Priests/believers in the army?

[Freethinker]

My contention (that flies in the face of Freethinker) is that a Godless society will be no better than a Religious society (and maybe a wee-bit worse - although I admit there is no basis for this sweeping assumption of a 'wee-bit' worse) ;)

Not only is there a compete lack of "basis" for any claim of a godless society being less ethical/ mral. But it is actually competely contradictory to the FACTS that are available. Once more we find that not only is non-belief shown to be a more moral stance, but once more we find that the "believers" not only do not have facts of any value behind them, but they actually make claims that the facts contradict.

[pgrmdave]

Are you implying, Freethinker, that these criminals, had they not been religious, would not have commited crimes?

[Freethinker]

Although there may not be a direct corollation, the percentage of athiests in prison, according to numerous sources, is approximately .002

Ah yes, i was wating to get to your post, Linda, before digging into the causality issue. Your post shows your typical knowledge of facts and your well placed skepticism in how to apply them.

 

Let's admit that there is an undeniable bias in the US prison system for inmates that claim a religious underpinning. So would a non-believer that has "criminal ethics" not try to take advantage of this and claim to be a believer anyway? Very likely. Let's say that half would do that while half would be "in your face" about not believing. If you'd like to discuss some other percentage, fine. I'm open. I admit that I do not have those stats. What percent of the almost 100% of the prison popuation that claim to be believers are not? Let's make it a high percent of non-believers or the overall population. Let's say that 6% of the pop is. That still leaves the extreme vast majority of inamtes, criminals, that have lived their lives, been brought up to follow, a main Christian personal philosophy.

 

If the statistics show nothing else, they show that a Christian upbringing and Christianity as an accepted personal philsophy does not show ANY statistical advantage when it comes to providing guidence for one to live an ethical and moral life.

 

Christianity can not lay claim to any superior moral stance. It does at best a statistical dead heat, at worst far less desirable of a personal philosophy for developing mral and ethical people.

 

Being godless is at least no worse, and potentially far better as a personal philosophy.

[IrishEyes]

Does anyone remember the original reason for this thread?

 

Freethinker, and lindagarrette, you have some fabulous stats, and I'd like to continue discussing them, and their implications, in a brand new thread.

 

Freethinker, would you please use your data on religious people in prison to start a new thread? You can call it whatever you like, and your first post can be the post where you list the entire page of the Schlapp/Smith studies. I'd really like to hear more about that, if you don't mind.

 

Thanks so much for helping keep this topic close to its origins. ;)

[Freethinker]

I think that number has a valid reason. Athiests don't have a "second chance" existence. If you believe you become worm poop when you die, you do not want to waste the time you do have. I feel for athiests (at least for me) that wasted time is the worst atrocity one can commit. Time is all we have and it must be used wisely. There is no do-over, no pearly gates with ambrosia and your childhood puppy. there is just the here and now.

In my last post I wanted to look at it from the view of even if lies are assumed, what does it say.

 

But I also find a reasonable connection between the low numbers of non-believers and the philosophy most non-believers would take. And again, as you point out, valid reasoning to support the assertion that a Christian mindset would promiote criminal bevaior, or at least make it more acceptable to the criminal mind.

 

Atheists must assume full personal responsibility for everything that happens to them. There is no all powerful outside agent to have ultiamte control, to be ther to place ultimate blame on. "The devil made me do it!".

 

Ask ANY christian if they are going to heaven. I have never met one that would seriously state with no uncertainty that they know they are not going to heaven. Each believes that somehow the rules will bend enough for them.

 

And if they accept a lack of ultimate culpability for their entire lifes work, what will a few minor crimes matter? And what does some local authority have as deterence that their all powerful god does not trump in spades?

 

Christianity not only fails to provide a superior moral stance, even an equal more stance to non-belief, it actual offers a way for unethical immoral actions to be internalized by it's followers. Their god will forgive them, who's some local shmuck to argue with their god?

