. . . might want to take a look in the mirror. America's prison population is represented by a population of believers that is disproportionately larger than that shared by atheists:

"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 1/10 of 1%. W. T. Root, professor of psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from penitentiariers or nearly so. . . .

"During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% 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, Superintendant of the New York State Reformatories, checked 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In 'Who's Who,' 91% were college graduates, and he commented that 'intelligence and knowledge produce right living' and that 'crime is the offspring of superstition and

"Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate religious, carefully herded by chaplins.

"In Joliet, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and 0 non-religious.

"Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in their 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 total inmates with 855 of them Catholics (over half), 518 Protestants, 177 Jews and eight non-religious.

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

"In one 29-state survey, Steiner found 15 unbelievers, Spirtualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. Calling all 15 'anti-christians' made it one half person to each state. Elmira reformatory overshadowed all, 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 Catholics. In the national prison population they average 50%. A national census found Catholics 15%. They count from the diaper up. Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime. Half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.

"Liverpool, England produces thr3% as many young criminals as Birmingham, a larger city, 28% coming from Catholic schools.

(For the full article, which also includes a percentage breakdown of prison inmates determined by believer vs. non-believer catgory, see: "Atheists In Prison: 1997 Federal Bureau of Prisons Statistics" and :miscellaneous Prison Statistics," at: http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists)
_____


Put that in your sacrament cup and swallow it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2015 04:26PM by steve benson.

These numbers are more interesting if you compare them with their distribution in society:

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

That makes it look like there's something seriously wrong with Catholicism...or there's a connection with Catholicism and a lack of education...

Ha ha ha ha ha. Yay.

Atheists avoid death row at any cost.

No one there to give them last rites.

plus their headstones always read "All dressed up and no place to go".

I had a hard time locating your source material until I finally realized the hundreds of citations for it that appear on atheist websites and blogs have for some reason altered the middle initials of both authors. When you do a Google search for "'The New Criminology,' Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith" you'll only find it referenced on atheist websites.

Once you correct the author's names to what they actually are (Max G. Schlapp and Edward H. Smith), you learn something very interesting.

"The New Criminology" was likely new at the time of its publication, but that was in 1928 -- 87 years ago. I'm sure the specific alteration of both authors' middle initials is a purely benign mistake and no attempt by atheists to bury the fact that they're citing work nearly a century old. Only an immoral misfit would intentionally alter the middle initials of two authors to obscure their source material.

If you can find a copy of the book still in print, be sure to snatch it up. The closest I could find was this review from a 1931 Journal: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/30009759?sid=21105328382981&uid=3739960&uid=4&uid=2&uid=3739256

If you would like to cite stats that may actually reflect people still living, let's try this one from California: "AUGUST 2007 INMATE FAITH PREFERENCE SURVEY"

This survey was conducted to create a picture of the religious preferences of California's 177,000 inmates. California cites the survey sample "was sufficiently large enough to ensure a 97% certainty rate that the religious preferences of the sample population were representative of the religious preferences of the total inmate population."

The results should be encouraging to the atheist community. It appears their evangelism is working especially well, and having a great impact on the inmate population. 13.41% of inmates declared their religion as "None/No Religion/NA."

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/adult_research_branch/research_documents/inmate_faith_survey_dec_2007.pdf

Short haired-tall guy, this is one of the funniest posts I have ever read on RfM. Your restraint is remarkable, and the resulting comic effect pitch-perfect.

Cheers!

Lordy, speaking of "evangelizing," you've been evangelizing against atheists on this board (and on this very topic, no less), since at least 4 June 2012, when you posted the following at 8 p.m.:

"Steve, why do you post these things?

"Steve,

"I've seen you post topics like this with some regularity. Once before you went on for thousands of words citing an old study by Katoshi Kanazawa where he argued that atheists and liberals are smarter than theists and conservatives. To your credit, you backed down from that post after you learned that Kanazawa has also argued that blacks are less intelligent and black women are less attractive than other ethnicities.

"On this post, you go on again for thousands of words attempting to show through a handful of studies that religious belief causes, or is caused by, mental illness. Again, a quick Google search shows substantial evidence from far more studies that argues against your main theme. Religious people are actually better adjusted and have better mental health than atheists.

