You have it backwards, don't you. You are the one who said that you provide "proofs" and "evidence" to show that there is no God. You did say that, right? Well, let's have it! I never claimed I can prove that there is a God to your satisfaction. You made the bold claim that you have poofs and evidence. The world is patiently waiting. Let's see you produce what no man has ever produced before you.

Plesae dude. Don't placate me with inverted religious philosophy. I simply asked where is the proof. If anyone can show me proof than I will kneel and pray. Until then what came first the chicken of the egg. That is another improbability. "When in fact the Amebia came first and started the whole evolution thing." Simple single celled organisims that had the ability to duplicate. There is proof for evolution, There is NO PROOF for the big skydaddy!

You are obviously not listening. I plainly said that I cannot provide you with the kind of proof that would satisfy you. I asked you for proof that there is no God because you said you had it. I am still waiting. There is, of course no proof that evolution is true; it is a mere theory and you humbly bow before it. Anyone who believes in evolution must ignore the obvious problem of the scientific fact of "cause and effect." Furthermore, evolutionists must ignore teleological and anthropological arguments in favor of the existence of God. Are you familiar with these things, or are you just parroting what you have heard? Believe what you will; you are free to do so. However, maybe you should at least realize that some pretty brilliant minds have believed in God. Have you read them? Have you read Calvin' Institutes? Have you read the works of Jonathan Edwards? Are you familiar with the great Princeton Theologians? Those on this site act like high I.Q.'s are reserved for atheists.

That's why I say the only rational belief system is agnosticism. NObody freaking knows!

"That's why." What is why? To what are you referring? What is it that I said that makes you think that one cannot know for sure? My point to "PeteLeS33" was that he had no proof, though he claimed that he did. He does not. Furthermore, many of those who are atheists and agnostics act as if I.Q. is reserved for them; they laugh at the comments of comedians like Bill Maher who say that Christians are "stupid." Unfortunately, so many are either unaware or have never read the brillant Theologians and Philosophers who were committed Christians. Ask the average individual who mocks Christians if he is even aware of Benjamin Warfield, Charles Hodge, Jonathan Edwards, Cornelius Van Til, or Charles Spurgeon, let alone read them! and he will be left scratching his head. And ask the average mocker of Scripture if he has read the Bible. Oh, I do not mean a few verses that someone pointed out to "prove" the Bible is not what it claims. I mean studied it with and open mind; really read it. Have you?

Dear, dear David, climb down off your high horse. I am referring to your comment:
"Evidence? Proof? No one has provided any; no one ever has; no one ever will. What proof do you have; what proof does Kenny have that God does not exist?"

Do you remember saying that?

If no one has proof, then the only logical position is one of being open to either possibility, i.e, agnosticism.

As to your foolish assumption I haven't read the bible. Jeez, man, why do you think I'm an agnostic? I was reared on it. My mother had read it aloud to me the first time before I was six years old. Devotions EVERY single day; church several times weekly. I even worked as a church secretary before I decided not all the searching in the world could make it make sense. The bible is one silly book. Have YOU read it?

Dear Pixie, let's get our comments straight and factual. First of all, I do no know what you mean by being on a "high horse." I am simply defending my position. Secondly, certainly I remember saying that no evidnence was given to prove that there was no God. But, I did NOT say that there was no evidence that showed God existed. What I said was that I could not present proof that would satisfy Pete. The fact of the matter is that the entire universe is evidence that God exists. Do YOU now remember? Thirdly, I never made the assumption that you never read the Bible. I said that MANY who mock it have not read it. Certainly you know that. Since you were raised on the Bible you must come in contact with folks all the time who misrepresent it because they have not read it. Lastly, I strongly disagree with you about your characterization of Scripture; it is not a silly book. For example, the New Testament is the presentation of Jesus Christ - His death, burial, and resurrection; He is said to have been the substitute for sinful men. That is not silly.

Oh, thanks for clarifying your position. I actually thought you had an open mind. Sorry. The presence of the universe is evidence only that the universe exists. Its existence does not demand an external creator being. Likewise, there are many "sun god" myths of which Jesus is only one. I repeat, there is no irrefutable proof. Scholars of much more import than ourselves have debated it for centuries without resolving the issue. Suppose we just stop now.

The primary reason, among many numerous others, why i choose science over organized religion any given day is, if anything quite simply, the complete LACK of facts.
Evangelical fundamentalist zealots and ideologues face a significant disadvantage in their perpetual quest to eliminate science; and it is on of their very own invention. Religious extremists most often fail in their attempts to undermine scientific understanding of the physical universe primarily because of their pre-ordained determination of the assumption that such science is a kind of doctrine, much as the dogma to which they blindly subscribe.

