Excellent rant on Craigslist

[godofpie]

I just found this in the "best of" section on craigslist. I liked the perspective that this person came from.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/596568636.html

[articulett]

Thanks. It was super. I like it.

[Susan Gerbic]

Thanks for sharing, great rant

Susan

[andyandy]

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.

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.....;)

[godofpie]

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.....;)

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:

[andyandy]

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:

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://forums.randi.org/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)

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.......

[plumjam]

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.....;)

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. ;)

[andyandy]

You have just shot to about the top of my list of 'Fair-minded JREFers',

Top of the league :D

[Rufo]

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.

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

[articulett]

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.

[Rufo]

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....
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.

[articulett]

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.

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.

[Rufo]

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

[godofpie]

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://forums.randi.org/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.......

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.

[articulett]

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.




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.

[andyandy]

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.

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

[NoZed Avenger]

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.

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.

[RobRoy]

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

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.

[Moochie]

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.

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.

[andyandy]

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.

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 :)

[RobRoy]

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....

I suppose we could also argue that the self-delusion of someone watching over you is also helpful in other respects. The concept can promote good behavior in some, and even saintly behavior in others, which benefit the general community.

It could also be an ease in times of personal stress.

Anything else?

[andyandy]

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.

Indeed one only has to look to George Bush's use of the born-again label as a get out of jail free card to exempt him from considerations of anything he did prior to his " redemption." convicted drink driver? Failed businessman? Alcoholic? Cocaine user? Draft dodger? Hey no problem, that was the different George Bush. This one is with Jesus ;)

Political gold....

[Moochie]

Indeed one only has to look to George Bush's use of the born-again label as a get out of jail free card to exempt him from considerations of anything he did prior to his " redemption." convicted drink driver? Failed businessman? Alcoholic? Cocaine user? Draft dodger? Hey no problem, that was the different George Bush. This one is with Jesus ;)

Political gold....

I didn't say cons were the only ones adept at this. :)

M.

[andyandy]

I suppose we could also argue that the self-delusion of someone watching over you is also helpful in other respects. The concept can promote good behavior in some, and even saintly behavior in others, which benefit the general community.

It could also be an ease in times of personal stress.

Anything else?

There have been a number of scientific studies also discussed on these pages in which in general population studies where socioeconomic factors are controlled, it is apparent that people who regard themselves as religious tend to do better on various measures of happiness and emotional well-being. There are also specific studies such as those with elderly folk in nursing homes who seem to cope better with depression if religious........

Now I'm not suggesting that these studies aren't contentious, but I believe that the mixture of positive self-delusion and social network provided by religious involvement could explain such discrepancies. It is also possible that some people are genetically more predisposed to religion than others, and such genetic discrepancies also account for differing personality types. Though that may be even more contentious.....

The trouble is threads which discuss this normally get swamped very quickly with people getting angry that anyone should accept that there is anything positive about religion whatsoever, or that there could be any tangential benefits to anyone. And as such it is not discussed too often ;)

[andyandy]

I didn't say cons were the only ones adept at this. :)

M.

The only difference between cons and politicians is that politicians haven't been caught yet...:)

[RobRoy]

There have been a number of scientific studies [snip]

Interesting. Thanks for the summation.

The trouble is threads which discuss this normally get swamped very quickly with people getting angry that anyone should accept that there is anything positive about religion whatsoever, or that there could be any tangential benefits to anyone. And as such it is not discussed too often ;)

Yes, I've seen that, and it's quite unfortunate, especially on a forum of this nature. I've seen arguments that parallel almost exactly the same premise that fundamentalists try on the other side. Neither are very open to discussion.

[godofpie]

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.

I agree. When people "find god" in prison the first thing that comes to their mind is not Vishnu.

[articulett]

Interesting. Thanks for the summation.



Yes, I've seen that, and it's quite unfortunate, especially on a forum of this nature. I've seen arguments that parallel almost exactly the same premise that fundamentalists try on the other side. Neither are very open to discussion.

