Slashdot Mirror


Belief In Hell Predicts a Country's Crime Rates Better Than Other Factors

An anonymous reader writes "Religion is often thought of as psychological defense against bad behavior, but researchers have recently found that the effect of religion on pro-social behaviors may actually be driven by the belief in hell and supernatural punishment rather than faith in heaven and spiritual benevolence. In a large analysis of 26 years of data consisting of 143,197 people in 67 countries, psychologists found significantly lower crime rates in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where more people believed in heaven."

471 comments

  1. Savvy study author ... by ubrgeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Shariff noted that because the findings were based off of correlational data, they do not prove causation."

    Must be a regular /. reader :)

    --
    Bark less. Wag more.
    1. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Shariff noted that because the findings were based off of correlational data, they do not prove causation."

      And the paper itself even explains with some detail:

      First and foremost, these findings are correlational, and thus reverse-causation and third variable explanations need to be discounted before causal claims can be firmly endorsed.

      (I.e., "A is correlated with B" does not necessarily mean "A causes B"; B could cause A or C could cause both A and B.)

    2. Re:Savvy study author ... by hilldog · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Where can I get hired to turn our crap like this and never have to produce on solid thing that can be measured against the real world?

    3. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone tell that to whoever wrote the Results section:

      Despite many of these variables–especially poverty and income inequality–being frequently discussed as determinants of crime [20], [21], only belief in God had a significant effect on average crime rates over and above the effects of belief in heaven and hell, which remained highly significant (both ps <.001).

      Unless "having an effect on" has some specific non-causal meaning in statistics.

    4. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm definitely going with higher crime rates (and overall shitty living conditions) work to destroy faith in a "benevolent" creator, so this is entirely an expected result.

    5. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. If I say 2=5, will you agree with me. And if I ask you to prove, can you prove it?

    6. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm definitely going with higher crime rates (and overall shitty living conditions) work to destroy faith in a "benevolent" creator, so this is entirely an expected result.

      You're definitely going with idiocy? Or do you just not understand the distinction between heaven and hell?
      From TFAbstract (and heavily hinted in TFS):

      ... showing that the proportion of people who believe in hell negatively predicts national crime rates whereas belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates.

      The regions with strong belief in a benevolent creator* have high crime.
      The regions with strong belief in a vindictive creator* have low crime.

      *Your use of "creator" seems a peculiar choice in this context. The existence of an afterlife, whether of reward or of punishment, is in no way contingent on a "creator" as such, or even a group of creators. Do try to expand your scope beyond the monotheistic/Abrahamic religions.

    7. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where can I get hired to turn our crap like this and never have to produce on solid thing that can be measured against the real world?

      Washington, D.C.

    8. Re:Savvy study author ... by Wandering+Voice · · Score: 2

      While my evidence is anecdotal, I find it an interesting relationship that as the churches have less and less influence on in hospitals and medicine, it seems that accountability for actions and behavior have also diminished.

    9. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 and depending on the rounding used it can translate to 2 + 2 = 5

    10. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Speak to most Christian converts and they'll tell you "God was there when no one else was/when I hit rock bottom/when I need Him most".

    11. Re:Savvy study author ... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Atheist countries"? ACs are really scraping the bottom of the barrel with their lies. The closest you can get to an "atheist country" is France and maybe a few of the scandinavian countries. And they're actually nice and friendly... unless of course you pull the "asshole American" routine on them, in which case they will toss you out pretty quickly.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:Savvy study author ... by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suspect that it is actually the opposite.

      Higher Crime rates generally correlate with higher poverty levels. Those who are poor have a greater need for hope thus a benevolent god.

      Those in lower-crime areas have hope and thus might attune to the higher contrast of a vindictive deity.

    13. Re:Savvy study author ... by arth1 · · Score: 0

      2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 and depending on the rounding used it can translate to 2 + 2 = 5

      Not quite. When you state 2.4, you implicitly state an uncertainty of max +- 0.0999[...], so the result is 4.8 +- 0.1999[...], which is always less than 5. You have to apply a new rounding factor after obtaining the result to get 5. That's as dishonest as saying pi = 0 because if you round it enough it becomes 0 because it's closer to 0 than 10.

    14. Re:Savvy study author ... by SixAndFiftyThree · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wall Street should have just about no crime, then.

    15. Re:Savvy study author ... by metrix007 · · Score: 0

      What is it with idiots and grouping ACs together?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    16. Re:Savvy study author ... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Where can I get hired to turn our crap like this and never have to produce on solid thing that can be measured against the real world?

      Trick is, you can dig at the softness of the soft sciences all you want; but it's a knife-fight-in-a-telephone-booth to get a decent tenure track job in them. For every one who gets to bullshit in public, there are probably 20 or more grading freshman philosophy papers for $12,000/year.

      How's that for true hell? A brutal, dog-eat-dog competition, with no real world metrics against which to measure yourself? An endless, inter-subjective void, with nothing but brutal struggle for the few jobs that exist, and lots of Derrida. Flee crying back to the hard sciences while you still can, grasshopper...

    17. Re:Savvy study author ... by metrix007 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, way to miss the point and look like a pompous ass.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    18. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A x C x D x E x F x G x H x I x J x K x L x M x N x O x P x Q x R x S x T x U x V x W x X x Y x Z = B

      In this equation, A is correlated with B. If you know what A is and how to influence it, you'd be pretty stupid to not use it or even ignore it.

    19. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to say but you are +- 0.05 in your uncertainty since you are rounding to the 1/10 for your precision. Furthermore uncertainty does not add in the way you have shown. Please read up on how propagation of errors is calculated. For your simple addition the combined uncertainty is the sqrt of the sum of squares of the uncertainty.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty

    20. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 2

      A x C x D x E x F x G x H x I x J x K x L x M x N x O x P x Q x R x S x T x U x V x W x X x Y x Z = B

      In this equation, A is correlated with B. If you know what A is and how to influence it, you'd be pretty stupid to not use it or even ignore it.

      That's not a study, that's a formula. In a study, such as this one, all you have is "A and B are correlated" (which I prefer to "A is correlated with B" or "B is correlated with A", as it more clearly indicates that it's not as if one is the independent variable and the other is the dependent variable); you don't have an established theory with a formula. I.e., your example is irrelevant to the statement in the paper at this point.

    21. Re:Savvy study author ... by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      yeah... correlation != causation :)

    22. Re:Savvy study author ... by mug+funky · · Score: 0

      you miss the point.

      if you can affect A, but not B, and A is correlated with B, then you can affect B, regardless of C through Z (which you can figure out some other time).

      this is an argument for hellfire preaching as a means to reduce crime.

    23. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      you miss the point.

      if you can affect A, but not B, and A is correlated with B, then you can affect B, regardless of C through Z (which you can figure out some other time).

      this is an argument for hellfire preaching as a means to reduce crime.

      X x Y x W = A. X x P x Q = B. If Y, W, P, and Q are independent, then if you affect A by modifying Y or W, you have no effect on B. (This is the "third variable explanation" from the paper, X being the third variable in this case.)

    24. Re:Savvy study author ... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Atheist countries"?

      It's amazing some people consider a term for not believing in magic as derogatory.

    25. Re:Savvy study author ... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to say but you are +- 0.05 in your uncertainty since you are rounding to the 1/10 for your precision.

      Gershwin's law.

      I'm an engineer, not a mathematician. We err on the side of caution, not probability. When measuring 2.4, it's 2.3For your simple addition the combined uncertainty is the sqrt of the sum of squares of the uncertainty.

      Similar for the uncertainty - for measured values, the worst case scenario dictates the uncertainty, so 2.4mm + 2.4mm read on an inaccurate ruler gives a worst case of 2.300[...]1 + 2.300[...]1, which is 0.199[...]mm off, where the square root of the sum of the squares would be sqrt(0.01+0.01), or ~0.14 (or half of that for calculated values with uncertainty 0.05).

    26. Re:Savvy study author ... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      I also would presume that I could enter a less-than sign and have it converted to & lt ; for display...
      Let's try again, this time with support wheels for the now seriously fucked up slashdot comment engine:

      Sorry to say but you are +- 0.05 in your uncertainty since you are rounding to the 1/10 for your precision.

      Gershwin's law.

      I'm an engineer, not a mathematician. We err on the side of caution, not probability. When measuring 2.4, it's 2.3<x<2.5, whereas a calculated 2.4 would be 2.35<=x<2.45

      (Part of this is due to working with logarithms, where distances aren't proportional. A typical slide rule is accurate to three decimal places, with an uncertainty of one on the last decimal place - not 0.5. So if we read 12.4, the uncertainty makes it anything from 12.3 to 12.5, non-inclusive)

      For your simple addition the combined uncertainty is the sqrt of the sum of squares of the uncertainty.

      Similar for the uncertainty - for measured values, the worst case scenario dictates the uncertainty, so 2.4mm + 2.4mm read on an inaccurate ruler gives a worst case of 2.300[...]1 + 2.300[...]1, which is 0.199[...]mm off, where the square root of the sum of the squares would be sqrt(0.01+0.01), or ~0.14 (or half of that for calculated values with uncertainty 0.05).

    27. Re:Savvy study author ... by pastafazou · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm going to have to disagree with you. Crime rates and poverty levels throughout the United States show now correlation whatsoever. South Carolina has a violent crime rate of 1414.3 violent crimes per 100K, and a poverty rate of 13%. West Virginia has a violent crime rate of only 275.2 violent crimes per 100K, and their poverty rate is 15% Even Mississippi, at 22% poverty, only has 291.3 VCper100K. Delaware is only 9% poverty, but has more than double the violent crimes at 689.2per100K. It also helps to look beyond the borders of the US. Many impoverished countries have lower crime rates than the USA, while others have high crime rates. Interestingly, crime rates in across the United States have been declining steadily for the past three years, and gun sales across the states have been up significantly too. It's possible that the fear of different forms of punishment (getting shot, going to hell, jail, execution, etc) influences the crime rates.

    28. Re:Savvy study author ... by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 1

      You've assumed your two error sources are independant.
      Hardly erring on the side of caution when you're using the same ruler.

    29. Re:Savvy study author ... by bipbop · · Score: 1

      You should probably express what you're trying to say differently. 0.0999... = 0.1

    30. Re:Savvy study author ... by toutankh · · Score: 1

      France is not an "atheist" country, it just implements the separation of church and state (despite the efforts of the previous president). Everyone can believe whatever they want, as long as they keep it private. It's also a way to ensure a certain freedom of religion, since no religion is superior to the others (at least in theory; again, despite the efforts of the previous president). If you really want to put a label on it, "agnostic" is probably more accurate than "atheist".

      Still, GP is trolling and will hopefully burn in Hell for that :)

    31. Re:Savvy study author ... by arth1 · · Score: 0

      You should probably express what you're trying to say differently. 0.0999... = 0.1

      No, 0.0999[...] (I can't do the symbol here, because /. doesn't do Unicode) is not the same as 0.1 It's never 0.1. The more decimals you add, the closer you get, but like the speed of light, it can never be reached. We can use 0.1 in calculations, but we always have to qualify the result as a lim.

      Besides, a calculated 0.1 is between 0.05 and 0.15, which in turn is between 0.045..0.055 and 0.145..0.155, which in turn ... [an infinity of steps ommitted] ... which eventually diverges to 0.0444[...]5 and 0.1555[...] Yes, I know this is bad maths, but it's following the rules! :-p

    32. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "Atheist countries"?

      Yes, like the USA.

      The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary) was the first treaty concluded between the United States of America and Tripolitania, signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers (for a third-party witness) on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.

      The treaty was a routine diplomatic agreement but has attracted later attention because the English version included a clause about religion in the United States.

      As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

      The treaty is cited as historical evidence in the modern day controversy over whether there was religious intent by the founders of the United States government. Article 11 of the treaty has been interpreted as an official denial of a Christian basis for the U.S. government.[3]

    33. Re:Savvy study author ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      China is pretty atheist, if you actually ask what the younger generation believe personally.

      From my experience, if you ask surface level "what do you believe", you will generally get an answer "Chinese are buddhist"; but if you probe what they actually believe you tend to get a very atheistic worldview. The older generation may or may not believe in buddhism, although tradition seems to be big there so Im not really sure what the dominant belief system is for that generation.

      Not to mention that in order to get a government job you have to affirm atheism.

      There are indeed atheist countries out there, whether or not you want to acknowledge it.

    34. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations! You may literally be the dumbest person on Slashdot. That's quite an achievement.

    35. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Trick is, you can dig at the softness of the soft sciences all you want; but it's a knife-fight-in-a-telephone-booth to get a decent tenure track job in them. For every one who gets to bullshit in public, there are probably 20 or more grading freshman philosophy papers for $12,000/year."

      So fucking what? And how many of them would give the same amount of bullshit as these assholes?

      (BA in Soc working as a developer.)

    36. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Atheists generally don't believe in 'magic' stuff. That includes ghosts. A very large portion of the Chinese population believes in ghosts. I wouldn't classify them as 'pretty atheist' by any stretch of the imagination.

    37. Re:Savvy study author ... by chispito · · Score: 1

      The opposite is true around here, so what's the big deal?

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    38. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In Wisconsin where I live, a scandal involving the Milwaukee Police Department brought to light numerous instances of cooking their reporting data specifically to reduce incidences of violent crime and thus make Milwaukee appear to not only be safer than it really is, but to make MPD seem much more effective than it really is. Some of the misreporting has been genuinely atrocious; knifings get reported as domestic disturbances, for instance. The local rag, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, has been carrying stories of the corrupt abuses regularly (in relatively palliative language of course, wouldn't want to upset the officials).

      So forgive if me if I laugh at your sincere belief in the stats you quote. There is no reliable data when the credibility of the reporting agencies is so heavily damaged. It's the tragedy of opacity. It will undermine everything we thought we knew if we let it.

    39. Re:Savvy study author ... by catchblue22 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What about largely secular nations like the Netherlands? Norway? Sweden? Don't they have very low crime rates?

      And what about the US Southern states, where religion is fire and brimstone? Don't many of those areas have very high crime rates?

      --
      This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
    40. Re:Savvy study author ... by starworks5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It has been shown that once you have a basic level of needs taken care of, the GINI wealth inequality accurately correlates with high crime.

    41. Re:Savvy study author ... by jhol13 · · Score: 1

      I have seen similar drop in crime rate elsewhere - totally unrelated to gun ownership. It seems that the recession has decreased crime rate. I do not know how universal this is. Perhaps people tend to think less about money now? This is hardly a good explanation, though.

    42. Re:Savvy study author ... by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I was about to say that...

      I think it's more likely that there are many cultural factors aside from the hell aspect.

      Possibly a highly traditional culture? I don't know... I have to wonder how far they cast the net.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    43. Re:Savvy study author ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Atheist generally is a term for those who do not believe in a God. This is both its common meaning, and its etymological meaning: atheos, meaning "without gods".

      Atheists may or may not believe in supersitions; perhaps the term you are looking for is something like "naturalism" (as opposed to "supernaturalism") or "secular humanism"

    44. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call BS. Norway and Sweden are some of the highest scoring countries on the crime index. I just don't believe that!

    45. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, 0.0999... = 0.1 in the same way that 0.999... = 1

    46. Re:Savvy study author ... by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

      Or A causes C which in turn causes B.

      Correlation usually means that there is most likely a causation - but very well hidden.

      --
      bickerdyke
    47. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have a state church in Finland and Norway, and Sweden had a state church until recently. France adheres to the same principle of secularity as the US does. That does not imply that those countries are "atheist countries."
        Only reason I can think of for the behaviour the parent AC was describing is simply that of the security. Interfering in such an event without a body armor, helmet, a weapon and five other similarly equipped team members is a sure way to get oneself killed as well. I just can't think of a single unsafe country today which wouldn't also be deeply religious.

    48. Re:Savvy study author ... by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They go the point where they wanted to throw away their common sense and pass the blame to something else for running their life. If it goes well its god's plan, if it goes shit then its god's plan, they have abdicated responsibility for their lives.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    49. Re:Savvy study author ... by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      Secular is the word i think you are looking for...

      Don't trolls live in hell anyway?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    50. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Or A causes C which in turn causes B.

      Correlation usually means that there is most likely a causation - but very well hidden.

      Or B causes D which in turn causes E which in turn causes A. One key point is that correlation does not, in and of itself, say anything whatsoever about the direction of causation.

    51. Re:Savvy study author ... by aintnostranger · · Score: 1

      Big misrepresentation. That's how an inmature person acts, christian or not. A lot of us thank God for good things we find in life, strive to live better lives for us and the rest of people and take responsability for our actions. God's grace is actually a great motivation to take responsability of consecuences for past acts, as those consecuences dont inhibit being loved and signified by God. And it's a great motivation to take action in the present for better, as it gives meaning to efforts. If things go bad because I ruined them, I ruined them, period. Being a christian doesn't mean I didnt screw up. It means I should pick up, take responsability and move on. It means I don't have an excuse to stay in a state of depression and guilt, as all my sins were paid, and at the same time the God that gave me such gift expects and demands faith, love, responsability, virtue. And, being a christian also means that if things go bad for reasons outside my control, well, it's out of my control. Gotta accept that. Believing in God's sovereignty means accepting a lot of things are outside our control. Which is usually a good realization in order to act on the things we do control. Thinking "If it goes well its god's plan, if it goes shit then its god's plan." about stuff in which we have a say/possibility/responsability is BadTheology(TM).

    52. Re:Savvy study author ... by Burpmaster · · Score: 1

      if you can affect A, but not B, and A is correlated with B, then you can affect B, [...]

      I can change the time on my watch, but I can't change the actual time. The time on my watch is correlated with the actual time. Therefore, I can travel through time by setting my watch.

    53. Re:Savvy study author ... by zig007 · · Score: 1

      Hm. What index would that be? There are many of them, but I just can't see Sweden at the highest places anywhere? Or even high? Or even not low?
      I would also like to remind you that there are huge problems with the reliability of many of those indexes.

      Also, why would poverty NOT be a reason for crime?

      --
      Baboons are cute.
    54. Re:Savvy study author ... by u38cg · · Score: 1

      If the soft sciences are so soft, how come we find it so difficult to prodce conclusive answers? Soft science should be renamed "hard science".

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    55. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for the very long period where "cult of personality" (Mao and his little red book) essentially supplanted belief in a deity, much as is practised in North Korea today.

      Technically the Supreme Buddha is not a deity (Siddhartha Gautama was mortal, suffered back pain and if I recall correctly may have passed away from either food poisoning or Wilkie's syndrome).

      The possession of superstitious beliefs is not a requirement of practicing the Buddha's day-to-day rules for living a more harmonious life.

    56. Re:Savvy study author ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I suspect that's not very representative of the majority of the Chinese population, who are mostly involved in subsistence farming. I would expect to see atheism concentrated in the urban areas, where there is greater access to education. It's also tricky when it comes to Buddhism, as there are theistic and atheistic variants.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    57. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8 and depending on the rounding used it can translate to 2 + 2 = 5

      Not quite. When you state 2.4, you implicitly state an uncertainty of max +- 0.0999[...], so the result is 4.8 +- 0.1999[...], which is always less than 5. You have to apply a new rounding factor after obtaining the result to get 5. That's as dishonest as saying pi = 0 because if you round it enough it becomes 0 because it's closer to 0 than 10.

      Due to the fact that 0.999... = 1 see wikipedia if you don't understand this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...

      4.8 + 0.199... = 4.999... = 4 + 0.999... = 4 + 1 = 5

      No rounding required

    58. Re:Savvy study author ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The crime rate also dropped during the second world war in the UK. One anthropological explanation for both is that, in general, humans commit (premeditated) crimes against members of a different tribe - that crime is effectively the kind of war that you get when two tribes are living in the same village. Once you identify an external enemy, be it the Germans or the 1%, then the local distinctions become less important and so the number of potential victims goes down.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    59. Re:Savvy study author ... by phyrz · · Score: 2

      Buddhism by itself is an athiest religion - there is no such thing as God in a purely Buddhist worldview.

      Often Buddhism is joined with another religion to meet that need for people. A couple of examples of this would be Bon in Tibetian Buddhism, and Shinto in the Japanese version.

      --
      Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
    60. Re:Savvy study author ... by martyros · · Score: 1

      A x C x D x E x F x G x H x I x J x K x L x M x N x O x P x Q x R x S x T x U x V x W x X x Y x Z = B

      In this equation, A is correlated with B. If you know what A is and how to influence it, you'd be pretty stupid to not use it or even ignore it.

      The damage done in a fire is positively correlated with the number of firefighters at a fire -- the fires that caused the highest damage had the highest number of firefighters. So obviously what we should do is only send one team of firefighters to any fire, right?

      Unless of course, it's not the firefighters which cause the damage, but the size of the fire which causes both a high number of firefighters and a high amount of damage.

      --

      TCP: Why the Internet is full of SYN.

    61. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The nordic countries is pretty much atheist. > 20 % Believes in Heaven and > 1 % believes in Hell. Still the crimerate is among the lowest in the world. I bet you would find a lot more intresting findings if you tried to study GDP/religion or GDP/crime :)

    62. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Buddha is not a god. Buddhists are atheists.

    63. Re:Savvy study author ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is no Buddhist god. You'll need to better define an 'atheistic worldview'.

    64. Re:Savvy study author ... by sempir · · Score: 0

      The poor go to church not to get god but to "GET WARM" cos that's where most of them are, and a bit of singing doesn't do any harm either!

      --
      A closed mouth gathers no foot.
    65. Re:Savvy study author ... by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

      God's grace is actually a great motivation to take responsability of consecuences for past acts, as those consecuences dont inhibit being loved and signified by God. And it's a great motivation to take action in the present for better, as it gives meaning to efforts.

      This is nice in theory, but in practice, it fails. That's what the study is all about. People who see a godly grace as a motivator for a better life seem to be by far outnumbered by people who see godly grace as an excuse to behave badly, because the big boss will forgive them anyway.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    66. Re:Savvy study author ... by Sique · · Score: 1

      The countries most close to an atheist country are Slovenia, the Czech Republic and the former East Germany. In all three atheists are the maiority, and none of them are known for an overly antisocial behaviour.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    67. Re:Savvy study author ... by Sique · · Score: 1

      They tried and failed, as they mentioned in their paper. The believe in Hell or Heaven was an even better predictor for crimerates (they even tested for different types of crime) than GDP or wealth distribution.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    68. Re:Savvy study author ... by Sique · · Score: 1

      And there might be a point that most crimes (especially violent crimes) are performed by young male adults, who during war times are at the front as soldiers and thus not able to act criminally at home.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    69. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atheism refers to the belief that there is no god. This is distinctly different from having no opinion on the matter. (or acting as if you have no opinion on the matter)

    70. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    71. Re:Savvy study author ... by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Informative

      The crime rate also dropped during the second world war in the UK.

      It's often said that that's the case, but as with many beliefs about crime rates, it's not true. Crime in every category soared during the war years, ending with almost double the crime rate at the end of war compared with before the war.
      http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/rec-crime-1898-2002

      This, despite the fact that most of the young men had been drafted into the army. So with the most usual offending category either out of the country, or at least under disciplined regimes in an army camp, one would have expected a drop in crime. But it didn't happen.

      And it wasn't just looting and black-marketeering either. Every kind of crime was up.

    72. Re:Savvy study author ... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      ACs? Plural? Big assumption there. It might just be one person with a lot of time on his hands.

    73. Re:Savvy study author ... by volpe · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, 0.0999[...] (I can't do the symbol here, because /. doesn't do Unicode) is not the same as 0.1 It's never 0.1. The more decimals you add, the closer you get, but like the speed of light, it can never be reached.

      Wrong. 0.09999... == 0.1 for the same reasons 0.999999... == 1:

      Let:
                X = 0.09999...
      Then:
          10X = 0.9999...

      (10X - X) = 0.999999... - 0.0999999...
      (All 9's in hundredths place and beyond cancel out)

      9X = 0.90000000...
      X = .1
      QED

    74. Re:Savvy study author ... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      False. If that were true, Hong Kong would have one of the worst crime rates on Earth, and it doesn't.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    75. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Examples please.

    76. Re:Savvy study author ... by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

      It is a grave tragedy that people don't understand basic logic and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or the statistical version of it as laid out in e.g. Jaynes Probability Theory, the Logic of Science . Jaynes points out (and proves!) that while the discovery that A and B are correlated does not mean that A causes B or that increasing the prevalence of A in a population will increase the prevalence of B, it does make it more plausible that this is so, compared to the hypothesis that A and B are independent, depending on one's prior beliefs that are themselves statistical knowledge. His specific example, IIRC, is how a policeman observing a man standing in front of a broken window of a jewelry store, his pockets full of gems, is justified in inferring that the man in question is in fact robbing the store; even though there are many other possible explanations for the observed correlation between a broken window in a jewelry store and a man nearby with pockets full of jewelry, those explanations are all rather "special" and hence less probable on the basis of our prior knowledge of e.g. the probability of a completely innocent man walking by a jewelry store with pockets full of jewelry at a time when a construction crew happened to have broken the window.

