Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is very nice to hear, Vizio. That's actual literal good news, when someone actually literally does something good for someone else. I wish that man all the luck and a healthy life.
In yet ANOTHER story of good deeds, a Christian pastor recently did something nice for his community. He took his neighbor (non church-goer) to a detox center 90 minutes away where he was able to get sober. 6 months later, the man is still sober and very grateful for the help received.
When a religious man does a morally good act, atheists come back and say, "You don't have to be religious to do a morally good act"
But when a wolf in the sheep's skin type of a pastor does an evil deed (for which, he WILL face consequences on the judgement day - regardless of whether he was brought under the weight of local laws or not), Atheists immediately point to religion, citing it as if it's the religion that forces him to rape.
Sarcastic enough, Atheists won't say, "You don't have to be a religious pastor to be a pedophile, a murder, a rapist, a thief etc.
Why don't the Atheists visit prisons and see how many serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, murders, theives, burglers and many many convicted criminals are church pastors who who were inspired by the bible to do all those evil acts?
Fact of the matter is, No Religion tells its followers to do bad and evil things.
It's each individual who brings whatever he has to the religion.
But when a wolf in the sheep's skin type of a pastor does an evil deed (for which, he WILL face consequences on the judgement day - regardless of whether he was brought under the weight of local laws or not), Atheists immediately point to religion, citing it as if it's the religion that forces him to rape.
That is your narrative and perception evidently but it is not reality and it is not justified. I have never seen anyone here claim that religion forces a spiritual leader to rape.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Sarcastic enough, Atheists won't say, "You don't have to be a religious pastor to be a pedophile, a murder, a rapist, a thief etc.
Another instance of bearing false witness. No such claim is or ever has been made.
Of COURSE there are areligious rapists, etc.
That is not the point. The point is that religious people make extraordinary claims of an authoritative and superior morality, then fail to demonstrate it in practice. And then, often, can be shown to be offering forgiveness and mercy to the perpetrators of truly heinous crimes against children, while ignoring and sometimes even blaming the victims.
NONE of this is unique to religion; that is not the point.
If you make no special moral claims for your belief-system, then we have no particular issue with you on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Why don't the Atheists visit prisons and see how many serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, murders, theives, burglers and many many convicted criminals are church pastors who who were inspired by the bible to do all those evil acts?
It sounds like you are begging the question. Can you demonstrate evidence that Christians are under-represented in prison populations? You know that you can't. The fact is that they are mildly OVER represented. And atheists are somewhat under-represented -- by most of the numbers I have seen in recent years. I don't put much stock in those weak associations, but I certainly am not seeing a statistically significant superior moral outcome for those who claim superior morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Fact of the matter is, No Religion tells its followers to do bad and evil things.
It's each individual who brings whatever he has to the religion.
True enough that I won't dispute it as such. Officially, on paper, to my knowledge, no religion of any consequence or following overtly instructs its people to do harmful things, with the exception of Scientology. Although you can certainly find some adherents to your religion and to Christianity for example who INTERPRET justifications for doing harmful things to others, up to an including killing unbelievers.
On the other hand ... we have examples right here on this forum of religious people advocating for marriage inequality, government meddling in the personal decisions women make about their own bodies, teaching children to fear eternal punishment in hell, and any number of things that people of good conscience decry as either outright immoral or controlling and impertinent and fascistic to attempt to impose on others.
When a religious man does a morally good act, atheists come back and say, "You don't have to be religious to do a morally good act"
A whole bunch of athesits, or non-Christians, anyway (why do some Christians here think every non-Christian is an atheist?), just congratulated Vizio and told him he had done a good thing.
That's terrible and serious, do you have a link to this story?
It's all the more shocking for its rarity, as, AFAIK, a considerably secure numeric majority of sex offenders self report as having been, and currently being lifelong Christians. Let me know if you need that link, I'm on my Kindle right now.
How about a per capita response? What rate of those that say they have no religious affiliation versus those that do claim to be devout believers offend?
It would stand to reason that if 80% of the populace self-identifies as religious that MOST of the criminal offenses would be committed by that 4/5 of the people. Of course, that title in itself does nothing to indicate if their faith is actually important to them.
When a religious man does a morally good act, atheists come back and say, "You don't have to be religious to do a morally good act"
But when a wolf in the sheep's skin type of a pastor does an evil deed (for which, he WILL face consequences on the judgement day - regardless of whether he was brought under the weight of local laws or not), Atheists immediately point to religion, citing it as if it's the religion that forces him to rape.
Sarcastic enough, Atheists won't say, "You don't have to be a religious pastor to be a pedophile, a murder, a rapist, a thief etc.
Why don't the Atheists visit prisons and see how many serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, murders, theives, burglers and many many convicted criminals are church pastors who who were inspired by the bible to do all those evil acts?
Fact of the matter is, No Religion tells its followers to do bad and evil things.
It's each individual who brings whatever he has to the religion.
I am an atheist and I will clearly state you do not have to be religious to be a rapist, murderer or child abuser. The flip side is that atheists can be moral upstanding people. If you cannot except the latter sentence that would be 9n you. The problem with religions leaders who commit these crimes is two fold, first they are looked upon as moral leaders in their communities and secondary too often their supporters either cover up or minimize the incident. That is what is wrong and what Cupper keeps harping on.
My neighbor goes to church every week. If he was to rape or murder someone, yes I think it was terrible but I would never claim that it was a Christian, I would just say it was a person. Now if he was a priest or pastor I might sat do.
I would say that atheists are much more careful of claiming some Christians whereas some Christians such as Jeff place all atheists responsible for each and every thing that some other atheists had done.
On a personal note, I may not agree with many of your views but you do express them for the most part in a fairly civil and informed manner. Unlike a few of the religious posters who are in the minority .
How about a per capita response? What rate of those that say they have no religious affiliation versus those that do claim to be devout believers offend?
It would stand to reason that if 80% of the populace self-identifies as religious that MOST of the criminal offenses would be committed by that 4/5 of the people. Of course, that title in itself does nothing to indicate if their faith is actually important to them.
I don't believe it gave a per capita, no.
However, the religious sex offenders had more sex crimes per offender than the non-religious sex offenders.
So imagine that. 80% of the people commit more of the crimes. Wow!
I edited; don't know if the added information will help you or not.
The religious sex offenders were much more likely to have more than one sex offense than the non-religious sex offenders. That isn't a per capita per se (as I understand your request) but it does show more sex crimes per individual for the more religious (rather than just "lots of people are religious plus lots of people commit crimes" which would really just be a numbers game), so that's one more piece of information...again, if you're curious.
As far as crimes that were not sex-based I think religious and non-religious were equal. It's on the sex crimes specifically that, per individual, the religious commuted more crimes, again, per person.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