I suspect this is a self aggrandizing straw man. Why don't you cut and paste from some fundamentalist sites and show us how anyone other than a religious fundamentalist is arguing similarly. I think you are reading stuff that isn't there to prop up a false stereotype.

The people who assert this, never offer examples...


Or when they do-- it's laughably unlike anything involving "fundamentalism". You have to have a fundamental group of beliefs or laws in order to be a fundamentalism.

But, thanks for playing.

[Beerina]

Fairly unremarkable enough...

It does however throw about this particular statistic

[Re: Athiests are 14% of the population, but only 0.00000018% of the prison population]

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.

To say nothing about claiming you're an athiest in prison might be as dangerous as wearing pink leotards.

[gypsey]

Moochie
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger
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.
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.
M.



my dad was an old pro at this, he was in and out of prison my whole life the last few times because of me and he would get really pious and christian while inside and then laugh about it when he was out
he knew more about the bible than anyone i have ever met and wasn't afraid to use it to his advantage, in or out of prison:D

[RobRoy]

I suspect this is a self aggrandizing straw man. [snip]

But, thanks for playing.

No, no, thank you for playing! Double thanks for proving andyandy's and my point. :D

You're a quite intelligent individual, articulett, and if you could see past your own biases, I think you'd be a force to be reckoned with. I'd even enjoy your posts that much more, but as it stands, I need look no further than your own rants against religion, faith, or the faithful to find evidence of arguments I mentioned regarding those who are "blind to the truth" which you hold to. That you're unwilling to see the parallels is all the more proof.

Thank you and please come again! :)

I agree. When people "find god" in prison the first thing that comes to their mind is not Vishnu.

In the US and other Christian-majority nations, I'm sure this is true, but I wonder if it also holds in India. Likewise, wouldn't a prisoner in Japan or similar Buddhist-leaning nations come to Buddhism more readily? Any stats on this kind of thing?

[ParanoidAndroid]

Save for the erroneous stats, I found the rant to be articulate and refreshingly without the defensiveness that sometimes undermines the validity of the atheist perspective. Statistics are like a magician’s cape, wand, and hat:
- Best case scenario: they divert, distract, and mesmerize
- Worst case scenario: they pervert reality and conceal the truth

I too wish I had more background information regarding what elicited this specific rant.

[Moochie]

<snip>


In the US and other Christian-majority nations, I'm sure this is true, but I wonder if it also holds in India. Likewise, wouldn't a prisoner in Japan or similar Buddhist-leaning nations come to Buddhism more readily? Any stats on this kind of thing?

I don't think that this would work in Buddhism, nor in Hinduism. I certainly haven't seen anything anywhere to suggest that this happens among Buddhists or Hindus. Buddhism, if I'm not mistaken, is not anything like Christianity. If a prisoner decided to become a Buddhist, the warden would probably say, "good for you," and think no more of it. It would have no more relevance than if the prisoner took up woodcarving.


M.

[RobRoy]

I don't think that this would work in Buddhism, nor in Hinduism. I certainly haven't seen anything anywhere to suggest that this happens among Buddhists or Hindus. Buddhism, if I'm not mistaken, is not anything like Christianity. If a prisoner decided to become a Buddhist, the warden would probably say, "good for you," and think no more of it. It would have no more relevance than if the prisoner took up woodcarving.

I think you misunderstood my question. I was not saying that prisoners in the US are exonerated by jumping on the Jesus train, just wondering if prisoners who felt remorse, or wanted to show that they felt remorse, would join the major religion of their area. I think it would be rarer for an Indian to find Jesus in a Mumbai prison, but not so rare for the same prisoner to find Vishnu. <shrug>

[Moochie]

I think you misunderstood my question. I was not saying that prisoners in the US are exonerated by jumping on the Jesus train, just wondering if prisoners who felt remorse, or wanted to show that they felt remorse, would join the major religion of their area. I think it would be rarer for an Indian to find Jesus in a Mumbai prison, but not so rare for the same prisoner to find Vishnu. <shrug>

I understood you. I just don't think that you would find people in countries like Thailand or India jumping on a "Vishnu" or "Buddha" train when imprisoned. Particularly not a "Buddha" train. You need to know something of the cultures in those countries to understand why this might be so.

M.

[RobRoy]

I understood you. I just don't think that you would find people in countries like Thailand or India jumping on a "Vishnu" or "Buddha" train when imprisoned. Particularly not a "Buddha" train.

Nopers, you missed it. In contrast to a convict, while in jail, becoming a Christian, this seems much less likely to happen in India or Japan. Those cultures tend to not be Christianity-oriented, and so it seems likely that if a convict was to convert, or jump on some train, they would convert to the dominate religious system with which they were more familiar, rather than Christianity. I was curious what the conversion stats of convicts in those nations were in contrast with those of the US which is Christianity-oriented.

You need to know something of the cultures in those countries to understand why this might be so.

Wasn't looking for mass droves of converts, just curious about the numbers, but please do explain "why this might be so". Thanks.

[andyandy]

I think you misunderstood my question. I was not saying that prisoners in the US are exonerated by jumping on the Jesus train, just wondering if prisoners who felt remorse, or wanted to show that they felt remorse, would join the major religion of their area. I think it would be rarer for an Indian to find Jesus in a Mumbai prison, but not so rare for the same prisoner to find Vishnu. <shrug>

On a similar theme (but in the opposite direction - ie prisoners being attracted to minority religions due to anger rather than remorse) it was reported recently that UK authorities were increasingly worried about the radicalisation of young men in British prisons by fundamentalist Islam. Indeed it was argued that prisoners were a fertile recruiting ground as they were full of disenfranchised and often disadvantaged men with an axe to grind against authority, and due to the increased number of terrorist arrests, these men were exposed to very charismatic exponents of extremist islam.....



I don't know how accurate such reports are, it is possible that it is all somewhat overblown in this instance.... but I would imagine that such things would be an issue in prisons. Indeed I remember reading Malcolm X's autobiography in which he talked at length about his conversion to the nation of islam whilst in prison, so it's happened at least once :)

[RobRoy]

On a similar theme (but in the opposite direction - ie prisoners being attracted to minority religions due to anger rather than remorse) it was reported recently that UK authorities were increasingly worried about the radicalisation of young men in British prisons by fundamentalist Islam. [snip]

I just stumbled across that report.

Indeed I remember reading Malcolm X's autobiography in which he talked at length about his conversion to the nation of islam whilst in prison, so it's happened at least once :)

That was exactly what I thought about when I saw the report, although I didn't read it, I just watched the Spike Lee movie. :D

[godofpie]

my dad was an old pro at this, he was in and out of prison my whole life the last few times because of me and he would get really pious and christian while inside and then laugh about it when he was out
he knew more about the bible than anyone i have ever met and wasn't afraid to use it to his advantage, in or out of prison:D

Thats very interesting.I hired a guy a couple of years ago that had just got out of prison. I had met him in rehab about 4 years before that. He did not stay sober after rehab and got locked up. When he first got out he was staying on the straight and narrow, going to church, involved with his family and church, not a bible thumper but involved, but after about 60 days he dropped that facade and was back to his old self. Selling drugs and partying. We were placing bets on how long it would take for him to get locked back up. Within 30 he had participated in a drive by and killed a guy and is now going to spend the rest of his life in prison. It seems to me cons come in all shapes and sizes and will use whatever is at their disposal to further their gains.

[godofpie]

Does atheism have a goal? It appears to me that when arguments occur the atheist standpoint is "atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Nothing more." and "Prove it. Provide poof and then we can talk." It would seem to me that as an atheist (and I'm not sure that is what I am but for the sake of argument) I would like to convince others that my way of thinking is right. That critical thinking and the atheist viewpoint is a better way to live life than one found through religion. Is secular humanism religion for atheists?

No, no, thank you for playing! Double thanks for proving andyandy's and my point.

