Does religion improve behavior?

[Zzyzx]

.

Being religious does not make you better behaved, researchers have found.

A new study found 'no significant difference' in the number or quality of moral and immoral deeds made by religious and non-religious participants. 

The researchers found only one difference - Religious people responded with more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

To learn how people experience morality and immorality in everyday life, the researchers surveyed more than 1,200 adults, aged 18 to 68, via smartphone. 
For three days, the demographically diverse group of U.S. and Canadian citizens received five signals daily, prompting them to deliver short answers to a questionnaire about any moral or immoral act they had committed, received, witnessed or heard about within the last hour. 

In addition to the religion variable, the researchers also looked at moral experience and political orientation, as well as the effect moral and immoral occurrences have on an individual's happiness and sense of purpose. 

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: How moral and immoral deeds made them feel

Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds. 

The study also found little evidence for a morality divide between political conservatives and liberals. 

'Our findings are important because they reveal that even though there are some small differences in the degree to which liberals and conservatives emphasize different moral priorities, the moral priorities they have are more similar than different,' Skitka said. Both groups are very concerned about issues such as harm/care, fairness/unfairness, authority/subversion and honesty/dishonesty, she said. 

'By studying how people themselves describe their moral and immoral experiences, instead of examining reactions to artificial examples in a lab, we have gained a much richer and more nuanced understanding of what makes up the moral fabric of everyday experience,' Skitka said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... uilty.html

Do you agree or disagree with the bold items above? Why?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 78:

As to different cultures and outlooks, I notice the Christian will interpret these "various books" in, and don't this beat all, various ways.

You don't say.

I have noticed that non-Christians do the same thing. Amazing, isn't it?

My point being, where we have one group declaring, "No, not yours", we need to seriously consider the ramifications.

In the case at hand, marriage, and government merely uttering the word, this atheist will contend that regardless of what anyone declares their god has to allow, that we, as a society, benefit when we are as inclusive as possible.

This inclusivitedness should include the idea that here after all this time we've had government speaking of, and ruling on, marriage, that the homosexuals need them some including in it.

How can we ever tell which of 'em's right?

Now THAT'S a loaded question to ask a "returned" Mormon missionary, if there ever was one.

I didn't know ya ever left

I seriously don't know what it means to be that.

Simple answer: ask God. Go with your own conclusions. Don't make fun of those who come up with different answers.

How is it I can ask God, when I can't even tell it is, that there he is?


I reject such a facile, self-serving response as you present.


The issue here is with folks who swear up and down they did some asking, and dangitall, God said not to allow homosexuals to be married, and if'n it is you do that, for God's sake, don't let the government call 'em that.


Tell me, y'all who've "asked"...


How can we confirm you even got an answer, much less that the answer was to not ever allow the government the use of such a useful term?

I can demand it when it's use of a 'word' is more than the word, but rather the usurpation of a concept it not only has no right to, but is constitutionally forbidden to mess with.

Or, is it that religious folks such as yourself are constitutionally forbidden from demanding that your definitions must apply to folks who ain't of your religious deal there?

Beyond that, I declare that if the Constitution fails, then we burn it like so much tinder.

Where the Constitution'd have us saying folks who're gay can't possibly be married, but only we'll make us up some contrived, stale, absent-of-the-love-them-gay-folks-feel term, well there we go.

You know that it's more than 'a word,' or you wouldn't be so all fired insistent that the government be allowed to define it for religion.

As the lady seeks to have beholden upon government her own religious definition.

Frankly, I'm tired of these semantical, paranoid games theists play with this issue.

It's a mental farce to play the victim here - "Oh my God, I'm afraid if the government uses a word, I might hafta accept that definition!"

How's that work?

The government, according to my data, declares me a citizen.

But I'm far more'n that.

I'm a patriot. A father. A grampaw. A doofus. A hillbilly. A stoner. But if I had to pick one more'n I did the other'n there, I'm far more a stoner than it ever was I was being all citizeny.

I'm far more'n any one word could ever express.


But to some religious folks, homosexuals, well that's all they are - butt looker uppers. They ain't human, they ain't citizens - they're "God hates him that'n there, so they don't deserve nothing".

It's high time we stop kowtowing to religious paranoia, and start defending the same Constitution so many religious zealots quote when they think it suits their aims.

I mean...if it's just a word, why not use a different one?

Cause some of the gay folks, when they get married, well that's what it is they think they done did. And I ain't so proud, nor so fearful of marriage, to say they didn't just do what it is they just did, the getting married and all.

Why do you insist upon throwing hundreds and thousands of years of tradition...

For nigh on the direct same reason I renounce slavery.

