'll pardon the expresssion, damning.

Discuss...

[Charlotte]

Ok right now all you're doing is throwing this is religious people's faces that they aren't so perfect. Well it's a sterotype that all religious people look down on athiests or other practices of faith and they consider themselves perfect.

But this is very good evidence to present to those religious people that do look down on other faiths, including atheism. These statistics do prove that anyone from any religious background goes to jail, but it's common knowledge. I'm really not sure what the point these radio hosts were making except childishly saying that their beliefs is better and to shove a bunch of numbers to religious people's faces. All this shows is these radio hosts' ignorance. No one has the "higher ground." Anyone, religious or not, that says they do is just closed-minded and sterotypical.

[Webbeardthepirate]

all you're doing is throwing this is religious people's faces that they aren't so perfect
Yes, yes I am.

As for no one having the higher ground, I'm putting forward the thesis that Athiests have a better claim to the moral high ground than religeous people. Everything that isn't Atheism is a religeon incednetly. I find it disheartening that you would lump Atheism with "other faiths." Atheism is no faith at all, replacing credence with incredulity and skepticism. If there were no religeons there wouldn't even be a word for Atheism.

This particular argument by magician Penn Jillette is that religeon appears to be no aid to morality, rendering religeon redundant to leading a moral life. And having had the "morality is religeon" line thrown in my face as many times as I have, I do take great delight in the opportunity to throw it back.

[Charlotte]

Atheism is interesting, I'm sure others have thought this, but atheism is supposedly non-belief in God ... but I feel it is in fact a belief that there is no God. It's not existentialism or surrealism (the idea that the Universe is benignly indifferent to humans; life; its process etc, and completely irrational), it is a fervent belief that there is no God. Which makes it faith all the same.

The only point you've made is that anyone of any religion can go to jail, which is common knowledge. Just because you're labeled as something, doesnt mean you're better or worst. This evidence isnt solid. These are just 75,000 prisoners. These 75,000 prisioners could be in a region where atheism isnt popular, so of course it would appear to be the smaller amount. As of 2000, atheist take out 0.4% of the USA population, so thats how its seemed that they have less people in prison.

As I said, a very flawed argument with bad evidence. All these radio hosts did (or whoever) did was make a statistic that would appear in their favor.

[krzwis]

Its one thing to follow a religion its another to treat it seriosly.

Alot of people i know in my school who say "oh...i'm christian" use that to hide behind.
Just ask them: do they go to church every week? do they pray daily? do they like church? do they tithe? can you honestly say you enjoy religion and can you honestly say you have a close relationship with god?

Alot will think about those and probably anser no...even though it is a christian's DUTY to follow those rules of life. But many don't because they make up the excuse "oh...but i'm tired" "oh...but i don't have time" "oh but why?"

The word christian means someone who follows christ...someone who walks like him....someone who attempts to mimic his life.

But some don't.


Religion does not cause crime...people cause crime...remember those excuses that people use about going to church? Those are excuses people give for many things.



I am Christian and i'm proud of it....i live by god and jesus and I don't care a rats ass what other people think. Call me stupid, call me silly but its my faith and I live by it.

Other people may use it to hide thier activites and commit crimes any day...but let me tell you this...they aren't really christians if they do that.

[Charlotte]

The data came from Denise Golumbaski, who was a Research Analyst for the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The data was compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997.

Catholic 29,267 31.432%
Protestant 26,162 28.097%
None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%
Muslim 5,435 5.837%
American Indian 2,408 2.586%
Nation of Islam 1,734 1.862%
Rastafarian 1,485 1.595%
Jewish 1,325 1.423%
Church of Christ 1,303 1.399%
Pentecostal 1,093 1.174%
Moorish 1,066 1.145%
Buddhist 882 0.947%
Jehovah's Witnesses 665 0.714%
Adventist 621 0.667%
Eastern Orthodox 375 0.403%
Latter-day Saints 298 0.320%
Scientology 190 0.204%
Hindu 119 0.128%
Santeria 117 0.126%
Sikh 14 0.015%
Baha'i 9 0.010%
ISKCON 7 0.008%
-------------------- ------ --------
Total 93,112 100.000%


The table didnt copy right, but the data is still visable. The first number is the amount of prisonors of that religion out of 93,112 and the second number is the percentage.

