If you need God for Morality, why are Atheists so underrepresented in prison pop.?

[selfinflikted]

Not polite to misquote people. That is highly disrespectful and rude. You may paraphrase but not misquote if you desire to be respected yourself.

He was being neither disrespectful or rude - the quote was changed to make a point. It was a very good point also, care to address it?

 

[LittleNipper]

You need to learn the difference between a straw man and an analogy. You said you didn't ask questions about Zeus. I asked you if you would ask questions if some people who genuinely believed in Zeus started trying to make laws in your country which would force you to change your way of life or deprive you of your rights. This was to help you to imagine how it feels for an atheist to live in a country where Christian doctrine frequently has an effect on political and legal issues. I was not suggesting that this was a situation which would actually arise. Also, I'm not sure what the ancient Greeks' conversion or failure to convert to Judaism has to do with anything at all.

Unfortunately, I credited you with more imagination than you are displaying here, so let's try this, instead:

Suppose some Hindus came to your country and tried to make laws based on the precepts of their holy texts - laws which happened to infringe on some rights you believe you are entitled to, or which would force you to change your way of life. Would you start asking questions about their deities (in whom I presume you do not believe) if that happened? Would you start to question their ethics and their principles?

What if the Flying Spaghetti Monster acquired a huge following and his followers became a significant political lobby? Would you then not question the evidence for the existence of their deity, the basis for their ethical policy, and so on?

I am asking you to display some empathy, to try to imagine what it is like for other people. This is often challenging, but it can be very rewarding.

People do not still believe in Zeus. People still believe in the one true GOD and have throughout history. Who speaks for Zeus? Who has a testimony for CHRIST today? Big difference.

 

[LittleNipper]

He was being neither disrespectful or rude - the quote was changed to make a point. It was a very good point also, care to address it?

He needs to ask it then.

 

[selfinflikted]

People do not still believe in Zeus. People still believe in the one true GOD and have throughout history. Who speaks for Zeus? Who has a testimony for CHRIST today? Big difference.

But the POINT is, Zeus and Biblegod are on equal footing to a number of people.

 

[fated]

My best friend spent a decade in the klink. She has some interesting stories indeed. She has noted to me that prison ministries favor Christianity, at least in our state, so prisoners tend to have more access to Christian materials, pastors, and so on. She has also noted that actively Christian prisoners receive more privileges than nonreligious ones.

The implication, of course, is that many prisoners "convert" because it earns them more freedoms in the system, and because Christianity is what they have access to. This could certainly skew the current data about there being fewer atheists in prisons, if it could be demonstrated that prisoners convert out of expediency rather than genuine faith. If so, there could be folks who act Christian but are privately atheists.

But I don't know how one would measure that, or if anyone has ever done so. So maybe it's irrelevant.

Maybe it's the priests that know stuff like this:

I will profess my love for the Church.
The Church carries with it baggage. It is one holy and made of sinners. It is filled with hypocrites (and there is always room for one more).
Yet, it has survived the rise and fall of empires.
It has even survived and thrived beyond the fall of its own empire.
It traces its roots back to the holy land into all the people of the Old Testament and was founded by the Apostles and principally the Apostles Peter and Paul.
It has existed since then through history with a succession of Bishops of Rome as its visible head and source of earthly unity.
One in six people claim to follow it.
After Jesus died the Roman authorities killed Christians in the Colosseum in large numbers, not because they wouldn't deny the existence of Jesus (Whom the Romans knew existed), but because they would not deny that He rose from the dead and they had seen Him.
This Tradition follows for a few hundred years, though most of those killed no longer claimed to have seen Jesus after His resurrection.
Finally, the bishops converted the emperor (to some extent) and the Church was allowed to openly convert people. It was highly successful. Yes, to some extent the being a member of the Roman Church became compulsory, nonetheless.
So, what reason do we have to believe in Jesus?
It does not rest only on the four witnesses (the Gospels), which would be enough proof for most historians for the reason to believe historical events (it is way beyond what they require).
Nor is it because the NT Bible contains several eyewitness testimonies and those of the immediate followers of these. Enough, you could say, to prove any historical event, save for the miraculous, to any historian.
The Church itself, the Bible, and those who serve therein, all point to Jesus as not only have existed, but having risen from the dead.
And while I don't expect you to come running into my arms, I want to point out that both of us cannot be right.