Quite simply, They Could Not Be More Wrong if they tried.

These fundamentalists take the point of view that everything in their narrow, yet all-encompassing, doctrine is just that, absolute FACT, not up to interpretation, not metaphorical, not interchangeable, not open for discussion.
They therefore, not unsurprisingly, assume that scientist view their naturalistic “laws” in much a similar way.
Very directly to the contrary, the most extraordinary thing about science itself, and the reason it has persisted throughout 2+ millennia of constant siege, is the simple reality that in Science There ARE No Facts.

The term “scientific law” is a misleading misnomer, there are only theories.
The most repeatedly affirmed scientific theorems are as follows:

The THEORY Universal Gravitation, proposed by Sir Isaac Newton in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica; 1687
The THEORY of Descent with Modification through Natural Selection, proposed by Charles Darwin in On the Origin of Species; 1859.
The THEORY of Friction was first proposed by Leonardo Da Vinci.
The THEORY of Quantum Mechanics was put forward by Niels Bohr, Michael Farraday, Max Planck, Robert Oppenheimer and Albert Einstein.

Science is not perfect, and it does not answer every question, but it is based on observations which can be predicted tested, and proven.
The scientific process, as first put forth by Rene Descartes [ Cogito Ergo Sum: "I Think ThereFore I Am"] proceeds as follows:

Problem
Hypothesis
Experimentation
Observation
Conclusion

I have yet to find an organized religion which incorporates any, very much less all, of these elements.

Okay, I'm thoroughly bored now. I kinda want to piss on his dog but I think at this point I'm going to go find something else to entertain me, like staring at the young shirtless construction workers building my house. Man, if there is any proof of god, its that.

Awe, thank you!

ROFL, I effin love that! Big +^!

Awesome, exposing fake Christians is as easy as that! Ah the good book of incredible story's from a time so far in the distant past, that we modern people can say which biblical laws we really need to enforce! LOL.

Most entertaining post I've seen on Current in at least a year.

Oh get a grip!

Print me a hundred, I will mail that letter to my Jewish in-laws in New York, they'ld laugh at that letter till milk came out thier noses.

Old Testament, New Testament, it is STILL THE BIBLE JACKASS!

->PILLAGE:
Genesis 34:
25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.
27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.
28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,
29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

Deuteronomy 20:13-14
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Numbers 31:7-12
7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.

CANNIBALISM:
Leviticus 26:29
“And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”

Deuteronomy 28:53
“And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:”

Isaiah 49:26
“And I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine: and all flesh shall know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.”

Jeremiah 19:9
“And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness, wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their lives, shall straiten them.”

Ezekiel 5:10
“Therefore the fathers shall eat the sons in the midst of thee, and the sons shall eat their fathers; and I will execute judgments in thee, and the whole remnant of thee will I scatter into all the winds.”

2 Kings 6:29
“So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

And, of course, naturally:
->GENOCIDE:
Exodus 17:13
“And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword.”

Exodus 32:27
“And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.”

Numbers 21:3
“The LORD heard the voice of Israel and delivered up the Canaanites; then they utterly destroyed them and their cities. Thus the name of the place was called Hormah.”

Deuteronomy 2:33-34
33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people.
34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Deuteronomy 3:6
“And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.”

Deuteronomy 7:2
“and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally.[a] Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy.”

Deuteronomy 20:16-18
16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:
18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

Joshua 8:22-25
22 Those in the ambush also came out of the city against them, so that they were caught in the middle, with Israelites on both sides. Israel cut them down, leaving them neither survivors nor fugitives.
23 But they took the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua.
24 When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the wilderness where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it.
25 Twelve thousand men and women fell that day—all the people of Ai.

1 Samuel 15:3
“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”

Bible has some shocking ‘family values’
http://judgian12365.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/god-is-the-product-of-human-weaknes...

Yeah, my all time favorite is our good old Lot, the only righteous man in Sodom. Offered his daughters up for rape by the mob. They, in turn, get him drunk, "lay with him", get pregnant, and so begin a holy line. Whoopie! Bring it on Christians!! Kenny's right. Even the "nice" ones are barmy!

Your Jesus was a Jew not a Christian and taught from the "Jewish side." At the time, there was no such thing as "the bible"

^'d Thank you! People need to be reminded that in addition to the annoyance of proselytizers, religion is also labor-intensive, wasteful, and very messy.

What?? MARX said that!! I am sorry, but this comment is like the epitome of ignorance.

Who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses"? Are you just kidding or are you just ignorant? You do not really think that Jesus said that do you?

Actually, it was Marx; not one of the brothers, though they were much wiser.

Maybe her Jesus is Marx! Harpo probably.

Exactly what is a "religious loon"? If one believes in the virgin birth and bodily resurrection of Christ, is he/she a "religious loon"?

As a religious person myself: If you truly believe in virgin births, then yes. Yes you are a religious loon. That may or may not be a bad thing, depending on how you approach the rest of the world. Believe what you want about the divinity of jesus, but any religious or spiritual views should be tempered with logic, always.

Excuse me, but I did not say "virgin births" (plural), but "virgin birth" (singular). There is only one, the virgin birth of Christ. You may choose to say that logic disproves it, but if Christ is Divine, then he had to have been born of a virgin.

That makes no sense, plurality or not. Even if you do believe in virgin birth(s), it makes no sense. Just what is it about being virgin that makes something divine, other than olive oil?

Meh, for somereason thier omnipotent being couldn't create Christ by becoming a man and standardly impregnating a woman, it HAD To be done through divine providence without evidence. Thier God CAN'T leave evidence of his actions as that would provide proof of his existence, proof would undermine the doctrine of blind faith for faiths sake and then all of a sudden in a puff of logicthier God would cease to exist.

Fortunately it is easy to spot a religious loon, it is anyone who firmly does or does not believe in God. No agnostic has ever been motived to kill out of religious intolerance. Hense the motto of our faith, "Meh, whatever."

Actually Jeshua ben Joseph (Jesus Christ is a title, and he isn't my savior), was one of a couple hundred "virgin births" on the rolls that year for the area. Although "virgin births" were fairly common, it is more likely the claims were related to a law prescribing death by stoning for women who gave birth out of wedlock.

"one of a couple hundred "virgin births" on the rolls that year for the area"

On what rolls? You are out there on that comment...we can't even ensure what area was born with any certainty, just lots of speculation. And if there is no DIRECT evidence of Jesus's existance on earth, that would mean his name doesn't appear on some made up birthing records for a region from 2000+ years ago.

Being born of a vrgin does not make one Divine. I never said it did, neither does the Scriptures. What I am saying, and what the New Testament does firmly say, is that Jesus Chrsit is God in flesh, and that God's method for coming into this world as a man was via a virgin who conceived by a miracle of God. You certainly are not obligated to beleive this. However, it would behoove those who try to speak intelligently about such things to simply understand Biblical Theology and not just try to out-do Bill Maher. The other responses to me are too silly to be worth respnding to.

Atheists will no kill based on religious intolerance, unless it is religious intolerance targeted on themselves by aggressors. Especially considering we have no religion to make us intolerant of the religions of others. What will make an athiest kill is personal intolerance of ingorant bigoted and farcical figures demanding that we must repent for sins we never commited.

Your gonna have to give me a little while to find you the references, check back in a couple days. I haven't been big on theology since college in the late nineties.

I made a wild guess and assumed KS is for Kansas. If it isn't, my sincerest apologies. If it is, here is one book that covers what I said in a format you should find similar to the rest of the educational texts in that state. Also, you can follow the references from Gonick on back.

Gonick, Larry (1994). The Cartoon History of the Universe II - From the Springtime of China to the Fall of Rome (Volumes 8-13). Doubleday. pp. 305. ISBN 0385420935.

Yes please because that is a piece of information that BILLIONS of Abrahamic followers would love to know about.

Never once touched an educational book I have encountered in this state unless ordered through the college bookstores, but thats just me... the education system in this state is an absolute joke. I will give that one a look, seems like a familiar title tho...maybe from one of those hazy periods in the late 80's early 90's :-)

I totally agree with you. It is a sickness. The most destructive sickness the world has ever seen.

Obviously---------YOU!!!

I didn't even have to watch the video because I have seen it many times before. Everything about christianity, if you research acient religions, christianity has borrowed the likeable bits and DEAMONIZED the unlikeable bits. So in fact, CHRISTIANITY is nothing more than a HODGE POGE of the acient Pagan faiths.

Marxism-Leninism in the former Soviet Union had a doctrin of "scientific atheism", and as a result let to the slaughter of many Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatment_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union

That is because the standard behavior of atheist was not present due to the marxism, the standard point of view of atheists and certainly any true scientific atheists will be one of humanitarianism and a desire to help the world as they have no god to turn to for salvation.

In this environment Marxism became the new religion, and the state might as well have created the new religion because it was already being enforced in a very communist fashion as can still be seen in N. Korea, China, and Cuba where the "president" (ROFL) of the communism is the idol to be worshipped... this behavior is seen over and over where communists to control thier states ban religion or take a neitral stance on religion to prevent interference between government and the church in either direction

It was marxism killed those christians, not the atheist by virtue of being atheists.

Jesus did not say that. It was Marx.

Thoughtful and well worded, however, my point is that the executions were done in the name of atheism. Your point could be paraphrased to describe the sanctioning of any executions by any one group of another. My statement about agnosticism was more of a humorous slant on my own indifference of all theological belief systems. I grew up with Baptist parents and Pentecostal grandparents in rural Arkansas. Coming to terms with that upbringing and my being gay, led me to a general distrust of all belief systems, including atheism. :)

Of course it was. That is what I said over an hour ago. Only an idiot like Marx would make such a stupid comment!

Yeah, she is known for that.

Thank you. Everyone else here is bemuddled.

Hey man, I don't know what you got going on in Wichita, but the schools here in OP are prime. Shawnee and Blue Valley? JCCC; KU? Fantastic schools, thank you very much.

If god really is MY creator, (According to YOUR own illogical reasoning) Then EVERY male human being on the entire planet [approximately 4 BILLION of them] is god’s son. So how does that make ONE of them (First Century AD Hebrew Priest, Rabbi, Prophet and Exorcist; Jeshua of Nazareth) Her ONLY son?

Harpo was the wisest one, he never opened his mouth to show his ignorance. *honk* *honk*

Very well put, my opinion though is a woman can get pregnant with out penetration, thus could all these virgin births be sexual foreplay with out penetration?

Atheism is not a "belief system" it is the lack of belief in "god".

'Atheism' isn't really an ism at all, just as 'unconvinced' isn't a system of beliefs.

True. Seeing as it is the lack of belief it is the complete opposite of the definition of an "ism" which is defined as "a belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school"

Comments such as that should be directed at the offending individuals, since they are present and accostable. Not at several who have not made such comments

Ah sorry. Im new here.

::smiles and nods:: Thats not so much a community rule as it is more a rule of respecting ones neighbors.

The condemnation is not on the entire group, despite the obtuse nature of the article title and "generalizations" that have been made, it is groups within the larger group that are the issue.

That's all well and good if that's what was meant, but it was not what was said. And that's the sort of thing that encourages intolerance in the weak-minded. Regardless of what you personally picked up between the lines, this is dangerous rhetoric that encourages intolerance on the part of atheists; and intolerance and hate beget more, always.

I defy the person who downed me and anyone else who disagrees with me to counter my post point for point.

To be frank with you on this, as athiests tend to be humanists/humanitarians we tend to only be intolerant of those that are intolerant of us.

I am not intolerant of anyone, but when you blanket intolerance on a group that I am in then that blanket falls on me, too. I am not saying that all or even a majority of atheists are bigots; simply that this particular mindset is an intolerant and unhealthy one. My worldview is dominated by science and logic first and foremost. I do not believe that if you don't think the same way that I do that you will go to hell. I don't even believe in hell. And the majority of other religious people that I know think the same way.

In this case you are a "spiritual" person as opposed to a religious one, as religion is the indoctrination of tenents of faith, and if you do not follow the tenents of a particular religion but still act in a moral, just and beneficial fashion on the concepts being moral, just, or karmatically possitive you would spiritual, possibly spiritual with an affiliation with a particular religious group.

No, I'm very religious. I'm just not Christian, nor have I ever been. ;)

Also, keep in mind that words are subjective and your personal definition of what constitutes 'religion' may not be how others choose to define it. Amirite?

Edit: Also, there's plenty of Christian sects that don't believe Hell is anything but figurative, nor do they teach that one must follow their personal version in order to get in god's grace. Are they religious or spiritual?

To be frank with all of you on this, we run a humanist economy and a religious home life. If anything, the atheists are less two-faced than we, the religious, are.

I don't really like the term two faced in this situation as it has negative connotations... And if you ask me religion is a private thing and SHOULD generally be practiced only at home or church, at least in a secular society. Discounting religious garb, if that's your thing. Never have I discussed my personal religious views in the general comments except in the most general of terms, when it is relevant.

And, frankly, I'd appreciate it if atheists kept their views on religion private, too. It's all well and good to condemn true dishonest and immoral acts, and to criticize any particular sect that tends to enable such things. That's something all reasonable people of any faith or lack thereof should do. And if you don't like religion, then hey that's great. Sometimes I don't either, haha. But I don't especially appreciate being deemed ignorant and crazy based simply on my belief in something divine.

As an atheist I almost completely concur with you on that, except that it is in all peoples best interest to teach those around us, what ever it is that we can teach them. First and foremost in the majority of atheist's repetoire is a grasp of language, thought, and science as these are the three things the "young atheist" can find "faith" in as they are fairly stable, unlike the majority of the world we live in.

