ARE NON BELIEVERS LOWER IN MORAL CHARACTER THAN CHRISTIANS? Peanut Gallery.

[The Cadet]

I actually have looked at the statistics, and they suffer from one big fat flaw: selection bias. Specifically, the conditions they set for having "passed" the program are not simply "be a christian".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2003/08/faithbased_fudging.html

But when you look carefully at the Penn study, it's clear that the program didn't work. The InnerChange participants did somewhat worse than the controls: They were slightly more likely to be rearrested and noticeably more likely (24 percent versus 20 percent) to be reimprisoned. If faith is, as Paul told the Hebrews, the evidence of things not seen, then InnerChange is an opportunity to cultivate faith; we certainly haven't seen any results.

[...]

InnerChange started with 177 volunteer prisoners but only 75 of them "graduated." Graduation involved sticking with the program, not only in prison but after release. No one counted as a graduate, for example, unless he got a job. Naturally, the graduates did better than the control group. Anything that selects out from a group of ex-inmates those who hold jobs is going to look like a miracle cure, because getting a job is among the very best predictors of staying out of trouble. And inmates who stick with a demanding program of self-improvement through 16 months probably have more inner resources, and a stronger determination to turn their lives around, than the average inmate.

[...]

The InnerChange cheerleaders simply ignored the other 102 participants who dropped out, were kicked out, or got early parole and didn't finish. Naturally, the non-graduates did worse than the control group. If you select out the winners, you leave mostly losers.

Overall, the 177 entrants did a little bit worse than the controls. That result ought to discourage InnerChange's advocates, but it doesn't because they have just ignored the failure of the failures and focused on the success of the successes.
​

This is a simply dishonest way of massaging the data.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Well I haven't seen Prison Fellowships' statistics...but just from the name of the organization, I suspect they're going to be a teeny tiny bit biased regarding the incarceration rates of believers and non-believers.

If you look at polls/surveys done by organizations that collect statistical data as a profession...the results will probably surprise you. Atheists make a smaller percentage of the prison population than they are in the civilian population. The only real conclusion to draw is that they commit crimes at a lower statistical rate than their believer counterparts.

Twisting and turning to suit your own narrative (blame it all on christians) by the looks of things.

Just because you haven't seen Prison Fellowships statistics does not mean that they are wrong which you are implying. And the fact that the name implies bias according to you is nothing more than ideological dogma rearing its ugly head.

Charles Colson who started the ministry was impeccable when it comes to saying what he said and you knew that it could be trusted. Having been the second most powerful man in the world and having been amongst movers, shakers and liars on a regular basis, he knew the difference between the truth and lies.

I am not sure that when admitted prisoners are asked if they christian or atheist so your claim is moot.

Your comments seem more like sour grapes than conclusive evidence.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Cool story.

I personally don't buy it.

That's ok though, because you can still believe it.

That is the great thing about this. You don't have to buy it. It is given freely by Christ through his death on the cross. And I don't believe it. I live it. You can too.

 

[The Cadet]

Just because you haven't seen Prison Fellowships statistics does not mean that they are wrong which you are implying.

Have you seen them? Because you seem to be making claims about them that simply aren't supportable. The people involved in the program actually did worse on average than a suitable control group. Only those who finished the program had significantly better results than the control group - and finishing involves things like getting a job, a major hurdle for those coming out of prison and one of the best predictors of whether or not a former prisoner will stay out of trouble. If we take the statistics as a whole, the program fails. And only taking the successes is dishonest cherry-picking.

Charles Colson who started the ministry was impeccable when it comes to saying what he said and you knew that it could be trusted.

That's nice, but you know who really can be trusted? Hard data. If Colson claims that his prison ministry helps cut recidivism, he's lying. It doesn't. The one study he had commissioned on it directly shows that it does not help, showing a higher recidivism rate (24%) among those who participated than among the control group (20%). And this is even before we talk about things like selection bias, self-selection bias, and the like.

Having been the second most powerful man in the world and having been amongst movers, shakers and liars on a regular basis, he knew the difference between the truth and lies.

