Atheists Sponsor "slavery in Bible" Billboard

Huff Post (3/13/20)
By Diana Fishlock
Religion News Service[1]

The Billboard featured a picture of a Black Slave in the Southern USA wearing a collar and said "Slaves Obey Your Masters" (Col. 3:22) "A lesson in Bronze Age ethics brought to you by the year of the Bible and the House of Representatives." The Bill board was torn down by people presumably in the neighborhood but why exactly they did it is unclear. One thing that is clear is that the world wide bill board campaign the organized atheist movement is using doesn't mind lying and advertizing falsely. The wording makes it appear that some entity called "year of the Bible" working with the U.S. House of Representatives put up the bill board. The NAACP opposed the Billboard and argued that it was racially changed.
.... Lesson no 1 is that they don't mind lying or creation false impressions, lesson no 2 is that they want to inflame situations and stir up hard feelings. The irony is two fold, first their wanton disregard of the facts leads them to imply that slavery in ancient Israel would be the same as slavery in the southern U.S. before the civil war. In fact we've seen from past articles on AW that it was not.[2][3] Much of it was self imposed and it lacked the wort form, chattel slavery. When the Bible is translated as saying "slavery" any number of things could be tagged with that label; bond service, or share cropping,  tenant farming. Yes Ancient Israel had ownership of human  beings and technical they were chattel, but that term is used of the kind of slavery in the old south where there was no family relations honored the slave was just property with no kind of rights. Ancient Israel let the slave some rights although not many. Of we are not advocating support for such institution. But then again God only tolerated it and regulated it by requiring some basic rights he never says "slavery is good."  Atheists try to argue that he's saying that tacitly by not saying it's bad, but he does say it's bad (Paul 1 Tim 3 says slave traders are among the worst of sinners).
....That brings up the second irony that most of the abolition movement was Christian. Christians made up the underground rail road. The worked to end the slave trade by boycotts (led by Quakers)[4]. Moreover, Christians led the way to freeing slaves the ancient world too (Deaconess Olympia under John Chrysostom (around 361 AD) spent her family fortune to free slaves).

Although still young and attractive, Olympiada was not drawn to the pleasures and luxuries of a worldly life. She disciplined herself to fast strictly, to wear plain--even poor--clothing; at the same time she was generous to the poor and sick, she financed the building of churches, supported hospitals, bought people out of slavery, and sent aid even to other countries.[5]

The argument  the atheists try to imply is that the Bible was written by slavers and it will brain wash us into supporting slavery. Yet if this is so how is it that the people who no selfish monetary motive wound up opposing slavery on the basis of scripture and their faith? Olympia was daughter of a wealthy family who was related to the emperor and she owned slave, but then found it in her heart to spend her inheritance to slaves free.
....What we see at work here is the famous world wide billboard campaign. It was once limited to anti-Christmas but now going year around. The funds are probably raised locally but clearly coordinated.  The atheist movement is not above string up any trouble they can and creating resentment regardless of what they must do to the truth to achieve their ends. The Huff Post article ends with a picture of a Billboard that says "we've got the whole world in our hands." Who is "we?" Presumably they would say we as the human race can decide our own destiny. Clearly we've been doing that, and God clearly designed it that way since he gave us free will. We have not been doing a bang up job of it have we? The article links to views of different bill boards that cause controversy. One reads "Don't believe in God? join the Club." So now it's a club? It's not a movement and it's unorganized and the only thing they have  in common is lack of belief (according their party line) but now it's a club? They want you to join? Of course they have a anti-Christmas spot "we know it's a myth." "Are you good without God, millions are?" That's a matter of opinion. These are in every city. Twenty were put up in Tampa Bay in 2010.[6] Are there really so many spontaneous not connected people who just happen to share lack of belief who decide to go raise thousands of dollars to put up bill boards?
....Who is masterminding and paying for the bill boards? The Freedom from Religion Foundation.[7]



TAMPA - Twenty new billboards are hanging above Tampa Bay roadways. The billboards are printed with just one phrase - 'God & Government A Dangerous Mix.' The signs are creating a stir.

EllenBeth Wachs of Lakeland has been an atheist since she was 12-years old, and is now part of a non-profit organization called the "Freedom from Religion Foundation" (find out more about them at www.ffrf.org ).
That Wisconsin-based group said it paid three-thousand five hundred dollars to buy the billboard space across the Tampa Bay area, and erected them in random neighborhoods like one placed near the roadway at 22nd and Cayuga Street in Tampa.

