Hello, Anyone interested in a debate?

[nihilistcat]

Well, let's see. Nestor was asking you if there was to be found a more compelling argument beyond the first ten pages, to which you responded by talking about the generosity of your thread. That is the direct context of the exchange. Maybe you chose the word "magnanimous" where "magnitude" would have served more appropriately?

Magnanimity was the word i was going for.  I was trying to say my overt goodness would convince him as a sarcastic response to his sarcastic comment.

Though I have made the mistake before of confusing magnanimity with magnitude.

---

Well, I do have a simple question (considering we're talking about the need for a deity to instill or incentivize morality).

Atheists are the least represented group in our prison population, and this is a proportional statement e.g. atheists only make up ~0.07% of our prison population, while comprising anywhere between 2.4 and 8% of the overall population (I'm fine with assuming the low number for the purposes of this thread). For comparison, Catholics make up ~24% of our prison population, while they only make up 22% of our overall population (and the percentage of protestants in our prisons is similarly consistent with their representation in the overall population). These numbers are taken from studies that used numbers from the US Department of Justice.

There are certainly some valid problems that we can find with these numbers, the most profound being the impact of institutional racism on the prison population.

However, even when we adjust the numbers to account for racial disparities, the percentage of atheists in prison (relative to the overall population of atheists) is still far lower than any other group (particularly Catholics and protestants). 

Likewise, atheists are the most educated segment of the population, they get divorced less, they're less likely to suffer from substance abuse issues, less likely to become pregnant as a teen, etc. Indeed, in virtually every metric that we commonly associate with "morality" ... atheists outperform the general population (again, particularly the Christian population). Even when we look at materialism, atheists tend to be far more left wing than the general population (your Pope Francis was a latecomer to our party), they're more likely to support taxation of wealth and public spending on social welfare programs, etc. 

So my question is ... what is it about atheism (in the context of the United States at least) that makes one "more moral" when compared to those who claim affiliation with the Christian faith? My hypothesis is selection bias (though I have no data to back it up). However, we might look at these numbers in the opposite way e.g. is it that atheism makes one more motivated to seek higher education, or does higher education make a person more predisposed to atheism? My guess is, it's the latter (although I admit, this is just anecdotal speculation). 

Without arguing all of the various assertions I have a few general responses:

1.  Based on what is expressed it may be said that atheism is practiced by those who are not in need of religion.  I have heard it said religion is a crutch and I would not deny this assertion.  Naturally a crutch is a tool to be used when needed, a hindrance when not, and may cause further injury if used improperly.  However because a small minority are not in need of a thing is not to say the majority is no longer in need of said thing or that another minority is not in need of it.

2.  What is implied by your statement is that because religion has many of the less desirable people of society as it members then religion is the cause of their undesirability does not account for how many "get" religion in the pokey and is akin to stating that AA is making alcoholics or hospitals are making people sick.  After all there are so many sick people associated with hospitals.  Nonetheless I would be remiss in saying that religion is not often used to justify conduct.  But, I think we would be mistaken in saying that devoid of religion people would not engage in that conduct.  Eliminating religion does not necessarily eliminate the conduct, though it will eliminate that particular justification.  Unfortunately any example of this (communistic societies) will be skewed by the severity of punishment for crimes by the state.  In which case it is hard to distinguish if the impact is theistical or judicial.

3.  Furthermore, I doubt many of the people who are imprisoned for some crime based the commission of said crime upon their theistic beliefs, teaching, or understanding.  Admittedly their are a few who are doing because the dog told them too.  Usually those claiming the dog or god told them to do something are rare and far between or commonly feigning insanity (with an even small few actually being insane).

4.  In regard to higher education it is the Catholic church that established the institution of higher education and has been its most ardent supporter for millennia.  It may be said that the majority of scientific, social, and political advancements in the world have been made by religious people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University#...iversities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Rom...scientists

5.  As such world history would support that theistical influence has done more to promote and advance humanity than atheistic influence.

---

Thanks for the reply. Not much to disagree with in your item one. But no, I don't necessarily blame religion for the state of the people who are attracted to religion, although, religion may be to blame in some cases. It's variable (depending on circumstances). In the case of people indoctrinated in a faith system from birth, religion has to take some part of the blame for their character (even if only a small part of the blame). If someone gravitates to religion because they're a drug addict or alcoholic, obviously we can't blame religion for their condition. Yes, many scientists (in past decades and centuries) were religious (Mendel, Newton, the list is long). But at that time virtually everyone was religious, and pioneers in science were no exception. But I don't think that says anything about anything. 

The fact that religious people have exerted a great influence over events in western history shouldn't surprise anyone (atheism, in the form we see today, is a relatively recent development, even Enlightenment philosophers like David Hume, who was accused of being an atheist, vigorously opposed that classification, the closest to atheism you had back then was deism). And pointing out that the Catholics built universities is also not very compelling. Rome built the architecture of western civilization, much of which still exists to this very day, but that doesn't mean Rome wasn't a brutal imperialistic empire, they clearly were, their accomplishments notwithstanding. 

In fact I don't even deny that religion is useful for many people (I think it's almost absurd to deny as much). Nonetheless, none of this supports the veracity of religious claims (as I suspect you're aware). And obviously it's pretty tough to argue that the teachings of Jesus (a socialist, maybe even anarchist, love filled hippy) somehow induced felons to commit the crimes for which they're imprisoned. The point is ... religion doesn't appear to be a very strong mediating factor, and thus it also seems difficult to argue that religion is somehow beneficial in terms of bestowing its adherents with morality.