Hockey Fan Forums banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
here is something i have read about recently which is interesting.....

With regard to the suggestion that religion is 'useful', as it gives us a basis for good moral values and thus governance…


Quote:
while political party affiliation in the US is not a perfect indicator of religiosity, it is no secret that the 'red states' are primarily red due to the overwhelming political influence of conservative christians. If there were a strong correlation between christian conservatism and societal health, we might see some sign of it in red-state america. We don't.

Of the 25 cities with the lowest rates of violent crime, 62% are in 'blue states' and 38% are in red.

Of the 25 most dangerous cities, 76% are in red states and 24% are in blue.

In fact, three of the five most dangerous cities in the US are in the pious state of texas.

The 12 states with the highest rate of burglary are red.

24 of the 29 states with the highest rates of theft are red.

Of the 22 states with the highest rates of murder 17 are red.
It has been noted that despite theologists and creationists alike, joining to condemn and dismiss the findings of darwinists, evolutionists and 'other scientists' as being irrelevent to considerations of the universe and 'god'; they never the less try to use scientific methods to undermine the claims made above in the quotation.

Vast amounts of money and time are spent, to find a relationship between peaceful communities with high moral standards with a preponderance of religious belief.

So far no report of such a relationship has been published.

'nuff said.

Incidentally if you wish to learn more, the quote is from 'Letter to a christian nation' by Sam Harris.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
665 Posts
Did he provide a map? It would be interesting to see if his numbers can be linked to the fact that if you compare Texas, the largest state in the US, to say...Montana. Just on sheer population they would have the most crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
i think the mentioning of the state of texas was simply coincidental, as the survey considered individual cities and it was just noted that texas had a disproportionate share of them.

in any event, the human population in this observation is represented by its fair and democratically held electorial preferences.

but FYI; of the top 10 largest US cities, state by state populations are:

new york - 8.25 million (1 city)
california - 6.04 million (3 cities) *contains 12% of the national populace
texas - 4.6 million (3 cities)
illinois - 2.8 million (1 city)
arizona - 1.5 million (1 city)
pennsylvania - 1.45 million (1 city)

(figures based on 2007 census estimates)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
This is a very poor correlation. You are comparing state election results with the crime rates of cities. Things look much different when you start looking at whether a city is red or blue. Take the example provided by Texas. The three cities referenced in the original post are Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio. In the 2004 Presiential Election the majority of the populations of these cities voted Democrat. In fact nearly 75% of the population of the city of Dallas voted for Kerry. The crime statistics are also affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita which caused many people to move from New Orleans to major cities in Texas(i.e. Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston). New Orleans can easily be considered a "blue" city as 77% of the city voted for Kerry in 2004. It is interesting to see how differently things appear when we look a the political tendencies of these dangerous cities. This is only goes to show how there are "lies, [email protected] lies, and statistics."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
hahahaaa the expression of 'lies, damned lies and statistics' is a good un and indeed is relevent to this subject. stats can be used when useful and ignored when contrary just as much as isolating one example of a given set in an effort to undermine any validity.

however, it was stated from the beginning that political preference wasn't perfect in indicating religous belief, but nevertheless this ought to suggest a least a hint of doubt, whenever someone / some authority cites the will of god as being the justification for the acts carried out.

that a theological belief fails to ensure morally sound people / judgement / actions is the point being made here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
hahahaaa the expression of 'lies, damned lies and statistics' is a good un and indeed is relevent to this subject. stats can be used when useful and ignored when contrary just as much as isolating one example of a given set in an effort to undermine any validity.

however, it was stated from the beginning that political preference wasn't perfect in indicating religous belief, but nevertheless this ought to suggest a least a hint of doubt, whenever someone / some authority cites the will of god as being the justification for the acts carried out.

that a theological belief fails to ensure morally sound people / judgement / actions is the point being made here.

Dude, your using federal election results to insinuate world views in municipalities. The fact is, everyone in texas could vote blue, half, none. That doesn't mean anything in regards to crimes in any particualr city. Furthermore, the reason the US has many of those issues, especially in places like Texas is because of the culturally engrained need for weapons because of the culturally engrained need to fear of losing something. Consume, and dangwell do everything you can to protect it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
the nonspecific appraisal of the observation is this....

religion has long been promoted as being integral to a morally upstanding community.

as such, those states with a highly religious population would presumably have a high moral standard; ie a low criminal fraternity.

with party politics being so closely coupled with religiosity, it is not unreasonable to identify the religious persuation of a state by examining the its policial representation;

traditionally, blue voters are less 'god fearing' than red. if the 'moral guidance of god' is true, then red states should have lower crime. they do not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
traditionally, blue voters are less 'god fearing' than red. if the 'moral guidance of god' is true, then red states should have lower crime. they do not.

