(June 18, 2013 at 6:00 am)max-greece Wrote: As for religion I guess my real question is this:You're right, it is not unreasonable to expect that at all. The problem here is how you define morality, as well as the fact that a person who believes in the correct religion is still a human being and is just as susceptible to the same emotions of anger, sadness, fear etc. In theory what you're saying makes sense but in practice it doesn't really work, we all make mistakes regardless of what we think the correct option is.
If someone is religious (and for the sake of argument believes in the right religion) is it unreasonable for us to expect that person to be a more moral, law-abiding person than a non-believer or a believer in a wrong religion?
Further, if that is not the case - and I have seen no evidence of any religions followers being under-represented in prison - then isn't it reasonable to assume there are no right religions and that these carry no perceivable benefits?
About the morality part and its subjectivity, I don't watch porn or gamble, but people who do these things could argue that what they're doing is not immoral at all. So how can you judge religions on the morality of a religion's followers if there is no consensus between us what the moral or immoral actions are. Breaking the law is only one aspect of immorality, as well as the fact that there are many people who do immoral things without breaking any laws (such as some bankers, politicians, lawyers etc.).
