Increase of Atheists around the world, increase of crime any coincidence?

[HarryStotle]

repentant2:

Crime isn’t on the rise, at least not in the states. Crime is at some of its lowest rates in American history.

This is correct. It is a common misconceptional myth but the statistics suggest that crime is at it’s lowest. But people much prefer to remember the good old days and villify the now.

Actually, the statistics don’t “suggest” that.

The past four years have shown an increase. See my chart from the National Crime Victimization Survey cited by @JapaneseKappa.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Violent crime has shown an increase of 1.3 million incidents since the low point in 2015.

 

[Aquinas11]

As I pointed out, the Golden Rule is universal. Should I ignore it because it was meant to have been emphasised by the Son of God?

No I don’t think you should ignore it

But that’s not the point

The point is there is no objective basis why any Atheist shouldn’t ignore it. By what standard do you say it’s “universal”?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

HarryStotle:

We aren’t speaking about you and you alone. We are speaking of atheists and believers. Your moral views are not necessarily those of every non believer. So merely because you happen to agree with Matthew 7:12 does not mean all atheists necessarily believe it to be “an excellent maxim under which we could all live.”

Besides, that doesn’t answer the question of what grounds there are for morality under atheism. You are using a Biblical text that very few atheists would accept as their grounds.

I doubt that Scripture is your grounds in any case, because you wouldn’t likely accept it as grounds for the principles you don’t agree with. So a ground that can be dispensed with at will or claimed to be a ground just to patronize others hardly functions as an actual ground.

From our experience on other threads, it is likely that you likely won’t even understand these points, so I am not sure it is worth my time engaging you again.

Not speaking to me alone?

ABOUT not TO. Read what I wrote.

What does the rest of your post have to do with what grounds there are for morality under atheism ?

As I said, there are almost universally agreed moral positions that we all hold to which help us live together. Such as the Golden Rule. Now as to what compels us to follow such rules…well maybe you could say that divine punishment is compulsion enough. But that obviously doesn’t work. From minor cases such as you being patronising to major ones such as robbery and murder.

As the figures show, there are quite a lot of people committing crimes that are Christian. We can forget the exact numbers for this point to stand. Which is that divinely mandated moral positions such as do not lie and do not steal and do not kill do not mean that people are held to them. They personally decide whether to break those rules or not.

Good people do not. Whether they are Christian or Muslim or Hindu or atheist. And bad people, whether they are Christian or Muslim or Hindu or atheist do.

We each look at moral codes and make our own decision about following them. I certainly do and so do you. So please don’t post nonsense about atheists not having any basis for morality. Moral rules exist. You and I both decide when we follow them or not. And we live by our decisions and are judged on them by those who are affected by thise decisions.

Judge not less ye be judged. Let him who is without sin etc. There’s a lot in the bible that indicates that we will be accountable in this world. Atheists and Catholics alike.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

As I pointed out, the Golden Rule is universal. Should I ignore it because it was meant to have been emphasised by the Son of God?

The point is there is no objective basis why any Atheist shouldn’t ignore it. By what standard do you say it’s “universal”?

I thought the term ‘universal’ would have explained itself. It is common across all cutures and over all recorded time.

 

[Aquinas11]

I thought the term ‘universal’ would have explained itself. It is common across all cutures and over all recorded time.

150,000,000+ corpses in merely past 100 years from Atheist Governments killing their own people (outside of war) say it’s anything but “universal”

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I thought the term ‘universal’ would have explained itself. It is common across all cutures and over all recorded time.

150,000,000+ corpses in merely past 100 years from Atheist Governments killing their own people (outside of war) say it’s anything but “universal”

There are too many examples of people ignoring moral ‘rules’. As I said, the jails are full of people professing a belief who chose to ignore them. That doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. We all make that personal decision to follow them or not. It’s because we often don’t that Jesus felt obliged to remind us of our duties to our fellow man.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So if atheism was in fact driving this data, 2015 would be a low point for atheism, right? Where is your statistic for atheism in 2015?

 

[upant]

We each look at moral codes and make our own decision about following them. I certainly do and so do you. So please don’t post nonsense about atheists not having any basis for morality. Moral rules exist. You and I both decide when we follow them or not. And we live by our decisions and are judged on them by those who are affected by thise decisions.

talk beliefs, atheism has no moral code and as Dawkins points out really can’t. the atheist can do what he/she wants but claiming atheism has a moral code would be a problem because according to atheism there is no good or evil.

