Assumptions About God(s)

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil, sane or insane or even has the emotional & mental maturity humans like to expect of people 30 or older. We have no way of knowing it's any better than Trelayne of Star Trek TOS. However it came to be or if it always existed, having the power to create and/or control life, the universe & everything doesn't mean, doesn't even imply, wisdom, compassion, understanding, tolerance, fairness, trustworthiness, selfconfidence, benevolence or even intelligence.
Even if we're mainly discussing 1 god, imagine, for a minute, there are many, each creating its own universe. Perhaps all the others admire our god for the great ways our universe is made & controled. Perhaps all the others demean our god for the awful mess it's made.
Perhaps humans (& beings on many other planets?) are a game or a big joke to it. Perhaps the universe is to god as TV is to us. Perhaps we're god's lab rats. Perhaps we're pawns in a war between 2 or more gods. Or something they place bets on.
Perhaps everyone goes to a true paradise after death. (Of course, that would be a huge disappointment to many theists.) Perhaps no 1 does.
Perhaps there's no life after death for any of us in heaven, hell, limbo or paradise. I've said if we find we do have souls that live on after death, that doesn't mean there's a god. The opposite is true. If there is a god, that does not necessarily mean we have souls.
Some will say they know because the bible says so or because they have faith. That misses the point.
A god wouldn't necessarily feel any obligation at all to humans. Including being truthful.
1111

[lightgigantic]

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil, sane or insane or even has the emotional & mental maturity humans like to expect of people 30 or older. We have no way of knowing it's any better than Trelayne of Star Trek TOS.
erm .... can I ask why you think this?

However it came to be or if it always existed, having the power to create and/or control life, the universe & everything doesn't mean, doesn't even imply, wisdom, compassion, understanding, tolerance, fairness, trustworthiness, selfconfidence, benevolence or even intelligence.
erm .... can I ask why you think this?

Even if we're mainly discussing 1 god, imagine, for a minute there are many, each creating its own universe. Perhaps all the others admire our god for the great ways our universe is made & controled. Perhaps all the others demean our god for the awful mess it's made.
I guess a lot depends whether one is beginning their analysis of the situation of this phenomenal existence being the best of all possible worlds or not ...


Perhaps humans (& beings on many other planets?) are a game or a big joke to it. Perhaps the universe is to god as TV is to us. Perhaps we're god's lab rats. Perhaps everyone goes to a true paradise after death. (Of course, that would be a huge disappointment to many theists.) Perhaps no 1 does.
Perhaps there's no life after death for any of us in heaven, hell, limbo or paradise. I've said if we find we do have souls that live on after death, that doesn't mean there's a god. The opposite is true. If there is a god, that does not necessarily mean we have souls.
perhaps we can examine scripture and scriptural commentaries from practitioners to also gain an understanding


Some will say they know because the bible says so or because they have faith. That misses the point.
A god wouldn't necessarily feel any obligation at all to humans. Including being truthful.
1111
As far as I can see, you simply replace what you assume to be an assumption with your assumption. Of course everyone tends to be attached to their particular ideas in life, but it is the special contribution of philosophy to critically justify an onotological/ethical perspective, and its generally the tool we use to separate the wheat from the chaff

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You can't see very far.
1111

[YinyangDK]

I understand where you are heading.
I like to call it the Zoom effect, Where you are drawing paralells between two or more worlds that on the surface does not seem to have any. Doing this gives you an understanding of the subject.
So by trying to understand the GOD subject you impose your and everyone else´s ideas onto the god image and sees what sticks. But since we only have a mental image og god then god is as different as you and I.
Try instead turning (zoom in) the picture, aks the same questions from an opposite view. where you draw paralelles between:
You and your bodycells.
You and a pet.
You and your child.
you and your parents.