[AC.wAkeBoArDin.06]

Wow..... someone just got owned haha :P

[Charlotte]

None/Atheist/Unknown 18,537 19.908%



and BTW, just a reminder, atheism as of 2000 was 0.4% of the usa population, which is less in 1997 when this survery was taken, so atheism, that has such a SMALL population, is number threee on the chart.

[Webbeardthepirate]

Note that in this version, the names of a couple of religious groups remain non-standardized, and self-identified "Atheist" remains separate from "Unknown/None."

Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)

Unknown/No Answer 18381
----------------------------
Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is known.

Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody)
----------------------------
Total In Prisons 96968

You found the name, Hurray. As you see in this one the No answers were seperated from the Athiests. Clearly this is the table that was used by Penn Jillette.

If we accept your statement that athiests make up less then .2% of the total population, but in the same surve 15% refused to answer at all you'll find that this now shows the responses to be on par with the population as a whole, and that religeousness nor the lack there of isa factor in incarceration. The web artical credits Swift, the Journal of the James Randi Education Foundation for the above table.

Penn Jillette is an Athiest of the "I believe there is no God" while James Randi belongs to the "I have seen no convincing evidence of a God, but some may be forthcomming in the future," school of thought. Of course James Randi will pay US$1,000,000 to any one who provides such evidence.

So, duelling statistics at 15 paces.

Incedently Moo, these are descriptive statistics and therefor actually say nothing about causation. Got you to actually go looking for evidence though didn't I? Good work by the way, I didn't give you much to go on to find the study, Just a year and federal prisons. I'm actually relieved that it was a real study. Never trust magicians, that's what Penn Jillette says, and he should know, he is one.

[krzwis]

look...someone can "hide behind a religion" but that doesn't mean they hold it true to thier heart

those who use religion as a cloak and don't treat it seriosly are not trully part of that religion


Prison statisics have nothing to do with what faith is more violent....if you look up the statistic for world faiths you'll also find that catholics make up most of the world population, therefore the ratio between people in prisson and people following that faith has to be taken into account and not total people in prison who follow religion



all religions go against violence...if someone actully treated thier religion seriosly enough, then they wouldn't instigate violence

[advent_child]

One could argue that the reason so few athiests are in prison is because the US is made up of only about 3 to 9 % athiests (http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html)
while there are many more christians (80%) (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/beliefnet_poll_010718.html))so if there are 300 christians and 5 athiests in a society (not proportional to the percentage, only an example) then only a max of 300 christians could be jailed (or prisoned) while only a maximum of 5 atheists.
no christians are not more moral than anyone else, no good decent person thinks they are better than an entire other group of people sharing they same faith for no other reason than the faith.

[advent_child]

i voted no btw

[Webbeardthepirate]

Aztecs practiced rather brutal human sacrafice as part of their religeon so the statement "All religeons" being against violence is not correct. The Quran also tells Muslims to kill Jews who do not accept Mohamed as the prophit of allah, and Leviticus orders death by stoning for people who plant two sorts of grain next to one another. Actually attempting to contact the dead is also a crime punnishable by death. I wonder if any one has told that Medium woman on NBC. So even christians are picking and choosing from their own faith what they think is moral, rather then having morality recieved from the Word.

Muhamed before he was recognized by all arabs and lived with his followers in Medina, also told his followers to attack the caravans from mecca saying that muslims may attack the comercial interests of their enemies even if they have not themselves been attacked. Just like the World Trade Center.

[kda2011]

Bush calls himself Christian but bush kills people... So do you think their is a "Moral Christian" NO

[advent_child]

no religion contains complete morality , for one because man screws everything up in the religions interpretation and for two man shapes many aspects of religion. it is out of line completly to say that no christian is moral, just as it is out of line to say no athiest is moral. complete and total tolerance of all beliefs and damnation of hatred should be the goal of humanity. so that means no christian bashing and no athiest bashing, am i right or wrong? i mean hitler hated the jews and blamed them for several of germany's problems, he even called syphillis (sp) a "jewish disease" and his religious intolerance and biggotry lead to the murder of millions. i hope history never repeats itself

[rEpReSsIoN.?]

