Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 184185186187188 191>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 07:59
I'm starting to doubt the existence of this thread.  I wonder what that makes me? Tongue

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 06 2009 at 08:13
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 07:58
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Belief in the existence of god is not the same as believing in god - no one would deny that satan (if he existedWink) would believe in the existence of god, though I doubt that he believes in god. So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god.
 
Atheism is a non-belief, so cannot be an act faith, [I've rewritten this paragraph several times now and it is very difficult to explain] - a christian believes that god exists - an atheist does not have that belief. 
 
Believing is different concept than worshiping, Im sure that Satan believes in God, because God created Satan.
 
BTW: Your definition af atheism is not exact, or beter said selective, you are ignoring POSITIVE ATHEISTS:
 
Quote
 
"positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.
 
So it's a fact that for some atheists (I believe the majority), Atheism is a system of beliefs.
Not ignoring or being selective, just not quoting a load of irrelevant philosophising. Atheism is not a "system", there is no ritual or codex to follow, no rules to adhere to, if it is "belief" then it is a figure of speech - it is belief with a small "b". The problem is that language was developed in parallel with religious belief - there is no word that adequately replaces the word "belief" when referring to non-religious concepts because one was never needed before.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of a god by the same reasoning that a christian does not need to prove the non-existence of Apollo, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. There is no proof to the non-existence of Zeus, but asserting that he did not exist is not regarded as an act of faith. 
 
Don't be so sure, for example the religious order, Forn Siðr (Odin worshipers) was granted permission to have an exclusively pagan burial ground in Denmark, so if there is people worshiping Odin and officially accepted by the Danish Government, why not Zeus?.
 
You can verify this at http://www.fornsidr.dk/dk/50#p1
 
And if I believe Jehova, Yaveh or the one with no name (Ego sum qui sum) is the true God, then I believe Odin is not God.
Some forms of Odinism are particularly unpleasant and support racism - whether that is sanctioned as a true religion by one nation is immaterial to me and does not ratify the existence of Odin as a god. It is clear that the present day paganism is a reinvention in name only, not a continuation of an ancient belief.
 
In the 2001 official population census 0.78% of the population of England and Wales declared themselves to be of the Jedi religion - the government has not officially sanctioned Jedi as being a true religion, but it does show on official statistics as being the forth most popular religion in the country ("390,000 Jedi there are"). Over half a million people across the English-speaking world have declared themselves Jedi on census forms. You don't need to believe that The Force does not exist - you know it is a fiction from the mind of George Lucas.
 
In the modern era the ancient gods of Greece, Rome, Egypt, Scandinavia, Central America, etc. are regarded as mythology - having people still worshipping those gods today does not validate them.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Belief in the existence of a monotheistic god automatically denies the existence of all other god-like entities ("I am a jealous god, worship no other god but me" - is not a statement that other gods exist, but a warning against worshipping false gods - "I am the first and the last, there is no god beside me"). In principle if the existence of any non-Abrahamic god could be proved then that would essential prove the non-existence of  Jehovah.
 
The existence of an only God doesn't imply he is jealous, of who can he be jealous if the other gods don't exist?
That is a matter of interpretation not of proven truth. At the time of writing down the scriptures there were many tribes worshipping many different gods, most middle eastern religions were polytheistic. The first documented believers in a monotheistic religion were the followers of Aten in Egypt from the 14th century BCE and some historians have speculated that there is a link between Judaism and Atenism through Moses who was born in Egypt some 50 years after the fall of Atenism as the sole religion of Egypt and 200 years after the arrival of the Israelites into Egypt. I am not claiming that the god of Israel is synonymous with Aten, but simple observing that on seeing that a nation could easily fall back into polytheistic ways the scripture writers would need to declare that their god would be displeased if his followers should revert back to worshipping the old gods, whom they believed to be false (fictional) gods. The god of Abraham is not jealous of other gods, but of people worshipping other gods. Those other gods did not have to exist for god to be jealous. I maintain that for a monotheistic religion there can not be other gods.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  
And yes, we believe there's no other God, but some of us also believe that people see God in a different way than us, and that at the end all people worship the same God only that their perception of him is different.
 