In many ways you are a god yourself, in other ways you are a spec of dust.
I would say that the difference between us and "god" is the same as our cells and us.
The cells might be able to comprehend that they are parts of a world that is our body, they are able to recognize their own forms of cells and will combat invasive cells.
But are we as gods of our own body allways good gods?
Are we even aware of our godhood?
And what do we want from our minions? (obedience...?)

I could go on forever, but I´ll cut it short here.
YinYangDK

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

erm .... can I ask why you think this?

erm .... can I ask why you think this?

I guess a lot depends whether one is beginning their analysis of the situation of this phenomenal existence being the best of all possible worlds or not ...



perhaps we can examine scripture and scriptural commentaries from practitioners to also gain an understanding



As far as I can see, you simply replace what you assume to be an assumption with your assumption. Of course everyone tends to be attached to their particular ideas in life, but it is the special contribution of philosophy to critically justify an onotological/ethical perspective, and its generally the tool we use to separate the wheat from the chaff

Your "questions" make no sense so cannot be answered.
I haven't assumed anything that's not evident.
1111

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

I'm asking why anyone assumes a god to be good. Or sane. Or wise. Etc, etc, etc.
1111

[lightgigantic]

Your "questions" make no sense so cannot be answered.
I haven't assumed anything that's not evident.
1111
if its so evident, why can't you answer?
:wtf:

[Simon Anders]

I'm asking why anyone assumes a god to be good. Or sane. Or wise. Etc, etc, etc.
1111
That's a good question and does not assume that much. But to say no one could know does assume things. It assume that God is beyond knowing or beyond communication. That there must be a gap.

How can you be sure that no one could know?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

1st, evidently I haven't phrased things to your satisfaction.
But it doesn't assume beyond communication. Communication doesn't tell me whether someone is good, sane, wise, truthful, etc.
IF someone does know such things, tell me how. That is the question to be answered not the other way around.
1111

[lightgigantic]

1st, evidently I haven't phrased things to your satisfaction.
But it doesn't assume beyond communication. Communication doesn't tell me whether someone is good, sane, wise, truthful, etc.
IF someone does know such things, tell me how. That is the question to be answered not the other way around.
1111
how would you propose that someone determine if you are good, sane, wise, truthful, etc?

[Simon Anders]

But it doesn't assume beyond communication. Communication doesn't tell me whether someone is good, sane, wise, truthful, etc.
Good, then you cannot have decided any of these things about me, or even SAM, then.

IF someone does know such things, tell me how. That is the question to be answered not the other way around.
1111
If someone wants to convince you they know God is good: iow they say you should believe them - then yes, they need to show this somehow.

But if you, as you did here, say that one cannot know whether God is good or not, you are making a claim about the way things must be. And so you are the one making a claim.

If you mean by what you said here that you are dropping this claim, well then, OK.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Absurd strawman.
1111

[Simon Anders]

Absurd strawman.
1111What is?

You said:

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil...

I am referring to this, which is clearly saying that certain things must be the case.

How do you know that there could be no way of knowing God is good or evil if there is a God? You are making a claim. Back it up.

and by the way: if you meant 'strawman' in reference to what I said about communication, please go back and read your sentence. It is not clear. I have been here before with you where you do not write clearly, then are shocked or very critical when you are misunderstood.

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Simon-you know this game.

Stranger-I'd have fallen right into this one much as LG did. All views you don't accept are absurd strawman, posters you disagree with are incompetent. I have travelled this road with you before, and I am in no hurry to do so again. Perhaps your fellow anti-theists will come and grouse with you. I will not participate past this single post. Theists of any sort-read Lighgigantic's signature and follow the instructions regarding this thread. There is no open thought here, just cold derision.

[Simon Anders]

Simon-you know this game.

Sure. I've actually realized that Stranger quite often writes unclearly and is therefore surprised by the responses he gets which he dismisses as the irrationality of theists. Which is an excellent system.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

You are making a mountain out of an anthill while ignoring the mountain range.
If you don't want to contribute to the topic of this thread, why are you posting here?
1111

[Simon Anders]

You are making a mountain out of an anthill while ignoring the mountain range.
If you don't want to contribute to the topic of this thread, why are you posting here?
1111
If you are responding to me I am right on topic.

