What would your doctor say?

Someone asked them a question they never thought about. They felt a need to provide an answer. And tradition did the rest.

These surveys are meaningless. We don't know what somebody thinks in their heart. We don't know if their self-designation as this or that has any influence on them.From what I've seen, most people act like atheists to me.

Exactly.

No fruit in their convictions - their convictions being something they don and discard like a evening suit or something? "In context I am this - everywhere else I live as an atheist would" A bit like Ireland Roman Catholics given the figures?

Yes, that's it. And of course no one lives "nihilistically."These philosophical positions do not translate to practicalities. But it does matter to one's inner being. I think that's important.

---

"Your friends, if they can, may bury you with some distinction, and set up a monument, to let posterity see that your dust lies under such a stone; and when that is done, all is done. Your place is filled up by another, the world is just in the same state it was, you are blotted out of its sight, and as much forgotten by the world as if you had never belonged to it."--William Law

I think its more than that. Supremely vital is the way I would put it. A great God would not be interested in the labels we attach to ourselves. Labels come and go, they go in and out of fashion. And like fashion, philosopical ideas and Religious products arise again and again: the have new packaging and trimmings but it is really the same old idea rehashed time and time again.God would be interested in something far more telling than a 2006 label.Where our hearts lay. Mans heart has always lain somewhere. That never goes out of fashion.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Ian, any replies to Message 159?

quote:

---

These surveys are meaningless. We don't know what somebody thinks in their heart. We don't know if their self-designation as this or that has any influence on them.

---

So, you DO reject all data that is self-reported.So from now on, it's perfectly OK for me to insist that you are not actually an Atheist, is that correct?I am allowed to disregard your stated religious self-identification, correct, because it is ompossible for anyone to accurately report their own religion?

quote:

---

From what I've seen, most people act like atheists to me.

---

Like I have already said, it doesn't matter what they act like.Behavior is irrelevant; it is only their own beliefs that are relevant.What is so difficult for you to understand about that?So why are the numbers of Christians and Atheists/Agnostics in prison fairly close to that found in the general population?

quote:

---

"Fairly close"?

---

Yes. Very close, I'd say.

quote:

---

Anyway, it doesn't matter. It proves nothing.

---

Nothing proves anything.There is data.How do you explain the data?Do you notice anything about the relative similarity between the proportions of the two groups in prison and the two groups in the general population?These two numbers are pretty similar: ..and these two numbers are pretty similar: Why might we see this?Come on, robin, put on your thinking cap and stop being so belligerant.How do you explain the very similar numbers between the two populations?Why would there be such a similar proportion if people answer randomly or inaccurately most of the time? Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Go ahead if you want to. I thought this was about the relationship between beliefs and morals. I got to get one of those thinking caps. I'm not being belligerent.

quote:

---

I'm not being belligerent.

---

OK, then answer the questions:How do you explain the very similar numbers between the two populations?Why would there be such a similar proportion if people answer randomly or inaccurately most of the time?

You think that .21% is close to 1%? Or to 13%? That's a difference ranging from 500% to 5000%.Maybe I'm coming in late, and you're being sarcastic and I don't understand, but I don't see those numbers as very close. I see them as well outside of the ranges of each other we would expect, in fact, if atheists were going to jail at roughly the same rate as Christians.

quote:

---

You think that .21% is close to 1%? Or to 13%? That's a difference ranging from 500% to 5000%.

---

Well, the reason I include the 13% figure for the A/A's is because I have included those who don't call themselves A/A, nor do they consider themselves religious or spiritual.Those actually stating that they are A/A is very small, in either population.And besides, given the error margins in polling, .21% and 1% are indistinguishable.

quote:

---

Maybe I'm coming in late, and you're being sarcastic and I don't understand, but I don't see those numbers as very close. I see them as well outside of the ranges of each other we would expect, in fact, if atheists were going to jail at roughly the same rate as Christians.

---

I was referring to the proportions of Christians and A/A's in the general population compared to that in the prison population.Taken generally, one can say in either case that the large majority are Christian, and a small minority is A/A.My point in bringing this up at all was because robin called all such data "worthless" because it was self-reported. I asked him to explain the general similarity of the results (lots and lots of Christians, tiny amount of A/A's) between to compared groups if self-reporting was so inaccurate and unreliable.Nothing from him yet except sullen, 5 word replies.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

The comparison is not between two groups. It is comparing a subgroup to its group. You are in a way simply taking the large group (people) and comparing it to a sample of that group (people in prison) and getting similar results because going to prison isn't something that is particularly related to religious identification (or perhaps a coincidence).In essence, the reason you are getting similar results is possibly due to {people in prison} being a representative sample of {people}. Those {people} statistically identify with various religions, and representative subgroups will do likewise. If everyone rolled a ten sided die when they were asked (purely random selection), 1-8 they identify Christian, 9-10 Other, then you'll find you'll get basically the same results as your Christian identify and Prison Christian identify statistics.In that case, self reporting would be irrelevant.Now if they didn't roll a die, but instead weighed their upbringing, social group, perception of being judged, actual beliefs etc in a complex series of pulses in the brain and 80-odd percent decided they would say they were Christian, then we'd also get the same results. It doesn't mean that the majority reporting what they truly believe, it could just be what they want someone to think they believe.What is the percentage of honest answers? An unknown number. You assume most people accurately report, rr doesn't accept the assumption. I agree in a way. Many people say they are Christian, but when further questioned ("You believe in God, Christ and Heaven/Hell and all that?", "Well...there has to be something I guess") will agree that it is only culturally. Religiously they are usually little more than agnostic or perhaps Deists etc.

My answers are not "sullen." But you can't automatically expect these people to be telling the truth, especially in prison where they want to impress people as being good guys so they can get out.To many people in our culture, "Christian" entails the meaning "good guy," and "atheist" entails the meaning "bad guy."

No, not close -- not even comparable.You are taking results of two different surveys and ASSUMING the results are comparable.They aren't -- the surveys are not the same, not the same caliber, and not for the same purpose: the one on prison population is not designed to get scientific answers, just ones for the convenience of the prison staff on treating prisoners.Further, there is a very distinct element of people in prison need to NOT be in an OUT group -- you get picked on, badly.Then there are also benefits to being of a religion in prison -- you get time out of the {cell\exercise\pattern} and you get to talk to someone about ANYTHING.The best you can conclude is that there is no reduced population of christian believers as those who claim a higher moral standard would have you\us\anyone (please) believe: that just ain't so.And you know what? That is enough.This: Is entirely BOGUS -- the numbers are NOT comparable that way.If you don't believe me then do a study of both surveys, and pay particular attention to the margins of error, and to what is NOT included in the results.As I recall there was some 10% of the prison population that refused to answer. That's a pretty big margin of error.There are other factors as well that make this kind of specific conclusion you are trying to force out of these survey problematical that may have more to do with the people in prison than their faith or their expression of it. Actually I think Robin has it right, and you are badgering over a fabricated statistic that is NOT supported by the reality.I've been through these statistics before, and my conclusion was that the best you could conclude within the margins of errors was that the population was essentially the same mix in prison as out.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added missing word

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.