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.
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.
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.
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_EuropeEvery 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_countryIt 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.
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.
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.
None.