The title of the thread is 'Assumptions About God(s)'

I am pointing out that you are making assumptions about God. You are doing it in the subjunctive.

I am responding directly to the first sentence in your OP where you make a claim. I think this claim needs backing up. To ask for back up for claims made in a thread that 1) fit with the title of the thread and 2) relate to the opening sentence of the OP is to be right on topic.

[Bowser]

The creator of life and the universe--the assumption would seem to lean towards sane and good god. But who knows about such things

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

But WHY does 1 assume that?
1111

[Bowser]

But WHY does 1 assume that?
1111

I suppose it depends on your views regarding life and what you have been taught. My experience is that people who are successful in life also have a strong faith in god, but the same is often true for those who are doing poorly. Some are appreciative while others are desperate. Either way, people have been told to expect miracles from a higher source and naturally believe that god is good.

[PsychoticEpisode]

God is an assumption, so what's the problem? Belief in a god has no basis in fact, its an assumption, an irrationalization, illogical and unreasonable. I might as well believe there are creatures in the seventh dimension who control our minds.

[lightgigantic]

God is an assumption, so what's the problem? Belief in a god has no basis in fact, its an assumption, an irrationalization, illogical and unreasonable.
well, that's what you assume ....

[Simon Anders]

God is an assumption, so what's the problem? Belief in a god has no basis in fact, its an assumption, an irrationalization, illogical and unreasonable. I might as well believe there are creatures in the seventh dimension who control our minds. It sounds like you think all theists have arrived at their beliefs at random.

[PsychoticEpisode]

I wonder if any or all believers are 100% certain god exists. If they are then why is it called belief?

The one thing I notice about most God believers is that a majority or in fact a preponderence of them call God a creator. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that if God does exist, that He created nothing?

Do we know enough facts for God to be an absolute certainty? If so, then what are they?

Unsubstantiated fact is not a reason to make an absolute statement about God's existence. Therefore believers must assume God exists. All along my mantra has been God is in absentia. He may be real but there is nothing to suggest He has ever been here, nothing. This makes religion a total waste. If we know nothing about something then it doesn't make sense to talk about its attributes or whatever. But it is such talk that is mesmerizing.

[Simon Anders]

I wonder if any or all believers are 100% certain god exists. If they are then why is it called belief?

The one thing I notice about most God believers is that a majority or in fact a preponderence of them call God a creator. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that if God does exist, that He created nothing?

Do we know enough facts for God to be an absolute certainty? If so, then what are they?

Unsubstantiated fact is not a reason to make an absolute statement about God's existence. Therefore believers must assume God exists. All along my mantra has been God is in absentia. He may be real but there is nothing to suggest He has ever been here, nothing. This makes religion a total waste. If we know nothing about something then it doesn't make sense to talk about its attributes or whatever. But it is such talk that is mesmerizing.
It still sounds like you think all theists have arrived at their beliefs randomly.

[lightgigantic]

I wonder if any or all believers are 100% certain god exists.

not at all

just like all atheists are not 100% certain god does not exist

that is why a theist sometimes becomes an atheist and vice versa

There is however a stage of theistic realization where one goes beyond the dualities of doubt

BG 5.25 Those who are beyond the dualities that arise from doubts, whose minds are engaged within, who are always busy working for the welfare of all living beings, and who are free from all sins achieve liberation in the Supreme.

SB 11.2.42 Devotion, direct experience of the Supreme Lord, and detachment from other things—these three occur simultaneously for one who has taken shelter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, in the same way that pleasure, nourishment and relief from hunger come simultaneously and increasingly, with each bite, for a person engaged in eating.

etc etc

atheism cannot lay claim to a position of being free from doubt



The one thing I notice about most God believers is that a majority or in fact a preponderence of them call God a creator. Has anyone ever considered the possibility that if God does exist, that He created nothing?
I guess one could consider that, if they were looking for creative ideas to diminish the role of god in the universe (a seemingly great preoccupation with atheists ...)

