Is there anything stopping the christians from having their own schools, private schools. Why insist it be in public schools?Quote by: Affluence
Is there anything stopping the christians from having their own schools, private schools. Why insist it be in public schools?
I fail to see any correlation between immoral family structure and the rise in Atheism. And this forum can hardly be said to be representative of the country. For one thing, many Christians don't debate their beliefs. You only blatantly misinterpret these facts because you don't like atheists.
"...like evolution, the theory [of gravity] will eventually be replaced with a model which acknowledges God as the source of all things."
Conservapedia 2007 "Gravity"
I don't see any evidence that the atheist population has "exploded" in size, nor do I see any evidence for a rise in immoral behavior. What I see is that a larger number of immoral acts get broadcast everywhere for everyone to see.
As for the prision population being overwhelmingly christian, the problem with that statistic is that (1) most people in the USA are Christians, and (2) in the prison system there are many faith-based programs that allow the incarcerated to participate in activities that result in certifications that can help persuade parole boards (along with faith-based affirmations at such meetings) to allow the prisoner release.
Two reasons that there are few (or no) people in prison claiming to be atheists is (1) it doesn't endear you to the rest of the prison population, and (2) parole boards mistrust atheists.
As to whether or not atheists can be trusted: ask yourself this: why are laws punishable if broken? Instead of laws, why not just posit a general guideline, like "you shouldn't kill others" or "you shouldn't steal", without any formal punishment even if you don't follow the guideline?
We make laws punishable to serve as a deterrent (as well as to remove offenders from the population), because we believe that unless there is an actual deterrance - or the threat of a real and serious punishment - that many more people will do harmful things to others. IOW, we believe that there is a large number of people that would do X unless there is a severe penalty for doing X.
Judeo-Christian religions and karma-based spiritual systems are secondary penalty systems that extend the penalty system into area where secular authorities fail - i.e., where they have no laws, or where they cannot see or prevent or catch violaters. IOW, the secular system might fail to catch and punish you, but god or karma never miss such actions.
Whether real or imagined, the sense that someone or something is observing your behavior generates more pro-social behavior. From the abstract in this study:
In this study, just being under the watchful gaze of printed eyes almost tripled contributions to a common cause.Subjects allocated more money to anonymous strangers when God concepts were implicitly activated than when neutral or no concepts were activated.
In this study, those that believed they were behaving anonymously (i.e., unobserved) behaved 4 times less generously.
It seems to me that the mistrust of atheists is well-founded; while they might behave morally or ethically in public, since they have no supernatural force or law observing them when no one else is watching and which would deliver implacable penalty, they are likely more prone to bad behavior if they can get away with it.
Last edited by Meleagar; 7th August 2009 at 09:56 AM.
Their premise is severely flawed anyway. It's not as if all Christians think it is immoral
and unethical to take another life, for example. They do that kind of stuff quite often, actually.
Grandpa h.
Post by post, building his arguments by smashing a couple of theirs -- for America.
Sorry buddy, the bolded part is a non-sequitur, the conclusion doesn't follow from your linked studies at all. The linked studies did no comparison to religiosity vs. secular, and it would be my guess that since as you pointed out that the Christian prison population is high because the general population is high, these studies speak mostly of christians who participated in these studies. So this works against your own argument. However, you neglected to note that even though the christian population is the majority (in general and prison populations) the atheist population in prison is not proportional to general vs. prison population. While the general population of atheist may only be 3% (personally I think its higher), the prison population is less than 1% atheist. You've provided no evidence that atheists keep quiet about their atheism in prison, and only offered conjecture that they keep quiet for their own safety, from who? "Good Christians"? LOL BTW, the first link didn't work at all, gave me some kind of cookie error, do you have to be a registered member to access article?
The fact remains there is no evidence that Christians behave any better than atheists just because they have a book of rules or feel someone is watching them. It also speaks poorly of christians who only contribute BECAUSE something or someone is watching. It gives the appearance that they are giving only to avoid hell or gain heaven.
P.S. Did you ever read the PM I had Cruela send you?
I repaired the link.
Since the increased sense of being watched increases moral or ethical behavior, it's a reasonable logical extrapolation (but not proof) that belief systems which engender a sense of being watched all the time generate increased moral and ethical behavior all the time, whereas a belief system where one is not being watched some of the time promotes less ethical behavior where one is not being watched. These studies directly indicate this; when they prime people with god beliefs (or other watchful beliefs or influences) before such tests, they behave more ethically and morally.
You've provided no evidence about the population of atheists in prison at all, so I concluded we were having an argument based on conjecture.You've provided no evidence that atheists keep quiet about their atheism in prison, and only offered conjecture that they keep quiet for their own safety.
Please support this assertion.The fact remains there is no evidence that Christians behave any better than atheists just because they have a book of rules or feel someone is watching them.
Irrelevant to the topic.It also speaks poorly of christians who only contribute BECAUSE something or someone is watching. It gives the appearance that they are giving only to avoid hell or gain heaven.
Yes.P.S. Did you ever read the PM I had Cruela send you?
I don't think it has to go to the point of considering education... just geography. People in mid-America are, typically, of the more extreme Christian variety. Naturally they would score higher on the distrust of all things non-Christian.
It also makes sense that they would trust them less than other groups... because all those other groups still profess, or could profess, a belief in *some* kind of higher power.
