Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I personally think they would.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I personally think they would. why?

Do you think their personal beliefs as a Muslim or Atheist makes them more prone to violence then Judeo/Christian religion?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I personally think they would.

why do you think this study found the opposite to be true then?

Liberal media.

You ask another side, and the poll would be the opposite. Pure propaganda regardless of viewpoint.

How about instead of the religion, we focus on the individual?

Originally posted by Mr. Rhythmic
You ask another side, and the poll would be the opposite.

what side are you talking about?

I'd assume this was a random sample of people

ive never witnessed athiests being more violent. muslims yes

when have you witnessed violent muslims?

i think muslims claim that they reject violence more often than they actually reject violence. ofcourse their background and culture has quite a bit to say about this too.

positive atheist are almost always less violent than their relegious counterparts simply because nonsensical violence is one of the main reasons why people reject relegion.

negetive atheist{i.e. people who dont concoiusly reject relegion but are either born without it or passively dont care for it} are about as violent as average human are minus the extra motivation provided by relegion. thats can still be pretty violent though.

negetive atheists with nationalistic/gang related/self aggrandising/leader worshipping/racist/sexist ideals/cultures: can be just as violent as extremist relegious people, because they have replaced the negetivity of relegion with other beleifs that are negetive.

While it's not a huge surprise that Muslims consider themselves less violent than Christians consider Muslims to be, some of the results were somewhat interesting. Unfortunately, this will be used more as a form of social leverage than as a data point, but that's the nature of these things.

That Christians in general are much more quick to justify killing than Muslims is somewhat surprising. Though maybe not in our country, where negative views on Islam have likely scared Muslims into hyper-passivity, whereas it's allowed Christians to foster a sort of righteous anger that goes unchecked by the majority of our culture. It's much easier for an angry Christian to find peers, supporters, followers, etc. and not be outcast than it is for a Muslim.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i think muslims claim that they reject violence more often than they actually reject violence. ofcourse their background and culture has quite a bit to say about this too.

positive atheist are almost always less violent than their relegious counterparts simply because nonsensical violence is one of the main reasons why people reject relegion.

negetive atheist{i.e. people who dont concoiusly reject relegion but are either born without it or passively dont care for it} are about as violent as average human are minus the extra motivation provided by relegion. thats can still be pretty violent though.

negetive atheists with nationalistic/gang related/self aggrandising/leader worshipping/racist/sexist ideals/cultures: can be just as violent as extremist relegious people, because they have replaced the negetivity of relegion with other beleifs that are negetive.

You're generalizing a lot here. Of course your created categories are true when self-contained, but you have to consider the percentages of atheists that would fall into each grouping. My guess is that you'd find a lot less hardcore nationalists, for example, among atheists, for much the same reasons as they reject organized religions. Same with many of the other categories. Certainly less racists than many religions, because such hatred is built into many of them.

In other words, yes, racist, sexist, idol worshipping atheists will be more violent. No argument there. But racist, sexist, idol worshipping anything will be more violent. I've seen similar randomized polls and studies where atheists are among the lowest in terms of racism and sexism, so I'm not pulling this out of nowhere. I've cited the studies and polls elsewhere in this forum, though the exact data escapes my memory atm.

Your comments on Muslims are also unfounded. It makes intuitive sense to think that they'd reject violence more than they practice nonviolence, but substantiating that claim is the harder part.

Originally posted by inimalist
when have you witnessed violent muslims? do i really need to explain ? come on now

Originally posted by chomperx9
do i really need to explain ? come on now

When you change the discussion to percentages, however, it's different. Also change the discussion to include those in our country, not worldwide. The poll was Americans after all. The results seem to suggest that American Muslims are less violent than American Christians. Do you oppose this idea?

If you want to cite al Qaeda, it's a strawman, not pertaining to the poll's data.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i think muslims claim that they reject violence more often than they actually reject violence.

More than a few tests have shown at everyone believes themselves to be more moral than they really are.

Originally posted by Digi
When you change the discussion to percentages, however, it's different. Also change the discussion to include those in our country, not worldwide. The poll was Americans after all. The results seem to suggest that American Muslims are less violent than American Christians. Do you oppose this idea?

If you want to cite al Qaeda, it's a strawman, not pertaining to the poll's data. since I live in the US I have witnessed more violent christians than muslims, sure. but there are more christians here, so you will find a bigger % of violent christians that are US citizens compared to muslim US citizens. reason for US muslims not being as violent with their religion over here is because the US will not tolerate any violence or threats over religion.

Originally posted by chomperx9
since I live in the US I have witnessed more violent christians than muslims, sure.

Then you're somewhat in agreement with the poll's results.

