Atheists and vegetarianism

[جوري]

Indeed.

Doing good because of fear of a punishment and/or a desire for reward is not a motivation that can be considered sincere. It is motivated entirely by self-interest.

I thought we discussed and concluded in the other thread until you stretched it beyond recognition that it is only the atheist endeavor to do out of reward and punishment given the loss for meta objectives and the need to focus on materialism in the here and now and you beautifully demonstrated that through and through.. changed your mind now because you are at a loss for substance?

all the best

 

[Skavau]

Some individuals indeed through their own volition choose not to live amongst civilized individuals and you are welcome to that life-style if you are capable of handling the consequences!

I meant specifically, why should someone not of a religious persuasion have to conform to religious principles? And which ones?

And what consequences are you speaking of here?

Which religions have I labeled as hedonistic?

Tetsujin bought up the fact that many different religious beliefs have had different understandings of what someone ought to do with say, the deceased. Some of these repulsed you.

Given that different religions all have widely different moral conclusions: how can it be accurate to state that all ethics comes from it? You certainly wouldn't agree with the ethics of Zoroastarianism, or Shinto. Why ought I accept the morality of your particular religion over another?

You sound like a oaf what is your point?

None whatsoever. It was just a side comment.

 

[Skavau]

I thought we discussed and concluded in the other thread until you stretched it beyond recognition that it is only the atheist endeavor to do out of reward and punishment given the loss for meta objectives and the need to focus on materialism in the here and now and you beautifully demonstrated that through and through.. changed your mind now because you are at a loss for substance?

What on earth do you mean by "loss for meta objectives"?

In any case, given your track record of misunderstanding just about everything I say - the answer is no. I never concluded such a thing. You just as usual thought I did. And as usual, you are wrong about it. There is no 'atheist endeavour' to do anything. Morality 'objectively' has the purpose of improving the lives and advancing the interests of humanity. It can have no other coherent meaning. All compassion, all altruism, all empathy rests upon a desire and an interest to enhance and assist another being.

 

[Justufy]

Tetsujin bought up the fact that many different religious beliefs have had different understandings of what someone ought to do with say, the deceased. Some of these repulsed you.

Given that different religions all have widely different moral conclusions: how can it be accurate to state that all ethics comes from it? You certainly wouldn't agree with the ethics of Zoroastarianism, or Shinto. Why ought I accept the morality of your particular religion over another?

Because thats what double standarts are for! ;D

 

[جوري]

I meant specifically, why should someone not of a religious persuasion have to conform to religious principles? And which ones?

The basic ones are the laws of the lands.. surely you've heard of the 'ten commandments' keeping with those is generally accepted. I know not eating your dead neighbor is a bit of a stretch on those ten but here is where your common sense might come into play, we hope!

And what consequences are you speaking of here?

It depends on the offense!

Tetsujin bought up the fact that many different religious beliefs have had different understandings of what someone ought to do with say, the deceased. Some of these repulsed you.

I wasn't repulsed by Zoroastrianism, I merely stated that their death towers are obsolete and negligible as atheist morality is negligible and that certainly doesn't equate with hedonism.. do you understand what the term means?

Given that different religions all have widely different moral conclusions: how can it be accurate to state that all ethics comes from it? You certainly wouldn't agree with the ethics of Zoroastarianism, or Shinto. Why ought I accept the morality of your particular religion over another?

Morality generally speaking is universal.. customs and practices are a separate issue, I certainly understand that the lot of you like to reach in for things far and between when at a loss for common sense if you are not sure you may ask!

None whatsoever. It was just a side comment.

You are free to those, as am I

What on earth do you mean by "loss for meta objectives"?

Working for things beyond the material grasp!

In any case, given your track record of misunderstanding just about everything I say - the answer is no. I never concluded such a thing. You just as usual thought I did. And as usual, you are wrong about it.

You can assert otherwise but your words said different :shade:

all the best

 

[Pygoscelis]

Do you really need to get so bellicose?

Dude, are you new here? Stop feeding our resident troll.

 

[جوري]

Dude, are you new here? Stop feeding our resident troll.

It is best to feed on genetically engineered bunk.. bunk is atheist brain food!

all the best

 

[Justufy]

dude, are you new here? Stop feeding our resident troll.

dont bait it!