"But rather than engage in dialogue, you act just like a Mormon first learning about that old seer-stone in a hat. The substance is no longer an issue. You go off the reservation of rational discourse and personally attack anyone who dares show you evidence to the contrary.

"Steve, I often enjoy your posts and I'm a fan of your cartoons. You're a clever and intelligent man. But you seem at times to be living under the delusion that there is not a single shred of evidence that could possibly support theism, and all theists are dumber than dirt.

"Any good high school or college science instructor would immediately correct a student who suggests there is scientific proof that matter can spring forth from non-matter, or that living organisms can be shown to originate from non-living matter. But many atheists embrace these beliefs. Evolutionists still shrug their shoulders when asked to explain the source of sexual reproduction. Almost every living thing on earth reproduces sexually, but evolutionary theory argues that such reproduction should not exist. It's not efficient, and there's no good way to explain how it evolved a single time, let alone independently across millions of species.

"And only by redefining 'nothing' can physicists like Hawking and Krauss peddle to the faithful masses the drivel that they've solved the question to "why is there something rather than nothing?" You see, nothing really isn't nothing. It's something. And you feel theists are delusional?

"So, why do you do these things? Certainly you understand with just rudimentary logic that you neither prove theism is false or atheism is valid by showing small studies that argue theists are stupid, mentally ill, or ignorant. Mormons do the same thing when they argue Mormonism is true because their children are smarter and they bake better cookies. It's interesting stuff, but it's not evidence to support their claim. You may feel compelled to link theism and Mormonism, but that's a huge error. Mormonism can be false while theism stands.

"I get a sense that these posts are sort of cathartic, and I've posted a few of those myself. Your quick retreat to schoolyard epithets seems to support this. I understand the value of venting, but I have consistently found that I can Google just about any argument you present and quickly find substantial credible evidence to the contrary. Your arrogance comes across just like so many Mormons I've spoken with. They recite lengthy testimonies with all the reasons why they believe and when confronted with contrary evidence, they display huge bravado and launch ad-hominem attacks. Just like you.

"So, I understand the power of cathartic actions. And I honestly feel this is an appropriate forum for them. But your arrogance is misplaced. Whether you like it or not, your atheism is no more substantial or scientifically valid than my theism. Given enough time and enough scrutiny, every single one of us will be revealed to believe things that are absolutely unprovable and unscientific. But that's as it should be. Life is, after all, a mystery."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,519640,519640#msg-519640
_____


Let me hear a big "Amen!" for brother "Tall Man Short on Facts"! . . .

But, before you move to evangelize yet again gainst atheists, allow me to repost my reply to your 2012 post (which I just quoted above):

"What are you, the arrogant umpire here? I post them in an effort to get dialogue going on important issues and you seem more than willing to cooperate.

"If I wasn't kicking dirt on your shoes at the plate for calling strikes on balls that are way out of the zone, I don't think you'd really care.

"But somehow I got your dander up in a doozy of a distress signal.

"If you don't like my ignoring your "calls," then you can call it a night or even better yet not even open my posts.

"At any rate, you're a grump ump with no real power over what free-willed individuals ultimately choose to believe or not (as none of us do), so I wouldn't sweat up your armpits over it.

"Besides, its unbecoming of you, unless you want to rename yourself "Tall Ego, Short Temper."

"Chill, would-be 'blue.'"

"And I didn't say all theists were as dumb as dirt; I said they really show their insecurity when their cherished myths bite the dirt--and they can't seem to take the push-back.

"Life, by the way, is not a mystery. You're born, you live and you die. Deal with it.

"And please spare me your dismissive, juvenile, hypocritical casting of views with which you disagree as 'drivel.' Lead by example, or get out of the way so that grown-ups can do the leading."

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,519640,520486#msg-520486



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 12:07AM by steve benson.

Tall Man, Short Hair, good point on the out-of-date stats. That doesn't help anyone.

However, I'm disappointed in you comparing the "nones" (those without ties to organized religion) with atheists. They're NOT the same. Please break the atheists out of the "nones" for comparison.

ETA:
I've been looking for stats and have found a few. Unfortunately they're on pro-atheist sites and I haven't been able to confirm the actual source. However, I suspect the images are real. About a quarter of the way down on this page (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/) you'll find a survey done in April 2013 by the Federal Bureau of Prisons including a breakdown of prisoners by religion.