Originally posted by chomperx9
but there are more christians here, so you will find a bigger % of violent christians that are US citizens compared to muslim US citizens.

Back the train up here. Total numbers aren't percentages. Saying there are more Christians, as you do, doesn't invalidate that a higher percentage of Christians are violent in America. Just wanted to make sure you understood that, because your sentence here was poorly worded. Whether we're talking about 1,000 or 1 million, it doesn't matter. Only at smaller total numbers do percentages stop being important, since percentages can be skewed more easily by anomalous results.

Originally posted by chomperx9
reason for US muslims not being as violent with their religion over here is because the US will not tolerate any violence or threats over religion.

That's one potential reason for it, yes. I mentioned this as well.

Doesn't change the fact that Christians are, on the whole, likely more violent in this country. The reasons are largely superfluous, and somewhat speculative, but the data remains.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More than a few tests have shown at everyone believes themselves to be more moral than they really are.

Heh.

it is not about who you think commits more violence, but of the religious beliefs of those who think violence against civilians is justified

Digi, one of the main reasons Muslims in America may be so passive is that they are the ones who could afford to immigrate away from their home nations, all the way to North America, rather than the poorer ones who end up in Europe. Upper/Middle class people who have escaped brutal regimes and have seen innocent people abused by them are probably less likely to want to target civilians with violence

Originally posted by chomperx9
do i really need to explain ? come on now

classic chomper

Originally posted by Digi
Then you're somewhat in agreement with the poll's results.



Back the train up here. Total numbers aren't percentages. Saying there are more Christians, as you do, doesn't invalidate that a higher percentage of Christians are violent in America. Just wanted to make sure you understood that, because your sentence here was poorly worded. Whether we're talking about 1,000 or 1 million, it doesn't matter. Only at smaller total numbers do percentages stop being important, since percentages can be skewed more easily by anomalous results.



That's one potential reason for it, yes. I mentioned this as well.

Doesn't change the fact that Christians are, on the whole, likely more violent in this country. The reasons are largely superfluous, and somewhat speculative, but the data remains.



Heh. but most of the violence you find from a christian in this country usually involves financial,problems, love, and other reasons. Religion is not one of the 1st topics with christians that leads them to violence.

Originally posted by chomperx9
but most of the violence you find from a christian in this country usually involves financial,problems, love, and other reasons. Religion is not one of the 1st topics with christians that leads them to violence.
What? And Muslim's don't have any of those factors? I don't think that's a real trend.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What? And Muslim's don't have any of those factors? I don't think that's a real trend. never said they dont, but they have more factors of what they get upset over compared to christians. most of the time its religion. but you wont see it as often with the muslims in the US since there arent as many compared to christians around here.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
More than a few tests have shown that everyone believes themselves to be more moral than they really are.

Self-reporting formats are notorious for respondent character inflation. I see Islamic overcompensation here; and for that matter, somewhat with atheists too, ie, a reaction to the hypocrisy of religion(ism).

THIS STUDY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHICH GROUPS ARE MORE VIOLENT

please read it. It is not a question of whether Muslims are more or less violent than Christians.

How do Christians act on violence?

Originally posted by chomperx9
never said they dont, but they have more factors of what they get upset over compared to christians. most of the time its religion. but you wont see it as often with the muslims in the US since there arent as many compared to christians around here.
Why do you think they have more factors?

I give up

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
How do Christians act on violence? when they use text to justify their actions from crusades, manifest destiny/genocide, abortion clinic bombings, gay bashing and so on.



now here is the part where someone comes in and says they werent real Christians.

Originally posted by King Castle
when they use text to justify their actions from crusades, manifest destiny/genocide, abortion clinic bombings, gay bashing and so on.



now here is the part where someone comes in and says they werent real Christians. everything you listed there should not be judged on their religion.

Originally posted by chomperx9
everything you listed there should not be judged on their religion.
Why?

Originally posted by chomperx9
everything you listed there should not be judged on their religion. not even the baby bashing against rocks, murdering everyone in a city minus the virgins to keep and rape later?


pretty sure that was pretty religious explicit in the bible.

Originally posted by King Castle
not even the baby bashing against rocks, murdering everyone in a city minus the virgins to keep and rape later?


pretty sure that was pretty religious explicit in the bible. ok maybe not everything listed shouldnt judged against the christian religon, but the bombing and gay bashing ? what does that have to do with religion, those are just personal beliefs. and dont confuse catholics with christians. some christians dont go all wild over families getting abortions. sometimes its religion, sometimes its a personal opinion.

Catholics are Christians as in they follow and believe in Yeshua.

and religious people often are motivated by their religion and interpretation of the bible passages to commit crimes of violence like abortion bombing and gay bashing.

how often have we heard fanatics scream homosexuality is an abomination against God and should be killed?