I mean, I swear I'm a good ol' Rebel, but I gotta tell it, if I'm to tell it true, some of my own Rebels was just eat up with it. The it ya don't wanna catch.


"We called it marriage for a good while, while it was it was only us allowed to do it. But now that some of y'all, well, y'all's doin' it too, well then we gotta make it so the government, ya know, the government that for so long kept calling marriage marriage, well we gotta now, since it is, it's some of y'all a-doin' it, well we gotta stop calling a marriage a marriage, cause now it is, no longer is a marriage a marriage, but it's a 'civil union' when it is, it's y'all getting all married."


I declare it's you who wishes to betray your own argumentum ad antiquatum.

and the FACT that 'marriage,' both as a word and an institution

So then, all them who enter into marriages need to be instituionalized.

has been religious for far longer than it has been legally contractual according to a government.

Only don't it beat all...


There ain't a group, or an individual of any group, that can offer any means whatsoever by which we can confirm their god has an opinion on the doings of humans, much less that it's so upsetting to that god that gay folks just might, in their being abominable abominations and all, love one another.

So, if it's just a 'word,' then YOU use a different one.

I do.

I call it hellonearthcauseyaknowyouregonnahaftalieaboutyouwasntatthebarwhenitisyawasonlyshedontlikeyadrinkingsomuchandhowfunnyisitthathereitwasyallmetinabar.

I just shorten it to hell.

It's just a word, right?

'Parently not to those who tremble at the thought of the government using it.

To heck with any "religious argument" that has no basis in reality.

To heck with any "religious argument" that, if shown to be truth, still has us making homsexuals second class citizens.

To heck with any god, and any of his devotees, who think homosexuals are so damaging to marriage that we hafta think us up a new word to call the marriages of 'em that just sat there, and they got marriaged.

"Marriage" simply cannot be defined or ordered by government; it can't enforce the promises made at the altar by folks who wish to marry.

That'd be it a powerful argument, if all y'all'd quit using the alter to tell government what a word is s'posed to mean.

"But, but, my religious freedom!"

"I'm all for y'all'ses, can't y'all be for mine?"

"Not if you wanna give homosexuals equal rights, I ain't!"


What of those religious folks who say gay folks are, well they're gay and all, but they're just as married as the next'n?


What of those of the rest of us, who we wish to recognize gay marriages as, well, marriages?


"I'm scared I might be asked to 'preciate 'em" is, if only to me, a weak argument.


I'm reminded of a recent comment I saw on the tubes...

"All y'all against gay marriage, well y'all can't have a cookie cause I'm on a diet."

We've been using it the way we have been for many thousands of years.

Folks were using the nod for communication before you.

I demand now that you, and anyone in government, well y'all cut that nodding out, for I fear god's upset about all that nodding going on.

It's just a word, right?

To me, yes.

To others who attach meaning beyond that, I reckon they'll say no.

If such a notion is "fine", how come so many Christians are unwilling to call their marriages "civil unions"? Because they aren't civil unions. They SHOULD be, though. They should be civil unions to the government, and marriages to themselves, their belief systems, their families and their culture.

Only don't it beat all, they wanna infect the culture beyond Christianity.

"Y'all over yonder, in y'all's culture, y'all stop using a word it is, that we declare only we know what it means."

"Whatcha mean ya won't?"

"Oh, to heck with it, Prop 8 to the rescue!"

That's it. I've said my piece on this, and will not say more in this thread; it has been hijacked away from the topic quite far enough, IMO.

Says a moderator, who coulda did her some moderating if she felt so strongly about the issue.

I reject this sort of "moderation by implication", and bury it beneath contempt, under a derisionish attempt to influence the discussion by way of "I'm a moderator, and if I'd actually do my job, well there we go, but I didn't do my job, cause I felt I could serve my aims, only now that the discussion's gotten difficult, well I'll bring it up how it is, I just can't tell how this relates to what it is we're a-gettin' on about."

I stated previously that I contend the attempts of Christians to declare what words government may use are directly related to the OP - and that relation is an act of misbehaving.

I contend my position stands to the most scrutible scrutiny.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to post 78 by dianaiad]

Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, in fact gay marriage in Rome was legal until Christianity took over as the official state religion where they made a law specifically banning it....

I don't see anyone usurped the term except for those who wish to control the lives of others.

That's not quite true.

the Roman emperor could marry whoever he wanted to. He could make a citizen of whoever...or whatever...he wanted to. He could make his horse a god, and did.

But nobody ELSE could.

Sorry.

TIL: God's a Roman Emperor.

[dianaiad]

From Post 78:

As to different cultures and outlooks, I notice the Christian will interpret these "various books" in, and don't this beat all, various ways.