The breakdown is as follows:
Adventist 706 0.32%
Amer Ind 6865 3.14%
Atheist 161 0.07%
Bahai 1 0.00%
Buddhist 2179 0.99%
Catholic 52412 24.02%
Ch Christ 3342 1.53%
Hindu 316 0.14%
Jehovah 1514 0.69%
Jewish 3801 1.74%
Messianic 1711 0.78%
Moorish 2473 1.13%
Mormon 625 0.28%
Muslim 12106 5.54%
Nation 3847 1.76%
No Prefer 37139 17.02%
Non-Trin 371 0.17%
Orthodox 489 0.22%
Other 6584 3.01%
Pagan 4373 2.00%
Pentecost 146 0.06%
Protestant 62600 28.69%
Rasta 4182 1.91%
Santeria 2621 1.20%
Science 17 0.00%
Sikh 74 0.03%
Unknown 7512 3.44%
Total 218167 100.00%

.07% looks pretty good for atheists, nones are at 17%.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 12:21AM by Xyandro.

Xyandro Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair, good point on the
> out-of-date stats. That doesn't help anyone.
>
> However, I'm disappointed in you comparing the
> "nones" (those without ties to organized religion)
> with atheists. They're NOT the same. Please
> break the atheists out of the "nones" for
> comparison.

>
> The breakdown is as follows:

> Atheist 161 0.07%

> .07% looks pretty good for atheists, nones are at
> 17


A couple of points.

As you likely know, even atheists are discouraging the use of these stats as relevant. Here are just a couple of sources:

http://skepchick.org/2011/12/prison-data1/
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2014/06/20/yes-please-stop-using-the-atheists-in-prison-claim/

Virtually nothing is known about the method used to collect this data. And you need to factor in the "nones" at least partly.

Unless you've significantly changed your point of view. You, along with many other atheists, reject the label of "religion" applied to atheism. This survey was "Self Reported" on religious affiliation.

Would you care to admit now that your religion is atheism?

If you're willing to admit that your religious affiliation is "atheist," then we can start a conversation. If you reject the notion that atheism is a religion, exactly where on this survey would you appear?

Yep, that's right. You'd be a "none" along with most other atheists.

. . . you should actually read the post directly below it that deals with the "none" issue.

But, of course, you will have none of that. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:25AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . you should actually read the post directly
> below it that deals with the "none" issue.
>
> But, of course, you will have none of that. :)

So, in other words, you will only admit what's really true when you're force to.

You cite 88 year old stats as if they're relevant and you alter the initials of the study's authors to conceal the antiquity of your source.

You cite a stat of a fraction of 1% until you get called on it. And then you don't.

With this flair for accuracy, may I recommend you apply for the opening at NBC? They seem fond of your sort of fellow.

. . . to the "none" issue before posting about it. We've covered that base, Short on Hair/Short on Facts.

Pay attention to the ball game.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:43AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . to the "none" issue before posting about it.
> We've covered that base, Short on Hair/Short on
> Facts.
>
> Pay attention to the ball game.

You're right. Nothing can force you to be truthful. I agree that not all atheists are immoral misfits.

Hell, even when I try to make it easier for you by posting its text for you, you still don't read it. (Heaven knows, you wouldn't bother to go looking for it and clicking on the links it, anyway).

That shows just how interested you are in being "truthful."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:53AM by steve benson.

What is the point of your post? You started trying to argue that atheists are just a minute fraction of the prison population. Now you admit they will appear among those who answer "none" or "other" on religious surveys. This skews the numbers in an unknown way.

Did you hope to pass this off without examination knowing your basic premise was untrue, or did you just discover that your starting premise is false?

In Arizona, that has meant that I have been classified as an "other," meaning that I do not belong to any of the officially registered parties in the state.

"Other" can mean any number of things but, if you read the text that I provided you, you would see that it does not appreciably alter the data results within the categories that are examined in the noted studies.

But, then again, you're like a fervent Mormon who chooses not to read outside the confines of their self-imposed dogma. (Don't start swearing at me, now).

:)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:59AM by steve benson.