Also the old testament pretty much tells you it is okay to kill others that do not follow God's laws or do not believe in him.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Originally posted by King Castle
Catholics are Christians as in they follow and believe in Yeshua.

and religious people often are motivated by their religion and interpretation of the bible passages to commit crimes of violence like abortion bombing and gay bashing.

how often have we heard fanatics scream homosexuality is an abomination against God and should be killed?


Also the old testament pretty much tells you it is okay to kill others that do not follow God's laws or do not believe in him.

Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. and you dont see hardly anyone following that testament anymore. most of the killings today in our nation is over, Love, Money, drugs.

and when I brought up dont compare christians to catholics was refering to ur abortion statement.

Originally posted by inimalist
THIS STUDY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHICH GROUPS ARE MORE VIOLENT

please read it. It is not a question of whether Muslims are more or less violent than Christians.

I do realize that but the interesting part of what people say is why they say those things.

Originally posted by Mindship


Self-reporting formats are notorious for respondent character inflation. I see Islamic overcompensation here; and for that matter, somewhat with atheists too, ie, a reaction to the hypocrisy of religion(ism).

One would have to assume that there's some inflation across the board. The numbers may vary slightly between groups, but certainly not enough to change the relations between them.

Originally posted by chomperx9
but most of the violence you find from a christian in this country usually involves financial,problems, love, and other reasons. Religion is not one of the 1st topics with christians that leads them to violence.

Ignoring the point. Your words here are true enough, but secondary to what we're getting at: Christians are more likely to justify violence than other religious denominations in this country. Period. We're not asking what the percentages are in the root causes of violence...that's an entirely different train of thought.

umm.. the modern jews still follow the Old Testament since it is their main religious book, you might have heard of them. They do have a large country in the middle east.

also fundamentalist Christians are often heard here in the states repeating the bile of their religion. For Yeshua did not come to abolish the old laws but to fulfill them.

'Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.'

'For truly I say to you, until Heaven and Earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.'

the earth is still here as is the sky or universe so that leads me to believe the laws are still up.

remember the key word here is extremist/fanatical religious followers which each religion has their fair share and looking at history religion has done its fair share of violence.

Originally posted by Digi
One would have to assume that there's some inflation across the board. The numbers may vary slightly between groups, but certainly not enough to change the relations between them.



Ignoring the point. Your words here are true enough, but secondary to what we're getting at: Christians are more likely to justify violence than other religious denominations in this country. Period. We're not asking what the percentages are in the root causes of violence...that's an entirely different train of thought. but my point is religion is not one of the 1st topics that leads christians to violence compared to othe topics that turns them on.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I do realize that but the interesting part of what people say is why they say those things.

for sure

you and digi had some interesting comments on that, and I tried to add to it, but it really seems to have degraded from there

Originally posted by chomperx9
but my point is religion is not one of the 1st topics that leads christians to violence compared to othe topics that turns them on.

Ok. Then you're off-topic, with something that's not a terribly controversial stance. srug

I'd say religion is often a primary factor for certain types of segregated thought, however. The in-group mentality religion creates breeds animosity more so than most other cultural groups...not always because the religion itself it hateful, but because the community is insulated and uneducated about other approaches, and ignorance leads to fear, which leads to anger, etc. etc. I don't even live in a particularly fervent religious community, and people have frequently never met an atheist. They're surprised at my existence...it's pretty much a given that they won't have a firm grasp on my viewpoint. Now compound that problem in hyper-religious areas, and you see the issue.

You're glossing over some important sociological implications of religion to simply shrug it off by saying there's other factors too.

Originally posted by inimalist
Digi, one of the main reasons Muslims in America may be so passive is that they are the ones who could afford to immigrate away from their home nations, all the way to North America, rather than the poorer ones who end up in Europe. Upper/Middle class people who have escaped brutal regimes and have seen innocent people abused by them are probably less likely to want to target civilians with violence

Got caught up, buddy. Missed this. Thanks though, I hadn't considered that thinking behind it.

Originally posted by inimalist

Digi, one of the main reasons Muslims in America may be so passive is that they are the ones who could afford to immigrate away from their home nations, all the way to North America, rather than the poorer ones who end up in Europe. Upper/Middle class people who have escaped brutal regimes and have seen innocent people abused by them are probably less likely to want to target civilians with violence
i dont really understand

are you saying they're less likely to support targeting civilians because they're more likely to be from a country ran by a brutal regime, or because they're upper/middle class?

cause theoretically in my mind the poorer muslims who ended up in europe could have been from the very same regime and would have likely witnessed just as much (if not more) abuse.. though maybe i'm missing something here. (like maybe only rich muslims get to escape brutal regimes? i'm admittedly uninformed)

Originally posted by Digi
You're glossing over some important sociological implications of religion to simply shrug it off by saying there's other factors too.

im saying religion is not the main factor with christian's violence compared to muslims.

