Correction: more than twice as many. Either way they'll be thrilled. lol.
I'm an atheist but the sum of my immediate family are mormon and adventism is an apostate branch of mormonism. Same as the Jehovah witnesses: so that's two things mormonism spawned besides Mitt Romney that annoy the hell out of me. Actually adventist don't annoy me, so much as disconcert me. It's a cult another cult rejected. This seems to be the summary statement for all christian religions: one cult splintering off from another, already goofy one.
The christian cult centered around the worship of an allegedly miraculous carpenter in Palestine; and somehow, through intimidation, ignorance, violence and political maneuvering--and the strategic duality of the Christians with the roman state--it became one of the most socio-politically prevalent rackets on the planet. All thanks to a dead Jew nobody can conclusively PROVE even existed. Despite the fact that we CAN prove multiple gospels to be forgeries that barely corroborate on the details of christ's life, trial, death or resurrection. Even if the new testament were authentic...it's fundamentally psychotic.
The story is so humiliating it's no wonder christians deny it or lionize it. They have to not to feel like complete morons.
Actually I think you'll find that Adventists never had much to do with Mormons, Adventism came from a guy called William Miller who was a baptist lay preacher but you're right Jehovahs Witnesses did come from Adventism.
I suspect you are a troll but I am intrigued nevertheless. Let's see where this goes.
I doubt you are worried about actually making a convincing argument, but I will make an attempt to contribute regardless.
The implied argument here, I am choosing to believe, is that contrary to popular belief Christianity actually increases the likelihood of incarceration.
To that end, this lacks some important information that it would need in order to be compelling from a statistical perspective. Specifically: from what population do the inmates of this prison system originate and what does the distribution of religious affiliation look like for said population?
Then given that information you could expect one of three outcomes:
A. The percentage of the population who are Christian is higher in prison than out of it. This would imply there is a positive correlation between being christian and being incarcerated.
B. The percentage is about the same inside and out. This would imply that being Christian is not a relevant predictor of your chances to be incarcerated.
C. The percentage of the population who are Christian is lower in prison than out of it. This would imply that there exists a negative correlation.
I seem to recall that the nationwide percentage of those affiliated with some form of Christianity is north of 85%. I hope I am wrong, because if not then you just went and made their point for them.
As things are, the only practical use of this [de]motivational style image you have is to provoke and incense Christians or to appeal to already like minded individuals. Seeing as how statistical evidence has never proved to be particularly persuasive to Christians even at the best of times, I can only conclude that you are either unaware of how unlikely your efforts are to matter, or you have some other motivation for producing this, E.G. your own satisfaction at asserting some form of intellectual superiority to a group with which you refuse to make any attempt at understanding or communicating with in a meaningful way while openly dismissing/belittling their competence.
I don't care for ignorance wherever it arises, but at least Christians don't vigorously assert that science is, in fact, on their side. Science is not on anyone's side; it's a tool, and after reading enough of your patronizing, abrasive, antagonistic jargon I am beginning to think that so are you.
The argument by the religious is that atheism is inherently immoral and, by implication, spawns immoral people: when the reality is, actually, um they're one of the smallest demographics of law breakers, who are typically all immoral for one reason or another in the eyes of society. It's a refutation of a religious stigma and a fallacy. Furthermore, it's the proposal that perhaps, since it's the religiously affiliated that make up the sum of convicts--these people having regimented their lives around a quantifiable ethos--that perhaps maybe this prevalence of the religious in cell block warrants an investigation.
Perhaps there may be something ugly and immoral about religion inherently that is inspiring this criminal behavior. I don't know what it could be: possibly the fact that the bible and the torah and the Qu'ran lionize, gentrify or apologize sexism, racism, infanticide, rape and terrorism--just to name a few things--mmmmaybe, just possibly, there's--since the incarcerated are a very small minority in society--that these religions are inspiring a very violent fringe element of terrorists and thugs. The percentage might be SMALL, but they make up for that in their radical behavior. That, sir, is worth of scrutiny and discourse.
It seems the people who DON'T subscribe to a totalitarian deity, who monitors and scrutinizes their every thought, word and action in a game of cosmic doll house--it seems THOSE people, who take full responsibility for their actions--who don't believe the Devil or God made them do it; or demanded it of them; or forgive them for it, whatever "it" may be--it seems these people aren't exhibiting behavior worthy of the state pen. And if it's fair to scrutinize WHY religion seems to be inducing a small and very violent fringe of the US population, then it's fair to ask why atheists make up the third smallest percentage of this group. That is if logic and debate mean anything to you.
Well, people keep saying dumb shit like that just because I say something that is proven them wrong, and thus the best defence is just call troll. By this point it has pretty much become a defence mechanism for people online.
Then you haven't read the comments.
Yes, this is backed up by the fact that the least religious nations in the world are also the most peaceful ones. This is a fact.
Well, google is your friend, but the more important point of this was that if Christians are so great, good, awesome and moral, then there shouldn't be a single one in jail, no, it should all be "evil" Muslims, baby-eating Atheists etc.
A, B + C. Without doing any complicated maths. The US goes something like this: 6+% Atheists and 73% Christians. So by the looks of it (when compared to inmates), it means that Atheists are less likely to go to jail. Which does make a lot of sense, Atheists don't have a book that tells me to rape their enemies virgins, to stone children to death etc.
What point? That if Christians weren't total assholes then they wouldn't be in jail at all and that Christianity doesn't make people good? Then yes!
Provoking Christians? Good. Then I'm achieving that I want to. Persuasive? Haha, yeah, that's because Christians don't live in reality. You can't use facts to make Christians change their mind, because their book says Earth is flat, and that is just the way it is! And you better watch out or they will throw you off the edge of the world XD sorry, I was just laughing really hard when I wrote this XD What do you mean? You sound like I'm trying to convert people... I've no interest of converting anyone or anything. I'm not a Christian. I don't try to brainwash people. Hm? Yes, I'm part of the Illuminati, you couldn't possibly understand our plans for world conquest! Muhahaha! Anyway, I do have good conversations from time to time here, but they are as rare as the intelligence of Christians. Almost non-existing!
Science has proven the Bible wrong countless times, so obviously Christians would never say it's on their side (beside those fucktards known as Creationists).
I found it a little boring. I would like to see something new rather than addressing old shit that I've already been over before. -with love from an Agnostic
I owe you an apology then. I was under the (false) impression that you were trying to make a compelling point in order to make Christians reconsider their position. In retrospect that seems unlikely and I jumped to a bad conclusion. You appear to be doing just fine at your stated goal. I will go fix my face.
Also the first thing anyone (anyone adverse to you or your perspective that is) is gonna say about atheists being peaceful is almost definitely going to be something about China. Don't know if you have something prepared for that already, but might be worth having -- if you feel like it.
Hmm, it seems you've withdrawn your vitriol. Then to summarize, all i'm saying is if we're willing to stipulate that religion is in fact inspiring the majority of, to be fair, small, very small, but very violent group in the US population, then it's perfectly tenable to speculate why, and debate the merits of said theorems. That being said, I could have been a little less brusque.
I should have scrolled down the rest of the comment page before responding to your initial statement. For that I apologize. Nobody needs to be brow beaten when they've already conceded.
First off, my entire effort was wasted because I thought I was looking at someone's attempt to make a complete, sound, logical argument citing empirical evidence to prove a point. That was my bad. This was never intended to be a rigorous attempt to prove something.
To further clarify, the source of my vitriol was not the topic of the argument, it was the misuse and abuse of statistical evidence it contained. Anytime someone tries to make an argument, even if it is one I agree with, if I notice them using bad logic or logical fallacies I feel compelled to underline why their argument fails to be compelling from an objective point of view. I also found the author to be, at times, a patronizing individual; this made it even harder to contain my vitriol. Anytime an argument implicitly disrespects the intelligence of whoever it is aimed at, I get a bit miffed. After all, how are you going to change their minds if you are already making them hate you?
I later realized that it was not intended as a scholarly study or anything of the sort, it was just rhetoric furthering a particular point of view. While not formally compelling, rhetoric is an entirely normal, and demonstrably effective, method of changing minds in a purely pragmatic sense.
If religion tends to use rhetoric, I suppose it seems reasonable that atheists/anti-theists might use it too. Sound logical argument has not really done the trick, and people have been trying logic for hundreds if not thousands of years. Perhaps a more human, pragmatic approach is duly justified.