You know how you tell if someone's lying? It's not from their smile, or their firm handshake, or their down-to-earth nature. Con artists are usually pretty good at faking those things, otherwise they'd be lousy con artists. No, the way you tell if someone is lying is really simple: you check their facts. You go see for yourself whether or not what they're saying is correct. Now, if Colson says that his ministry helps reduce recidivism, then we can go to the data, see that 24 is in fact a larger number than 20, and conclude that he is either lying or has not read his own research.

(Of course, I'm not sure if he said that, but given how he holds up the program, it would not surprise me.)

There's no need to appeal to his personality or his power or anything else. All we have to do is check his facts.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Twisting and turning to suit your own narrative (blame it all on christians) by the looks of things.

Just because you haven't seen Prison Fellowships statistics does not mean that they are wrong which you are implying. And the fact that the name implies bias according to you is nothing more than ideological dogma rearing its ugly head.

Charles Colson who started the ministry was impeccable when it comes to saying what he said and you knew that it could be trusted. Having been the second most powerful man in the world and having been amongst movers, shakers and liars on a regular basis, he knew the difference between the truth and lies.

I am not sure that when admitted prisoners are asked if they christian or atheist so your claim is moot.

Your comments seem more like sour grapes than conclusive evidence.

Lol is your post meant to be ironic? I can't tell...

Anyways....here's some statistics for you...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...of-the-federal-prison-population/?repeat=w3tc

Atheists make up 3.2% of the population...but only 0.1% of the prison population. Is that clear enough? Not only do atheists commit less crimes, we commit them at lower rates, and we're underrepresented in the prison community.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Probably because no true believer (tm) would do anything worthy of jail time!

Yea I don't know where he's getting his numbers from. I looked into the group, and as Cadet explained it, they cook their books. Not that surprising considering they're founded by a guy who went to jail over the Watergate scandal!

If you just read what they do on their homepage...I personally find it despicable. Religions have typically gone after the desperate, uneducated, outcasts in society. Now they're trying to get their hooks into them before they get released from prison. Same old song and dance...new venue.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Have you seen them? Because you seem to be making claims about them that simply aren't supportable. The people involved in the program actually did worse on average than a suitable control group. Only those who finished the program had significantly better results than the control group - and finishing involves things like getting a job, a major hurdle for those coming out of prison and one of the best predictors of whether or not a former prisoner will stay out of trouble. If we take the statistics as a whole, the program fails. And only taking the successes is dishonest cherry-picking.

That's nice, but you know who really can be trusted? Hard data. If Colson claims that his prison ministry helps cut recidivism, he's lying. It doesn't. The one study he had commissioned on it directly shows that it does not help, showing a higher recidivism rate (24%) among those who participated than among the control group (20%). And this is even before we talk about things like selection bias, self-selection bias, and the like.

You know how you tell if someone's lying? It's not from their smile, or their firm handshake, or their down-to-earth nature. Con artists are usually pretty good at faking those things, otherwise they'd be lousy con artists. No, the way you tell if someone is lying is really simple: you check their facts. You go see for yourself whether or not what they're saying is correct. Now, if Colson says that his ministry helps reduce recidivism, then we can go to the data, see that 24 is in fact a larger number than 20, and conclude that he is either lying or has not read his own research.

(Of course, I'm not sure if he said that, but given how he holds up the program, it would not surprise me.)

There's no need to appeal to his personality or his power or anything else. All we have to do is check his facts.

I am beginning to think you hate christians and anything they do, and I am beginning to think that you think your word is infallible so cannot be questioned. I would like you to keep on ranting and raving as it is obvious that it makes you happy and feel superior. Be my guest.

I have read all of Charles Colson's books and met the man and listen to him speak at meetings and he has proved to be in more ways than one trustworthy and done an enormous amount for prisoners and the way prisoners are treated. Just one small example is the Prison Fellowship's Christmas Tree Appeal. They ask for donations and presents that can be passed onto wives and children of prisoners whose Christmas is going to very bleak because the father is in prison.