 

[Justufy]

It is best to feed on genetically engineered bunk.. bunk is atheist brain food!

all the best

To latemg:

 

[Skavau]

The basic ones are the laws of the lands.. surely you've heard of the 'ten commandments' keeping with those is generally accepted. I know not eating your dead neighbor is a bit of a stretch on those ten but here is where your common sense might come into play, we hope!

The Ten Commandments?

The first three commandments are all to do with how to most effectively not upset God. These are not moral assertions, they are simply commands on respecting the 'dear leader'. The fourth commandment is an insistence I respect a specific day that I have no reason to respect from my perspective.

The requests to honour your parents, to not murder, to not lie or to not steal are fairly reasonable requests - but we can all reason and declare them from a completely secular perspective. They do not require an observance of the ten commandments in order to conform to them.

In addition, the commandments miss out very, rather important things. They do not condemn slavery. They do not condemn rape. They do not condemn torture. They do not condemn genocide and many other rather disastrous things.

I wasn't repulsed by Zoroastrianism, I merely stated that their death towers are obsolete and negligible as atheist morality is negligible and that certainly doesn't equate with hedonism.. do you understand what the term means?

This.... doesn't matter. You obviously disagree with the majority of religions, extinct or otherwise on what ought and ought not be done. That was my point. By your own reckoning, you aren't being consistent with the claim that morality comes from religion.

Morality generally speaking is universal.. customs and practices are a separate issue, I certainly understand that the lot of you like to reach in for things far and between when at a loss for common sense if you are not sure you may ask!

What moral edicts are universal specifically?

You can assert otherwise but your words said different

Of course, only you seem to think this. Funny that.

 

[جوري]

To latemg:

you don't really need to quote me to make another one of your non-points.
If you don't like it here, you can take your atheist pal and start your own forum. what say you? pointing out 'trolling' by being a troll is rather self defeating in both your cases!

all the best

 

[جوري]

The Ten Commandments?

The first three commandments are all to do with how to most effectively not upset God. These are not moral assertions, they are simply commands on respecting the 'dear leader'. The fourth commandment is an insistence I respect a specific day that I have no reason to respect from my perspective.

We have already discussed that you have no moral compass on the other thread, you have already defined that for us in various forms up to and including incestuous relations between brothers and sisters. I don't really need to have another tirade for you to prove to me something that I already know about you.

The requests to honour your parents, to not murder, to not lie or to not steal are fairly reasonable requests - but we can all reason and declare them from a completely secular perspective. They do not require an observance of the ten commandments in order to conform to them.

Does taking religious basis for your socially acceptable mores and secularizing it render it any less steeped in religious origins?

In addition, the commandments miss out very, rather important things. They do not condemn slavery. They do not condemn rape. They do not condemn torture. They do not condemn genocide and many other rather disastrous things.

That is what happens when you minify your standards but generally speaking I think it is good starting baseline for most atheists!

This.... doesn't matter. You obviously disagree with the majority of religions, extinct or otherwise on what ought and ought not be done. That was my point. By your own reckoning, you aren't being consistent with the claim that morality comes from religion.

If it doesn't come from religion then where does it come from? you are yet to prove that morality has atheist roots along with 'God doesn't exist' until you do so adequately morality didn't have its inception in an atheist society.. I was being quite consistent for your purposes there is no reason to discuss finite details with someone who doesn't have the basics down. and yes the matter quite matters.. given the terms render a completely different definition. If you wish to make a valid point then don't undo a perceived error with a more grave error.

Of course, only you seem to think this. Funny that.

Comedy never goes out of style..

all the best

 

[Skavau]

We have already discussed that you have no moral compass on the other thread, you have already defined it in various forms up to and including incestuous relations between brothers and sisters. I don't really need to have another tirade for you to prove to me something that I already know about you.

Of course, the irony is that I support people's right to engage in consensual incest because of moral reasons I consider important.

So, you've just pointed out something that shows I do consider specific things moral.

Does taking religious basis for your socially acceptable mores and secularizing it render it any less steeped in religious origins?

Are you seriously making the claim that humanity would have been incapable of understanding that they would get further if they perhaps prohibited murder without religion or divine intervention?

In any case, I don't and have never claimed things such as murder, theft, dishonesty are wrong because of religious reasons.

That is what happens when you minify your standards but generally speaking I think it is good starting baseline for most atheists!

