Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Fri, 11 May 2007 09:17:59 -0400, in alt.atheism , Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> in <f21qeb$dp3$1@news04.infoave.net> wrote: >Matt Silberstein wrote: >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 15:04:06 -0400, in alt.atheism , Mike >> <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> in <f1vqb6$9os$1@news04.infoave.net> wrote: >> >>> Matt Silberstein wrote: >>>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 12:03:33 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >>>> (Jason) in >>>> <Jason-1005071203330001@66-52-22-18.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <fga643hibjjdrjtqu215q5v3n48impd1fk@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein >>>>> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2007 01:08:51 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jason@nospam.com >>>>>> (Jason) in >>>>>> <Jason-1005070108520001@66-52-22-55.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>> >>>>>>> That's correct. Do you believe that atheists are more likely to disobey >>>>>>> laws than Christians that feel that God is always watching them? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My answer is yes--what's your answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I already know that some atheists obey the law even if there are no cops >>>>>>> arround them. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I accept that you believe that. I also know that you have absolutely >>>>>> no support for the claim. That you think your group is better than >>>>>> anyone else is a pretty normal human view, but that does not make it >>>>>> right. Again, there are fewer atheists in prison that we would >>>>>> expect not more. The evidence disagrees with you. >>>>> There are also lots of Christians in prison that do not take their >>>>> religion seriously. >>>> Read up on the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. >>> I do have to agree with Jason to the extent that not everyone who calls >>> themselves a Scotsman is really a Scotsman. I.e. there ARE standards as >>> to who is an xian and who isn't (just like there's a standard as to >>> who's a Scotsman. The "no true Scotsman" fallacy lies in when you use >>> criteria to claim someone's is or isn't part of a group based on >>> something that has nothing to do with the group, such as saying "true >>> Scotsmen eat oatmeal." What does oatmeal have to do with being Scotch?) >>> But since what constitutes a true xian isn't something on a birth >>> certificate, etc. but is something within (a belief), I agree with YOU >>> in that we can't tell "so-and-so is or isn't a true xian." >> >> The problem is that he is defining away those that he does not want in >> the group. > >The problem usually arises when it's a third-party doing the defining >when it comes to belief issues (and we're basically agreeing here.) But this was a NTS fallacy. Jason has said that the way to tell serious Christians is if they do wrong. So by definition no serious Christian can do wrong. [otherwise good analysis reluctantly snipped] -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 On Fri, 11 May 2007 11:46:17 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <ad01i.1076$t7.843@bigfe9> wrote: > >"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in >message news:ru874398mppthnb45lrnpq7hj3feddtpip@4ax.com... >> On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:53:57 -0400, in alt.atheism , "H. Wm. Esque" >> <HEsque@bellsouth.net> in <5oN0i.947$t7.60@bigfe9> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> >In reference to Kim, what lies did he express? I will admit I'm >> >no expert on Slot. I dug out my first College thermo textbook >> >entitled "Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics", authored >> >by Gorden J. Van Wilen and Richard E. Sonntag, copyright 1986. >> >I did, at one time understand most of this stuff, but it's confusing >> >now. >> >I guess, it's old age setting in. : ( >> >> You should see my initial response since the distortion and errors in >> Kim's copy/paste are numerous. The initial sentence is wrong when it >> says that thermo says that systems will get corrupt, the 2LoT says no >> such thing. >> >> The following sentence is flat out wrong, wrong to the point that >> anyone with the relevant scientific knowledge should realize it right >> away: >> "Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is an unscientific belief >> that utterly contradicts with this law." >> >Obviously, here he was expressing a personal opinion, based >upon what he read. >> >> In the following sentence someone has deceptively put in the word >> "planned", something that is not part of the science: >> "A system's >> entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organised, and planned >> state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. " >> >Using the word "Planned" is tantamount to acknowledging a creator. >> >> The following, again, is so wrong as to be sad: >> "Evolutionary theory ignores this fundamental law of physics." >> >I think one explanation for why he does this is that he confuses >the origin of life from inanimate matter with change. Nope, it still fails. There is no thermodynamic argument against life originating from non-life, none . Let me give a quick (and therefore, of course, inaccurate, but good enough for us now) summary of thermo. Thermodynamics is a question of states, we compare two states of a system. In a simple case we take some system at time T1 and the same system at time T2. We look at the entropy of the system at S(T1) and S(T2) and determine if S(T2) is reachable from S(T1) or, alternatively, we determine the necessary inputs that are the minimum necessary to go from S(T1) to S(T2). Nothing about mechanism, nothing about planning, just about energy states. So the thermodynamic issue involving the origin of life is simply if there is enough free energy on Earth to go from lifeless stuff to life. And the answer, pretty bloody obviously, is of course there is. Life may be slightly more ordered than non-life, but there is plenty of free energy (aka high temp sunlight) to get it there. >> They deceptively add the word planned in this sentence: >> "According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which >> yields a more planned, more ordered, more complex and more organised >> structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural >> conditions. " >> >Certain words are anathema to scientific naturalism such as: planned, >purpose, design and direction. I wonder why you use "anathema" here. These terms you present can easily mislead someone. They are not part of the scientific discourse because there is no objective support for them. The original writer was trying to make a non-scientific point and deliberately made claims that are not supported by the science. Again, thermodynamics says nothing about planning. It does not matter if the end state was "planned", what matters is the entropy involved. >> The following show, at best, an abysmal knowledge of thermodynamics: >> "Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever >> form spontaneously but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the >> second law. " To make it clear: since the context is thermodynamics >> complex organic molecule form spontaneously all the time. >> (Spontaneous has a specific meaning in thermodynamics.) >> >"Under ordinary conditions" is rather ambiguous. Deliberately so. Ordinary when? Now or 4 billion years ago. What matters is what reactions would occur at the time life originated, now what we humans ordinarily see today. >Spontaneous? >I do not recall a specific meaning as it relates to thermo. But one >defination is that in a closed system entropy spontaneously increases >over time towards total equalibrium. Spontaneous reactions are those that are energetically favored. It does not mean cause-free, but that is the