Aztecs practiced rather brutal human sacrafice as part of their religeon so the statement "All religeons" being against violence is not correct. The Quran also tells Muslims to kill Jews who do not accept Mohamed as the prophit of allah, and Leviticus orders death by stoning for people who plant two sorts of grain next to one another. Actually attempting to contact the dead is also a crime punnishable by death. I wonder if any one has told that Medium woman on NBC. So even christians are picking and choosing from their own faith what they think is moral, rather then having morality recieved from the Word.

Muhamed before he was recognized by all arabs and lived with his followers in Medina, also told his followers to attack the caravans from mecca saying that muslims may attack the comercial interests of their enemies even if they have not themselves been attacked. Just like the World Trade Center.

All religion at some time have believed in violence it's not just the Muslims and the others you mentioned, even though a lot of people are picking on the Muslims for a small minority of extremists

[Webbeardthepirate]

I think i picked on lots not just the muslims. I just thought that bit was interesting and explains why fundementalist muslims would be okay with murdering 3,000+ otherwise innocent people. In Islam you are allowed to attack your enemies' trade.

Jack, I hate tollerance. Its the reason I can't stand the Ba'hai. Friggen "Everybodies Right" religeon. Everybody can't be right, they hold mutually contradictory views. Its an excercize in orwellian double think. To hold two or more contradictory beliefs at the same time without concern or analysis. Thats why I love Catholics. They've spent more time working the kinks out of their religeon then any one else. They have consistantly applied logic to their faith and sought out and delt with internal inconsistancies, and have even moved on to the external ones. And they haven't stopped either, they draw on a wealth of knowledge and debate accumulated over 1700 years.

Incedntly, the current pope has nothing at all kind to say about budhists. (Who make up a very small portion of the prison population but is probably related to the fact that non christian asians are a very samll minority in this country. It's funny that there are any actually.) Buhdist introspection is at odds with Catholic emphasis on good works. The Pope doesn't think much of navel gazing. He seems to think that if the Tibetens were Catholics, they would be as free of the Chinese today as the Poles are free of the Soviets. Not in so many words mind you, but I see his point. Poland is free thanks in large part to the support of John Paul II. Tibet is not free despite the influnece of the reveered Dali Lama, who is clearly a good and educated man. Sure the conditions are quite different, but you can't argue with success either. (or can you?)

Old Ben the 16th is really fond of the Jews. He was probably instrumental in composing the papel bull that there is nothing ins scripture that says that the original covenant between God and the Jews has been in any way recinded, and that the past insistance on conversion in the middle ages was unfounded. The Jews remain Yahways chosen people. Christ is appernetly available for any one else who would like to choose God, through Holy Mother Church of course. This is Catholic Doctrin.

See, they work out the internal conflicts. Such clever people. Think what they could have done if they hadn't suppressed Discovery for a few centuries there. Still, to err is human.

"Whatever you ask of me, I shall do." John 14:14

[advent_child]

well i go back to the first question . religion does not help people be more moral than athiests. infact in a way you could call athiesm a religion based on scientific fact. i dont believe that half the crap in the bible actually happened, but i believe in god. it is completly irrational, as is ALL human behavior. If Hitler had promised to end world war two in 1942 and sign a treaty of unconditional surrender in exchange for ten children to be beaten, raped, and murdered in front of the site of the reichstag fire, winston churchill, roosevelt or stalin would not give in to those demands.the exchange of ten human lives to save millions makes perfect sense, but it is morally wrong. it is human behavior. the only people who would agree would be of altered mental state. Aside from that hitler broke near damn every treaty he signed with allied nations.

[Webbeardthepirate]

in a way you could call athiesm a religion based on scientific fact

No, not really. The universe does not require my belief or faith to carry on. The universe is indifferent to whether I beieve in a diety or not. The laws of physics do not change to accomodate my, or anyone elses world view. I don't have faith in science. Nor does science ask that i have faith in it. Science works whether you believe in it or not, and that's one of the cool things about science.