A baseline where about half of the commandments are completely irrelevant to me?

If it doesn't come from religion then where does it come from?

Us.

As soon as humanity became an intelligent and social species, a requirement feel for behavioural constraint amongst groups of people. Religious influence corrupted it and misrepresented it in the interest of the few.

you are yet to prove that morality has atheist roots along with 'God doesn't exist' until you do so adequately morality didn't have its inception in an atheist society..

I am yet to prove such a thing because I don't actually claim that morality has atheist roots (?). I claim that morality has its roots in humanism, not atheism.

I also don't actually explicitly claim that God does not exist.

I was being quite consistent for your purposes there is no reason to discuss finite details with someone who doesn't have the basics down. and yes the matter quite matters.. given the terms render a completely different definition. If you wish to make a valid point then don't undo a perceived error with a more grave error.

I'll take that as a concession.

Your only defence for your claim that religion dictates morality has been to rather petulantly complain that it doesn't come from atheism (a claim that I have never ever made, and have in fact never ever seen anyone make ever).

 

[جوري]

Of course, the irony is that I support people's right to engage in consensual incest because of moral reasons I consider important.

I don't see any irony about creating your own moral compass and having it be completely degenerate!

So, you've just pointed out something that shows I do consider specific things moral.

I have pointed out that what you consider moral is in fact not!

Are you seriously making the claim that humanity would have been incapable of understanding that they would get further if they perhaps prohibited murder without religion or divine intervention?

I am asking you to prove that morality started in an atheistic society, that differs completely from what you have written above. I rather despise answering my questions with another no related one I consider it a waste of everyone's time and I think that is a crime!

In any case, I don't and have never claimed things such as murder, theft, dishonesty are wrong because of religious reasons.

You have claimed them secular and I am stating that they are not, until such a time you can prove that such principles were birthed from atheism and not religion!

A baseline where about half of the commandments are completely irrelevant to me?

Where you break commandments that also happen to be a part of the now 'secular state law' then don't be surprised if you face some sort of fine or imprisonment, just because it is irrelevant to you doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the people around you-- You don't live in an insular world!

As soon as humanity became an intelligent and social species, a requirement feel for behavioural constraint amongst groups of people. Religious influence corrupted it and misrepresented it in the interest of the few.

I think you mean atheist influence corrupted it and rendered it nothing above mere animals in the jungle as evidenced by the massive death and corruption dispensed by atheists than all the religions combined. Although I don't condone the ignorance and frank lunacy of some religious regimes!

I am yet to prove such a thing because I don't actually claim that morality has atheist roots (?). I claim that morality has its roots in humanism, not atheism.

humanism started sometime around 1806 (buzzer sound) sorry.. can't makeup crap as you go along and expect it to take effect because you said so!

I also don't actually explicitly claim that God does not exist.

Ok

I'll take that as a concession.

Your only defence for your claim that religion dictates morality has been to rather petulantly complain that it doesn't come from atheism (a claim that I have never ever made, and have in fact never ever seen anyone make ever).

I have no idea what this means.. I was hoping you'd end on a high note so I can go to bed on a better note (I so love my punch lines especially when half asleep) but I guess no such luck..

all the best

 

[Skavau]

I don't see any irony about creating your own moral compass and having it be completely degenerate!

I have pointed out that what you consider moral is in fact not!

These are both just claims. You have bought no supporting evidence or convincing reason to your side.

I am asking you to prove that morality started in an atheistic society, that differs completely from what you have written above. I rather despise answering my questions with another no related one I consider it a waste of everyone's time and I think that is a crime!

I have never made the claim that morality did 'begin' (?) in an 'atheistic society'.

You have claimed them secular and I am stating that they are not, until such a time you can prove that such principles were birthed from atheism and not religion!

I have never made the claim that they are atheistic. I have claimed they are secular. That is to say that you can contend that murder is wrong based entirely on secular reasoning. I do and so do millions of people.

Where you break commandments that also happen to be a part of the now 'secular state law' then don't be surprised if you face some sort of fine or imprisonment

This is basically stating the obvious. You do understand now, that secular democratic states contend things such as murder and theft to be wrong not because they are in the ten commandments, but because of how they impact the population within the state, right?

, just because it is irrelevant to you doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the people around you-- You don't live in an insular world!

This again is stating the obvious. I am aware the observing the commands of God are very important to millions of people. What does this have to do with anything?