As a fact on another thread i proved that Catholic Church admits salvation not only of Christians of other denominatioons, but also of non Christians who are faithful to their own moral code and search for God in a sincere way. 
 
Quote The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II:
 
5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
 
In other words, we are not talking of a jealous God for everybody, and you can't blame God for the misinterpretations of the humans.
 
Could this not be that the Catholic church is recognising that the god of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the same god without specifically recognising (ie naming) those religions - there is some speculative accounts that could also include Hinduism into that, with Vishnu equating to Jehovah and Jesus equating to Krishna, but I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable on the Hindu faith to comment on that. However, I doubt that it really refers to Apollo, Zeus, Odin or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

An atheist denies the existence of all gods, (not a belief, but an assertion; not a theory but an axiom), so would just add Jehovah and all the biblical angels and demons to the pantheon of mythical gods from other cultures
 
In other words
 
(Theories actually require proof to be regarded as a theory - a theory without proof is a hypothesis, an idea that requires no proof is an axiom.)
 
 
Atheism can't be an axiom, because an axiom by definition is self evident and is taken to be universally true.
 
A classical axiom is A = A doesn't need to be proved because it's self evident, but th eexistebnce or non existence of God is not elf evident neither universal, you don't prove God doesn't exist becauise is beyond your capacity.
 
yeah, you are correct - I did not think that through when I wrote it - Atheism is not an axiom since it is not self evident, however Atheism is still not a theory - it does not have to be proven or more importantly, need to be proven - which is also true of theism.
 
Nobody has to prove anything - a christian doesn't need to prove the existence of god to believe and an atheist does not need to prove, or disprove, anything - in fact an atheist doesn't need to do anything Wink.
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

 Sorry but only 16% of the world inhabitants are Atheists or Agnostics (  http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ), so hardly the non existence of God is taken as a universal truth, Atheists may believe it's an axiom, but it's only a theory or an act of faith if you want but in no way an axiom because doesn't fit the characteristic of being universally accepted as true, much less is self evident.
 
 
Iván
That page shows that only 54% of the population follow a monotheistic religion, 20% are polytheistic and 28% do not believe in a god of any form, at least not a creator-god. (erm... the maths does not add up Confused - rounding errors have distorted those numbers too much for them to be useful)
 
Universal truth does not rely on statistics and numbers. If 84% of the worlds population are on the wrong buses they will never arrive at their desired destination, that said, the other 16% are not on a bus at all because as far as they are concerned there is no destination.
 
 
 
Peace.
 
/edit - edited for spelling  Embarrassed


Edited by Dean - June 06 2009 at 08:04
What?
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 03:45
Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


I wish you would stop bringing the language of "proof" into this

But if we manage to prove God exists in this thread, he'll disappear and all the atheists will be happy! Douglas Adams ftw.
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 02:25
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so.
 
Then your lack of faith is an act of faith equivalent to our's, you have no proves but you believe he doesn't exist.
 
Your position is as valid as our's, deserves all respect, but it's only a theory because it can't be proved.
 
Iván


I wish you would stop bringing the language of "proof" into this because neither side can be proven strictly either way. I'm talking about evidence and logic, of which I think makes:

1) The likelihood of any religious text anywhere near accurate pretty far off, especially regarding miracles.

2) The existence of a creator unnecessary, unprovable, and hard to provide good evidence for which only it can account, which renders belief in one superfluous.

Then again, isn't it so self-centered of us to purport our logic to be universally applicable, as if it even stood a chance of proving the existence of something God is supposed to be? It could all be wrong for all we know. This is what renders strong belief in Atheism or Theism pointless, IMO. It's fun to talk about, but if you actually think you're really getting to the heart of the truth of the matter, it seems silly to me.
My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 02:24
Thanks deathrabbit, and i found some interesting data.
 
