posted
Honestly, I've never in a modern news story come across someone who killed their kids and made NO mention at all of god. I have come across maybe one or two in a few true-crime books, but I don't know if that's because the author didn't think to mention those quotes or because they really didn't mention god.
But it seems to me that an atheist no matter how mentally ill is less likely to kill because they don't believe that their child will have another chance in a better place. Also a mentally ill atheist is more likely to attribute voices to mental illness rather than to god, though some atheists may attribute it to aliens instead.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
dean:"Honestly, I've never in a modern news story come across someone who killed their kids and made NO mention at all of god."
Then you have never paid attention. Kids are killed by parents ALL THE TIME, and the stories you cited are about the only ones I have EVER heard of that mention God.
dean:"But it seems to me that an atheist no matter how mentally ill is less likely to kill because they don't believe that their child will have another chance in a better place."
Sure, an atheist may be less likely to kill their children for that reason, but they may be even more likely to kill their children for any number of other reasons, such as jealousy, anger, money, drugs, revenge, etc.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you saying that non-religious people are more likely to be jealous, angry, money-hungry, drug-addicted, and vengeful than religious people?
Why don't you cite some parents-kill-kids stories where there is no aspect of the religious yourself then, UU? If I have to come up with citations, you might as well yourself. And please, while your at it, see if you can't find an atheist who said that they killed their kids because of their atheism, okay? I'd be interested to see that.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The number of people who kill without reference to God is not relevant. The question is, are Christians over-represented among child-killers? (And to be fair, comrade dean's quotes do not prove such a thing.) However, I think it is reasonably clear that nobody has ever killed their children and given "I'm an atheist following the IPU's will" as their excuse.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that to prove your point, you have to show, not that religious people use religious justifications when they do abominable things (I mean DUH), but that religion causes religious people to do abominable things more often than atheists do them.
As far as I know, NAMBLA isn't a religious organization, but it is far more adamant about promoting and defending child molestation than the Catholic Church is even accused of being.
The excuse about Stalin being "made violent" when he was "molested by priests" is a really huge stretch. There is a difference between personal problems leading to an individual's violent outbursts, and institutional genocide involving an entire (atheist) organization of murderers.
Sure, there are enough religious people in the world that any type of horrendous act can eventually be connected to one. I mean, that's easy. Doesn't even begin to prove the idea that religion is the cause of the violence. In the Stalin case, you would need to prove that Catholicism turned some priest into a child molestor, and that the molestation by that priest caused the genocides under Stalin's government. I don't think there is any way to even pretend to do either.
Do you believe that if suddenly, in an instant, everyone abandoned their faiths, violence in the world would be even slightly diminished? I personally doubt it. A LOT.
...
By the way, how do we figure in "inactive" religious people? Folks who belong to a religion in name, but essentially live as atheists? Is their religion responsible for their bad behavior? What if they choose to use their religion as an excuse after the fact? Would you believe them? Why?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Were the Kamikaze pilots doing it for the same reasons as the suicide bombers in Israel? I get the impression that the Japanese pilots' willingness to sacrifice their lives was far more about nationalism, pride, culture, and desperation than it was about their emperor's nominal status as a "god".
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Come to think of it, what were Vietnamese suicide bombers doing it for? Weren't there cases of North Vietnamese sympathizers approaching American soldiers in public places and handing them a grenade?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
dean:"Are you saying that non-religious people are more likely to be jealous, angry, money-hungry, drug-addicted, and vengeful than religious people?"
Of course not. It would be crass and boorish to generalize about about an entire group based on their belief or lack thereof like that.
dean:"Why don't you cite some parents-kill-kids stories where there is no aspect of the religious yourself then, UU?"
Just in the past few months there have been prominent stories about this. There was Jerry Hobbs, who stabbed his daughter and her friend to death because the daughter wouldn't come home when he told her to. There was Precious Doe, whose mother and mother's boyfriend have been charged with murder. She was killed just because she lived with abusive people. This happens a lot, and it has nothing to do with religious belief.
dean:"see if you can't find an atheist who said that they killed their kids because of their atheism, okay?"
Of course such a thing would be ridiculous. But I bet there are lots of people who ended up killing their children whose lives would have turned out very differently if they had religious convictions which taught them to avoid such things.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How smoothly he turns from "Of course atheists don't kill for their beliefs" to "But I bet we could make these misguided souls feel better with our soul-scrubbing." It doesn't occur to you that most murderers are poor, and most poor people (in the US at least) are religious?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
King:"The number of people who kill without reference to God is not relevant."
I think it is, though not in isolation. I think that if child-killing is relatively common, and yet the numbers of child-killers who mention a religious motivation is small, it matters a lot.
King:"The question is, are Christians over-represented among child-killers?"
That would be an interesting question, but I don't think it's the question at hand. I think the proper question is, "Are people who kill their children because of religious motivations unusually common as opposed to people who kill their children for other reasons?" I think that they are not.