intended implication. >> The following is wrong since no biologist does any such thing: >> "Some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the >> second law of thermodynamics holds true only for "closed systems", and >> that "open systems" are beyond the scope of this law." >> >Ok, I understand this. >> >> This is similarly wrong: >> "Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is >> constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of >> entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, >> complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and >> inanimate structures." >> >So far, this is the only point I'm unsure about and it's a point Kim >made. Complex living beings can be generated from inabinate >matter. As far as I know this has not been demonstrated scientifically. Remember, the issue here is thermodynamics and nothing else. If someone has a non-thermo objection to natural abiogenesis they should make it. We absolutely know that thermodynamically there is no problem about life forming from non-life. It is really very simple: take a bunch of life and calculate the entropy. Take the same amount of stuff and calculate the entropy. Now figure out the free energy needed to go from one state to the other and see if that energy is available. It is, so there is no problem. Really, from the thermo perspective, and that is the only one relevant to this argument, there is no problem. To put this another way: we see life around us so we know that life is thermodynamically allowed on Earth. That is actually sufficient to refute this creationist claim. >Amino acids and other molecules can form spontaneously under >certain conditions, but this is not organisms which can undergo >metabolization and reproduction. A template (rna/dna) is needed in >order for this to occur. Please find me something in thermodynamics about templates. You can't because there isn't. Thermo is not about the mechanisms needed to do something, it is about the energy needed between one state and another. >> What biologists and chemists say, which is absolutely correct, is that >> in open systems (or, alternatively, systems far from equilibrium) >> entropy can locally decrease. >> >> This is wrong, again so wrong that anyone with knowledge of thermo can >> see the problem: >> "The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make >> that system ordered." >> >> Sorry, but thermodynamically an input of high temperature energy will >> add order to the system. To put it in concrete terms: the hot Sun >> evaporates the ocean and causes storms. >> >I agree, but a storm is hardly a highly complex edifice on the orders >of magnitude of even the simplest single cell organism. Really? Thermodynamically a hurricane has far more "order" than a whole hell of a lot of living creatures. A hurricane is a very highly ordered complex thing. Ever look at the amount of energy required to keep a hurricane going? It is amazing. [snip] -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Robibnikoff wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in snip > >> It's my opinion that atheists are more likely to commit Crimes than >> Christians that take their religion seriously. > > How nice for you. And how wrong.... Tokay -- The one good thing about repeating your mistakes is that you know when to cringe. Quote
Guest Tokay Pino Gris Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178870790.696144.222480@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 11, 7:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >>> I was shocked when I found out that a college professor >>> that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I made the mistake of >>> assuming that he was a Christian. >> You'll find that most college professors are atheists. Religious >> belief correlates negative with intelligence. >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence >> >> "According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in >> 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and >> intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found >> that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that >> "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is >> likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[1] A survey >> published in Nature in 1998 confirms that belief in a personal God or >> afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National >> Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as >> compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[2]" >> >> Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Let's say there is a college professor that is a Christian. If he decided > to become an atheist--would his intelligence level go higher? > > No idea about correlation and cause and effect? Tokay -- The one good thing about repeating your mistakes is that you know when to cringe. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178869597.855167.31140@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized that the > > god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. > > I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems > are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average > Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get > away with it (or vice versa). > > Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and > see what results they came up with. > > http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html > > "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in > Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all > secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen > homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low > rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due > to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not > consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and > Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the > 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that > retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard > (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates > of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass > student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since > the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School > Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. > Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in > rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; > Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this > regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide > (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in > the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation > between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, > especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life > spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), > especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only > exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by > Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious > affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- > adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> > > "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed > in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), > rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred > times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular > developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in > the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from > uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are > starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure > 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly > secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show > positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, > and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of > evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). > Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) > are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent > pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et > al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher > in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad > correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and > birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial > exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number > of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide > disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies > they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual > practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except > that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat > more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." > > JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in 1990 was 1,148,702 Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in 2003 was 2,078,570 Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: In 1950--that figure was 4.4 In 2002--that figure was 5.6 source: 2005 Time Almanac These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178878950.032555.171580@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 4:15 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > Martin, > > > > I disagree. Evolution teaches that Neanderthals were a step in the > > > > evolution of man. > > > > > No, it doesn't say that it all. It had been assumed that they were > > > two separate species that co-existed. It was never stated that Cro- > > > Magnum men descended from Neanderthals. Neanderthals had been > > > considered a separate branch. Perhaps you're thinking of Homo > > > Erectus. > > > > According to that famous chart that is posted on the walls of almost every > > biology classroom in America, Neanderthals are a step in the evolution of > > man. Have you seen that chart? Perhaps it is no longer displayed like it > > was when I was in college. That chart begins with a creature that looks > > like a chimp. and ends with a modern man. I believe that Neanderthals were > > the step before Cro-Magnums. I believe the chart was very inaccurate. > > Such charts are a bit misleading. Modern man and Neanderthals are > 99.5% identical genetically, although expert geneticists claim that > this is not enough for us to be the same species. (Humans and > chimpanzees are 98.4% identical.) Based on the results so far, > scientists estimate that we shared a common ancestor from 700,000 > years ago (a Homo Erectus). Neanderthals first appeared > 350,000-130,000 years ago and became extinct only 24,000 years ago > (during the ice age). Homo sapiens appeared 200 000 years ago and > began to outnumber neanderthals 45,000 years ago. Humans Cro Magnon > man is the name given for homo sapiens during the Paleolithic Period > (40,000-10,000 years ago). Cro-Magnon man had a smaller brain than > modern humans whereas neanderthals actually had bigger brains. Cro > Magnon man may have been smarter than neanderthals, however, because > Cro Magnon man knew how to do "sculpture, engraving, painting, body > ornamentation, music and the painstaking decoration of utilitarian > objects". There are assumptions in the above report that may not be correct. > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal , > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon , > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neandertal_interaction_with_Cro-Magnons , > http://www.answers.com/topic/cro-magnon , > http://www.answers.com/topic/neandertal > and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human > > > > > I don't believe that Neanderthals were a step in the > > > > evolution of man. Instead, I believe that Neaderthals and Cro-Magnums were > > > > two separate races. > > > > > Then you _agree_ with the current findings that suggest that > > > Neanderthals and Cro-Magnum man could interbreed. > > > > Yes, since I believe that Neanderthals and Cro-Magnums are two separate > > races, than I was not shocked or surprised when I found out that > > scientists had proved that they could mate and produce offspring. > > I'm not either, although I am swayed by those who point out that such > offspring may have been sterile. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Martin, Thanks--we are in agreement on some of these issues. Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178870790.696144.222480@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 7:43 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > I was shocked when I found out that a college professor > > that was a kind and wonderful person was an atheist. I made the mistake of > > assuming that he was a Christian. > > You'll find that most college professors are atheists. Religious > belief correlates negative with intelligence. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence > > "According to a study by Paul Bell, published in the Mensa Magazine in > 2002, there is an inverse correlation between religiosity and > intelligence. Analyzing 43 studies carried out since 1927, Bell found > that all but four reported such a connection, and he concluded that > "the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is > likely to be religious or hold 'beliefs' of any kind."[1] A survey > published in Nature in 1998 confirms that belief in a personal God or > afterlife is at an all time low among the members of the National > Academy of Science, only 7.0% of which believed in a personal God as > compared to more than 85% of the US general population.[2]" > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let's say there is a college professor that is a Christian. If he decided to become an atheist--would his intelligence level go higher? Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <f222v4$n6c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I > > was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt. > > People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone > > ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one > > that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. Those > > people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge > > you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of > > people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of > > people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH > > higher. > > Do your OWN homework and PROVE that it's higher instead of simply coming > up with your wild-assed guesses and assertions. > > The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 > > and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. > > DUE TO INCREASED USE OF MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS! (How often does this > need to be repeated?) The crime rate was DOWN during that same period > (again, how often does this need to be repeated?) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Homicide Rate per 100,000 from 1950 to 2002 1950----4.6 2002----5.6 Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1105071226220001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5ajmc0F2oquupU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" > <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrotesnip >> >> > Martin, >> > If you are ever in a life boat, please don't throw an elderly man >> > overboard so that you will be able to have more water for yourself. >> >> WTF? > > It was an inside joke Whatever. -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <f221s1$lpg$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > Jason wrote: > > In article <f1vnkt$6sc$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > > > >> Jason wrote: > >>> In article <1178792287.190815.145890@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Martin > >>> Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On May 10, 2:24 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> It has actually helped me stay out of prison and jail. When I was about 30 > >>>>> years old, I could not find a job and was running out of money. I had a > >>>>> gun so knew that it would be easy to rob a store or rob people. The reason > >>>>> I did not do that was because I knew that God was watching me and would > >>>>> have been disappointed with me if I disobeyed one of his commandments. > >>>> All this proves was that your parents failed to teach you to be > >>>> morally centered: your entire reason for not robbing people nor > >>>> threatening them with violence is that you fear you will go to Hell. > >>>> You are a truly frightening person indeed. > >>>> > >>>> Martin > >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >>> > >>> It's effective. My minor in college was history. I leared that in the > >>> 1700's and 1800's just about everyone in America were Christians that took > >>> their religion very seriously. In almost every state they only had one > >>> prison--California was about the only state that had two prisons. > >> And in almost every state the population was numbered in the 10's (or > >> maybe 100's) of thousands. > >> > >> None of > >>> the small jails were ever over crowded. That has all changed. All prisons > >>> are now over-crowded and almost every state now has more than one prison. > >>> In fact, California has about a dozen over-crowded prisons and plans to > >>> build about two or three more prisons. > >> In 1850, California had a population of 92,597. Even in 1900, it was > >> only 1,485,053. It's now around 35,000,000. So that's one > >> prison/3,000,000 people now and it had 1/750,000 people in 1900 > >> (assuming that's when it had 2 prisons.) > >> > >> Now what does that tell you about the prison population? Either the per > >> capita is DROPPING or the prisons are larger/more populated. > >> > >> Almost every city jail is over > >>> crowded. > >> Almost every CITY is overcrowded. > >> > >> You may think that the rise in atheism is a good thing but I > >>> think that the rise in atheism has some serious negative consequences. The > >>> percentage of people in prisons is now higher than it has ever been in > >>> American history. > >>> Jason > >> Not according to your own figures above. Also most of the recent > >> increases in per capita prison population over the past 20 years has > >> been due to increasing of mandatory sentencing and NOT due to increased > >> crime rates (those have actually DROPPED in recent years.) > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > The percentage of people in prison is now higher than it has ever been in > > the history of America. The increasing of mandatory sentencing played a > > role. > > And isn't that what I ALREADY said? > > I don't have the percentages but found these statistics in my 2005 > > Time Almanac > > > > 1990 total number of people in state prisons--- 684,544 > > 2003 total number of people in state prisons--1,221,501 > > > > In other words, the population almost doubled in just three years. The > > "three strikes law" in California has also played a role. I don't know > > whether or not other states have established three strikes laws. > > So how does all this support your position that the increase in atheism > and the increase in the prison population have ANYTHING to do with each > other? Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the rise in atheism also played a role. I realize that many of the people are atheists are kind and wonderful people. Many high school teachers and college psychology professors are teaching courses in "situational ethics". I took one of those stupid classes. The professor told us that in some cases, it's alright for a straving person to steal food; for relatives to kill elderly people that were disabled--I believe the term was "euthanatize"; For women to kill their unborn babies--abortion. I don't believe she told us that in some situations that it would be alright to rob a bank or cheat on your taxes--but my memory is not perfect. Situational Ethics means that people can violate the law if that person has a good reason for violating the law. Those situational ethics classes will cause the crime rate to go even higher in the years to come. Shop lifting was not a major problem in the 1950's and 1960's. I challenge you to google shoplifting statistics. Without any research, I know that it's more of a problem now than it was in the 1960's or 1970's. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <Ca%0i.925$y_7.424@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > Jason wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > >>> Hello, > >>> Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people > >>> that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small town after > >>> they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the lack of > >>> job opportunities. > >>> There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten about the > >>> hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. > >>> That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was > >>> called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse theives and > >>> cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for > >>> punishment. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > >> It's nice actually to have a conversation. A breath of fresh air. > >> > >> Does any of this affect your views? Perhaps some nuances/refinements? > >> There can be a lot of good in growing up in a small town - community can > >> be a good thing. > >> > >> But I have always lived in cities, and have found that small communities > >> form within them - the floor of a dorm, fellow students in a program, > >> families of the children in your child's class etc. Those can be as > >> positive or as dysfunctional as any community. > >> > >> But I think that individuals are driven to crime by a combination of > >> personality and circumstance - religion is simply an excuse for doing or > >> not doing. I also believe that conversion experiences in prison can be > >> genuine: prisoners rediscover the faith that they were raised in, and > >> embrace it. It's not that they didn't have it before, it was like a > >> muscle that they had to learn to use. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > You made some good points. Yes, I agree that there are lots of different > > reasons for getting involved in criminal behavior. A person's religion and > > "upbringing" does play a role. > > I don't think that religion plays a role in criminal behavior, except > for people like Jim Bakker and Kent Hovind, who used their religion for > theft. No doubt others have used religion as part of their criminal > actions as well. > > For example, people raised in stable home > > environments are less likely to get involved in criminal behavior than > > people raised in disfuctional family situations. > > Agreed, but religion has nothing to do with the functionality of a family. > > I agree that prisons are > > a wonderful place to discover Christianity. > > Perhaps we should send all unbelievers to prison? Only if they are involved in criminal behavior Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <5ajmc0F2oquupU1@mid.individual.net>, "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrotesnip > > > Martin, > > If you are ever in a life boat, please don't throw an elderly man > > overboard so that you will be able to have more water for yourself. > > WTF? It was an inside joke Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178871979.197963.206680@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 11, 7:19 am, cactus <b...