Atheism is the support of the supposition that their is no God, but is not synonymous with the scientific method. Atheism is a philosophical position. The existance of gravity is not a dispute of the existance of God. And there are things I don't understand but my default is that God had nothing to do withit until shown otherwise. The fact that I can, and occasionally do, walk on water a sign I special posses a divine nature that others don't. Walking on water is something anyone can do with a little patience and the right timing.

[kolte]

well to the real issue at hand here, morality, is different for each person, therefor nobody is more moral then anybody. I win n.n

[Webbeardthepirate]

Koler, I am shocked. I would not have taken you for a nihlist. I guess this means you take back anything you have said about the evils of big business and their heartless exploitation of the common folk.

After all, Enron CEO Ken Lay's morality is just as good as any one elses, we should give him a pat on the back for how he was able to fool investors and make pots of money for himself. After all, if his goal was to secure money to himself at all cost, then he has fulfilled his moral obligations.

Well, Until the mean old governemnt decided it was going to impose its morals on him, and hold him accountable. How terrible of them to not understand that Ken Ley is just as good as they are. :)

[Kiros]

I didn't really bother reading some of the posts, so please forgive me if I don't cover most things - I just want to get done to the bottom line(s).

Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with morality. You can say that most scientists are Atheists, but that's not proving anything about morality, although most scientists are known for their intelligence. Just for a quick example, let's take Hitler... He was a curious and - for his time - a smart man, to say the least, but was he moral? Was there a single shred of morality in his blood at any time? NO. And if you want to pull up the crap about him believing that only Christians should walk on the earth, he actually was not a Christian, himself. He was an Atheist. Oh, and you know what is even better. I thought anyone without blond hair and blue eyes should be killed, and he didn't have either. Now you see, that is a perfect example of one of your Atheist scientists, isn't it? :?

Religion also makes people strive to be whatever their religion says they should be. So really, it depends on the religion you are speaking of when you say religious people. Also, it depends on the person upholding their religion. I'm not saying religious people are more moral, however, they are not less moral. Again, for an example, let's take a look at Hitler and our own Alex (redcar). Which of them do you think has (had) good morality? Alex, of course. That's just one example, so I hope it can help you understand what I'm getting at :)

[kolte]

Hitler was moral to the nazi's. there moral code differed to other peoples. Some christians may consider Alex to me immoral because hes gay. Of course to alex, being gay, does not affect his morality, its not a facter he see's should matter, thats his morals at work. if your going to say, jake is more moral then jill, you need to determin what moral code we are talking about. If jack is a christian, and jill is a hundu, and we are looking at a christian moral scale, then juh, jack is more moral, but if we were looking at a hundi moral scale...then duh jill would be more moral. morality is defined as The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. so, cultural and ethnic variation, will affect each person's own opionion's on good and bad. therefor, christians are more moral then non christian should be use there moral scale, and non christans are more moral then christians should we use there scale. its a loose loose win win situation.

[advent_child]

Wow that's some matrix junk going on. Morality is only measured by those who think they have the right to judge and those who judge themselves. But we all agreed initially that in general, that religious people are no more moral than anyone else, then it spiraled into Hitler, Evolution and physics...should we start a new thread???


NOTE--- i was advised by an admin to change my name, so i did. this is good ole jack

[Webbeardthepirate]

When people run out of things to say, they bring up hitler. Hitler was a vegitarian, a decorated war hero, a house painter, and never drank alchohol. He was also without a shadow of a doubt, an intelectual midget. He messed up the german war effort, and supported "alternative" physics that was not corrupted by Jew Science which was filled with Jew Lies. He actually supported a theory of Oprics that implied that different wavelenghts reacted differently in the earths gravity or energy fields or whatever. It was an off shoot of Flat Earth proposals. It was believed that red light would allow the germans to photograph english ships beyond the horizon, because the round earth was a trick of jewish science, and the horizon was an illusion. Like his many other ideas that the Fuerer found so appealing, they were pure loonacy.