Sometimes people kill because they are nuts. People who are nuts manifest their nuttiness in different ways -- religious people's nuttiness might reasonably be expected to reflect their religious faith, just as non-religious people's nuttiness might reasonably be expected not to reflect religion at all. I don't see that the nut who is religious is more likely to kill than the nut who is not. The religious belief isn't the cause for the behavior, it's the nuttiness.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
King:"It doesn't occur to you that most murderers are poor, and most poor people (in the US at least) are religious?"
Poverty makes people desperate, and desperate people are more likely to kill.
Desperate people might also be more likely to feel the need of spiritual aid (as it is one kind of aid that they actually have access to).
I think that the second response to poverty is more positive, and that if more desperate people turned to religion there would be fewer desperate killers.
Rich people (in the absence of mental/emotional illness)are less likely to feel the kind of desperation that drives one either to violent acts or to spiritual solace.
Posts: 1652 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:...not that the secular governments of the day were much better. Incidentally, handicapped are one thing, but how about homosexuals? How secular was that?
Your first part is my point exactly. Your second part...do you really think it's religion that leads to homophobic bigotry? Religion exclusively?
As for what you know and don't know...you're regularly insulting, misrepresentative, and fanatical concerning religion and atheism. I am not.
-------
quote:Well, how often do atheists kill their children? How often do you hear an atheist say, "I killed my kids so they would be with Jesus? I know they're happier now, and we'll be together in the next life?" I never have heard one say anything like that, but I can think of maybe ten or twelve religious American parents who've killed their kids, and probably eight or so of them said that their kids are better off dead with Jesus or whatnot.
How many atheist people are there as a percentage of the population? How many studies have there been of your claim? How many serial killers weren't religious at all?
quote:Hitler was always a Catholic in good standing while the Catholic church threatens to excommunicate people for voting a pro-choice agenda. Don't you think that if they really felt that what Hitler did was wrong, they'd have said so at some point?
Assuming even one of your claims is true-and I don't-that you take them as an indictment of religion as a whole says much more about you than Catholocism OR religion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: How many atheist people are there as a percentage of the population?
Depending on how the poll is done, between 2% and 15%. About 2% generally self identify as atheists, but roughly 15% will answer that they generally don't believe in God.
The following letter is often quoted by atheists as indicating that atheists are underrepresented among the prison population in the U.S.
Note, these figures are probably represent self identification, so the 2% is the better number to use to compare with this particular set of figures.
quote: 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% ---------------------------- -------- Total Known Responses 74731 100.001% (rounding to 3 digits does this)
Unknown/No Answer 18381 ---------------------------- Total Convicted 93112 80.259% (74731) prisoners' religion is known.
Held in Custody 3856 (not surveyed due to temporary custody) ---------------------------- Total In Prisons 96968
I hope that this information is helpful to you.
Sincerely, Denise Golumbaski Research Analyst Federal Bureau of Prisons
Sorry for the mush, I tried to get the numbers to line up in columns, but it just didn't want to do it.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Poor baby, did I point out your logical fallacy before you could use it? Go on, tell me you don't believe those people had real faith when they committed their crime. You know it'll make you feel better.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Poor baby, did I point out your logical fallacy before you could use it? Go on, tell me you don't believe those people had real faith when they committed their crime. You know it'll make you feel better.
Golly, could you possibly be a more smug, self-impressed jackass, King of Men? You're a walking, talking bloody fanatic. When people say things like, "It's the people on the far-right and far-left that stop things from getting done," they're talking about you, and the funny thing is you're so busy congratulating yourself on how smart you are and how stupid and brainwashed most other people are, you don't even get it.
As for your stupid, insulting, and bigoted remark, no, obviously those people were not truly good examples of their religions when they committed their crimes. Since, y'know, there are Commandments and similar Scriptures prohibiting crime. By definition, those people were not acting in accordance with their faith when they committed their crime.
It's not a fallacy, as much as you would like to smugly implicate otherwise.
---------
As for the statistics you posted, Glenn...they're interesting, but they don't tell a full story in and of themselves. For one thing, they don't tell you what the numbers may have been when the crime was actually committed, not what they are while it is being punished.
A small percentage of crimes are reported, and a small percentage of those are successfully prosecuted. This is a chance for King of Men to very pompously state that atheists are smarter than their idiot religious cousins.
Finally, I believe that prison by its nature might make a person more likely to self-identify as religious or to convert. 'No atheists in foxholes', as the saying goes. I realize these aren't statistical objections, but I stick by them.
[ June 15, 2005, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What an outpouring of hate this thread has become. Consider, before you add to it, whether that's what you want to give to the world.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I rather strongly suspect there's no scripture prohibiting trafficking in drugs, actually. But apart from that, clearly the atheists aren't particularly poster children for their faith, either. That's not the point. The question is, which faith has more poster children, per unit adherent?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, how about a simple definition of "doesn't go to prison"? Not necessarily a final choice, but a place to start.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, the profanity isn't necessary, and it does nothing to help your argument. Please delete.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
While there's the occasional insult in his post, I see no profanity. What were you objecting to?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Well, how about a simple definition of "doesn't go to prison"?