Do we know enough facts for God to be an absolute certainty?
who is the "we"?
atheists?


If so, then what are they?
no question of being certain about anything without proper application - for instance you could not be certain that honey is sweet unless you placed it in your mouth.

Unsubstantiated fact is not a reason to make an absolute statement about God's existence.
much like unapplied application is no grounds for dismissing a claim

Therefore believers must assume God exists.
In the beginning, yes.

Much like in the beginning one must assume that honey is a food stuff before coming to be certain of any of its qualities for which it is famous for.

All along my mantra has been God is in absentia. He may be real but there is nothing to suggest He has ever been here, nothing.
never encountered a normative description in scripture?

This makes religion a total waste.
perhaps for one who refrains from applying normative descriptions in scripture

If we know nothing about something then it doesn't make sense to talk about its attributes or whatever.
that's why not much value is placed on an atheists understanding of god

But it is such talk that is mesmerizing.
mesmerizing?

[PsychoticEpisode]

There is however a stage of theistic realization where one goes beyond the dualities of doubt

I believe the universe is teeming with life. I have no proof of this but there is one thing I am certain of, there is life in the universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume life exists elsewhere. That is the fundamental difference LG, I believe in something I can't prove as of yet but I can extrapolate from a known existent quantity. In God belief there is no such luxury of knowing that a God exists with certainty and to assume He does is tantamount to a dream.

atheism cannot lay claim to a position of being free from doubt
I agree entirely. All I can say is that without any evidence to prove otherwise it is more reasonable to choose atheism. Actually I only choose to be atheist for the sake of argument. Atheist being the term most popular for someone like myself. Call me apatheist because I don't really care if God exists or not. If He exists then big deal. I don't need to go any further.

You can't be certain God is even here let alone know all about Him or think you've had some sort of magical epiphany on what God is, what He's all about or how we as lowly human beings have to revere Him. I hate to break it to you but I know as much about God as you do.

[swarm]

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing...

This is an interesting claim, but you need to support it.

Some examples...

Epicurus felt such a being, being perfect and beyond any possible want, need or care, could never interact with mortals in any way.

The Buddha felt that should such a being exist, it would be so beyond any possible apprehension on our part that there simply would be nothing intelligible that one could say about it.

Why do we have no way of knowing?

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Once again, I don't need to support it. It is the claim of knowing that needs to be supported.
1111

[greenberg]

The Buddha felt that should such a being exist, it would be so beyond any possible apprehension on our part that there simply would be nothing intelligible that one could say about it.

Please substantiate this statement with a reference to the Pali Canon.

[greenberg]

Once again, I don't need to support it. It is the claim of knowing that needs to be supported.

You do need to support it, but it seems there is some misunderstanding about what exactly you need to support.

You said:

IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil...

What you need to support is why it follows that "we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil" if "there is a god".

You aren't asked to support whether G/god exists.

You are asked to support why it is impossible to know G/god.

Mind you, theists usually take a completely different position: they usually say that it is possible to know God.

You, on the other hand, are saying that it is impossible to know G/god. This is the claim you need to support.

[greenberg]

I hate to break it to you but I know as much about God as you do.

So you are omniscient?

Some decency would do you no harm, you know.

[PsychoticEpisode]

So you are omniscient?

Some decency would do you no harm, you know.

:shrug::wtf:

There's no pleasing an expert.

[lightgigantic]

Psychotic episode
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
There is however a stage of theistic realization where one goes beyond the dualities of doubt
”
I believe the universe is teeming with life. I have no proof of this but there is one thing I am certain of, there is life in the universe. Therefore it is reasonable to assume life exists elsewhere. That is the fundamental difference LG, I believe in something I can't prove as of yet but I can extrapolate from a known existent quantity. In God belief there is no such luxury of knowing that a God exists with certainty and to assume He does is tantamount to a dream.
Why?
Because you assume there is no valid experience of god (like there is a valid experience of life)?
What if one never had a valid experience of life? (like they lived in a dark cave with a big rock in front of the entrance)?