 

[selfinflikted]

Maybe it's the priests that know stuff like this:

I will profess my love for the Church.
The Church carries with it baggage. It is one holy and made of sinners. It is filled with hypocrites (and there is always room for one more).
Yet, it has survived the rise and fall of empires.
It has even survived and thrived beyond the fall of its own empire.
It traces its roots back to the holy land into all the people of the Old Testament and was founded by the Apostles and principally the Apostles Peter and Paul.
It has existed since then through history with a succession of Bishops of Rome as its visible head and source of earthly unity.
One in six people claim to follow it.
After Jesus died the Roman authorities killed Christians in the Colosseum in large numbers, not because they wouldn't deny the existence of Jesus (Whom the Romans knew existed), but because they would not deny that He rose from the dead and they had seen Him.
This Tradition follows for a few hundred years, though most of those killed no longer claimed to have seen Jesus after His resurrection.
Finally, the bishops converted the emperor (to some extent) and the Church was allowed to openly convert people. It was highly successful. Yes, to some extent the being a member of the Roman Church became compulsory, nonetheless.
So, what reason do we have to believe in Jesus?
It does not rest only on the four witnesses (the Gospels), which would be enough proof for most historians for the reason to believe historical events (it is way beyond what they require).
Nor is it because the NT Bible contains several eyewitness testimonies and those of the immediate followers of these. Enough, you could say, to prove any historical event, save for the miraculous, to any historian.
The Church itself, the Bible, and those who serve therein, all point to Jesus as not only have existed, but having risen from the dead.
And while I don't expect you to come running into my arms, I want to point out that both of us cannot be right.

This is argumentum ad populum, or an appeal to the majority - a logical fallacy. Simply because more people believe in gnomes (for instance) than those who don't, doesn't prove that gnomes exist. Try again.

 

[Morcova]

People do not still believe in Zeus. People still believe in the one true GOD and have throughout history. Who speaks for Zeus? Who has a testimony for CHRIST today? Big difference.

Sorry, your religion is fairly young, the chrisitan concept of god is roughly 2000 years old.

Now if you want a religion that's been around longer than yours try hinduism. It is after all the oldest currently practiced religion.

 

[fated]

This is argumentum ad populum, or an appeal to the majority - a logical fallacy. Simply because more people believe in gnomes (for instance) than those who don't, doesn't prove that gnomes exist. Try again.

"Logical fallacy"

Mixed science and the positive assertion:

Assume a marble resting of the surface of a desk.

1) What is the probability (P) of the marble passing through the surface of the desk as the time frame (T) approaches infinity?

Suppose one scientist in his search for the answer collects evidence spanning 10,000 year of experience and there is not one incidence of this occurrence. He therefore concludes that his experiment shows that the probability is “undefined.”

Suppose another scientist upon placing a marble on the surface of the desk sees it pass through the surface of the desk. He has collected a total of less than one second of evidence, and yet concludes that the probability of the occurrence equals “1” over the given time frame.

2) Describe the probability (P) of the marble passing through the desks surface as the marble’s surface area (A) approaches “0.”

 

[selfinflikted]

"Logical fallacy"

Mixed science and the positive assertion:

Assume a marble resting of the surface of a desk.

1) What is the probability (P) of the marble passing through the surface of the desk as the time frame (T) approaches infinity?

Suppose one scientist in his search for the answer collects evidence spanning 10,000 year of experience and there is not one incidence of this occurrence. He therefore concludes that his experiment shows that the probability is “undefined.”

Suppose another scientist upon placing a marble on the surface of the desk sees it pass through the surface of the desk. He has collected a total of less than one second of evidence, and yet concludes that the probability of the occurrence equals “1” over the given time frame.

