And according to the same list, NZ is ~50% christian, but probably only a tenth of that attend church regularly.
A better thing to say is that 78% of people SAY they are Christians. Plenty of non-Christians say they are christians when they most likely are not.

Did you really read all the data?
the website draws a correlation by combining data from the global peace index and world values survey information.
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php
http://margaux.grandvinum.se/SebTest/wvs/SebTest/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_83/files/presentation.zip

The first source does not prove anything because only a summary is given and it also says "To our knowledge, this item is not available for download." So i cannot see the whole source. Your sources do not have statistical data but only mention them. The one statistical data I have direct data that you can use and compute by yourself. Nobody did any generalizing. I wish to see proof of this generalization or I will claim you are begging the question.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 23 2009, 8:10 pm by MasterJohnny.

And violence is measured by capita. Which is ratio. Which is unaffected by population levels.

You neglect that fact that ratios often do not hold true at certain population levels. Therefore, population levels are relevant.

For example, they say that 1/3 college students have an STD. If I am in a study group with 2 other people, there is not a 100% chance that 1 of them has an STD.

I think your forgetting an important concept in statistics which is the Law of large numbers. Probabilities do not work unless you use numbers in a large case.

All those small countries have low populations, which inhibits crime more than atheism. NZ has 4mil. people, the US has like 300mil. People act differently in NZ because of this and cultural reasons, rather than atheism.

It doesn't matter in this context. It matters that more people say they are Christian than people who do not. In which case, a survey of religious background ratio and crime rates could be distorted, and be faulty.
Then it also supports the fact that there is no actual relationship between the two.

Um, yes. You did. You cannot go from Christianity to Religion because Religion is broader than 'Christianity'. It is the use of words that are important in these kind of discussion, otherwise not fit for any kind of discussion.
Also, GPI ratings have nothing in common with 'religiousity'. The GPI itself has no relevency but to correlate, I shall compare and contrast with two charts, one GPI, and a few from Wikipedia.
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings/2009/score/asc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Europe
Every nation in Europe has more religious people than non-religious people, and atheists do not exceed more than 35% at any given nation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religions_by_country
It seems like there wasn't demographics of religion chart for Oceania.
But majority of Australia and New Zealand are religious.
In fact, I have to conclude theres only more violence from religious background only because there is more religious people to begin with. Even then, I must agree with my citation before hand that religion has no effect on criminal rates.

And I've read your data. The conclusion says otherwise to your blatant 'generalization' of how religiousity relates to crime rates. If you cannot back up your cause with proper logic, then you are not fit to be here in anycase.
You are also lacking coherency, thus leading me to believe none of your arguments are interrelated.

You also forget that in this context, we are studying religiousity regarding crime rates or peacefulness. Because probabilities do not work if other factors such as environment, culture, and other etc factors aren't the same. It is one of the reason why people study by region or by country- to reduce error.

Yes...this is somewhat of a redundant point because I know that correlation DOES NOT IMPLY causation. I am just saying there is a correlation between being non-religious and having a peaceful nation. I am not saying that there are not other factors to consider.

Bedazed please find a quote of me using a generalization of religion and Christianity and post the quote because I have no idea what you are referring to.
The wikipedia chart uses data from a different source and time because it is from 2005 (The GPI is 2009) but still has some similarities. Note that Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are some of the lower religious countries.

(something to take note of when you take a statistics class) When you argue about statistical data, you are arguing for or against a correlation. It becomes a fallacy if you argue for/against causation.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on Oct 24 2009, 1:10 am by MasterJohnny.

And if there is no causation, then it isn't even worth being brought up. This is like saying it just happens that when sheeps baahhh, dogs bark. But it also just happens that they always do.

I don't have to. It is up there. You've never mentioned any religion in context, and you cannot put different religions into same categories when you're trying to compare it with different subjects. Which is why I have said you are generalizing.

And please, I have said before. Its just a coincidence, unless you can back me up with more evidence and a more extensive logical link between the two. You have said this yourself, thus compromising all of your 'arguments'.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 24 2009, 1:09 am by BeDazed.

You have to because I do not know where "up there" is? I rather like to know what exactly you are referring to because it really sounds like you are "begging the question"

Yes I am. But I don't have to answer to a person with no logical argument trying to sniff out logical fallacies. In fact, I have stated that you cannot compare different religions with other subjects due to change in factors. It seems like you are. All of your posts lack specific religion, nor does your data really match your arguments (it says alot of you. I think you're great. Compromising your arguments and all.) If you don't know what I am referring to, then it just seems like you're being childish- with the general childish prank of 'I can't hear you', close up, as if deaf.

Are you self-satisfied because you pointed out the fact that I am begging the question, but still leave many unanswered refutes? Oh well, I forgot, they were unaswerable because of the fact that your arguments rely on coincidence, and not with cause nor relevent data.

I do not have to provide specific religious data because my argument is that there is a Correlation between religion (ie belief in dogma,etc) and crime. Also you do not seem to understand that in Statistics you never try to prove/disprove causation. Fallacies in arguments weaken your position and since this is serious discussion, I think you should watch out for them. I MAY post a new claim with specific religions involved but that will take time as specific data is harder to get.

This topic is not about discussing the correlation between religious populations and crime rates. Almost every post concerning religion correlating with crime rates has been both off topic and spam. Keep things relevant to the topic, out of common courtesy to the topic starter and those actually discussing the topic at hand. Here is a little reminder of what this topic should be about:


As for this:
MasterJohnny clearly cited his sources here: http://bhascience.blogspot.com/2009/06/atheist-nations-are-more-peaceful.html

You do have a couple problems with your argument MasterJohnny. First of all, take a look at your own quote:
Here your statement is very clear. Take a look at this quote:
"In my criminology class, I learned that religion actually increases crime." Now, that is saying that religion causes crime rates to rise. When you place this sentence next to a sentence about your study, you told me that your study told you that religion causes crime rates to increase. Next time you need to word your primary claims much more carefully, if you added the word "with" after the word "increases", your statement would have been a claim to correlation instead of a claim to causation. Despite you contradicting yourself, you need to keep things on topic.

As for Bedazed, MasterJohnny never made any claims towards Christianity, you did. MasterJohnny never came anywhere near using the Ad Hominem, and neither did you. What you both successfully did though was lead this topic into an off topic discussion, and did so by engaging in a battle of who can make the last post.

I don't want to have to come back here to find another 3 pages of posts to sift through in order to try and keep things on track.

And once again, the Ad Hominem is abused and misused during off topic arguments just for the sake of sounding elegant. Now that my friends, would be more of an Ad Hominem than anything else previously called so, in this topic.

I knew it would happen.. lol

However, to follow this religion train, I'll post what I have to say...

To add to what Norm said on the previous page: If a population that had more nonreligious people than there were actual religious people the "study" would be "there is more criminals that have a nonreligious background than a religious background."

Anyway, I still don't see why this is in serious discussion lol

And I don't understand why my post was deleted for being off topic, when I said the current discussion is (ironically) off topic. Instead, this topic should be locked...

Seriously Vrael, what the hell...

If you have a problem with moderation, pm an admin, or pm the moderator giving you trouble.

I'm locking this topic since it has become more of a drain on SEN than anything.