“
atheism cannot lay claim to a position of being free from doubt
”
I agree entirely. All I can say is that without any evidence to prove otherwise it is more reasonable to choose atheism.
And once again, evidence is contingent on experience. IF a person chooses not to remove the rock of their cave like existence, then their experiences are severely diminished

Actually I only choose to be atheist for the sake of argument. Atheist being the term most popular for someone like myself. Call me apatheist because I don't really care if God exists or not. If He exists then big deal. I don't need to go any further.
When I was an atheist I think I was a better apatheist. Back then, the notion of even discussing issues of god (much less wasting time on a religious subforum) would seem totally ludicrous to me

You can't be certain God is even here let alone know all about Him or think you've had some sort of magical epiphany on what God is, what He's all about or how we as lowly human beings have to revere Him. I hate to break it to you but I know as much about God as you do.
Experience dictates different levels of comprehension.
If this wasn't true, there would be no need to undergo the experience of university in order to secure professional qualifications

[swarm]

Please substantiate this statement with a reference to the Pali Canon.

No. I'm not going to reread the discourses to find you an exact quote. Feel free to look up the exact passage if you care to, I’d start in the the middle length discourses, here is a summation:

We are told that when Ananthapindika, a wealthy young man met the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, the Buddha made a few statements about the existence of God and the real cause behind the creation of beings in this world. These views are summarized as below:

1. If God is indeed the creator of all living things, then all things here should submit to His power unquestioningly. Like the vessels produced by a potter, they should remain without any individuality of their own. If that is so, how can there be an opportunity for anyone to practice virtue?

2. If this world is indeed created by God, then there should be no sorrow or calamity or evil in this world, for all deeds, both pure and impure, must come from Him.

3. If it is not so, then there must be some other cause besides God which is behind Him, in which case He would not be self-existent.

4. It is not convincing that the Absolute has created us, because that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things here arise from different causes. Then can we can say that the Absolute is the cause of all things alike? If the Absolute is pervading them, then certainly It is not their creator.

5. If we consider the Self as the maker, why did it not make things pleasant? Why and how should it create so much sorrow and suffering for itself?

6. It is neither God nor the self nor some causeless chance which creates us. It is our our deeds which produce both good and bad results according to the law of causation.

7. We should therefore abandon the heresy of worshipping God and of praying to him. We should stop all speculation and vain talk about such matters and practice good so that good may result from our good deeds.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/buddhaongod.asp

I believe the point I'm thinking of is in #7 when he goes on about why it is "all speculation and vain talk" when discussing god, but it could be else where all together. I might note a number of these parallel Epicurus' conclusions about god.

[greenberg]

No. I'm not going to reread the discourses to find you an exact quote.

You should.

You said:

The Buddha felt that should such a being exist, it would be so beyond any possible apprehension on our part that there simply would be nothing intelligible that one could say about it.

One cannot simply make claims about what the Buddha - or anyone - has said, without also providing exact reference to source texts.

If one just goes "The Buddha said this, the Buddha said that" without backing up one's statements with scriptural reference, one is perpetuating hearsay.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

“ Originally Posted by swarm
The Buddha felt that should such a being exist, it would be so beyond any possible apprehension on our part that there simply would be nothing intelligible that one could say about it. ”

Which Buddha???

“ Originally Posted by swarm
No. I'm not going to reread the discourses to find you an exact quote. ”

You should.

You said:
“ Originally Posted by swarm
The Buddha felt that should such a being exist, it would be so beyond any possible apprehension on our part that there simply would be nothing intelligible that one could say about it. ”

One cannot simply make claims about what the Buddha - or anyone - has said, without also providing exact reference to source texts.