2) Describe the probability (P) of the marble passing through the desks surface as the marble’s surface area (A) approaches “0.”

Maybe I'm missing something, but you have posted this several times now and I cannot draw the parallel between this and argumentum ad populum (or anything else this post has directly followed). Perhaps you could shed some light on my misunderstanding?

 

[fated]

Maybe I'm missing something, but you have posted this several times now and I cannot draw the parallel between this and argumentum ad populum (or anything else this post has directly followed). Perhaps you could shed some light on my misunderstanding?

Consider atheism as the God or atheism as the positive assertion. One scientist searching for the answer finds no reason to believe that God does (or does not) exist and determines that he does not know.

Another scientist finds reason to believe the God exists (or does not) and therefore concludes the God must exist.

Probability states that if something is possible it will occur over an infinite time frame. Now we have no way of knowing if the universe is over an infinite time frame, and thus we must conclude that reasonably the evidence that we have would seem to be not nearly significant enough to draw the conclusion that it is.

Science has no reasonable way to determine that the marble passing through the desk top is reasonably impossible, and is therefore, at this point, a theoretical possibility.

A continuous possibility carried out over infinite time yields a positive...

I can discuss this writing at some length and for some time...

How does one disprove somethings existence?

 

[fated]

Sorry, your religion is fairly young, the chrisitan concept of god is roughly 2000 years old.

Now if you want a religion that's been around longer than yours try hinduism. It is after all the oldest currently practiced religion.

I have already used the Roman Church as the precious pearl (the marble), although I could use any of the Apostolic Rites of the Church, I will move on then and use the Dali Lama? Of course, the Dali Lama is agnostic.

 

[TheManeki]

"Logical fallacy"

Mixed science and the positive assertion:

Assume a marble resting of the surface of a desk.

1) What is the probability (P) of the marble passing through the surface of the desk as the time frame (T) approaches infinity?

Suppose one scientist in his search for the answer collects evidence spanning 10,000 year of experience and there is not one incidence of this occurrence. He therefore concludes that his experiment shows that the probability is “undefined.”

Suppose another scientist upon placing a marble on the surface of the desk sees it pass through the surface of the desk. He has collected a total of less than one second of evidence, and yet concludes that the probability of the occurrence equals “1” over the given time frame.

I don't think it is possible to determine the probability of an event based on only 1 measurement. I would expect other scientists to repeat the experiments (if one hypothetical scientist can collect data over 10,000 years, then other hypothetical scientists can too) and determine the average probability over 10,000 years. It may turn out that the probability is 0.0001, 0.99999, or somewhere in between. I would also expect that if nobody else would be able to obtain results similar to those of scientist #2, his results would be disregarded. That's one of the advantages of peer review.

2) Describe the probability (P) of the marble passing through the desks surface as the marble’s surface area (A) approaches “0.”

As the surface area of the marble approaches subatomic size, there would be a possibility that the particle could pass through the table. This effect is called "tunnelling" and is predicted in Quantum Mechanical theory.

 

[fated]

I don't think it is possible to determine the probability of an event based on only 1 measurement. I would expect other scientists to repeat the experiments (if one hypothetical scientist can collect data over 10,000 years, then other hypothetical scientists can too) and determine the average probability over 10,000 years. It may turn out that the probability is 0.0001, 0.99999, or somewhere in between. I would also expect that if nobody else would be able to obtain results similar to those of scientist #2, his results would be disregarded. That's one of the advantages of peer review.


As the surface area of the marble approaches subatomic size, there would be a possibility that the particle could pass through the table. This effect is called "tunnelling" and is predicted in Quantum Mechanical theory.

Very nice.

Of note here, is the presence of significant figures in the assessment of the probability over a given non-infinite time frame.

 

[cantata]

People do not still believe in Zeus. People still believe in the one true GOD and have throughout history. Who speaks for Zeus? Who has a testimony for CHRIST today? Big difference.

Aside from this being entirely irrelevant to everything I said in my last post...

What about Shiva? Care to read the rest of my post, which offered you an example where you weren't required to use quite so much imagination?