 

[Aquinas11]

There are too many examples of people ignoring moral ‘rules’.

But those millions of corpses were killed as result of atheistic government rulers who were following “moral rules” , none of which Atheism can prove were wrong with any objective basis

 

[HarryStotle]

As I said, there are almost universally agreed moral positions that we all hold to which help us live together. Such as the Golden Rule.

Still missing the point.

How does atheism (AKA naturalism, materialism, no God, etc.,) imply the morality of the Golden Rule?

Theism claims an eternal Creator who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and who created each human being with eternal worth. Since all human beings have been created by that Creator and have inherent worth imparted by the will of the Creator in terms of a transcendent purpose for existence, the Golden Rule is logically derived from each human being’s inherent value imparted by the ground of Existence – Ipsum Esse Subsistens, the subsistent act of Being Itself. Worth is inherent in the nature of existence.

Materialism (atheism) claims the underlying substrate of existence is matter and nothing else. A material basis to existence – purposeless matter devoid of any moral aims cannot impart value since value isn’t a property of matter. We cannot get a moral order from a material causal one.

Ergo atheism that denies any intelligent moral purpose to the ground of existence cannot magically conjure up value from a material ground of existence.

Whether a few or many atheists think they can do so is neither here nor there. The question is one of reality.

If God exists, moral worth is integral to existence. If God does not exist and matter is all there is, moral value is a chimera.

Some might still think they have the self-declared authority to impose value on the world around them, but their only grounds for doing so is their own willfulness. To accept that as a ground for the subsistent value of people and things is tantamount to claiming the truth is what I declare it to be.

Well, if that is your argument, that hardly demonstrates inherent value in human beings. Rather, the best argument to be made is the value of others is nothing more than the value I bestow upon them. That implies if I bestow no value they have no value.

You think that is a good basis for morality?

I don’t.

 

[HarryStotle]

There are too many examples of people ignoring moral ‘rules’.

This doesn’t prove there is no objective moral order that will hold those accountable who consistently ignore moral rules.

Only reality can tell. Our imaginings mean nothing.

If you wish to hold that our imaginings are all that we have, you can do so.

That, unfortunately for you, isn’t sufficient to force actual reality to conform to your presumptions, no matter how much you insist that it does.

 

[HarryStotle]

Aquinas11:

Freddy:

So scripture is a great source for philosophical maxims.

Atheists believe Scripture is a great source?? How can the same Scripture that is God inspired be a great source to those who insist God doesn’t exist?

Not just Christian scripture. There’s a lot of knowledge out there. It would be insane to ignore it.

The problem with your point here is that this “common knowledge” regarding universal moral principles derives its commonality from universal religious beliefs – beliefs that there is a transcendent spiritual order above the physical/biological from which most religious moral beliefs come.

Merely showing universal morality doesn’t prove your point that atheists can partake in that universal morality.

In fact, they can’t because the universal moral beliefs are very much tied to what has been virtually universal religious beliefs.

Atheists are on their own because they deny all gods, all possible supernatural sources for morality.

You can’t just throw out all the spiritual beliefs that have been universally held, and arbitrarily keep one (universal moral order) pretending that atheists are in that club despite the fact that they have thrown out every possible reason for a universal morality to begin with, i.e., a supernatural realm that imparts moral order to the strictly material universe.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I made a plot! Looks like countries with more intentional homicides tend to have fewer atheists.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Data from:
Countries by irreligion
Countries by homicide rate

 

[HarryStotle]

So if atheism was in fact driving this data, 2015 would be a low point for atheism, right? Where is your statistic for atheism in 2015?

Actually, there are a number of factors.

First, there might be a “lag time” factor where individuals lose their strongly held beliefs over time, while distinct changes in behaviour might take a number of years to manifest. Decadency might require time.

For example, Gallup has a definitive rise in atheism starting in 2011 and the NCVS a notable rise in violent crime beginning in 2015. If we allow a few years of lag time between loss of belief and definitive change of behaviour we might be looking at loss of religious belief being a driver for a trailing increase in violent crime. The next few years may be quite revealing.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Second, mere polling on theistic/atheistic beliefs is not a reliable data set because merely declaring on a poll that one is a believer might indicate social or cultural affiliation but may not be truly reflective of the importance of religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in decision making or courses of behaviour.

