Treating Religiosity

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Suave
Not only is there a greater percentage of criminals in the religious population. I would say that the immorality perpetuated in the religious population surpasses that perpetuated by the irreligous in terms of quality as well.

Are you saying that this isn't true?

And yes by implying that I said that religious people are more antisocial than irreligious people, you are lying.

So if you now belive that religious people do not tend to be more antisiocial than non religious people who do you propose in your theory is doing all those extra antisocial criminal acts in religious communities...  Their dogs? Pet Birds perhaps?

[AKIron]

I don't think anyone is "freaking out" here and I won't take offense if someone sneers at my "superstitious" beliefs. However, I believe my faith to be based on my rational belief in both historical and personal events. One of the greatest things about America is that everyone is free to believe or not believe as they choose.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Nash
So freaking WHAT if that's his opinion?

I feel my faith deeply... and I didn't get bothered by his post. I thought it was damned interesting. In fact, I thought it was great.

What the shreck is so wrong with someone having a different idea than you?

I can live with it....

You?

I'm fine with his diffrent opinion. I'm just expressing mine...  Should I not?  Are you not now in the post I quotedexpressing disagreement with what I said or the mptives or pretenses of how and why I said it?

Where does this concept  come from in some of you left leaning guys that somehow its inappropriate to disagree or express contrary arguments and criticisms? We see that pon this BBS a lot every time some whacky hollowood celeb says something stupid and we express our disagrerement qwith it, suddenly all you lefty guys jump in and cry thaty we vilate thir first amemend or somethinng..

Funny stuff..

[moot]

GH you need to edit you 10:58 post, it doesn't make sense.
Or you misread Suave's post.
Or you're doing it on purpose for appearance.

ciao
m.

[GRUNHERZ]

Quote the psost our times are different so 10:58 does not make sense.

[Nash]

forget it...

[Lazerus]

Originally posted by Suave
Not only is there a greater percentage of criminals in the religious population.

I would say that those people are, for the most, part not truly religious. Unless their religion supports criminal acts.

I would say that the immorality perpetuated in the religious population surpasses that perpetuated by the irreligous in terms of quality as well.

I would say that those people are, for the most, part not truly religious. Unless their religion supports immoral acts.

Are you saying that this isn't true?

And yes by implying that I said that religious people are more antisocial than irreligious people, you are lying.

Originally posted by Suave
To which I replied that the religious part of the population has allways had a higher percentage of antisocials (immorality) than the irreligious population does.

umm....


And by the way, antisocial does not equate immoral.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Nash
forget it...

Why?

Do you give up your views? Or give up trying to convince me of them?

[Shuckins]

Suave...come on...fess up...you voted for Kerry didn't ya!?

Nash...you're coming down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue.  Read what Suave said again.  He's stated that religious groups have a greater percentage of crimininals, and are more immoral, than the non-religious population.  That alone brings into question his motives for starting this thread.  

What facts, if any, do you base these statements on Suave?  What did you mean when you said these things before you didn't say them?

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Suave...come on...fess up...you voted for Kerry didn't ya!?

Nash...you're coming down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue.  Read what Suave said again.  He's stated that religious groups have a greater percentage of crimininals, and are more immoral, than the non-religious population.  That alone brings into question his motives for starting this thread.  

What facts, if any, do you base these statements on Suave?  What did you mean when you said these things before you didn't say them?

Prepare to be called a liar!

Here is Suaves position on the issue..

There are more antisocial criminal peope in religious communities than non religious, but religious people are not more likely to be criminals than non religious people.

As for me I'm guessing their dogs are comminting the crimes while these people are away at church!

[Suave]

Grunherz I can no longer believe that your misunderstanding isn't fiegned for the purpose of finding an argument. It's pointless to keep explaining things to you.

You will just misconstrue it so that you can bend it into a challange for the sake of prolonging an argument. You came to this thread as you often do as a provocature. Maybe there are threads that you participate in, in which you aren't arguing with someone, but I can't think of any.  But then I'm only interested in my agenda.

There's a saying among politicians when they're dealing with the press. "Don't answere the question you were asked, answer the question you wish you were asked."

What we see here is a case of don't argue against his postulation, argue against what you wish he pustulated.

[Suave]

I voted for Badnarik.

BTW, why is the discussion now about what motivates me?

[Nash]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Nash...you're coming down on the wrong side of the fence on this issue.  Read what Suave said again.  He's stated that religious groups have a greater percentage of crimininals, and are more immoral, than the non-religious population.  That alone brings into question his motives for starting this thread.

I dunno....

I just tend to read the posts, and respond to 'em...

Some are cool, some funny, some interesting, some inflammitory.... and some, like Drippy's, a waste of bandwidth.

The only thing I'm getting here is that I feel very connected, spiritualy, and I am in no sense religious.
And I'm quite content with what Suave posted.

It's curious to me why the religious folks are up in arms about it... but, it's kinda like that deal where you make your own bed...

If yer truly at peace with yourself, have awareness, and trust in God, then these sorts of interpretations should only fascinate you.

If your faith is not in God, but in words on paper, then I could see why any challenge to them would be upsetting.

It's understandable.

[Suave]

Lazerus can you think of something that is immoral that is not antisocial and vice versa?

Basically immorality as I see it is doing something that hurts others, yourself, or society.

And you might say that they are not truely religious, but what matters is that they identify themselves as religious. Barring any deliberate imposters, would you accept this definition of religious ?

[GRUNHERZ]

Your basic argument is flawed. You cant say that greater precentage of religius are anticosial immoral criminals than non religious but then suggest that you dont belive that religious people are more likely to be criminals or are more criminal, antisocial immoral etc.

For asrguments sake if 50% of group A people have commited crimes and only 30% of group B have commited crimes then simple math and probabilty shows that group A people are more likely to be criminals.

And also since crimes are not random events, meaning they are motiviated by human thought you also cant say that yoiu dont belive religious people on average have more prevelance of antisocial criminal tendencies.

There is no misunderstanding.  Your views are perfectly clear to everyone, yoiu belive that religious people commit more crimes and are more criminal, immoral, antisocial etc on average than non religius peole.

So thats why I question your motives when you introduce articles that suggest reloigious thought could be linked to a menbtal illness or other abberation...