I'm afraid that the religious have you beat there, KoM. There are definitely more religious people NOT in prison than there are athiests NOT in prison.
posted
I object to where he uses my creator's title as a form of profanity. And no, it's not a word I'm going to quote.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Finally, I believe that prison by its nature might make a person more likely to self-identify as religious or to convert. 'No atheists in foxholes', as the saying goes. I realize these aren't statistical objections, but I stick by them.
This is why I specified that you should use the 2% figure rather than some figure closer to the 15%. Those other 13% are the ones who tend to waffle under such situations.
I will also say that the "no atheists in foxholes" quote doesn't come from an atheist, but from a Christian General in WWII (I'd have to look up his name). Atheists find this characterization insulting, as though we could change our belief for some sort of convenience.
At the Godless Americans March On Washington, several hundred atheist veterans and servicemen took the stage to protest that slogan, and the practice of marking dogtags: "No Preference" if a service member replies that they are an atheist when asked for their religion.
There are also more than a few stories of atheists quite literally in a foxhole, who got mad at people cowering in the corner praying, told them to pick up a damn gun and do something productive, like shooting their way out of there.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Of course I don't take that as an absolute. I also don't think the saying implies that atheists would change based on convenience-sudden, gruesome death facing one inches away has a way of creating shock and reactions that otherwise would not happen.
I think prison could have a similar reaction.
----
The issue has been taken out of my hands, quid. I'm sorry you were offended.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"gruesome death facing one inches away has a way of creating shock and reactions that otherwise would not happen."
I know of quite a few atheists that argue that this kind of situation convinced them that a loving God could not exist.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I had assumed that once you saw the comment, you would have changed your wording simply out of consideration for another Hatracker, because this is the type of person I've come to know you to be. I just didn't know when you'd be back around, so I did it for you. If you don't like my choice of interjection, you're free to change it. *smile*
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: [QUOTE] I will also say that the "no atheists in foxholes" quote doesn't come from an atheist, but from a Christian General in WWII (I'd have to look up his name).
posted
I would have inserted "My stars", of course. Seriously - it's fun to say. Try it! If you emphasize the last word, it sounds satisfyingly like swearing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
LoL, you're more charitable than I deserve there, Pop. I was irritated that you'd edited my post initially, even though in the vast amount of time since then-like four minutes-I realize I was out of line in the initial use on the `Rack of that profanity, and my reaction was unfair. I implied a bit of that reaction in my post.
I guess that's because I apply different rules to that particular blasphemy when I'm especially irritated. Something I need to work on. Sorry, Quid and Pop, minus the irritation this time. My bad.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Beast is one of the original X-Men, and "Oh my stars and garters!" is one of his catch phrases.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's my way of saying that when I get irritated, I tend to use the word that was edited, Scott.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The bit about atheists in foxholes: To my understanding it can mean two things.
1) If a person says they're an atheist and they face and situation in which they might die or otherwise be mutilated, they will conveniently change their tune, and become religious.
2) An atheist would do anything to avoid putting themselves in a dangerous situation (nobly and for others), therefore, you never find them in a foxhole.
These are (honestly) the only two I can think of. Is there some other meaning it could have that I'm just overlooking, or is it just an insulting statement based on nothing that no one should quote in the future?
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Is there some other meaning it could have that I'm just overlooking, or is it just an insulting statement based on nothing that no one should quote in the future?
Nope. You don't get to post what you've posted in this thread and then complain about people using that statement, not if you don't want people to fall over in amazement at your audacity.
Glenn can say it with credibility. TomDavidson can say it, despite momentary lapses (of which there haven't been any for a while).
But if you can say atheists are less likely to kill their kids than religious people, you have no moral standing to complain about the "no atheists in foxholes" comment.
posted
It's strange that your understanding includes only those two things, Dean, especially since I gave another explanation entirely. I will repeat it:
Wars are extremely stressful things, and sometimes trauma can be so terrifying and severe that people go into shock due to extreme fright and latch onto anything they can, some hope. This could be something that in normal, rational circumstances is completely outside their normal behavior, and nothing they would soberly choose for themselves.
People reject God and embrace God in war, based on their unique and terrible experiences.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know of quite a few atheists that argue that this kind of situation convinced them that a loving God could not exist.
And I'm sure there are people who became atheists because of such an experience. Just as I'm sure there are people who converted while in a foxhole and confirmed that conversion afterwards.
The problem is with the word "no," not with the idea that some atheists might convert under such circumstances.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's in the Book of Mormon, that it can go both ways.
quote:Alma 62:41 But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility.
posted
Thanks Papa and Rakeesh. Yeah, "My stars and garters" would have won the day for me. *wipes tears* That's my favorite suggestions, hands down.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
*wipes tears* That's my favorite suggestions, hands down.
