By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Prison population. Atheists: 1%, Christians: 75%

kitler53 on 25 August 2011
setsunatenshi said:
kitler53 said:

religion as a word is rooted to the 12th century and at the time the meaning was more of a "conciece awareness of the greater influences to which we are tied to".  it wasn't until around the 18th century that the word morphed into what you are defining it as today.  i prefer the older definition in part because i want to qualify athiest as a religion because i view it as my religion.

the non-religious are the ones that are not conscientious of the "bigger picture".  of those that are conscientious, most believe in some sort of a god.  some, as i do, don't believe in an external influence such as god and only believe in the world as i see it now.  some don't know which belief, if any, is true. 

my point is only this:  there is a huge distiction between not giving religion any thought and giving religion thought and coming to the conclusion that there is no god. 

Well, if we don't want to be debating semantics on an internet forum, it would be better for all if we stuck with the more familiar meaning of words and how the huge amount of people understands them.

I believe you will only be causing yourself a problem when mixing atheism as your 'religion'. I say this because then you will be viewed as the person with the positive claim that there are no gods and therefore you will have the burden of proof on this one. On the otherhand if you say you are (for example) a secular humanist and a rationalist, then you would probably still be stating your 'religious' view of the reality and atheism would simply be a consequence of your rationalistic view. Therefore when someone would ask you to prove a god doesn't exist, you can reply 'define your god and I will tell you if I believe in it or not'.

to make it simple, simply saying you're an atheist is meaningless. to be an atheist you need to be in respect to a certain claim that someone will put (like YHWH created the world in 7 days and heaven exists somewhere in the sky) and then you can be an atheist to that god claim.

 

(i hope i could explain myself well, sorry if i didn't)


but i like arguing the sematics.  xD

and i do have claims to my religion.  the core of christianity is the a person has a soul that is a seperate concept from the body that even in death is able to live on.  my belief is that my "soul" and my body are one.  that while more complex in nature that which is my personality is fundementally the same as a computer program, a genitic code of action and reaction, input and output, coded in the molecules of my brain.  upon death i will face nothing, the big empty if you will as without the body there is nothing to my existence.



Around the Network
kitler53 on 25 August 2011
setsunatenshi said:
kitler53 said:

religion as a word is rooted to the 12th century and at the time the meaning was more of a "conciece awareness of the greater influences to which we are tied to".  it wasn't until around the 18th century that the word morphed into what you are defining it as today.  i prefer the older definition in part because i want to qualify athiest as a religion because i view it as my religion.

the non-religious are the ones that are not conscientious of the "bigger picture".  of those that are conscientious, most believe in some sort of a god.  some, as i do, don't believe in an external influence such as god and only believe in the world as i see it now.  some don't know which belief, if any, is true. 

my point is only this:  there is a huge distiction between not giving religion any thought and giving religion thought and coming to the conclusion that there is no god. 

Well, if we don't want to be debating semantics on an internet forum, it would be better for all if we stuck with the more familiar meaning of words and how the huge amount of people understands them.

I believe you will only be causing yourself a problem when mixing atheism as your 'religion'. I say this because then you will be viewed as the person with the positive claim that there are no gods and therefore you will have the burden of proof on this one. On the otherhand if you say you are (for example) a secular humanist and a rationalist, then you would probably still be stating your 'religious' view of the reality and atheism would simply be a consequence of your rationalistic view. Therefore when someone would ask you to prove a god doesn't exist, you can reply 'define your god and I will tell you if I believe in it or not'.

to make it simple, simply saying you're an atheist is meaningless. to be an atheist you need to be in respect to a certain claim that someone will put (like YHWH created the world in 7 days and heaven exists somewhere in the sky) and then you can be an atheist to that god claim.

 

(i hope i could explain myself well, sorry if i didn't)


but i like arguing the sematics.  xD

and i do have claims to my religion.  the core of christianity is the a person has a soul that is a seperate concept from the body that even in death is able to live on.  my belief is that my "soul" and my body are one.  that while more complex in nature that which is my personality is fundementally the same as a computer program, a genitic code of action and reaction, input and output, coded in the molecules of my brain.  upon death i will face nothing, the big empty if you will as without the body there is nothing to my existence.



yo_john117 on 25 August 2011
demonfox13 said:
ROFL such a flawed study for 2 reasons. 1. Many people convert AFTER being incarcerated. 2. Atheists represent a very small portion of the overall population vs christian religions which are the vast majority to begin with. All groups are just as likely to commit a crime regardless.

This.



kitler53 on 25 August 2011
Seece said:
kitler53 said:

my grip about this study is it seems to confuse the term atheist with non-religious.  just because you haven't aligned yourself with one of the other relgions of the world does not make you an atheist.

an atheist believes that there is no god.

a non-religious (in the way they are using it here) means you aren't associated with any church/whatever.

 

as far as i'm concerned, atheisism is a religion.  if you haven't given serious thought to your choice to not believe in god you are more agnostic then athiest imo.