You're a quite intelligent individual, articulett, and if you could see past your own biases, I think you'd be a force to be reckoned with. I'd even enjoy your posts that much more, but as it stands, I need look no further than your own rants against religion, faith, or the faithful to find evidence of arguments I mentioned regarding those who are "blind to the truth" which you hold to. That you're unwilling to see the parallels is all the more proof.

Thank you and please come again!


Agreed. I very much enjoy reading articulett's posts. She is very passionate about the subjects she chooses to post about. I imagine when she was a woo, she was also a force to be reckoned with.

Rather, it is the non-belief of atheists that bothers them. These people have faith so thoroughly engrained in their lives that to see somebody without a trace threatens them. They simply cannot conceive of somebody not believing in a deity of some sort. The idea is completely foreign to them, and therefore menacing. It forces them to evaluate their own beliefs. They become defensive and attack because the things they hold intrinsically and unquestionably sacred are being challenged by the mere philosophical position of another
IMHO the reason the religious can't or won't let go of their gods is the fear of the unknown. How do you, the atheist, deal with the thought of death? Not just yours but those that are close to you? It is a very comforting thought to believe that you and your loved ones will all be together again (just the ones you liked of course, not the uncle you couldn't stand or the cousin that never payed back that loan). Do you have coping skills that help you to deal with the thought of death or is it just something you don't think about? Mine is if matter is neither created or destroyed then I will be here forever in some form or another.

[articulett]

You got to have life-- that's cool... but not something you'd want to last forever.

Robroy says I rant against religion. I am against faith as a means of knowledge. I find religion another form of superstition... I feel like believers are victims. But every time I ask one of the apologists to point out where I or some other "radical atheist" ranted about religion, they never post anything... or if they do, it's totally not a rant. If I was saying the same think about Scientology or rain dances or witch doctors, they'd be fine. I think the apologists just hear stuff that isn't there because they believe that faith is good and worth protecting and should be respected. I think critical thinking is far more valuable. I think it harms society when we go along with this "faith in faith" meme.

Why would anyone think they know what an invisible entity wanted? Why would they expect others to respect that? Why wouldn't they just keep it to themselves? If it was good or true, why would what I say matter? Why would anyone think such a being would care about this speck of the universe and them in particular?

It just seems so egotistical to me. And yet, they are the one calling atheists arrogant? I'm not the one claiming to have divine truths... nor to do I declare my opinion as fact. Moreover, I'm more than willing to back up my statements with evidence and change my mind when the evidence warrants. What theist or apologist does that? No amount of evidence can shake faith when people believe that faith is the key to salvation.

Why would any atheist think it was okay to inflict this stupefying lie onto people... and then cover for it and silence all those who dared to say the Emperor is not wearing any clothes? Do they want others to be stupid? Manipulable? Self aggrandizing? Holier than thou? Irrational? Superstitious? To me, religion gets protection that no one would think to give to psychics or homeopaths or other woo. Even on a forum where most people are probably atheists, we are chastized for joking amongst ourselves. Look, if religion is good or true-- our joking should not matter at all. Do I care what creationists say on their woo forum... maybe for a laugh. But I don't jump in and start lecturing them... like the woos and apologists do here.

If a smart person points out exactly where I crossed the line or why something I said was wrong or what was better, then I would listen... but why is it always the blowhards who seem to find imaginary faults in people always the ones tsk tsking atheists here on a SKEPTICS forum? Why is it never the people anyone else wants to be like? We have a slew of fantastic posters, so if any of the majority actually takes issue with what I say, I hope they can point it out and tell me the harm they perceive. Because I think lots of people imagine stuff that isn't there so they don't have to look at the gaps in their own flawed arguments or beliefs.

I am going to put rob roy on ignore, because he makes accusations without evidence, and I just haven't seen him say anything of value yet. I'm sure someone smart will quote him if he says anything of substance.

[articulett]

BTW, I was never a proselytizer... when I was a woo... I just though you were supposed to feel the truth... no one ever challenged me... I wish they had.

Religion doesn't come up much in my regular life. To me, it's just another superstition. But here, I think that all ideas are open for scrutiny. The truth doesn't need to fear me.