And if you examine those "red" states with high crime rates you will find that "blue" cities have the worst crime rates. This is just another example of using statistics to create a truth.

Take for example New York City. I think that it could easily be considered a "blue" city. No Republican has won the city in a presidental election since the 1920s. Recently a study came out showing that the HIV rate in New York City was three times the national average. This could easily be used as proof that this "blue" city has no morals and is being punished by God, or it could simply mean that NYC does a better job of getting its citizens tested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
the nonspecific appraisal of the observation is this....

religion has long been promoted as being integral to a morally upstanding community.

as such, those states with a highly religious population would presumably have a high moral standard; ie a low criminal fraternity.

with party politics being so closely coupled with religiosity, it is not unreasonable to identify the religious persuation of a state by examining the its policial representation;

traditionally, blue voters are less 'god fearing' than red. if the 'moral guidance of god' is true, then red states should have lower crime. they do not.
People are people. What, did you actually think that being religious means that you never do anything wrong? People make mistakes regardless of their beliefs. The only difference "may" be, is that a religious person should acknowledge that it is in fact wrong, but then again human pride comes in. People are people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
paolo said:
It has been noted that despite theologists and creationists alike, joining to condemn and dismiss the findings of darwinists, evolutionists and 'other scientists' as being irrelevent to considerations of the universe and 'god'; they never the less try to use scientific methods to undermine the claims made above in the quotation.
Michael Behe and William Dembski are two such people who try to use science to 'prove' the existence of intelligent design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
248 Posts
here is something i have read about recently which is interesting.....

With regard to the suggestion that religion is 'useful', as it gives us a basis for good moral values and thus governance…


Quote:

It has been noted that despite theologists and creationists alike, joining to condemn and dismiss the findings of darwinists, evolutionists and 'other scientists' as being irrelevent to considerations of the universe and 'god'; they never the less try to use scientific methods to undermine the claims made above in the quotation.

Vast amounts of money and time are spent, to find a relationship between peaceful communities with high moral standards with a preponderance of religious belief.

So far no report of such a relationship has been published.

'nuff said.

Incidentally if you wish to learn more, the quote is from 'Letter to a christian nation' by Sam Harris.

The reason evolution isn't acknowledged is because at this point there is no proof. All scientists (other than some evolutionists) accept the fact that until something is proven it is in fact a theory. The only proven evolutionary theory is that species evolve within themselves, but not one species of animal, plant or otherwise had been proven to have eveolved from another. Darwin himself wouldn't even go that far. And just a side note. The odds eveolutionists gave that the world was a fluke and started by a single cell was 1 in 9 trilion.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Did he provide a map? It would be interesting to see if his numbers can be linked to the fact that if you compare Texas, the largest state in the US, to say...Montana. Just on sheer population they would have the most crime.
Alaska is the largest state bud. Pay attention in school.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Doesn't this fall into the argument you've used with me about stats and how easily they can be manipulated to show "truth"??

I will say that some of the most dangerous cities in the country are in states where liberalism and democrats are running the show. I think you're numbers are twisted, skewed and incorrect.

Why? Philadelphia is a pretty bad city with a pretty high murder rate. The entire state votes conservative other than Pittsburgh and Philly. There is enough of the population in those two cities to turn the entire state from voting conservative/republican to liberal/democrat.

Washington, DC has one of the highest murder rates in the country. It's one of the most liberal cities in the country. Add in Detroit, LA, Chicago, NYC, Cleveland, etc...also, notice that most of these cities have the most restrictive laws preventing the good, law-abiding residents to keep and bear arms for self defense. Fighting to abolish the rights guaranteed by the second amendment is a liberal/democrat agenda.

Also notice on the maps that the states with the strictest gun control and highest crime rates are states that vote Democrat. Not just the state, but look at the cities. The cities with the highest crime rates vote blue:


Look at the northeast...Baltimore, Washington, Philly, NY, Boston, the entire state of NJ...all have terrible crime issues.

Here's a map by state:


Notice California, Illinois, Wisconsin, Maryland, New Jersey, Delaware, NY, CT, etc...all have very restrictive laws regarding self defense and restrictions on firearms. Pa and Vermont are the only two states who don't have such restrictions, but still go blue with their metropolitan areas in Philly and the fact that the people of Vermont seem to favor socialism.