To illustrate this point, this chart is from Pew detailing the percentage from each religious/non-religious group that lack a belief in God or gods.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

So 2% of Catholics, 4% of Episcopalians, 3% of Anglicans, etc., were essentially atheists (lacked belief in God) in 2014 but identified as Catholic, Episcopalian, Anglican, etc. That would seem to indicate profession of atheism isn’t the same thing as behaviours consistent with atheism. Ergo a lag time between change of nominal affiliation and decline of moral beliefs/behaviours might take a few years.

If the rates of atheism keep climbing, as Gallup is finding, and increases in violent crime rate lag that by 3-5 years it will be interesting to track what happens in the next 10-20 years if atheism begins to prevail in the US.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

First, there might be a “lag time” factor where individuals lose their strongly held beliefs over time, while distinct changes in behaviour might take a number of years to manifest. Decadency might require time.

That’s great because the atheism data is actually a couple years older than the homicide data.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Second, mere polling on theistic/atheistic beliefs is not a reliable data set because merely declaring on a poll that one is a believer might indicate social or cultural affiliation but may not be truly reflective of the importance of religious beliefs (or lack thereof) in decision making or courses of behaviour.

True Scotsmen would never intentionally homicide someone, so if the data shows that they do, you haven’t actually said anything about the true Scotsmen.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There are too many examples of people ignoring moral ‘rules’.

But those millions of corpses were killed as result of atheistic government rulers who were following “moral rules” , none of which Atheism can prove were wrong with any objective basis

No. Many people have been killed over the centuries because moral rules were ignored. Being an atheist or a believer of any religion does not mean that you are obliged to follow those rules. Those who are religious have reasons for following them other than ‘it’s the best way to live together’ but as we have seen, it doesn’t appear to prevent them deciding to circumvent them when the situation dictates.

Let’s face it. We are all sinners to some degree. I do the wrong thing on times. And I am aware of it. So do you. So let’s not kid ourselves that you have some moral advantage in that respect.

 

[HarryStotle]

Looks like countries with more intentional homicides tend to have fewer atheists.

One problem with your data, however, is that the rate of atheism may not accurately reflect the deadliness of atheism. Intentional homicides do not include killing by the state since state sanctioned homicides wouldn’t be counted as criminal activity. Thus, an atheistic state like China may be murderous but the average citizen would be well-behaved since they wouldn’t want to be murdered by the state. It only takes a few well-placed atheists with lots of power to kill thousands and millions – numbers which would not be reflected in your plot.

The other problem is that religions that might be highly prone to violence (such as Islam) because of ideology would skew the results. We don’t know which countries are represented on your plot so we can’t make an analysis of which religious beliefs are problematic.

Third, we would need a country by country breakdown in terms of rate of religious belief because it might be certain cohorts in that country which are far more prone to violence. Hence a small minority of a certain social/political ideology might skew results for the whole country which might have a relatively low atheism rate – say communist atheist gorillas operating in a poverty stricken generally religious country or drug cartels operating in a country like Mexico.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

We each look at moral codes and make our own decision about following them. I certainly do and so do you. So please don’t post nonsense about atheists not having any basis for morality. Moral rules exist. You and I both decide when we follow them or not. And we live by our decisions and are judged on them by those who are affected by thise decisions.

talk beliefs, atheism has no moral code and as Dawkins points out really can’t. the atheist can do what he/she wants but claiming atheism has a moral code would be a problem because according to atheism there is no good or evil.

If you find some atheists that say that there is no good or evil in this life (and we are not talking about an ultimate universal morality in the sense that the universe could care less what is right or wrong) then tell them that Freddy says they’re idiots.

There are many moral codes and we individually choose which one to follow. Yours is that of the Catholic church. And the morality they espouse is one with which (with some exceptions), I agree. And those parts of it with which I do agree I find are mirrored in other religions and other philosophical positions. So having moved through life, I have ended up with a morality with which almost everyone else (with some exceptions) would agree.

And then I do my best, as you do, to try match my actions to that morality. Most times we succeed. Sometimes we fail. And when we fail, sometimes we have to wear the consequences in this life. You believe you may have to suffer the consequences in the next as well. It appears not to make much of a difference though.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

There are too many examples of people ignoring moral ‘rules’.

But those millions of corpses were killed as result of atheistic government rulers who were following “moral rules” , none of which Atheism can prove were wrong with any objective basis

I guess we can have a show of hands as to who thinks, for example, that genocide is a good thing. From a recent perspective or a biblical one.