@nonespam.com> wrote: > > > So atheists, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists who live a good life are > > Christian? Come on man, do you know how arrogant and offensive that sounds? > > If Christians were defined as those people who only spoke the truth > then the only real Christians would be atheists. > > Martin I don't believe that Jews, Muslims and Buddhists who live a good life are Christians. Anyone (regardless of their belief system) can live a good life. jason Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178879268.861634.45500@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin <phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 11, 5:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > In article <1178865352.632596.192...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin > > > > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 11, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: > > > > > > Not all sins are a violation of the law. If we commit those sorts of sins, > > > > Christians ask for forgiveness. If the sin (robbing a store, murdering) is > > > > a violation of the law, we not only ask for forgiveness but if we get > > > > caught--we have to go to jail or prison. I am also a fan of Angelina > > > > Jolie. > > > > > I see. Thus the law of your god does nothing to prevent you from > > > commiting crimes because you can just ask your god for forgiveness and > > > all will be forgiven. Thank you for proving what we suspected all > > > along, namely that Christians have an out that allows them to commit > > > crimes and not have to feel guilty about them. > > > > You stated lots of things that I did not state. Should Christians commit > > sins? The answer is NO. Christians should try their best to avoid sinning. > > However, the question is what happens if we do commit a sin? Back in the > > Old Testament days, the Jews would cast their sins on a lamb or baby goat. > > The lamb or goat would be taken to the temple and when the lamb or goat > > was killed, the sin debt would have been paid. Many of the poor people > > could not afford to buy goats or lambs so they were allowed to substitute > > birds for lambs. Have you heard the terms sacrificial lamb and scapegoat? > > In other words, blood needed to be shed before the sin debt would have > > been paid. When John the Baptist first saw Jesus, he said, "Behold, the > > Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World." (John 1:29). When we > > sin, we ask for forgiveness. When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes > > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we > > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to > > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all > > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their > > sins. > > So Christianity is just a recasting of Old Testament superstition. > How does this contradict what I said? Whether it's by sacraficing a > lamb or praying to Jesus, theists have been able to have their sins > forgiven. Atheists have no such recourse and have to live with > whatever they have done for the rest of their lives. That is why we > tend to be more moral. > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he had a plan prepared. His plan was to send Jesus but it took several thousand years for him to implement the plan. During those years, he prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood needed to be shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus died on the cross and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. It was only effective because Jesus never sinned. He was like a spotless lamb which is why John the Baptist referred to him as "the lamb of God" or the "Lamb sent by God". This is a summary version of a complex doctrine. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <5aiqn2F2p378jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:Jason-1105070207450001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > >When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes > > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we > > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to > > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all > > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their > > sins. > > jason > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get > caught. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Steve, That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. I try to do it at least once a day. I know the story of one elderly lady that called her pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor wondered what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. Jason Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1105071247270001@66-52-22-5.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > In article <5aiqn2F2p378jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" > <spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1105070207450001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes >> > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so >> > we >> > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have >> > to >> > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all >> > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their >> > sins. >> > jason >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >> caught. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Steve, > That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to > a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin > which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. > I try to do it at least once a day. You sin every day and have to ask forgiveness? Why? I haven't sinned at all today, or yesterday. What are you, some kind of repeat offender? ;-) >I know the story of one elderly lady that called her > pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor wondered > what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The > lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. > Jason Why would that be a sin? Maybe the neighbour was an asshole, and deserved far more than a negative thought. -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack "The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long enough" Quote
Guest Jason Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In article <1178873324.270029.148500@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > > "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message > > > > Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many > > > of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead > > > related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they > > > were hungry > > I've been hungry before, Jason, but I know stealing is wrong, not > because your imaginary god says it is, but because of the Confusian > ethic of reciprocity. > > "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." - > Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 BC) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity > > Martin ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Good point. However, there are lots of people that would steal food. I was shocked when I saw two young girls (about 16 to 18 years old) in a huge grocery store. They were eating some food that they had stolen. As I walked by them, one of them say--"which grocery store are we going to go to for dinner"? Those young girls were not homeless. They were dressed in nice clothing and were well groomed. I believe they were praciticing situational ethics. The psychology professor that I told you about in another post would have been proud of those two young girls. Those girls did NOT care about shoplifting laws. People who steal clothing form large stores like Walmart or K Mart don't care about Jesus or Confucious or reciprocity. Have you ever seen anything like that? Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:47:27 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <5aiqn2F2p378jU1@mid.individual.net>, "Steve O" ><spamhere@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message >> news:Jason-1105070207450001@66-52-22-38.