I think you mean atheist influence corrupted it and rendered it nothing above mere animals in the jungle as evidenced by the massive death and corruption dispensed by atheists than all the religions combined. Although I don't condone the ignorance and frank lunacy of some religious regimes!

Of course you don't. That is why when you talk about religion, you reference it convieniently to suit your own objectives. You will cite the ten commandments to me as an example of virtue, and then I'll see you on another thread arguing with and insulting a Christian over just about everything in their belief system.

humanism started sometime around 1806 (buzzer sound) sorry.. can't makeup crap as you go along and expect it to take effect because you said so!

I am of course, talking about humanism in the broad sense. The idea that morality is by, and for humans.

I have no idea what this means.. I was hoping you'd end on a high note so I can go to bed on a better note (I so love my punch lines especially when half asleep) but I guess no such luck..

I couldn't have guessed. Your needless verbal bombasity is evidence to my observation that you try and make others laugh (often to the deliberate expense of others).

 

[جوري]

These are both just claims. You have bought no supporting evidence or convincing reason to your side.

what is satisfactory evidence in your book?

I have never made the claim that morality did 'begin' (?) in an 'atheistic society'.

Then why are you arguing here?

I have never made the claim that they are atheistic. I have claimed they are secular. That is to say that you can contend that murder is wrong based entirely on secular reasoning. I do and so do millions of people.

So it isn't 'humanism' anymore. You are yet to prove that murder is wrong based on 'secular' reasoning. In fact I can't think of a single good reason from your secular perspective why murder would be a bad thing?

This is basically stating the obvious. You do understand now, that secular democratic states contend things such as murder and theft to be wrong not because they are in the ten commandments, but because of how they impact the population within the state, right?

No, I don't.. they are borrowed and fixed to hush folks such as yourself.. but I have no doubt that atheists left to their own devices will give us another mao xedong, or saloth sar or enver hoxha etc.

This again is stating the obvious. I am aware the observing the commands of God are very important to millions of people. What does this have to do with anything?

It wasn't so obvious to you a post ago when you contended that they are irrelevant to you personally.

Of course you don't. That is why when you talk about religion, you reference it convieniently to suit your own objectives. You will cite the ten commandments to me as an example of virtue, and then I'll see you on another thread arguing with and insulting a Christian over just about everything in their belief system.

What does code of conduct to do with esoteric beliefs whether they are Zoroastrianism or in Christianity. The problem with arguing with an atheist aside from the obvious circuitous arguments and complete waste of time is
1- there is no common ground, when you baseline starts at a completely different point even bringing the closest thing to common sense as primitive as conduct chiseled on a tablet is still elusive.. how can I possibly hope to bridge more finite details and their relevance when the very basics escape you?

I am of course, talking about humanism in the broad sense. The idea that morality is by, and for humans.

I am sure you were!

I couldn't have guessed. Your needless verbal bombasity is evidence to my observation that you try and make others laugh (often to the deliberate expense of others).

One should seize the opportunities as they present themselves!

all the best

 

[Skavau]

what is satisfactory evidence in your book?

Concerning morality, 'evidence' is a bit of a misnomer. Give me supporting reasons rather than just explicit declarations of disagreement as to why a couple engaging in consensual incest is unacceptable, or wrong.

Then why are you arguing here?

I took issue with your position that everyone ought to conform to religious demands.

So it isn't 'humanism' anymore. You are yet to prove that murder is wrong based on 'secular' reasoning. In fact I can't think of a single good reason from your secular perspective why murder would be a bad thing?

That's because you're not trying. I've given you many. A society which legalises or allows murder is a society declaring its own destruction. A community that has no problem with murder generally does not last as long and is generally nowhere near as successful as another community that does not allow murder. We learn quickly that we will all benefit if we stop killing each other.

That's just one reason.

No, I don't.. they are borrowed and fixed to hush folks such as yourself.. but I have no doubt that atheists left to their own devices will give us another mao xedong, or saloth sar or enver hoxha etc.

This is just a conspiracy theory. And indeed, a website I referenced to you before (that you claimed your firefox addon detected as dangerous) here shows that highly secular irreligious nations are amongst the best in the world to live in.

Also, have you read the religious makeup of the US. Prison Population and contrasted it to the religious makeup of the USA? Just out of interest.