 

[TheManeki]

Very nice.

Of note here, is the presence of significant figures in the assessment of the probability over a given non-infinite time frame.

How so?

 

[selfinflikted]

Consider atheism as the God or atheism as the positive assertion. One scientist searching for the answer finds no reason to believe that God does (or does not) exist and determines that he does not know.

Another scientist finds reason to believe the God exists (or does not) and therefore concludes the God must exist.

Probability states that if something is possible it will occur over an infinite time frame. Now we have no way of knowing if the universe is over an infinite time frame, and thus we must conclude that reasonably the evidence that we have would seem to be not nearly significant enough to draw the conclusion that it is.

Science has no reasonable way to determine that the marble passing through the desk top is reasonably impossible, and is therefore, at this point, a theoretical possibility.

A continuous possibility carried out over infinite time yields a positive...

I can discuss this writing at some length and for some time...

How does one disprove somethings existence?

Ah. Thanks for the explanation, however, there is one flaw in your reasoning. You state that atheism is a positive assertion, and I assume you mean it's positive assertion is such to say that 'god does not exist'. This is not my experience with most atheists though, and it isn't the way I feel. We simply lack a belief in your god, and any other god. This is not to say that yours or anyone else's does NOT exist as a cold, hard fact - only that we lack belief in them. There's a very subtle difference there I assure you.

Also, I would argue that your assertion that a marble passing through a desktop is a "theoretical" one. A "theory" as I understand it is a set of principles or ideas that attempt to explain a set of facts or phenomena through rigorous and repeated testing. By definition, I wouldn't consider the statement that a marble could pass through a solid desktop surface "theoretically" possible.

 

[fated]

How so?

The significant figures point directly to what is not yet measured. Thus, possibility always remains unless as definitive is reached. Thus, I ask as a probability over the time span "infinity" thus resulting in an absolute value of 1 or 0 as the ultimate answer.

 

[selfinflikted]

The significant figures point directly to what is not yet measured. Thus, possibility always remains unless as definitive is reached. Thus, I ask as a probability over the time span "infinity" thus resulting in an absolute value of 1 or 0 as the ultimate answer.

But one wouldn't reach an "ultimate" answer where infinity is concerned. In any case, this is a pretty weak argument for the existence of your god or any other. With the proposition you've set up, it'd be just as prudent to assume that Zeus could "theoretically" exist - given enough time.

 

[fated]

Ah. Thanks for the explanation, however, there is one flaw in your reasoning. You state that atheism is a positive assertion, and I assume you mean it's positive assertion is such to say that 'god does not exist'. This is not my experience with most atheists though, and it isn't the way I feel. We simply lack a belief in your god, and any other god. This is not to say that yours or anyone else's does NOT exist as a cold, hard fact - only that we lack belief in them. There's a very subtle difference there I assure you.

Also, I would argue that your assertion that a marble passing through a desktop is a "theoretical" one. A "theory" as I understand it is a set of principles or ideas that attempt to explain a set of facts or phenomena through rigorous and repeated testing. By definition, I wouldn't consider the statement that a marble could pass through a solid desktop surface "theoretically" possible.

I apologize, you are correct, I did use the term "theoretical possibility" (or a derivative thereof) in the common relativistic way, rather than giving it the respect it deserves. I would hate for you to draw the conclusion that I, therefore, that evolution is a "mere" theory, which is not the case (although there is a of missing information in this theory, which allows an amazing array of beliefs).

What classification should I have used? Perhaps "reasonable hypothesis" over the given time frame?

 

[fated]

But one wouldn't reach an "ultimate" answer infinity is concerned. In any case, this is a pretty weak argument for the existence of your god or any other. With the proposition you've set up, it'd be just as prudent to assume that Zeus could "theoretically" exist - given enough time.

I disagree, I presented the continued existence and vitality of the Roman Catholic Church as the miraculous marble passing through the desk. Then, I used the miraculous continued existence of the position "Dali Lama" as the miraculous marble passing through the desk.