Most of the Catholics arrested and convicted in USA are:
  1. Young Latino inmigrants
  2. Most of them living in extreme poverty
  3. Most of them members of violent gangs
  4. A great percentage of them illegal
  5. Most of them with poor defence in a trial.
  6. Almost 90%  of Latinos are Catholics (At least by name)

But you forget the real truth: Poor inmigrants, members of a violent gang will probably commit violent crimes and most surely be convicted because they aren't able to pay a decent defence.

Let me put another example:
 
  1. All members of Maoist Shinning Path who killed 50,000 innocent Peruvianms are atheists
  2. All members of the Kmer Rouge who killed almost a million Cambodians were atheists
  3. Then Atheists have more chances to be criminal terrorists.

Of course this is BS, I'm leaving many facts behind, like that radical communists embrace Atheism for political interests.

Iván
 
            
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:48
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Please chjeck all the posibilities I gave you.
 
Iván

I was just make a point about statistics, wasn't trying to indict you. There's a book I want to read called "How to Lie with Statistics." Addresses all sorts of issues. The base problem is that there are way too many people w/o solid math backgrounds tryign to run around doing statistics. Further, most statistics are not generated by a divested body.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:45
Please check all the posibilities I gave you.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 06 2009 at 02:13
            
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:42
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by progmetalhead progmetalhead wrote:

With the utmost respect Ivan.
 
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
 
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
 
It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.

In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.

In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.

In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.
 
In first place:  Haven't given any religious response, all my replies are based in logic, I'm not preaching, never did it in this forum and never will.
 
Now to that letter:
  1. Any person who says Atheists can't be moral, is a bigot and a stupid, morality is independent of any religious belief.
  2. I would have to check this statistics, but the posibilities are many
    1. Almost every atheist was born and raised inside a religion, many of this people surely are in fact atheists or agnostics that only have a nominal link towards a religion.
    2. What about the other states, and places in the world?
    3. The people with no religious training (their words) are an infimous minority, almost every atheist was raised inside a religion
    4. In countries were Catholics are minority, they can be harrased (As a fact Irish Catholics were harrassed in USA for a long time) as black people was harrassed and falsely arrested as in USA a few years ago.
    5. Most prissoners claim to be religious as a way to receive indulgence
    6. This data could be  inacurate

Of course they are implying that religious people are inmoral and Atheists are the moral?

If that's the case, it's exactly the same bigotry and stupidity as saying Atheists are inmoral.
 
But please, I gave a few arguments in reply to Dean's post which you so enthusiatically  congratulated...Is my reply wrong or acurate?
 
Iván


Just a quick thing point it out it's not necessarily bigoted to say that  people who follow philosophy X are more likely to commit crimes if the data supports it. What is bigoted is to say it's because of philosophy X that they commit more crimes. (w/o further proof, eliminating other factors, maybe philosophy X is more likely to manifest in groups with factor Y which actually causes violence) Correlation does not imply causation. It's even further bigoted to bring it down to the level where, one says "You believe in philosophy X, you immoral b*****d!"
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:26
Originally posted by progmetalhead progmetalhead wrote:

With the utmost respect Ivan.
 
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
 
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
 
It's unnecessary to quote the letter, it's in your post
 
In first place:  Haven't given any religious response, all my replies are based in logic, I'm not preaching, never did it in this forum and never will.
 
Now to that letter:
  1. Any person who says Atheists can't be moral, is a bigot and a stupid, morality is independent of any religious belief.
  2. I would have to check this statistics, but the posibilities are many
    1. Almost every atheist was born and raised inside a religion, many of this people surely are in fact atheists or agnostics that only have a nominal link towards a religion.
    2. What about the other states, and places in the world?
    3. The people with no religious training (their words) are an infimous minority, almost every atheist was raised inside a religion
    4. In countries were Catholics are minority, they can be harrased (As a fact Irish Catholics were harrassed in USA for a long time) as black people was harrassed and falsely arrested as in USA a few years ago.
    5. Most prissoners claim to be religious as a way to receive indulgence
    6. This data could be  inacurate

Of course they are implying that religious people are inmoral and Atheists are the moral?