If one just goes "The Buddha said this, the Buddha said that" without backing up one's statements with scriptural reference, one is perpetuating hearsay.

Absolutely! Obviously, hearsay isn't evidence. Proof requires scripture!
1111

[swarm]

One cannot simply make claims about what the Buddha - or anyone - has said, without also providing exact reference to source texts.

And yet people do all the time in informal discussions such as this. You obviously need help with the concept of paraphrasing.

If one just goes "The Buddha said this, the Buddha said that" without backing up one's statements with scriptural reference, one is perpetuating hearsay.

Buddhists texts are just hearsay to begin with. Its at the front of every sutta "Thus I have heard..."

That's why Buddhism is not about the suttas. Its about knowing who you are. Having a practice. Gaining insight, morality and focus.

[PsychoticEpisode]

Why?
Because you assume there is no valid experience of god (like there is a valid experience of life)?
What if one never had a valid experience of life? (like they lived in a dark cave with a big rock in front of the entrance)?

Cave dwellers could extrapolate the known quantity....that there are other caves with big rocks just like the one they're in. They could imagine a heaven beyond the rock with a god existing in what would be their outer space. They could explore outer space, the area beyond the cave, and they would not find god(sound familiar). I think you need a valid life experience real bad LG.


And once again, evidence is contingent on experience. IF a person chooses not to remove the rock of their cave like existence, then their experiences are severely diminished

But their beliefs remain intact. Beliefs may evolve from one form to another(again, sound familiar) until that rock is removed. It will take someone anti-establishment to start the the transition to a new reality, someone who risks personal indictment but unafraid to challenge that what he/she believes is the truth about life. And what do you know!!! there is another cave, another world, no god's but a reality nonetheless. One that can actually be experienced.

When I was an atheist I think I was a better apatheist. Back then, the notion of even discussing issues of god (much less wasting time on a religious subforum) would seem totally ludicrous to me

Yep. Not caring implies no discussion. I am more against people claiming evidence of God, especially the spiritual claims. I'm more intersted in how the mind works so I wade in. Fun too.

Experience dictates different levels of comprehension.
If this wasn't true, there would be no need to undergo the experience of university in order to secure professional qualifications

Overblown! I've been places where my life was dependent on people with no university degree, no high school diploma or any formal classroom education whatsoever.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

University degrees are extremely overvalued.
1111

[PsychoticEpisode]

University degrees are extremely overvalued.
1111

Imagine you're stranded on a desert island miles from the shipping lanes and way off airplane routes. With you are an astrophysicist, a Doctor of Philosophy, a Doctor of Law and a high school dropout farmer. Who are you going to align yourself with in order to give yourself the best chance of survival?

[swarm]

Imagine you're stranded on a desert island miles from the shipping lanes and way off airplane routes. With you are an astrophysicist, a Doctor of Philosophy, a Doctor of Law and a high school dropout farmer. Who are you going to align yourself with in order to give yourself the best chance of survival?


All of them.

[Leo Volont]

Oh, but some of us could learn how to read, and examine History for the details of Theology, and the effects Religion has had on Social Moral Codes.

but yes, human beings left in their natural state of ignorance would know nothing of all this.

But shouldn't we presuppose at least a modicum of Education before we allow people to come on line and spout off. Oh, I guess not.


IF there is a god, we actually have no way of knowing whether it's good or evil, sane or insane or even has the emotional & mental maturity humans like to expect of people 30 or older.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Religion has had a very bad effect on social moral codes & vice versa. Even IF it were otherwise, it would yet be a huge assumption that a god is good or sane or beyond the child stage.
1111

[PsychoticEpisode]

I think the worst effect of religion is seen by its influence on how one group of theists views another. I call it religious profiling.