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... >> >When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes >> > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we >> > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to >> > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all >> > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their >> > sins. >> > jason >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you get >> caught. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >Steve, >That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related to >a major sin like murder or stealing. Murder and stealing aren't sins. They are simply immoral. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest Don Kresch Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 In alt.atheism On Fri, 11 May 2007 12:40:02 -0700, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) let us all know that: >In article <1178879268.861634.45500@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Martin ><phippsmartin@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 11, 5:07 pm, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > In article <1178865352.632596.192...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Martin >> > >> > Phipps <martinphip...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> > > On May 11, 2:52 am, J...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote: >> > >> > > > Not all sins are a violation of the law. If we commit those sorts >of sins, >> > > > Christians ask for forgiveness. If the sin (robbing a store, >murdering) is >> > > > a violation of the law, we not only ask for forgiveness but if we get >> > > > caught--we have to go to jail or prison. I am also a fan of Angelina >> > > > Jolie. >> > >> > > I see. Thus the law of your god does nothing to prevent you from >> > > commiting crimes because you can just ask your god for forgiveness and >> > > all will be forgiven. Thank you for proving what we suspected all >> > > along, namely that Christians have an out that allows them to commit >> > > crimes and not have to feel guilty about them. >> > >> > You stated lots of things that I did not state. Should Christians commit >> > sins? The answer is NO. Christians should try their best to avoid sinning. >> > However, the question is what happens if we do commit a sin? Back in the >> > Old Testament days, the Jews would cast their sins on a lamb or baby goat. >> > The lamb or goat would be taken to the temple and when the lamb or goat >> > was killed, the sin debt would have been paid. Many of the poor people >> > could not afford to buy goats or lambs so they were allowed to substitute >> > birds for lambs. Have you heard the terms sacrificial lamb and scapegoat? >> > In other words, blood needed to be shed before the sin debt would have >> > been paid. When John the Baptist first saw Jesus, he said, "Behold, the >> > Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World." (John 1:29). When we >> > sin, we ask for forgiveness. When we ask for forgiveness, the sin becomes >> > one of the many sins that Jesus died for. He suffered for our sins so we >> > do not have to suffer for our sins. Of course, non-Christians will have to >> > suffer for their sins. That's one of the main reasons I wish that all >> > people would accept Jesus as their savior and their redeemer from their >> > sins. >> >> So Christianity is just a recasting of Old Testament superstition. >> How does this contradict what I said? Whether it's by sacraficing a >> lamb or praying to Jesus, theists have been able to have their sins >> forgiven. Atheists have no such recourse and have to live with >> whatever they have done for the rest of their lives. That is why we >> tend to be more moral. >> >> Martin > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >It's more complicated. God knew Adam and Eve would eventually sin so he >had a plan prepared. But if they were created perfect, they wouldn't sin. > His plan was to send Jesus but it took several >thousand years for him to implement the plan. During those years, he >prepared the hearts and minds of the people. The animal and bird >sacrifices were part of that process of teaching the people that blood >needed to be shed for the remission of sins. When Jesus died on the cross >and shed his blood--that was the last sacrifice that needed to be made. Wrong. It violated Levitical law. It was an invalid sacrifice. > It >was only effective because Jesus never sinned. He was like a spotless lamb Jesus was a lamb? A REAL lamb? No wait--he was human. Only a REAL lamb would do--not a metaphor. Don --- aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert. "No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another" Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man" Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <Ca%0i.925$y_7.424@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > bm1@nonespam.com wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> Thanks--you made some good points. I do recall that most of the people >>>>> that were the "least bit different" moved away from that small town after >>>>> they graduated from high school. I left that small town due to the lack of >>>>> job opportunities. >>>>> There are lots of issues related to crime rates. I had forgotten about the >>>>> hangings that were done in the 1700's and 1800's--esp. in the old west. >>>>> That brings to mind one of Clint Eastwood's movies that I believe was >>>>> called, "Hangem High" or something like that. They hung horse theives and >>>>> cow thieves without trials. They also placed people in stocks for >>>>> punishment. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>>> It's nice actually to have a conversation. A breath of fresh air. >>>> >>>> Does any of this affect your views? Perhaps some nuances/refinements? >>>> There can be a lot of good in growing up in a small town - community can >>>> be a good thing. >>>> >>>> But I have always lived in cities, and have found that small communities >>>> form within them - the floor of a dorm, fellow students in a program, >>>> families of the children in your child's class etc. Those can be as >>>> positive or as dysfunctional as any community. >>>> >>>> But I think that individuals are driven to crime by a combination of >>>> personality and circumstance - religion is simply an excuse for doing or >>>> not doing. I also believe that conversion experiences in prison can be >>>> genuine: prisoners rediscover the faith that they were raised in, and >>>> embrace it. It's not that they didn't have it before, it was like a >>>> muscle that they had to learn to use. >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> You made some good points. Yes, I agree that there are lots of different >>> reasons for getting involved in criminal behavior. A person's religion and >>> "upbringing" does play a role. >> I don't think that religion plays a role in criminal behavior, except >> for people like Jim Bakker and Kent Hovind, who used their religion for >> theft. No doubt others have used religion as part of their criminal >> actions as well. >> >> For example, people raised in stable home >>> environments are less likely to get involved in criminal behavior than >>> people raised in disfuctional family situations. >> Agreed, but religion has nothing to do with the functionality of a family. >> >> I agree that prisons are >>> a wonderful place to discover Christianity. >> Perhaps we should send all unbelievers to prison? > > > Only if they are involved in criminal behavior > > My point was that maybe non-Christians would discover Christianity there. You seem to think it's a great place for that. Quote