      So to analyze the correlation between belief systems in heaven and hell and crime rates is not easy. It is certainly a mistake to assume that A (belief in hell) is necessarily a control variable of B (tendency to commit a crime). On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that it might be as a hypothesis, one made at least plausible by the observed correlation.

      Reading TFA (at least) one can easily see a number of problems with the hypothesis even after their efforts to control for various other things. One is that the study does not, in fact, apply to "societies". It applies to countries. Countries are almost never monolithic societies, especially the larger countries, so if a country like the US or Russia or China is rated as "believing in hell more than believing in heaven" according to their criterion it has a disproportionate effect on the outcome at least as far as the population contribution to the study is concerned.

      Second, I would argue that it is literally impossible to control for the effect of specific religions in smaller, more monolithic countries with a strong or dominant religious meme in their actual governance, specifically the Muslim countries. Islam has a powerful hell meme, so pretty much all Muslim countries are going to come down on the hellfire side of things. They also have (in many cases if not quite all) draconian punishments for crimes, oppression of religious and personal freedoms, internal and external warfare that doesn't count as a "crime" I'm quite certain even though it arguably causes far more death and mayhem than any police blotter. How does one control for sharia and wealth and draconian punishments and social history and war with only surveyed samples of belief and an outcome of national crime rates (which may or may not even be reported accurately)? Not easily, at the very least. The correlation could easily be an artifact, not causal at all.

      Finally, in order to truly be meaningful, one would have to extend the result not to "countries" but to individuals. A country's crime rate is very probably determined by many, many factors, not the least of which is a social history that might well be correlated with prior or current religious belief without being caused by it (example being pretty much the entire New World, settled largely by people seeking religious freedom, social freedom, escape from European tyranny, or involuntary settlers forced here for economic reasons, and indigenous peoples with completely different belief systems that were upended and cast into social disarray). This does not mean that individuals within those countries are more likely to com

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    77. Re:Savvy study author ... by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "... showing that the proportion of people who believe in hell negatively predicts national crime rates whereas belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates."

      I don't believe this for an instant.

      By *every* measure, religiosity is lower in Canada than the US. Moreover, Canada is generally more pluralistic in terms of faith. Both would contribute to significantly lower "belief in heaven" *and* "hell".

      Yet the crime rate in Canada is much lower than the US. There are a few categories where it is higher, like car theft, but their relative increase is dramatically less than the relative decrease of all violent crime (30% more vs. 3x less).

      I realize this is a single counterexample, but I suspect this is true for most countries in the western world, and would not be surprised if this were true for much of the planet.

    78. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the soft sciences are so soft, how come we find it so difficult to prodce conclusive answers? Soft science should be renamed "hard science".

      Maybe they are called soft exactly because it is so difficult to produce conclusive, hard answers....

    79. Re:Savvy study author ... by jbmartin6 · · Score: 2

      There's no such thing as god in ancient Greece either, but I don't think you would call them atheists. A super powerful interventionist Boddhisatva is indistinguishable from a god for all intents and purposes.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    80. Re:Savvy study author ... by ubrgeek · · Score: 1

      Congress.

      --
      Bark less. Wag more.
    81. Re:Savvy study author ... by Warma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One counter-example is not enough to make a correlation vanish. He didn't say anything about causes, just correlations.
      Though I also would like to have the poster show some studies describing the GINI & crime -link.

    82. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I can see that. Point taken.

    83. Re:Savvy study author ... by Warma · · Score: 1

      I am surprised to know this - had heard the claim about wars decreasing internal crime rate before, and had also accepted it as fact as it sounded reasonable because of the reasons stated above.
      Mod parent up, please.

    84. Re:Savvy study author ... by elucido · · Score: 1

      Hm. What index would that be? There are many of them, but I just can't see Sweden at the highest places anywhere? Or even high? Or even not low?
      I would also like to remind you that there are huge problems with the reliability of many of those indexes.

      Also, why would poverty NOT be a reason for crime?

      Poverty isn't the reason for violence but it's the reason for crime.

      Crime rate is an arbitrary measure. I could say the Doku rate went down this year by 23.6 points but you'd ask me to define Doku and I could say "Well we change that definition depending on how we feel politically and depending on whether a Democrat or Republican wins."

      Crime is a variable definition which can change at any moment so as to make the crime rate rise or fall. The best way to lower the crime rate is to make less behaviors a crime. The only rate we should be concerned about is the violent crime rate.

    85. Re:Savvy study author ... by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up to 11.

    86. Re:Savvy study author ... by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      Um, isn't 0.19... equivalent to 0.2?

    87. Re:Savvy study author ... by hackula · · Score: 1

      you will generally get an answer "Chinese are buddhist"; but if you probe what they actually believe you tend to get a very atheistic worldview.

      Duh. Buddhism is an atheist religion. Atheism is not a religion, and is not mutually exclusive with all other religions (it is with some, obviously). All atheism is is the rejection of the belief that there are gods. Buddhism does not include a belief in gods. Some forms of Buddhism do not even have any supernatural elements at all and closely resemble western materialism.

    88. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this an attempt at trolling or are you just really, really stupid?

    89. Re:Savvy study author ... by andydread · · Score: 2

      Interestingly, crime rates in across the United States have been declining steadily for the past three years, and gun sales across the states have been up significantly too. It's possible that the fear of different forms of punishment (getting shot, going to hell, jail, execution, etc) influences the crime rates.

      Hmmm this can also be read as.... In the 3 years that Obama came to office crime rates have been on the decline. Since Obama came to office personal gun ownership has seen record rates. Looks like Obama is the most pro-gun anti-crime president the US has seen in decades.

    90. Re:Savvy study author ... by hackula · · Score: 2

      Pretty sure the Greeks had gods. Apollo, Zeus, Hades, etc. Some sects of Buddhism have a belief in beings that would probably fall into the same category, although they probably closer to the idea of catholic saints. This would be the case in Mahayana Buddhism, which is one of the most common sects. There are still many other sects that hold no supernatural beliefs at all, and the core common beliefs of Buddhism in general are perfectly compatible with an atheist belief.

    91. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you other ac, with a rusty hook.

      atheist strictly means just that, no god.

      buddism is an atheist religion. it has all the other religious trappings, just not the god part.

      atheism is not materialism, completely different concepts.

    92. Re:Savvy study author ... by hackula · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here in South Carolina the crime rate is quite high on all counts and the rate of belief in hell is quite high as well. The problem is that nobody here is threatened by the prospect of hell, since they know that THEY would not be sent there. The whole fire and brimstone thing does not really work when you believe you are one of the chosen.

    93. Re:Savvy study author ... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Everyone can believe whatever they want, as long as they keep it private.

      You don't have to keep your religion private in France, not legally, anyway. I don't know what gave you that idea.

    94. Re:Savvy study author ... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Let:
                          X = 0.09999...
      Then:
              10X = 0.9999...

      (10X - X) = 0.999999... - 0.0999999...
      (All 9's in hundredths place and beyond cancel out)

      This is absolutely correct, and 0.9999[...] equals 1, except for the issue here - rounding:
      0.5 + lim(x->infinity) 1-1/10^x, i.e. 1.4999[...] rounds to 1 unless x = infinity
      0.5 + 1 rounds to 2

      In pure mathematics, this is no issue, because it allows x = infinity.
      No questions, 0.9999[...] equals 1, and 1.4999[...] rounds to 2.

      For measured data, you have an arbitrary precision that is always less than infinity. In which case 1.4999[...] will always round to 1, not 2. This doesn't change the mathematics.

    95. Re:Savvy study author ... by beanyk · · Score: 2

      The term you're looking for is "secular", not "atheist".

    96. Re:Savvy study author ... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Um, isn't 0.19... equivalent to 0.2?

      Sure - is this a problem?

    97. Re:Savvy study author ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Looks like Obama is the most pro-gun anti-crime president the US has seen in decades.

      While it is arguable that "pro-gun" or "anti-gun" has much meaning for a President (he doesn't write the laws, and doesn't even have a veto over any but federal laws, and most gun laws are State-based), "anti-crime" (or "pro-crime") is almost completely meaningless, since almost all crime (with the exception of kidnapping) is handled at the State level.

      Note, by the by, that the last time but one that we had a surge in gun ownership was just before Clinton did his "assault weapon ban", when people were buying guns because they were afraid they were about to be unavailable. It's quite possible that people were buying guns since Obama got to be President because they feared that a Dem President and a Dem Congress meant new gun control laws were soon to be introduced (which didn't happen, of course, but it's the way a lot of people think).

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    98. Re:Savvy study author ... by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Nothing destroys a person's belief in a benevolent creator like the persistent evil some people do in his / her / its name.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    99. Re:Savvy study author ... by expat.iain · · Score: 0

      "Atheist countries"?

      Yes, like the USA.

      Pledge of Allegiance: "...one nation under God..."

      National motto: "In God we trust"

      Court oath: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

      Oath of allegiance: "...I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"

      USA atheist? You're having a fucking laugh, mate.

    100. Re:Savvy study author ... by skids · · Score: 1

      I realize this is a single counterexample

      It isn't even that. A counterexample would compare two countries in the same general peer group, assuming such a pair is even available (which is not necessary for statistical analysis.) U.S. and Canada aren't; they have way too many divergent attributes to act as confounding factors.

      Finding sets of comparable subpopulations for Matched Pair Analysis and extending such studies to things like belief-or-not-in-karma among Budhists/Hinduists and belief-or-not in oblivion among atheists/nontheists in addition to the belief-or-not in hell among Abrahamic religious would be a logical next step.

    101. Re:Savvy study author ... by skids · · Score: 1

      Ah, but for the lack of mod points...

    102. Re:Savvy study author ... by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      A number of those things were added a long time after the founding of the country. And the end bits of those Oaths likely crept in over time as it was commonly how people ended an oath. There are definitely large groups of people in the USA who would like to think of the nation as a "christian" nation. And I suppose by virtue of being largely christian it is. But by the leter of the law there is no officially endorsed religion.

    103. Re:Savvy study author ... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's not what he said (and he should be modded "informative") and that's not how it is. You don't become religious if you think God ruined your life. You find God when you look for him with a pure heart, and that's usually when you realize your hell on earth was your own damned fault.

      An example is my alcoholic friend Amy's new alcoholic husband. Their drinking was so bad they wound up losing everything, and homeless. Tim was an athiest, brought up by athiests, but they wound up in a Salvation Army homeless shelter. Sally's makes its residents attend church, Tim had a religious experience the first time he was inside the church and they've both been doing a lot better; he even has a job now. He had no god to blame for his troubles, now he has a God to credit the change in his life, which wouldn't have happened if he hadn't found God. If you believe God is a figment of his imagnation, that figment changed his life.

      As to the research, I didn't RTFA but "belief in heaven and hell" is a little vague. The Muslims and Jews' religions say if you do bad things you go to hell, but Christians believe that their sins were paid for in blood. All a Christian has to do to get to heaven is repent his or her sins and believe that Christ is Lord and Savior. Of course, Christians who really believe are going to do the best they can to follow Christ's teachings, even though it's an impossible task.

      And what about Bhuddists and Hindus? They don't believe in heaven, hell, or death, but they do believe in karma; to a Bhuddist or Hindu, if you're good you'll be reborn into a better life after you die, and if you're evil your next life will be a miserable existance. They should have a look at these folks, as well; rebirth into a better or worse life doesn't seem that much different than heaven and hell.

    104. Re:Savvy study author ... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      You fail at history. While the United States was founded as a "non-religious" country, Christianity is the foundation for the laws of the land. What you had back then were Kings and Nobles that gave themselves military ranks and positions within the Church, making themselves both Religious, Political, and Military leaders. The US tried to separate all aspects of Political leadership from Religion because you end up with the policies such as you had in England where a Lord had the right to bang a newly wed wife before the Husband, or steal your property in the name of religion.

      The premise from the founders was that the abuse of power will happen, so the types of power must be separated. You will note that they originally designed the country with 3 distinct branches of Government with separated powers for that exact same reason.

      Of course the Brits and others were yammering "Heathens!" because our leaders wanted this separation. The logic in doing so should be painfully obvious.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    105. Re:Savvy study author ... by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 1

      You misrepresent Christians. Not all Christians believe they are exempt from eternal damnation. For example, the Catholic Church believes that you will be judged even if you believe in Jesus. You can be reconciled but it's not a lifetime pass. Every time you sin you have to go to confession or it will be held against you.

    106. Re:Savvy study author ... by s.petry · · Score: 2

      That is a logical fail, and maybe that was your point. The issue with Crime in Poverty comes from 2 angles. Those in poverty of course need to eat, so crime increases. At the same time, those in power tend to abuse their power to get more. A bit of history lessons are probably in order for you to understand.

      More Americans should be asking why the people running the banks that gambled with other peoples money, and lost it all, while themselves making millions to billions of dollars are not in jail for fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy since this has been a repeated issue for the last 5 years by the same people over and over.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    107. Re:Savvy study author ... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      The article determined the low crime rates tended to be associated to countries with a belief in hell or eternal torment, not so much a vindictive deity; well unless your elevating Satan/Lucifer to full deification. Actually there is no Hell in the Bible, in true Judeo/Christianity when you died your just dead, until the second coming. At the Second coming the "saved" will be taken to Paradise and the rest will just be dead. The whole hell thing came first from the the middle eastern religions and of course the Greek Hades.The closest thing to Hell in the Bible is where fallen angles are quartered.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    108. Re:Savvy study author ... by andy16666 · · Score: 1

      Where can I get hired to turn our crap like this and never have to produce on solid thing that can be measured against the real world?

      Trick is, you can dig at the softness of the soft sciences all you want; but it's a knife-fight-in-a-telephone-booth to get a decent tenure track job in them. For every one who gets to bullshit in public, there are probably 20 or more grading freshman philosophy papers for $12,000/year. How's that for true hell? A brutal, dog-eat-dog competition, with no real world metrics against which to measure yourself? An endless, inter-subjective void, with nothing but brutal struggle for the few jobs that exist, and lots of Derrida. Flee crying back to the hard sciences while you still can, grasshopper...

      Well said!!! Very well said!

    109. Re:Savvy study author ... by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      What about largely secular nations like the Netherlands? Norway? Sweden? Don't they have very low crime rates?

      I'm Dutch. The Netherlands isn't large. It's secular but religion can be found on all levels. Norway has black metal bands, giving a fresh twist in the relationship between belief in hell and crime.

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    110. Re:Savvy study author ... by Frequency+Domain · · Score: 2

      "Atheist countries"?

      Yes, like the USA.

      Pledge of Allegiance: "...one nation under God..."

      National motto: "In God we trust"

      Both cases were added in the 1950's as a paranoiac response to "godless communism". There's a Porky Pig cartoon made during WWII where he has a nightmare about Nazism and when he wakes up he stutters his way through the Pledge of Allegiance: "...one nation, indivisible...". Ironically, the original version which lacks the phrase "under God" was penned by a minister.

      Court oath: "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?"

      Oath of allegiance: "...I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God"

      The small number of times I've bumped into a need to make a formal statement or oath, I've notified the clerk or judge and been advised to end the phrasing with "so help me."

      I'm not saying that there isn't a strong religious wind blowing in the USA. There are plenty of people who, like McCarthy in the 1950's, would love to push religion into government. But some of the biggest advocates for secular government have been intelligent religious leaders who recognize the protection that secular rather than religious-based law gives them when they're minorities.

    111. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rebirth into a better or worse life doesn't seem that much different than heaven and hell.

      Well, rebirth implies it's not the end of the world if you couldn't "make it" in this life time, and the price of not making it is relatively low. Heaven and hell implies you only have one shot at this, and the price of not making it is HUGE (living a worse life in the next round vs eternal damnation)

      This puts more pressure on people, and too much pressure isn't always a good thing.

      I think this pressure is one reason why certain religions are more passionate about converting others, and to defend itself from critics and doubters. Of course, that also isn't always a good thing either.

    112. Re:Savvy study author ... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Most regions that have a strong belief in a vindictive creator also have archaic stances when it comes to crime, lopping off a hand for stealing. Seems one hell of a deterrent not to steal to me.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    113. Re:Savvy study author ... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I find those in lower-crime areas tend to be the shitheads that rob the poor (read Wall Street)!

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    114. Re:Savvy study author ... by benhattman · · Score: 1

      For measured data, you have an arbitrary precision that is always less than infinity. In which case 1.4999[...] will always round to 1, not 2. This doesn't change the mathematics.

      Hah! Didn't you even learn the ceiling function? 1.4999... (as well a 1.000000...1) always *rounds to 2.

      *Using the round function I'm referring to, which might be a different method than you are discussing.

    115. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      It is a grave tragedy that people don't understand basic logic and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, or the statistical version of it as laid out in e.g. Jaynes Probability Theory, the Logic of Science .

      Jaynes points out (and proves!) that while the discovery that A and B are correlated does not mean that A causes B or that increasing the prevalence of A in a population will increase the prevalence of B, it does make it more plausible that this is so, compared to the hypothesis that A and B are independent, depending on one's prior beliefs that are themselves statistical knowledge. His specific example, IIRC, is how a policeman observing a man standing in front of a broken window of a jewelry store, his pockets full of gems, is justified in inferring that the man in question is in fact robbing the store; even though there are many other possible explanations for the observed correlation between a broken window in a jewelry store and a man nearby with pockets full of jewelry, those explanations are all rather "special" and hence less probable on the basis of our prior knowledge of e.g. the probability of a completely innocent man walking by a jewelry store with pockets full of jewelry at a time when a construction crew happened to have broken the window.

      I.e, "A and B are correlated" (again, phrased in a way not to bias the reader towards a particular direction of causation) does not, solely by itself, even suggest, much less imply, that A causes B; you need additional information ("one's prior beliefs" - as long as they're statistical knowledge rather than bias, and based on an applicable sample).

    116. Re:Savvy study author ... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      I don't suppose it might have had anything to do with the fact that half of the USA's young men spent most of the war stationed there? I bet *USA* crime was way down...

    117. Re:Savvy study author ... by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      To me the simplest "proof" of this was always to perform the exercise of manually adding one third three times.

      .3(repeating) + .3(repeating = .6(repeating)

      .6(repeating) + .3(repeating) = .9(repeating)

      However, we know 3* 1/3 = 1. Therefore .9(repeating) is the same number as 1.

    118. Re:Savvy study author ... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Comparing crime rates from two different places is a tricky proposition. Different things are crimes in different places. For example, if you get caught smoking pot in Springfield it's a ticket. Get caught in East Saint Louis (same state) and it's a felony. There was an item in the news this morning about a father in Texas who caught another man molesting his daughter. He pulled the guy off and beat him to death. No charges were filed. In Illinois he'd likely be charged with first degree murder.

      There are also differences in the way different police departments keep records. One with excellent record keeping will show a higher crime rate than one with mediocre record keeping.

      A study is only as good as its data, and I don't see how you could get much useful data from this study. It's like determining what percentage of the population smokes pot or pirates movies; there are no good data.

    119. Re:Savvy study author ... by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, like what you said, unless you want to make it even pickier and phrase it like Bayes' Theorem itself. Interested parties are also strongly urged to read Richard Cox's monograph: The Algebra of Probable Inference and folks interested in the connection between all of this and both AI computation and real human intelligence might want to look at David Mackay's Information Theory, Pattern Recognition and Neural Networks , available free online for interested readers or for money for interested professionals (I bought it, it's worth it). Even without priors, though, the observation of correlation beyond what is expected from random chance makes all of the various causal hypotheses rather more likely than they were before making the observation because with no causal linkage at all one expect no statistical correlation at all. It's differentiating between them that's tough without priors.

      That's the funny thing -- correlation is not causality, but it's all we've got, really. It's putting it to good use to build a network of (Bayesian) correlations that end up with consistency and perhaps even meaning that's the trick.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    120. Re:Savvy study author ... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Correlation does support evidence to a hypothesis though.

      The idea seems logical...
      There are a lot of people without a Super Ego.
      ID = Do what whatever immediately makes you feel better.
      Ego = Do the right thing because you will either get rewarded or punished if caught if you do the wrong thing.
      Super Ego = Do the Right Thing because it is the right thing, you may or may not get rewarded, or noticed, but because it is the right thing you do it.

      I don't think religion give people the Super Ego, There are probably the same percentages of Religious People and Atheists who have a Super Ego. But what religion does with the fear of Punishment from God for being bad. In essence keep the People with the normal Ego in line.

      So in cultures that Just have a Heaven, they expect you to work to please God. This doesn't mesh with the normal Ego, pleasing God isn't that much of a reward. Because the options are still Internal Bliss no matter what you do or a form of neutral state, just being dead, or some form of purgatory. Means you can still get away with a lot.

      A trade off of growing Atheism, is the fact that people who never formed a Super Ego will do whatever they can that they won't get caught for doing it.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    121. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christianity is the foundation for the laws of the land.

      Citation, please

    122. Re:Savvy study author ... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      One anthropological explanation for both is that, in general, humans commit (premeditated) crimes against members of a different tribe - that crime is effectively the kind of war that you get when two tribes are living in the same village. Once you identify an external enemy, be it the Germans or the 1%, then the local distinctions become less important and so the number of potential victims goes down.

      That flies in the face of the actual numbers. Most murders and rapes are by people the victim knows. Murders of strangers are rare.

    123. Re:Savvy study author ... by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

      Yes. There are two reasons that religions exist and persist in human society:

      1. They produce social cohesion and the resulting increased opportunity for trustworthy trade and co-operation.
      2. They make societies easier to govern, through behavioral constraint and institutionalized punishment mechanisms.

      Note that neither of these reasons has anything to do with the actual existence of a god.

      One can frame an argument, at least in biological/sociological/meme terms, that religion is good for societies
      (and the average fate of an individual within one) even though its core stories are completely full of shit.

      In other words that the harm prevention (through enforced prevention of social discord, inside each adherent population), is of more practical consequence than the fact that the populace believes a bunch of falsehoods.

      Those who claim that religions cause more strife than they prevent simply don't know what they're talking about. Religions enforce a common ethos, and peace, within the adherent group, and restrict conflicts to at the borders of the religious group, where it bumps into another one. Purely mathematically, this is less conflict per individual per lifetime than if one lived in a non-aligned society of many many free agents and fewer agreed social norms.

      I'm not sure where I come down on this argument. The trade-off, however, is clear.

      The challenge for atheists (like myself) is to come up with a means of aligning human societies (and their norms of behaviour) without resorting to the bullshit-laden moral fairytales of religions.
      And this has to work with human people as they are (of a vast range of education and intellectual capacity, with the average not that impressive), not just for a crust of scientific or rational-superman types.

      In other words, there is truth, and there is pragmatics. Do we have to choose one?

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    124. Re:Savvy study author ... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Ah, the Yanks. Oversexed, overpaid and over here.

      It's possible!

    125. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      The US tried to separate all aspects of Political leadership from Religion because you end up with the policies such as you had in England where a Lord had the right to bang a newly wed wife before the Husband

      O RLY?.

      or steal your property in the name of religion.

      In the name of religion? Srsly? Citation please that it was "in the name of religion" rather than "in the name of I have more people with swords or guns than you do"?

    126. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lower crime because there is enough police, perhaps?

      When they catch over 90% of killers, you can't have professional hit-men. And without them, no real mafia. And no killing to cover up lesser crimes, because killing witnesses only increases the chance of getting caught. (They don't catch 90% of burglars etc) Pickpockets instead of muggers - you can't threaten with a gun you only will be able to use once.

      Or mybe it is cultural. When the police asks, people are generally eager to tell whatever they saw. In american movies at least, they seem afraid to get "involved", whatever that means.

      Not sure that religion, or lack thereof, matters for crime.

    127. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So .099.... isn't .1?

      (.3333333...)*3=.9999999....
      (1/3)*3=1


      I guess that .33333333...=(1/3) is incorrect after all. Damn you, American education system! ;__;

    128. Re:Savvy study author ... by aintnostranger · · Score: 1

      In practice it works. The fact that not so many people want to put it in practice is another issue. People can twist any belief system to suit irresponsability. That's why a big chunk of the new testament is devoted to warn people about being superficial with their faith: the seed that fell on rocky soil, the man who builds his house upon sand, the pharisees, the hypocrites, the ones who think its about fulfilling a couple of social norms and just that, the ones who think it's about condemning the evil they see in others, the ones who think its about finding whose fault it is (who sinned so that this man is blind, he or his parents?) instead of improving things for people; warnings about believing in ones present state of rightousness as sufficient and as cause to proclaim some kind of superiority above others.