[lightgigantic]

I think the worst effect of religion is seen by its influence on how one group of theists views another. I call it religious profiling.

nb - and the worst religious profilers would have to atheists
:o

[lightgigantic]

Religion has had a very bad effect on social moral codes & vice versa.

championed only by atheist moral codes in terms of bad effects

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

Ad absurdium desperadum.
1111

[swarm]

championed only by atheist moral codes in terms of bad effects

Theists make up 87 - 92% of the general population and 99.79% of the prison population.

Atheists make up 9% of the general population and 0.21% of the prison population.

(http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html and report from Denise Golumbaski Fed. Bureau of Prisons)

Theists are over represented in the criminal population.

Atheists are very under represented in the criminal population.

[Simon Anders]

Sounds like a class issue.

[JDawg]

Sounds like a class issue.

So the poorer you are, the more of a criminal you are, the more likely you are to be religious?

[lightgigantic]

Theists make up 87 - 92% of the general population and 99.79% of the prison population.

Atheists make up 9% of the general population and 0.21% of the prison population.

(http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html and report from Denise Golumbaski Fed. Bureau of Prisons)

Theists are over represented in the criminal population.

Atheists are very under represented in the criminal population.
given that the legal system is derivative of a theistic moral system (unless you are perhaps indicating china or communist russia), what's your point?

[swarm]

Sounds like a class issue.

Care to elaborate?

[swarm]

given that the legal system is derivative of a theistic moral system (unless you are perhaps indicating china or communist russia), what's your point?

The US legal system has secular origins, but lets suppose you were actually correct for once.

That would mean a legal system biased for theists was actually letting atheists off the hook.

[Simon Anders]

So the poorer you are, the more of a criminal you are, the more likely you are to be religious?

No.

Think of it this way.

You get a form with a bunch of religions to check. Perhaps there is a box for atheist, perhaps not. So maybe you have to fill it in.

My guess is a lot of people check Christian, for example, because that is what their family was. They are not thinking about it in terms of Do you believe in God?

My guess is that class will affect the way people think about that question.

Also education.

I think class and education levels - (which are very skewed in prison populations - and not because the poor commit more crimes, but they sure as hell serve more time, are convicted more often, etc., likewise does education affect these things) - affect the way one checks boxes on a form. Or how one approaches a request for that information and what one decides the questioner is really asking and needs to know.

I think these kinds of statistics can be very misleading.

If it turns out the these inmates were asked

Do you believe in God?

That might be getting closer to information.

[StrangerInAStrangeLa]

But even asking "Do you believe in God?" can have misleading results.
1111

[swarm]

Even if the data is some what skewed, 9% of the general pop vs 0.21% of the prison population is a huge difference.

I guess that "lack of morals" really pays for keeping one out of jail.

[Simon Anders]

But even asking "Do you believe in God?" can have misleading results.
1111
I agree.

[Simon Anders]

Even if the data is some what skewed, 9% of the general pop vs 0.21% of the prison population is a huge difference.

We don't know how skewed it is.
Though it should be clear from history that being a theist does not prevent one from being immoral.

I just don't think any conclusions in the other direction can be drawn either, from this data that is.

Me I have a number of atheist friends - I love how ironic that sounds, like I was saying Catholics or Jews 50 years ago in the US - and several relatives who are atheist.

I haven't noticed any trend towards greater immorality - anecdotal evidence, of course, but it is my bias to believe it.

Just wanted to make sure the statistics you brought in were not used the other way. I would guess they are significantly skewed. Not because atheists are criminals, but for the reasons I said earlier.

[lightgigantic]

The US legal system has secular origins,
"secular influences" would be more correct, but anyway ...


That would mean a legal system biased for theists was actually letting atheists off the hook.
It would also mean that atheists are incapable of producing their own unique moral system (or at least, as far as the US is concerned, reluctant to determine darwinism as a suitable departure point for ethics, unlike china and communist russia)

[swarm]

"secular influences" would be more correct

No origins is the correct word.

Atheism has moral systems going back to Epicurus and the Buddha.