He wasn't a christian by the way. He saw christianity as a Jew faith, and after the Jews were eliminated he would return the German People to their proper faith as Pagons, re-embracing the worship of Odin and Thor etc. Given enough time for people to adjust of course, with support of Wagner Operas. People who clung to their christinaity would be the next to the gas chamber.

So. Don't you dare bring Hitler up again. Hitler has no place in ANY debate. He's a bad example of anything as he shared traits with so many different people some of which are even now considered virtues by some, and resorting to Hitler is the grossest appeal to emotion and irrationality. Hitler was a vegitarian. Hitler practiced Temperance. Hitler made the trains run on time (actually they didn't). Hitler was decorated for his service in world war one. Hitler was gay. Hitler had gays executed. The SS was filled with gays. Hitler hated Jews. Hitler was a Jew. It supports no point so don't ever use Hitler or allusions to Hitler, its a bad idea.

[kolte]

When people run out of things to say, they bring up hitler. Hitler was a vegitarian, a decorated war hero, a house painter, and never drank alchohol. He was also without a shadow of a doubt, an intelectual midget. He messed up the german war effort, and supported "alternative" physics that was not corrupted by Jew Science which was filled with Jew Lies. He actually supported a theory of Oprics that implied that different wavelenghts reacted differently in the earths gravity or energy fields or whatever. It was an off shoot of Flat Earth proposals. It was believed that red light would allow the germans to photograph english ships beyond the horizon, because the round earth was a trick of jewish science, and the horizon was an illusion. Like his many other ideas that the Fuerer found so appealing, they were pure loonacy.

He wasn't a christian by the way. He saw christianity as a Jew faith, and after the Jews were eliminated he would return the German People to their proper faith as Pagons, re-embracing the worship of Odin and Thor etc. Given enough time for people to adjust of course, with support of Wagner Operas. People who clung to their christinaity would be the next to the gas chamber.

So. Don't you dare bring Hitler up again. Hitler has no place in ANY debate. He's a bad example of anything as he shared traits with so many different people some of which are even now considered virtues by some, and resorting to Hitler is the grossest appeal to emotion and irrationality. Hitler was a vegitarian. Hitler practiced Temperance. Hitler made the trains run on time (actually they didn't). Hitler was decorated for his service in world war one. Hitler was gay. Hitler had gays executed. The SS was filled with gays. Hitler hated Jews. Hitler was a Jew. It supports no point so don't ever use Hitler or allusions to Hitler, its a bad idea.

not to mention he was an anti smoker and his german scientists were the fisrt to discover smoking caused cancer. but yeah.....hes not a really good example for anything, besides the fact that he was moral in german standards at the time, just slightly mad.

[Kiros]

When people run out of things to say they bring up Hitler? Is Hitler an ice-breaker or something? And is that a proven fact? Hitler killed millions of people and you say to not use him as an example. Well he is. He's a perfect example of your scientists' morality. Just because someone has a little intelligence does not mean they have a shred of morality. Remember that. Don't ever try using scientists as to show morality. That was a mistake on your part that I hope you've learned from.

And as Kolte has brought to mind, people have different aspects of morality, although I'm positive there is a balanced standard - although that might be a loose standard.

[kolte]

When people run out of things to say they bring up Hitler? Is Hitler an ice-breaker or something? And is that a proven fact? Hitler killed millions of people and you say to not use him as an example. Well he is. He's a perfect example of your scientists' morality. Just because someone has a little intelligence does not mean they have a shred of morality. Remember that. Don't ever try using scientists as to show morality. That was a mistake on your part that I hope you've learned from.

And as Kolte has brought to mind, people have different aspects of morality, although I'm positive there is a balanced standard - although that might be a loose standard.

The most balanced moral code in the world is that of democrocy. Each democratic nation, has relitivly the same laws of the land. Laws of the land are based on the morals of modern society. If we were to base our morality on the Laws of the land in the united states, it could be said that more religious people go to jail for breaking the laws of the land and thus they are less moral then non religious people who do not go to jail as often. Of course these stitistics do not paint a proper picture of the stiuation, because the majority of the united states claims to be religious, therefor we would have to do this based on percentage, and a study of this kind has not yet been conducted.