Hmmm I see your line of thinking but I don't agree entirely. While some atheists are obsessed with religion, some just flat out think there is no god and that's it, they don't think anything else and don't persist with it.

analogy time.  xD

a "white" child grows up in a community of mixed heritages.  this child interactes with, becomes friends with, and generally ejoys the company of other children of various racial backgrounds.  this child could be classified as "not racist".

another "white" child grows up in an all white community with all white family, friends, and neighboors.  thus, due to ignorance of the existence of other racial backgounds, habors no feeling of hatred or discomport towards other racial backgrounds.  does this mean the child can be classified as "not racist"?  

imo, no.  if the second child was placed in a room with a black child the white child could either be comfortable or uncomfortable.  without the challenge no outcome can really be decided upon.

some athiests will be more committed then others in the same way that some christians will be more committed then others.  my objection is many of the so-called athiest i've met are actually people who's parents never took them to any sort of a religious institution in any form and literally never gave any such concept any thought.  that does not challenge their mind and does not mean they are really athiests.  most of the "i found religion late" stories i've ever heard generally start as "I was exposed to religion for the first time when ...".



sapphi_snake on 25 August 2011
Mordred11 said:
@ the people saying that I don't back up my statement.Do YOU have any evidence to prove the contrary?As long as you don't,your perspective is just as correct/flawed as mine.I'm only speculating,if there was an answer to everything,forums wouldn't exist,questions wouldn't be asked.And that's why were here,to talk about it,and share our opinions,so take it easy.

People who commit crimes,are mostly the ones who are desperate and do it to survive.Are you telling me that the majority of these people are true christians and have hope in god that he'll make everything right?That's one very hard thing to believe.

No. Just no. This study posted right here kinda leads one to believe that you're wrong. Learn to debate properly kiddo.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 25 August 2011
kitler53 said:

analogy time.  xD

a "white" child grows up in a community of mixed heritages.  this child interactes with, becomes friends with, and generally ejoys the company of other children of various racial backgrounds.  this child could be classified as "not racist".

another "white" child grows up in an all white community with all white family, friends, and neighboors.  thus, due to ignorance of the existence of other racial backgounds, habors no feeling of hatred or discomport towards other racial backgrounds.  does this mean the child can be classified as "not racist"?  

imo, no.  if the second child was placed in a room with a black child the white child could either be comfortable or uncomfortable.  without the challenge no outcome can really be decided upon.

some athiests will be more committed then others in the same way that some christians will be more committed then others.  my objection is many of the so-called athiest i've met are actually people who's parents never took them to any sort of a religious institution in any form and literally never gave any such concept any thought.  that does not challenge their mind and does not mean they are really athiests.  most of the "i found religion late" stories i've ever heard generally start as "I was exposed to religion for the first time when ...".

I agree with your last paragraph, especially with the underlined. Atheism isn't a religion though.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Mordred11 on 25 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:

No. Just no. This study posted right here kinda leads one to believe that you're wrong. Learn to debate properly kiddo.

Maybe you could teach me since you've gathered so much knowledge and wisdom over the past 22 years.



AdventWolf on 25 August 2011
snakenobi said:
Seece said:
Because being Christian to a lot of people, means nothing.


this

 

 

people mix christian 'make ur life urself as GOD isn't gonna come for you' with Athiest

Definitely this, people who don't go to church or follow and religious traditions may name themselves apart of a religion. It means nothing.



sapphi_snake on 25 August 2011
Mordred11 said:
sapphi_snake said:

No. Just no. This study posted right here kinda leads one to believe that you're wrong. Learn to debate properly kiddo.

Maybe you could teach me since you've gathered so much knowledge and wisdom over the past 22 years.

Yay, I get to be a child's mentor

OK kiddo, time for lesson no. 1: Back up thestatementsyou make about the real world phenomenae!



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

kitler53 on 25 August 2011
sapphi_snake said:
kitler53 said:

analogy time.  xD

a "white" child grows up in a community of mixed heritages.  this child interactes with, becomes friends with, and generally ejoys the company of other children of various racial backgrounds.  this child could be classified as "not racist".

another "white" child grows up in an all white community with all white family, friends, and neighboors.  thus, due to ignorance of the existence of other racial backgounds, habors no feeling of hatred or discomport towards other racial backgrounds.  does this mean the child can be classified as "not racist"?  

imo, no.  if the second child was placed in a room with a black child the white child could either be comfortable or uncomfortable.  without the challenge no outcome can really be decided upon.

some athiests will be more committed then others in the same way that some christians will be more committed then others.  my objection is many of the so-called athiest i've met are actually people who's parents never took them to any sort of a religious institution in any form and literally never gave any such concept any thought.  that does not challenge their mind and does not mean they are really athiests.  most of the "i found religion late" stories i've ever heard generally start as "I was exposed to religion for the first time when ...".

I agree with your last paragraph, especially with the underlined. Atheism isn't a religion though.

fundamentaly, that last paragraph you agree with is why  i think athiesism should be considered a religion and seperate from the non-religous; but i will meet you half way and agree that in the public right now athiesism is not considered a religion.  that's a view i hope to help change in my own little way.