Originally posted by King Castle
when they use text to justify their actions from crusades, manifest destiny/genocide, abortion clinic bombings, gay bashing and so on.



now here is the part where someone comes in and says they werent real Christians.

Roll your eyes all you want but they are not. People who are proabortion are much more violent after all they are killing a human being and most christians are peaceful while you have others who sacified animals or people and go shooting up schools and worship fake gods who are known to be very violent. So does this answear your question?

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dont really understand

are you saying they're less likely to support targeting civilians because they're more likely to be from a country ran by a brutal regime, or because they're upper/middle class?

cause theoretically in my mind the poorer muslims who ended up in europe could have been from the very same regime and would have likely witnessed just as much (if not more) abuse.. though maybe i'm missing something here. (like maybe only rich muslims get to escape brutal regimes? i'm admittedly uninformed)

no, that is actually a really good point...

I suppose it has much less to do with escaping brutality and more to do with the integration into society, etc. Among a host of other reasons.

For instance, in North America, the constitutions have no clauses that protect "American" or "Canadian" culture, so there is very little conflict between people wanting to live as Muslims and Americans/Canadians. This has changed a bit since 9-11, but in America, and there are a number of stats that support this, Muslims tend to be even more integrated into society than most minority groups. This is why things like the hijab debate are really unheard of here.

The other part would be that having more money allows you to integrate anyways, so in the end, Muslim immigrants that end up in North America versus Europe are entering a society that is both more open to them and their culture, and they have more material means through which they can integrate.

Thinking about it though, I'm not sure why that would impact someone's proclivity toward targeting citizens, unless there is some reason to think that poverty or social integration impact that directly, however, the Christian results seem to suggest social integration is not part of it, as they are completely integrated into society (they are the mainstream) and they are more willing to accept the targeting of civilians... I can't speak to the poverty thing specifically, it would be interesting to see the christian numbers broken down by class.

It might just be a reaction to real world events, as there is a context to these questions that is not really talked about in the brief article I posted. If you ask a Muslim "Is it ok to target civilians?" it is likely they will either think of it in terms of Muslims targeting civilians with terrorism or civilians killed in Muslim nations by NATO, which it is easy to see why they would be against. Actually, now that I write that, I think it is almost certainly more a mixture of out-grouping by mainstream American society and a knee-jerk response from Muslims, rather than poverty or integration...

hmmmmm, good point indeed

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
most christians are peaceful

...most of any religion are peaceful. A religion where the majority are violent would not last long. It doesn't shirk the fact that Christians more easily justify violence in this country.

Originally posted by chomperx9
im saying religion is not the main factor with christian's violence compared to muslims. Ask the native Americans about the Christian belief in "manifest destiny" - or just Google it. And I dare you to try and pretend the KKK wasn't driven by religion.

Originally posted by Mindship


Self-reporting formats are notorious for respondent character inflation. I see Islamic overcompensation here; and for that matter, somewhat with atheists too, ie, a reaction to the hypocrisy of religion(ism). 80% of the U.S. population is Christian; 80% of the prison population is Christian. 10% of the U.S. population is atheist / agnostic, 0.2% of the prison population is atheist / agnostic. You can call it overcompensation, but when atheists say they're less likely to justify violence with religion, I'm inclined to believe them.

As a side note, if you were an atheist, would you justify anything with religion?

Originally posted by Quark_666
80% of the U.S. population is Christian; 80% of the prison population is Christian. 10% of the U.S. population is atheist / agnostic, 0.2% of the prison population is atheist / agnostic. You can call it overcompensation, but when atheists say they're less likely to justify violence with religion, I'm inclined to believe them.

As a side note, if you were an atheist, would you justify anything with religion?

some would argue that prisoners find religion and convert while in prison and were not Christian prior to committing a crime.

another argument is that if they are christian by default due to upbringing and parental religion then they werent really christian or even better if they confess to being christian and commit a crime that in itself is a non christian thing to do and by extension they are not christian due to their actions.

it basically is a nice cop out to keep the religion untainted by the actions of those that the larger or even smaller community want to distance themselves from.

People come up with some nifty stuff. I was taught from childhood that the forces of hell work harder against Mormons than against the rest of the population.... lol.

I wonder how many of the people who identify themselves as "Christian" in these studies are actually week to week church goers? I know that my mother for example would identify herself as a Protestant, and she hasn't gone to church regularly since I was child. There are a ton of causal Christians, but I get the impression that the majority of people who identify themselves as Muslim, likely take the their faith a little more seriously. That could account for some of the disparity in the poll numbers.