This issue has little to nothing to do with religion. Period.
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
Compare the voting tendencies and crime levels in various states to how the issuance of carry permits is regulated by state:



Shall issue means if there is no reason to prevent someone from having a permit, the state must issue one. May-issue is even if there is no reason preventing a person from having a permit, the state can choose whether or not to issue one on a case by case basis. No-issue and no-regulation are self-explanatory.

Note: Several states that are may-issue, but in practice are no-issue: New York, New Jersey, Maryland, California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. In several of those states, you must provide documentation and police records that your life is in danger and verifiable complaints to the police about threats, etc. must be shown. Even then, a permit may be denied and/or restricted.

Here's the last slide of 2006:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
The reason evolution isn't acknowledged is because at this point there is no proof. All scientists (other than some evolutionists) accept the fact that until something is proven it is in fact a theory. The only proven evolutionary theory is that species evolve within themselves, but not one species of animal, plant or otherwise had been proven to have eveolved from another. Darwin himself wouldn't even go that far.
the issue of proof is one of modesty. whilst theologically inclined people will tell you for absolute certainty that there is a creationist, scientists respect the semantical fact that a theory is the most probable in the majority of times to such an extent, that the theory being wrong (the null hypothesis) is highly unlikely.

if you seek to rationally dismiss the theory of evolution, it would be because you have found proof of an even greater certainty of some other theory being MORE probable.

as it stands, evolution IS the MOST probable.

incidentally, Darwin was considered to be the brilliant man that he was, as his theory was conjured up WITHOUT his knowledge of the vector by which evolution occurred. this is now known however and is called DNA.

And just a side note. The odds eveolutionists gave that the world was a fluke and started by a single cell was 1 in 9 trilion.
when you consider for how long the universe is known to have existed...

and how many stars exist...

around which the possible number of life supporting palents might orbit....

1 in 9 trillion isn't so much that we are not likely to be the only planet with life on it!
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
the issue of proof is one of modesty. whilst theologically inclined people will tell you for absolute certainty that there is a creationist, scientists respect the semantical fact that a theory is the most probable in the majority of times to such an extent, that the theory being wrong (the null hypothesis) is highly unlikely.

if you seek to rationally dismiss the theory of evolution, it would be because you have found proof of an even greater certainty of some other theory being MORE probable.

as it stands, evolution IS the MOST probable.

incidentally, Darwin was considered to be the brilliant man that he was, as his theory was conjured up WITHOUT his knowledge of the vector by which evolution occurred. this is now known however and is called DNA.



when you consider for how long the universe is known to have existed...

and how many stars exist...

around which the possible number of life supporting palents might orbit....

1 in 9 trillion isn't so much that we are not likely to be the only planet with life on it!
Speculation is what it is...we have no evidence showing that life exists elsewhere in the areas we've been able to reach/explore. That doesn't mean it's not possible, but no where that we've been able to gather data has shown any ability to support any life as we now know it.

I'm not arguing for or against your points, I'm just saying there is nothing but speculation at this point which does nothing for this discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
949 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I'm not arguing for or against your points, I'm just saying there is nothing but speculation at this point which does nothing for this discussion.
speculation it might very well be..... but with all things considered, you sure did laugh very quickly at the probability of life coming about thru sheer fluke of circumstance.

such considerations are less hysterical and simply reasonable.

do you laugh as heartily when told of other common sensical facts? what a wonderful life you lead!:bt
 

·
HF-MOTM Winner - Apr 08
Joined
·
6,349 Posts
speculation it might very well be..... but with all things considered, you sure did laugh very quickly at the probability of life coming about thru sheer fluke of circumstance.

such considerations are less hysterical and simply reasonable.

do you laugh as heartily when told of other common sensical facts? what a wonderful life you lead!:bt
It is a wonderful life. No one has shown life to exist or to have ever existed anywhere else than on this planet so far. So, for that theory the life just explodes out of nothing creating worlds like ours seems pretty limited so far to on instance...seems a little far fetched the life would just explode out of nothing only in one place in the universe. Also seems comical that we, as complex as we are, all formed from single celled organisms...seems also interesting that my house cat and my dogs also came from the same single celled organisms but they took a wrong turn somewhere down the evolutionary line and ended up as such.

It's really too bad. My dogs would have made great people. :duh
:dunno:
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top