[gypsey]

godofpie
Originally Posted by gypsey
my dad was an old pro at this, he was in and out of prison my whole life the last few times because of me and he would get really pious and christian while inside and then laugh about it when he was out
he knew more about the bible than anyone i have ever met and wasn't afraid to use it to his advantage, in or out of prison
Thats very interesting.I hired a guy a couple of years ago that had just got out of prison. I had met him in rehab about 4 years before that. He did not stay sober after rehab and got locked up. When he first got out he was staying on the straight and narrow, going to church, involved with his family and church, not a bible thumper but involved, but after about 60 days he dropped that facade and was back to his old self. Selling drugs and partying. We were placing bets on how long it would take for him to get locked back up. Within 30 he had participated in a drive by and killed a guy and is now going to spend the rest of his life in prison. It seems to me cons come in all shapes and sizes and will use whatever is at their disposal to further their gains.

that sounds so familiar and you are so right about all shapes and sizes and they do seem to use whatever works to run their cons,
my dad never actually went to prison for anything as serious as muder but there were a lot of assaults and other things on his record,

during the the more than 40 years of watching my father con his way through life i observed that it was easier for him to pull his scams and cons on religous people especially when he was using his "born again i'm a changed man" schtick, i have seen him pay his rent and utilities doing this even at one point getting a new car from some one and i know that he always managed early release from prison because of it

i don't have any idea how many prisoners over all use religion this way but dad always said he learned it the first time he got locked up in about 1956 so it was something that obviously someone knew would work

we(the people close to dad) always laughed about how long it would be before he started acting "Normal" (for him) again and it was usually within about 2 months, he got teased a lot by his friends during the "good christian" phase of his releases, he would be out of jail or prison for long stretchs but he always managed to screw up again and go back

[ImaginalDisc]

Does atheism have a goal? It appears to me that when arguments occur the atheist standpoint is "atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Nothing more." and "Prove it. Provide poof and then we can talk." It would seem to me that as an atheist (and I'm not sure that is what I am but for the sake of argument) I would like to convince others that my way of thinking is right. That critical thinking and the atheist viewpoint is a better way to live life than one found through religion. Is secular humanism religion for atheists?

In answer to the question you put at the end, no. Atheists are people who lack belief in god(s). Some atheists are simply naive to the claims of god(s), some reject the idea for specious reasons, and some reject the idea for clear and logical reasons. There are good atheists, wicked atheists, reflective and philisophical atheists, and atheists who get by on a day to day basis without thinking about their non-belief at all. There is no "religion for atheists", or a unifying philisophy.

I can't speak for any other atheists, but for me my atheism is an important conclusion arrived at through critical inquiry because I care about whether or not things are true. It matters very much to me whether what I am told is, as a matter of fact, a fact.

Perhaps it would be nice if there were some rubric of morality we could all adhere to, but there isn't. Everyone, religious or not, measures whether something is moral or not based on their own internal compass. Religious Christians, as a rule, dismiss the injunction to stone and slaughter disobedient children that they read in the Bible because it seems wrong to them. I don't claim that I can prove to everyone that my philosophy is better than theirs, because people assess religious claims based on their own ideas and some of the values we seem to have inhereted from past generations. All I can say is that I personally value reason, evidence based thinking, and mutual respect for the wishes of other people.


IMHO the reason the religious can't or won't let go of their gods is the fear of the unknown. How do you, the atheist, deal with the thought of death? Not just yours but those that are close to you? It is a very comforting thought to believe that you and your loved ones will all be together again (just the ones you liked of course, not the uncle you couldn't stand or the cousin that never payed back that loan). Do you have coping skills that help you to deal with the thought of death or is it just something you don't think about? Mine is if matter is neither created or destroyed then I will be here forever in some form or another.

Maybe it actually is comforting to believe that some people you know will exist forever, praising a deity who made them just so that they could worship it forever. Personally, I can neither understand how anyone can be perfectly eternally happy when they are aware that elsewhere there is suffering, both on Earth and in a pit of endless torment, nor why such a static existence would be pleasant.

