• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Excellent rant on Craigslist

Fairly unremarkable enough...

It does however throw about this particular statistic

According to a 1997 statistic, only 0.209% of prisoners incarcerated in the United States identify as atheists. Since atheists currently represent roughly 14% of the overall U.S. population, this is a significant indicator of the "morality" of the modern atheist.
Click to expand...

Which has been discussed at length previously. The sourcing of it is dubious at best. If we are to believe it, it is provided from a single source personal website where the gentleman claims that he receive the data from an e-mail. I would suggest that it could not be regarded as a great source. Then when we look at the data in more detail, it conflates atheists with non believers to arrive at the 14% figure, but then decides to compare this statistic with self-declared atheists. We are also given no information as to how the information was collected, when it was collected or what questions was asked. We are then asked to pretend that considerations of an inmate's declared religion play no factor in parole.

Taking all this into consideration the figure has virtually no credibility as a meaningful statistic, yet it is parroted almost unquestioningly between certain subsets of atheists, who funnily enough, seem to pride themselves on their scepticism and objectivity. We can look at UK prison statistics and find that non believers are overrepresented in governmental National Statistics surveys, and yet even though such sources are far more credible than an e-mail from a guy pasted up on a personal website, people will fight tooth over nail to refute the suggestion that this is an accurate representation of UK prison society.

if someone from the "other side" used such a weak statistic it would be ripped apart and "debunked" in a matter of seconds. It would be nice to see the same rigour applied in the other direction.

How about the suggestion that non believers are in general no more moral or less moral than believers? Shocking as an idea I know.....;)
 
andyandy said:
Fairly unremarkable enough...

It does however throw about this particular statistic



Which has been discussed at length previously. The sourcing of it is dubious at best. If we are to believe it, it is provided from a single source personal website where the gentleman claims that he receive the data from an e-mail. I would suggest that it could not be regarded as a great source. Then when we look at the data in more detail, it conflates atheists with non believers to arrive at the 14% figure, but then decides to compare this statistic with self-declared atheists. We are also given no information as to how the information was collected, when it was collected or what questions was asked. We are then asked to pretend that considerations of an inmate's declared religion play no factor in parole.

Taking all this into consideration the figure has virtually no credibility as a meaningful statistic, yet it is parroted almost unquestioningly between certain subsets of atheists, who funnily enough, seem to pride themselves on their scepticism and objectivity. We can look at UK prison statistics and find that non believers are overrepresented in governmental National Statistics surveys, and yet even though such sources are far more credible than an e-mail from a guy pasted up on a personal website, people will fight tooth over nail to refute the suggestion that this is an accurate representation of UK prison society.

if someone from the "other side" used such a weak statistic it would be ripped apart and "debunked" in a matter of seconds. It would be nice to see the same rigour applied in the other direction.

How about the suggestion that non believers are in general no more moral or less moral than believers? Shocking as an idea I know.....;)
Click to expand...

Hi AndyAndy-that is by far one of the best screen names I have seen (that I also understand) Having been a former woo, I still exhibit wooish behavior, and did absolutely nothing to verify the stats in that rant. Being in the heart of the bible belt, or on the buckle if you will, there are not a lot of people to share my lack of belief with. Plus we had not sold a pizza last night for about an hour and I was bored to tears.:rolleyes: But you are right to call me on the carpet for not checking his/her statistic. I got caught up in the moment. Could you provide a link for your UK prison stats? I would be interested in seeing those. Do you have any US stats that have been verified?
If you look at my post history, with the exception of a couple of subjects, you will see that most of mine are one liners because "it is better to stand silent and be thought a fool than open my mouth and remove all doubt.":pythonfoot:
 
godofpie said:
Hi AndyAndy-that is by far one of the best screen names I have seen (that I also understand) Having been a former woo, I still exhibit wooish behavior, and did absolutely nothing to verify the stats in that rant. Being in the heart of the bible belt, or on the buckle if you will, there are not a lot of people to share my lack of belief with. Plus we had not sold a pizza last night for about an hour and I was bored to tears.:rolleyes: But you are right to call me on the carpet for not checking his/her statistic. I got caught up in the moment. Could you provide a link for your UK prison stats? I would be interested in seeing those. Do you have any US stats that have been verified?
If you look at my post history, with the exception of a couple of subjects, you will see that most of mine are one liners because "it is better to stand silent and be thought a fool than open my mouth and remove all doubt.":pythonfoot:
Click to expand...