And then there is the concept of restorative justice which he introduced into the prison system which has done wonders for the victim and the perpetrator.

I know you would rather spout figures and run down anything that Prison Fellowship does but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so I would appreciate it if you would leave us alone and let us get on with the wonderful work that is being done by the selfless volunteers day in and day out for no pay and no glory. They do it because the love of Jesus compels them to.

Just a thought. What do you do to help prisoners? Probably nothing as atheists seem to spend more time criticising the people that are doing something positive rather than get their own hands dirty.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Yea I don't know where he's getting his numbers from. I looked into the group, and as Cadet explained it, they cook their books. Not that surprising considering they're founded by a guy who went to jail over the Watergate scandal!

If you just read what they do on their homepage...I personally find it despicable. Religions have typically gone after the desperate, uneducated, outcasts in society. Now they're trying to get their hooks into them before they get released from prison. Same old song and dance...new venue.

Spoken like a true atheist. I would rather run down what you do than do it myself. May I suggest that you get the plank out of your eye before you try and remove the speck from someone else's eye. It obviously would be a good move as you can't see the wood for the trees because of the plank.

Saying that they cook their books is libelous especially as you have no evidence to back you up. And your comment about Charles Colson is slanderous. In your sad, sorry and sick world you have yet to work out that there are numerous people who have gone to jail and come out and made a success of their lives. But it seems you prefer to condemn them to failure because they did one thing wrong.

I have got news for you. When you stand before the judgment seat of Christ every single thing you have done wrong will be revealed and it ain't going to be a pretty sight. The good news is that you still have time to get your messed up life sorted out before Christ comes again so make good use of the time or it will be a hell of an eternity for you.

The saddest thing about your take on life is that you think christians who give their time and money selflessly to the down and out, the poor and sick are somehow abusing people. Sorry moderators, but you are one big arrogant sod (that is an Australian colloquialism) who makes me glad I am not an atheist and with an attitude like that it is no wonder atheists never get anything right.

What I find despicable is that in your arrogant attitude you think that you know everything and we know nothing. The day of judgment is coming!!

 

[tiglathpileser]

Lol is your post meant to be ironic? I can't tell...

Anyways....here's some statistics for you...

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...of-the-federal-prison-population/?repeat=w3tc

Atheists make up 3.2% of the population...but only 0.1% of the prison population. Is that clear enough? Not only do atheists commit less crimes, we commit them at lower rates, and we're underrepresented in the prison community.

your statistics are a complete and utter joke.

First they are reported by atheists dedicated to atheism. If christians are biased in their reporting it stands to reason atheists are biased in their reporting.

Second, your report does not include any figures for State Prisons. It only covers Federal so you have missed out the majority.

Third. As atheists specialise in missing out the most important facts, just possibly some of the atheists in prison do not identify as such because they know it will give atheism a bad name.

Fourth. Religion is an esoteric term and can include all sorts of expressions. Because atheists deny they are a religion which they are, their answer may cover up the truth so the statistics are irrelevant in that respect.

What is clear is that you twist and turn at the slightest whim to protect your veil of supposed innocence.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Have you seen them? Because you seem to be making claims about them that simply aren't supportable. The people involved in the program actually did worse on average than a suitable control group. Only those who finished the program had significantly better results than the control group - and finishing involves things like getting a job, a major hurdle for those coming out of prison and one of the best predictors of whether or not a former prisoner will stay out of trouble. If we take the statistics as a whole, the program fails. And only taking the successes is dishonest cherry-picking.

That's nice, but you know who really can be trusted? Hard data. If Colson claims that his prison ministry helps cut recidivism, he's lying. It doesn't. The one study he had commissioned on it directly shows that it does not help, showing a higher recidivism rate (24%) among those who participated than among the control group (20%). And this is even before we talk about things like selection bias, self-selection bias, and the like.