Guest cactus Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178873324.270029.148500@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> "Jason" <J...@nospam.com> wrote in message >>>> Yes, I believe that lots of atheists are like that college professor. Many >>>> of them make decisions--not based on Christian principles--but instead >>>> related to self interest. That would even involve robbing a store if they >>>> were hungry >> I've been hungry before, Jason, but I know stealing is wrong, not >> because your imaginary god says it is, but because of the Confusian >> ethic of reciprocity. >> >> "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." - >> Confucius (ca. 551 - 479 BC) >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity >> >> Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Good point. However, there are lots of people that would steal food. I was > shocked when I saw two young girls (about 16 to 18 years old) in a huge > grocery store. They were eating some food that they had stolen. As I > walked by them, one of them say--"which grocery store are we going to go > to for dinner"? Those young girls were not homeless. They were dressed in > nice clothing and were well groomed. I believe they were praciticing > situational ethics. No they weren't. They were being outright unethical. The psychology professor that I told you about in > another post would have been proud of those two young girls. Those girls > did NOT care about shoplifting laws. People who steal clothing form large > stores like Walmart or K Mart don't care about Jesus or Confucious or > reciprocity. Have you ever seen anything like that? That is not necessarily true. You are making assumptions about their mental state that you have no way of confirming. You don't know whether some Christian pastor has a compulsion to steal. Behavior is independent of religion. People of all faiths steal, people of all faiths create murder - the religion generally has nothing to do with the crime. > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Quote
Guest Steve O Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 "Jason" <Jason@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Jason-1105071423310001@66-52-22-87.lsan.pw-dia.impulse.net... > <snip> > > >> >> Jason, we're not going to suffer for any sin- unless, of course, you >> >> get >> >> caught. >> > >> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> > >> > Steve, >> > That's funny. We have to go to jail or prison if we get caught related >> > to >> > a major sin like murder or stealing. However, God knows about every sin >> > which is why Christians ask forgiveness for our sins. >> >> Provided of course, you can first of all demonstrate that a God exists. > > Evolutionists have faith that life evolved from non-life. They have no > proof that it ever happened. We do have proof that life happened, and it would be fair to asume that before life existed, there was no life. What other explanation do you have? Creationists believe the entire universe was waved into existence by a supreme and magicial invisible sky fairy. > Christians have faith that God exists and created life on this earth. So who created God? Be careful if you answer, "God has always existed" >Even Darwin believed that God created life and after he finished--evolution > took over. Assuming that he did, what difference would that make? > >> >> > I try to do it at least once a day. >> >> You sin every day and have to ask forgiveness? > > Yes, many of the sins are related to my thought processes. Example: > thinking about Angela Jolene. Never heard of her. I prefer Angelina Jolie myself. ;-) >One elderly lady that I heard about was > concerned about her sin which were negative thoughts about a bad neighbor. > Don't worry--I have never killed anyone or robbed any stores or banks. > Some Christians believe that all sins are equal. I disagree--I believe > that murdering someone is a more serious sin than having a negative > thought about a neighbor. > > >> Why? >> I haven't sinned at all today, or yesterday. >> What are you, some kind of repeat offender? ;-) > > Yes. However, I will not have to suffer for my sins since Jesus has > already suffered for my sins. Only Non-Christians will have to suffer for > their sins. That's why I wish that everyone was a Christian. So let me see if I've got this straight... God had himself killed to save me from the wrath of God for being the way that God made me? Does that really make sense to you? Why didn't he just save himself and everyone else a whole load of trouble and just forgive them instead? >> >> >I know the story of one elderly lady that called her >> > pastor and requested a conference to discuss her sin. The pastor >> > wondered >> > what sort of sin an elderly lady would be concerned about. The sin: The >> > lady had a negative thought about a bad neighbor. >> > Jason >> >> Why would that be a sin? >> Maybe the neighbour was an asshole, and deserved far more than a negative >> thought. > > That lady considered it to be a sin and she was correct. You mean, you think she was correct? Personally, I have every reason to believe that her neighbour was a total bastard and she did no wrong. Maybe I'm just more forgiving than you. (Funny , that, isn't it, considering that YOUR faith is supposed to centre around forgiveness?) > The Bible says > that we should love our neighbor as we love ourselves. The Bible does not > say that we should hate out neighbors as we hate outselves. Why wopuld anyone want to take any notice of what it says in the bible? It's a ridiculous book- badly writen, repetetive, mistakes and errors all over the place and not as entertaining as other mythical legends. >I do believe she was over-concerned about her sin--perhaps even obsessive. >She should > have asked for forgiveness and not obsessed about it--that's what I do. Excuse me, but I get the impression that you are a little more obsessed about sin than you are letting on. > I also avoid committing major sins. Heck, don't we all? I managed to avoid killing anyone today... just about. >It would be great if I could avoid all > sins but that's difficult. There are lots of beautiful young women in this > town and they dress in such a way that it's difficult to not take a second > look. I am a member of a co-ed health fitness program. > Go for it. You can always ask for forgiveness later. That's the beauty of your particular scam. Some of those evangelical ministers would be screwing the ass off them by now. Why do you think they are telling you to leave them alone? -- Steve O a.a. #2240 (Apatheist Chapter) B.A.A.W.A. Convicted by Earthquack "The only problem with Baptists is that they don't hold them underwater long enough" Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > > Of course, mandantory sentencing played a role. It's my opinion that the > rise in atheism also played a role. And who cares about your unsupported opinions? <snip more crap> Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <f222v4$n6c$1@news04.infoave.net>, Mike > <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote: > >> Jason wrote: >>> I do credit religion with the low crime rates in the 1700' and 1800's. I >>> was raised in a small town in Virgina--part of the so called Bible Belt. >>> People in that small town took their religion very seriously. If someone >>> ended up in jail, everyone talked about it--gossip. As you know, no one >>> that lives in a SMALL town wants to be the victim of redicule. Those >>> people that ended up in jail became the victims of redicule. I challenge >>> you or anyone else to do a google search to determine the percentage of >>> people that were in state prisons in 1800 compared to the percentage of >>> people that were in state prisons in 2000. That percentage will be MUCH >>> higher. >> Do your OWN homework and PROVE that it's higher instead of simply coming >> up with your wild-assed guesses and assertions. >> >> The population of state prison inmates almost doubled between 1990 >>> and 2003 according to the statistics on page 382 of the 2005 Time Almanac. >> DUE TO INCREASED USE OF MANDATORY SENTENCING LAWS! (How often does this >> need to be repeated?) The crime rate was DOWN during that same period >> (again, how often does this need to be repeated?) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Homicide Rate per 100,000 from 1950 to 2002 > 1950----4.6 > 2002----5.6 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm National rates for the past 10 years (during the time that you said prison population was increasing. 1990 10.0 1991 10.5 1992 10.0 1993 10.1 1994 9.6 1995 8.7 1996 7.9 1997 7.4 1998 6.8 1999 6.2 2000 6.1 2001 7.1 (includes the deaths from 9/11) 2002 6.1 Notice anything happening over the past several years (i.e. during the time frame you were talking about prison populations doubling?) You had to go back to 1950 to find figures to try and support your crap. During the time that prison population was doubling, the murder rate dropped to almost HALF! Quote