[Kiros]

Yep, just need to base it on ratios, however, this has yet to be done and I doubt that it will be done anytime soon :P

[Webbeardthepirate]

Kiros! I just get done saying not to use Hitler and you use Hitler. You don't say something that has anything to do with Hitler. He was an artist, and a bad one at that, not a scientist. And if you want an example of a murdering dictator the correct example is Stalin. Between the gulags and starvation Stalin killed 120 million of his own people. That makes him at least 20 times more evil than Hitler. 60 million from starvation due to Stalin mandated farm reforms, and 60 million from being sent to the gulags or just executed (prbably for comaplaing about how so many people were starving). He was at least 20 times more mad than hitler too. When he had the stroke that ended his life he was left slumped on a couch for a week because no one dared touch him, and he had already declared all doctors "spys for the west" so no one dared bring one in to treat him.

So Kiros, for whatever point your making there is a better example around then Hitler. Resorting to Hitler is cheap and unworthy and it happens alot during dialectic discusiions. Koler was even trying support my thesis and I still had to say something unpleasent about it. Sorry Koler, but I dislike the Hitler example so much I didn't even want it on my side of the argument. But then Kiros, you apply Hitler to the Antithesis. Are you trying to cause a brain anurism on purpose? Do you want the blood vessels in my eyes to pop from rage? My parents are going to want to know why I am shouting at my computer. Please, just find someone else to use to support your point. I can't think of any evil scientists off hand, but there must be some.

Trivia: the Only Soviet Premiers to leave office without dying or being killed were Kruchev and Gorbochov.

[kolte]

Kiros! I just get done saying not to use Hitler and you use Hitler. You don't say something that has anything to do with Hitler. He was an artist, and a bad one at that, not a scientist. And if you want an example of a murdering dictator the correct example is Stalin. Between the gulags and starvation Stalin killed 120 million of his own people. That makes him at least 20 times more evil than Hitler. 60 million from starvation due to Stalin mandated farm reforms, and 60 million from being sent to the gulags or just executed (prbably for comaplaing about how so many people were starving). He was at least 20 times more mad than hitler too. When he had the stroke that ended his life he was left slumped on a couch for a week because no one dared touch him, and he had already declared all doctors "spys for the west" so no one dared bring one in to treat him.

So Kiros, for whatever point your making there is a better example around then Hitler. Resorting to Hitler is cheap and unworthy and it happens alot during dialectic discusiions. Koler was even trying support my thesis and I still had to say something unpleasent about it. Sorry Koler, but I dislike the Hitler example so much I didn't even want it on my side of the argument. But then Kiros, you apply Hitler to the Antithesis. Are you trying to cause a brain anurism on purpose? Do you want the blood vessels in my eyes to pop from rage? My parents are going to want to know why I am shouting at my computer. Please, just find someone else to use to support your point. I can't think of any evil scientists off hand, but there must be some.

Trivia: the Only Soviet Premiers to leave office without dying or being killed were Kruchev and Gorbochov.

I believe Stalin was an Orthodox Catholic as well....so thats one point for the non religious.....and hitler was a pagon, which is a religion, another point for the non religious, oh, and all of the great wars of our time, all of them in the middle east, most of them in the roman empire, the massacre of all the native americans, all for, you guessed it, religion, OH OH OH, and you cant forget the witches of salem who were hanged on the base of religion. You know what, I think most wars, fought over religion, most massacres over religion..............you know what, all you violent religious folk, you need to through in the towl. If we are basing our moral code on the law of the land, then you loose big time, think about it. 99.9% of all our government is religious, and about 90% is corrupt! All of our money says in god we trust on it, and money is the root of all evil! Evil religion! ok ok, so now I'm cracking ill humoured jokes, so what, I still say morality is why every thing is wrong with the world, live and let live.....