You know how you tell if someone's lying? It's not from their smile, or their firm handshake, or their down-to-earth nature. Con artists are usually pretty good at faking those things, otherwise they'd be lousy con artists. No, the way you tell if someone is lying is really simple: you check their facts. You go see for yourself whether or not what they're saying is correct. Now, if Colson says that his ministry helps reduce recidivism, then we can go to the data, see that 24 is in fact a larger number than 20, and conclude that he is either lying or has not read his own research.

(Of course, I'm not sure if he said that, but given how he holds up the program, it would not surprise me.)

There's no need to appeal to his personality or his power or anything else. All we have to do is check his facts.

if that is the case, why do atheists refuse to check the facts instead make a law out of generalities like last week two atheists said "most christian believe in..." when in actual fact they have no way way of knowing what most christians believed.

If you expect everyone else to check the facts, then you must do the same but it seems that facts are not relevant to a lot of atheists.

If you are not sure if he said that, then why are you criticising him for saying it? Duplicity seems to be the name of your game.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I actually have looked at the statistics, and they suffer from one big fat flaw: selection bias. Specifically, the conditions they set for having "passed" the program are not simply "be a christian".

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2003/08/faithbased_fudging.html

But when you look carefully at the Penn study, it's clear that the program didn't work.
​

This is a simply dishonest way of massaging the data.

When you look carefully at the Pen study it is clear the programme DID WORK AS THIS COMMENT SHOWS....

"Now comes a study from the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reporting that InnerChange graduates have been rearrested and re-imprisoned at dramatically lower rates than a matched control group."

Yours is a simply dishonest way of massaging the data.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Yea I don't know where he's getting his numbers from. I looked into the group, and as Cadet explained it, they cook their books. Not that surprising considering they're founded by a guy who went to jail over the Watergate scandal!

KATIE WAS RELEASED FROM PRISON THREE MONTHS AGO. While incarcerated, she worked hard to become a better person, and now she’s ready for a fresh start. But everyone she meets disappears as soon as they find out about her past. Katie wonders, “Why won’t anyone give me a chance to prove I’ve changed?”

According to you, she doesn't deserve a chance.

 

[tiglathpileser]

As an NGO, Prison Fellowship International maintains Consultative Status (Category II) with the UN Economic and Social Council[5] and is an active participant in the Alliance of NGOs on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

Must be doing something right.

I have just read the Wikipedia entry for Prison Fellowship International and incarceration in the USA jails and not once does it mention anything about christians or atheists.

 

[bhsmte]

That is the great thing about this. You don't have to buy it. It is given freely by Christ through his death on the cross. And I don't believe it. I live it. You can too.

Been there, done that, then I woke up and learned a few things.

 

[Ana the Ist]

your statistics are a complete and utter joke.

I actually provided some...more than I can say for you.

First they are reported by atheists dedicated to atheism. If christians are biased in their reporting it stands to reason atheists are biased in their reporting.

The statistics come from the census bureau and federal prison bureau lol. If you want, I call pull these numbers directly from those two bureaus themselves...they'll be the exact same numbers. Atheists don't have to lie about these things to fit some narrative...that's what your evangelical organization does.

Second, your report does not include any figures for State Prisons. It only covers Federal so you have missed out the majority.

Not every state keeps this kind of information as record...those that do don't necessarily keep any consistent numbers from state to state.

Third. As atheists specialise in missing out the most important facts, just possibly some of the atheists in prison do not identify as such because they know it will give atheism a bad name.

It's possible, just like it's possible some christians will identify as atheists so they don't give christians a bad name.

Fourth. Religion is an esoteric term and can include all sorts of expressions. Because atheists deny they are a religion which they are, their answer may cover up the truth so the statistics are irrelevant in that respect.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that every prisoner is religious because you mistakenly believe christianity is a religion?

What is clear is that you twist and turn at the slightest whim to protect your veil of supposed innocence.

"Veil of supposed innocence"?!? You came onto this thread saying that most prisoners were atheists. I didn't magically make these statistics for the census or prison bureaus. Those are the facts. Atheists are significantly underrepresented in prison populations.