      Iit's not like Jesus taught something like "say you are a believer and everything will be fine" or any temporal utopia like that. So I think it's pretty fair to say that anyone who claims to be a christian and believes and acts persistently against such warnings is not a christian. Following Jesus and his teachings is the definition of being a christian. If He had said "well, I dont care what you do to kids" instead of "whoever harms one of these little ones it'd be better to tie himself to a rock and jump into a river" it would be fair to say that excluding people who persist in not taking responsability, doing evil, etc... from the "christian" category is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. But Jesus demanded some very specific behaviors from His followers: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Mt 7:21).

      Many christian leaders and movements would be far more threatened by an honest reading of scripture than from any atheist attack

      On the other hand, it's pretty useful to look back in history and see all the errors made in the name of faith, to evaluate them and to take responsability so that we don't repeat them again. Not only its necessary, but in order to judge it unnecessary we christians would have to put ourselves in a "100% biblical christian category, unlike everyone else" that's far from reality and from what scripture says about our nature.

    129. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where is this magical country you've been to?

    130. Re:Savvy study author ... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      "atheistic worldview" perhaps should have been "secular worldview", as in if I ask "what happens when you die" they respond "I rot in the ground"; and if I ask "what is the purpose of life" their response is "to work hard and suceed materially"; or even more tellingly, when I asked "what do you place your hope in", their response "the state".

      Thats about as "atheistic" / "secular" as it gets IMO.

    131. Re:Savvy study author ... by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      Ok higher "violent" "blue collar" crime.

      I suspect that "whitecollar" crime is just as prevalent in more affluent communities if not more so as you climb the social ladder. Those that get to the top are often the best cheaters besides being the best innovators.

    132. Re:Savvy study author ... by Gerzel · · Score: 1

      It isn't a criminal when someone in-power does it. It may truly be a crime, but it will never be criminal unless they are very sloppy for very unlucky.

    133. Re:Savvy study author ... by toutankh · · Score: 1

      You're right, my formulation is incorrect. What I meant is that any religion is acceptable because none is official, therefore not "public" in the meaning "of or provided by the government".

    134. Re:Savvy study author ... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Agreed, that is a non-spiritual/secular world view. I just wanted to clarify since atheism (small a) need not mean non-spiritual. For that matter, even strong atheism need not even though it usually does.

    135. Re:Savvy study author ... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Yes, you will be judged, for your good works. The confessional is understandable, you wouldn't confess if you hadn't repented. Christianity does make it clear that you do indeed have to repent your misdeeds, but as long as you're sorry, you're forgiven.

    136. Re:Savvy study author ... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Actually you are not correct, but I get the point. It is still a crime. Whether or not those people are prosecuted is a different question outside of legality.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    137. Re:Savvy study author ... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Forced tithing was a practice, but I agree that there were numerous ways for people to take property back then. If you were a person of title, all sorts of measures could be taken to get your stuff if a Noble wanted it. There are accounts outside of your link that back the historical truth of lords banging newly weds first. I can't tell you if the historical accounts I read long ago were England, but can tell you that the practice was not restricted to just England. There was historical significance in adding that plot to movies. Robin Hood Men in Tights had the plot long before Braveheart.

      Now, was it a written law? Probably not, but that does not mean it was not practiced or enforced. Many morally questionable laws were never written, but were practiced. Noble's were not so ignorant they could not see problems writing down certain laws.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    138. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Forced tithing was a practice, but I agree that there were numerous ways for people to take property back then. If you were a person of title, all sorts of measures could be taken to get your stuff if a Noble wanted it.

      Yes, but did that have anything to do with the noble holding a religious position? (As per my question in the comment to which you're replying, I will not find a claim of "yes" credible without a citation, and "citation" means more than "there are accounts, trust me" - point to one of them, so I can check its believability myself.)

      There are accounts outside of your link that back the historical truth of lords banging newly weds first.

      Reliable historical accounts? Accounts that it happened on occasion, or that it was a widespread custom? Cite some, please.

      There was historical significance in adding that plot to movies.

      I presume by that you don't mean "they wouldn't have added that plot to movies if it hadn't happened", as that would be a statement of truly mind-boggling idiocy. (By that logic, there really was an emperor named Ming the Merciless....)

      Robin Hood Men in Tights had the plot long before Braveheart.

      And by that logic, King Louis XVI played skeet using peasants as clay pigeons. Anna Maria Italiano's widower isn't exactly known for his deep interest in complete historical accuracy in his movies (for example, I really doubt that they had soldiers from Nazi Germany in late 19th Century California).

      Now, was it a written law? Probably not, but that does not mean it was not practiced or enforced. Many morally questionable laws were never written, but were practiced. Noble's were not so ignorant they could not see problems writing down certain laws.

      Which raises the question of whether they were "laws" in a sense that anything more than "I have more swords than you do" backs them up.

    139. Re:Savvy study author ... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Obviously not everything in movies is factual, however with the right of first night I did some digging long ago after Men in Tights was released. It was the first time I had heard of such a thing, which is not surprising considering my age.

      This paper does a better job than I could based on memories over 20 years ago, so here is a link. Paper.

      Of course you may say "Well, it's just stories". Reality is that much of real life is captured in stories since they did not generally attempt to account for history until the 16th century. Even then, the history they kept then was often extremely biased, so we rely on the stories and tales that were written to get a better idea of the truth. I'm guessing based on your earlier comments that you will understand that.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    140. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Obviously not everything in movies is factual,

      Gee, ya think?

      Given that, you really might want to avoid the argumentam ad cinematographeum (i.e., the mere fact that some movie happens to use some notion as a plot device does not, in any way, shape, or form, support that notion being true).

      This paper does a better job than I could based on memories over 20 years ago, so here is a link. Paper.

      The paper does an excellent job of saying

      The jus primae noctis was, in the European late medieval context, a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of the manor to share the wedding bed with his peasants' brides. Symbolic gestures, reflecting this belief, were developed by the lords and used as humiliating signs of superiority over the dependent peasants in the 15th century, a time of diminishing status differences. Actual intercourse in the exercise of the alleged right is difficult to prove, and there is no hard evidence to suggest that it ever actually happened.

      Pay careful attention to that last sentence; it appears that the paper doesn't support any claim that this right actually existed.

      (Oh, and could you either 1) cough up some citations that all these exercises of power by the elite would not have been possible if church and state were separated or 2) withdraw that claim made in your earlier posting?)

    141. Re:Savvy study author ... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Your second thing first: It's not going to be possible to teach all of the various philosophies that occurred around and before the American Revolution. Remember that Ben Franklin was not just in France to bang hookers and get drunk, but to learn from them what Philosophies and Policies worked the best after all of the hell that was the French Revolution. My suggestion would be to start reading backward from Franklin, Jefferson, etc... It's simply way to much to try and reply to. Make sure you don't neglect Adam Smith and his contemporaries since it does related to how we were founded.

      For the first part which is longer, I believe you may have overlooked the more obvious quote which backs the practice. In the late medieval times, perhaps you are correct. Earlier, we have documentation suggesting otherwise. Also, outside of Europe there is widespread accounts of the practice. Reasons are generally different outside of Europe for the most part, tending to be Religious as opposed to simply power of title.

      Pay attention to that first quote, and go back and read the paper. There are specific fees documented in Sweden for paying a Noble instead of letting them bang the new bride. That is very much proof of the practice as law, though I'm willing to guess that you will insist that everyone was allowed to pay or could afford to pay.

      In Eurasian literature the right of the first night is the privilege of a powerful man to have the first sexual intercourse with the bride of another. This archaic theme was perpetuated through the Middles Ages and probably became connected to marriage fines because of the particularities and traditions of Germanic marriage customs for unfree people.

      For the late medieval European period we can speak of the right of the first night as a widespread popular belief in an ancient privilege of the lord of the manor to share a bed with the bride on her wedding night. In some places, symbolic gestures reflecting this belief were developed by the lords and used as a sign of superiority over the dependent peasants in a time of diminishing status differences.

      For other non-European cultures, we should speak of "ritual defloration" rather than a "right of the first night". This custom was part of the preparation of girls for the wedding night and first sexual intercourse with their bridegrooms, and was often connected to transition rites at or before puberty. In most of these cultures the ritual was performed by a chief or priest, or manually by the girl’s mother.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    142. Re:Savvy study author ... by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Your second thing first: It's not going to be possible to teach all of the various philosophies that occurred around and before the American Revolution. Remember that Ben Franklin was not just in France to bang hookers and get drunk, but to learn from them what Philosophies and Policies worked the best after all of the hell that was the French Revolution. My suggestion would be to start reading backward from Franklin, Jefferson, etc... It's simply way to much to try and reply to. Make sure you don't neglect Adam Smith and his contemporaries since it does related to how we were founded.

      I didn't ask, in the question you still haven't made any effort to answer, about the philosophies on which you claim the US is based; I specifically asked for "some citations that all these exercises of power by the elite would not have been possible if church and state were separated". This is a question about history, not philosophy.

      For the first part which is longer, I believe you may have overlooked the more obvious quote which backs the practice. In the late medieval times, perhaps you are correct. Earlier, we have documentation suggesting otherwise.

      Citations, please? Also, outside of Europe there is widespread accounts of the practice. Reasons are generally different outside of Europe for the most part, tending to be Religious as opposed to simply power of title.

      Pay attention to that first quote, and go back and read the paper.

      Why don't you go back and read the paper; in particular, try reading this bit:

      The Germanic "mundium" payment of the free bridegroom to his bride or her family implied the right to take possession of the bride by means of taking her home and having the first sexual intercourse with her. If an unfree man in the early Middle Ages wanted to marry a free woman, he not only had to ask his lord’s permission; it was also the lord who paid the mundium for the servant's bride as a loan. The unfree man was not legally entitled (position)???to act independently from his lord, and by paying the mundium, the lord acquired not only a new subject and wife for his servant but also (in a very formal sense) the right to take the woman home and to perform the "Beilager", a symbolic custom representing the first sexual intercourse with the bride. The Germanic "Beilager" was an important part of the Germanic marriage ritual that was later integrated into the ecclesiastical ritual of marriage (Wettlaufer 1998: 81-127; See Figure 1).

      However, actual intercourse between lord and bride was never part of the (legal) marriage procedure. The lord obtained no marital rights from his role as procurator for the unfree servant bridegroom, but simply the right to have his loan for the mundium repaid. This repayment was due when the couple’s own daughters married. Later, different marriage payments were merged and fused together and changed their function, but the idea of a lord's privilege on the first night apparently remained connected to these payments. This new explanation of the relation between medieval marriage-payments and the literary theme of the right of the first night sheds some light on the obscure origin of a widespread popular belief during the European Middle Ages that such a right had formerly existed and was strongly connected to customary payments or fines like merchet, amobr, cullage, vadimonium, etc. (Cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 105-195).

      And then, having gone back and reread the paper, count the number of times the word "symbolic" and derivatives thereof appear in the paper. Perhaps the paper is trying to tell you something....

      There are specific fees documented in Sweden for paying a Noble instead of letting them bang the new bride. That is very much proof of the practice as law, though I'm willing to guess that you will insist that everyone was allowed to pay or could afford to pay.

    143. Re:Savvy study author ... by s.petry · · Score: 1

      There are specific fees documented in Sweden for paying a Noble instead of letting them bang the new bride. That is very much proof of the practice as law, though I'm willing to guess that you will insist that everyone was allowed to pay or could afford to pay.

      Well, first I'll ask for some citations on that.

      I'm beginning to question whether or not you actually read the paper or just picked out pieces that backed your position. The same paper states the fees and entitlements, so there should be no need for a citation. I was however wrong in stating it was Sweden, it was Switzerland which I caught re-reading. Pay very close attention to that first sentence I have in bold in the large paragraph.

      II. The jus primae noctis as a power display in the late Middle Ages

      We have quite a few examples showing how the popular belief in a former jus primae noctis influenced social relations between lords and peasants in Switzerland, France and Catalonia in the 15th and 16th centuries. One of these stems from a Swiss village in the vicinity of Zurich. In a customal from about 1400 A.D., the rights of the inhabitants of Maur were itemised by the local "Meier", a representative of the lord of Maur, which at that time was the convent of Zurich. "Item, who wants to enter the holy state of marriage in the village and court of Maur, whoever he may be, shall hand over the woman to Us for the first night or he may buy her out, as it is custom and tradition and written in the old customals. If he doesn't do so, he must pay a fine of 30 pennies." (STAZ [Staatsarchiv des Kantons Zürich]. Urkunden Stadt und Land Nr. 2563; copy of the 15th century, cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 251). One hundred and fifty years later, the text had been slightly altered: in the 1543 version, written by a successor of the first editor, one reads "... and when the wedding starts, the bridegroom shall allow the sergeant to lie with his bride for the first night, or he shall buy her off with 5 pounds and 4 pennies." (STAZ C. I 2562, [1543 AD] cf. Wettlaufer 1999: 255).

      For the philosophy of Separating Church and State try doing a Google search. There are discussions dating back to the late 1600s. It is from those various Philosophies that you will find the reasons for separating Church and State. Part of which is the separation of Powers. Also read some history regarding the Lutheran reform to see how much power Nobles had in the Church, then the Protestant reform, etc.. etc... etc... What you are asking is relatively easy to find, and way to lengthy to site citations here.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    144. Re:Savvy study author ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1/3 = .333333333333
      2/3 = .666666666666
      3/3 = .999999999999
      or
      3/3 = 1

  2. Last line of summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where less believed in hell.

    FTFY, Slashdot.

    1. Re:Last line of summary by Galestar · · Score: 2

      Actually you did not. Belief and heaven and hell have exactly opposite effects on crime rates. The wording is misleading, but it is correct.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Last line of summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which religions only have Heaven, which religions only have Hell?

      Or is this just a measure of however many people slept through sunday school class and only heard about one or the other?

    3. Re:Last line of summary by arth1 · · Score: 2

      ... where fewer believed in hell.

      FTFY, AC

    4. Re:Last line of summary by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Nope, they're pointing out that the stick might be greater than the carrot in preventing wrongdoing. Hopefully the carrot is greater than the stick in causing beneficence.

    5. Re:Last line of summary by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      There is no hell in the old testament, baby Jesus fessed up to owning a dungeon in part 2.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Last line of summary by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Not really true, in Christianity there is no Hell so the stick doesn't work very well and once "saved is always saved" so the carrot only works once.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    7. Re:Last line of summary by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      in Christianity there is no Hell

      Then why does Jesus discuss Hell multiple times?

    8. Re:Last line of summary by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Then why does Jesus discuss Hell multiple times?

      Poor translations;

      The New Testament equivalent of sheol is hades, which occurs only eleven times. Like its synonym sheol, the King James Version translates the word “hell.” However, the correct translation is hades, or the unseen. The Bible doesn’t use hades exclusively for a place of punishment. Luke 16 pictures righteous Lazarus there. Acts 2.27, 31 says Jesus went there. In I Cor. 15.15, Paul used the same word when he said, “O grave, where is thy victory?” In Rev. 1.18, Jesus said he had the controlling keys of death and hades, the unseen, and in Rev. 6.8, death and hades followed the pale horse. Finally, in Rev. 20.13, 14, death and hades gave up the dead that were in them, and were then cast into the lake of fire. These verses illustrate that hades refers to anything that is unseen. Jesus' Teaching on Hell

      The whole of it boils down to one verse of Paranoid delusions, of John of Patmos.

      Revelation 21:8 King James Version (KJV)
      8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  3. So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Therefore, the only logical choice is to believe in religion as an evolutionary strategy to advance the human race!

    Ha! Suck it fundamentalist atheists! You're on the losing side of the evolution fight this time!

    1. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Galestar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Religion, no. Hell, yes. If humans believe in both Heaven and Hell there will be no net effect on the crime rates.

      Ha! Suck it fundamentalist deists! You're on the no statistical significance side of the evolution fight this time!

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Religion, no. Hell, yes. If humans believe in both Heaven and Hell there will be no net effect on the crime rates. Ha! Suck it fundamentalist deists! You're on the no statistical significance side of the evolution fight this time!

      Thanks for properly capitalizing the names of places, even if personally and usually considered imaginary or metaphorical. I'll never understand the insistance of those that are hostile towards religion and belief to use incorrect grammar... as though it is a directed insult to the very idea itself, which is, of course, an absurd intention.

    3. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by bhagwad · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately this might be true. Religious people tend to have more babies, so it's not surprising that there may be a religious gene that gets preferable treatment. I've also noticed that the more uneducated, religious, bigoted or prejudiced people are, the more children they have.

      It's a depressing state of affairs if you ask me.

    4. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Just because something is imaginary or metaphorical doesn't mean it's name is not a proper noun. There are valid cases where the words "heaven" and "hell" should not have a capital H.

    5. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will you ever understand that "hell" is correct when referring to the concept in general, rather than any particular place as defined by a particular religious authority?

    6. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by lvxferre · · Score: 1

      At least for me, depends on which sense you give to the word. I usually sum up this with a "I have a dog called Dog". While I commonly use this when discussing about gods, (Christian god Yahweh aka God included), this applies too to heaven/Heaven and hell/Hell.

      --
      Nerdy news for your nerdy needs? http://www.soylentnews.org Soylent News is people!
    7. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by toadlife · · Score: 1

      Religious people tend to have more babies

      Religion does have an effect, but I think economic status is a more reliable predictor of birth rates.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic-economic_paradox

      Economic status or course is also tied with education level and lower education levels correlate with religious beliefs, so in a roundabout way...

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    8. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes! Even Atlantis and Cybertron get capitalized names!

    9. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      so out-breed them! :)

      i don't understand people who have an idea how the world should be, yet they decide it's not worth bringing a child into the world as it is. if people like us don't breed, then the world will never be as we would like it.

    10. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm concerned, the world ends when I die :)

    11. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      where there is no infrastructure, there is religion.

      when a ruling power cannot effectively educate it's people, there are religious people doing it for them (for free!).

      in this way you could take religion as being a kind of base level of education that will reach everywhere.

      the goal of an enlightened society is to educate people even halfway as effectively, or they'll be dominated by supernatural thought.

      religion will keep a people alive, but rarely can they achieve greatness without demystifying the world.

    12. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Just because something is imaginary or metaphorical doesn't mean it's name is not a proper noun. There are valid cases where the words "heaven" and "hell" should not have a capital H.

      Your comment is a little confusing. Place names are always proper nouns and thus always capitalized, even ficticious places such as Xanadu, Romulus, and Narnia, and even real places like New York, Paris and Rome. In the context of this article, Heaven and Hell are the names of places, even if they are spiritual in nature, even if this "place" is a psychological state of mind (such as feeling so bad you are "in Hell," or so pleased with the taste of pie that you are "in Heaven"), and thus should be capitalized. In most cases Heaven and Hell should be capitalized, and in most cases they are, incorrectly, not.

    13. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by elsurexiste · · Score: 1

      Religion, no. Hell, yes. If humans believe in both Heaven and Hell there will be no net effect on the crime rates.

      Actually, no. FTA:

      A growing program of research from across the social sciences now supports the long-held claim that religion positively affects normative behavior[1]

      --
      I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
    14. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by TapeCutter · · Score: 2

      Heaven and Hell are place names, heaven and hell are descriptions of situations or emotional states. "I'm in Heaven" implies I'm dead, "I'm in heaven" implies I'm on the recieving end of a blow job.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    15. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Galestar · · Score: 2
      Try reading the whole article not just the first sentence. What you quoted is the introductory sentence which states what other studies have found. This study is finding something quite different.

      However, recent studies suggest that not all religious beliefs are equal in this respect. Though supernatural punishment is associated with increases in normative behavior, laboratory research reveals the concept of supernatural benevolence to be associated with decreases in normative behavior

      As predicted, rates of belief in heaven and hell had significant, unique, and opposing effects on crime rates.

      --
      AccountKiller
    16. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Heaven and Hell are place names, heaven and hell are descriptions of situations or emotional states. "I'm in Heaven" implies I'm dead, "I'm in heaven" implies I'm on the recieving end of a blow job.

      I have trouble understanding this. So if you are in a french restaurant in Queens, taste some flambé, and are emotionally moved by this... might you anounce with enthusiasm "I am in paris" or "this tastes like paris?" No. You always capitalize Paris even if it is describing an emotional state, because the emotional state is actually using a place name to describe the brainstate. The distinction you and others are making is suspect, because only Heaven and Hell have these odd rules applied to them. When William Tecumseh Sherman said "War is Hell," he wasn't talking about a place, but an emotional state, and yet Hell is properly capitalized in all instances of this phrase.

    17. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by zrq · · Score: 2

      Religious people tend to have more babies

      The statistics seem to indicate that might not be true.
      http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_religions_and_babies.html

    18. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by catmistake · · Score: 1

      When William Tecumseh Sherman said "War is Hell," he wasn't talking about a place, but an emotional state, and yet Hell is properly capitalized in all instances of this phrase.

      confirmed:

      War is Hell.

      • This quote originates from his address to the graduating class of the Michigan Military Academy (19 June 1879); but slightly varying accounts of this speech have been published:
      • I’ve been where you are now and I know just how you feel. It’s entirely natural that there should beat in the breast of every one of you a hope and desire that some day you can use the skill you have acquired here.
        Suppress it! You don’t know the horrible aspects of war. I’ve been through two wars and I know. I’ve seen cities and homes in ashes. I’ve seen thousands of men lying on the ground, their dead faces looking up at the skies. I tell you, war is Hell!

      Letter to the City Council of Atlanta (12 September 1864)

      • You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now, it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority, wherever it once had power; for, if it relaxes one bit to pressure, it is gone, and I believe that such is the national feeling.

      source

      Sherman wasn't talking about the address of Hell, he was talking about an emotional state, as is verified by his previous statements about war. "Hell" and "Heaven" are proper nouns, even when not recognized as such by those that insist on making up their own rules of the English language. They are both properly captialized, and incorrectly uncapitalized.

    19. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Just because something is imaginary or metaphorical doesn't mean it's name is not a proper noun. There are valid cases where the words "heaven" and "hell" should not have a capital H.

      Well, to me 'god' is a generic term. Just because some people believe that there is a singular entity and in their use of the word 'god' they choose to grace it with a capital letter why should I?

      I do not believe that the god of the christians/jews/muslims is a unique entity, I believe that it is just one local spirit patron.

      I will capitalise the names that they give this spirit patron eg Allah, Yahweh, Yod Heh Vav Heh, Adonai, whatever, but I won't capitalise the word 'god'. To do so would be to acknowledge their (false belief) in the uniqueness and primacy of their particular little local spirit patron.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    20. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by myowntrueself · · Score: 3, Informative

      where there is no infrastructure, there is religion.

      when a ruling power cannot effectively educate it's people, there are religious people doing it for them (for free!).

      Its not 'for free', they have to sell their souls.

      in this way you could take religion as being a kind of base level of education that will reach everywhere.

      the goal of an enlightened society is to educate people even halfway as effectively, or they'll be dominated by supernatural thought.

      religion will keep a people alive, but rarely can they achieve greatness without demystifying the world.

      I've recently been working in a developing country, in what I thought was a university. Turns out this 'university' is a front for christian missionaries and despite handing out degrees the quality of education is laughable. About 85% of the teaching staff have NO KNOWLEDGE of the subjects they are pretending to teach. But they feel good about what they do because they are spreading the word of god. Its pretty detestable stuff. And its stifling genuine education, which is EXACTLY what they want.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    21. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by myowntrueself · · Score: 2

      so out-breed them! :)

      i don't understand people who have an idea how the world should be, yet they decide it's not worth bringing a child into the world as it is. if people like us don't breed, then the world will never be as we would like it.

      The reluctance of people in the 'educated' world to have kids is wierd. I myself never thought I wanted to have kids. It wasn't until I was much older that I realised what a terrible mistake I'd made. This was after reading Nietzsche and realising something about myself, about kids and what they are.

      The human race is on a journey. We travel from the bestial to the superhuman. Each child is a step on that journey. If we continue to have children, to nurture them, to raise them to be better than us, stronger, smarter, more bold than us, we contribute to that journey. One must feel... almost threatened by ones children; that one day they may beat us, defeat us, exceed us, show us for the lazy ignorant sluggards that we are (compared to them). If we carry on like this then one day our descendants will be to us as we are to the animals.

      Children are explorers and colonists that we send into the future. If you don't send em, someone else will and the future will be colonised by them not you. Also, I think what wonders these explorers will uncover in that 'undiscovered country'.

      If you don't have kids then perhaps you don't think the future is worth colonising and that theres nothing worthwhile discovering there... That the superhuman that waits in the destiny of our species perhaps should not come to exist?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    22. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by metrix007 · · Score: 2

      There are some problems with your argument, although the quote from Sherman is a pretty good point. Mainly, people don't use Paris to describe an emotional state. Not like they do with heaven. They might say something is like being in Paris, but that is still obviously referring to the city in France.

