Of course some Atheists are known to call themselves Christians as it is the socially accepted status and they fear the recriminations and shock their "coming out" would cause.
Of course some Atheists are known to call themselves Christians as it is the socially accepted status and they fear the recriminations and shock their "coming out" would cause.
Apt point, PurpleDays. Doesn't say much about some people's (the ones who they are afraid of) 'dedication' to freedom of religion, does it?
Data incomplete? Of course...I didn't intend to post a dissertation. Just a little of the data that I've seen to make a point. Oh, you could look into this further but the data is pretty consistent and I don't think it would change your mind anyways. So just chew on it for a while.
How many of those people became religious only AFTER spending time in prison?
We're all aware of various religions reaching out to inmates and people either
converting in prison or CLAIMING conversions.
Wordwolf,
Data incomplete? Of course...I didn't intend to post a dissertation. Just a little of the data that I've seen to make a point. Oh, you could look into this further but the data is pretty consistent and I don't think it would change your mind anyways. So just chew on it for a while.
sudo
Ah, not so fast. No one claimed anything about a dissertation.
You're suggesting the CORRELATION (people in religions, people in prison)
implies CAUSATION (more religious people in prison per capita means
more religious people are committing crimes and arriving in prison
as religious people.)
I question whether or not the timeframe is REVERSED
(people are committing crimes and arriving in prison-
and ONCE IN PRISON are converting to one religion or another
and THAT's why so many religious people are in prison.)
That a lot of people convert in prison, I think, should be well-known
to us, at least concerning US prisons. Even Jeffrey Dahmer claimed to
have converted in prison and found God, and he seems to have meant it.
If you're claiming to be a reasonable, logical person,
you should see that CORRELATION does not equal CAUSATION.
Otherwise, one might conclude that sales of hot chocolate
cause people to freeze,
since there's more people freezing to death when sales of hot chocolate rise.
(Those 2 things are CORRELATED, but neither CAUSES the other-
both happen in Winter, and THAT's the cause of both.)
So, you've seen that data used to CLAIM a point was made- but it's incomplete
data, and may be used DECEPTIVELY to make a point not supported by
ALL the data. (Like people who "record the hits and ignore the misses.")
If "the data is pretty consistent", you have more information on this-
why not link your source? I'd like to see if the full data supports
your conclusion or if it does not. I prefer not to "chew" on HALF the story-
I prefer the WHOLE story before I start to draw conclusions.
Wordwolf - some statistical bedtime reading HERE> The entire site has a lot of information. Some analysis HERE on the way the prison/religion data is manipulated.
Sudo, your quote has been around long enough to qualify for a Snopes entry by virtue only of the number of time's it's been used incorrectly IMO. It's usually quoted in the same vague context - implying some kind of meaning but not clearly. You've posted it often on GS so I have to assume it's serving some interest.
There used to be another I'd see different places - something about the higher average number of Christians in psychiatric care, haven't seen that one in awhile.
Here's a finding, unrelated to this but that suprises nearly everyone - Calfornians are often characterized as nutty tax and spend social liberals, in favor of more government and more taxes. In the book "A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World " by Mark Baldassare he suggests that isn't true and that in fact Californians are not that different in many views than citizens in other states. He drew upon a huge amount of opinion survey data. Many of his observations are becoming apparent. It took me quite a while to digest this book after my wife found it and we read it.
But I digress - THIS article looks critically at claims regarding Dentists, suicide and divorce.
Statistics can be made to say nearly anything and often even the absence of data where it's assumed data should be can be used to postulate possibilities, and we do love our possibilities.
What's it all mean? I'll have to get back to you, soon as I know I'll pass it on.
I didn't realize I had been posting it often. I vaguely remember posting it once but I believe you if you say so. Its no wonder that groups with an agenda will try to skew the data to make it say what they want. Here's a link from an atheist group HERE! that you have to take with a grain of salt. However you want to look at the data, the numbers of non-religious in prison is very low. The point I was making is that the cop shouldn't have been surprised. Being Christian doesn't deter criminal activity.