hiya - sorry if I came across a little combative, it was not directed at you personally for posting the link..... I guess I was carrying over my opinions from other threads and other debates with regards to prison statistics and one way rigour.........apologies :o

the subject was discussed on this thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90772&highlight=prison+atheists

It's only a short thread so worth reading if you're interested, the statistics from the UK are from

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1501.pdf

a UK government 30 page pdf on religion and prison

No religion forms 32% of inmates
and No religion is the fastest growing subsection (up 181% to 1993-2000)
Click to expand...

That's not to say the statistics may be accurate in their representation... It is notoriously difficult to garner data on people's religious tendencies simply because the answers change so much depending on how you ask the question. But as a source itself it's certainly more reliable than

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

From which the original claims are made.......
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
Fairly unremarkable enough...

It does however throw about this particular statistic



Which has been discussed at length previously. The sourcing of it is dubious at best. If we are to believe it, it is provided from a single source personal website where the gentleman claims that he receive the data from an e-mail. I would suggest that it could not be regarded as a great source. Then when we look at the data in more detail, it conflates atheists with non believers to arrive at the 14% figure, but then decides to compare this statistic with self-declared atheists. We are also given no information as to how the information was collected, when it was collected or what questions was asked. We are then asked to pretend that considerations of an inmate's declared religion play no factor in parole.

Taking all this into consideration the figure has virtually no credibility as a meaningful statistic, yet it is parroted almost unquestioningly between certain subsets of atheists, who funnily enough, seem to pride themselves on their scepticism and objectivity. We can look at UK prison statistics and find that non believers are overrepresented in governmental National Statistics surveys, and yet even though such sources are far more credible than an e-mail from a guy pasted up on a personal website, people will fight tooth over nail to refute the suggestion that this is an accurate representation of UK prison society.

if someone from the "other side" used such a weak statistic it would be ripped apart and "debunked" in a matter of seconds. It would be nice to see the same rigour applied in the other direction.

How about the suggestion that non believers are in general no more moral or less moral than believers? Shocking as an idea I know.....;)
Click to expand...

Andyandy, this is excellent, and I'm gonna nominate it.
You have just shot to about the top of my list of 'Fair-minded JREFers', about which you'll probably be devastated. So I apologise for that in advance. ;)
 
As sick and tired as I have become of atheist rants since I came here, this was actually pretty good. It looks a little strange out of context (since we haven't seen the ones the rant is adressing, although I can imagine...), but a few good points are made. I hope Christians really read the rant and try to take in the important parts without being blinded from being offended.

andyandy said:
How about the suggestion that non believers are in general no more moral or less moral than believers? Shocking as an idea I know.....;)
Click to expand...
I think it's a case of agressive defense. Some people think that if your opponent makes a stupid, biased claim, you need to make a stupid, biased claim to balance it out. It comes from the old saying that the truth is somewhere in between - if theists claim to be more moral, and atheists claim to be as moral, there are always idiots out there who will conclude that the truth must be that theists are slightly more moral, prompting some atheists to make similar claims as the theists, hoping that the 'truth' will now be 'between' those statements. Needless to say, it's not a good way for any skeptic to make a point.
 
Moreover, theists must make atheists look bad in order to keep their faith alive... otherwise the question they are avoiding is presented in glaring detail-- could they be as wrong and as deluded as all those others that they find wrong and deluded"-- The Scientologists, Moonies, Mormons, believers in psychics, New Agers, etc.

I think there is a huge tendency for people to hear attacks on faith as attacks on the faithful. It's a meme that religion encourages.... and there is also a tendency to exaggerate and invent "evil characteristics" of those who don't have faith so that people can pretend that faith is a gift (that makes them humble) (Ha). What a clever way to disguise the fact from yourself that you imagine that you have "divine truths" due to your ability to "believe" something or other.
 
articulett said:
I think there is a huge tendency for people to hear attacks on faith as attacks on the faithful. It's a meme that religion encourages....
Click to expand...
In their defence, I can see the logic in that - it's really kind of a reverse "love ther sinner, hate the sin", and that one doesn't work out all that great at all times. I'm sure believers feel more comfortable if someone hates religion rather than the religious in about the same way as homosexuals feel more comfortable if someone hates homosexuality rather than homosexuals. There is a difference, but you are still attacking something the person strongly identifies with.

"I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking what you are" is a fine, fine distinction which doesn't give more comfort to most people beyond that it might indicate the person is not going to kill you.
 
Rufo said:
In their defence, I can see the logic in that - it's really kind of a reverse "love ther sinner, hate the sin", and that one doesn't work out all that great at all times. I'm sure believers feel more comfortable if someone hates religion rather than the religious in about the same way as homosexuals feel more comfortable if someone hates homosexuality rather than homosexuals. There is a difference, but you are still attacking something the person strongly identifies with.

"I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking what you are" is a fine, fine distinction which doesn't give more comfort to most people beyond that it might indicate the person is not going to kill you.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I think religionists have the upper hand on killing those who don't believe the right religion...

Belief in religion is like belief in any superstition or racism... it's a mode of thinking -- a mode of indoctrination... if it was true or good it wouldn't need to be afraid of probing or doubt. Things that are true are true whether people "believe in them" or not. I think they've just learned to protect this sacred cow in order to keep from having to examine the "faith in faith" meme. They don't want to admit that faith may not be a means to higher knowledge or anything at all-- just a means of promoting a self aggrandizing delusion. They don't fear a non believer for what the non believer might do; they fear the non believer because he is a threat to their pet delusion.
 
articulett said:
Perhaps, but I think religionists have the upper hand on killing those who don't believe the right religion...
Click to expand...
They sure have. And they sure don't have much reason to believe the atheists will kill them. That doesn't change the fact that when you attack a belief, a believer has very good reason to take it personally. If that doesn't bother you, fair enough. I'm just trying to explain why "hearing attacks on faith as attacks on the faithful" isn't in any way strange or wrong.

Belief in religion is like belief in any superstition or racism... it's a mode of thinking -- a mode of indoctrination... if it was true or good it wouldn't need to be afraid of probing or doubt. Things that are true are true whether people "believe in them" or not. I think they've just learned to protect this sacred cow in order to keep from having to examine the "faith in faith" meme. They don't want to admit that faith may not be a means to higher knowledge or anything at all-- just a means of promoting a self aggrandizing delusion. They don't fear a non believer for what the non believer might do; they fear the non believer because he is a threat to their pet delusion.
Click to expand...
You're right that it's a mode of thinking, and in that mode of thinking faith is good, and it follows from this that doubt is bad. They acknowledge the existance of doubt, but have learned that it is to be feared. This is true, and I don't think believers will deny it.

Beyond that, the portrayal of believers as pathetic and frightened of the inevitable cracks of reason in their beautiful castle in the sky is nothing more than the usual caricature of the enemy seen in any conflict. I believe the dialogue would be better and more interesting without it.
 
andyandy said:
hiya - sorry if I came across a little combative, it was not directed at you personally for posting the link..... I guess I was carrying over my opinions from other threads and other debates with regards to prison statistics and one way rigour.........apologies :o

the subject was discussed on this thread
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90772&highlight=prison+atheists

It's only a short thread so worth reading if you're interested, the statistics from the UK are from

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hosb1501.pdf

a UK government 30 page pdf on religion and prison



That's not to say the statistics may be accurate in their representation... It is notoriously difficult to garner data on people's religious tendencies simply because the answers change so much depending on how you ask the question. But as a source itself it's certainly more reliable than