      Heaven and Hell are concepts, just as much as they are places described in the Christian bible. When referring to the Christian Heaven/Hell then capitalization is correct. When referring to the abstract idea that happens to share the same names in English as the Christian places, you should not use capitalization.

      Hell is where Satan lives, Heaven is where Jesus awaits. heaven is where you get to go after you die if you were good, hell is where you go if you were bad. Concepts, not places.

      It's like if there is a burger shop called Burger Shop. That shop should be referred to as Burger Shop, but the idea of a burger shop is fine being referred to as burger shop. OK?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    23. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      when a ruling power cannot effectively educate it's people, there are religious people doing it for them (for free!).

      Bingo.

      It'll never happen, but if the USA wants to end terrorism against them the solution is to fund secular schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do that for 40 years and you'll end religion's stranglehold.

    24. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Religion, no. Hell, yes. If humans believe in both Heaven and Hell there will be no net effect on the crime rates.

      Ha! Suck it fundamentalist deists! You're on the no statistical significance side of the evolution fight this time!

      Thanks for properly capitalizing the names of places, even if [the places are] personally and usually considered imaginary or metaphorical. I'll never understand the insistence of those who are hostile towards religion and belief to use incorrect grammar...[is that supposed to be an ellipses?] as though it is a directed insult to the very idea [the "very idea" of religion and "belief"? Those are more than one idea.] itself, which is, of course, an absurd intention.

      Ah, the wonderful irony of arguing about grammar on the internet. Fixed a few things for you (and left a few in my response to fix yourself. You're welcome).

    25. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by viperidaenz · · Score: 2

      It depends what you're referring to at the time as to whether or not you should capitalise the word "god". Grammar has nothing to do with you personal beliefs.

    26. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      One certainly shouldn't write "hellish" or "heavenly" with capital letters, though that was perhaps done a few hundred years ago. That'd be hellacious.

    27. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      I don't.
      Perhaps I'm just creating confusion for the hell of it...

    28. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      The reluctance of people in the 'educated' world to have kids is wierd[sic].

      Weird? Only if you ignore the economic implications of having children. Educated people still love their children and don't want them to suffer and have a decent quality of life. Uneducated people don't tend to think in economic terms, meaning, well the kid is there, they give minimum care (best they can, I'm not saying they don't love their children) and you end up with another uneducated child. Contrast to the educated people, who invest in their children and depending on the talent of the child, may still end up with an uneducated child.

      I've heard that in the educated world, kids are more and more considered "status symbols" because you need to make quite a lot to actually sustain a family.

      I like the idea of thinking of children as colonizing the future, but don't overdo the Nietzsche.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    29. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Off the top of my head "You're up shit creek" is a non-religious example.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    30. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Schools are useless if children don't attend them due to social pressures. It's not that simple.

    31. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by icebraining · · Score: 1

      If you don't send em, someone else will and the future will be colonised by them not you.

      We have enough children being born every day. One can help that "journey" better by making others' children lives better. The only thing that doesn't do is inflate one's ego on how they're somehow better because they're "colonizing" and others aren't.

    32. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by eulernet · · Score: 1

      "I'm in heaven" implies I'm on the recieving end of a blow job.

      Not exactly, it depends if the person giving you a blow job is a woman or not.

    33. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      If you don't send em, someone else will and the future will be colonised by them not you.

      We have enough children being born every day.

      No, we don't, not in the Western world. The world is being overrun by the progeny of poor and undeveloped countries which are, in effect, invading countries which are, at the moment, richer and better off.

      People of those developed nations need to pull their fingers out and make more babies.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    34. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by hackula · · Score: 1

      Jebus H kriste, I'll spell it how I g-wd damn please!

    35. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by hackula · · Score: 1

      Capital "G" G-d in philosophy at least does not refer to the judeo-christian god of the bible. It refers to the concept of a being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. There are no specific details assigned like they are in theology. This is generally to be charitable, since the entire idea of G-d starts to make no fucking sense once you start describing it in any but the most abstract terms. Even the "omni"s are completely nonsensical when assigned to the same being at once.

    36. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by hackula · · Score: 1

      Not necessary. One educated child is worth 10 dummies.

    37. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And people in both camps scare the shit out of me. Here I am --- an atheist --- and I've just been a nice person and doing charitable things and helping people when I can (not to mention not murdering people or anything) because . . . you know . . . it's the decent way to behave and we're socially bound to care for each other, to some extent, as a society and a species.

      That everyone else is just "not turning to murder, rape, and theft" because "the big bad spooky monster in the sky's gonna get them" is fucking TERRIFYING.

    38. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      You can't do that without the sort of force the soviets used. If we attempted to set up secular schools and force people to go the schools, they would get blown up in seconds. Even in the current situation they poison entire girls schools rather than let them get some (Islamic) education. Stripping religion from a society is an ugly business -- although sometimes entirely necessary for progress to occur.

    39. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by benhattman · · Score: 1

      Thank god we have grammar Nazis (see what I did there?).

      If something is an accepted norm, then it is not bad grammar. All that means is the codified grammar rules you're reading from are out of date. Grammar is whatever the speakers/writers of a language in aggregate agree it is. Even though capitalizing all proper nouns is in the books; I tend to see relatively lax capitalization for places (but not "people") the author considers imaginary. So, if writers choose not to capitalize heaven/hell, and if readers accept that, then it's proper grammar.

      On the specific topic of heaven and hell, you are of course also wrong even by the book. There are other proper names we frequently do not capitalize; chief among them is the proper noun 'earth'. Since people group things semantically, and earth is a place where people live, it's not surprising that heaven would be lowercase since it's a place where people afterlive.

      Not everything is meant as an insult to the "other side".

    40. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like the Bible, the writings of Nietzsche are also filled with fantasy.

    41. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by icebraining · · Score: 1

      And I'm sure that's a real problem for chauvinists, but not for me.

    42. Re:So religion is an evolutionary strategy by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Capital "G" G-d in philosophy at least does not refer to the judeo-christian god of the bible. It refers to the concept of a being that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. There are no specific details assigned like they are in theology. This is generally to be charitable, since the entire idea of G-d starts to make no fucking sense once you start describing it in any but the most abstract terms. Even the "omni"s are completely nonsensical when assigned to the same being at once.

      I really don't see why this needs to be capitalised.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  4. So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who else believes in hell?

    1. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 4, Funny

      what about those of us who long ago realized hell is all there is and we're there now, broadcasting live -- HI MOM!!!

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    2. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      As an atheist, I didn't used to, but then I spent a few weeks in Arkansas. If that's not hell, I don't know what is...

    3. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Informative

      Who else believes in hell?

      Well, let's look at The Fine Paper:

      The same pattern also emerges for three out of the four religious groups that form national majorities–predominantly Roman Catholic, predominantly non-Catholic Christian, and predominantly ‘Other,’ which comprises of either unaffiliated majorities, or more localized majority religions such as Hinduism, Shintoism and syncretic religions that combine Islam and Christianity with traditional indigenous religions (see Figure 1). The only exception to this observation is predominantly Muslim countries in Asia, for which the uniformly high levels of both belief in heaven and hell (Ms = 93% and 91% respectively), produce insufficient variance for prediction.

      So presumably some flavors of "Other" believe in a hell of some sort (for example, "being reincarnated as something in the "sucks to be you" category" might fill the bill), as does Islam. I don't see "IL" in Figure 1, so, unless I've missed something, there's no country where Judaism is a national majority (I'm assuming it's still a national majority in Israel), so I'm not sure it addresses the "Judeo" part of that.

      (Oh, and the data point for the US is a fair bit above the line, meaning a higher crime rate for the US's value of {believers in hell} - {believers in heaven} than the line would predict. I don't know whether that's significant; if it is, maybe hell is a less effective deterrent here in the City on the Hill.)

    4. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by jd · · Score: 1

      Oi! Hel is the name of a Nordic giantess, thank you very much!

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    5. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by EnsilZah · · Score: 2

      As far as I know there are no concrete concepts of either hell or heaven in Judaism.

    6. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Go to South Africa, Somalia or Haiti.

    7. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello Jesus ..
      Can you please be a bit more proactive like olden days (in the Old Testament)

      Why ? Because..

      "researchers have recently found that the effect of religion on
      pro-social behaviours may actually be driven by the belief in
      HELL and supernatural PUNISHMENT"

    8. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I'm from Arkansas, and I liked it except for about 40% of the people there. And that's pretty much middle of the road for % of local population I find tolerable.

    9. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      South Africa? I am here now. Sure there is poverty and chaos, but it is far from hell. Try our northern neighbour...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    10. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by DeathToBill · · Score: 1

      Leeds.

      --
      Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    11. Re:So, Judeo-Christian areas, then? by SpooForBrains · · Score: 1

      Bracknell

      --
      "The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"
  5. One acknowledges the existence of the other by chicago_scott · · Score: 1, Troll

    Psychologists found significantly lower crime rates in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where more people believed in heaven."

    If there's good then there's evil. If there's a God then there's a Devil. If there's a Heaven then there's a Hell.

    How can there be one without the other?

    1. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's arguably true with respect to good and evil. The others, not so much.

    2. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by bussdriver · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, some people argue that Hell was created later and added to the Bible. A hell mythology is quite popular everywhere so if you start out without it'll be added sooner or later.

      If hell impacts good behavior and heaven does not, then one would expect Buddhists to do well right? They do not have heaven but they can get really bad Karma... Good karma is not Heaven but bad Karma could be bad enough to be considered a form of hell.

    3. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      If there's good then there's evil. If there's a God then there's a Devil. If there's a Heaven then there's a Hell.

      It might help if you took a comparative religion course. Many people believe in God without a belief in a Devil. This applies for example to many liberal Christians. In Judaism, the closest thing to the Devil is "Satan" who acts more as a prosecuting angel or a gadfly in the heavenly court. This interpretation is based on pretty old sources including the actual mentions of Satan in the Old Testament, especially the book of Job.

      Similarly, many forms of Christianity have a notion heaven without any notion of hell. This is common among Christians who ascribe to universal reconciliation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation and similar beliefs. Some other groups believe that there is either heaven or oblivion- this belief is common among Jehovah Witnesses for example. Similarly, many forms of Judaism have a notion of purgatory but no equivalent of hell. Indeed, there's a belief common among Orthodox Jews that no matter how bad you are you won't suffer for more than a year in the afterlife. This is related to the tradition of saying, Kaddish, the prayer for the dead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaddish for 11 months- one wants to ease their suffering but one does not want to imply that that someone was so bad that they were being punished for a full year.

      In the other direction, you have some belief systems that have a notion similar to hell but no equivalent of heaven. For example, in some forms of Buddhism, there are very unpleasant things one can be reincarnated to to suffer for milllenia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) but there's no real equivalent of heaven. So one can not only have a belief in heaven with no belief in hell, one can have a belief in hell with no belief in heaven.

    4. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So according to you things are either good or evil? No morally neurtal actions? Because if it can be neutral you have a baseline, which means you can have one deviation without the other.

    5. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, and if there are humans, there must be anti-humans. Also there must be a specific anti person for each person. There must be anti-money, anti-colour... What? Can you explain that point again either in terms of formal logic, or citing evidence? As an arbitrary whimsical deist I believe in god and heaven, but not hell or the devil. Can you prove me wrong about hell's nonexistence or even give a logical train of thought other than 'it is self evident'?

    6. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess enlightenment is the carrot, suffering is the stick. But you're already suffering, so...

      That said, the Dalai Lama is one of the least religious spiritual leaders I can think of. He just tweeted last week about how he's increasingly convinced it's time to ditch religion. He wasn't giving up on happiness and "spirituality"... whatever that is.

      As some have said of atheists, and I'm sure I'm butchering this, "their greatest fear is finding out there's life after death". If you "just don't get heaven", nobody would be worried. If being wrong means the Xtian version of Hell... well, then it starts to feel like a gamble.

    7. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      There are lots of people who believe that when you die you "go to the afterlife," and that even bad people end up there (where their lives won't be so hard). The idea that good people will go to Heaven only if bad people are punished for all eternity is a fairly wrathful concept.

      Likewise, the idea that the Devil is "the opposite of God" is a kind of fringe belief for Christianity. By most reckonings, the Christian Devil is clearly subordinate to God. Some Christians don't really believe in the Devil at all. Neither do Jews.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    8. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by slew · · Score: 1

      If there's a God then there's a Devil.

      There are many religions where there is God, but no "devil" or "satan". Even if you look to the bible (instead of the christian folklore of Milton, and Dante), the "devil" inhabits both heaven and earth and is more a tempting spirit (more like Goethe's Faust) than a counterpart to God who happens to live in Hell.

      If there's a Heaven then there's a Hell.

      How can there be one without the other?

      AFAIK, there is no "hell" in the christian biblical sense of eternal punishment in Judaism, but there is Heaven. Although Judaism seems to have a temporary state of shame that offers the chance of redemption that might be considered "temporary hell-like".

    9. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 1

      What makes you think bad karma is hell? Bad karma is bad karma, no more no less. Similarly moksha is moksha, and is not heaven.

    10. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      (Puts on buzz killington outfit)

      Actually, the judeo christian bible is quite clear about what happens to unriteous people when they die. (Saying "sinners" implies a false dichotomy. All people are sinners by biblical standards.)

      The old testament uses the term "grave" in most english translations. The original hebrew word was "sheol", which actually means "null", "nonexistence", "void", "emptiness", etc. Lit. The state of no longer being.

      The current version of popular "hell", is a purely dogmatic construct with only the most minimal of biblical support, (namely the noteworthy reference in revelation to a lake of fire.) Its primary point of origin can be historically traced to the "christianization" of norther europe, where the indigionous religious belif held that those that died a "non glorious" death, such as by old age, sickness, accident, etc, were sent to a cold and harsh afterlife managed by the epynomous "hel", a frost giantess. the realm itself was also of the same name.

      To better bring these forced converts into harmony with church doctrines, the role of hell changed, but the idea that undesirables go there did not.

      The obvious utility of imposing an eternal punishment of unbelievable suffering and torment for disobeying religious teachings and dogma is self-evident, and is precisely why the dogma still endures long after its original parent religion's demise.

      As for "if there is a heaven, there must be a hell", this is fundamentally untrue. The judeo-christian faith, as written, (not as commonly practiced, more's the pity) has no such concept, and simply has god destroying the unriteous outright, cleanly, utterly, and humanely. They die, and that's that.

    11. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, the Western concept of Hell is mostly based on Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost -- likewise the concept of alien beings being white with halos and dove's wings, and others being red with forked tails, goat's horns and pitchforks is something that comes from popular culture and not theological treatises.

      Added to this, if you look in the Christian Bible or any of the Jewish religious works, you'll see that earlier works only refer to Abaddon or Hades, and even later works rarely refer to Hell (8 references, mostly in Matthew, also in Mark, Luke, James and 2 Peter, with the Matthew and Mark ones paraphrasing the same sermons). Original references to Hell in the Bible are attributed to Jesus, Paul, James and Peter. Of these, Peter describes it as gloomy (similar to Hades), James as fiery, Jesus and Paul purely as a place Angels and Humans can be exiled to, possibly with a gate and wall.

      What am I getting at here? Mostly that this study is likely mostly useless, as the entire concept of what Hell is and who goes there and for what varies wildly throughout history and geography/culture. Nowadays, most people apply the Yin/Yan dichotomy to Heaven and Hell; others have labelled Hell as being "not Heaven", and then of course there's the "Heaven's Prison" and "Place of Eternal Torment" depictions mentioned in the Bible.

      I'd be more interested in seeing this study done looking at belief in a benevolent creator and belief in a malignant rebel; the results may be the same, but that's in no way guaranteed.

    12. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      You might want to ask god how there can't be a hell before he kicked lucifer out and made hell. Derp. Why am i discussing fairy tales on slashdot?

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    13. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If being wrong means the Xtian version of Hell... well, then it starts to feel like a gamble.

      Not when there is an infinite number of possible gods with varying personalities. There is a reason that Pascal's Wager is moronic.

    14. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is also the concept that heaven and hell are the same place, just sinners find it much less pleasant than the virtuous.

    15. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      But if you are going to bring up the fairytale, at least do a proper job of summarizing that part of the plot.

      The nephalim (children produced by the fallen watchers who took human wives) had no place for their spiritual essenses to to upon death. They were founded on the perfect divine, from their paternal lineage as divine beings, but had been clothed in temporary flesh from their mothers'. No place existed for them to go.

      They were banished to wander the earth as unclean spirits. Eg, "demons."

      The fallen angels (the watchers) that sired them had to "pervert themselves" to even be able to sire children (spiritual beings have no gender), and had sworn oaths to the effect that they were all equally complicit in their fall, and share of blame.

      As such, all of the fallen watchers, and a third of the other angels of heaven who sided with them, were banished from heaven. The bible (canon) does not explicitly state where they were banished to.

      The apochryphal book or enoc does, however, give a description of the prison where these fallen watchers are held. Here's a hint: it bears absolutely no resemblence to dogmatic "fire and brimstone" hell as per current dogmatic practices.

    16. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck yeah -- such insights have not been seen since the day of Zarathustra!

      Oh, wait, if dualism is so obviously correct, why haven't you guys convinced the world? Maybe people not raised in Zoroastrian/Abrahamic religions don't have the blinders that prevent you from conceiving of a God without a Devil (or a Devil without a God, or most commonly, an entire supernatural world). Would you say, if there's a Secretary General of the UN, there must be a <whatever one calls his opposite number>? Clearly not -- in the natural world, "people" are independent entities interacting with each other, not the infinitely distant poles of some ideological drama. Why must the overworld, presuming its existence, be the latter and not the former?

    17. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not really, it's a spectrum phenomena. It's like cutting the ends off a rope - you don't get a rope with no ends, you just change where they are. Like light and darkness, up and down, big and small, good and evil are defined in terms of each other, eliminate one, and the other ceases to have meaning. If all acts were good, then we'd have no concept of good because it would have zero information content. So long as there's a spectrum of possible outcomes that you can choose between, choosing the least-beneficial/most harmful outcome will be "evil"

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    18. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by steelfood · · Score: 1

      WRT Buddhism, living effectively is hell. Death is but a way of going from one form of hell to another (sometimes worse). The only escape is spiritual enlightenment, which is as close to a concept of "heaven" as there will be in Buddhism. Only, this heaven is a state of existence.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    19. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by chicago_scott · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in either concept, but It just seems illogical that there can be a significantly larger amount of people that believe in "Heaven" than believe in "Hell" or vice-versa.

      But then again, people are weird.

    20. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by chicago_scott · · Score: 1

      Exactly, there are no neutral actions. I left out the word "morally" since it's very definition is the distinction between "good" and "evil".

    21. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have a cup of tea in a moment. It is either going to be green tea or earl grey. Is there moral content to my choice?

    22. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      You may be operating with unconscious assumptions of a very traditionalist Christian nature. If for example one has a deity that is interested in rewarding the good but isn't that obsessed with punished wrongdoers, then not having hell makes sense. There are a lot of coherent theological positions including some in Christianity that allow for a heaven with no hell.

    23. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Although Judaism seems to have a temporary state of shame that offers the chance of redemption that might be considered "temporary hell-like".

      I believe that is what New York City is for.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    24. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the other direction, you have some belief systems that have a notion similar to hell but no equivalent of heaven. For example, in some forms of Buddhism, there are very unpleasant things one can be reincarnated to to suffer for milllenia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naraka_(Buddhism) but there's no real equivalent of heaven. So one can not only have a belief in heaven with no belief in hell, one can have a belief in hell with no belief in heaven.

      Actually, in the original teachings of nearly all forms of Buddhism there are many realms of existence, including heaven and hell and everything in between.

      The link above is to the cosmology of Theravada, the most Orthodox form of Buddhism, which most all other schools of Buddhism are rooted in. Beings live out their lives in each realm of existence, pass away according to their deeds and actions, and are reborn again in yet another realm. Life in all realms is transitory.

      With this as the background, one of the main drives for enlightenment, awakening, and Nibbana / Nirvana, is to put an end to this process of transmigration, the round of rebirths called samsara, and acheive the cessation of the turmoil of repeated existence.

    25. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by tepples · · Score: 2

      Of these, Peter describes it as gloomy (similar to Hades), James as fiery

      Are they talking about the same hell? Hades and Gehenna are two different hells, as I mentioned elsewhere, and translators have confused them.

    26. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Similarly, many forms of Christianity have a notion heaven without any notion of hell. This is common among Christians who ascribe to universal reconciliation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_reconciliation and similar beliefs. Some other groups believe that there is either heaven or oblivion- this belief is common among Jehovah Witnesses for example.

      Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a 'either heaven or oblivion' doctrine. They believe that faithful mankind will live forever on the earth (Psalms 37:29) but a select few (144,000 to be exact) will be resurrected with spirit bodies to live in heaven as part of God's government (Revelation 5:9,10;14:1,3) while the ungodly will suffer destruction or cease to exist (Psalms 37:9-11; Revelation 20:14,15)

    27. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, just that without a hell myth there's nothing to compel you to do what the church says (even if you're a medieval farmer).

    28. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by c0lo · · Score: 1

      I don't believe in either concept, but It just seems illogical that there can be a significantly larger amount of people that believe in "Heaven" than believe in "Hell" or vice-versa.

      But then again, people are weird.

      Well, if you only deal inside the Boolean algebra, then... yes, people dealing on the axis of the real numbers would seem weird indeed.
      (that's another way of putting the "black/white vs shades of grey").

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    29. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      There are heavens and hells in Buddhist mythology, though I'm not sure how many Buddhists believe they exist as more then metaphor.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    30. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by sorak · · Score: 1

      Psychologists found significantly lower crime rates in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where more people believed in heaven."

      If there's good then there's evil. If there's a God then there's a Devil. If there's a Heaven then there's a Hell.

      How can there be one without the other?

      There just can. Some people believe in a pantheon of gods. Some believe in a neutral god. And I see no reason to assume anything about any god. Does he have a sidekick? An enemy? Is the devil just an underling who is there to make free will seem more significant? With untrustworthy, conflicting accounts, and no evidence, it's anybody's guess.

    31. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by sorak · · Score: 1

      Of these, Peter describes it as gloomy (similar to Hades), James as fiery, Jesus and Paul purely as a place Angels and Humans can be exiled to, possibly with a gate and wall.

      Angels can't get past a gate and a wall? Are they Mongolian?

    32. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by c0lo · · Score: 1

      If there's a Heaven then there's a Hell.

      How can there be one without the other?

      Here's an example. nirvana is a state of 'ultimate' peace that is achieved with the uprooting and final dissolution of the volitional formations

      This means: while you still exhibit "volitional formations", you are bound to the "hell" of being reincarnated in this world (thus always on the negative side of the "punishment/reward" axis). The maximum you can achieve is exactly at zero (lack of punishment but also lack of reward) - in other words, there's no "heaven".

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    33. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      WRT Buddhism, full enlightenment is the erradication of all personal desire, in other words it's the philosphical equivalent to not giving a shit about anything.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    34. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Pikoro · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
    35. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So weed without the munchies?

    36. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      Well, up until the end of the 19th century, the Chruch had a standing army, plus an inquisition that no one ever expected.

      But, other than that a lifetime of perfect happiness would be enough to compel some people, right?

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    37. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That is complete nonsense. As a Buddhist I can say that you haven't even read an introductory text on the basic teachings, so you really shouldn't go around trying to explain them. There are concepts of Heaven and Hell, though there is no requirement to have any Faith that they exist, and it is considered a bad idea to even worry about the after-life at all. A Buddhist can disagree about all of the re-incarnation and after-life stuff and no problem, but there is in fact basic teachings on it; basically they same views as all the Vedic-based religions, with various forms of Heaven which can be temporary and followed by re-incarnation into a higher form, or permenent if you achieve enlightenment. There are also various forms of Hell, though none permenent, generally followed by a demotion. But Siddhartha said not to worry about that, only worry about this life.

    38. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      I guess enlightenment is the carrot, suffering is the stick. But you're already suffering, so...

      That said, the Dalai Lama is one of the least religious spiritual leaders I can think of. He just tweeted last week about how he's increasingly convinced it's time to ditch religion. He wasn't giving up on happiness and "spirituality"... whatever that is.

      As some have said of atheists, and I'm sure I'm butchering this, "their greatest fear is finding out there's life after death". If you "just don't get heaven", nobody would be worried. If being wrong means the Xtian version of Hell... well, then it starts to feel like a gamble.

      Buddhism is hardly a religion. He probably meant ditching Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism etc etc.

      (I've encountered the Dalai Lama twice. He even gets angry).

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    39. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Buddhism is hardly a religion. "

      True, its a superstition like every other religion

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    40. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Was Earl Grey dead before he was ground up and used for tea?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    41. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "Buddhism is hardly a religion. "

        True, its a superstition like every other religion

      No, its not 'another religion' at all.