In summary: I have no great personal investment in this topic, however, I do enjoy digesting a good argument. So, when I see a bad argument, I will often call its author out on it. Frankly, the other side of this particular debate has some of the more interesting arguments (rare though they are) and that isn't surprising; they have a much steeper hill to climb and have to come up with some outrageous stuff to make it work. Furthermore, very few logic oriented intellectuals throw their lot in with the other camp, and that makes an actual sound argument in support of religion extremely rare, even exotic.
I don't really know two shits about China (and most people outside of China doesn't either). But in places like Denmark, Atheism comes naturally to people because they are less ignorant than a lot of other people and are averagely pretty well educated. But Atheism in China is forced (as far as I know), like you can't make a party for politics if you're religious and stuff like that. What I'm trying to get at is that the people of China aren't Atheists because they're well educated (please note that the better educated people are; the more empathic they become (for the majority), this is a fact backed up by several studies), but rather because it's forced on them.
PS. This thought wasn't well thought out, but you probably get the general gist of it.
How do you qualify that statement? Do any minorities lack civil rights? Pretty sure they can all vote, get credit from banks and operate in even the echelons of central government. This isn't to say prejudice isn't an element, it certainly is, but that effects equality of outcome not opportunity. This fallacy is commonplace in feminist rhetoric.
However, just because blacks or asians or whatever (pick your people) are in big government or are an element of industry or social media, doesn't mean they're enjoying equal rights. It means those individuals were personally motivated to pursue their positions and careers; and ultimately achieved them. That's all we know for certain. What should be delved into is the cultural and individual motivations that induced their decisions.
The Janissaries of the Ottoman empire made up the majority of its infrastructure. They were the architects, the scholars, the lawyers, the clerks and even the grand vizier: but they were still christian slaves, ripped from their families as boys and trained nearly to death, with no value for who they were; so, as a result, they focused on what they could do, emphasizing their utility as social appliances. Thus the fringe control the center: because the pariahs are the most motivated to be invulnerable; or, if that's not possible, then simply irresponsible as blameless victims.
Okay, using Orwell's trick for find out who runs things let's ask the question: who can't I criticize?
It's not white people, I can promise you that.
You can't stand criticism? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Conservatives? Liberals? Feminists? Women? These seem to be the groups who cannot stand to be mocked, scrutinized or criticized; who go into a frothing rage when you question their behavior.
You seem to be missing a lot of American history (and 'while people' history as well) if you're seriously saying things like that.
I've no problem with criticism, I honestly rarely comment on good criticism. I wouldn't call what you said for criticism. But I find this topic to be of such little interest that I honestly don't give a fuck. Americans are about as racist as they are fat (and ignorant, and poorly averagely educated etc.), plus/minus.
I must confess confusion as to where you get this idea that there should be no Christians in jail. The US legal system and the Christian ideology are two completely different entities, so being good as defined by one is not the good that is defined by the other.
Because America is a Christian nation? See how I used that against you? ^_^ but it's good to know that the vast majority of criminal scum in the US are a matter of fact; Christians. -with love from an Agnostic
Aaaand so what? We're also one of the largest countries in the entire fucking world. We're a sub-continent with multiple hundreds of millions of people. We're not small by any stretch; so of COURSE we have a higher rate of convictions than most.
What of it? Does that mean we're more violent or do we just have a more efficient police force? Do we just allow people more rights and sometimes they abuse them, because we don't live in North Korea? And, really, we're higher in percentage than North Korea? The country that will jail you for listening to the radio? Percentage wise how much higher REALLY are we compared to other countries? And how much better are our civil liberties, nor our infrastructure, not our amenities, our liberties, our freedom of speech and rights to assumbly, how good are those? Because there is a correlation between a freedom of ideas and the capacity for radical fringe elements in a given society. But that's just logic speaking.