You don't say.

I have noticed that non-Christians do the same thing. Amazing, isn't it?

My point being, where we have one group declaring, "No, not yours", we need to seriously consider the ramifications.

In the case at hand, marriage, and government merely uttering the word, this atheist will contend that regardless of what anyone declares their god has to allow, that we, as a society, benefit when we are as inclusive as possible.

This inclusivitedness should include the idea that here after all this time we've had government speaking of, and ruling on, marriage, that the homosexuals need them some including in it.

How can we ever tell which of 'em's right?

Now THAT'S a loaded question to ask a "returned" Mormon missionary, if there ever was one.

I didn't know ya ever left

I seriously don't know what it means to be that.

Oh, yes. I was an official Mormon missionary for a year and a half, in the 'England Southwest Mission,' waaaaay long ago. Once you have done one of those, it's a bit like being President, or Governor, Senator or Judge. Even after you retire or leave office, you may forever after keep the title...and it's a bit the same for us. However, when you come home, you are a 'returned' missionary.

At least for those very rare occasions when it's appropriate to mention the matter.

Simple answer: ask God. Go with your own conclusions. Don't make fun of those who come up with different answers.

How is it I can ask God, when I can't even tell it is, that there he is?

The idea is to ask that question.

How about "God, are you there?" That's always a good one. With that, you don't need to know anything about Him.

I reject such a facile, self-serving response as you present.

It is simple....but 'simple' isn't always 'easy...' and how in the world would it be 'self serving,'....unless it worked?

And if it works, it would be rather silly to reject it, yes?

<snip to end>

[Danmark]

I don't think you have read the Koran or the Book of Mormon...and indeed, you claimed that you found those books troubling, but didn't claim to have read them. So I asked if you had, and you became angry. You didn't say 'yes, actually, I have," you wrote '...did I stutter.." when you wrote that they were 'troubling?"

I then told you that I found that most people who find books to be troubling have not actually read the books.

Two points:
1. If a person claims to have done something that is plausible, and that he would have personal knowledge of, and one claims to not believe him, what are the alternatives to concluding he is a 'liar' or has become detached from reality?

2. I won't speak for others, but I have no difficulty coming to a conclusion about some works of literature after reading limited passages versus the entire book.

I have read [admittedly small] portions of both the BoM and the Koran. I have arrived at some conclusions about style and verisimilitude based on those passages. I've done the same with novels. I don't have to read the entire novel to conclude the writer has grossly incomplete knowledge of the city he has chosen for his setting or makes other stylistic errors that shatter my ability to suspend disbelief and remind me this is a work of fiction rather than something I can 'get into.'

I did not have to read ALL of the Book of Mormon to conclude the parts I've read are poorly written, ponderous, and boring. I don't know if Mark Twain read the entire BoM before he concluded it was 'chloroform in print,' but I came to the same conclusion he did, tho' I wouldn't have thought of such a clever way to phrase it.

Reading the Quran I had the inescapable impression it was a thinly transparent attempt to copy stories from Genesis, but set them in an Arab or Muslim point of view. In the case of both books I concluded neither were worthy of spending more of my time on them given they claimed to have been inspired by God, but in my opinion had no literary merit. This is admittedly a subjective interpretation. I make the same judgment about a lot of books I start to read.

If God writes a book or directly inspires it, I expect it to meet and exceed the standard of a Shakespeare, or at least a Faulkner or a Hemingway. Why does this God not write as well as Wordsworth or Milton, Blake or Shelley, Dickinson or Browning? Shouldn't he greatly exceed the human standard?

[dianaiad]

I don't think you have read the Koran or the Book of Mormon...and indeed, you claimed that you found those books troubling, but didn't claim to have read them. So I asked if you had, and you became angry. You didn't say 'yes, actually, I have," you wrote '...did I stutter.." when you wrote that they were 'troubling?"

I then told you that I found that most people who find books to be troubling have not actually read the books.

Two points:
1. If a person claims to have done something that is plausible, and that he would have personal knowledge of, and one claims to not believe him, what are the alternatives to concluding he is a 'liar' or has become detached from reality?

Hmmn.

Interesting point. Are you calling every theist you debate in here a liar because you don't believe as he or she does? If a theist tells you that she received what she truly believed was a personal answer to a prayer, and you say "I don't believe you," are you calling her a liar?

Sometimes it really is about the one doing the believing, not the one doing the claiming. Some times it's about the evidence, as well. I've been around the block a lot, Danmark, and you have just freely acknowledged that you have made your decision regarding the Book of Mormon without reading the whole thing.