      Sure, superstition, but hardly a religion.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    42. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, some people are so incredibly wilfully ignorant that they will believe what you just wrote.

      Slashdot, the place where religious discussions reveal the profound stupidity of many people, a majority
      of whom whose only claim to fame is being able to manipulate machines. And, yet they are so proud of
      their ignorance. People who slander Christianity without ever once reading the Bible. Then they talk
      about how *they* understand science when they don't have a clue how to do research. They just
      want twitter feeds as a basis for their own lives' core belief systems. They say that they laud
      creativity and independent thought while going along with the comp-sci Group-Think that says
      that religions is useless. It's so pathetic.

    43. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you "just don't get heaven", nobody would be worried. If being wrong means the Xtian version of Hell... well, then it starts to feel like a gamble.

      To a lot of Christians, Hell is "just not getting to Heaven". Imagine standing before the glory of the throne of the Creator and having Him tell you that you must leave His presence forever. Jesus describes Hell as "the outer darkness, where men weep and gnash their teeth".

    44. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Presumably it's a metaphysical gate and wall. Then again, since God gets to make the rules, who knows?

    45. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by chicago_scott · · Score: 1

      This big difference between what you and I are are saying is that humans, people and money are all physical things. Good, evil, Heaven, Hell, God and the Devil are all ideas and beliefs.

    46. Re:One acknowledges the existence of the other by sorak · · Score: 1

      So, it's a wall in the same sense that a firewall is a wall, meaning "not really".

  6. Apples are a better Predictor than Oranges by retroworks · · Score: 1

    169 cancer patients were studied. Cancer showed a stronger correlation with a preference for apples than with a preference for oranges.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:Apples are a better Predictor than Oranges by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      that can't be true because an apple a day keeps the doctor away.....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  7. No faith in heaven? by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    The hell you say!

  8. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Sweden? Noraway? Japan? Help me out here, did they exclude anything that didn't fit?

    1. Re:Really? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Sweden?

      In Figure 1 of The Fine Article, "SE" is the yellow point bit above the line, to the right of and above the green point "PR".

      Noraway?

      "NO" is a bit to the right of and below "SE".

      Japan?

      "JP" is the red point below the line near the right-hand side of the cluster in the lower left.

      (I avoided the temptation to say "see figure 1". Oh, wait, no I didn't.... :-))

    2. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their numbers must be off. First of all, Sweden has a larger Muslim population than Christian. Second of all, I have yet to find a Swede who believes in heaven.

    3. Re:Really? by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Their numbers must be off. First of all, Sweden has a larger Muslim population than Christian.

      I presume you're referring here to them classifying Sweden in the "non-Catholic Christian" category. I guess there's "Christian" in the sense of "fervent believer" and "Christian" in the sense of "I guess I believe in Jesus" and "Christian" in "I'm a member of the Church of Sweden even if that's just by default", but according to the "Religious Demography" section of the page on Sweden in the U.S. State Department 2010 Report on Religious Freedom:

      Religious membership or affiliation is concentrated in a few major denominations. According to the Church of Sweden (Lutheran), an estimated 71.3 percent (6,664,000 persons) of citizens are members; other Protestant groups total approximately 4.4 percent (400,000) of the population. Membership in the Church of Sweden has decreased steadily since it separated from the state in 2000. During 2009, 73,396 members left the Church (1.6 percent of registered members). Church-led studies found that individuals left primarily for economic reasons: membership carries a tax on income, normally less than 1 percent (separated members can still attend services).

      Researchers estimate that approximately 5 percent (450,000 to 500,000) of the population is Muslim, although the officially sanctioned Muslim Council of Sweden, for government funding purposes, reported only 110,000 active participants.

      Second of all, I have yet to find a Swede who believes in heaven.

      As the paper says, they got the data from the World Values Survey:

      Data for belief in hell, belief in heaven, belief in God, and religious attendance were taken from the 1981–1984, 1990–1993, 1994–1999, 1999–2004, and 2005–2007 waves of the World Values Surveys (WVS) and European Value Surveys [13]. Some countries included the question in multiple survey years (individual survey participants only participated once); others included the question at only one data collection wave. In total, these data were based on participants from 67 countries (N = 143,197; mean N per country = 2137, range = 3629016). Weighted means were computed for each country based on a proportional weighting variable supplied with the WVS.

      Belief in heaven, hell and God was assessed with the oral question, “Which, if any, of the following do you believe in?”, followed by a list of concepts including “Heaven,” “Hell” and “God”. Accepted answers were Yes and No. Religious attendance was assessed with the question, “Apart from weddings, funerals, and christenings, about how often do you attend religious services these days?”; the response options were 1 = More than once a week, 2 = Once a week, 3 = Once a month, 4 = Only on special holy days/Christmas/Easter, 5 = Other specific holy days, 6 = Once a year, 7 = Less than once a year, 8 = Never or practically never. A weighted average was computed for each country across all available data, using the supplied individual weighting variable.

      Sadly, the raw data is in formats that require SPSS, SAS, or STATA, so I can't just dig in to them and see what the data for Sweden are. However, they have some on-line data analysis modules, but the "believe in heaven" and "believe in hell" questions only showed up, at least for Sweden, for pre-2000 surveys, and show about 90% didn't believe in hell and 10% did while about 70% didn't believe in heaven and 30% did, giving the 20% difference in the graph.

      So the data might be off by virtue of being old.

  9. Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Galestar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I'm reading this right, the actual statistics show that belief in Heaven increases crime by approximately the same rate as belief in in Hell decreases it.
    So the net result is that believing in both has not statistical signifigance.

    Belief in chart:
    Heaven, Hell, Net Effect
    0, 0, None
    0, 1, Less Crime
    1, 0, More Crime
    1, 1, None


    The headline is making a very dangerous and intentional omission of fact here. http://www.plosone.org/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0039048&imageURI=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0039048.t001

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Galestar · · Score: 2
      If I'd RTFA instead of just the chart I would have seen this:

      As predicted, rates of belief in heaven and hell had significant, unique, and opposing effects on crime rates. Belief in hell predicted lower crime rates, = 1.941, p<.001; whereas belief in heaven predicted higher crime rates

      And the title of the article is "Divergent Effects of Beliefs in Heaven and Hell on National Crime Rates"
      I still think the slashdot summary is misleading.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Ironically, belief in heaven seems to be more powerful than belief in hell, or something - roughly 10% of Americans (as of 1997) declared themselves non-religious, but only 0.02% of inmates describe themselves thus. For Christians, on the other hand, both numbers (70%) are the same - and, of course, both heaven and hell are part of Christian dogma.

    3. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice point on the table. I wonder if superstition can be also correlated in the same way:
      People believing in bad luck breaking mirrors leading to less broken mirrors
      People believing in bad luck for walking under ladders leading to less ladder related accidents

      So fear drives people away... People with vertigo may not easily die from a tall drop, and people with fear to water may not die drowned.

      Obviously on the inflammatory headlines from /. , you know they do anything to draw attention... from readers, trolls, etc. I wonder if they have statistics of -1 trolls, and check how much traffic they drive, and correlate it to their headline quality.

    4. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm reading this right, the actual statistics show that belief in Heaven increases crime by approximately the same rate as belief in in Hell decreases it.

      So the net result is that believing in both has not statistical signifigance.

      You are not reading this right. The article very clearly states that it is a correlation, not a cuasation. To therefore infer a cuasation from the counter of what the correlation is simply wrong. All that can be said is that the correlation between decreased crime is stronger with those who believe in hell than those who believe in heaven. Anything else is not supported by the actual data.

    5. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by SMoynihan · · Score: 1

      Weirdly, reviewing the table - the opposite effects seem to be occurring for two crimes - and two crimes only: Human trafficking and Kidnapping. Now, the evidence isn't strong here (at all!), but it's still odd they were able to detect such a strong trend with the other crimes, but not here.

      I wonder if it's the case that these are strong statistics in countries bucking the trends, or is there some sort of a they're not real people/we don't deserve punishment for this at play? ...or nothing at all.

    6. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All that can be said is that the correlation between decreased crime is stronger with those who believe in hell than those who believe in heaven.

      You clearly didn't read the paper, or even its abstract.
      "... showing that the proportion of people who believe in hell negatively predicts national crime rates whereas belief in heaven predicts higher crime rates."
      There's two correlations, one positive, one negative. Not just that one is stronger than the other (as you said) and both negative (as you implied).

    7. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sidetracking your comment a bit to point out a topic that is important to me, but as far as predicting factors go, even if this one was accurate(and you noted that is it not), it is still rather insignificant. We have had a predictor that matches around 96% for about 30 years now, but for whatever reason(I speculate it is an emotional defense), we have not widely accepted it in popular discourse. That factor is adverse childhood experiences. The more violent a society treats its children, the more we find criminal behavior within that society.

      The following are the works of researchers read aloud:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--I0X3-tOwE
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKVMXQD2aXc

    8. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Belief in chart:

      Heaven, Hell, Net Effect
      0, 0, None
      0, 1, Less Crime
      1, 0, More Crime
      1, 1, None

      Actually, neither "belief in heaven" nor "belief in hell" were Booleans for the societies as a whole, even if they were Boolean in the surveys. What was measured for societies were the rates of belief in heaven and hell.

    9. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Amusingly if you look at the table, belief in God decreases the crime rate by more than attending religious services and belonging to any of the identified religious groups (Roman Catholic, Christian (Non-RC), or Muslim) increases the crime rate.

      Those are some strange results.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    10. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by painehope · · Score: 1

      Well, part of that reason is because religion is a valid force in the penal system. You declare yourself atheist, and you get no special privileges to go with that. Call yourself Jewish, and you get different food. Call yourself Christian, non-denominational, and you get to go to any church group you want (a welcome reprieve from long boring hours of doing nothing but reading and pumping iron). Declare yourself Catholic in a very Baptist area, and you'll eventually get to see a priest. Etcetera.

      Of course, looking at life in prison or possible execution is a very sobering thing. Makes you reconsider all sorts of things, and when you budge enough that you pray at least for the people you'll be leaving behind, and then you walk free a week later (when you had two murder charges, organized crime, arson, aggravated assault w/ a deadly weapon, aggravated robbery, a pistol case, a dope case, and even a hate crime charge thrown in for shits and giggles), one starts to realize that there actually is something to this whole God and prayer thing.

      True story (replace s/([Yy]ou|one)/I/g and that happened in 2006, no shit). Turned my 18 years of non-belief (rabid non-belief, I might add - a quick way to get me to spit on you was to say anything religious) right around on it's head. Been seeing things that are beyond coincidence ever since. YMMV, do as thou wilt still is the whole of the law, but I know what I believe and what I'm doing.

      --
      PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    11. Re:Yes, but Belief in Heaven Increases Crime Rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're an admitted idiot who confuses coincidence with divine direction. Sucks to be you.

  10. How does this reconcile with other data? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm curious how this is consistent with http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf which makes a convincing case that religion in an area is correlated with more social primes, including more crime. Putting these together it looks like more religious countries generally have more crime and violence, but controlling for religiosity levels, belief in hell is correlated with a reduction in crime rates. But clearly more research needs to occur.

    1. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      And somehow I wrote "social primes" when I meant to write social problems. Ugh. But the point should be clear. (Incidentally, there is such a thing as a sociable number, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociable_number but no prime is sociable.)

    2. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The study did not (as far as I can tell from the data that is publicly available) ask the same question as Zuckerman. Zuckerman asked the question how religiosity per se influences crime and his data on the matter is rock solid.
      This study was mainly about how belief in heaven and hell influence criminality. As it turns out, belief in heaven stimulates crime while belief in hell prevents it; these effects are apparently roughly equal. This isn't as surprising among criminologists as you might think; it has been suspected for example that people who have a special relationship with the supernatural tend to believe themselves righteous and bound for heaven, and hence have a lower threshold for committing certain kinds of crime.
      The study also asked how belief in god affected criminality and on the whole it disagrees with Zuckerman, but there are a lot of fluctuations in the data, as for the other rows. Whether those are real remains to be seen. Confounding factors are much easier to control for if you ask simple questions rather than if you try to measure many things at once, like this study did, and maybe there is some sort of selection bias going on.
      Some of Zuckerman's examples are easy to check and directly contradict this study - hence at least some of the conclusions of the study must be wrong, for reasons unknown to us. (Mainly: homicides and drug use. Contrary to what the study claims, it is well established that faith in God is associated with lower drug use and more homicides. I've looked up data that measures the same variable as the study did - national crime rates - but the discrepancy remains.) But also again note that the study doesn't always ask the same questions as Zuckerman did and that may have affected the outcome. (For example, Zuckerman's discussion of prison populations cannot be compared to this study since a different variable was measured.)
      On the whole, I'd say that Zuckerman's analysis still stands. The study is interesting, but I get a definite feeling that a lot of the results are best ascribed to statistical lumpiness, claims of statistical significance notwithstanding. (If I'd got a penny for every statistically significant study I've read that turned out to be bogus, I could buy myself a new computer.)

    3. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Your model doesn't match my experience, where non-religious people can have highly developed morals (often with more solid reasoning than "the book said it's bad"). I do not believe your other assertions.

      That said, religion is almost certainly the result of evolution, so it makes sense that primitive religious societies tend to do better than non-religious ones. Of course from this perspective the theological content of the religions is irrelevant. Modern society differs so much from what we presumably evolved in that the comparison may no longer be apt (the GP's link supports this conclusion).

    4. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      Almost every single sentence you've wrote is wrong as far as I can tell. See Zuckerman's paper I referenced earlier for a very long list of references showing that crime is not reduced by religiosity. There are complicating factors (for example, in a worse off society people may be more inclined to turn to religion) but your claim that there are "numerous studies" backing up this sort of position is simply false. Moreover, if this sort of claim were at all true then one would expect Sweden to be in absolutely awful shape since it is even less religious than Russia and China, yet Sweden is extremely well off.

      As to your claim about philosophy, many prominent philosophers, such as Kant, Bentham, and Rahls would disagree. All three would see humans as having innate instincts for moral good. And in fact, studies have shown that many mammals will instinctively help other members of their species even when they have not encountered them before. For example, when another rat is hurt or trapped, nearby rats will help free them http://news.uchicago.edu/article/2011/12/08/helping-your-fellow-rat-rodents-show-empathy-driven-behavior. The instincts for basic moral behavior run deep.

      At a temporal level, the claim is also questionable. It is pretty clear that over time, religiosity has gone down. But over the last few hundred years, the overall violence level when measured by the percentage of the population that dies violent deaths has gone down. There's an excellent book about the decline of violence among humans, The Better Angels of Our Nature, by Steven Pinker, which I strongly recommend.

      By the way, the first major proponent for National atheism is Carl Marx. This is something to think very strongly about, though I very much doubt that people will do so even after reading that statement.

      Ok. So first of all, his name was "Karl". Second, the that's just not true. Marx was born in 1818, when the French revolution was already over. During the French Revolution, major proponents of atheism included Jacques Hébert http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_H%C3%A9bert and Chaumette http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Gaspard_Chaumette. Curiously, the bloody Robespierre strongly favored deism. But let's pretend that your claim was true for a moment and that Karl Marx really had been the first proponent of national atheism. Would this matter? Not really. This is in essence the genetic fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy- who comes up with an idea doesn't impact whether the idea is valid. For example, the mathematician John Nashh is schizophrenic- that doesn't make his math incorrect. And even if the genetic fallacy were valid, Marx's idea of national atheism, a forced destruction of religion, is extremely different than a secular society that simply doesn't care much about religion, (like say Sweden).

    5. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      This is the problem we have in society where instead of advancing thought and morals, we advance an atheist agenda lacking in morals.

      I don't know how you concluded that anyone is lacking in morals.

      By the way, the first major proponent for National atheism is Carl Marx. This is something to think very strongly about, though I very much doubt that people will do so even after reading that statement.

      And Hitler liked puppies!

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    6. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by terjeber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BZZZZ! WRONG!. On all accounts, but that is not surprising. There is a strong correlation between education level and religiosity. The less education one have, the more religious one tends to be. The correlation is particularly strong in hard sciences.

      The most atheistic countries in the world are probably the Scandinavian countries and some of the Benelux countries. These all have significantly lower crime rates than the countries where religion has a more prominant position. If you look at the US and The Netherlands for example, it is interesting to see that the religious US has higher crime rate, higher divorce rate, higher teen pregnancy rate, more children born out of wedlock etc, than the rather atheist Netherlands. Oh, and the Dutch also have a more libereal drug legislation. So, comparing the US and and Netherlands less religion and more drugs leads to less crime, less divorce and in general more "moral" behavior as determined by the traditional Christian "moral code".

      Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines?

      What a childish and inane statement. Shows a serious lack of brains right there. Moral guidelines have nothing to do with religion. Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior. Thinking adults can actually act morally based on philosophy or self-interest. Please grow up. Santa doesn't exist. There is no God. stop using a divine entity as an excuse for inexcusable behavior. It is inexcusable to be unable to device a set of moral rules without the scary bogeyman forcing you to.

      Oh, and if you want to take moral guildelines from someone, the Abrahamic God is the last place to look. That dude is a shitbag and deserves only contempt. Even the idea of a divine entity demanding a loyal subject murder his oldest son for him is abhorrent. If God stepped down tomorrow and asked of me what he asked of Abraham, I would spit him in the face. If he continued his insane demands I would have him comitted or I would slay him. You see, slaying divine entities is easy.

    7. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More simply put, without any moral guide lines we only have survival of the fittest to guide us. Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines?

      This sounds to me as if you think that everyone is a complete asshole and needs to be restrained by an external force. I have trouble understanding anyone believing that unless perhaps they are complete assholes themselves. If somehow you would lose your faith, would you feel relieved, because now you'd finally be free to be abusive to others without suffering the consequences? Or would you still feel the hurt if you hurt someone else, and feel happiness if you make someone else happy? Might that ability be enough to keep you decent? I have always been an atheist, my parents are both atheists, but I am capable of empathy, both on an affective and on a cognitive level, and I'm pretty sure that is the basis for my morals.

      And by the way, survival of the fittest doesn't mean what you think it means. What's most fit for survival may include mutual support and strong morals, simply because being there for each other increases everyone's chances of survival in a hostile environment. That's a survival strategy that works.

    8. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Norway is a socialist country with one of the highest amount of atheists in the world. Still it's crime rate is one of the lowest in the world.

      Good luck with your life, I hope you find peace.

    9. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      And Hitler liked puppies!

      And, as with religious leaders and other prominent American leaders today, Hitler, deeply religious as he was, hated atheists:

      We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

      - Adolf Hitler, Speech in Berlin, October 24, 1933

      Now, one could say that that dude had a warped sense of religion. Most religious people today do. Did he? The lutherans, evangelicals etc in the US take their religion from the man Luther. He formed the base for their beliefs. Hitler just continued Luthers work and ideas

      . In other words, the person who laid the base for most of the non-catholic Christian faiths in the US today was as rabid a Jew hater as Mr. Adolph was.

    10. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by Darby · · Score: 0

      Kristalnacht was even on Luther's birthday. The holocaust was quite explicitly a Christian activity.

    11. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by painehope · · Score: 1

      You're mostly on target, except for one little thing :

      The instincts for basic moral behavior run deep.

      Are you living in the same world I am? The same one where people who profess strong beliefs step over homeless people on a daily basis, where materialism and consumerism are the new opiate of the masses, and Kitty Genovese getting stabbed to death was a passing interest? While rats might have a strong moral/social instinct, human beings do not. I should know...I've raised many rats, and I've been a member of the human race for quite a while. Rats are caring, social animals - human beings are more concerned about whether being a witness might get their ass in a sling (or even just inconvenience them) than whether they're doing right or wrong.

      And no, I don't have a study to back it up. But I've seen a lot, all over the world, and most people will steal, cheat, and kill if given the chance to get away with it. The only thing stopping them is that they don't have the guts. They don't want to get their hands dirty, even for the best of causes. Deeply spiritual people seem to be the exception to this, in my experience.

      --
      PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    12. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I never stated a separation of Church and State, I said very specifically Atheism. What you point at in France was a separation, very much like we implemented in the USA. Marx advocated the state disallowing any Religion for any reason. Marx's work was mostly based on Hegel's works (ironically as is much of the foundation of the USA.).

      Unlike Marx, Hegel believe in freedom and liberty as well as universal equality (at least to a degree politically safe at the time). Of course many will only point at his critiques of revolution and the requirement of learning by blood to advance society.

      Hegel also like Plato believed that humans tended to elevate to a higher moral ground. This view is extremely contradictory to Marx's later works.

      Marx very early on did believe more similar to Hegel. The point of Utopia was that until humans can mentally evolve a Utopia is not possible.

      The other names you mentioned I have never seen any works stating that atheism is required for the Government to control the population. Maybe it was mentioned at some point, but I stand by what I stated since Marx pushed it as a requirement of control, not a "we don't want it because".

      Now, it's easy to say "it does not matter". Of course everything is perception right? Well, if I wanted to destabilize a country what would I try and do?

      Of course to take that information and do anything with it, you need to look more closely at the numerous agendas that have been running simultaneously in the US for the same length of time. Such as stacking the Judicial branch with certain mind sets, reduction of House and Senate power, extensions of power to the President, lack of judiciary control over Government, etc.. etc...

      You can of course just study a part and never look at the whole, at which point you are correct that it does not matter. You can also just deny all of the other things, and again it does not matter.

      It is pretty clear that over time, religiosity has gone down. But over the last few hundred years, the overall violence level when measured by the percentage of the population that dies violent deaths has gone down.

      I do not agree with that statement. You need to consider state sponsored violence when making that assumption, and that is obviously not in your equation for you to make such a statement.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by schlachter · · Score: 1

      awesome...I need to get an audio recording of this on my iphone and hit play for every religious nut job that implies morals require religion.

      --
      My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
    14. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Really, you believe the justice system is fair? Is it more fair now than lets say 40 years ago? How many guilty rich people have committed crimes and walked away? How many have committed crimes and never been charged? How is it fair that the US tax code is over 60,000 pages long (can you or I afford to take advantage of the system, let alone be sure we are being legally correct when we file?)?

      Wholly shit man, the moral compass for the US is extremely low overall. That does not mean that there are no good people, but the laws have been adapted to be taken advantage of by very few, and the court systems won't touch you if you have a bit of power.

      And no, this is not an OJ slam. Go higher to people with a lot more wealth that have been robbing you and I legally for a very long time. Hint, it's what started the OWS movement. My guess is that like most people you only see them as freeloading pot heads since that's all you will find on MSM regarding the movement. Search some other sources and find out what started the movement. If you do, something else to ask yourself is "why is MSM manipulating your reality?"

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      You should probably read up on Chaumette et al. then. Or just take a course on the history of the French Revolution. Many of the major proponents were not in favor of separation of church and state but rather wanted an avowedly atheist government. (Heck just read the earlier linked Wikipedia articles if you don't have enough time.)

      Given that pretty close to no one in the West wants a Marxist sort of national atheism, I fail to see how your point is at all relevant. And you've completely ignored the problem of the genetic fallacy simply dismissing it as "a matter of perspective"- which doesn't make any sense. Fallacies aren't a matter of perspective. Something is or is not logically valid, and in this case, who came up with an idea doesn't matter.

      Marx's work was mostly based on Hegel's works (ironically as is much of the foundation of the USA.).

      What? Hegel was born in 1770. He was 6 years old when the revolution started. He was 17 when the Constitution was adopted. His first book doesn't come out until 1801. In what universe was Hegel influential on the foundation of the US?

      I do not agree with that statement. You need to consider state sponsored violence when making that assumption, and that is obviously not in your equation for you to make such a statement.

      Actually it is. You really should read Pinker's book. The percentage of people who die violent deaths has been going down even including deaths from wars. In fact, war in general has become much less common even by very broad notions of war. You have things like the Anglo-Dutch wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars which almost no one remembers. There hasn't been a war between major powers in about 60 years.

    16. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      There is a strong correlation between education level and religiosity.

      What generally happens is this: The more one is educated in Liberal arts, namely Philosophy, the more one tends to believe in a creator, but the less likely they will be to believe in a traditional Religion. The more one trains in other areas and ignores the liberal arts, the more apt one is to no longer believe in a creator.

      So the point you make is really not validated unless you restrict education from the liberal arts. Remember that we no longer teach liberal arts in schools, this was dropped in the late 50s I believe in favor of teaching mechanical steps to pass tests. Most college degrees don't require any liberal arts, so one can gain numerous degrees without ever learning critical thinking skills. Some students learn critical thinking, rhetoric, and philosophy by curiosity however.

      Funny that you state I'm childish when you make this statement: "Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior.".

      This is what you have been brain washed in to believing a creator is, not what reasoning would take you to. I'll simply ask you to read Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle for examples. I doubt you will, but hell it's worth a shot.