It wasn't so obvious to you a post ago when you contended that they are irrelevant to you personally.

Huh...?

I never said that other people didn't find God's commands important. I just said I don't find specific rules on how to best appease God relevant (as I'm an atheist) and therefore stated they were irrelevant to me. Why are you making a storm out of a teacup?

What does code of conduct to do with esoteric beliefs whether they are Zoroastrianism or in Christianity. The problem with arguing with an atheist aside from the obvious circuitous arguments and complete waste of time is 1- there is no common ground, when you baseline starts at a completely different point even bringing the closest thing to common sense as primitive as conduct chiseled on a tablet is still elusive.. how can I possibly hope to bridge more finite details and their relevance when the very basics escape you?

I have no idea what this means. It looks like yet another poorly veiled insult.

I am sure you were!

Yes, I was.

 

[جوري]

Concerning morality, 'evidence' is a bit of a misnomer. Give me supporting reasons rather than just explicit declarations of disagreement as to why a couple engaging in consensual incest is unacceptable, or wrong.

Morality is the discrimination between right and wrong.. sorry there are no scientific methods employed to bring about desired 'evidence' and you'll find that true for everything that falls under that category including the minute things you happen to agree with as falling under that umbrella!

I took issue with your position that everyone ought to conform to religious demands.

And that is indeed what I think should be done specifically with the religion of Islam!

That's because you're not trying. I've given you many. A society which legalises or allows murder is a society declaring its own destruction. A community that has no problem with murder generally does not last as long and is generally nowhere near as successful as another community that does not allow murder. We learn quickly that we will all benefit if we stop killing each other.

Not necessarily true at all. it will curb on over-crowding, the weaker individuals in said societies, decrease in pestilence and plagues that happen in areas of over-crowding, decrease in starvation and famine, better standard of living for those surviving.. it will be just like the animal kingdom.. in fact many positives that whatever negatives you perceive will pale significantly by comparison!

This is just a conspiracy theory. And indeed, a website I referenced to you before (that you claimed your firefox addon detected as dangerous) here shows that highly secular irreligious nations are amongst the best in the world to live in.

that is a subjective observation even if I were to open the link!

Also, have you read the religious makeup of the US. Prison Population and contrasted it to the religious makeup of the USA? Just out of interest.

No, I know many people find religion upon entering prison... religion should preclude from commission of sin by its very nature.. anyone that commits a crime has in fact divorced themselves from religion!

I never said that other people didn't find God's commands important. I just said I don't find specific rules on how to best appease God relevant (as I'm an atheist) and therefore stated they were irrelevant to me. Why are you making a storm out of a teacup?

I am not I am merely working with what you have written.

I have no idea what this means. It looks like yet another poorly veiled insult.

take it whichever way you like!

Yes, I was.

and on this intellectually charged note I bid you a good night!

 

[Skavau]

Morality is the discrimination between right and wrong.. sorry there are no scientific methods employed to bring about desired 'evidence' and you'll find that true for everything that falls under that category including the minute things you happen to agree with as falling under that umbrella!

Of course, for that to mean anything 'right' and 'wrong' (what one ought to do and what one ought not do) have to be defined. I know your definition already and it is simply a matter of obedience to you. You already know my extensive analysis of this and all you had to say to it was that I was 'revolting' in saying it.

And that is indeed what I think should be done specifically with the religion of Islam!

There we go then. Thank you for finally admitting it. You think everyone ought to accomadate themselves for Islam, not 'religion' in general. You think my choices are meaningless and discardable compared to the interests and objectives of Islam.

This strikes you as moral. It strikes me as implicity totalitarian.

Not necessarily true at all. it will curb on over-crowding, the weaker individuals in said societies, decrease in pestilence and plagues that happen in areas of over-crowding, decrease in starvation and famine, better standard of living for those surviving.. it will be just like the animal kingdom.. in fact many positives that whatever negatives you perceive will pale significantly by comparison!

You are keeping in tune with what murder means, aren't you? We're not talking about a government that takes preventative measures to 'safeguard' against overpopulation, or famine (measures directly parallel to burning the village down to save it).

We are talking about a state allowing its citizens to randomly murder other people. We are talking about a society where there is no personal safety. We are talking about a society where there can be no safeguard against your destruction. Where the state decrees your interests as meaningless in comparison to a would-be murderers.

