What fascinatingly vaccuous claims you've discovered!
However, the fact remains that atheists and agnostics are far less likely to be criminals than theists.
The weight of the research (see the cited metastudies in particular) indicates that persons who are less religious commit crimes at higher rates than persons who are more religious. You don't seem to be dealing well with the fact that
religious behavior is negatively linked to criminal behavior.
The fact (if fact it is) that a disproportionately large number of U.S. prison inmates list a theistic religious preference doesn't change this. Indeed it is hard to see what relevant or reliable conclusions could be drawn from that fact alone, and very easy to see why both religious identification and religious behavior are probably incentivized once people are
already incarcerated, including among people who previously did not exhibit any religious behaviors.
Let;s just address this bizzare notion that Christianity has been a postitive influence on the moral development of Western civilization. The early Roman church was pro-slavery.
Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
Jesus seems to agree.
The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)
Well, I don't know what you're specifically referring to when you suggest that the early Roman church was pro-slavery. I also think you're adding a pro-slavery spin to 1 Timothy, which is far better explained and understood as an obvious corollary of the Christian teaching that people ought to have respect for others and love those who persecute them.
I can tell you that Christianity played a significant role in the disappearance of chattel slavery and the slave trade from the West. You should already have known this from
this thread, or
this one, or
this one, wherein I and others have previously discussed the topic.
Murder? I'm sure I don't need to proove to you that the Bible cheerfully approves of, and even deamnds murder and the vilest of retributions for all manner of crimes. The Bible even commands people to commit genocide.
I will suppose for the sake of argument that parts of it, particularly in isolation, could be read that way, but thankfully the Bible generally
hasn't been read that way by Christians. Are we more interested in assessing Christian doctrine as it has actually, historically developed, or in (for example) carrying out exegesis on Old Testament texts?
The Holocaust? The Chruch approoved of that.
I'm afraid you've been badly misinformed. The truth is pretty much the opposite. Rabbi David Dalin's book
The Myth of Hitler's Pope would be a good starting point to get you back on the right track (and here's a
related article by Prof. Dalin to whet your appetite).
Wars of Imperialism? Cheerful approval from the Chruch of england and Catholic Chruch alike. The Inquisition? Ditto. The Crusades? Wild applause from the chruch. Even int the 1800's, Christian chruches preached that black skin was the mark of Cain, and that slavery was the god appointed lot in life for black people.
Absent specific allegations and sources, it's hard to refute this. I suspect that, as with most topics touching on religion, you harbor manifold misconceptions as to the factual histories of such things as the Inquisition (or inquisitions, since there was no real monolithic Inquisition). I'm just a little hesitant to find out how bad, and how many.
Christanity has opposed every progressive and moral step forward humanity has taken in the last 2000 years.
This is where you truly embarrass yourself, ID, even in front of a fairly sympathetic audience of nonbelievers. It's the fact that you think that Christianity - one of the most important cultural influences (if not
the most important) on the past 2,000 years of Western civilization, history, philosophy, literature, art, law, invention and many other areas - could have
failed to contribute entirely to any of the astounding accomplishments in human endeavors which history has witnessed in that time. This is unbelievably extreme and inherently implausible, and its untruth is obvious to anyone who does not have some vested subjective interest in denying it.
I could refer you back again to the voluminous research presented in the
"Is religion slowing us down?" thread establishing the falsity of your statement above as it applies to history of science and technology (which presumably you would consider to be a "step forward" for humanity). I could also tell you, within my own legitimate field of expertise, that Christianity contributed much to the development of modern judicial systems and procedures.
But why bother? It's clear to everyone that, whatever the origins of your biases in the matter, you simply cannot be persuaded to soften your extreme, irrational, and frankly bigoted stance toward religion in general and Christianity in particular. It's almost as if you fear it's a zero-sum game of some sort: if you don't take every single opportunity to defame Christianity, you will somehow be the less for it, or Christianity might become ever-so-slightly
truer.
Yet look around you. Does it not give you even the slightest pause, for example, that hardly any historians or other scholars appear to agree with your extreme assessment of history?
I apologize to all for losing my patience with this stuff.
