[test54]

From the article.

"The 2009 Global Peace Index has just been released. It's basically a ranking of how turbulent and warlike a country is.

They put it together by assessing 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy (Guardian)."

"Sure enough, peaceful countries have more atheists and fewer regular worshippers. The difference is highly statistically significant (P=0.001 or less) - in other words it's real, not just a chance finding.

Now, there are several possible reasons for this. It could be that people living in turbulent countries turn to religion, or it could be that religion is not a good way to structure modern society. Or it could be that some other factor or combination of factors (democracy? free speech? education? government welfare?) generates citizens who are both peaceful and non-religious.

Whatever, it's another blow to the idea that secularization leads to social meltdown. Atheist countries are, in fact more peaceful."

[kathrynhr]

I am not particularly surprised. The sad fact is that most world religions say to their followers that it is OK to behave violently to a person if that person behaves in a way that the religion does not approve of.

[djm2]

I would like to take a look at the article and check out how they selected their cut-points for dividing countries into peaceful vs. violent, but that is more a matter of intellectual curiosity than anything else. I will also quibble with your words and say that it is highly unlikely that it is a chance finding -- but that is certainly a quibble.

Interesting material.

[JSanders]

Originally Posted by kathrynhr

The sad fact is that most world religions say to their followers that it is OK to behave violently to a person if that person behaves in a way that the religion does not approve of.

Can you name, say, just the top three on your list, which "say to their followers that it is OK to behave violently to a person if that person behaves in a way that the religion does not approve of."

Which ones?

[juwaack68]

Interesting study. Can you post a link to the article? I'd like to read the whole thing.

[mriff]

Originally Posted by djm2

I would like to take a look at the article and check out how they selected their cut-points for dividing countries into peaceful vs. violent, but that is more a matter of intellectual curiosity than anything else. I will also quibble with your words and say that it is highly unlikely that it is a chance finding -- but that is certainly a quibble.

Interesting material.

Lol. Always the statistician.

[test54]

Originally Posted by juwaack68

Interesting study. Can you post a link to the article? I'd like to read the whole thing.

sorry, I forgot that.

story & the links.
Epiphenom: Atheist nations are more peaceful

Peace rankings.
Vision of Humanity

I thought this might create a good discussion.

[test54]

and just for reference:

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by JSanders

Can you name, say, just the top three on your list, which "say to their followers that it is OK to behave violently to a person if that person behaves in a way that the religion does not approve of."

Which ones?

Let me start in my own backyard here:

Judaism - Deuteronomy 20 contains Yahweh's (God's) instructions about war. If a city does not accept Israel's offer of peace and open its gates, then "when the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it" (verse13). With regard to other cities, the command is (verse 16), "Do not leave anything that breathes." (Note: these verses also exist in the Christian and Islamic holy texts, although in both cases they are nullified by later commands.)

Christianity - Setting the Old Testament aside, there are still verses that incite. Homosexuals "deserve death," according to Romans 1:26-32.

And how about the world's other 2 largest religions:

Islam - In the Koran, Chapter 2, verses 190-191, it says: "[2.190] ...fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you...[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." Further, he says, ""Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Hinduism - Padma Purana states that "If [a woman's husband] is beating [her] she should not react, but fall on his feet and beg him to pardon her, and kiss his hands and pacify him. If the husband dies she should burn herself to death on his funeral pyre and go along with him to the other world and serve him there in this manner."

Note: most educated people will recognize that these verses were taken out of the broader context of their surrounding texts... but that's exactly what radicals do. They find a verse that justifies their existing prejudices, and they feel as though they've been granted divine permission to act upon them.

[LunkHead]

Not a big surprise to me.... People have fought over religion for centuries...

Look at Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Ireland, ect.....

People fight and kill over religion...

Kris

[test54]

Originally Posted by kathrynhr

They find a verse that justifies their existing prejudices, and they feel as though they've been granted divine permission to act upon them.

I think that is the most dangerous part of religion.

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by test54

I think that is the most dangerous part of religion.

Agreed. I don't believe atheists are inherently more peaceful, I just think they probably have fewer instances where books and people - ones that they view as crucial in their lives - are saying it's OK/justified/understandable to be violent with someone else. That's just too tempting a leap for a lot of weak people, and those who hold a grudge of some kind.