In any case, it's not important whether some idea is comforting or not. It might be comforting to think that if I jump off a building while wearing a four leafed clover, leprechauns and faires will catch me and whisk me away to Tir'na'og, but acting on that belief would case me to waste my life on a lie and deny myself the real possibilies for happiness that exist in this world. The unsupported idea of an afterlife robs people of the urgency and joy of what time we actually do have.

[RobRoy]

Robroy says I rant against religion. I am against faith as a means of knowledge. I find religion another form of superstition... I feel like believers are victims. But every time I ask one of the apologists to point out where I or some other "radical atheist" ranted about religion, they never post anything...

First, I'm not an apologist. I haven't been called one before, but I can see how my stance might be misconstrued as that. But I will say that I don't use the term as an epithet, which you do seem to do. If I'm wrong on that, I apologize, but it does seem to be a term that you use as a blanket generalization for anyone who offers a defense against you in this particular regard.

To me, questions are asked of a religious faith, apologists provide answers, sometimes reasonable, sometimes not, in order to help understand the deeper levels of that faith. In the question for truth, for understanding, this can help to provide something of a balanced look at each religion and its particular specifics. I find that useful in purposes of discussion, but maybe that's just me. <shrug>

Second, I have pointed out to you where I saw you making a parallel fundamentalist argument, and attempted to discuss it with you, even when you ignored the salient points. So even though I don't fall under the heading of the apologists who "never post anything", I have done in the past what you're claiming has never been done.

. . . or if they do, it's totally not a rant.

On what basis do you make this claim? That you're own posts can never be termed "a rant" because you made them? Don't you think that's awfully convenient? So convenient, in fact, it sounds exactly like what a fundamentalist would say in response to the same criticism? :D

If I was saying the same think about Scientology or rain dances or witch doctors, they'd be fine.

I've actually answered this particular criticism previously, and stated that I would and have defended such in such cases where I understood the tenets.

Of course, we have to refer to my previous statement where I'm not an apologist, so perhaps this doesn't pertain to me specifically. <shrug>

I think the apologists just hear stuff that isn't there because they believe that faith is good and worth protecting and should be respected.

Well, I don't know about the hearing stuff part. I would say some do, some doing. But I would agree that they believe "faith is good and worth protecting. Otherwise why be an apologist? Just for the kicks of making an argument? :eek:

Oh, wait, I can see the fun in that personally. :D

I think critical thinking is far more valuable. I think it harms society when we go along with this "faith in faith" meme.

I agree that critical thinking is of greater value, but I disagree that faith, in and of itself, is specifically harmful to society. I would caveat that statement by saying that "blind faith" can and often is quite harmful to society, and na unfortunate by-product of almost every religious faith. This was something which I had an excellent discussion on this exact subject (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=110526&page=4) with skeptical. We didn't agree, but we saw each other's points of view, and the argument was very worthwhile. To some extent, I've even changed my position in this regard. <shrug>

Why wouldn't they just keep it to themselves? If it was good or true, why would what I say matter?

Let's flip these for a moment: Why don't you keep your views on critical thinking to yourself? If critical thinking is so good and true, why would what a fundamentalist, apologist, member of the faithful, says about faith (or critical thinking) matter?

These are not said with any degree of sarcasm. They are legitimate questions regarding your own personal views on this matter. Unfortunately, I don't think they will ever be answered. :(

It just seems so egotistical to me. And yet, they are the one calling atheists arrogant?

I haven't done this in regards to atheists. I think I might have called a couple of fundies arrogant, but I can't recall right now. :cool:

What theist or apologist does that? No amount of evidence can shake faith when people believe that faith is the key to salvation.

This is false. There are any number of folk who, for any number of intricate reasons, have renounced their faith and religion as evidence was presented to them. There are also atheists who have done the reverse.

Why would any atheist think it was okay to inflict this stupefying lie onto people... and then cover for it and silence all those who dared to say the Emperor is not wearing any clothes?

