The little character assassination squad keeps on going with the fourth thread on CARM about the prison stats. Still trying to argue that I did the fabricating! I found those tables existing on the websites year ago and copied them and responded to them now they are trying to claim that I made them up and adherents.com copied mine! That's absurdly stupid it can be proved their version existed long before mind did. This began with my pages on Doxa where it seemed I had proven that Rod Swift (I called him "Boyd" back then) fabricated the data, altering a table by adherents.com. I also wrote an addendum to the original mapping out the issues that are largely the ones being bandied about here.
The two major issues are:
(1) 20% category for "none, no answer, no religion" was put into the table of adherents.com but no in Swift's table. That was the thing that made me think Swift fabricated it. Yet he uses that statistic he just doesn't list it on the table.
The assert that since I've said 3% of U.S. Pop is atheist then I'm inconsistent to assume that larger proton of the 20% could be atheist. Is aid that's because the Prison population doesn't mirror the general population. For example about 7% of prisoners are Muslim while only 3% in the general population if that many are Muslim. I show that this also true for age, sex, education, and other such factors. I found about eight differences.
They are talking like this makes me utter scum. They talk like this is just an obvious lie. actually they haven't even acknowledged that gave an answer. They act like my refusal to just give and admit the 20% can't be atheists is an utter and proves that I'm totally dishonest.
(2) A new issue has emerged in this latest where they are demanding that I take the arguemnt down and accept that Christianity causes crime and that most prisons are Chaitin and Christians are immoral. If I don't do that I'm being so totally dishonest and this proves I can't be trust with stats.
There is a whole body of other arguments that have nothing to do with Swift's table they have never answered them. For example, I said most of the prisoners could be claiming Christianity to get parole. Sure enough there's a Pew study that indicates that persons change affliction with religion all the time to jockey for greater protection or get parole or anything. They don't even acknowledge that I said this, they have no attempt to answer it. They just demand that I take the argument down and if I don't that proves I'm totally dishonest.
This is what I have termed "ridicule gauntlet." Like the gauntlet native Americans made Daniel Boone run on the old tv show. They line up and two sides and hit the guy who runs by until he falls to the ground they beat him until he dies. Atheist will descend upon an goalpost keep saying silly, stupid mocking ridiculing things until they blows up and goes away. This is what they are doing to me to avoid the facts of the case.
Backup quotes this:
Originally Posted by Metacrocknotice he sticks in the "because" but cuts off what the "because" is. The full quote said I wont take it down (the whole page) the overall argument is wrong. I did add a disclaimer saying I can't prove that Swift fabricated the stats. The specific nature of that Backup totally ignores becuase here's a chance to claim that I'm dishonest. They wanted me to take down the whole page and give up the entire argument just because I can't prove they fabricated their table. That doesn't grant them the whole argument.
then says this
Back up:..you don't care about honesty.
Phoenix 702
Your red herrings won't distract us from your misrepresentation of the Swift data...
The ONLY person making the claim that Christians are "60x more likely" to be in prison is YOU. Here's your comment below (and repeated on your thread):Originally Posted by Metacrock
Originally Posted by DaDevil
Of course what I really said was that since it's not representative you can't assume its' going to trnafur. GP has 2% atheist that doesn't mean the PP will have only 2% atheists. That's proved because I showed all the other ways it' snot representative. More Muslims than the GP, more elderly than the GP, fewer women than the GP, more uneducated than the GP and so on.Maybrick quotes me
Originally Posted by Metacrock
If you think that is the case I feel sorry for you.Maybrick
A reasonable person might have realized their mistake and sorted out the errors.
No one is browbeating you with anything...other than the very obvious fact that the adherants site is wrong on this and that you are refusing to accept this issue.
....Can you explain how this is relevent to you using dodgy data to prove an ideological point, when said dodgy data is in fact, dodgy?
The reference to Doggy data is really absurd becuase no one in the whole four threads has claimed that the data itself is bad. I'm using the same data the atheist Swift used, and it's fromt he bureau of prisons. No one even hinted that the data is bad. It's all a matter of how it's interpreted.
Originally Posted by maybrick
yes it is. there's no pre set break down guaranteed for the 20%. We have to examine them to see what they believe. It is really very simple.
maybrick:
Meta:that's a real bold kind of statement that sounds real cool and tough but it just shows that you don't know the issues there. you are not reading it you are just blabbing to help the atheists.Frankly this is quite embarassing, if I were you I would either let this thread die (although be prepared for us to use it against you whenever you are being less than honest and refuse to admit it) or accept you are in the wrong here and do the various things that have been suggested.
