Hey Agnostics & Atheists: Do you ever worry?

[Pygoscelis]

seems indeed that prisons are overflowing with atheists

Really? From those stats it seems that theists far outnumber atheists to me.

Now before we go way off the topic that started this bickering, lets go back to the original quote

why would you even think that God needs to even persuade you to be moral?

I maintain that God does not need to persuade us all to be moral (and I am confident he doesn't need to persuade the one Zafran is addressing). If he did, if we could not be moral without God "persuading" us to (and if indeed God could do that), then your prison stats would be mostly atheists and very few religious people. This simply isn't the case in this geographic example (which shouldn't in itself be taken as representative of the world at large).

I do find it interesting, and perhaps a point a Christian guest to the thread could make, that both atheists (somewhat) and muslims (extremely) appear to be over represented in these stats as compared to the general population.

 

[Pygoscelis]

double post. delete.

 

[Ramadhan]

Yes, and we agreed that religiousness can be a factor inspiring charity giving. We also agreed generally that it can be a factor for good. And we also agreed that it can also inspire bad. So no, we can not say "all things equal", because all things are not equal. You can't push the good that religiousness does and hide the bad. Religion does not necessarily make somebody a more moral person.

You and lynx clearly share the same trait: jumping in to other people's debate without really following what's being discussed.
I did NOT even argue whether religion necessarily make somebody a more moral person. Or that religiousness make some peeople good or bad.
We were talking about religiousness and charity!

Or are you conveniently forgetting that I pwned you the last time when you asked for statistics that show relationships between religiousness and charity-giving?

Obviously, apart from stinginess, that is another trait that atheists/agnostics seem to share.

I think you may want to be more polite than to make such rude and bald faced accusations. He has said nothing to indicate what you are accusing him of. Perhaps you could ask him about his moral view on charity?

I am saying what's the truth, I don't mince words, especially for atheists.
His view on charity is clear enough on the two posts that he made above.

Read it yourself.

Do you like it if people say you must be violent and prone to terrorism because you are a muslim?

have I ever said that terrorism is good? Or that violent is a virtue?
If yes, you can say that I'm violent and prone to terrorism.

meanwhile, Lynx has clearly stated that charity is not a virtue. Read his above statements.


You clearly are lacking in the logical department. No wonder you are an atheist.

Or would you rather they not be so prejudiced? Extend the same respect you demand.

I don't care if they are prejudiced or not as long as they speak the truth.
Do not confuse the matter,

 

[Zafran]

I maintain that God does not need to persuade us all to be moral (and I am confident he doesn't need to persuade the one Zafran is addressing). If he did, if we could not be moral without God "persuading" us to (and if indeed God could do that), then your prison stats would be mostly atheists and very few religious people. This simply isn't the case in this geographic example (which shouldn't in itself be taken as representative of the world at large).

I do find it interesting, and perhaps a point a Christian guest to the thread could make, that both atheists (somewhat) and muslims (extremely) appear to be over represented in these stats as compared to the general population.

The first question wasnt directed to you anyway it was directed at Boredagnostic as she made a claim about God.

Your right taking the stats of 1 small Island isnt the best way to measure the religion of the worlds prison population! especially when only 60 to 80 million people only live on that Island.

 

[جوري]

Really? From those stats it seems that theists far outnumber atheists to me. Now before we go way off the topic that started this bickering, lets go back to the original quote

You're quite comparable to your christian counterparts.. in fact it is because their God has already eaten their sins for them in advance..what difference is there between no consequence to sin and sin pre-forgiven.. It is well reflected in the prison population!

I am not bickering, I am stating the facts of the matter and it seems to have hit a nerve, someone who is adamant that prisons wouldn't be overflowing with atheists just found out that they're.. I'll give you a few more days to absorb the shock!

all the best

 

[Lynx]

Helps alot actually thank you

looks like you're second to Christians in prison!


all the best

And so your claim that there are no people of faith in jail has been falsified. Also, theists make up more of the prison population (at least in that example) than non-religious (Those stats don't specify how many of the 'no religions' are outright atheists or agnostics so this is even more charitable towards your case). And of course prisons in Muslim countries are made up of almost 100% Muslims.

meanwhile, Lynx has clearly stated that charity is not a virtue. Read his above statements.

@naidamar
Um no I didn't. I said I support charity and I said if all things are equal the person who gives charity is morally better than a person who does not. I also said after a certain income threshold giving charity becomes obligatory so I have no idea what you're referring to.

 

[Lynx]

You're quite comparable to your christian counterparts.. in fact it is because their God has already eaten their sins for them in advance..what difference is there between no consequence to sin and sin pre-forgiven.. It is well reflected in the prison population!

I am not bickering, I am stating the facts of the matter and it seems to have hit a nerve, someone who is adamant that prisons wouldn't be overflowing with atheists just found out that they're.. I'll give you a few more days to absorb the shock!

all the best

Actually if you consider less than half (about a third ) to mean 'overflowing' then what do you call the religious population if there are even more of them than the no-religioners? Over-over flowing? Keep in mind that 'no religion' does not necessarily mean atheist so your numbers will probably be even less.

 

[جوري]

And so your claim that there are no people of faith in jail has been falsified. Also, theists make up more of the prison population (at least in that example) than non-religious (Those stats don't specify how many of the 'no religions' are outright atheists or agnostics so this is even more charitable towards your case). And of course prisons in Muslim countries are made up of almost 100% Muslims.

Does circuitousness amuse you? It doesn't amuse me ..The way the claim was only made by your pal and made repeatedly .. let's re-visit it again.. Not only have you a short memory span, you seem to create comments and attribute them to others --here we go:

Otherwise prisons would be overflowing with atheists.

It does appear indeed that prisons are overflowing with atheists and we thank you for your statistics-- whether hard or soft atheists it is utterly irrelevant-- I am not sure why you're *****ing about the stats you provided?

Actually if you consider less than half (about a third ) to mean 'overflowing' then what do you call the religious population if there are even more of them than the no-religioners? Over-over flowing? Keep in mind that 'no religion' does not necessarily mean atheist so your numbers will probably be even less.

Give it up guy.. the numbers are there for people to see and the writing of your friend is already on the wall.. there is no going back now, so just tuck your tail between your legs and keep walking!

all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

Um no I didn't. I said I support charity and I said if all things are equal the person who gives charity is morally better than a person who does not. I also said after a certain income threshold giving charity becomes obligatory so I have no idea what you're referring to.

I was referring to this:

Giving charity is neither necessary nor sufficient to being a morally upright person, IMO.

So, do you think a person whose income already reached certain treshold (it is very vague, not sure what you mean by this treshold) but does not give charity at all can still be considered a moral person?

I am asking the question because I see the conflicting and contradiction between your opinions/stance in the quotes above.

 

[Lynx]

Does circuitousness amuse you? It doesn't amuse me ..The way the claim was only made by your pal and made repeatedly .. let's re-visit it again.. Not only have you a short memory span, you seem to create comments and attribute them to others --here we go:



It does appear indeed that prisons are overflowing with atheists and we thank you for your statistics-- whether hard or soft atheists it is utterly irrelevant-- I am not sure why you're *****ing about the stats you provided?






Give it up guy.. the numbers are there for people to see and the writing of your friend is already on the wall.. there is no going back now, so just tuck your tail between your legs and keep walking!

all the best

The numbers show the overwhelming majority of prisoners are not atheists; they are believers of particular faiths. I don't think it makes any sense to say atheists are over flowing in prisons if they don't even make up the majority.

@naidamar

So, do you think a person whose income already reached certain treshold (it is very vague, not sure what you mean by this treshold) but does not give charity at all can still be considered a moral person?

I am asking the question because I see the conflicting and contradiction between your opinions/stance in the quotes above.

We say x is necessary for y to be true if it's the case that without x y couldn't hold. We say x is sufficient for y if it's the case that as long as x is true then y will necessarily hold. You've already said that it's clear why giving charity is not sufficient for a having a good moral character so this requires no elaboration. The reason I don't think charity is necessary is because if it were, then no poor person could ever be considered to be a morally good person. Of course, the solution is to make an exception for the poor person which would mean giving charity is not necessary because, as we just established, there are exceptions.

 

[جوري]

The numbers show the overwhelming majority of prisoners are not atheists; they are believers of particular faiths. I don't think it makes any sense to say atheists are over flowing in prisons if they don't even make up the majority.

The numbers show that people who believe their sins are pre-paid by a mangod, along with people who don't believe in sins all together are the forefront of the prison population. If you don't like the facts of the matter, perhaps you and your pal should give some thoughts to your assertions before putting them out for all to see?!

all the best

 

[Pygoscelis]

Or are you conveniently forgetting that I pwned you the last time when you asked for statistics that show relationships between religiousness and charity-giving?

You didn't "pwn" anybody. Park your tribal nature. This is not some kind of contest or competition. We are attempting to have a discussion. I would ask that you address the topic instead of the people.

And if you look back, I actually did not deny that religion can inspire people to help others (often for their own selfish reasons).

His view on charity is clear enough on the two posts that he made above.

Yes, it is. And he did not say what you accused him of:

meanwhile, Lynx has clearly stated that charity is not a virtue. Read his above statements.

Where did he state this? You should either point it out for us, or apologize for demonizing the man. You are acting very rudely.

You clearly are lacking in the logical department. No wonder you are an atheist.

Again, can you not discus the topic instead of the posters?

 

[Lynx]

The numbers show that people who believe their sins are pre-paid by a mangod, along with people who don't believe in sins all together are the forefront of the prison population. If you don't like the facts of the matter, perhaps you and your pal should give some thoughts to your assertions before putting them out for all to see?!

all the best

you made two statements: there are no people of faith in jails and prisons are overflowing with atheists. both have been disproved it seems. you can banter all you want about Christians giving theists a bad rep but the numbers don't lie. if you can't support your statements or find data to contradict what i've found there is no real point in discussing this topic any further; whether you want to face this reality or not is your problem.

 

[Pygoscelis]

The numbers show that people who believe their sins are pre-paid by a mangod, along with people who don't believe in sins all together are the forefront of the prison population. If you don't like the facts of the matter, perhaps you and your pal should give some thoughts to your assertions before putting them out for all to see?!

all the best

As I stated above, perhaps the bare numbers are deceptive. As was also pointed out above, in muslim countries nearly 100% of prisoners are muslim (not surprising if the vast majority of people in general are muslim). If we look at the data presented by contrasting with the demographics of the general population, this survey seems to indicate that "no-religion" (which would include non-religious theists and spiritualists, as well as agnostics, not just atheists) is slightly over represented, and that "muslim" is drastically over represented.

Here is some more data, representing a far larger geographic area: http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm <-- USA, 1997

The Federal Bureau of Prisons does have statistics on religious
affiliations of inmates. The following are total number of
inmates per religion category:

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%

This one does enumerate actual atheists (instead of just "No Religion") and finds atheists at 0.2%, just behind Scientologists. Christians again take the lead, but that should again be expected in a mostly Christian nation. Clearly, these prisons are not over flowing with atheists.

 

[جوري]

As I stated above, perhaps the bare numbers are deceptive. As was also pointed out above, in muslim countries nearly 100% of prisoners are muslim. And if we look at this by contrasting with the demographics of the general population, this survey seems to indicate that "no-religion" (which may or may not be atheist) is slightly over represented, and that "muslim" is drastically over represented.

Why did you make the assertion to begin with if the numbers aren't on your side?.. further these are the stats of western countries until such a time stats and number of crimes of these so-called Islamic countries are listed with the professed beliefs of said culprits I suggest you refrain from making the same error and repeatedly--you don't seem to learn from your mishaps and I should think that, it is unfortunate indeed.

Further, I am not sure since when exactly did 'NO Religion' evolve to mean some religion, but I must admire your tenacity. As stated prior, try to learn from your mistakes and give up the unmerited attempts to make your group into some sort of humane altruists since the numbers you presented tell a different story!
quit digging for something to negate the previous article, as stated the harder you try the tighter the noose around your atheist head!


all the best

 

[Ramadhan]

We say x is necessary for y to be true if it's the case that without x y couldn't hold. We say x is sufficient for y if it's the case that as long as x is true then y will necessarily hold. You've already said that it's clear why giving charity is not sufficient for a having a good moral character so this requires no elaboration. The reason I don't think charity is necessary is because if it were, then no poor person could ever be considered to be a morally good person. Of course, the solution is to make an exception for the poor person which would mean giving charity is not necessary because, as we just established, there are exceptions.

I don't think you have answered my question, let me ask again:

Do you think a person whose income already reached certain treshold but does not give charity at all can still be considered a moral person?

 

[جوري]

you made two statements: there are no people of faith in jails and prisons are overflowing with atheists. both have been disproved it seems. you can banter all you want about Christians giving theists a bad rep but the numbers don't lie. if you can't support your statements or find data to contradict what i've found there is no real point in discussing this topic any further; whether you want to face this reality or not is your problem.

Both statements are correct actually. A truly faithful person wouldn't commit a crime for their twinge of consciousness would hold them back they may hold a religion in name only, such as Mubarak feigning to be Muslim yet making it illegal to be Muslim-- and indeed prisons are indeed over-filled with atheists and we thank you again for providing us with those very informative stats.
Of course there is no room to discuss this further, I have told you that a good three or four posts back after you so generously sealed your own folly with your own link.. which I am sure you were banking on folks not clicking on it and taking your worthless words at face value..

now kindly do yourself a favor and grab on to that buoy you threw yourself with your '' no real point in discussing this topic any further''

all the best

 

[Lynx]

I don't think you have answered my question, let me ask again:

Do you think a person whose income already reached certain treshold but does not give charity at all can still be considered a moral person?

No such a person could not be considered moral if he gives absolutely no charity at all. Once that threshold is achieved, and barring exceptional circumstances (like his money would be better off elsewhere), such a person has a moral obligation to give some charity.

 

[Ramadhan]

No such a person could not be considered moral if he gives absolutely no charity at all. Once that threshold is achieved, and barring exceptional circumstances (like his money would be better off elsewhere), such a person has a moral obligation to give some charity.

Ah I see. So charity is still necessary to be morally upright when one's income already exceeds certain treshold.
Am I correct in my understanding?

 

[Lynx]

Ah I see. So charity is still necessary to be morally upright when one's income already exceeds certain treshold.
Am I correct in my understanding?

What do you mean by 'still' necessary? It might be a typo on your part but yes, charity is necessary to be morally upright only once a person's income has reached a certain threshold. The exact amount is unknown to me but I am leaning towards something very very high