[Kiros]

Webbeard, chill... Claimed to be Pagon or not, Hitler had no religious acts whatsoever, other than propaganda he had printed in the newspapers :? And no, he wasn't a scientist, but he believed in scientific acts, such as neural study on a live, human specimen - hmmm, how moral. Ah, and yes, a man that is peculiarly less known but slightly more evil than Hitler, himself - Stalin. However, and orthodox Catholic? That's bull. Are you trying to mock my religion or do you just hate religion so much you're not aware of it? In no way was he even Catholic - even if he was or wasn't baptized as a Catholic, he, too, had propaganda printed for everyone to read. Since Catholicism is clearly Christian and Christianity is widely accepted. And unfortunately, Kolte, people prefer money, and that is why we have capitalism. Money may lead to evil, but evil can be fought off. In fact, money, only leads to evil and is not evil itself. The evils it leads to are greed, jealousy, and theft (just a few evils anyway). So, in God we trust that we will not embrace these evils that money leads to. Unfortunately, only those that accept and love God actually trust him, so these people are not guaranteed his protection. And you know what's a shame? A lot of people - and I mean a lot - pose as Christians. It's really sad actually. They say they're Christian, but then they don't even attend church, or pray, or even love God :(

[kolte]

Webbeard, chill... Claimed to be Pagon or not, Hitler had no religious acts whatsoever, other than propaganda he had printed in the newspapers :? And no, he wasn't a scientist, but he believed in scientific acts, such as neural study on a live, human specimen - hmmm, how moral. Ah, and yes, a man that is peculiarly less known but slightly more evil than Hitler, himself - Stalin. However, and orthodox Catholic? That's bull. Are you trying to mock my religion or do you just hate religion so much you're not aware of it? In no way was he even Catholic - even if he was or wasn't baptized as a Catholic, he, too, had propaganda printed for everyone to read. Since Catholicism is clearly Christian and Christianity is widely accepted. And unfortunately, Kolte, people prefer money, and that is why we have capitalism. Money may lead to evil, but evil can be fought off. In fact, money, only leads to evil and is not evil itself. The evils it leads to are greed, jealousy, and theft (just a few evils anyway). So, in God we trust that we will not embrace these evils that money leads to. Unfortunately, only those that accept and love God actually trust him, so these people are not guaranteed his protection. And you know what's a shame? A lot of people - and I mean a lot - pose as Christians. It's really sad actually. They say they're Christian, but then they don't even attend church, or pray, or even love God :(

To your dismay Kiros, Stalin was an Orthodox Catholic. Its not a good representation of Catholicism, however, though you may dislike the man in question, you cannot deny the historical facts of his claim to Catholicism. And just because somebody believes in scientific acts, suddenly makes them atheist? When I went to public school, my science teacher was a Christian, who, my god, believed that evolution and creationism coexisted. Though I don’t agree with this, seeing as how I don’t believe in God, I still consider it a good idea that perhaps people can be open minded to. Or not.

[Kiros]

I have no dismay because I know Stalin was in no way an orthodox Catholic - not how I define orthodox anyway. If you are trying to use "Orthodox" as in meaning Eastern, then sure, he lived in the Eastern part of the world, however, he definitely did not uphold any Catholicism, nor Christianity for that matter. It's unfortunate that you have such contempt for religion that you attempt to mock it by purposing evil people actually upheld great religion, such as Catholicism. And as for Stalin, again, I cannot deny that he didn't make claims to be Catholic, but I strongly deny those claims to be true. If anything, that was a very poor opinion of his own, though probably just a lie in general. By the way, I never said that believing in scientific acts makes anyone an Atheist. Although, when they commit blasphemy of the Holy Spirit and deliberately kill people just for scientific purposes, then they are in no way Christian. That I can guarantee.

[rEpReSsIoN.?]

Religious people are no more moral than anyone else, look at scientologist they make you sell your home, give large amounts money to them, to make yourself feel better ? just to teach you about (correct me is this is not true) about 'Xenu is a galactic ruler (of the "Galactic Confederacy") who, 75 million years ago, brought billions of people to Earth, stacked them around volcanoes and blew them up with hydrogen bombs. Their souls then clustered together and stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to cause problems today.' which is all rubbish.