Pertaining to your own example of government sponsored death squads: I would ask you precisely, who you imagine tha prospect of murder is a preferable scenario for? Is it preferable for the next victim? Is it a good situation for those who live their lives in fear? This by the way, leads me to another point: that the continuation of a society, or the outward orderly nature of a society does not demonstrate its morality. Nations such as Saudi Arabia may give an impression of an orderly society, but mark themselves with oppression and control of its citizens or in practice, subjects for their own objectives.

that is a subjective observation even if I were to open the link!

Of course, not even opening the link you wouldn't know that. Considering it weighs up statistics such as Quality Of Life, Gender Equality, Life Expectancy, Literacy, Environment etc - I would contend it involves very real statistics.

No, I know many people find religion upon entering prison... religion should preclude from commission of sin by its very nature.. anyone that commits a crime has in fact divorced themselves from religion!

How convenient. Again.

Just to let you know however, less than about 0.3% of the prison population are made up of atheists, whereas atheists make up arguably at least 3% of the USA.

 

[جوري]

Of course, for that to mean anything 'right' and 'wrong' (what one ought to do and what one ought not do) have to be defined. I know your definition already and it is simply a matter of obedience to you. You already know my extensive analysis of this and all you had to say to it was that I was 'revolting' in saying it.

Obedience is a matter only understood and peddled by atheists, for I can't imagine outside of their material world and personal gain in the here and now why they'd have to conform themselves to standards of things unseen!

There we go then. Thank you for finally admitting it. You think everyone ought to accomadate themselves for Islam, not 'religion' in general. You think my choices are meaningless and discardable compared to the interests and objectives of Islam.

accommodate? I rather think you should be so lucky!

This strikes you as moral. It strikes me as implicity totalitarian.

You are not the measuring stick by which folks evaluate their lives!

You are keeping in tune with what murder means, aren't you? We're not talking about a government that takes preventative measures to 'safeguard' against overpopulation, or famine (measures directly parallel to burning the village down to save it).

We are talking about a state allowing its citizens to randomly murder other people. We are talking about a society where there is no personal safety. We are talking about a society where there can be no safeguard against your destruction. Where the state decrees your interests as meaningless in comparison to a would-be murderers. Pertaining to your own example of government sponsored death squads: I would ask you precisely, who you imagine tha prospect of murder is a preferable scenario for? Is it preferable for the next victim? Is it a good situation for those who live their lives in fear? This by the way, leads me to another point: that the continuation of a society, or the outward orderly nature of a society does not demonstrate its morality. Nations such as Saudi Arabia may give an impression of an orderly society, but mark themselves with oppression and control of its citizens or in practice, subjects for their own objectives.

No we are talking murder as would occur in the animal kingdom. You know in keeping with our aped ancestors. Do animals kill without a reason? In fact I think they show more compassion than some humans. Killing for the basic instincts and for the aofre mentioned. Do animals live in fear? I guess you gain something at the price of another.. indeed those weaklings would perish and there would be a strong orderly society.. you have given a winded sermon but failed and as usual to make a point.. and that is unfortunately the case when 'morality' is left to personal devices

Of course, not even opening the link you wouldn't know that. Considering it weighs up statistics such as Quality Of Life, Gender Equality, Life Expectancy, Literacy, Environment etc - I would contend it involves very real statistics.

I don't think you took a course in statistics in your entire life.. it is sad when the ignorant are left to google and think they have a legitimate point!

Odds Are, It's Wrong

It’s science’s dirtiest secret: The “scientific method” of testing hypotheses by statistical analysis stands on a flimsy foundation. Statistical tests are supposed to guide scientists in judging whether an experimental result reflects some real effect or is merely a random fluke, but the standard methods mix mutually inconsistent philosophies and offer no meaningful basis for making such decisions. Even when performed correctly, statistical tests are widely misunderstood and frequently misinterpreted. As a result, countless conclusions in the scientific literature are erroneous, and tests are often contradictory and confusing
​

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/57091/title/Odds_are,_its_wrong

Now you know

How convenient. Again.

Generally you shouldn't be the one left to judge convenience!

Just to let you know however, less than about 0.3% of the prison population are made up of atheists, whereas atheists make up arguably at least 3% of the USA.

See the science article above about stats.
it does pay to stay in school and get a higher education though.. I'll give you that much!

all the best