"What Percentage of Prisoners are Atheists? It’s a Lot Smaller Than We Ever Imagined"

by Hemant Mehta,
16 July 2013

"Earlier this month, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Bureau of Prisons asking them about the religious makeup of prisoners. Over the weekend, to my surprise, I received a response. Not only did they have the information, they gave me a faith-by-faith breakdown:

"So… what do we learn from that information?

"Of the prisoners willing to give their religious affiliations (and that’s an important caveat), atheists make up 0.07% of the prison population.

"Not 1%.

"Not even the 0.2% we’ve been using for so long.

"Atheists constitute an even smaller percentage of the prison population than we ever imagined. (That includes prisoners whose affiliations were unknown. . . .)

"In addition to that, Protestants make up 28.7% of the prison population; Catholics, 24%; Muslims, 5.5%; American Indians, 3.1%. I’ve put together a bare-bones spreadsheet with these numbers here--feel free to do with that what you will.

"Keep in mind that these numbers only cover prisoners who self-reported their religious identification. They don’t represent all prisoners in the system. We will likely never have perfect numbers . . . .

"We’re also only talking about prisoners in the federal prison system--about 218,000 people--not all prisoners in America.

"Prisoners can change religious affiliations, too. We don’t know if these numbers represent what they believed when they committed their crime(s) or what they believed after they went through some personal transformation.

"Finally, it’s also important to note that 17% of prisoners reported no religious preference. They’re not necessarily atheists and may even believe in a higher power. We really don’t know. 3% were 'Other' and 3.44% were 'Unknown.' We can’t assume these people are atheists or Christian or anything else. However, if you combined the Atheist/No Religious Preference groups and lumped them together as 'Nones,' as some sociologists do, you’d get 17% of the prison population… I’m not sure that tells you anything useful, though, because of the murkiness of the labels. . . .

"Here’s another question worth asking: How does the prisoner data compare to the religious makeup of the general population? In other words, are atheists over-presented or under-represented in prison?

"If you look at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life’s 2008 U.S. Religious Landscape Survey (PDF), you’ll see that self-described atheists make up 1.6% of the population. The 2008 American Religious Identification Survey (PDF) puts atheists at 0.7% of the population. (If those numbers seem awfully low to you, make sure you’re not confusing atheists with the ever-rising percentage of 'Nones.')

"In both cases, atheists are *very* under-represented in prison and that’s heartening to see. (The proportion of Catholics in prison is about on par with their makeup in the general population, Muslims are over-represented in prison, and Protestants appear to be under-represented though you really have to look at individual denominations to get a clearer picture of what’s happening.)

"Given the data we have, and acknowledging its limits, self-professed atheists constitute an even smaller percentage of prisoners than we ever thought."

("What Percentage of Prisoners are Atheists? It’s a Lot Smaller Than We Ever Imagined," by Hemant Mehta, 16 July 2013, at:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/07/16/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-its-a-lot-smaller-than-we-ever-imagined/)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 12:30AM by steve benson.

None.

We've been over this before, Short on Hair/Short on Facts, but apparently you didn't get the memo.

Let's get down to the basic definitions for ya:

"a" means "without."

"theism" means "a belief in god or gods."

I am without a belief in god or gods.

My answer falls outside your "religion" box. I understand. That's why you're having such a hard time with it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:30AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We've been over this before, Short on Hair/Short
> on Facts, but apparently you didn't get the memo.
>
> Let's get down to the basic definitions for ya:
>
> "a" means "without."
>
> "theism" means "a belief in god or gods."
>
> I am without a belief in god or gods.
>
> My answer falls outside your "religion" box. I
> understand. That's why you're having such a hard
> time with it.

Which illustrates my point. Many atheists will refuse to self identify as part of an "Atheist Religion." But you cite a survey of religious identity where inmates were asked about their religious affiliation.

Many atheists would have answered "None." A fact that completely negates your entire premise for this topic.

Therefore, your "many" argument does not impress me. Especially when you can't say what "none" meant for them. That said, the data on how atheists outscore believers in certain social behavior sets seems to be beyond your comprehension.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 02:06AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore, your "many" argument does not impress
> me.


Steve, please scroll to the top of the page. Some guy claiming to be you cited 88 year old data claiming that atheists comprised a small fraction of 1% of the prison population.