[Freethinker]

As for killing in self-defense; there are ways to protect yourself that are nonleathal. Why would you shoot someone if you could disarm them? My position has been doubted but there has been no argument against it other than "No. I would kill." What situation could you been that would leave you no other option? (Aside from some hypothetical goldbergian contraption that left you no choice. And you know muggers walk around with those everyday....)

I agree that I would do everything I could to resolve such matters without using leathal force. Unlike such notable Christians as Kent Hovid who stated on TV the other day that he has a loaded gun and will without thinking empty the gun into any trespasser to his home. He BRAGGED about it. WHile spewing crap about how Evolution destroys Morals.

 

But the question was whether I could imagine a scenereo where there was no option, what would I do.

[pgrmdave]

But I also find a reasonable connection between the low numbers of non-believers and the philosophy most non-believers would take.

 

Is there a standard philosophy for non-believers? I'm not being argumentative, but isn't everyone's moral standards taken mostly from the culture in which they were raised, not necessarily in the religion, although that can be a part of it? I find the statistics in your favor, but as I remind my friends, crime goes up when ice cream goes on sale, in other words, statistics can be true and still lie, so I am often wary of them.

[Freethinker]

Knowledge of what?

Until there is absolute proof for either side of the (Variable X) arguement all we are left with are personal beliefs and opinions. ;)

OK, I subbed the (Variable X) in

Fill it with any of the follwing and it is just as rational

 

God

Tooth Fairy

Easter Bunny

Loch Ness Monster

Big Foot

Flying reindeer

 

Yes some people are incapabe of making rational educated decisions based on avialable data. But to claim that it is as valid to believe in something that lacks ANY proof what so ever rather than reject that beleif until some form of valid proof comes along, only shows this lack of mature decision making ability. You would not try to pull such an rediculous ploy to justify flying reindeer.

 

Or was finding out about there being no flying reindeer too much of a shock for you to deal with right now? :-)

I do know that both atheists and christians can quote scriptures to their own benefit (and use them for an irrational end).

And there are numerous reasons for that.

 

1) the bible is so filled with contradictions, you can supprt any POV you choose with it.

 

2) Atheist do not need to "Apologize" for it, so the evaluation tends to be more literal

 

3) Christians are desperate to apologize for waht is actually in it and thus come up with numeroous translationas and explanations. No two Christians use the same one. LOTS of different way to gain benefit.

 

4) Aheists tend to pull out the ones the Christians are so deperate to hide. A whole other bible comes out.

Or... maybe Mother Teresa trumps Tse-tung

Ya talk about a crook and horrible person. That Mother T was a real bad joke! And she had the world (or the Beleivers anyway) totally suckered.

[Freethinker]

Here is the word 'knowledge' or 'knowledge set' again. It seems as though you have intimate data that will finally put to rest the God/No God arguement that has exisited for eons. Otherwise I say you only have a 'belief'. ;)

Atheism is a belief the way Bald is a hair color.

[pgrmdave]

You never gave me another war to analyze, I'd be glad to show you that most major conflicts since the Renaissance have been secular wars, and I believe even wars like the Crusades, in which it would seem on the surface to be entirely religous, were fought more for economic reasons than religion, although it was justified with Christianity. However, the multiple wars for independance, the spanish american war, world war one, world war two, korea, vietnam, iraq (parts 1 and 2) and any nearly any other conflict in the modern era was a secular, economic war.

[Freethinker]

It is irrelevent what was said about it by anyone, all that matters is the constitution itself.

Hahahaha, I see, so the Constitution wrote itself? No use asking any PERSON, as what would they have to do with it? Like maybe actually have been the one to WRITE it? What would the person that slaved to put the exact words and ideas used know about WHY they used those words and phrases?

 

Ya that's a real dandy! Gotta remember that one!

 

So anything Stephen Hawking has to say about "A Brief History of Time" would also be "irrelevant"?

 

Hahahahaha, I love it!

I agree that there should be seperation, but I do not think that sending priests to aid our soldiers, which is most likely helpful to the morale and thus fighting ability of our soldiers,

Well I sure have to agree with the positive results it got for the 9/11 pilots. They found the prayers and theological inspiration all they need to fly airplanes into buildings and kill thousands! Yes it does make willing slaughter for the machine! Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. God wants you to kill and even die. For get that "Thou shalt not..." crap.