If that's the case, it's exactly the same bigotry and stupidity as saying Atheists are inmoral.
 
But please, I gave a few arguments in reply to Dean's post which you so enthusiatically  congratulated...Is my reply wrong or acurate?
 
Iván
 
EDIT: I witnesed this, a huge number of Shinnig Path (Moisrt Pol potioan Movement) shouted "We cant be terrorists we are catholics"
 
We all know Maoists are atheists.
 
Of course this means nothing except many ctriminals clame to be religious to gain sympathy and credibillity from the naive fundamentalists who believe every person can be saved by religion, but his same people who proclaimentheir catholicism, marched inside the prisons with red flags and uniforms singing military songs..


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 06 2009 at 01:43
            
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:23
Originally posted by progmetalhead progmetalhead wrote:

With the utmost respect Ivan.
 
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
 
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
 
It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.

In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.

In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.

In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.


I'm sorry but  most of this data is meaningless to prove anything either way. If I have a bag with 100 m&ms and only 2 are red, then I can draw out 5 at random and there's a still a 90% chance none are red. The only one of any use is the last paragraph, but even that is too flawed to make a conclusive statement a differing populace is used as the basis of comparison (IE: How are the Catholics geographically distributed?) I might very well be persuaded to thinking that religious beliefs can have a higher coincidence with crime, but this post isn't going to do it.

DISCLAIMER: I have no idea what percentage of the country are actually atheist, but in my experience, I don't think I've personally met many that weren't at least agnostic.


Edited by Deathrabbit - June 06 2009 at 01:31
Back to Top
Failcore View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 01:12
Atheism to me seems to be a belief if you ever thought about the concept of God or lack thereof. If you truly never pondered the question, only then would atheism not be a belief. I could pull out a nice existentialist argument, but I don't feel like it right now.
Back to Top
progmetalhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2007
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2081 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 00:08
With the utmost respect Ivan.
 
Seeing as you have quoted adherents, maybe you will let us have your views on the following (also from adherents)
 
Or as I expect we will see an atypical religious reply????
 
It's surprising how many people remark to me, "You're an Atheist? You must have no conscience about committing crime then." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if we examine the population of our prisons, we see a very different picture.

In "The New Criminology," Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so.

During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian.

Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories, checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance."

Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious.

In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious.

Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers.

In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112

Colt - Admin Team MMA

Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2009 at 00:05
I don't need to prove it, therefore it's not a belief.  It's fact to me.  A belief is something I would be unsure about.  My atheism does not waver and I do not doubt it.  Therefore, to me, it's not a belief.  Even if I did admit to it being a belief, it still does not make me adhere to a belief system, as you say.

I never said you were the one who created that term.  I just think all these silly terms are pointless.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:55
Originally posted by James James wrote:

Weak and strong atheism? LOL

I wish people wouldn't keep coming up with these crap and pointless terminologies.

Atheism isn't a series of beliefs either.  Not to me, anyhow.  I don't believe in the existence of God(s), therefore I cannot be adhering to a belief system.  I know God doesn't exist.  I cannot prove this but I know.
 
James, I'm not the one who created this terms, as a fact is a term created by an atheist named Gora if I'm not wrong, and the majority of them (almost sure of this) adopt the Posititive atheism, while Richard Dawkins adopts negative atheism.
 
And please, if you can't prove something, it's just a belief, only if you can prove it is a fact.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 06 2009 at 00:02
            
Back to Top
VanderGraafKommandöh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 04 2005
Location: Malaria
Status: Offline
Points: 89372 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:50
Weak and strong atheism? LOL

I wish people wouldn't keep coming up with these crap and pointless terminologies.

Atheism isn't a series of beliefs either.  Not to me, anyhow.  I don't believe in the existence of God(s), therefore I cannot be adhering to a belief system.  I know God doesn't exist.  I cannot prove this but I know.
Back to Top
progmetalhead View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 15 2007
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 2081 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:50
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so.
 
Then your lack of faith is an act of faith equivalent to our's, you have no proves but you believe he doesn't exist.
 
Your position is as valid as our's, deserves all respect, but it's only a theory because it can't be proved.
 
Iván
Belief in the existence of god is not the same as believing in god - no one would deny that satan (if he existedWink) would believe in the existence of god, though I doubt that he believes in god. So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god. Atheism is a non-belief, so cannot be an act faith, [I've rewritten this paragraph several times now and it is very difficult to explain] - a christian believes that god exists - an atheist does not have that belief.
 
An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of a god by the same reasoning that a christian does not need to prove the non-existence of Apollo, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. There is no proof to the non-existence of Zeus, but asserting that he did not exist is not regarded as an act of faith. 
 
Belief in the existence of a monotheistic god automatically denies the existence of all other god-like entities ("I am a jealous god, worship no other god but me" - is not a statement that other gods exist, but a warning against worshipping false gods - "I am the first and the last, there is no god beside me"). In principle if the existence of any non-Abrahamic god could be proved then that would essential prove the non-existence of  Jehovah.
 
An atheist denies the existence of all gods, (not a belief, but an assertion; not a theory but an axiom), so would just add Jehovah and all the biblical angels and demons to the pantheon of mythical gods from other cultures.
 
(Theories actually require proof to be regarded as a theory - a theory without proof is a hypothesis, an idea that requires no proof is an axiom.)
 
 
Thumbs Up
 
Thanks Dean for putting it so succinctly!
 
Something I miserably failed to do in another thread recently.
 
 
....and that is why I am an atheist.
 
Anything else defies logic.
 
http://www.last.fm/user/colt2112

Colt - Admin Team MMA

Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 23:40
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Belief in the existence of god is not the same as believing in god - no one would deny that satan (if he existedWink) would believe in the existence of god, though I doubt that he believes in god. So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god.
 
Atheism is a non-belief, so cannot be an act faith, [I've rewritten this paragraph several times now and it is very difficult to explain] - a christian believes that god exists - an atheist does not have that belief. 
 
Believing is different concept than worshiping, Im sure that Satan believes in God, because God created Satan.
 
BTW: Your definition af atheism is not exact, or beter said selective, you are ignoring POSITIVE ATHEISTS:
 
Quote
 
"positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.
 
So it's a fact that for some atheists (I believe the majority), Atheism is a system of beliefs.
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of a god by the same reasoning that a christian does not need to prove the non-existence of Apollo, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. There is no proof to the non-existence of Zeus, but asserting that he did not exist is not regarded as an act of faith. 
 
Don't be so sure, for example the religious order, Forn Siðr (Odin worshipers) was granted permission to have an exclusively pagan burial ground in Denmark, so if there is people worshiping Odin and officially accepted by the Danish Government, why not Zeus?.
 
You can verify this at http://www.fornsidr.dk/dk/50#p1
 
And if I believe Jehova, Yaveh or the one with no name (Ego sum qui sum) is the true God, then I believe Odin is not God.
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Belief in the existence of a monotheistic god automatically denies the existence of all other god-like entities ("I am a jealous god, worship no other god but me" - is not a statement that other gods exist, but a warning against worshipping false gods - "I am the first and the last, there is no god beside me"). In principle if the existence of any non-Abrahamic god could be proved then that would essential prove the non-existence of  Jehovah.
 
The existence of an only God doesn't imply he is jealous, of who can he be jealous if the other gods don't exist?
 