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

From which the original claims are made.......
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. A kind of "circle the wagons mentality". I think you brought up an important point, at least in regards to the statistics. Non religious does not seem to say anything about weather or not someone believes in a higher power or not. It just means that they do not practice a religion. You can be non religious and still believe in a god. Like you said, it depends on how you ask the question. The thing that struck me about the rant was its non threating tenor. Like the policy here, it attacked the argument, not the person. The rant brought up that christians seem to be fixated on atheist/agnostic lack of belief and that this fixation is based on fear. I think that hits the nail on the head. Religion provides a great deal of comfort. I didn't walk away from religion until it did not provide comfort for me anymore and when it raised more questions than answers. When I stopped believing I felt like a hypocrite for still participating and in my book there is nothing worse than a hypocrite. But it is a scary thought, like working a high wire act without a net. Fear is angers cousin. The idea that at the end of life there is no great reward waiting for you, no loved ones for you to reunite with and as far as we know the nothingness that is death, it is no wonder that believers get angry and defensive when discussing the possibility of no god. Religion is a coping skill that provides answers to the great unknown.
 
Rufo said:
They sure have. And they sure don't have much reason to believe the atheists will kill them. That doesn't change the fact that when you attack a belief, a believer has very good reason to take it personally. If that doesn't bother you, fair enough. I'm just trying to explain why "hearing attacks on faith as attacks on the faithful" isn't in any way strange or wrong.
Click to expand...


Of course they do. I was a believer. I know exactly why they must vilify the nonbeliever in order to keep the faith alive. It causes them great discomfort to know that someone finds their beliefs as ridiculous as they find all the beliefs they do not share.

They like it when everybody is equally open to ridicule... that they can all agree to remain quiet and respect faith by assuming others just have a faith like theirs. They all have a common enemy in the nonbeliever-- the one that finds all of their beliefs equally unsupportable.
 
Last edited:
godofpie said:
The idea that at the end of life there is no great reward waiting for you, no loved ones for you to reunite with and as far as we know the nothingness that is death, it is no wonder that believers get angry and defensive when discussing the possibility of no god. Religion is a coping skill that provides answers to the great unknown.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, it is a bit depressing if you stop and think about, a bit of self-delusion may have some benefits... not that it matters to me, I'm going to live forever :D
 
godofpie said:
I see what you mean. A kind of "circle the wagons mentality". I think you brought up an important point, at least in regards to the statistics. Non religious does not seem to say anything about weather or not someone believes in a higher power or not. It just means that they do not practice a religion. You can be non religious and still believe in a god. Like you said, it depends on how you ask the question.
Click to expand...

I'd say that there is even a more basic problem with the stat in question: there is a huge incentive for people when convicted to suddenly convert -- "jump on the Jesus train" -- in order to make a change of heart argument for parole, etc. Regardless ofhow well a poll was designed or implemented, I have to suspect that the numbers might be just a tad skewed towards religion -- and probably, specifically toward Christianity.
 
andyandy said:
Absolutely, it is a bit depressing if you stop and think about, a bit of self-delusion may have some benefits... not that it matters to me, I'm going to live forever :D
Click to expand...

So far so good, eh?

What benefits can there be in self-delusion? This is not an attack at all, as I tend to agree with you, but want to explore the concept.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
I'd say that there is even a more basic problem with the stat in question: there is a huge incentive for people when convicted to suddenly convert -- "jump on the Jesus train" -- in order to make a change of heart argument for parole, etc. Regardless ofhow well a poll was designed or implemented, I have to suspect that the numbers might be just a tad skewed towards religion -- and probably, specifically toward Christianity.
Click to expand...

Yeah, cons seem to know exactly how to play the redemption game. For many it's a merry-go-round: sin, be absolved, sin again, be absolved again, and so on. And if it gets really tough, the Devil made them do it. :con2:


M.
 
RobRoy said:
So far so good, eh?

What benefits can there be in self-delusion? This is not an attack at all, as I tend to agree with you, but want to explore the concept.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting question which has cropped up before in discussions on the value or otherwise of religion. To use a metaphor, when one has stepped out of the plane and just realised that one's parachute doesn't work, then the self-delusion that you will land on a mattress will allow you to at least enjoy the view on the way down........

So self-delusion could be argued to be of benefit in situations like this, where one's course of action cannot be altered and one is provided with a peace of mind that would not otherwise be possible....

In most respects this is precisely what happens when we think of our own mortality, especially when we are young. We can understand that death happens to other people, but the self-delusion that we ourselves will not be affected is a happy lie that most are happy to go along with :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom