Zoot #fundie

Zoot #fundie christianforums.com

(On why there are a smaller percentage of atheists in prison, than in the population as a whole)

Atheists come from wealthier families. People from wealthier families are less inclined to commit crime. People who are less inclined to commit crime are less likely to end up in prison.

63 comments

old comment by cass

I haven't seen any statistics on the number of atheists in prison, but I suspect that they make up a very small number. However, its not because atheists are less likely to commit crimes (honestly, the lack of demographic statistics coupled with a small N would make this very difficult to prove or disprove). The reason that you won't find many atheists in prison is the high level of prison conversions. Prison culture dictates that one is significantly safer and better cared for if one is a member of a group. Certain ethnicities and pre-existing gangs form groups, but the primary source of group membership is religion. People identify as Christian or Muslim in order to gain the benefits of group membership. I don't have any stats on how they identify after they leave prison so I won't speculate on that.

old comment by [url=8bits.wordpress.com]Scott[/url]

I don't disagree with this:
1. Children from Wealthier families are more likely to be more educated. 2. the more Educated you are the more likely it is that you get a skeptical mind set. 3A. Skeptics/people with a rational mind are more likely to be Atheists. 3B. Skeptics/people with a rational mind are more likely to think before doing something. 4. People who think ahead won't commit something they know is against the law (unless they believe they won't get caught (or if they are doing something as a civil protest)) because they don't want to go to jail (or worse.) It isn't a money = less crime directly...It is more money => more eduction => more critical thinking => atheism. more money => more eduction => more critical thinking => knows (thinks of) consequences => doesn't commit crime

old comment by Aristotle

As other people have pointed out this statement begs the question "why are atheists wealthier"? It seems obvious that this person has jumped to this conclusion and there is a significant number of atheists who are unwealthy as opposed to poor and by 'poor' I mean having: no education, no stable family environment, no health care and no basic human rights.
In a narrow sense, and this is semantics, atheists are a wealthier group when compared to the entire planet's population. With that resolved I remember reading, I think it was in "Freakonomics", that crime was highest amongst the very rich and the very poor with the middle classes being the most law-abiding. Although the very rich generally commit crimes of a nature that usually don't equate to gaol(jail)time. So why are atheists, at least on average, wealthier? There could be many reasons and I think education correllated to income is a big one but I also think that to be an atheist one needs to anxiety tolerant to live without fantasies of an afterlife. The more anxiety tolerant a person is the more self controlled they are and the more self controlled the better we cope with life's knocks and setbacks. I honestly believe that we atheists are the more virtuous people. But this website, http://nobeliefs.com/survivor.htm explains it better than I could.

old comment by Mog

My theory:

People who develop their own moral code, and choose to abide by it because they feel it is the right thing to do, are more likely to value that moral code. People who have a moral code prescribed to them by religion, and choose to abide by it only to avoid some eventual punishment that they may or may not actually believe in, are less likely to value that moral code, and are thus more likely to discard it for other gains.

I'm not trying to play the "atheists are more moral" card; I know that sounds egotistical...but that's also sort of what I believe...which is why I'm an atheist. (I'm not saying religious folk can't develop and value their own moral codes, although I'd argue that they usually don't, simply because it's easier to use a prescribed one. Atheists, on the other hand, must have their own moral codes, as they don't believe in any prescribed ones.)

old comment by Zoot

Of course I do, GigaGuess. Why not?

Statistically, atheists are more likely to be well educated than religious people are. Well-educated people are more likely to be better off than uneducated people are. And the correlation between poverty and crime is well documented, along with its corollary that wealthier people are less likely to commit crime.

Someone here made the point that poor people just get sentenced more often. That may be a factor, or the big factor. But in the quote above, I was responding to someone (if I recall correctly) who had cited the correlation between religiosity and crime, and had fallaciously deduced causation: "Christianity causes crime. Atheism causes a tremendous sense of civic responsibility."

I suggested an alternative explanation for the correlation. It would not surprise me at all, for example, if atheists were shown to statistically have better dental hygiene than religious people. In such a case, I would similarly disagree with anyone claiming that atheism fought plaque and that Christianity causes tooth decay.

old comment by Zoot

@Justanotheratheist,

I prefer to rely on solid arguments for the non-existence of God, rather than argue that "educated people almost all agree with me". It used to be that educated people almost all believed in God. They could all turn into theists tomorrow, for all I care. It wouldn't make God exist.

@Anon2,

Yes, the statistic makes a perfectly good reply to those Christians who claim that atheists are depraved criminals. It just happens to be the case that I was not arguing with a Christian who claimed that atheists were depraved criminals. I was responding to an atheist who claimed that the statistic meant that atheism makes people less likely to commit crime.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

(contd):

My education only went as far as 6th Form at Secondary Modern. I didn't have the time to go to college, university etc, as I had to bring money into the house. I went into work almost immediately after leaving school, and have been doing so to this day. I've worked in a department store, my uncle's antiques shop, a bicycle shop, and various other jobs to what I am today - a self-taught computer engineer working at a computer shop.

Degrees I have not - only a Ph.D in Reality at the School of Hard Knocks.

Up to the age of 12 (prior to my dad's death), whenever my father & grandfather got together, 9 times out of 10, you'd have seen them do a rousing rendition of "The Red Flag" or "The Internationale", as both of them were dyed-in-the-wool Socialists; a favourite saying by my grandad?: 'Religion is the opiate of the masses. Karl Marx!'. My father's?: ' If it doesn't pay the rent or put food on the table, it has no place in my house!'

I was born into very much a working-class background, and even though I have two high-interest savings accounts, a large anime & manga collection, a computer/HD TV/Blu-Ray player etc, I still consider myself working-class. I vote Labour (left-of centre).

And like my dad & grandad, I'm an Atheist.

I could become a shyster - just like right-wing fundie Jim Bakker - but I'm not. Why should I?
I could become am adulterer - just like right-wing fundie Jimmy Swaggart - but I'm not. Why should I?
I could become a serial statutory rapist, just like the right-wing fundie Tony Alamo - but I'm not. Why should I?
I could become a vile hypocrite - like right-wing fundie Ted Faggard - but I'm not. Why should I?
I could become a quitter - like right-wing fundie Sarah Failin - but I'm not. Why should I?
I could become a tax evader (and end up being arseraped in jail) - just like right-wing fundie Kent Hovind - but I'm not (as I've always paid my taxes). Why should I?
I could become a terrorist - just like right-wing fundies Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik - but I'm not. Why should I?

I could rape/torture a man/woman/child/goat, but I don't, and never will. Why should I?
I could smoke myself into an early grave, but I don't (never smoked once in my life). Why should I?
I could become a walking distillery to shame even Oliver Reed, but I don't (I drink in moderation). Why should I?
I could become a walking pharmaceutical lab and take any & all narcotics that exist/yet to be invented, but I don't. Why should I?

I could kill millions of people, just like your so-called 'God':

image

...but I've yet to kill so much as one person to date, nor do I want to, ever.

Why should I? I don't have a criminal record. Why should I break the law?

I think that proves my point. That we Atheists are not only morally superior to you fundies in every way, but we're more than infinitely superior to your so-called 'God'. In every way. Q. E. and D.

Your call, Dingo. Now go get yourself spanked. [/"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"] X3

Zoot #fundie christianforums.com

63 comments

Confused?