Guest Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Posted May 11, 2007 Jason wrote: > In article <1178869597.855167.31140@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Martin > Phipps <martinphipps2@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On May 11, 5:36 am, "Ralph" <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> Really? I don't see how my behavior changed at all when I realized that the >>> god of the Hebrew bible didn't exist. >> I know that my behaviour has improved since I realized that Moslems >> are no more evil than Christians. I'd hate to think what the average >> Christian would do to the average Moslem if he thought he could get >> away with it (or vice versa). >> >> Jason should take a look at this study done by theists like him and >> see what results they came up with. >> >> http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html >> >> "A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in >> Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all >> secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen >> homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low >> rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due >> to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not >> consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and >> Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the >> 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that >> retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard >> (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates >> of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass >> student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since >> the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School >> Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined. >> Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in >> rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime (Beeghley; >> Farrington and Langan; Neapoletan), and are often lower in this >> regard. The United States exhibits typical rates of youth suicide >> (WHO), which show little if any correlation with theistic factors in >> the prosperous democracies (Figure 3). The positive correlation >> between pro-theistic factors and juvenile mortality is remarkable, >> especially regarding absolute belief, and even prayer (Figure 4). Life >> spans tend to decrease as rates of religiosity rise (Figure 5), >> especially as a function of absolute belief. Denmark is the only >> exception. Unlike questionable small-scale epidemiological studies by >> Harris et al. and Koenig and Larson, higher rates of religious >> affiliation, attendance, and prayer do not result in lower juvenile- >> adult mortality rates on a cross-national basis.<6> >> >> "Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed >> in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), >> rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred >> times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular >> developed democracies. (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in >> the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from >> uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are >> starting to rise again as the microbe's resistance increases (Figure >> 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly >> secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show >> positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, >> and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of >> evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). >> Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) >> are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent >> pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et >> al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher >> in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest (Figure 9). Broad >> correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and >> birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial >> exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number >> of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide >> disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies >> they sampled, including the U.S. A detailed comparison of sexual >> practices in France and the U.S. observed little difference except >> that the French tend - contrary to common impression - to be somewhat >> more conservative (Gagnon et al.)." >> >> JRS stands for Journal of Religion and Society >> >> Martin > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > Martin, > Thanks--here are some statistics for you to consider > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > 1990 was 1,148,702 > > Total number of inmates in Federal prisons, State prisons and all jails in > 2003 was 2,078,570 > > Homicide rate (per 100,000) from 1950 to 2002: > In 1950--that figure was 4.4 > In 2002--that figure was 5.6 > source: 2005 Time Almanac > > These statistics proved to me that the crime rates are going up. > Jason > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pick the same friggin' time-frames, idiot. In EVERY category crime TOTALS (not just per-capita rates but the actual TOTALS) DROPPED from 1990 to 2003 (the time frame during which you cite that the prison population rose.) Year Population Index Violent Property Murder Rape Robbery assault Burglary Larceny Car-Theft 1990 248,709,873 14,475,600 1,820,130 12,655,500 23,440 102,560 639,270 1,054,860 3,073,900 7,945,700 1,635,900 1991 252,177,000 14,872,900 1,911,770 12,961,100 24,700 106,590 687,730 1,092,740 3,157,200 8,142,200 1,661,700 1992 255,082,000 14,438,200 1,932,270 12,505,900 23,760 109,060 672,480 1,126,970 2,979,900 7,915,200 1,610,800 1993 257,908,000 14,144,800 1,926,020 12,218,800 24,530 106,010 659,870 1,135,610 2,834,800 7,820,900 1,563,100 1994 260,341,000 13,989,500 1,857,670 12,131,900 23,330 102,220 618,950 1,113,180 2,712,800 7,879,800 1,539,300 1995 262,755,000 13,862,700 1,798,790 12,063,900 21,610 97,470 580,510 1,099,210 2,593,800 7,997,700 1,472,400 1996 265,228,572 13,493,863 1,688,540 11,805,300 19,650 96,250 535,590 1,037,050 2,506,400 7,904,700 1,394,200 1997 267,637,000 13,194,571 1,634,770 11,558,175 18,208 96,153 498,534 1,023,201 2,460,526 7,743,760 1,354,189 1998 270,296,000 12,475,634 1,531,044 10,944,590 16,914 93,103 446,625 974,402 2,329,950 7,373,886 1,240,754 1999 272,690,813 11,634,378 1,426,044 10,208,334 15,522 89,411 409,371 911,740 2,100,739 6,955,520 1,152,075 2000 281,421,906 11,608,072 1,425,486 10,182,586 15,586 90,178 408,016 911,706 2,050,992 6,971,590 1,160,002 2001 285,317,559 11,876,669 1,439,480 10,437,480 16,037 90,863 423,5557 909,023 2,116,531 7,092,267 1,228,391 2002 287,973,924 11,878,954 1,423,677 10,455,277 16,229 95,235 420,806 891,407 2,151,252 7,057,370 1,246,646 2003 290,690,788 11,826,538 1,383,676 10,442,862 16,528 93,883 414,235 859,030 2,154,834 7,026,802 1,261,226 2004 293,656,842 11,679,474 1,360,088 10,319,386 16,148 95,089 401,470 847,381 2,144,446 6,937,089 1,237,851 2005 296,410,404 11,556,854 1,390,695 10,166,159 16,692 93,934 417,122 862,947 2,154,126 6,776,807 1,235,226 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.