Later, another person stepped in and using your name claimed that atheists may also appear under more categories on these surveys. He seemed to agree with other atheists that the actual percentage of atheists in prison cannot be measured since they may answer to several different categories.

This second Steve completely negated the assertion of the first Steve.

But thankfully, a third Steve stepped in and resurrected things I wrote years ago and cited statistics showing that atheists are really swell people.

I'm so eager to see what Steve number 4 will say. Perhaps an atheist invented macrame?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 02:11AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

"Atheists Have Stronger Family Values Than Evangelical Christians"

by Piper Hoffman
4 September 2013

"The family that prays together may be less likely to stay together. Research shows that the folks trying hardest to force their religious beliefs on other people, Evangelical Christians, are more likely to divorce than those with no religion at all.

"Atheists have the lowest divorce rate when compared to religious groups (except Catholics and Lutherans, with whom they are tied). This is according to a Christian polling company (which confusingly refers to evangelicals as 'non-denominational'). The company, The Barna Group, published the numbers in 1999. While many news outlets reported on the study, their links to it are all dead, suggesting that Barna pulled the study off its site. Still available on the website is a 2008 study that, not surprisingly, came to different conclusions.

"The original findings about divorce among non-believers are borne out by a 2009 comparison of geographical regions by the U.S. Census Bureau: the Northeast, known as the home of educated liberals (both liberalism and high levels of education correlate with atheism), has the lowest divorce rate, while the Bible Belt has the highest.

"The gap between what evangelicals preach about morality and what they do extends beyond their love lives. Federal Bureau of Prisons numbers show that Christians commit more crimes per person than atheists, who commit fewer than the followers of any religion.

"In the United States, the 'more religious a state’s population, the higher the crime, STD and teen pregnancy rates,' reports Al Westerfield in 'Knoxville News,' summing up the findings of empirical studies. The same pattern holds true when comparing countries: more religious people means more crime, more sexually transmitted diseases and higher teen pregnancy rates.

"The numbers make it all the more bewildering that Christians find atheists about as trustworthy as rapists.

"A '[U.K.] Guardian' article discussing what science says about non-believers concludes that atheists are 'less authoritarian and suggestible, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant of others, law-abiding, compassionate, conscientious, and well-educated.' In a word, based on scientific research, atheists are moral. But that won’t sway evangelical Christians, as they are generally not big fans of science.

"They also won’t be moved by the Catholic Church’s acknowledgement that the godless can be good, moral people, since they do not follow the Pope.

"The truth is that adherence to a belief in right and wrong doesn’t require a belief in God, and the admirable lives of countless non-believers proves it."

("Atheists Have Stronger Family Values Than Evangelical Christians," by Piper Hoffman4 September 2013, at: http://www.care2.com/causes/atheists-have-stronger-family-values-than-evangelical-christians.html#ixzz3RVPA2qmE)

"Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?"

by Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman
29 April 2011

"Long after blacks and Jews have made great strides, and even as homosexuals gain respect, acceptance and new rights, there is still a group that lots of Americans just don’t like much: atheists. Those who don’t believe in God are widely considered to be immoral, wicked and angry. They can’t join the Boy Scouts. Atheist soldiers are rated potentially deficient when they do not score as sufficiently 'spiritual' in military psychological evaluations. Surveys find that most Americans refuse or are reluctant to marry or vote for non[theists; in other words, non-believers are one minority still commonly denied in practical terms the right to assume office despite the constitutional ban on religious tests.

"Rarely denounced by the mainstream, this stunning anti-atheist discrimination is egged on by Christian conservatives who stridently — and uncivilly--declare that the lack of godly faith is detrimental to society, rendering non-believers intrinsically suspect and second-class citizens.

"Is this knee-jerk dislike of atheists warranted? Not even close.

"A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency--issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights--the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.

"Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.

"As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. They tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought.

"While many studies show that secular Americans don’t fare as well as the religious when it comes to certain indicators of mental health or subjective well-being, new scholarship is showing that the relationships among atheism, theism, and mental health and well-being are complex. After all, Denmark, which is among the least religious countries in the history of the world, consistently rates as the happiest of nations. And studies of apostates — people who were religious but later rejected their religion — report feeling happier, better and liberated in their post-religious lives.