      The moral play field in the US is the lowest it has ever been, even by most main stream media reports corruption is at an all time high. Sorry, but you are looking at a specific set of facts that back your point, and not the actual laws that are in place protecting corruption and corrupt people.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Yes, I was not very clear on the Hegel aspects. Trying to hate on Citrix and think is not always as productive as I like. With the exception of the dialectic, Hegel's works were very related to other French Philosophers and a continuation of their works. Important of course, but not unique as is true with most philosophers works. The US founders were influenced by the same people that influenced Hegel's works. There were several distinct philosophies during that time, many of the people you mentioned were anti-aristocracy. Been a while since reading that particular history, I'll make some time to review what you linked.

      I'll also make time to read the book you mentioned from Pinker.

      I agree with the premise that major powers have not warred in a long while, but that does not mean that major powers are innocent, or that numbers show an overall decline necessarily. Egypt, Lybia, pretty much every country in Africa, Yemen, and even many EU countries have recently been hammered with deaths. The one big difference now is that super power direct involvement is less, and when they are involved more precise methods of killing are used more often.

      Looking at now vs. WWI for example, or Vietnam and Korea, we have less innocent's dieing and less aggressors dieing. The actual casualties for other combatants is higher. Part of this is due to the military strategy required for Gorilla combat. You don't wound Gorillas, you kill them. In standing armies, you wound as opposed to kill to reduce the amount of soldiers in combat. More of this is actually the aggressor being allowed to fight from a stand off position. Predators are used as snipers, however their kill radius often kills innocents as well as intended targets.

      So as I just went through the process of writing that paragraph, it dawned on me that you very well may be statistically correct. I'm doubtful still, but will look further. Another consideration is that if all of the fights are one sided, has this been better for humanity overall?

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    18. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Really, you believe the justice system is fair?

      Wait... what?

      Is it more fair now than lets say 40 years ago?

      Is this part of the "atheist agenda"? Is it by chance related to the homosexual agenda?

      Wholly shit man, the moral compass for the US is extremely low overall.

      It's definitely different than mine, but I wouldn't call it "low," and I wouldn't say it has anything to do with atheism or atheist agendas.

      My guess is that like most people you only see them as freeloading pot heads

      Well, you'd be wrong. That'd just be a generalization.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    19. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more one is educated in Liberal arts, namely Philosophy, the more one tends to believe in a creator, but the less likely they will be to believe in a traditional Religion.

      Really? Source?

      This is what you have been brain washed in to believing a creator is

      Well, you did mention atheist agendas lacking in morals, so it's no surprise to me that someone could interpret it that way. Your comment above seems like pure flamebait.

      Sorry, but you are looking at a specific set of facts that back your point

      IMO, people tend to accuse others of doing this whilst not suspecting themselves of doing it. Merely saying something is true doesn't much matter. You have to prove it.

    20. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The more one is educated in Liberal arts, namely Philosophy, the more one tends to believe in a creator

      This is incorrect. Stats show that all eduction tends to remove belief in supernatural mumbo-jumbo, but education in hard sciences such as maths and physics remove these beliefs faster and more thoroughly than other educations. However, education in general removes belief in the supernatural.

      So the point you make is really not validated unless you restrict education from the liberal arts

      Incorrect, even an education in Liberal Arts tend to reduce and remove belief in the supernatural. I would expect that an education in religion would also tend to reduce belief in the super natural, but I have not seen studies showing this.

      Funny that you state I'm childish when you make this statement: "Adults, as opposed to sniveling children, don't need a big bogey man behind the door to scare them into moral behavior.".

      How was that childish? Honestly? If you are unable to form a moral framework for your life without the threat of a bogey man, you are mentally at the level of a child. Morals do not need angry bogey men in the closet. This is proven by the fact that most systems of morality have been developed completely devoid of angry bogey men. From Socrates and onwards, moral frameworks have been developed using logic and reason. Honestly, if you can't understand that killing is wrong whether an angry bogey man will torture you forever or not, then you are not an adult. Sniveling child would be a highly appropriate description.

      Also, if you want to look at a-moral beings, the Abrahamic God is a good place to start. I can't even imagine anyone being more evil than the Abrahamic God. He deserves no respect. He deserves contempt. If he ever shows up at my door, and it turns out the stories about him are true, no matter how real he is there at my door, I will spit him in the face.

      The moral play field in the US is the lowest it has ever been

      It is? So why has crime in the US been in a downward spiral since 1990? Does a lowered "moral play field" reduce crime?

    21. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      How was that childish? Honestly? If you are unable to form a moral framework for your life without the threat of a bogey man, you are mentally at the level of a child

      It's childish for several reasons. First, your concept of a creator is extremely immature. As mentioned previously, you fail to understand the logic based on numerous Philosophers that have offered a presentation of a creator that goes outside of a traditional religion. According to you, the only way one can see a creator is in the Abrahamic God (your words and only example, not mine).

      The main reason this becomes childish is because instead of actually doing any work to validate your opinion, you resort to fallacy by ridicule to try and prove your point, and argue with the one thing you have been brainwashed in to believing (see paragraph above).

      Your statement defending your immature position is extremely incorrect. Socrates taught a theory of "The Good", which was continued by Plato. This is very similar and often translated to "The God" though the translation is not correct in that context. This became the basis for several other positions such as "The un-cause" (See Aristotle), "The un-made maker", "The un-moved mover", etc... etc.. All of those have been expanded upon by Philosophers way to many to count, but you could start with Descartes. None of those have been invalidated by reasonable arguments, so what happens in the atheist mind is invalidation by generally 3 arguments. Argument by denial (it does not matter, or denial of the argument as a whole), Argument by fallacy of Ridicule (see your whole position), or Argument by non-truth (see portions of your argument, but there are far better examples). On rare occasions, the Paradox argument is used as invalidation attempt, however a paradox does not mean something is untrue.

      I'll post the logical puzzle below, but since it's lengthy I'll address your last point first.

      Why has crime been on a downward spiral? Simple, it has not been on a downward spiral. This is statistical bunk that again you have been brainwashed in to believing. A simple check of the Wiki page will show you how wrong your statement is. Do you find it odd that instead of checking a very simple fact you lie? This should make you question how much you have been brainwashed. Reality is such a bitch!

      If what you say is true then there should be a percentage point difference in the amount of criminals in jail and convicted annually. If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing. This is also true for court systems which continue to struggle with increased case loads. The statistical magic generally comes when they remove things like plea bargains from the list of cases, or remove first time offenders from the list, remove long term offenders from the list, or remove gang related cases, etc... The amount of political corruption is also at an all time high, but again you need to search independent sources since the MSM will tell you nothing of the sort.

      A complete version of this resides here. Leap of Faith which contains quite a bit of commentary as well as the text below.

      The Great Creationist Experiment

      To make our experiment, we must set up a hypothetical scenario. This is usually the point where an atheist yells "Hey, if you can't build the experiment physically and I can't see it then it must be false!". To which I have a very simple response. Please build me a working model of "The Big Bang", or it's false.

      So you know, someone could easily build this experiment mathematically and in simulation software, which is how we handle complex issues when we can't build working physical models.

      - The 3 Boxes

      Our experiment requires 3 boxes.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      First, your concept of a creator is extremely immature

      Somewhat absurd statement, but still wrong. I am aware of a large number of definitions of a creator, and they are all childish and/or based on lack of understanding. I used the Abrahamic God as an example simply because it is the most prevalent image of a creator currently popular. The idea of a "prime mover" is based on nothing at all.

      fallacy by ridicule to try and prove your point

      Sorry, could you elaborate? Have I tried to prove a point? What point? That there is no creator? I have not. You see, I have enough education to know that you can't prove a negative. I can not prove there is no creator. Trying to would therefore be futile and infantile.

      Simple, it has not been on a downward spiral. This is statistical bunk that again you have been brainwashed in to believing. A simple check of the Wiki page [wikipedia.org] will show you how wrong your statement is

      You really should be careful with what you write and cite. Your article points to the following article: Which shows a statistically significant reduction in all crimes in the US in the time period I mentioned. But hey, thanks for proving my point - that you are an idiot.

      Do you find it odd that instead of checking a very simple fact you lie?

      Before calling people liars, you should actually read what you cite to back up your opinion. Particularly referenced articles from the same publication since they often give background information. I will not call you a liar, I will just point out that you provide ample documentation regarding your own ignorance and stupidity.

      If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing

      Ah lovely. You automatically think there is a causation or strong correlation where you see some covariation. Perfect example of ignorance. Your fallacy is (a variation of) the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Is it possible there might be other factors affecting the incarceration rate other than a rise in crime? Let's, for fun, think about what would happen if you significantly increase the incarseration time for all crimes. How will that impact the incarceration rate. If you had not been an uneducated idiot you would have pointed to an article on crime, not one on some tangental and possibly quite unrelated data set. In this case it is not quite tangental, but it shows nothing of what you assumed it to show. Please try to find valid data before continuing to argue that you are an idiot (which is the only thing you are arguing at the moment).

      You see atheists believe, or perhaps only want you to believe, that Box 1, Box 2, and Box 3 can all pop up Universes just like ours full of materials, energy, and even life

      Do we? Could you please point me in the direction of any articles showing this? Here is a clue: you have just proven that you know as much about atheism as you do about science. Nada. Nobody I have ever heard of believes what you just said. I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about physics to point out that nothing you claim in your "experiment" is remotely close to what atheistic scientists "believe". I have never heard anyone claim that it is likely a universe can pop into existance inside another universe. You state that this is irrelevant since a multiverse doesn't change things since it is just more of the same, but how do you know? I know of no scientist anywhere who would claim that we know anything about a theoretical multiverse. Your statement is not just incorrect, it is "not even wrong".

      Some Atheists will go a bit further, and claim that there was a big giant ball of mass spinning at an incredibly fast rate which exploded

      They will? You are just making shit

    23. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by AthenianGadfly · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you and the GP might be attaching different meanings to the word morality, perhaps? It seems like people use the word in a number of ways:

      1. 1) what every individual *ought* to do, independent of whether they actually do it or not (it sounds like this was the GP's meaning?)
      2. 2) actions individuals can take to further certain kinds of goals (commonly things like the well-being of other individuals or a group, personal fulfillment, etc.), with the desirability of those goals purely a matter of personal preference
      3. 3) things that individuals can be observed to actually do in certain situations (e.g. helping others), which could in theory vary just as widely as any other behavior

      (Let me know if I'm missing a meaning... these are just the ones I can think of.)

      It seems to me that the GP was using morality in the first sense. I don't have any real opinion on correlation between crime and religion, but it does seem like it would be hard to arrive at the first kind of morality without some kind of deity or authority figure to appeal to. While I disagree with a lot (most?) of what the GP said, it does seem impossible to me to start with a secular worldview and arrive at the first kind of morality - an absolute, "external" obligation or duty for an individual to behave a certain way regardless of their preferences or what they actually do.

      I realize there are plenty of philosophers who would disagree, but I can't think of a way to elevate their positions beyond the level of pointing out that other individuals share similar preferences and/or behaviors. Since it seems like that doesn't rise to the level of a universal obligation to behave a certain way, it would appear that you're using the word "morality" to mean different things.

    24. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Last post, since now you seem to be in fantasy land.

      Some Atheists will go a bit further, and claim that there was a big giant ball of mass spinning at an incredibly fast rate which exploded

      They will? You are just making shit up now, are you not?

      You don't believe in the big bang? Good for you, obviously you are in a very small crowd. Notice also that I stated very specifically "some" atheists, not all. There are a few that believe the Universe has always been here and never changed, so there is no need for the big bang. Maybe you think I made up the part regarding the giant ball of mass and explosion, in which case you need to do some homework on big bang theory.

      You see atheists believe, or perhaps only want you to believe, that Box 1, Box 2, and Box 3 can all pop up Universes just like ours full of materials, energy, and even life

      Do we? Could you please point me in the direction of any articles showing this? Here is a clue: you have just proven that you know as much about atheism as you do about science.

      Perhaps correct, I should say "some" there also. If you believe in a Universe with no creator, then in essence yes that is what you believe. Sorry, the truth is a bummer. As mentioned repeatedly, don't use "YOUR" definition of a creator. Use the definition proposed by Aristotle and Plato. The definition makes a huge difference, but most people are so biased they fail to grasp a creator without a "God".

      If you search independent sources, you will see that amount of inmates has steadily been increasing, not decreasing

      Ah lovely. You automatically think there is a causation or strong correlation where you see some covariation. Perfect example of ignorance.

      If you really believe what has been released by certain agencies without checking facts outside of those agencies, then I'm sure you also believe that unemployment is not a problem in the US either. The recession by many Government statistics was over before President Obama took office, so I'm sure you believe that as well. Checking one source, especially when the results tend to be self serving, is generally not a sound scientific practice. If the amount of inmates has been increasing, we have more crime per 100,000, and we have more crimes going without prosecution, the obvious answer is that crime is not decreasing as you suggest. I will back you if you were only talking about "Violent" crimes, but you said crime in general.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    25. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      One more quick point, then done. The obvious answer to the riddle is that the box is not relevant. It's the space inside the box that is relevant. That is such an obvious flaw in your logic I could not help but mention it.

      I am not a physicist, but I do know enough about physics to point out that nothing you claim in your "experiment" is remotely close to what atheistic scientists "believe". I have never heard anyone claim that it is likely a universe can pop into existance inside another universe.

      The inner part of Box 1 is exactly 1 cubic foot larger than you would claim the Universe came from if you believe in a big bang with no creator. The conditions however are identical . No matter, no energy, suddenly there is this thing that blows up and becomes the Universe. So yes, it would be perfectly logical according to that belief to run a simulation and see a Universe spring up out of the modeled boxes. Hell, shrink the empty space to nothing and run it, you still would never get a new Universe. That is your claim if you believe in the big bang and are an atheist.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    26. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      You don't believe in the big bang?

      You don't get it at all, do you? I don't believe. In anything. I acknowledge the fact that the so called "Big Bang" theory fits current observations, and until some other theory comes along, I'll accept that. Currently no other theory has been formed. However, what you described has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. "Big giant ball of mass spinning..." - are you on medications?

      There are a few that believe the Universe has always been here and never changed

      There are? They are wrong. The universe today doesn't look much like the universe of yesterday. I know that. We can observe it.

      Perhaps correct, I should say "some" there also

      No, you should close your mouth. You clearly have no clue.

      Checking one source

      You just make stuff up as you go along, don't you? Time for your medications again. You are rambling.

      If the amount of inmates has been increasing, we have more crime per 100,000

      Man you are retarded. Utterly clueless. I'll show you how. Let's assume year 1960-1962. Three years. The punishment for robbery is one year. There is one conviction of robbery in 1960, one in 1961 and one in 1962. Each year there is one person in jail for robbery. Then we forward to 1970. The punishment for robbery has increased to three years. If you look at incarceration rate from 1970 through 1972 you'll see something amazing. The incarceration rate triples. With only one robbery each year. You see? One robbery in 1970, one person incarcerated. One in 1971, two people incarcerated. One in 1972, three people incarcerated.

      Here is a clue for you: Without a lot of other information, incarceration rate says absolutely nothing about crime level. The article you refer to, which links to an article I referred to, talks about all types of crime, and they have all gone down since 1990. You clearly have no reading capabilities though, so I assume you are going to continue to hold on to a belief that was created entirely in your own head, despite the fact that the evidence shows you are wrong. As do all religious nuts. Making them retarded.

      Reality: Larceny, down, Motor Vehicle Theft, down, Burglary, down. All property crime, at about the lowest level since 1970 after peaking in 1980 and 1990. The article you used as a reference refers to this data. This means that you supplied the evidence that you are a moron.

    27. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by terjeber · · Score: 1

      The inner part of Box 1 is exactly 1 cubic foot larger than you would claim the Universe came from

      Again. Stop making stuff up. Nobody has claimed anything about the size of what the Universe "came from". Ever. Claiming that the box is bigger or smaller than something we know nothing about is absurd. You are astonishingly clueless, but you keep on rambling. Go back to a bible or something. Remember, it is better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you are an idiot than to open it and remove all doubt.

      No matter, no energy, suddenly there is this thing that blows up and becomes the Universe

      That doesn't sound like any theory of the creation of the universe I have ever heard of. It certainly is not a summary of the badly named (for obvious reasons) "Big Bang" theory. Really. What you describe above and the BB theory have nothing at all in common.

      So yes, it would be perfectly logical according to that belief to run a simulation and see a Universe spring up out of the modeled boxes

      It would. But the "that" you are talking about is the box theory, not the Big Bang theory. Your boxes would be able to test if universes can come into existence inside boxes as you describe them, but it would give us no information whatsoever about the current theories about the creation of the universe since your postulations have nothing in common with these whatsoever.

      That is your claim if you believe in the big bang and are an atheist

      No. On two accounts. What you describe is not the Big Bang theory, making your argument invalid. What you describe as "atheism" is not atheism either, which makes you claim absurd.

    28. Re:How does this reconcile with other data? by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Make it up? Wholly shit you don't even know the theories you prescribe to do you? Until about a year ago, the teaching from Cosmology was that the Universe expanded from a ball of spinning mass, estimated at 170,000 light years across. This is what is being taught to kids in school presently, go ahead and visit your local schools and read their science books (this in addition to searching the web for similar text). Of course the size of the mass and rotation has changed as often as aging the Universe in the last 30 years. Today, you will find not less than 3 different ages according to the links in the paper below.

      In the last couple years papers have been released stating the Universe came from mass of less in size than the head of a pin. Here is the link. This is not the globally accepted model, but is the current cosmology.

      Notice that the hypothetical values here for invisible made up things like Dark matter and Dark energy (not to be confused with physics probable Heavy Elements) puts the actual value of atoms and energy at a whopping 4% of the total Universe.

      96% of the Universe by this model is invisible and speculation. We have never detected the actual presence of Dark Matter or Dark Energy after over 4 decades of space travel, including numerous trips to our Moon, Mars, Saturn, and even 2 space craft hitting the edge of our solar system.

      Believing that much is okay, but if you believe there was a creator that started the event one is just insane right?

      And yes, by all of the current cosmology descriptions available for the Big Bang and expansion of the Universe you end up with a condition of nothing as the precursor as an atheist, unless of course you are using a non-standard definition of atheism. A creator would be the cause for the mass and event, and an atheist does not believe in a creator.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  11. I guess fear is a efficient way to rule by subanark · · Score: 2

    Here in the US, we are told there is constant threat of terrorism, which is used to keep people in line. So other countries simply use Hell instead, which seems to be more effective.. provided you can get people to truly believe in hell.

    1. Re:I guess fear is a efficient way to rule by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      Here in the US, we are told there is constant threat of terrorism, which is used to keep people in line. So other countries simply use Hell instead, which seems to be more effective.. provided you can get people to truly believe in hell.

      Actually, The Atlantic advises that you're more likely to be killed by your furniture than by a terrorist attack in the US.

      Maybe hell is heaped high with chairs, wobbly tv sets and tables?

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:I guess fear is a efficient way to rule by shentino · · Score: 2

      Depends on who is throwing it at you.

    3. Re:I guess fear is a efficient way to rule by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      Hi, the name's Balmer, Steve Balmer....

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  12. Marx had this one right by Zaelath · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

    The heaven side convinces the 99% to accept their fate, the hell side warns them what happens if they don't.

    Unfortunately, Christianity has a get out of jail free card so you get the occasional douchbag that takes "I am the truth, the way, and the light" literally and screws everyone they can. This seems pretty common in those that are super Catholic, and less so in casual Christians. YMMV.

    I think if the rationalists take over you would see a steep rise in vigilantism... but if an armed society is a polite society then I think it follows that a society that doesn't believe you will get what's coming to you "eventually" will be a cautious society.

    1. Re:Marx had this one right by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      > takes "I am the truth, the way, and the light" literally

      "And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity".

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  13. I swear ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:I swear ... by mmcxii · · Score: 1

      But I'll never know by living, only my dying will tell.

  14. Maybe the other way around? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps in a society where crime is common, it becomes a more relatable, human phenomenon. If criminals are more relatable--if they're just human beings who have made mistakes or been driven to desperation instead of irredeemable monsters--then perhaps people are less likely to believe in eternal punishment, or to believe that such a think would be just. Perhaps only rich, relatively crimeless societies can afford the luxury of hell, and of their own moral superiority.

  15. Hell and the Devil by BSAtHome · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Little Boy: The Devil is evil?
    Pastor: Yes my boy.
    Little Boy: But why is the Devil evil? He punishes all the bad people.
    Pastor: >slap

    Let us all go to hell. At least there is a party there...

    1. Re:Hell and the Devil by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think you're bad enough to get into Hell?

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    2. Re:Hell and the Devil by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Behold! A perfect example of a straw man argument, in all it's pristine glory.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    3. Re:Hell and the Devil by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Not even a design mistake: These inconsistencies are put to good use finding out those that still have an independent mind. They are the root of all non-religion (and hence the root of all evil) after all. "slap" is far to lenient....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Hell and the Devil by BSAtHome · · Score: 1

      Abstracting from the fact that I am reading /. hm,... I'm already in hell. No need to get a ticket.

    5. Re:Hell and the Devil by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Who needs to be bad? Don't most true believers hold that worshiping in the wrong church is a sufficient infraction? So just worship a couple different gods and you can still live a good and righteous without worrying about missing the party.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:Hell and the Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, where is the mention of Devil punishes bad people?

    7. Re:Hell and the Devil by mrsurb · · Score: 2

      The caricature of the devil _reigning_ over hell is not a biblical one - rather, hell is where the devil will himself be punished (Matt 25:41, Rev 20:10). Your strawman pastor doesn't know his basic theology if he can't answer that one :)

    8. Re:Hell and the Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you honestly think you're bad enough to get into Hell?

      As I understand it, most Christian sects have the concept of Original Sin. This means that the default state of a person’s soul is “going to Hell”. So I do not have to do anything bad to go to Hell: it is sufficient that I have not been baptized.

    9. Re:Hell and the Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't know about most, but I'm sure some christians believe that you just have to accept Jesus as your saviour and ask forgiveness for your sins.

    10. Re:Hell and the Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The role and activities of the 'Devil' in popular culture is way off the mark -- don't use childrens' cartoons to explain theology! He doesn't 'punish' anyone. Those that chose hell as their final destination will just happen to 'share accommodations' with the original intended inhabitants (i.e. Satan and his buddies). The bible says absolutely nothing about interaction between the two groups. On the other hand, there *is* a great hatred by Satan towards humanity -- and (naturally) his greatest enemies are those that have allied themselves with God.

    11. Re:Hell and the Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know you're trying your best to take a jab, but if the devil is evil, then he wants to see the worst for everyone. Not just bad people. The devil would be punishing *everyone* not just the bad people.

      It was a good try at a joke, i guess?

    12. Re:Hell and the Devil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Judaism, the devil is the equivalent of the state prosecutor in the heavenly court. Sure, he'll try to pin your soul on every crime, but he's just doing his job.

  16. Correlation is not causation by Hentes · · Score: 1

    In a large analysis of 26 years of data consisting of 143,197 people in 67 countries, psychologists found significantly lower crime rates in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where more people believed in heaven."

    Aren't those basically the same people? The number of those only believing in one is small enough to make the study basically random alone. Even worse, those few people are scattered across 60 countries, with the crime rates of those countries were used to determine how guilty the participants (who may all have been innocent) were. There are many flaws with that: for example, couldn't it be possible that higher crime rates drive more people to seek refuge in faith?

    1. Re:Correlation is not causation by jd · · Score: 2

      Depends.

      Given the notoriety of the Bible Belt, I'm inclined to think that they're not strong on believing they'll be punished. Others might, but they won't, so effectively they don't believe in hell as pertains to them.

      The Buddhists* don't strictly believe in heaven OR hell, but do believe that you're either cycling endlessly in futility or step off the hamster wheel of incarnation. If phrased in Judeo-Christian terms, this would be a heaven without a hell.

      *Ok, some Buddhist sects believe in a hell, but they also believe that those within it can be ransomed out (via the "Hungry Ghosts" ceremony) or will get pardoned eventually as a result of several Buddhist deities holding a protest camp outside. But this isn't a hell in the Judeo-Christian sense for that very reason, it's not permanent**.

      **But, then, some Gnostic Judeo-Christian texts talk of Jesus' "three days in Hell" as being one of a major revolution in which Hell is emptied out and closed down, permanently, so there were Judeo-Christians who believed there had BEEN a Hell but wasn't one now. That can complicate questionnaires like this, so I suppose the researchers are kinda glad most of the Gnostics got burned at the stake by various Holy Roman Emperors.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Correlation is not causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also: How many RELIGIONS did they sample?

  17. Paranoia by PottedMeat · · Score: 1

    Maybe believing in a fantasy underworld just indicates paranoia which might not be conducive to being a criminal.