What you should really be upset about is why your Prison Fellowship has been lying to you all this time. Do you think it's because they'd lose support if people knew most prisoners were already christian (and therefore already saved)? Or do you think it's because people might start asking questions about where all the money goes if they don't actually improve a prisoners' chances of staying out of prison?

 

[The Cadet]

I have read all of Charles Colson's books and met the man and listen to him speak at meetings and he has proved to be in more ways than one trustworthy and done an enormous amount for prisoners and the way prisoners are treated.

I would respond to this, but you do so yourself.

I know you would rather spout figures and run down anything that Prison Fellowship does but the proof of the pudding is in the eating

Yes! The proof of the pudding is in the eating! And when we actually examine the results of the study, we find that the recidivism rate among those who participated was 24%, while the recidivism rate among the control group was 20%. Ergo, the program failed. It's that simple. I don't care how trustworthy you think Colson is; the data simply does not support his claims.

I would rather run down what you do than do it myself.

If what you do is actually harmful and a significant waste of money, then running down what you do is a good thing.

if that is the case, why do atheists refuse to check the facts instead make a law out of generalities like last week two atheists said

Uh, hi, tiglathpileser, am I one of those two atheists? Is Ana The Ist one of those two atheists? You're talking to us, not to them. There are stupid atheists. I know that. But attempting ad hominem by proxy is just absurd. Let's talk about the figures, not people.

When you look carefully at the Pen study it is clear the programme DID WORK AS THIS COMMENT SHOWS....

"Now comes a study from the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society reporting that InnerChange graduates have been rearrested and re-imprisoned at dramatically lower rates than a matched control group."

Yours is a simply dishonest way of massaging the data.

Did you read the study? Yes, InnerChange graduates did better. This is to be expected. In fact, I could strip out almost everything that makes InnerChange what it is, and still come up with this result. Do you know why? Because graduation from InnerChange is contingent upon you getting a stable job and reintegrating with the community when you get out of prison.

But here's the problem. In studies, we have to compare like variables. There's no point in comparing variables with significantly different selection criteria if we don't control for built-in biases. InnerChange graduates, by definition, got stable jobs after they left prison. So we need to compare these people not to just random inmates, but specifically to inmates who get stable jobs shortly after leaving prison. So let's compare.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._to_employment_reduces_recidivism_126939.html

To further supplement this study, we looked within our own prison-to-work programs in six cities across the United States. While they were not controlled studies, the results have been consistent and impressive. Statewide rates of recidivism range from about 31 to 70 percent, while the rates for those placed in jobs shortly after their release ranged from 3.3 to eight percent. One could claim that these were self-selected to be more employable and less likely to recidivate. But in High Point, NC, only violent offenders who were identified by the police as most likely to reoffend were referred to our office for jobs. The North Carolina statewide recidivism rate was 40.7 percent, while the recidivism rate for individuals referred and placed in jobs was five percent.
​

So when we actually do compare like with like, InnerChange fails. In fact, it fails pretty miserably, only dropping the rate from 20% to 8% whereas other prison-to-work programs drop the recidivism rate far, far more. But of course, focusing only on the graduates is exactly the problem: for a program like this to work, we can't just focus on the graduates. We have to focus on everyone, and we have to keep in mind how likely it is to get through the program in the first place. A program that leads to a 0% recidivism rate that only 0.1% of those who participate can get through isn't very useful. Which is why I keep coming back to the overall figures. Of those who participated (not just those who graduated, but everyone who took part), the recidivism rate was not just similar to the control, it was higher than the control. This is why it is fair to say that InnerChange failed. Because for those who took part, on average, it made things worse.

Now, please, before you respond, do me a favor. Keep a few things in mind.

1. You are talking to me. Not "some random atheist I talked to years ago who was wrong about X, Y, and Z"; we are having a conversation.
2. It would be really nice if you focused on the actual figures. Not who I am, not my religious beliefs, not what I've done for prisoners (indeed, the point I'm trying to make is that doing nothing would still be better than InnerChange), but the actual data