"Non-theism isn’t all balloons and ice cream. Some studies suggest that suicide rates are higher among the non-religious. But surveys indicating that religious Americans are better off can be misleading because they include among the non-religious fence-sitters who are as likely to believe in God, whereas atheists who are more convinced are doing about as well as devout believers. On numerous respected measures of societal success--rates of poverty, teenage pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, obesity, drug use and crime, as well as economics--high levels of secularity are consistently correlated with positive outcomes in first-world nations. None of the secular advanced democracies suffers from the combined social ills seen here in Christian America.

"More than 2,000 years ago, whoever wrote Psalm 14 claimed that atheists were foolish and corrupt, incapable of doing any good. These put-downs have had sticking power. Negative stereotypes of atheists are alive and well. Yet like all stereotypes, they aren’t true — and perhaps they tell us more about those who harbor them than those who are maligned by them. So when the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly and Newt Gingrich engage in the politics of division and destruction by maligning atheists, they do so in disregard of reality.

"As with other national minority groups, atheism is enjoying rapid growth. Despite the bigotry, the number of American non-theists has tripled as a proportion of the general population since the 1960s. Younger generations’ tolerance for the endless disputes of religion is waning fast. Surveys designed to overcome the understandable reluctance to admit atheism have found that as many as 60 million Americans--a fifth of the population--are not believers. Our non-religious compatriots should be accorded the same respect as other minorities."

("Why Do Americans Still Dislike Atheists?," Gregory Paul and Phil Zuckerman, "Washington Post," 29 April 2011, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-do-americans-still-dislike-atheists/2011/02/18/AFqgnwGF_story.html)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 12:50AM by steve benson.

Mixed findings: Marx--yes, Lenin--no.

"Atheists More Motivated by Compassion than the Faithful"

by Live Science Staff
1 May 2012


"Atheists and agnostics are more driven by compassion to help others than are highly religious people, a new study finds.

"That doesn't mean highly religious people don't give, according to the research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal 'Social Psychological and Personality Science.' But compassion seems to drive religious people's charitable feelings less than it other groups.

"'Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not,' study co-author and University of California, Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer said in a statement. 'The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns.'

"Willer's co-author Laura Saslow, now a post-doctoral scholar at the University of California, San Francisco, became interested in the question of what motivates charity after a non-religious friend lamented that he donated money to earthquake recovery in Haiti only after seeing a heart-touching video of a woman being pulled from rubble, not because of a logical understanding that help was needed.

"'I was interested to find that this experience--an atheist being strongly influenced by his emotions to show generosity to strangers--was replicated in three large, systematic studies," Saslow said in a statement.

"In the first study, Saslow and her colleagues analyzed data from a national survey of more than 1,300 American adults taken in 2004. They found that compassionate attitudes were linked with how many generous behaviors a person was likely to report. But this link was strongest in people who were atheists or only slightly religious, compared with people who were more strongly religious. . . .

"In a second experiment, 101 adults were shown either a neutral video or an emotional video about children in poverty. They were then given 10 fake dollars and told they could give as much as they liked to a stranger. Those who were less religious gave more when they saw the emotional video first.

"'The compassion-inducing video had a big effect on their generosity," Willer said. "But it did not significantly change the generosity of more religious participants.'

"Finally, a sample of more than 200 college students reported their current level of compassion and then played economic games in which they were given money to share or withhold from a stranger. Those who were the least religious but most momentarily compassionate shared the most.

"More research will be needed to understand what factors motivate religious people's giving, but the study makes clear that empathy and compassion are not the only factors at play.

"'Overall, this research suggests that although less religious people tend to be less trusted in the U.S., when feeling compassionate, they may actually be more inclined to help their fellow citizens than more religious people,' Willer said."

("Atheists More Motivated by Compassion than the Faithfulm" by Live Science Staff, 1 May 2012, at: http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheists-motivated-)compassion.html)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 12:52AM by steve benson.

As an academic psychologist, she should have known this. It's the tendency or bias to be moved to help "the" victim, someone definitely presented, rather than "a" victim, or even multitudes of anonymous sufferers or needy. It is an emotional rather than a rational (utilitarian) response or scientifically informed charity.