Facts about yourself and your situation are your choice to share or not of course, but I believe it everyone's duty to try and inform the next generation through our own experiences, and this MUST lead eventually and inevitable to the topic of religion as other then mother nature herself, religion is humanity's longest lasting and most unifying asset.

Indeed, and it is always appropriate when invited. As with anything else. Well... most things.

both

Intrigueing statistics...

When analyzing statistics it is important to remember certain circumstances may be affecting the numbers. Remember, a lot of prisoners end up becoming religious as a reslut of being incarcerated. It's quite obvious they do this to cope with their loss of freedom (as well as other reasons). I'd like to see a survey asking whether or not the inmates were religious before coming to prison. That would be a more accurate statistic in terms of your argument.

Those statistics were based off of intake information when the inmates are asked about religious preferences as they come to prison.

Also many athiest/agnostics lie about thier religion to avoid ambush.

I told a woman accosting me infront of my doctors office "Sorry, I do not believe in your God." And her response "You devil worshipping Satanist!" I mean really

But, even then. Im sure people get real "religious" when they see those ominous bars. Then you said athesists often lie about their relatioship with religion. Could they not lie on an intake survey as well?

That was my precise point in support of your surmisation of discrepancies in the numbers may be occuring. I countered your point on the "timing" of the information gathering and supporting your theory thru alternate reasoning.

That's sad. All those people who think they've been miraculously forgiven for murdering/robbing/abusing/raping someone... It's like they feel they found the Easy button for life.

This may seem hypocritical, because I've been upfront about my faith, but I don't believe for a minute that these prisoners are reformed. Maybe the rare 1:1,000,000, but you know what they say: History repeats itself, and almost all of those prisoners will return if released.

I wonder how many atheists, whether for constructive or other reasons find religion in prison.

Remember statistics involving prisoners are compiled upon their entry into the system in order to provide for their religious "needs" and therefor would not be affected by people finding god on the inside.

I think there is a real problem in that religious people feel they have a "Get out of Hell free card".
If they do something horrible to someone else it must be gods will, and all they have to do is ask for forgiveness.
Religion has been used as an excuse for so many atrocities throughout history in direct contrast to it's intentions. Using religion as a shield to disguise hatred should be abhorrent to all religious people.

Atheists tend to be more intelligent and well educated than the average bible thumper. I think they also have a stronger moral compass as well as an empathy towards others that closed minded religious types seem to lack.
I think that's why you find less atheists in prison.
Or it might be our pact with satan. No wait, that's not the atheists, that's the republicons.

benj over
that statistic of inmates is very interesting
good find
also
the commentary you made off the news was good

2 thumbs, 2 toes, 2 elbows up

I agree, that would be a very interesting survey. Get a group who are going into prison for the first time, and see how their ideals change over time to handle the loss of freedom.

Anyone interested in doing a survey? I'd read it.

I believe that a lot of people turn to religion so they will not be responsible for making decisions, and if they mess up, you got the good old devil to blame!

the sad fact of the reality is that all too many people DO, indeed, find religion while they are being incarcerated.

Which, i think, is one amongst the first and foremost argument for why we shouldn't be putting so many people in our prisons.

I see. But the post never indentified the numbers as being from an intake. Also, i'm sure there are surveys adressing the role of prison on influencing views of faith. Malcolm X is a perfect example. Malcolm Little went to prison a "godless atheist" who was coined the psuedonym "satan" becasue of his anti-religious views. He left prison as Malcolm X, a changed man, a religious man.

maybe the survey you referenced was on intake information. You however did not state that as such. Also, I myself have never been to prison, so naturally, I do not know the protocol involved during the intake process. I have seen 'A Clockwork Orange' though, and that shit doesnt look fun. Remember, question type surveys are very subjective, and they are prone to error to a greater degree than say a survey concerning the reported number of hiv cases. Again, I repeat myself, people could easily lie or suddenly identify with their families' religious views (maybe thier parents were religious, but they themselves never got involved in the faith) when faced with a troubling situation like losing your freedom.

HAHAHAHA "pro-anarchist" what are you reading thats not there?

And the authors "cheap shot" as you call it is actually reactionary from dealing with a religious filth spewing hate monger within this community for well over ten straight hours...

Wouldn't you blow off some steam if a crack pot called you crazy crap for ten consecutive hours?

You're an apologist for bigotry. Lumping all religious or spiritual people together in a hate filled rant because a single individual offended you is no more valid than lumping all black people into a hate filled rant because a black dude stole your wallet.