Maybrick
An apology to Skylurker would seem to be appropriate also.
Meta:no it would not there was good reason at the time to thin he did fabricated. I'm still not sure. since you are all lying about me what else are you lying about?
I might actually have considered that if they had not started this lying frenzy and trying to destroy my reputation and ignoring my answers.
Maybrick
I am not psychic...but I suspect you will ignore my/our advice and keep up with the humiliation.
I am not humiliated because I understated the issues, I know they are lying so since I do they are lying about me I know they are lying about the other stuff too.
talking tough becuase you don't know the facts.
how many hundreds of times have I stood alone against the atheist on CARM and faced them down against their ridicule gauntlets? Too many to count. But I'm going to do it again.
4 comments:
I"m really begining to think they are not very smart. Look at their answers today:
Originally Posted by DaDevil View Post
How does anything you said address the issue of lumping the unknown w/ atheist, which seems to be the main objection?
My answer:
Originally Posted by backup View Post
The 20% atheist statistic is a lie. Why do you keep repeating it? It just makes you look sleazy.
my answer
no it's not a lie, you are lying about what has been said. I never said all 20% are atheists. they could be but we don't know that. I have seen one page here an atheist said it's 10% of the 20 is atheist. But be that as it may my augment we don't know.t hat doesn't' mean you get to assert it's real small it could be real big.
bottom line you can't prove the original argument!
the unknown includes 'No religion." so those could be atheists. since we don't the percentage it could be high. that means you can't prove the argument.
the orignial argument say 0.2% are atheists. That is just limited to people who put atheist as their religious preference. Those who didn't answer the question "what is your religious performance" were put into the unknown, no religion, no answer" pile. But what is most of them are atheists?
any atheist who did not understand atheism has his religion would have to check that category. how do you know it this wouldn't' be most of the 20%? Unless you know that you can't argue that atheists are such a small portio
worse yet
Originally Posted by Deist View Post
The facts are, which Christians and Meta ignore, is that the % of people in prison mirrors society. What this FACT means is that Christianity doesn't do diddly for morals, in spite of Christians beating their chests that atheists have no moral compass.
My answer
I've disproved tat empirically (that prison mirrors society)several times over. this is about the 27th time I've pointed this out and you are still pretending I dint say anything about it so you lost. when you ignore arguments you lose them.
(1) 7% Muslims in prison and 3% in society, so that is not a mirror that's out of proportion.
(2) prison population is disproportionate old
(3) only about 5% of PP is women, 50% in society so that's totally out wack.
(5) Only about 50% of PP has high school, about 15% went to college. Much more for both in society. That's totally out of proportion.
(6) most prisonsers are form inland. sothat is out proportion
(7) black way over represented. half of prisioners are black only 13% in society
(8) Hispanics
(9) Asians.
these are all ways they don't mirror society so why should we think atheism would mirror society? Muslim are religion so here's proof religious situation is not the same.
In California 55 in every 100,000 people are in prison. That's a small minority, why think they would be representative?
the answer to that first one didn't come out. so here it is:
Originally Posted by DaDevil View Post
How does anything you said address the issue of lumping the unknown w/ atheist, which seems to be the main objection?
My answer
the unknown includes 'No religion." so those could be atheists. since we don't the percentage it could be high. that means you can't prove the argument.
the orignial argument say 0.2% are atheists. That is just limited to people who put atheist as their religious preference. Those who didn't answer the question "what is your religious performance" were put into the unknown, no religion, no answer" pile. But what is most of them are atheists?
any atheist who did not understand atheism has his religion would have to check that category. how do you know it this wouldn't' be most of the 20%? Unless you know that you can't argue that atheists are such a small portion.
Meta,
There's still people who just do a lot of presumptions. At least from many articles, unfortunately, most of the time, I don't see any elaborated arguments of any sort, but just presumptions about what Christians and Theists believe, how such beliefs are just a shallow vision, an a mentally "hard-wired" manual, about how to treat people if it's rational or not, just because of believer's "atypical" beliefs. Just like this post:
Here, in a blog named Need For Cognition
Nothing new, ironically (still the same thing from years back) ,unfortunately...
Another question is, do you know which are the Statistical Methods being used most of the times, to organize, validate and parse data, for the types of studies with such quality as the PEW ones??
Kind Regards!!
One of the criticisms adhernets made of Swift's page is that it's just raw data. No refinement and interpretation. He's drawing sweeping conclusions from raw data.
That's why they have to make simplistic assumptions like Prison population is accurate reflection of general.
Post a Comment