Memphis is currently glued to the trial of Jesse Dotson who is accused of the largest mass murder in Memphis history. On the news tonight was an officer testifying as to how he got a confession out of him. Seems Jesse in addition to being a gang member and having served time for 2nd degree murder is a Christian and believes in Heaven and Hell. Not that it proves anything but I find it interesting.
"Whoowee!" said my grandson Cletus (that's his name.), "One peek at Ol' Sparky (the electric chair) is pert near 'nuff to scare the Devil out of even the meanest old cooter." My other grandson, Cleophus, (who is ordinarily the ornery one.) just shook his head in agreement.
Of course some Atheists are known to call themselves Christians as it is the socially accepted status and they fear the recriminations and shock their "coming out" would cause.
I generally accept the label only in a cultural sense.. generally that is the belief of the society that I sprung from..
culturally, yes. Mom and Dad went to church.. my brother still does sometimes..
most of us "came out" in the sixties..
I am not Atheist. That would imply I'm smart enough to figure there isn't a god..
Sudo, the data - all of it - on religious conviction has to be defined and parsed, aggressively to form a clean set of data. As I'm sure you know, any data has to be but that in particular and moreso because the broadest definitions for terms like religion and major religions are weak. They are by virtue of the subject matter which is people and what they say they "believe" and the method of metrics which is to assign a label to it, religion, non-religion, atheist, etc.
So one person states they believe in God and have been active in a church affiliation throughout their life and they go plink into the "religious" bucket. If pressed they respond they're more inclined to believe in God than not, or they would prefer to attend a church versus not attend a church but they don't attend a church as a member today but if....etc. etc. etc.
In the end, what do we have?
A Roman Catholic who rejects Vatican ll might go with the traditional view that any of the so-called "Christian's" who are non-RC, aren't Christian, period. Others who embrace ecumenism as a recognition of the holy spirit in action might include them, if with qualification. Many opinions thrive inbetween all the extremes. And any of the churches RC's include/don't include might eliminate RC's right out of the gate as being non-Christian and an apostasy.
A Budhist doesn't consider Budhism a "religion" in the same way as they're included if they're being compared with many of the other religions. Yet Budhism is typically included in religious statistics. Wiccan's don't embrace a centralized "religious" convocation or binding authority that would result from being a "religion" and any such collective would be extremely diverse. So would any "Christian" conglomerate - some things generally agreed upon, others not.
On a much broader scale there needs to be a step taken back and work done towards clarification on what we're really trying to identify in all of this data collection, and why. I tend to view the entire effort as a mishmash of information based on an extremely unclear and confusing set of requirements.
Now I know - true blue believers on either side of the "God" coin can look at what I'm saying and figure I'm just trying to get around the "data" and instead of examining it, trying to denigrate it as unreliable. However if I look at it honestly, even wanting to get something out of it, I still have to say I'm not sure what any of it's trying to get at.
I'd like to have a clear, reliable dataset to look at but I don't think it's going to come from the types of surveys that are being used.
"Raw" data collections takes a great deal of thought and planning to collect.
An old, old example of statistical voodoo is a claim made by a journalist years ago who started the "Rats Outnumber People in New York" story. Upon investigation his source was unwieldy to say the least and by nature of the view sought could only be so...the basis for it was a count done in some apartment building, starting on the top floor and working down, and an actual - this is true - "head" count of rats seen. Counts were made floor by floor. The total count was then matched to the number of residents of the building and the conclusion was drawn by a simple math comparison. When pressed for documentation the hmm, Rat Counters admitted that they didn't really know if the rats seen throughout a floor and on each floor were the same rats they'd counted before. They just counted.
This "statistic" was cited in a book titled "Statistics in Action" and used as a textbook example of the kind of b.s. that proliferates. It's pretty old now but I think I still have it around somewhere. Unreliable and odd? Sure. But the story grew legs and actual numbers were attached - "40 rats for every person" or some such thing.