This is not unusual. I would be willing to predict that the vast majority of folks posting to the 'cult' section of CARM who rail against the Mormons have never picked up a copy for themselves, but have only read quotes that are carefully presented to them by others out to discredit/destroy the book and Mormonism.

I mean, that's ok if that's what they want to do, but I have a problem with that. I really believe that if you are going to make a judgment about books others consider to be holy, that you read the whole thing. They aren't novels.

2. I won't speak for others, but I have no difficulty coming to a conclusion about some works of literature after reading limited passages versus the entire book.

I have read [admittedly small] portions of both the BoM and the Koran. I have arrived at some conclusions about style and verisimilitude based on those passages. I've done the same with novels. I don't have to read the entire novel to conclude the writer has grossly incomplete knowledge of the city he has chosen for his setting or makes other stylistic errors that shatter my ability to suspend disbelief and remind me this is a work of fiction rather than something I can 'get into.'

I did not have to read ALL of the Book of Mormon to conclude the parts I've read are poorly written, ponderous, and boring. I don't know if Mark Twain read the entire BoM before he concluded it was 'chloroform in print,' but I came to the same conclusion he did, tho' I wouldn't have thought of such a clever way to phrase it.

Reading the Quran I had the inescapable impression it was a thinly transparent attempt to copy stories from Genesis, but set them in an Arab or Muslim point of view. In the case of both books I concluded neither were worthy of spending more of my time on them given they claimed to have been inspired by God, but in my opinion had no literary merit. This is admittedly a subjective interpretation. I make the same judgment about a lot of books I start to read.

If God writes a book or directly inspires it, I expect it to meet and exceed the standard of a Shakespeare, or at least a Faulkner or a Hemingway. Why does this God not write as well as Wordsworth or Milton, Blake or Shelley, Dickinson or Browning? Shouldn't he greatly exceed the human standard?

Actually, it's true that the Muslims claim that God wrote the Koran, literally dictating it to Mohammad. It's why Muslims do not consider any translation to be the 'real' Koran; if it is read, it should be read in Arabic, in the language originally composed in. Actually, I find that to be an admirably consistent stand on their part. Much more reasonable than the biblical inerrantists who claim that the "Good News Bible" is without error....and so is the King James.

But the Book of Mormon claims to have been written by men. Just men....and it includes a bunch of stuff brought over (from the bible, like Isaiah, which is miserable to read and understand no matter where you find it).

"Inspired" does not mean 'talented...' though the poetic devices found in the BoM are very interesting to consider. Neither the BoM nor the Bible were meant to be 'stay up all night on the edge of your bed because you can't stop turning the pages' thrillers.

'Cause God did not write it. God didn't write the bible, either. We are stuck with the sometimes plodding manner of writing found in the minds and hands of mere humans.

[Danmark]

I don't think you have read the Koran or the Book of Mormon...and indeed, you claimed that you found those books troubling, but didn't claim to have read them. So I asked if you had, and you became angry. You didn't say 'yes, actually, I have," you wrote '...did I stutter.." when you wrote that they were 'troubling?"

I then told you that I found that most people who find books to be troubling have not actually read the books.

Two points:
1. If a person claims to have done something that is plausible, and that he would have personal knowledge of, and one claims to not believe him, what are the alternatives to concluding he is a 'liar' or has become detached from reality?

Hmmn.

Interesting point. Are you calling every theist you debate in here a liar because you don't believe as he or she does?

No, and I think that misses the point by a wide margin. If you claim to believe in fairies, I am not calling you a liar if I do not share your belief; however, I would be calling you a liar if I said you did not really believe in fairies despite your claim. I have no reason to claim a Mormon or other theist is lying when they claim to believe something I think is silly or absurd. On the contrary, I take them at their word.

[Danmark]

Sometimes it really is about the one doing the believing, not the one doing the claiming. Some times it's about the evidence, as well. I've been around the block a lot, Danmark, and you have just freely acknowledged that you have made your decision regarding the Book of Mormon without reading the whole thing.

Actually, it's true that the Muslims claim that God wrote the Koran, literally dictating it to Mohammad. It's why Muslims do not consider any translation to be the 'real' Koran; if it is read, it should be read in Arabic, in the language originally composed in. Actually, I find that to be an admirably consistent stand on their part. Much more reasonable than the biblical inerrantists who claim that the "Good News Bible" is without error....and so is the King James.

But the Book of Mormon claims to have been written by men. Just men....and it includes a bunch of stuff brought over (from the bible, like Isaiah, which is miserable to read and understand no matter where you find it).