[advent_child]

umm marx identified religion as a weakness and an enemy to the proletariat because he felt that the workers suffered because their loyalty should be to each other, not a higher being. Stalin banned the Russian Orthodox Church and persecuted nuns and monks. He allowed it to return in WWII only as a patriotic organization, only to have it once again under attack under Kruschev's rule. Had he been catholic, he would have embraced the catholic church, not banned all religion. The Catholic church was outlawed untill 1989... and there is no such thing as orthodox catholic. Maybe u meant russian orthodox or greek orthodox? and that synopsis of scientology was totally wrong...i mean it is laughable. in scientology no one is asked to accept anything as a belief. Only what one observes to be true is true. the aim of scientology is a society without insanity (god i wish i could achieve mental health), criminals or war. (its impossible to create a utopia.)

[kolte]

Russian Orthodox is also know as Rissian Catholic or Orthodox Catholic. Look it up. And yeah, he killed em, but hell, everyone claims to be some sort or religion in power eh? Regeardless of how much they are against it.

[Shaolin]

I can't be arsed to get involved in such a fat debate. My view: Most religions are based on the beliefs of a minority of people thousands of years ago, they managed to write them down in a book.

Perhaps i could write a book of all my beliefs, preach my beliefs to others and it might become a best seller. Soon enough, millions will believe in it, and start attending a church worshiping me.

Anyway, most wars in the history of mankind have been fought over religion. Millions have been killed in the name of 'God'.....

I ask those of you that believe in religion, to question your beliefs. Don't eat them up so quickly, if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?

[advent_child]

if someone told you you decended from the gorilla would you believe it?

[Kiros]

Sweetness, Shaolin's back! :D Eh, sorry I didn't realize it until today though...

[kolte]

if someone told you you decended from the gorilla would you believe it?

Not a gorillia. But I think we both evolved from commen ansestors. We both have many of the same traits and share much of the same DNA you know.

[advent_child]

What ancestor would that be? The Theory of Common Decent states that all organisms decended from one common ancestor or ancestrial gene pool. Amoeba maybe? It all had to start with one single cell, but which cell is it? I for one would be shocked to discover that we all decended from a gigantic radioactive form of Barbara Streisand, which is completly impossible, but on topic. Whatever the truth is, it is shocking. The beauty of science is that it changes and grows. Around the time of the writing of Americas second constitutuion there was a backed study released by a university stating that if women were educated, the population of the earth would slowly decline and eventually we would become extinct because blood would rush from their uterus to their brain in order to process heavier thought, leaving them barren. Rubbish, huh?

[kolte]

What ancestor would that be? The Theory of Common Decent states that all organisms decended from one common ancestor or ancestrial gene pool. Amoeba maybe? It all had to start with one single cell, but which cell is it? I for one would be shocked to discover that we all decended from a gigantic radioactive form of Barbara Streisand, which is completly impossible, but on topic. Whatever the truth is, it is shocking. The beauty of science is that it changes and grows. Around the time of the writing of Americas second constitutuion there was a backed study released by a university stating that if women were educated, the population of the earth would slowly decline and eventually we would become extinct because blood would rush from their uterus to their brain in order to process heavier thought, leaving them barren. Rubbish, huh?

Some form of primitive apelike ansestor I imagine. Yes its true, in the beggining life was in the form of flatworms and algie, but life slowy adapted and evolved to different environments as they got bigger. Animals that lived in water and were beached eventually evolved to survive being beached and then eventually left the water while others stayed, there flippers and fins became arms and legs and there mouths became more fimiler. Some fins became wings and birds and bees evolved some became holves and others paws, depending on the terrian. Some anamials took to the trees for safty, and evolved thumbs so they oculd better grasp the trees, and this went on for billions of years till apes slowly began to walk upright, when they did, the looked into the eyes of there fellow apes and something amazing happend. They communicated. the more they communitcated the smarter they became, they evolved more upright, there genitals moved down and became longer, there feet more formitalbe for walking there heads expanded and slowly over the course of millions of years, evolved into modern man.

that or some god made us....

[advent_child]

that or some god was responsible for that

[kolte]

that or some god was responsible for that

Quite possible, I'm not protesting the possibility. But, since this debate is about the morality of Religous people, I don't know how I got so off topic...oh yes. Now then, relgious people are no more moral then non religious. If a religous person states this, they need to watch out, because thats a judgement, and depending on your relgion, judegment could make you less moral :P