  18. Huh by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to Table 1 of the study, the choices of religious affiliation include "Roman Catholic," "Other Christian," and "Muslim."

    That would seem to ignore much of the world's population, beginning with Jews and continuing on to the various religions that believe in reincarnation.

    They claim to have drawn their data from publicly available sources. I'd love to hear how they spun that data to achieve their sample.

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Huh by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

      They were going to include Jedi, but after some hand-waving they "forgot" to.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do other religions apply to the study? Jewish people don't believe in hell (and some point out that Christian belief in hell is due to a mistranslation of the bible), so it would be hard to compare a Jewish group that believed in hell with one that didn't. By definition, it would seem that the religions that believe in reincarnation should be eliminated from the study - how can you be reincarnated and yet still have hell? My understanding is that you keep being reincarnated until you reach perfection and then you get to heaven, but I could be wrong on that. I'm not too familiar with all the world's religions, so maybe there's another one out there that believes in both heaven and hell, but I think the major ones are going to be the post-Jewish Abrahamic religions and those are Christianity and Islam.

    3. Re:Huh by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      According to Table 1 of the study, the choices of religious affiliation include "Roman Catholic," "Other Christian," and "Muslim."

      According to Table 1 of the study, the choices of specific religions to correlate with the levels of various crimes are "Roman Catholic", "Other Christian", and Muslim". According to the paragraph following Figure 1 of the study, the religious groups they identified as "national majorities" are Roman Catholic, predominantly non-Catholic Christian, Muslim, and "Other" ("which comprises of either unaffiliated majorities, or more localized majority religions such as Hinduism, Shintoism and syncretic religions that combine Islam and Christianity with traditional indigenous religions").

      The first of those items doesn't mean the study completely ignored nations where the national majority is "Other"; it just means that that those societies were, in the correlations with the "three dummy coded variables that indicated a country’s predominant religious group as Roman Catholic, Other Christian, and Muslim", not marked as Roman Catholic, Other Christian, or Muslim.

  19. In other words... by detritus. · · Score: 1

    Of course, it doesn't take into account what happens in the criminal justice system - they make sure to get you right with Jesus/Yaweh/Allah. I refuse to believe that Buddhist countries have worse violent crime rates. What defines a crime? The moral code of the country, often built upon these religions that believe in Hell.

    "I believe in two things: discipline and the Bible. Here you'll receive both. Put your trust in the Lord; your ass belongs to me. Welcome to Shawshank."

  20. Completely Rational by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If one were absolutely committed to the belief there was no afterlife and no consequences for their actions in life beyond death then any anti-social behavior could be rationalized as calculated risk. After all, everyone dies, ethically good or bad, so with certain final outcome one could rationalize anything that improves their own individual benefit based on risk/reward. This reminds me of the Lyrics to an old Tool song:

    "Consequences dictate our course of action. And it doesn't matter what's right. It's only wrong if you get caught."

    1. Re:Completely Rational by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      If one were absolutely committed to the belief there was no afterlife and no consequences for their actions in life beyond death then any anti-social behavior could be rationalized as calculated risk.

      You could do that even if you weren't an atheist. You simply have to believe in a certain kind of afterlife (one where murderers aren't punished, for instance). Fortunately, however, atheists aren't typically bloodthirsty murderers. I suppose that could happen, but it tends not to.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  21. And slavery.. by stanlyb · · Score: 0

    And the slavery is pretty good at keeping down the child molester. Lets face it, in the past, no black man did abuse the kids, and there was no white collar black males criminal, lol, what a sentence. Or for the simple minded, lets enslave all the people, and thus solve the child abusing criminals.
    Now now, please, who is going to give me my Nobel Prize?

  22. The "noble lie" by jcohen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would follow that, in order to achieve these socially desirable ends,e.g., lower crime rates, governments and religions should instill and promulgate belief in a vengeful God and in divine punishment. Plato had much the same idea in his Republic when he introduced the idea of the "noble lie", a constructed mythology that would be taught to all in order to promote social harmony and love of the State. Excellent for the myth-makers, who shape our minds for our own good -- and their own benefit.

    --
    "Imaginary solutions to real problems."
    1. Re:The "noble lie" by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

      Of course you'd also have to assume you know all possible effects of this lie throughout time and a moral belief system that puts those effects over any others that the lie might produce.

    2. Re:The "noble lie" by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Of course you'd also have to assume you know all possible effects of this lie throughout time and a moral belief system that puts those effects over any others that the lie might produce.

      Of course, this is completely false because it is completely impossible. You don't try to figure out every single consequence of all your actions, and you don't worry about infinite regressions.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:The "noble lie" by ANonyMouser · · Score: 2

      . Excellent for the myth-makers, who shape our minds for our own good -- and their own benefit.

      Not quite the same, but reminds me of Marx's criticisms of self serving upper class lawmakers.

      --
      I am not just going to agree with the popular view. In other words I have bad Karma.
    4. Re:The "noble lie" by exa · · Score: 1

      Or instead, you can recycle everyone who is stupid enough to believe in fairy tales. Enough fertilizer for aeons :)

      --
      --exa--
    5. Re:The "noble lie" by Galestar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you actually RTFA, such a religion cannot include a heaven. So your only choices are a) play nice and when you die you enter the void or b) dont play nice, you'll go to prison and when you die go to hell.

      --
      AccountKiller
    6. Re:The "noble lie" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that. For some people, the idea that a vengeful deity exists solely to punish their transgressions invariably results in them being highly dysfunctional. It might keep them from doing a few "bad" things that would evoke wrath, but that doesn't compensate for amount that it will make them loath life.

      Reminds me of a quote from Office Space: "That's my only real motivation is not to be hassled, that and the fear of losing my job. But you know, Bob, that will only make someone work just hard enough not to get fired."

      I think it would be better for us to try to motivate people to be good. More carrots, less stick. Maybe that's a lot more difficult given human psychology, but I don't think it would have the same negative effect on people as telling them that they're only a stone's throw away from hell.

    7. Re:The "noble lie" by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Fear of sufficient earthly punishment also works. Just ask Singapore.

  23. belief in hell by ThorGod · · Score: 2

    If you must believe in hell then hell must not exist in your country as an actuality.

    Therefore, your country probably doesn't have a very high crime rate.

    --
    PS: I don't reply to ACs.
  24. I doubt it because .... by giampy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I really doubt it because it's a rather well know fact by now (e.g. research by Zimbardo et. al) that the majority of people that commit crimes don't actually think about the future before committing them. They don't even think a few months in advance, let alone at what happens after life ...

    --
    We learn from history that we learn nothing from history - Tom Veneziano
    1. Re:I doubt it because .... by mister_dave · · Score: 1

      For markets to work, it is only necessary to punish bad behaviour. Belief in hell would satisfy that.

    2. Re:I doubt it because .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the much larger majority of people who don't commit crimes certainly do think about the consequences of their actions. Do you know what sample bias is? Zimbardo et al apparently don't, if they're trying to assert that punishment doesn't prevent crime.

    3. Re:I doubt it because .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The concept of Hell presumes an all-seeing Being, which sees your misdoings and sends you to Hell for it. Being seen is a known deterrent to crime, although not perfect (consider camera surveillance in Britain)

  25. So people still have infantile world-models... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Quite a disgrace. "Heaven" and "hell" are concepts that may be believable to children (but they should _not_ be exposed to them), but for adults to believe in them is just pathetic. Seems under all that civilization, you still find a lot of the cave-men that are governed by irrational fears.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:So people still have infantile world-models... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sartr's "Hell is other people" seems quite appropriate here.

    2. Re:So people still have infantile world-models... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And whatever people say, almost nobody really believes in heaven. Why is a funeral always so sad? It should be a party. That person finally goes to heaven where everything is better.

      But still, nobody, not even the most religious person, says: "Thank you doctor! A terminal illness. Finally. Heaven, here I come!"

    3. Re:So people still have infantile world-models... by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      For adults to believe in any superstitions is pathetic

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  26. Why cant /.ers see it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    theres 2 or 3 troll posts about religion every week on slashdot, and slashdoters rise to the bait every time. boy do they know how to push your buttons.

  27. God bought himself out of punishing us, with Jesus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something us Christians have wrong is the notion of hell.

    God's not in the punishment business anymore. He got out of that when he punished Jesus instead. Heaped all the wrath that was required for retribution of sin, on Jesus. So there's no more need for the wrath, it's been dealt.

    What does exist is "outer darkness" where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. This is a lock from the inside because to enter heaven requires death to self-- without death to self you're carrying too much baggage: baggage that wants your way instead of doing what's best for others, that wants gratification of the desires of the flesh immediately instead of at the right time and in the right place when you can properly control them...
    This baggage is what the "Rich Young Ruler" Jesus referenced is about.

  28. So what? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    It proves nothing of cause and effect... I would imagine that most 'god fearing' nations would also have more laws, police and prisons too, which personally id say that would be more of a deterrent than a believe in some mythical place.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  29. How About That Devil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Christian could easily believe that an afterlife in the warmth of God is heaven and not being allowed proximity to God is absolute death or hell. The belief that there is a power or multiple powers of evil does not always imply that as specific being has the rule over evil but that the general circumstance of this world tilts towards evil almost like the force of gravity, lacking in personal aspects. We can however perceive of a hell which is independent of Satan's rule or influence.
                Frankly I think I know people who live in hell in this world. It is sad.

    1. Re: How About That Devil? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forget Dante's inferno, fire & brimstone stories, that's a piece of man-made fiction. "Hell" is cold, different levels of cold. The worse a person you were in this life, the lower & colder you get put. And you stay there, with no blanket for warmth, and you have nothing to do but be cold. And think. Think about why you're there. Why you shouldn't have been the person you were on earth. And, when you get to a point where you figure out why it was wrong of you to hurt/harm others for your own selfish reasons, you get brought up a few levels, where it's not as cold. This process will repeat until you figure it out enough to be 'worthy' of being closer to where we all should be, with the all-loving, but stern, teaching God. What we don't learn and practice doing in this life must be learned the harder way in the next life. And it's rather simple, really. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

  30. If God exists.... by Albinoman · · Score: 1

    If God exists, how can there be evil, a Devil, and Hell? Why would a perfect and benevolent being have need to create of such things? If all things come from God, then God created evil.

  31. Detroit by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    People who live in Detroit? All they have to do is open a window and look outside.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Detroit by AdamWill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I also do not like $LOCATION. Where's my funny points?

    2. Re:Detroit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is $LOCATION 90% diverse?

    3. Re:Detroit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The windows are already opened (aka broken)!

    4. Re:Detroit by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      You didn't get the funny points because the timing was all wrong.

    5. Re:Detroit by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      I also have no sense of humor. Where are my Insightful mods?

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
  32. religion as a police force by mcguyver · · Score: 1

    Indeed some people believe religion was created as a way to police crime.

    In part of the study I read on NPR, kids were put in a room and told to take a test. Half of the kids were told there was a ghost in the room. Those that thought they were being watched were less likely to cheat.

  33. .....wut by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    .....wut

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    1. Re:.....wut by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Since it is abudnandly clear you have not read this particular fairytale that you are harping about, here's a reader's digest version of events.

      God creates the universe.
      God creates heaven, and the angels. (Includes lucifer.)
      God creates the earth.
      God creates man, and holds man in special esteem. (Unlike angels, humans were created to resemble god.)
      Lucifer is jealous, and angry about humans. Seeks to destroy them.
      Luficer cons eve into disobeying god.
      Humans are cast down.
      God punishes lucifer to crawl eternally in dust, and be trampled by human feet, and be forever hated. ...

      Many generations in genesis later ...

      The "watchers", angels tasked with observing and reporting on the earth and human affairs, observe human women, and get horny. A shitton of them come down to earth, and swear a pact with each other to be fully complicit in their proposed crime. They then alter themselves, take human wives, and have children. The details of this escapade are the thesis of the first book of enoc, an apochryphal book. Genesis gets the reader's digest version one liner of "and the sons of god took of themselves wives, and there were giants in the land, heros and men of old."

      These creatures have human appetites, are collossally huge, and don't age. They multiply, and threaten the human race with extinction.

      Notice: no fire. No brimstone.

      To correct the problem, god sends the flood.

      The fallen watchers are banished to their prison in the darkest void, and the spirits of their mongrel children become the fell demons that torment men, since there was nowhere set aside for them to go. (They wander incorporeally on the earth, and settle in desolate places.)

    2. Re:.....wut by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      I have read that particular fairytale [funny how you purport to know what I've read], but I don't waste precious space in my brain remembering a bunch of made-up bullshit I read in the 1980s.

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    3. Re:.....wut by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for us both... I can't ever seem to forget anything that I read.

      I read that particular fairytale, probably for the same reasons you did, (wtf is everyone always so angry about?!) And now its plot is permanently lodged in my assembled body of literary knowledge, right alongside all the greek mythology, the copy of the lord of the rings I read, and a dozen more science fiction books, and treatises on comparative religion.

      As for usefulness... you would be surprised how useful that particular fairytale can be, when dealing with such annoyances as jehova's witnesses, and scary southern baptists.

      Apparently god's powers are sufficiently hampered by iron vehicles that his divinely empowered armies can't defeat enemies equiped with them. (Seriously, google "chariots of iron" for epic lulz.) As such, apparently you can run over every messenger god sends at you with a lincoln town car and be perfectly safe from his wrath inside.

      Such amazingly fun things in there!

    4. Re:.....wut by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      hahaha..... well, that memory probably made college easier, at least. Next time video the jehova's witnesses - i could use a laugh!! :)

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    5. Re:.....wut by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Oh, they don't come to MY house anymore. A few friendly visits where I hand them pate of christianity, cut up, dissected, cross referenced, and fully researched, which shows their beliefs to be silly and totally incompatible with what is actually in that nasty little book, and they just stopped coming. :D

      I must be on some kind of black list now, since I have moved since then, and *still* don't get any visits!

      Destroying their little lives was such a delicious past time too! (Using the bible, in full, researched context to do it too, made it even more delightful, since they had absolutely no defense against it.)

    6. Re:.....wut by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Unfortunately for us both... I can't ever seem to forget anything that I read." -

      Sheldon, is that you?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    7. Re:.....wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol wut?

  34. Justice by ThePeices · · Score: 2

    So if a person has committed crimes during his life, e.g burglary, violence, fraud and a bit of adultery thrown in for good measure, most believers would say that he will go to Hell and burn in all eternity for his sins.

    So does the punishment befit the crime(s)?

    Is torturing somebody by subjecting them to continuous pain, suffering and torment for an infinite length of time justifiable for whatever they did during the ~80 odd years of life on Earth?

    What about after the first trillion years of torture? Dont you think that would be enough considering the crimes committed?
    What about when the misery and torture has reached a few billion trillion years?

    And dont forget, 10 to the power of 10000000000000000000000000 years is not even the most insignificant fraction of eternity.

    No crime I can possibly think of can ever justify that level of torture.

    If this is how the universe works, then whatever Deity created this system is a monster of the highest order.

    1. Re:Justice by mrsurb · · Score: 1

      Because sin is not merely bad actions, but an attitude of rebellion against God.

      One part of the answer then is that sin in an infinite offense against an infinite God.

      But I don't think that on its own is enough. Another part of the answer is that the biblical pictures of punishment show that even while being punished, sinners continue to curse God (eg Rev 16:9, 11, 21).

    2. Re:Justice by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      the concept of eternal torture doesn't really work anyhow, you'd get used to it or it would seem like the first day every day, which wouldn't feel eternal either.

      (Besides, in christianity all sins are already forgiven so meh)

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nyarlatothep says: You made me blush.

    4. Re:Justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without getting into a long discussion about it, what you have described is a distortion of the reality and purpose of Hell. Two short clarifications:

      1) Can you actually quote verses that support your impressions of 'burning' and 'pain' and 'torture'? Also, consider the possibility/probability that all physical descriptions of Hell are actually symbolic. This doesn't make Hell any less terrible, but is something to ponder.

      2) Lest any of us forget, everyone that ends up in Hell is there because they wanted to be. To quote C.S.Lewis:

      "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'"

      In other words, 'Hell' is the place where people end up that want to be as far away from God as possible. It is therefore 'naturally' a place completely devoid of all goodness and happiness.

      Another quote to cap this off, also from C.S.Lewis:

      "I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside."

      Doesn't this make the 'torture and injustice' angle a extreme distortion?

  35. Re:Wake me up when religion is finally dead. by Luke727 · · Score: 0

    I don't disagree, but even without religion people will find other reasons to hate each other.

    --
    If you find this post offensive, don't read it! THINK ABOUT YOUR BREATHING! I am what I am because of how apes behave.
  36. Skew? by ANonyMouser · · Score: 1

    I wonder if this is skewed by certain Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia, where the punishments for even minor crimes are so severe that people really are deterred. That would account for a third variable with a causal relationship to the two correlated variables mentioned. Just a thought.

    --
    I am not just going to agree with the popular view. In other words I have bad Karma.
  37. As with Economics by TranquilVoid · · Score: 1

    We are motivated more by fear and greed than love. Same mechanism that makes capitalism work better than communism.

  38. DUH! by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People that believe they will suffer dire consequences are less likely to commit a crime. Really? Imagine that.

  39. I have a theory too: by Hartree · · Score: 1

    It states: Articles about religion on slashdot tend to bring out lots of people on various sides posting about how ignorant, stupid and foolish everyone who disagrees with them about religion is.

    (And thus imply how enlightened and intelligent the posters are, by comparison.)

  40. Fear of punishment deters crime by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    Details at 11.

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  41. Hell != Hell by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    As far as I know there are no concrete concepts of either hell or heaven in Judaism.

    Nor did Jesus teach about any sort of eternal conscious torment. Part of the problem is that some churches have conflated two concepts, Sheol and Gehenna, into "hell". Sheol (also called Hades) is the grave, an unconscious state of being ("the dead are aware of nothing", Eccl 9:5) in which the dead sleep awaiting resurrection. Gehenna (from the Hebrew for Hinnom Valley) is literally the name of a valley where garbage was destroyed through burning, and it symbolically refers to destruction of the incorrigible with no hope of resurrection, not eternal conscious torment.

    The Hebrew Scriptures have a concept of a kingdom of God that will destroy the kingdoms of man (1 Chr 29:10-12; Daniel 2:44, 4:3).

    1. Re:Hell != Hell by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      As far as I know there are no concrete concepts of either hell or heaven in Judaism.

      Nor did Jesus teach about any sort of eternal conscious torment. Part of the problem is that some churches have conflated two concepts, Sheol and Gehenna, into "hell". Sheol (also called Hades) is the grave, an unconscious state of being ("the dead are aware of nothing", Eccl 9:5) in which the dead sleep awaiting resurrection. Gehenna (from the Hebrew for Hinnom Valley) is literally the name of a valley where garbage was destroyed through burning, and it symbolically refers to destruction of the incorrigible with no hope of resurrection, not eternal conscious torment.

      The Hebrew Scriptures have a concept of a kingdom of God that will destroy the kingdoms of man (1 Chr 29:10-12; Daniel 2:44, 4:3).

      So where did this concept of an almost theme-park like torture camp 'hell' come from?

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    2. Re:Hell != Hell by chispito · · Score: 2

      Sorry, that interpretation of the NT, especially of Jesus's teachings, is pretty far off base. Ready Luke 16 some time. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16&version=NIV

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    3. Re:Hell != Hell by BitterOak · · Score: 1

      So where did this concept of an almost theme-park like torture camp 'hell' come from?

      Dante.

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    4. Re:Hell != Hell by angelofdarkness · · Score: 1

      So where did this concept of an almost theme-park like torture camp 'hell' come from?

      Dante's Inferno.

    5. Re:Hell != Hell by Barsteward · · Score: 2

      Its all bollocks anyway, no point splitting hairs over it

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    6. Re:Hell != Hell by aintnostranger · · Score: 1

      Errr... Someone else correctly pointed out Luke 16. I'll add Luke 13:28: "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out" That sounds pretty much conscious.

    7. Re:Hell != Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luke 16:23 (link includes surrounding context) is hard to reconcile with Hades as an unconscious state of being.

    8. Re:Hell != Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this post informative when it is so patently false?!?
      It was obviously modded up by Slashdotters who don't have a clue how to do research.
      Here's what the SOURCE (you know, the Bible) has to say.

      Yeshua/Jesus on Hell:

      Luke 16:22
          And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the
          angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
      16:23
          And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham
          afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
      16:24
          And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send
          Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my
          tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
      16:25
          But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy
          good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted,
          and thou art tormented.

      Yeshua (Jesus) talking about Satan.:

      Luke 12:4
          And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body,
          and after that have no more that they can do.
      12:5
          But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he
          hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

      And here in Mark:

      9:43
          And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
          enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into
          the fire that never shall be quenched:
      9:44
          Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

      Yeshua preached more about Hell than he preached about Heaven.

    9. Re:Hell != Hell by budgenator · · Score: 1

      My understanding is the monks during the dark ages needed some additional leverage to maintain the political Status Quo, starving peasants are less likely to tithe to the monastery when they weren't facing eternal damnation, so they borrowed it from the Greeks, Romans and other ancient polytheistic religions. Revelations21:8 supplied one verse to justify the whole scheme.

      But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

      Still to my reading, it falls short of eternal damnation, and the authorship of Revelations is in dispute, yet most Fundie Bible colleges must spend a whole year studying it.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  42. No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this correlation really suggests is that humans fear punishment, which is not news. What is a little surprising is that such a distant (in time) punishment can have stronger effects than socioeconomic status, which is a very immediate thing; stealing a sweet TV now its much more immediate than the far off threat of eternal damnation

  43. Sparlock the Warrior Wizard by tepples · · Score: 1

    Next time video the jehova's witnesses

    Jay-dubs... video? OK, I'll bite. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe: God hates a hunk of purple plastic.

  44. what about... by smash · · Score: 1

    ... compared to those who DON'T believe in imaginary friends/foes? I'm sure i've read a study somewhere in America's deep south where the incidence of murder/rape increased with the level of religous zealotry.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  45. Why God allows suffering by tepples · · Score: 1

    God created Lucifer with free will, and Lucifer used that free will to choose to rebel against God and become Satan the Devil. God allows Satan to continue with his wickedness to prove a point, namely that Satan's style of rule is not what is best for humankind. This is what Jehovah's Witnesses actually believe.

  46. Jedi == Presbyterians by tepples · · Score: 1

    In the Chinese bootleg of Revenge of the Sith, called Backstroke of the West, "Jedi Council" was translated as "Presbyterian Church". So I'd guess after some hand-waving, Jedi were counted as Other Christian.

  47. What befits the crimes is a trip to the incinerato by tepples · · Score: 1

    most believers would say that [an exceedingly wicked person] will go to Hell and burn in all eternity for his sins. So does the punishment befit the crime(s)?

    No. What befits the crimes is a trip to the incinerator. The Bible doesn't teach eternal conscious torment.

  48. Won't let me in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Devil won't let me into hell. He's worried that I might try to take over.

  49. Hell joke incoming by Psicopatico · · Score: 1

    A man dies and he goes to hell.

    A devil greets him and says: "Welcome to hell. Since you're going to stay here for the eternity, please let me guide you to a tour of the place".

    The tour starts in a marvelous garden filled with trees, colourful flowers, beautiful animals running around and a majestic castle in the middle of it.

    "Come on, there's your room for the stay" incitest the devil.
    The newcomer is speechless, he just nods and walks on.

    Once inside the castle, he sees wonderful clean rooms. The pair pass through an immense lobby, finely decorated with shiny carpets and tapestries.
    Next is a dining room, filled with esotic scents.
    The man notices a library too. Oh, what a library! thousands of books perfectly fitted in the bookcases.

    Up to a marble staircase, the two stop in a room.
    "Here's your place, sir" says the devil while pointing in.
    Inside the really big room there's every comfort one can ever desire: a double royal bed with silk sheets, a fireplace, leather sofas, mirrors, fine carpets and whatnot.

    At some point, the man walks in front of a window and looks out.
    Horrified he sees a burning lava sea with lots of people immersed to the neck in it, while hordes of devils whip the poor souls continously.
    "Wha..what the fuck is that!?!" he asks.
    "That's the Christian's hell" the devil calmly answers "that's how they want it".

    --
    Mastering the English language is fucking easy: all you have to do is to put an f* word in every fucking sentence.
  50. of course there's a hell by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

    Of course there's a hell. It's a place where everyone owns Macs except for me, and I'm stuck going to coffee shops with a 386 laptop running Windows 95 and a 300 baud acoustic modem. And everyone points at me and laughs and I realize suddenly that I'm not wearing any pants but I have to give the commencement address. And then I wake up and realize I'm standing in the TSA line at the airport and I still am not wearing any pants and nobody is left on Slashdot with any kind of sense of humor. Yes, there's a hell.