Originally posted by Quark_666
You can call it overcompensation, but when atheists say they're less likely to justify violence with religion, I'm inclined to believe them.My impression is that because the poll sought to measure religious and non-religious attitudes toward violence, terms like "religious justification," would be avoided. Otherwise, the atheists' responses would be obvious.

What I meant is that many atheists want to set a higher standard than what is found in organized religion.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I wonder how many of the people who identify themselves as "Christian" in these studies are actually week to week church goers? I know that my mother for example would identify herself as a Protestant, and she hasn't gone to church regularly since I was child. There are a ton of causal Christians, but I get the impression that the majority of people who identify themselves as Muslim, likely take the their faith a little more seriously. That could account for some of the disparity in the poll numbers.
So your theory is that if you go to church more often, you're less likely to commit violence? How do you explain the atheists then?

Originally posted by Mindship
What I meant is that many atheists want to set a higher standard than what is found in organized religion.

There's something to this. I became, for all intents and purposes, more moral when I left religion. There was certainly a bit of psychological "they're not going to pin anything on me because of my lack of religion" slant to it...some of it was to make sure I didn't "prove" anyone right by doing something awful, and part was that I was a little scared of peoples' reactions. So it was a defense mechanism in a way, because I had enough ill will directed my way anyway.

Once that faded, the morality did not. I still find myself at a higher moral standard, and certainly a more inclusive one. Though, probably not coincidentally, many things that religions see as "sinful" I can't find a logical underpinning for them being bad, so there's also been a broadening of acceptability.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Ask the native Americans about the Christian belief in "manifest destiny" - or just Google it. And I dare you to try and pretend the KKK wasn't driven by religion.
Actually I don't think it was driven by religion, in the sense that religion was the main cause/catalyst for its creation.

Religion was (and still is) a source of power for the KKK and the KKK has used religion to establish itself, lend itself a sense of legitimacy, and spread its message but I don't think it would be right to say that the original KKK or even the current KKK is a religious movement.

It was born from social turmoil and resentment, it was a Protestant political group who's earliest targets were white, protestant Northern Carpetbaggers as well as black (again Protestant) freedmen in political positions.

Sure the KKK are no fans of Catholics or Muslims or Jews, but religious intolerance wasn't the fundamental cause of the Klan's formation.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Actually I don't think it was driven by religion, in the sense that religion was the main cause/catalyst for its creation.

Religion was (and still is) a source of power for the KKK and the KKK has used religion to establish itself, lend itself a sense of legitimacy, and spread its message but I don't think it would be right to say that the original KKK or even the current KKK is a religious movement.

It was born from social turmoil and resentment, it was a Protestant political group who's earliest targets were white, protestant Northern Carpetbaggers as well as black (again Protestant) freedmen in political positions.

Sure the KKK are no fans of Catholics or Muslims or Jews, but religious intolerance wasn't the fundamental cause of the Klan's formation. thumbup1

Originally posted by inimalist
no, that is actually a really good point...

I suppose it has much less to do with escaping brutality and more to do with the integration into society, etc. Among a host of other reasons.

For instance, in North America, the constitutions have no clauses that protect "American" or "Canadian" culture, so there is very little conflict between people wanting to live as Muslims and Americans/Canadians. This has changed a bit since 9-11, but in America, and there are a number of stats that support this, Muslims tend to be even more integrated into society than most minority groups. This is why things like the hijab debate are really unheard of here.

The other part would be that having more money allows you to integrate anyways, so in the end, Muslim immigrants that end up in North America versus Europe are entering a society that is both more open to them and their culture, and they have more material means through which they can integrate.

Thinking about it though, I'm not sure why that would impact someone's proclivity toward targeting citizens, unless there is some reason to think that poverty or social integration impact that directly, however, the Christian results seem to suggest social integration is not part of it, as they are completely integrated into society (they are the mainstream) and they are more willing to accept the targeting of civilians... I can't speak to the poverty thing specifically, it would be interesting to see the christian numbers broken down by class.