"The identifiable victim effect is the paradox that people will bend over backwards to give to a specific person but be unmoved to help thousands or millions (Did someone say Syria?). The best explanation for the identifiable victim effect I’ve seen is that one person’s story is more emotionally moving and motivating than a statistic. People can’t connect with or visualize a statistic. They can’t feel the urgency or horror of a situation unless they put themselves in the shoes of someone who is part of that statistic. As a result, charities use stories about individuals that they help or that need help to better communicate their mission." (From an article on the Foundation Beyond Belief, "a humanist non-profit with the mission of showcasing and facilitating the compassion and generosity of nonbelievers"),

What your post suggests is that atheists are more susceptible to this Identifiable Victim Bias than "believers," which is rather strange, given than it's an emotional, not a rational reaction. Perhaps it's because those apparently stingy believers are already more heavily involved in rational charity donating and aren't so grabbed by one-shot pathos.

Try to wrap your head around that. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:39AM by steve benson.

If you yourself can't, what secondary sources can you find on this?

Are all academic psychologists required to be in lock-step with you? Of course not.

And if they are not, does that mean that they are uninformed? Sounds like that's what you think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:48AM by steve benson.

Being "bashed?" Playing the victim card now, eh? By the way. Did you answer this yet?

When you're asked "what religion are you?" do you answer "Atheist?"

Can we all agreed now that atheism is a religion? And all atheists will agree and not answer "none" when queried about their religious affiliation?

. . . to which you have no cogent response. Call it "carpet bashing" if that helps.

Who bashed your non-working tongue?

(P.S.--You might want to watch your tongue. When you've been boxed in before in this forum, you've resorted to vulgarities that caused you to get deleted and then led you to apologize. Just watching out for you. It's the non-Christian thing to do).



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:41AM by steve benson.

A quick question, so you can just address this one issue:

Did you originally alter the initials of the authors of "The New Criminology" or do you just copy and paste this stuff without checking the veracity of it?

Don't you agree that citing nearly century old stats as if they're somehow relevant is dishonest?

And, by the way, the above additional references serve to update and clarify (meaning they do not fundamentally undermine) the earlier data. But it does serve to undercut your anti-atheist evangelizing.

I notice that you have nothing to say about that. :)

Welcome to the 21st century. Try to keep up.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 01:13AM by steve benson.

Regarding the Federal Prison religion survey. Atheist Heina Dadabhoy write:


"First of all, the survey is from over ten years ago. As has been widely reported via the Census Bureau as well as other polls and surveys, the population of non-believers in the United States has been greatly increasing in the past decade or so. According to a Pew study from 2002, the number has jumped by 110% between 1990 and 2001 alone. The percentage of those who identify as non-religious in the United States is 18% according to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey. Prison statics from the 1990s, then, are not only outdated, but greatly so, given the changes in American society.

Secondly, there is the question of classification and self-identification. There are plenty of people who are not terribly religious who might still identify as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and so forth. As anyone who has tried to probe the minds of religious folk knows, religion is often strongly associated with identity but may not as strongly be a dictator of belief and worldview in the minds of those who identify as religious. Additionally, people who identify as being not religious may not be atheists, so conflating the two is a fallacy.

Last, but not least, is the important factor of religious conversions in prison. Religious organizations who want to increase their number tend to proselytize not to individuals who are doing too well in their lives and instead work with those who are hurting, be it financially, personally, or legally. Whether or not that is a cynical ploy to target the weak is anybody’s guess, but people in prison tend to be in a terrible place in life, to say the least, and thus both in need of help and psychologically vulnerable. Prison conversions are a fairly common occurrence, especially given their helpful effects on parole and the discrimination those without religion face when dealing with criminal charges."

. . . for atheists in secularized nations, or is that, per your order, off-limits, too?

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1512103,1512717#msg-1512717



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2015 02:01AM by steve benson.

After I resigned from the only true church, instead of calling me an immoral misfit, my mother wrote and whispered her euphemism for my decadence:

"California life-style" Oh... the shame. :)

Fight on, mighty immoral misfits!

on Death Row as I would in foxholes.

I have a terminal illness and I still can't bring myself to hack up much interest in religion.

I guess I regard Death as "The Great Whatever's Out There - Or Not."

I guess a lot of people facing death (and when you get right down to it, that's ALL of us!) find comfort in religion. I wish I were one of them.