  51. welcome to the monkey house by epine · · Score: 3

    This is the problem we have in society where instead of advancing thought and morals, we advance an atheist agenda lacking in morals.

    Atheists lack a defining text. And people think managing programmers is like herding cats. Unification of agenda under a grand banner is mostly a theist creation.

    More simply put, without any moral guide lines we only have survival of the fittest to guide us.

    Apparently, we hadn't properly solved the equations for Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma after three decades of study and you suspect on gut instinct that the grand mechanism of fitness is tapped out? Let me guess, you're soon about to argue that lack of a moral code correlates with lack of fitness?

    Guess what happens to people with no moral guide lines? Well, you simply need to look at the declining mental and moral health of the USA to see how this turns out.

    Bee Eye Enn Gee Oh.

    Shortly after the 1983 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 incident I attended some Sunday services at a televised evangelical church in Toronto out of courtesy to the family I was boarding with. One of the speakers they invited was Hal Lindsey. I don't recall the other guests by name. In one service it was preached that America engage in eye-for-eye tactics and shoot down an equivalent aircraft from the Soviet sphere. Nice. Well, America evened the score on quick trigger fingers not long after with the Iran Air Flight 655 incident in 1988. If we had deliberately boarded the eye-for-an-eye bus, we'd now be asking the Irish for advice on how to cool the exchange.

    The other sermon I recall rather vividly was the claim that the rapidly rising disease in western society was a sign of God's wrath. He was referring in particular to the number of distinct diagnostic categories, completely oblivious to the fact that refinements in diagnostic category are the hallmark of science making progress. Where we used to have one lump for infectious disease, we now distinguish thousands of pathogens, all the way down to minor strains.

    FOX News excluded, mental health in America has probably never been better. I watched the extremely difficult movie Breaking the Waves over the weekend. There wasn't a shred of mental health in evidence in that nasty Calvinist congregation. Every one of them would rather crush pint glasses with their bare hands than seek help for depression. Hitchens was exceedingly vocal about how Mother Teresa defined misery as next to godliness. She did almost nothing to alleviate suffering.

    MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God.

    As society less frequently accepts that suffering is next to godliness, more people seek treatment for minor mental health conditions. The same data you cite reads to me as major progress.

  52. Re:God bought himself out of punishing us, with Je by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something us Christians have wrong is the notion of hell.

    I literally cannot fathom why anyone would join a major religion. Belief in a god? Alright. Belief in a specific god with a specific personality? Why? Assuming one exists, we know nothing about them. There is absolutely zero evidence. So... why?

  53. hell is a good concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    most atheists don't believe in hell persay, but they do believe in things coming back at you.
    American's clearly don't believe in hell with those world record breaking imprisonment numbers... (you beat the nazi's in millions of people in a system...)

  54. Re:What befits the crimes is a trip to the inciner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's great. Just incinerate them. That's what I imagine any loving god would do.

  55. Priests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess the Catholic Priests that molest little boys don't believe in Hell, then.

  56. the author of this news should read more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    about the old scripts
    this is not new
    don't try to get this from so-called 'psychology'
    this thing exists even we were not born

  57. The stats must be flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There must be something flawed here. When I think of cultures without much fear of hell:

        Tibet, Bhutan, Bali, Thailand, China

    And cultures with much fear of hell:

        Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, US, Europe, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico

    It seems to me the fear of hell increases violence, not decreases. I think the author of these stats has an agenda.

  58. Define "crime" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The definition, acceptability, and reporting rate of crimes will vary so much for culture to culture, there is absolutely no way to conduct a study like this without some kind of bias. End of story.

  59. killing is okay in my book by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way I got it figured if I killed or otherwise hurt someone bad and their maker asked me
    "WHY DID YOU TRANSGRESS AGAINST MY CREATION?"

    I would ask back "Why did you bother me with it?". Sure burn me in hell forever, be the eternal
    dick and the eternal asshole you are, so be it.

  60. Just in case nobody noticed.... by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 2

    Both heaven and hell are fictional places from mithologies and supersticions (Organized supersticions are usualy refered as religion, but that is no indication of the accuracy of their adsurd ideas). Basically if you believe in either of them, you are an idiot.

    1. Re:Just in case nobody noticed.... by mark-t · · Score: 0

      You have made a rather bold assertion.

      Reasonably, burden of proof should always fall to the person making a claim... asking a listener to disprove it is a specific type of appeal to ignorance, and is more commonly called a negative proof fallacy. It has no logical validity.

      So... do you care to provide evidence to support that assertion?

      Or shall you just admit that you don't know anywhere nearly as much as you think you do?

      It is perfectly valid to say that you do not believe in them... and you could even say that there is absolutely no evidence that proves their existence to you, or to the general scientific community, but it is not valid to assert that they are mere fiction without also supplying some actual proof. That the notions of heaven and hell can be found in some fictional stories is not, by itself, compelling evidence that they do not exist, since there is no prohibition in fiction on including elements that do exist in reality (if there were, people would be unable to identify with them, in fact... and such fictional stories would be meaningless to all but their creator).

    2. Re:Just in case nobody noticed.... by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      Oh no, no, no.

      Religion tells us that heaven and hell exist. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the religious believers to prove their hypothesis.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    3. Re:Just in case nobody noticed.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I didn't make any claim that they do exist... the poster to which I responded made a claim that they are fiction. Burden of proof must *ALWAYS* fall on the person making any claim... to do otherwise is, as I said, a negative proof fallacy, and is no better than when people who *DO* believe in heaven or hell challenge anybody else to "prove them wrong".

    4. Re:Just in case nobody noticed.... by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

      Well, since heaven is the alleged creation of an alleged god (Chuckles here) and hell is the alleged creation of an alleged fallen angel (Beelzebub) that was in turn allegedly created by the alleged god, all I need to do is disprove the existence of the alleged god and all the alleged creations could by deduction have never been created..... So, here we go, for that god to exist, will have to have some basic qualities. This alleged god is allegedly perfect, almighty, eternal and furthermore full of love and goodness (More chuckles here). This alleged god in its infinite alleged wisdom, created the universe and everything within it, being perfect, this alleged god could have not committed any mistake (Perfection must be absolute after all), therefore, this universe is perfect and everything within it is perfect. Also, since this alleged god is the most loving and wonderfully good entity in the whole universe, everything in this universe is perfectly good and wonderful. That includes child molesters, rapists, assassins, and all other kind of wonderful people that this god full of goodness and perfection created (Ops, did we just arrived to a contradiction?).

    5. Re:Just in case nobody noticed.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You've made so many entirely unsubstantiated assumptions there that I couldn't begin to enumerate them....The most basic of them being the assumption that something which was created as less than perfect must actually be some sort of mistake, when an alternative explanation is that imperfection may have been by intentional design, for a purpose that is not currently known or understood. Nonetheless, even if all of your assumptions were true, it does not remotely prove that heaven or hell are mere fiction, you only establish a credible (perfectly reasonable, in fact) case that there probably isn't a god that satisfies what seems to be nothing other than your own definition of perfect.

      In actuality, all that anyone can ever hope to prove about their existence is that there is no scientifically credible evidence to support their existence. That does not mean they are fiction any more than the fact that we have not found any real evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe means that such does not exist.

    6. Re:Just in case nobody noticed.... by InspectorGadget1964 · · Score: 1

      So, you are telling me that your wonderful, benevolent wise, perfect and almighty god intentionally created human beings to fail? That sounds kind of cruel to me. Sounds like your alleged god is a sadistic bastard that created kids with the intention of them dying of starvation and disease in Africa and other of the poorest regions of this magnificent and beautiful world. And by the way, I have not define perfection. The whole concept is rather ancient and is an absolute. You cannot be “almost perfect” you either are or you are not and your concept of god is either perfectly evil by creating those disastrous situations or an absolutely incompetent imbecile or most likely the consequence of the imagination of groups of primitive people living in fear looking for some comforting idea of some protector that makes promises about an ”afterlife”. Crawl back into your religious hole and leave rational people to live using reason and science. We do not deserve the torture of your lack of sense.

    7. Re:Just in case nobody noticed.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      I'm not claiming anything... I merely suggest that your own "proof" overlooks the possibility.

      I'm also not afraid to say I don't know... which apparently, you are.

      How sad for you.

  61. Re:God bought himself out of punishing us, with Je by mrsurb · · Score: 1

    The Christian answer is that the evidence is God coming to earth in the person of Jesus - dying for the sins of the world and being raised to new life as recorded in the Scriptures. Claims about the personality of God such as "love" and are backed up by the historical events of the crucifiction and resurrection (eg John 3:16 - God so loved the world that he gave his only Son).

    Now maybe you don't accept that evidence. Fair enough. But in order to fathom why Christians believe that God has certain personality traits, the evidence that we are basing our understanding on is the person and work of Jesus as revealed in the Scriptures.

  62. Profit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Randomly pick a scientific sounding article from the internet. Wait the reaction of (non-social-science experts) speechless nerds. Profit!

  63. Beliefness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What religions say you have to believe in hell to stay out of it? People are just so ignorant these days. It's been documented that the mind has control mechanisms that help prevent people from doing things that aren't normal. The problem arises when you ask them what's normal, this is how beliefs of metaphysical things come into the picture. Nothing in nature describes to the humans being what good. Humans never evolved into being morals, they just have the capacity for the particular quality.

  64. The Study's data is completely flawed by Kjellander · · Score: 1

    I have no idea where the authors found their data, but it is not from this earth that we live on for sure.

    Why does Sweden and Norway have among the highest "Crime Index z-scores"?, whatever that means? I mean, does Sweden have a higher crime index than Tanzania, Brazil or the US for that matter??

    I subject to you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

    Please find any study where Sweden and Norway have among the highest crime rates.

    The authors are worse than "damned liars" I say.

    1. Re:The Study's data is completely flawed by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      The authors are worse than "damned liars" I say.

      maybe they thought that they'd be damned if they did not lie.

  65. That is strecthing it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Equating belief in hell with reincarnation in lower form, but not equating belief in heaven with reincarnation in higher form is stretching it to fit. I contend there is no religion which has a form of punishment (equating to hell) without having a form of reward (equating to heaven), although as you pointed out the other way around it can happen that a religion has belief in reward without belief in punishment.

  66. i think that this is skewed because by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    In Muslim countries killing your kids for honour, raping non-Muslims, stealing from non muslims and destroying there places of worship is seen as a virtue and not a crime.

  67. Worst study I have seen in a long time by waveman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    1. Data mining

    > no correction has been made for inflated error rates due to performing a large number of analyses

    Also, the correlations for beleif in heaven and belief in hell are both large and of the opposite sign. A classic red flag for data mining, i.e. torturing the data until you get the result you want.

    2. Garbage data

    If you look at the article, it claims that Russia is a far more law-abiding country than Australia.
    However when you look at the one crime statistic that is very reliable, we see that Russian has 84 murders per day = 217 per million people per year. Australia has about 260 per year = 11 per million people per year. That is, Russia's murder rate is 20 times higher. Yet we are supposed to believe that Russia has a lower crime rate than Australia.
    If this is at all representative of the quality of their data, it is a sad joke.

    http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/advice/Russia

  68. Re:God bought himself out of punishing us, with Je by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    yep, but christians only apply the good personality traits and completely leave out the genocidal, misogynistic, child abuser etc side.

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  69. Re:God bought himself out of punishing us, with Je by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now maybe you don't accept that evidence.

    Rather, I don't see how anyone could. Perhaps I'm just arrogant to be dumbfounded that such people exist on Slashdot.

  70. Re:God bought himself out of punishing us, with Je by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    Now maybe you don't accept that evidence.

    That'a not "evidence", that's a bunch of wild claim about supposed events that took place a very long time ago. A fossil bone, a rusty sword or a floor plan of an ancient villa is much more a piece of evidence than any old mythological book.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  71. Belief in Hell? How could anybody question it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, it's right on the map, and I've been there. A nice little place.

  72. Well... by Bloody+Bastard · · Score: 1

    I will be damned!

  73. Hades != eternal by tepples · · Score: 1

    "I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings." (Luke 16:9, NIV) And thus I see where Jehovah's Witnesses get some of their ideas.

    I assume you're referring to a verse later in the chapter that refers to some sort of torment in Hades: "And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, he existing in torments" (Luke 16:23, NWT). That changes things slightly; I'll have to bring it up at my next Bible study. But torment doesn't necessarily mean conscious torment; it could be symbolic of being "conscious of nothing" (Eccl. 9:5). And even if Hades is conscious torment, it still isn't eternal conscious torment, as "death and Hades [will be] thrown into the lake of fire [in] the second death." --Rev 20:14.

  74. It's socialism stupid. by elucido · · Score: 1

    The reason crime rates in the USA hasn't shot through the roof is because you can go on welfare or get Obamacare.

    Get rid of that and watch what happens.

  75. Conscious or eternal: pick one by tepples · · Score: 1
    The Luke 16:23 story refers to Hades, which is not eternal even if it is conscious torment. But the hell of Mark 9:43-48 is Gehenna, which symbolizes destruction more than it does conscious torment. So is the hell of Luke 12:5.

    Yeshua preached more about Hell than he preached about Heaven.

    That's because he didn't want anyone to be destroyed in Gehenna if at all possible. But he still had much to say about the kingdom of the heavens, such as all of Matthew 24.

    1. Re:Conscious or eternal: pick one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's just one quotation from many from the Early Church Fathers.

      "All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked. Yet, it would be better for them if they were not deathless. For they are punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire. Since they do not die, it is impossible for them to have an end put to their misery." (Clement of Alexandria, c. 195; from a post-Nicene manuscript fragment)" -- Quoted from Christian Beliefs on Hell.

      The New Testament seems to say and the early Christians certainly do explicitly say that the soul is eternal.

      A fundamental Christian doctrine is that God created us as 3-fold beings: body, soul, & spirit. To be born again means to have your spirit reborn "from above"; then the Holy Spirit works via your reborn spirit to renew your mind to a more godly mindset. That is the Christian program, in a nutshell.

      The Bible calls the unrepentant: "soulish". It is those who are driven by their lower natures, those who refuse to listen to the call of God, it is they who will spend eternity in Hell. You might not think that it is just for a person to spend an eternity in Hell, but that's just the way it works. God is not a bad god. He did everything in His power to educate you and help you to find Him so that you could avoid spending eternity separated from the primal source of joy and good things.

  76. People who show unwillingness to accept God's love by tepples · · Score: 1

    What would a loving God do to anybody who has repeatedly shown that he isn't willing to turn away from sin and accept God's love? A loving God who sees a bunch of lifelong unrepentant dciks would protect his followers.

  77. Prison = Hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make Prison a hell (more than it already is, i mean fire and brimstone, lunatics- running-the-show type hell) and watch crime plummet!

  78. Reminds me of the movie Ghost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Biggest inconsistency in the movie.

    Bad guy knows he is talking to a good guy ghost. Good guy ghost doesn't tell him what happens to bad guys who die.

    If I had been said bad guy and heard what is probably the "truth" I would start being a good guy, it might not work but it is the best shot I have at not having happen what I now know happens.

  79. Is this really surprising? by AskingSlashdot · · Score: 1

    Is this really surprising? One of the main purposes religion served "back in the day" was to keep the unwashed masses under control. They were almost completely uneducated / illiterate but they could understand the concept of a big bad place called "hell" (or whatever underworld their religion believed in) and a fear of "god" sending them somewhere like that was enough to keep many people in line. Certainly "eternal damnation" is a lot scarier to those who believe in it than spending a few years in prison.

  80. Two kinds of belief in hell by The3isSilent · · Score: 1

    I'd like to see a breakdown between two different kinds of belief in hell:

    * The kind of belief where a believer worries about his or her own chance of ending up in hell.
    * The kind of belief where a believer thinks that he or she is guaranteed a place in heaven (for example by saying the magic words, "I accept Jesus Christ as my Personal Savior"), and where hell is only for the foolish and/or evil others who don't believe the same things.

  81. I don't understand why you say this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the fact is that you have to prove a causation by noting its correlation.

    And, given a correlation, you can hypothesise a causation: people respond to negative stimuli when avoiding a situation. But just parroting "correlation does not equal causation" is complete anti-intellectual fappery. Correlation IMPLIES there's a causation. It doesn't tell us what the causation IS, but then again, so what?

    1. Re:I don't understand why you say this by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why you say this

      Why I say ""A is correlated with B" does not necessarily mean "A causes B"; B could cause A or C could cause both A and B"? I say it because, err, umm, it's true. Srsly.

      Because the fact is that you have to prove a causation by noting its correlation.

      And, given a correlation, you can hypothesise a causation: people respond to negative stimuli when avoiding a situation. But just parroting "correlation does not equal causation" is complete anti-intellectual fappery. Correlation IMPLIES there's a causation. It doesn't tell us what the causation IS,

      Or, to put it differently, ""A is correlated with B" does not necessarily mean "A causes B"; B could cause A or C could cause both A and B", as somebody once said.

      but then again, so what?

      "So" people shouldn't necessarily assume, solely from an observation that A and B are correlated, that A necessarily causes B or even is likely to cause B. There may be other reasons to hypothesize that the causation is "A causes B" rather than "B causes A" or "C causes A and B", but, absent those other reasons, it might be worth investigating the other possibilities, and it may be worth it even with those other reasons.

      So "correlation does not imply causation" might be a too-broad and too-easily-misinterpreted response to "A and B are correlated, therefore A causes B", with the right response being a more nuanced "OK, what if B caused A, or something else caused both of them?", if there's a reason to believe that might be the case. (In this particular case, what if there's a characteristic that causes both a tendency to belief in hell (or hellfire) and a tendency not to commit crimes or, at least, the violent crimes the rates of which were most strongly negatively correlated with belief in hell and positively correlated with belief in heaven?)

  82. No, it makes C.S. Lewis full of shit. by The3isSilent · · Score: 1

    The idea that people would actually choose to go to Hell is utterly ludicrous, nothing more than a way for sanctimonious twits to feel less guilty about their cruel philosophy, a sick blame-the-victim mentality.

  83. So protect your followers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So protect your followers. But how does that translate into "torture for eternity my non-followers"?

    Tell me, do you flay the skin off your child if they disobey you?

    1. Re:So protect your followers. by tepples · · Score: 1

      But how does that translate into "torture for eternity my non-followers"?

      It doesn't. Those who do their best to pay God's love forward will be resurrected into a paradise. Those who do not will be incinerated in the lake of fire. It is not the eternal conscious torment popularly associated with the term "hell", because that would not be fair. It's a brief period of burning to death, followed by cessation of existence.

  84. Is it just me? by FilmedInNoir · · Score: 1

    Or did anybody else start bleeding out of their ears and nose trying to make sense of the graphs in that paper?

    --
    Sig. Sig. Sputnik
  85. There is *so* much wrong with this by whitroth · · Score: 1

    Let's see, where do I start?

    What about Buddhist countries? Or China, with a quarter of the world's population? Or India, with more than another 1G? What "Creator's hell" is there? Just starting to skim the link leaves me wondering if they only studied countries that were primarily Judeo-Xian-Islamic.

    How does it break down: how many of the "higher crime" countries are a) what used to be called Third World, that were conquered and ruled by westerners, and b) how many are in countries with huge unemployment (like Spain, right now, or Palestine)?

    And how do they define it? When they say "hell", do the respondents think "purgatory", or are they thinking Christian infinite punishment for limited evil?

                      mark

  86. the psychology of others... by schlachter · · Score: 1

    i.e. as we look across our white picket fences into our our crime infested neighborhoods, we believe that we are living the better life...and that those criminals will go to hell. easy to believe in a hell when you build up the walls and identify people as "others"

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  87. Or: Legislating morality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A population with significant proportion of devout Christians (or other faiths) just might have a greater propensity for legislating morality. It certainly seems to be the case here in the US, just google for sex laws here - FFS, in at least a couple of states it's illegal to purchase sex toys. That could very well lead to increased overall crime rates due to "morality" crimes.

    - T

  88. contradictory by idanity · · Score: 1

    the quote 'in societies where many people believe in hell compared to those where more people believed in heaven." is contradictory. in what religeon(s) do they preach in only one or the other ? afaik, if you believe in one, you have to also believe in the other. as in, 'if you don't make it to heaven, where do you go " its sad that people don't realise there is a way to build a heaven on earth, and it only takes honorable measures to acheive it. not greed.

    --
    happy trials
  89. Re:What befits the crimes is a trip to the inciner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. God sounds kind of...Hitlery.

  90. Or it could be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One anthropological explanation for both is that, in general, humans commit (premeditated) crimes against members of a different tribe - that crime is effectively the kind of war that you get when two tribes are living in the same village.
    Once you identify an external enemy, be it the Germans or the 1%, then the local distinctions become less important and so the number of potential victims goes down.

    ...that on one hand, all able-bodied men get drafted into armed forces - shipped off into camps or to the front and everyone else gets a job in ammunition factories.
    So everyone is either too busy to commit crimes, or is in an equivalent of a prison. Or at the front.
    Also, curfews and blackouts are instated, and no civilian is allowed to prance the streets at night.

    On the other hand... Police force gets decimated. Either by the draft or by volunteering.
    So, a crime may not get reported cause there is no one to report it too.
    At the same time, anyone actually prosecuted for a crime other than premeditated murder gets offered a choice of a maximum sentence in prison, or a potentially shorter service in the armed forces.
    So both crime fighters and criminals get "exported".

  91. Re:What befits the crimes is a trip to the inciner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a competition to see who can be the most evil, God or Hitler. Godwins.

  92. Stick is better than Carrot? by ihaveamo · · Score: 1

      Anyways, amazing so many people can "love" some deity when HE is holding a metaphorical gun to to their head, in the form of Hell. That ain't a deity I wanna worship. That's rape.

  93. Blood, Sweat & Tears had it right by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Now troubles are many, they're as deep as a well.
    I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell.
    Swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell,
    But I'll never know by living, only my dying will tell.

    They were right. We'll all find out (or not) eventually.
    Let's just hope it's a long, long time until we do.

  94. Souls die by tepples · · Score: 1

    All souls are immortal

    The word translated "soul" (Hebrew nefesh and Greek psyche) refers to any living person or animal (Genesis 1:20, 24, 9:10), considered with respect to its experiences, thoughts, and actions. The Bible mentions gathering manna "according to the number of the souls that each of you has in his tent" (Exodus 16:16) and "eight souls [...] carried safely through the water" on Noah's barge (1 Peter 3:20). Souls die (Ezekiel 18:20) and afterward are unconscious (Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10). This state is likened to sleep (Acts 7:60; 1 Corinthians 15:6). Think about it this way: if souls see something when the body is dead, wouldn't Lazarus have had something to say about it (John 11:11-14)?

    The word translated "spirit" (Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma) literally means "breath" but refers more broadly to that force that sustains life (James 2:26). Once the body dies, the spirit goes out like a candle's flame.

    A fundamental Christian doctrine is that God created us as 3-fold beings: body, soul, & spirit.

    What verse mentions this threefold condition of man?

    the Holy Spirit works via your reborn spirit to renew your mind to a more godly mindset. That is the Christian program, in a nutshell.

    Agreed.

    It is those who are driven by their lower natures, those who refuse to listen to the call of God, it is they who will spend eternity

    ...destroyed in the lake of fire called Gehenna. Paul wrote that "the wages sin pays is death" (Romans 6:23), not eternal conscious torment. What verse mentions eternal conscious torment in the lake of fire for humans?

    God is not a bad god. He did everything in His power to educate you and help you to find Him so that you could avoid

    ..."eternal death in our rejection of God", as the Episcopal Church defines hell. I too want to enjoy "the primal source of joy and good things", which is why I seek to do what God wants and stay away from what he hates.

  95. Gnashing of teeth != eternal by tepples · · Score: 1

    Luke 13:28 [...] sounds pretty much conscious.

    Which is consistent with a brief conscious period of torment during destruction, in which "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth", followed by an eternal period of cessation of existance.

  96. Re:God bought himself out of punishing us, with Je by AthenianGadfly · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure I follow. Sure, it's historical evidence, not scientific evidence. Of course it should be held up to the same scrutiny as any other historical evidence, and the conclusion you come to may be that it's insufficient - even laughable, depending on what your examination of it reveals.

    It seems counterproductive, though, to beg the question by calling it a "wild claim" and "mythological" right out of the gate.

    For example, both a "floor plan of an ancient villa" and an account of observable, physical events (what the New Testament purports to be) seem to me to fall into the same category of documentation of something from a long time ago that we can no longer directly observe.

  97. Buddhism isn't an atheist religion by jandar · · Score: 1

    Buddhism by itself is an athiest religion - there is no such thing as God in a purely Buddhist worldview.

    Budda says enlightenment is possible without god, but this doesn't mean he disputed the existence of gods. Quite contrary because gods also are subject to the circle of life: Sasra.