A fundy would say they were doing the devils work. If there is a devil, this isn't a bad argument.

If I was being asked this, I would offer that there are any number of explanations for this described behavior. From social comfort to a personal sense of power and self-aggrandizement. I wouldn't know if these were actually true, but there it is.

Do they want others to be stupid? Manipulable? Self aggrandizing? Holier than thou? Irrational? Superstitious?

Some do, sure. It's unfortunate, but there it is.

I am going to put rob roy on ignore, because he makes accusations without evidence, and I just haven't seen him say anything of value yet. I'm sure someone smart will quote him if he says anything of substance.

Let's see, that makes two atheists and two fundamentalists I've now managed to put me on ignore on this forum. Apparently, I offend both sides in equal measure. :) I must admit, however, this is the first time that I've actually felt the intended sting of this kind of a slap. I had thought of you, articulett, as reasonably open-minded forum member and willing to discuss any topic, to examine any arguments, even your own, on their own merit, and capable of admitting fault when found. I've yet to see that in regards to your stance against religion (or faith, if you prefer), and instead found an impressive level of bias that has quite blinded you to reasonable arguments that differ from your own opinion regardless of their source. I'm not certain if anyone "smart" will let you know what I've said, so perhaps I'm just blowing in the wind, but I do wish you the best, and I do hope you come to see the downfall of your particular meme.

[andyandy]

snip.

Don't worry rob, you have joined a pretty inexclusive group of people on arti's ignore list.........

I think she's got her particular toys out the pram histrionic flounce of putting someone on ignore on the clipboard for easy deploy ;)

[Kopji]

...They accuse atheists of leading selfish, corrupt, and immoral lives without fear of consequences. They accuse atheists of lacking moral codes. This is, of course, irrational, fear-mongering nonsense. Today's atheist is not a self-indulgent modern Caligula or a Stalin. Today's atheist is not a socially maladjusted anarchist who lives their lives without fear of retribution. 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. Today's atheist tends to be a well-educated, productive member of society who more often than not subscribes to the notions of moral relativism and secular humanism... which essentially means that we realize we're all stuck on this big ball together and we must work to set aside our differences and build a better future, because it's all that there is. That doesn't sound at all like the monstrous picture that's recently been smeared here by certain self-proclaimed loving Christians.


My complaint on this is not really the liberal abuse of statistics (which are usually one step away from voodoo anyway)... but that it misses the more focused attack on atheism - that 'good atheists' are sort of living on the 'fading light' from their religious upbringing. To that thinking, atheists are better atheists if they first have a foundation of religion. This whole tack only distracts us from some important issues that are creating atheists. So, a strawman perhaps, that does not serve atheists well.


...Personally, I'm a firm believer in live-and-let-live. I believe Christ was too.

I'm nitpicking, but "Christ" is a title not Jesus's last name.
If Jesus was a real person, which some atheists might concede and some not.
And this assertion that Jesus was a believer in 'live and let live' has little basis in the Bible. If what we do does not matter to God, this seems like a lot of trouble.

[RobRoy]

Don't worry rob, you have joined a pretty inexclusive group of people on arti's ignore list.........

I won't lie, it does hurt. Not like my dog running away or my wife cheating on me, but still, there's a sting. I honestly thought she was one of the more reasonably folk here. But then, I have been known to be wrong . . . from time to time.

I think she's got her particular toys out the pram histrionic flounce of putting someone on ignore on the clipboard for easy deploy ;)

"Pram histrionic flounce". That's funny. :D

[godofpie]

The unsupported idea of an afterlife robs people of the urgency and joy of what time we actually do have.

That is an outstanding statement and an excellent point. To me you have summed up the atheist viewpoint in a sentence and why it makes sense to not believe rather than believe.

[godofpie]

The unsupported idea of an afterlife robs people of the urgency and joy of what time we actually do have.

That is an outstanding statement and an excellent point. To me you have summed up the atheist viewpoint in a sentence and why it makes sense to not believe rather than believe.