It might just be a reaction to real world events, as there is a context to these questions that is not really talked about in the brief article I posted. If you ask a Muslim "Is it ok to target civilians?" it is likely they will either think of it in terms of Muslims targeting civilians with terrorism or civilians killed in Muslim nations by NATO, which it is easy to see why they would be against. Actually, now that I write that, I think it is almost certainly more a mixture of out-grouping by mainstream American society and a knee-jerk response from Muslims, rather than poverty or integration...

hmmmmm, good point indeed yea, i could definitely see how the results would play out based on the assumptions made by each group as to who the civilians in question are and who is doing the killing

that said i find it kind of surprising that you say the united states (can't speak for canada) is more accepting/open towards their culture than europe is. i understand they have tried things like banning minarets or burkas, which would be unheard of here. that said, were it not for the emphasis on 'religious freedom' that we have in this country, i think those issues very well could spark a debate here. for example there have been debates on laws which banned saggy pants in some cities here.

i think that europe might have these issues simply because they happen to have more muslim immigrants, to be honest. i think that were we to find any significant population of muslims in america that these cultural clashes would arise here too.

so maybe the muslims in europe would be more open to support violence (if that is indeed the case) because they feel more bolstered and emboldened by their numbers and hence are able to 'out-group' as you put it in a similar manner that mainstream americans are able to do.

i'm just speculating though. i've never actually even been to europe, so the situation could in fact be greatly exaggerated.

Originally posted by chomperx9
everything you listed there should not be judged on their religion. In other words if some christian murders a bunch of people he's just a terrorist, but if some muslim does the same he's not just a terrorist, he's a MUSLIM terrorist. I can see now where those ratings come from...

Originally posted by Digi
There's something to this. I became, for all intents and purposes, more moral when I left religion. There was certainly a bit of psychological "they're not going to pin anything on me because of my lack of religion" slant to it...some of it was to make sure I didn't "prove" anyone right by doing something awful, and part was that I was a little scared of peoples' reactions. So it was a defense mechanism in a way, because I had enough ill will directed my way anyway.

Once that faded, the morality did not. I still find myself at a higher moral standard, and certainly a more inclusive one. Though, probably not coincidentally, many things that religions see as "sinful" I can't find a logical underpinning for them being bad, so there's also been a broadening of acceptability. Actually, you brought up interesting subtleties I hadn't even considered (eg, avoiding being 'pinned'). My sense was, simply, that some atheists felt that a moral system with no God to fight over would more likely 'stay true' to a genuine regard for one's fellow man, or at least, be less hypocritical.

Originally posted by Digi
...most of any religion are peaceful. A religion where the majority are violent would not last long. It doesn't shirk the fact that Christians more easily justify violence in this country.
again how? other countrys are in wars and are very violoent. So why do you think real Christians are violoent? I am a Christian does that mean that I am Violent?

Originally posted by SamZED
In other words if some christian murders a bunch of people he's just a terrorist, but if some muslim does the same he's not just a terrorist, he's a MUSLIM terrorist. I can see now where those ratings come from... a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter the belief. Muslims bring more attention to themselves with it because of their behavior with their religion and making threats towards our nation constantly.

Originally posted by chomperx9
a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter the belief. Muslims bring more attention to themselves with it because of their behavior with their religion and making threats towards our nation constantly. the same way christians scream the end of days, the anti christ, fall of government, Holy war and most importantly: "you are either with us or against us, God bless america?"

sound familiar? it should it is Bush and his christian cronies and beliefs.

Originally posted by King Castle
the same way christians scream the end of days, the anti christ, fall of government, Holy war and most importantly: "you are either with us or against us, God bless america?"

sound familiar? it should it is Bush and his christian cronies and beliefs.

Originally posted by King Castle
the same way christians scream the end of days, the anti christ, fall of government, Holy war and most importantly: "you are either with us or against us, God bless america?"

sound familiar? it should it is Bush and his christian cronies and beliefs. horrible comparrison to making threats and causing terrorism towards another nation.

Originally posted by chomperx9
horrible comparison to making threats and causing terrorism towards another nation. i guess we americans didnt cause terror to any third nation and its people.


You realize that Bush and his right wing christian conservatives were head of state and went to war with more then one nation with not just a political banner but also a religious one.


Bush admits that God told him to invade Iraq
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html
1job2ssLAPc

Originally posted by King Castle
i guess we americans didnt cause terror to any third nation and its people.


You realize that Bush and his right wing christian conservatives were head of state and went to war with more then one nation with not just a political banner but also a religious one.


Bush admits that God told him to invade Iraq
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-god-told-me-to-invade-iraq-509925.html
1job2ssLAPc and how many of us supported that ? Not as many, as how many muslims support taking us down every time theres just a little south park episode of muhamad.

Originally posted by chomperx9
and how many of us supported that ? Not as many, as how many muslims support taking us down every time theres just a little south park episode of muhamad.

you would be wrong, Christians were the biggest backers for the Iraq War. remember many thought and probably still think Saddam Hussein was the Anit-Christ and many felt it was prophesied Holy War.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm

Originally posted by King Castle
you would be wrong, Christians were the biggest backers for the Iraq War. remember many thought and probably still think Saddam Hussein was the Anit-Christ and many felt it was prophesied Holy War.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1010-02.htm The iraq war is really over Oil, Bush probably made it into a religious matter to make it more reasonable.

Originally posted by chomperx9
The iraq war is really over Oil, Bush probably made it into a religious matter to make it more reasonable. maybe but you would have to ask why would he need to get the christian support in the 1st place?

Bush is actually a born again Christian and believes the spill he says worse part he was supported by fellow Christians in his actions in office.


so what did we learn chompers?
Christians are just as violent as Muslims but with superior numbers and resources.

Originally posted by chomperx9
and how many of us supported that ? Not as many, as how many muslims support taking us down every time theres just a little south park episode of muhamad. Nobody blames christians for what Bush said and did. But Al Quaeda apparently represents all muslims in the world. There are more christians that'd support a crusade against muslims than muslims who support Al Quaeda.

Originally posted by chomperx9
and how many of us supported that ? Not as many, as how many muslims support taking us down every time theres just a little south park episode of muhamad. Double standarts much? You just said there's a difference between "making threats" and "terrorism". Muslim states never invaded a country over of a south park episode. Yet you're willing to blame all of them just because one or two organization want Trey Parker dead.

And term "terrorism" isn't always used correctly. Some muslim guy blows up a car - its terrorism and Islam is to blame. Israelis shoots and burns 100s of people - its not terrorism, its a military operation.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Actually I don't think it was driven by religion, in the sense that religion was the main cause/catalyst for its creation.

Religion was (and still is) a source of power for the KKK and the KKK has used religion to establish itself, lend itself a sense of legitimacy, and spread its message but I don't think it would be right to say that the original KKK or even the current KKK is a religious movement.

It was born from social turmoil and resentment, it was a Protestant political group who's earliest targets were white, protestant Northern Carpetbaggers as well as black (again Protestant) freedmen in political positions.

Sure the KKK are no fans of Catholics or Muslims or Jews, but religious intolerance wasn't the fundamental cause of the Klan's formation. Just because religion wasn't the original driving factor doesn't mean it isn't driven by religion. It's not multi-variable calculus to recognize that ulterior or secondary motives are motives as well.

Originally posted by Digi
...most of any religion are peaceful. A religion where the majority are violent would not last long. It doesn't shirk the fact that Christians more easily justify violence in this country.

You keep saying that but you have no proof why you think that.Can you please say why you think they are?

Perhaps you didn't read the opening post of this thread?

I'm really surprised Hindus and Buddhists weren't the most likeliest.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
I'm really surprised Hindus and Buddhists weren't the most likeliest.

I'm betting that they weren't counted or the poll included too few to be reliable.

: Yeah, they interviewed 2500 people which means about 25 Budhhists in the group if the sample was well taken.

The Poll as reported by Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/Muslim-Americans-No-Justification-Violence.aspx

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The Poll as reported by Gallup:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/148763/Muslim-Americans-No-Justification-Violence.aspx

I think it's skewed if this poll didn't ask Hindus and Buddhists, both of whom comprise the third and fourth largest religions/belief systems.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
I think it's skewed if this poll didn't ask Hindus and Buddhists, both of whom comprise the third and fourth largest religions/belief systems.

The poll isn't about the world, it's about America where both groups are tiny and have almost no political relevance. Remember the poll was part of learning about the country's Muslim population not specifically to find the religion with the most members who reject violence.

I did and I don't think it gives a good enough point on the reasons why everyone blames Christians for Violents when it is the terriot who are not Christians are blowing up everything and killing everything.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I did and I don't think it gives a good enough point on the reasons why everyone blames Christians for Violents when it is the terriot who are not Christians are blowing up everything and killing everything. I'm going to take that to mean you didn't. Sharpen up and we'll talk.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I'm going to take that to mean you didn't. Sharpen up and we'll talk.

I did and I am going to skip talking to you since you will not be telling me anything that I heard before.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'm betting that they weren't counted or the poll included too few to be reliable.

: Yeah, they interviewed 2500 people which means about 25 Budhhists in the group if the sample was well taken.

there is a methods section in the full survey. I imagine they asked no Hindus or Buddhists, as they had the religious demographic information of the participants prior to calling them. It was not a random sampling in terms of religious affiliation, they had previously compiled lists of Muslims/Christians/etc from previous polling.

This makes sense in terms of wanting similar numbers of people within groups to make stronger comparisons, though, would not represent the overall skew of the American population.

oh the joys of sample selection criteria...

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
You keep saying that but you have no proof why you think that.Can you please say why you think they are?

In the same way that species whose predominant characteristic is violence would tend to become extinct. There's a reason we have a strong measure of biological altruism ingrained within us.