 

Nope no hypocracy there!

 

Hey that's the actual topic of this thread! We did it!

But people rarely act as individuals, leaders would still arise, and followers would come to them, willing to do what they are told.

]

You gave me this as a present on purpose didn't you! You gave a perfect reason to show why a religious mindset is BAD, just to make it easier on me didn't you! Oh how sweet!

 

Yes, once a person has been brainwashed into thinking that being mindlessly obsequent to authority is a GOOD thing, then anybody can take over. Christians love being called sheep. They're god's flock! Ya their getting flocked alright!

[Freethinker]

I do not think that any well educated individual on this site can truely say that we as humans know enough about the make up and inner workings of 'everything' in the universe to state atheism as a fact.

then you fail to understand what "Atheism" is. I can easily state "Atheism" as a fact. Just as I could state "Christianity" as a fact. Yes there are Christians and there are Atheists. Those are FACTS.

My car is making a noise therefore it is the finican pin (without the understanding of how all the components interact and witout analyzing all possibilities)

Explains a lot.

[pgrmdave]

Hahahaha, I see, so the Constitution wrote itself? No use asking any PERSON, as what would they have to do with it? Like maybe actually have been the one to WRITE it? What would the person that slaved to put the exact words and ideas used know about WHY they used those words and phrases?

 

The Supreme Court has the job of interpreting the Constitution, and they are not bound by the words of someone from a long time ago...hmmm....wanting to abide by somebody's words, written a long time ago, out of touch with todays knowledge.....kinda sounds like a 'believer', as you would call us.

[pgrmdave]

Yes, once a person has been brainwashed into thinking that being mindlessly obsequent to authority is a GOOD thing, then anybody can take over.

 

And religion is not necessary to do this. While it shows that religion can be harmful, it is not limited to religion. The purpose of my post was to show that there will always be groups in the world, and that large groups of intelligent people will always need to be able to defend themselves. I was assuming that we had your 'ideal' secular world, without any religion, and yet still, there is a need for defense.

[Freethinker]

Okay - The Civil war was the inevitable outcome of the economics developed during the industrial revolution.... While religious groups may have tried to make claims to the war, it was a secular war. Any others?

And why did the two parts of the country approach things from different dirrections? It is easy to analyze the personal philosophy difference between the two regions to see what the driving motivations were. They played out in economics, but were theologically driven from the South. Just as they still are today. The "Bible Belt" has earned it's reputation over a long time! Aristocracy supported by fire and brimstone. Agregarian fiefdom with HEAVY emphysis on Christian Fundementalism. After all, the bible is BIG in supporting slavery. And slavery was definately an economic issue!

 

While in the North, the Catholic Church was devliering a massive workforce for manufacturing. Papists!

 

Southerners were always fond of Irish and Jews.

 

It was a culture clash involving everything from economics to theology. And the sides can be identified in general by their religious orientations. So it can not be claimed that the difference was not valid.

[zadojla]

snip...Yes, once a person has been brainwashed into thinking that being mindlessly obsequent to authority is a GOOD thing, then anybody can take over.

 

But, all religious considerations aside, that is exactly what is being done with American children in schools. It is caused by "zero-tolerance" violence policies that label a child who defends himself/herself against bullying or other physical threat as just as guilty as the aggressor. They are told, "You should have told a teacher", and punished as severely as the aggressor. Years and years ago, when I was in school, if someone bothered you and wouldn't stop, you popped him. The teachers understood that, and punishment was differentiated, depending on the circumstances.

[Freethinker]

(wonder if any atheists had a hand in the developement of nukes ?)

Ya Einstein.

Dear Mr. Raner:

 

I have received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me.

 

From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. Your counter-arguments seem to me very correct and could hardly be better formulated. It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere--childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of the world--as far as we can grasp it. And that is all. With best wishes, yours sincerely, Albert Einstein. (letter to Guy H. Raner, Jr., dated July 2, 1945)