And yes, we believe there's no other God, but some of us also believe that people see God in a different way than us, and that at the end all people worship the same God only that their perception of him is different.
 
As a fact on another thread i proved that Catholic Church admits salvation not only of Christians of other denominatioons, but also of non Christians who are faithful to their own moral code and search for God in a sincere way. 
 
Quote The fate of non-Catholics, as expressed at Vatican II:
 
5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church."
 
In other words, we are not talking of a jealous God for everybody, and you can't blame God for the misinterpretations of the humans.
 
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

An atheist denies the existence of all gods, (not a belief, but an assertion; not a theory but an axiom), so would just add Jehovah and all the biblical angels and demons to the pantheon of mythical gods from other cultures
 
In other words
 
(Theories actually require proof to be regarded as a theory - a theory without proof is a hypothesis, an idea that requires no proof is an axiom.)
 
 
Atheism can't be an axiom, because an axiom by definition is self evident and is taken to be universally true.
 
A classical axiom is A = A doesn't need to be proved because it's self evident, but th eexistebnce or non existence of God is not elf evident neither universal, you don't prove God doesn't exist becauise is beyond your capacity.
 
Sorry but only 16% of the world inhabitants are Atheists or Agnostics (  http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ), so hardly the non existence of God is taken as a universal truth, Atheists may believe it's an axiom, but it's only a theory or an act of faith if you want but in no way an axiom because doesn't fit the characteristic of being universally accepted as true, much less is self evident.
 
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 06 2009 at 01:08
            
Back to Top
Atavachron View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65259 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 21:27
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god.
 


wow that one took me a few tries to get it, subtle
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 21:14
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by stonebeard stonebeard wrote:


Nowhere, of course. You'll never get beyond any doubt, likely. In my view, rational holes in religious texts and silly twisting of religious dogma is more important to counter than belief in God, even though I think there is enough evidence to make believing in a theist God less reasonable than not doing so.
 
Then your lack of faith is an act of faith equivalent to our's, you have no proves but you believe he doesn't exist.
 
Your position is as valid as our's, deserves all respect, but it's only a theory because it can't be proved.
 
Iván
Belief in the existence of god is not the same as believing in god - no one would deny that satan (if he existedWink) would believe in the existence of god, though I doubt that he believes in god. So while atheism is not believing in god, it is also the absence of belief in the existence of a god, this is not the same as a belief in the non existence of god. Atheism is a non-belief, so cannot be an act faith, [I've rewritten this paragraph several times now and it is very difficult to explain] - a christian believes that god exists - an atheist does not have that belief.
 
An atheist does not need to prove the non-existence of a god by the same reasoning that a christian does not need to prove the non-existence of Apollo, Odin or Quetzalcoatl. There is no proof to the non-existence of Zeus, but asserting that he did not exist is not regarded as an act of faith. 
 
Belief in the existence of a monotheistic god automatically denies the existence of all other god-like entities ("I am a jealous god, worship no other god but me" - is not a statement that other gods exist, but a warning against worshipping false gods - "I am the first and the last, there is no god beside me"). In principle if the existence of any non-Abrahamic god could be proved then that would essential prove the non-existence of  Jehovah.
 
An atheist denies the existence of all gods, (not a belief, but an assertion; not a theory but an axiom), so would just add Jehovah and all the biblical angels and demons to the pantheon of mythical gods from other cultures.
 
(Theories actually require proof to be regarded as a theory - a theory without proof is a hypothesis, an idea that requires no proof is an axiom.)
 
What?
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 05 2009 at 20:32
^You're more than welcome Epignosis... in this thread, if we discussion is about the existence or no of god, it's ok.... if the discussion is more about certain christian beliefs, I guess the other thread would be better...
 
Great discussion so far... I have had much pleasure reading it... You can learn a lot from diverse opinions...If not cienticial knowledge, you can learn tolerance, how to look things from two perspectives...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 184185186187188 191>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.320 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.