What would work better IMO for this religious/people/beliefs kind of data - and if anyone likes this idea be sure to send me, socks, a check to "brightideascomeinallsocks@yah-mon.com" - would be to establish a set of queries and questions in the form of practical, moral and ethical situations and dilemmas to which a respondent must reply, with answers based on U.S. laws, federal, state and local laws.
Don't identify any of the answers as wrong or right but rather simply responses. From that determine how well the citizens understand their legal rights and the rights of others and how they would apply them. Or something along those lines. That would give insight into how a particpant both thinks and "believes". Add to that any identification the respondent chooses to make as to what influenced their choices to establish some moral and ethical standards. See what people say and from that, create the dataset. See how and if "religion" is factored in and how it's described and named.
That could be used to form the basis of a second survey, using the terminology provided by the first survey. It's a thought anyway, would require a lot of work to get it sussed out.
I'd agree though - yeah. If I'm going to put a bumper sticker on my car declaring something I need to think about how I relate to it. It's my car, my bumper sticker.
I don't. I like a nice clean looking bumper. Well, maybe one of those non-glue layons that reads "GO SF GIANTS - WIN!!!!" but probably not. Look for a b-ball cap in the back dash though.
Recommended Posts
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
soul searcher
Great joke there, bowtwi. And it really got me thinking about myself and my (occassional) bad behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
LOVE this!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Good one, Bowtwi.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... so then she chewed out the cop for his mistake.
Heck! That wouldn't really be that much of a surprise if it happened! ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
That cop shouldn't have been surprised at all now should he? After all..
the vast majority of convicts are Christian. Some Muslims but mostly Christian.
Atheists make up some 10% of the American population.... but less than 1% of
the prison population. In "The New Criminology", Max D. Schlapp and Edward E. Smith
say that two generations of statisticians found that the ratio of convicts without
religious training is about 1/10 of 1%. W. T. Root, professor of
psychology at the Univ. of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said
"Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding
that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers are absent from
penitentiariers or nearly so.
During 10 years in Sing-Sing, those executed for murder were 65% Catholics,
26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.
sudo :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Thanks for that info Sudo! Interesting to say the least. :blink:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PurpleDays
Of course some Atheists are known to call themselves Christians as it is the socially accepted status and they fear the recriminations and shock their "coming out" would cause.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Apt point, PurpleDays. Doesn't say much about some people's (the ones who they are afraid of) 'dedication' to freedom of religion, does it?
<_<
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Data incomplete to draw a conclusion.
How many of those people became religious only AFTER spending time in prison?
We're all aware of various religions reaching out to inmates and people either
converting in prison or CLAIMING conversions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PurpleDays
Sadly, that is very true. Our culture could use a lot more tolerance, imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Wordwolf,
Data incomplete? Of course...I didn't intend to post a dissertation. Just a little of the data that I've seen to make a point. Oh, you could look into this further but the data is pretty consistent and I don't think it would change your mind anyways. So just chew on it for a while.
sudo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ah, not so fast. No one claimed anything about a dissertation.
You're suggesting the CORRELATION (people in religions, people in prison)
implies CAUSATION (more religious people in prison per capita means
more religious people are committing crimes and arriving in prison
as religious people.)
I question whether or not the timeframe is REVERSED
(people are committing crimes and arriving in prison-
and ONCE IN PRISON are converting to one religion or another
and THAT's why so many religious people are in prison.)
That a lot of people convert in prison, I think, should be well-known
to us, at least concerning US prisons. Even Jeffrey Dahmer claimed to
have converted in prison and found God, and he seems to have meant it.
If you're claiming to be a reasonable, logical person,
you should see that CORRELATION does not equal CAUSATION.
Otherwise, one might conclude that sales of hot chocolate
cause people to freeze,
since there's more people freezing to death when sales of hot chocolate rise.
(Those 2 things are CORRELATED, but neither CAUSES the other-
both happen in Winter, and THAT's the cause of both.)
So, you've seen that data used to CLAIM a point was made- but it's incomplete
data, and may be used DECEPTIVELY to make a point not supported by
ALL the data. (Like people who "record the hits and ignore the misses.")
If "the data is pretty consistent", you have more information on this-
why not link your source? I'd like to see if the full data supports
your conclusion or if it does not. I prefer not to "chew" on HALF the story-
I prefer the WHOLE story before I start to draw conclusions.
Edited by WordWolfLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Wordwolf - some statistical bedtime reading HERE> The entire site has a lot of information. Some analysis HERE on the way the prison/religion data is manipulated.
Sudo, your quote has been around long enough to qualify for a Snopes entry by virtue only of the number of time's it's been used incorrectly IMO. It's usually quoted in the same vague context - implying some kind of meaning but not clearly. You've posted it often on GS so I have to assume it's serving some interest.
There used to be another I'd see different places - something about the higher average number of Christians in psychiatric care, haven't seen that one in awhile.
Here's a finding, unrelated to this but that suprises nearly everyone - Calfornians are often characterized as nutty tax and spend social liberals, in favor of more government and more taxes. In the book "A California State of Mind: The Conflicted Voter in a Changing World " by Mark Baldassare he suggests that isn't true and that in fact Californians are not that different in many views than citizens in other states. He drew upon a huge amount of opinion survey data. Many of his observations are becoming apparent. It took me quite a while to digest this book after my wife found it and we read it.
But I digress - THIS article looks critically at claims regarding Dentists, suicide and divorce.
Statistics can be made to say nearly anything and often even the absence of data where it's assumed data should be can be used to postulate possibilities, and we do love our possibilities.
What's it all mean? I'll have to get back to you, soon as I know I'll pass it on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Socks,
I didn't realize I had been posting it often. I vaguely remember posting it once but I believe you if you say so. Its no wonder that groups with an agenda will try to skew the data to make it say what they want. Here's a link from an atheist group HERE! that you have to take with a grain of salt. However you want to look at the data, the numbers of non-religious in prison is very low. The point I was making is that the cop shouldn't have been surprised. Being Christian doesn't deter criminal activity.
Memphis is currently glued to the trial of Jesse Dotson who is accused of the largest mass murder in Memphis history. On the news tonight was an officer testifying as to how he got a confession out of him. Seems Jesse in addition to being a gang member and having served time for 2nd degree murder is a Christian and believes in Heaven and Hell. Not that it proves anything but I find it interesting.
sudo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Whoowee!" said my grandson Cletus (that's his name.), "One peek at Ol' Sparky (the electric chair) is pert near 'nuff to scare the Devil out of even the meanest old cooter." My other grandson, Cleophus, (who is ordinarily the ornery one.) just shook his head in agreement.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i frown upon road rage regardless of religion
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I generally accept the label only in a cultural sense.. generally that is the belief of the society that I sprung from..
culturally, yes. Mom and Dad went to church.. my brother still does sometimes..
most of us "came out" in the sixties..
I am not Atheist. That would imply I'm smart enough to figure there isn't a god..
I'm just not that intelligent.. nor claim to be..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
God bless you friend..
:)
sometimes I think.. I frown on religious rage regardless of the road..
maybe its the same thing..
Edited by HamLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
No, it's not the same.
One is much worse than the other.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I dunno. Maybe it's like the question of the chicken and the egg..
which came first. The bad behavior, or the arrogance..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cheranne
I agree.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Sudo, the data - all of it - on religious conviction has to be defined and parsed, aggressively to form a clean set of data. As I'm sure you know, any data has to be but that in particular and moreso because the broadest definitions for terms like religion and major religions are weak. They are by virtue of the subject matter which is people and what they say they "believe" and the method of metrics which is to assign a label to it, religion, non-religion, atheist, etc.
So one person states they believe in God and have been active in a church affiliation throughout their life and they go plink into the "religious" bucket. If pressed they respond they're more inclined to believe in God than not, or they would prefer to attend a church versus not attend a church but they don't attend a church as a member today but if....etc. etc. etc.
In the end, what do we have?
A Roman Catholic who rejects Vatican ll might go with the traditional view that any of the so-called "Christian's" who are non-RC, aren't Christian, period. Others who embrace ecumenism as a recognition of the holy spirit in action might include them, if with qualification. Many opinions thrive inbetween all the extremes. And any of the churches RC's include/don't include might eliminate RC's right out of the gate as being non-Christian and an apostasy.
A Budhist doesn't consider Budhism a "religion" in the same way as they're included if they're being compared with many of the other religions. Yet Budhism is typically included in religious statistics. Wiccan's don't embrace a centralized "religious" convocation or binding authority that would result from being a "religion" and any such collective would be extremely diverse. So would any "Christian" conglomerate - some things generally agreed upon, others not.
On a much broader scale there needs to be a step taken back and work done towards clarification on what we're really trying to identify in all of this data collection, and why. I tend to view the entire effort as a mishmash of information based on an extremely unclear and confusing set of requirements.
Now I know - true blue believers on either side of the "God" coin can look at what I'm saying and figure I'm just trying to get around the "data" and instead of examining it, trying to denigrate it as unreliable. However if I look at it honestly, even wanting to get something out of it, I still have to say I'm not sure what any of it's trying to get at.
I'd like to have a clear, reliable dataset to look at but I don't think it's going to come from the types of surveys that are being used.
"Raw" data collections takes a great deal of thought and planning to collect.
An old, old example of statistical voodoo is a claim made by a journalist years ago who started the "Rats Outnumber People in New York" story. Upon investigation his source was unwieldy to say the least and by nature of the view sought could only be so...the basis for it was a count done in some apartment building, starting on the top floor and working down, and an actual - this is true - "head" count of rats seen. Counts were made floor by floor. The total count was then matched to the number of residents of the building and the conclusion was drawn by a simple math comparison. When pressed for documentation the hmm, Rat Counters admitted that they didn't really know if the rats seen throughout a floor and on each floor were the same rats they'd counted before. They just counted.
This "statistic" was cited in a book titled "Statistics in Action" and used as a textbook example of the kind of b.s. that proliferates. It's pretty old now but I think I still have it around somewhere. Unreliable and odd? Sure. But the story grew legs and actual numbers were attached - "40 rats for every person" or some such thing.
What would work better IMO for this religious/people/beliefs kind of data - and if anyone likes this idea be sure to send me, socks, a check to "brightideascomeinallsocks@yah-mon.com" - would be to establish a set of queries and questions in the form of practical, moral and ethical situations and dilemmas to which a respondent must reply, with answers based on U.S. laws, federal, state and local laws.
Don't identify any of the answers as wrong or right but rather simply responses. From that determine how well the citizens understand their legal rights and the rights of others and how they would apply them. Or something along those lines. That would give insight into how a particpant both thinks and "believes". Add to that any identification the respondent chooses to make as to what influenced their choices to establish some moral and ethical standards. See what people say and from that, create the dataset. See how and if "religion" is factored in and how it's described and named.
That could be used to form the basis of a second survey, using the terminology provided by the first survey. It's a thought anyway, would require a lot of work to get it sussed out.
I'd agree though - yeah. If I'm going to put a bumper sticker on my car declaring something I need to think about how I relate to it. It's my car, my bumper sticker.
I don't. I like a nice clean looking bumper.
Well, maybe one of those non-glue layons that reads "GO SF GIANTS - WIN!!!!" but probably not. Look for a b-ball cap in the back dash though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't do bumper stickers but if i did i might say "many religious people are rats" or "many people are rats"
:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.