"Inspired" does not mean 'talented...' though the poetic devices found in the BoM are very interesting to consider. Neither the BoM nor the Bible were meant to be 'stay up all night on the edge of your bed because you can't stop turning the pages' thrillers.

'Cause God did not write it. God didn't write the bible, either. We are stuck with the sometimes plodding manner of writing found in the minds and hands of mere humans.

I've already made my case for why one needn't read an entire book to make some judgments on it. All I can add is that when slogging thru the first mile of a miasmic swamp festooned with imagination sucking mosquitoes, at every step, the prudent course is to turn around rather than torture oneself with another 600 miles of the pointless trek.

Regarding divine inspiration, I find it more than curious that one could believe the 'word of god' could be inspired' but the actual writing itself not only uninspired, but of poor, 'and it came to pass'* quality.

This is a frequent phenomenon I find inconsistent in the analysis of some believers. We are expected to believe in miracles about the blind seeing, of the lame walking, of fiery chariots ascending to heaven, of talking asses and serpents, suns standing still and water turning to wine, but the worker of these miracles cannot inspire even passable prose.

I cannot critique the book as well as Mark Twain:

"The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,� “and it came to pass,� etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass� was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet."

_________________________
* [I have not verified these numbers, but by one person's count, the phrase is ubiquitous:]
The Old Testament uses it 387 times
The New Testament uses it 65 times
The Book of Mormon uses it 1,296 times

[goodwithoutgod]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

My opinion is there is a direct correlation between religion and bad behavior or low moral standards...maybe it is because they believe they can do anything they want, and just pray for forgiveness later.

A good example is US prison statistics, .02-.07% are atheists(depending on what year of survey you look at), and we are approx 30+% of the US population. I wonder how the christians did? Well they make up approx 75% of US prisoners, even though they make up about 50-55% of US population. uhoh...


The well-known passage from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, "If God is dead, all is permitted," suggests that non-believers would not hold moral lives without the possibility of punishment by a God. This is absurd as all one has to do is look at Scandinavian countries to see that this largely atheist area enjoys being at the top tier of civilization.

Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in California, in his article, "Is Faith Good For Us" states the following: "A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries-those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics-are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations-wherein worship of God is in abundance-are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor, and destitute."

A study by Gregory S. Paul, entitled "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look," was done and the study's conclusion was that there was an inverse relationship between religion and poor societal health rates. What that means is that the higher the level of religious belief in a country, the lower the level of societal health (more violent crimes, suicides, teen pregnancies, etc.).

So it seems that a plethora of evidence exists to show that not only do we not need religion in our lives to be good humans, but that having it in our lives can be counter-productive and unhealthy.


http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item ... s-atheists

[rbarton]

[Replying to post 88 by goodwithoutgod]

Where do you get your statistics????? .02-.07% of prisoners are atheists...75% Christians???? I guess you can just make up whatever you want!!

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 88 by goodwithoutgod]

Where do you get your statistics????? .02-.07% of prisoners are atheists...75% Christians???? I guess you can just make up whatever you want!!

Actually, he quoted a study from the Bureau of Prisons.

I do have a real problem with the way the study was done.

Prisoners are rewarded, with privileges and shorter prison times, for joining and participating in prison groups. The easiest and most prolific groups to join are religions.

There are very few 'real world' rewards for joining and attending church in the 'outside.' You don't get extra 'yard time,' you don't get extra library privileges, you don't get visitor passes...'getting religion' in prison is instantly, and very concretely, rewarded.

Unfortunately, "American Atheists' doesn't have a prison outreach group. Nor, in my experience (and I do have some) do many, if any, other atheistic or humanist groups. Certainly there don't seem to be as many, proportionate to the population, as there should be. Perhaps if they did, more prisoners would be willing to identify as such. Attending groups like this would be as effective for the prisoner as attending church would be, in terms of earning privileges and early release.

The upshot is, yeah, the proportion of atheists to theists in prison is lower than in the 'outside' population.

What this shows is not that atheists are less likely to commit crimes. It shows that they aren't stupid. If they see that joining such a group will get them OUT of prison sooner, then why wouldn't they join? They have absolutely nothing to lose, and a great deal, possibly, to gain.

So...from this I have two thoughts:

1. I wonder if the real reason that there is a disproportionate number of theists compared to atheists in prison is because the atheists outside prison simply don't give a hoot for those inside, whereas the theists do? I mean, if atheists DID, there would be support groups and such for prisoners to join and participate in. Without such groups, they leave their atheist colleagues with no place to go BUT religion.

2. I would be more interested in a study of the religious preferences of folks at the time of arrest rather than once they have been officially imprisoned. I think that would more accurately reflect reality, and I rather imagine that the results would be proportionate to the general population.