Also, I don't "keep saying that," you just quoted me twice saying the same thing.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a methods section in the full survey. I imagine they asked no Hindus or Buddhists, as they had the religious demographic information of the participants prior to calling them. It was not a random sampling in terms of religious affiliation, they had previously compiled lists of Muslims/Christians/etc from previous polling.

This makes sense in terms of wanting similar numbers of people within groups to make stronger comparisons, though, would not represent the overall skew of the American population.

oh the joys of sample selection criteria...

I saw later that they only asked members of the listed groups.

Originally posted by Digi
In the same way that species whose predominant characteristic is violence would tend to become extinct. There's a reason we have a strong measure of biological altruism ingrained within us.

Also, I don't "keep saying that," you just quoted me twice saying the same thing.

No I was saying that you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

That's what happens when people force you to respond to the same thing over and over again.

Originally posted by Quark_666
That's what happens when people force you to respond to the same thing over and over again.

She's a bad listener.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I saw later that they only asked members of the listed groups.

its an interesting survey...

though, I was disappointed they never deconstructed the religious groups more (class distribution, interactions and the like)

to be honest, I think the "is the type of person who participates in phone surveys" would be the strongest bias presented in the study by far

Originally posted by inimalist
its an interesting survey...

though, I was disappointed they never deconstructed the religious groups more (class distribution, interactions and the like)

to be honest, I think the "is the type of person who participates in phone surveys" would be the strongest bias presented in the study by far

Now there's a complicated study to try doing. How to find out the ways people who take surveys are different from people who don't.

"You didn't respond to our last e-mail survey. Please fill out this form and return it."

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Now there's a complicated study to try doing. How to find out the ways people who take surveys are different from people who don't.

"You didn't respond to our last e-mail survey. Please fill out this form and return it."

generally speaking, people who are more willing to participate in surveys are the type who are the most interested in "how they score", or rather, they are the most likely to fall for things like demand characteristics...

for example, I'm running a study about how eyes and hands work together in a reaching task. To calibrate the equipment, I need to measure people's pupil distance. When I tried to do this to one subject, they replied, "oh don't worry, I'm perfect", which is a nonsensical comment. They kept stopping part way through the experiment to see how they were doing, (to the point where their movement messed up the data.... dumb subject), as if there were some "optimal" or "right" way to reach out and grab stuff. anyways, this is risking a tl:dr rant, so to wrap up, it is probably the people most concerned with supplying the answers that the survey takers want that are most likely to partake in the survey.

However, this almost certainly would be equal between religious groups, so all groups would have that bias equally.

social psych isn't my thing, but they are the field where most survey work is done. I'll save my cynical opinions of surveys for now, and say this, there are extreme steps proper studies go to in an attempt to weed out this kind of bias on survey reporting, that this study did not utilize. It probably doesn't matter because the comparison is between religious groups, but the absolute figures are probably not representative, however, the between groups comparison probably is (I can explain that more to anyone... stupid stats, lol!)

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No I was saying that you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

Ok. And you asked me to explain, so I provided an explanation in that last post. not a lengthy one, mind you, but one that should be sufficient to impart my meaning.

Here is is again, for your benefit:

Originally posted by Digi
In the same way that species whose predominant characteristic is violence would tend to become extinct. There's a reason we have a strong measure of biological altruism ingrained within us.

I don't see how it proves anything.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I don't see how it proves anything.

Can you please state your specific objections, or opposing viewpoint and exactly why it contradicts with mine. I feel that either the initial poll data and/or my subsequent explanations of my view have sufficiently supported my argument, but I can't respond to your refutations if they're as vague as this.

I had aready said what I wanted and I am willing to drop it before it just turns to insults from you and put downs.

I haven't insulted you at all, I generally go out of my way to make sure I'm not insulting on this forum because of the sensitive nature of the subject material. I'm frankly just a bit confused by this point.

You've only responded to me specifically twice in this thread, quoted below:

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
You keep saying that but you have no proof why you think that.Can you please say why you think they are?

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
No I was saying that you keep saying the same thing over and over again.

...

All I asked for is some clarification on your objections to my line of thought, or perhaps outlining your own beliefs on the matter, so that I could cater my response to your opinion and objection. But instead of clarifying anything, you insinuate that I'm not going to do anything but insult you? I really can't respond to this...it's like we're having separate conversations.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
I had aready said what I wanted and I am willing to drop it before it just turns to insults from you and put downs. I think KMC has classically conditioned you pretty thoroughly lol.

meaning?

You've come to expect insults and put-downs.

Only because for all the years I been part of this site that is all that happens to me every time I post anything. So that is why I am expecting it.

Yeah, that's what I meant when I said conditioning.

Oh ok whatever.