[test54]

True.
There are mentally ill people in both groups, its just the ones with religion can often find justification for actions. That as you say can come from people they trust or from the holiest books they are told to read.

The idea of atheist not being more peaceful is one I'm not sure about. At least in the Abrahamic religions you have it taught that you need to go out through the world and convert the people. That to me can and does lead to a less peaceful existence. The view that to spread the word to the heathens / infidels is one that not only has lead to violence but one that is justified by many because they feel it is a mission from God.

No doubt atheists have their own reasons for violence but their reasons come and go over time; the religious people's reasons remain the same over thousands of years.

If Christian churches had the opportunity to send millions of missionaries to the middle east tomorrow, they would. Even knowing this would lead to violence, they would still go. Muslim communities would also send their people as well, same idea. Whether those acts would lead to a new War is really a given, and it would all be justified by their respective beliefs.

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by test54

If Christian churches had the opportunity to send millions of missionaries to the middle east tomorrow, they would. Even knowing this would lead to violence, they would still go. Muslim communities would also send their people as well, same idea. Whether those acts would lead to a new War is really a given, and it would all be justified by their respective beliefs.

I agree.

Secularly: what each side wants is a chance to state their beliefs in peace, be heard without interruption, and (best case scenario) believed. But although each wants that right for their own side, they are inherently unwilling to extend it in equal measure to the other side.

Holy texts aside, I cannot decide why religious disagreements seem to inherently lead to conflict. Some people (from any/all/no religions) get so hot under the collar if you so much as ask them a question about what they believe. I can't decide whether this is due to insecurity about the ability of their own beliefs to stand up to someone else's fire, or a gut-level fear of the unknown (self preservation instinct), or some people's seeming inability to juggle multiple paradigms. No clue, really.

[test54]

I think indoctrination too often leads to people's mind being closed off. After years of being told your way is the only one that is blessed by God, I think people are very willing to fight whether its verbally or physically. If you in your heart believe that your right then defending what is right is justifiable. just my thoughts.

[JSanders]

Interesting to note the "most violent" of the map above, and to compare with the maps I am inserting below of what is know as the "10-40" window of evangelical opportunity, of the least Christianized nations on earth.

10/40 Window - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The 10/40 Window is a term coined by Christian missionary strategist Luis Bush in 1990[1] [2] to refer those regions of the eastern hemisphere located between 10 and 40 degrees north of the equator, a general area that in 1990 was purported to have the highest level of socioeconomic challenges [3] [4] and least access to the Christian message and Christian resources [5] [6] [7] on the planet.

The 10/40 Window concept highlights these three elements: an area of the world, with great poverty and low quality of life, combined with lack of access to Christian resources.

|

|

|

[test54]

That is an interesting point. Is the theory saying that because they are under-evangelized that they fell victim to Islam & other religions?

The idea of suffering / poverty being in any way related to the level of Christian evangelism in the area does back up my point above.

from that 10 / 40 wiki page - "Some object to the very idea of research to discover whether there is a correlation between alleviated human suffering and access to a faith message, calling it "irresponsible at best and racist at worst"."

[kathrynhr]

Originally Posted by JSanders

Interesting to note the "most violent" of the map above, and to compare with the maps I am inserting below of what is know as the "10-40" window of evangelical opportunity, of the least Christianized nations on earth.

http://www.gmi.org/images/oht_sets/104001s.gif | http://www.gmi.org/images/oht_sets/104002s.gif

I note that those also appear to be the nations closest to the equator.

Perhaps some combination of heat, lack of water, global warming, and women with hot flashes is causing the problem.

[JSanders]

Now you discover what Adam was forced to reckon with, years ago.

[Flight714]

That's just for 2009? (I can't click on the link, I'm at work and can only go to wireless-related sites) Seems a little short-sighted if it only focuses on the here and now. It was only 40 and 50 years ago that people were displaced and killed by communist governments such as Lenin's (and later, Stalin's) Soviet Russia, Mao's Great Leap Forward, and Pol Pot in southeast Asia.
It's also easy to elevate religion as the primary cause of all the violence instead of weigh the other factors at work. Typically religion is the grease on the wheels, not the actual cause of the conflict, and you could easily substitute any other form of idealism to rally the people to your cause.