Disagree with them on a fundamental difference of ideology, and they won't trust you, just like the rest of us.
I don't see what's debate-worthy about the topic.
I think the names of some of these groups are comical. Last Sunday I attended an atheistic church service under the guise of "Feed Your Brain" located at the "Center for Inquiry" in Los Angeles." Yet, all 300+ books in the book room were anti-Protestant or anti-bible, even if they were titled in the pro-_____ sense... they all refuted biblical claims. How restricting is that?
The speaker, Richard Carrier, chose to refute the easiest target imaginable. I had never even heard of J.P. Holding or his website - yet Mr. Carrier was up there acting like he had really accomplished something by demonstrating Holding's thesis was weak and unfounded. I asked him why he hadn't chosen a more reputable apologist and he responded that he was paid $6000.00 to refute Holding and didn't have the personal time to go after others without funding from somewhere.
When I challenged his history (his PhD is in history) on how the church could be a struggling band of renegades until the 4th century when Rome began supporting it, yet many reputable historians put the number of martyrs over 100,000 before that point, his response was, "This is not a debate. Next question." I wouldn't doubt one bit if that gets edited out of the final video either.
So much for 'feeding *my* brain' or a 'center' where 'inquiry' is welcome.
Well, after being brought out of a sound sleep by Jehovah Witness's or Mormons and other irritations, the atheists once in a while like to be with those of there own persuasion and not have to endure harassments of proselytizers. Little wonder the Pope didn't speak and hymnals were not in evidence. Did they pass a plate?
Good questions for Carrier. Now you know how a speaker makes money. Good gig if you can swing it and like to travel. I've my own version. I'm paid not to speak.The speaker, Richard Carrier, chose to refute the easiest target imaginable. I had never even heard of J.P. Holding or his website - yet Mr. Carrier was up there acting like he had really accomplished something by demonstrating Holding's thesis was weak and unfounded. I asked him why he hadn't chosen a more reputable apologist and he responded that he was paid $6000.00 to refute Holding and didn't have the personal time to go after others without funding from somewhere.
When I challenged his history (his PhD is in history) on how the church could be a struggling band of renegades until the 4th century when Rome began supporting it, yet many reputable historians put the number of martyrs over 100,000 before that point, his response was, "This is not a debate. Next question." I wouldn't doubt one bit if that gets edited out of the final video either.
So much for 'feeding *my* brain' or a 'center' where 'inquiry' is welcome.
Bet you even some of the atheists in the crowd were disappointed with Carrier. I would have been and for just the reasons you mentioned.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
They collected at the door before entering AND had the nerve to ask for more from the willing... but no plates were passed.
The kid that brought me, my daughter's ex bf, has been trying to become an atheist for three years now. He was sorely disappointed with Carrier's presentation. The first third was a sales pitch for his book, the next third was disparaging Holding (the man himself), and the last third was a brief on the content of his book in light of Holding's original claims. I read Carrier's web refutation before coming and was looking forward to a good discussion on comparative martyrdom and motives. Unfortunately, I was cut-off before getting into the meat of the matter.
Apparently is it not a reasonable logical extrapolation since the study with the eyes was done with an ordinary office population and if this can be representative of the general population, the majority were christian, still acting as all other people in the group. There MAY have been bad christians and there MAY have been bad atheists. No conclusion can be honestly extrapolated based on your own evidence.
This topic has been discusses many times here and the evidence has been presented, my apologies if you've never seen the evidence, but here you go.... so now I hope you return the favor and support your argument....You've provided no evidence about the population of atheists in prison at all, so I concluded we were having an argument based on conjecture.
Note, the Catholic and protestants ARE representative of the General Population of the country, where atheists are roughly .21% of the general population of atheists in the country.Appendix: 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons from Denise Golumbaski, as formatted in Rice/Swift
Note that in this version, the names of a couple of religious groups remain non-standardized, and self-identified "Atheist" remains separate from "Unknown/None."
Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%
Hindu 119 0.159%
Santeria 117 0.157%
Sikh 14 0.019%
Bahai 9 0.012%
Krishna 7 0.009%
---------------------------- --------
Total Known Responses 74731 100.001%
illogical request, if there is no evidence, there is nothing to support. If I said there is no evidence that you murdered someone, would you ask me to support that? or would you search for evidence that you did murder someone? If I said that are no white swans, you could take my word for it or provide evidence to the contrary. This is your option, provide evidence to the contrary, that atheist are less moral than christians.Please support this assertion.
nice dodge, but ok, I can accept that.Irrelevant to the topic.
not interested in a more challenging debate? You're satisfied that you won a debate against someone not equipped to debate you properly? You couldn't have responded in PMs? Thanks.Yes.
There is research, Meleagar, to suggest you're wrong. In fact, at least one study--see Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies--suggests the opposite, that religiosity does not positively correlate to moral behavior. For an article that discusses this study see God would be an atheist: Why can't we all be Japanese?: Religion fosters bad behavior.
Do you have any empirical evidence to support your view? If you don't, would it be unfair to consider our opinion an example of religious intolerance and bigotry?
I for one can find no evidence to support the slightest notion that atheists are, by virtue of not believing in a god, worthy of mistrust.
Perhaps you personally need the sense of someone watching you in order to behave ethically, but that doesn't mean the rest of us do.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd - Voltaire
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks