Not quite sure where you get your information
If you'd read my posts on the subject, you'd know that I was talking about how atheists are underrepresnted in prisons.
The obvious conclusion is that atheists, in general, commit less crimes than other people. They have more successful marriages, too, based on the rate of divorce by religious affiliation.
The crusaders, marching under the banner of the cross, slaughtered innocents by the tens of thousands. Stalin, a naturalist, slaughtered millions.
Hrm, what do you suppose the most significant difference between those two situations is? The individual beliefs of the participants, or the fact that the crucaders had swords and Stalin had access to machine guns?
I have never met a christian mass murderer. Why? Because they don't exist, that is an oxymoron.
True Scotsman Fallacy. If you're just going to define "Christian" as "one who doesn't commit crimes", then obviously, the only people you're going to recognize as Christian are those who haven't committed any crimes.
Me, when someone expresses a religious identification, I take them at face value. To do otherwise is to commit a fallacy of equiviocation.
Anyone can put on a label but that doesn't make the label true.
Anyone can define words, I guess. You're telling me that the thousands of Christians in prison really aren't, despite their honest and impassioned insistence that they are?
I don't know any other way of determining what religion people belong to than to ask them. Maybe you have a better way? Mental telepathy or something? But if you're just going to sit there and commit the True Scotsman Fallacy, don't waste our time, you know?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-07-2004 01:24 AM