No it isn't. Now you're just saying dumb shit. The Bible supports rape, misogyny, slavery, murder, human sacrifice etc. that is not opinion. So please keep your stupidity and ignorance to yourself. Ignorant and dumb people are not welcome here. Be gone! Also, if you're a Christian, then I find it a bit odd that you draw stuff about magic, technically, the Bible says that you should be stoned to death for that. God bless the stupid <3 -with love from an Agnostic
Randomly select 100 people in the world the ones most likely to appear would be Han Chinese simply by the fact that they are the most numerous people on Earth. It's the same idea just with religion instead of nationality.
Um, no. No, not at all. Religious pedants differ wildly on everything more beliefs to scripture even when they share a common faith. There are catholics who believe in Thekla as a saint. There are catholics who believe in transmutation. There are catholics who hang themselves by crosses to empathize with christ. there are catholics who whip themselves for the same reason.
There are catholics who hate protestants and catholics who coexist peacefully. One religion can have multiple breed of believers.
Nothing is ever simple where religion is involved. Take it from an anti-theist. Religions invented NAFALT.
What's your point? This still doesn't negate what I said. On top of that the last person I would "take it from" regarding religion would be an anti-theist. That's like expecting fair and even information from a homophobe about the sexualities.
The point, dude, is that you can't base it entirely on their religious AFFILIATION! I'm on the theists' side here, thank you very much.
For every "catholic" who believes in the virgin mary; and the immaculate conception; and the trinity; and that Joseph's sons and daughters were from his former wife before Mary, there's a hundred cafeteria catholics who believe in even MORE variations of the stories: they pick and choose what doctrine they subscribe to. I mentioned the cult of thekla, because it's not in the official canon: it's part of the lost scriptures that were discarded from the proposed drafts of the biblia, or "the books", which translates into the anglicized "the bible". Despite the fact Thekla, a self-baptizing saint--who did something that not even CHRIST did himself, insisting baptism by John "to fulfill all righteousness"--despite the fact this chick wasn't even in the bible, they still believe in her. There's a group of catholic nuns who famously and openly worship this self-appointed saint. From a story that was so absurd and self-flattering to the mary sue main character that literally even the VATICAN said 'this is some serious bullshit'; and, chuckling, excluded it from the staple dogma. It's an apostolic story so it doesn't interfere that much with the messianic narrative. Except the fact that you've got a self-baptizing "feminist" saint: but it's worshiped. People think she's real, people who identify as catholics: people who will openly claim catholicism as their faith on public record. They believe in a character the popes didn't believe in when were making their derpy scriptures : even though they're supposed to believe everything the pope says about the bible and the church. That's roman catholicism, i.e. catholicism 101. See the complication here? There are CLEARLY more variables than one's faith by affiliation to consider in the convict rates. You can't just ask someone what their religion is, you have to ask them what they honestly believe to determine whether their faith is even a variable. More likely a lack of education or an abusive family history are the cause for their dalliance with the law.
Me being an anti-theist doesn't mean anything, expect to point out that I've reasoned with religious people about their paradoxical and backwards dogma. It doesn't make my opinion any less "biased" than a practicing rabbi or cardinal or preacher. These people make a living off these faiths: you don't think they have a bigger investment in arguing their legitimacy than me? That's an absurd analogy with a clumsy buzz word, designed to forgo debate: to stifle dissent. And I can see right through it.
And another sheep says the exact same thing the other 300 sheep said, and then once again I'll have to point out that if Christians are good people then not even a single one would be in jail. Read the comments section next time, kkthxbai. -with love from an Agnostic
Are you suggesting christians are infallible? Or perfectly schooled in every law, unlike most people in any given society? I believe the essential premise of Christianity is making mistakes with an eternal safety net, Christ, to redeem their innocence. It would seem to me that nothing about that premise implies these people are less prone to making mistakes.
You're talking to an anti-theist, dude. I'm not against criticizing religion, I'm just saying your points are flawed.
Well, it's not enough to look at the religions of the incarcerated: that's what I'm saying. Their affiliations are hardly their beliefs. There's a mountain of factors, most of them--I'd content--having to do with poverty and child abuse.
I don't agree, the more religious the more criminals. You can go look at those nations with many religious people compared to those with very few religious people. The religious ones are almost always a shit-hole.
I'm not saying that other factors doesn't matter, but the truth is that religion makes people fucked up in their heads. Most criminal youth here in Denmark are Muslims, and nearly all rapes in Sweden are Muslims too.