The Freedom from religion foundation is a huge organization that has brought numerous suits on behalf of atheist movement. They have scored many successes. Clearly no one can raise money for 20 bill boards in every major city or even a limited number of cities from purely grass roots concern. As a non profit the FFRF is free to accept huge sums of money without begin taxed. "According to the 2011 IRS tax Form-990, FFRF spent just over $200,000 on legal fees and services and just under $1 million on education, outreach, publishing, broadcasting, and events." I guess we see what is my next big research project.[8]

Sources:

[1] This article is also published in Washington post. on line copy URL: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-03-13/national/35447151_1_new-billboards-billboard-site-american-atheists
[2] "Slavery in The Bible and In Atheist Thinking," Atheist Watch, 3/15/2013 URL: http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2013/03/salvery-in-bible-and-in-atheist-thinking.html
[3] AW article on atheist's dishonesty in handling sources related to this topic.
[4] The Journal of John Woolman, With Notes by John G. Whittier.Edited by Alexander Smellie, M.A. London: Andrew Melrose Melrose 1898 URL:  http://www.strecorsoc.org/jwoolman/title.html
[5] "Saint Olympia," Orthodox America,Nikodemos Orthodox Publication Society, 2006 online resource, URL: http://www.roca.org/OA/61/61n.htm
[6] Carson Chambers, "Atheists Pay for Anti-Religious Billboards" ABC Action News, 8/11/2010  URL: http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/atheists-pay-for-anti-religion-billboards
[7] Ibid
[8]"Freedom From Religion Foundation," Wikipedia. URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_From_Religion_Foundation#History

Atheists Demontrate the Vast Verity of Incredulity Argument

Here is an example of why one needs to read a lot of theology before one deems to criticize it. Let's take the op in the thread that titrated this as an example: thread by Skylurker about "what is theology good for." (from CARM)


So I put up a counter thread claiming that their only real argument based upon the one and only atheist argument, that of incredulity. it's just another version. Rather than "I refeuse to believe therefore it can't be true" they are saying 'I don't like this stuff and I refuse to learn about it, therefore it's not good for anything." See Metacrock's blog from today for an specific answers to the post above.

On CARM I put up an argument:

this is essentially the argument all atheist on this board make. Theology must be stupid and useless "becuase ti's about stuff what I don't agree with none of."

that is not a valid criticism. first of all most of you have read about one page of theology if you are rare and really trying to think..the vast majority haven't read that much. Two are three may have read one book.

none of you made any kind of valid criticism in the thread elegantly entitled 'whats theology good for?"

"it ant good for nothing cause I don't likes it." well you know them does like it thinks good. that is not a valid way to argue. There is not enough knowledge of theology on this board to mean a hill of beans.

The idea that it's no good becuase I don't believe in the thing it's about is just nuts. that is not a valid way to even think about things. that's like saying trigonometry is meaningless becuase I don't like what it's about; of cousre I know nothing about it but so what? it's useless to me to so it's useless.

O that's scinece, that is holy sacred mathematics it had to be true and good becuase the powers hat give me money say it is.

we are not engaging in a thought process when we think this way.

 Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist

It's very difficult taking you seriously when the very first sentence in your essay is untrue.

My first sentence is abundantly true. The only argument any of you have made at all is "it' about something that I don't bleieve in so therefore it's no good."

Meta:
if you think you another one let's hear it.t hat's the only I saw on that thread and I read most of it.

Ok you may be taken in by another form of the argument which says 'scinece is tangible and true and can be proved to be so by mathematics and expectant so forth. Theology is not."

that's essentially the same argument, it's going at it form the other side of speaking of what you believe in and then comparing it rather than saying the thing it's about is what I don't believe in.

In both cases you are assuming that you know what theology is about when you don't. in both cases you are assuming there's only one form of fieldwork if it's not science then it's no good.

clearly related because if you don't know what theology is about then can't understand the cocnept of other forms of knowledge.

 Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist

This time, it's the second sentence that's untrue.

Meta
If you can make a point without gross exaggeration, I'll be more than happy to consider it.

There's only one way you can justify your statement and prove me wrong: show me an arguemnt that was made in that thread that's the same as what I said. you haven't even tried so far.

I think if you had the argument you would have made it. you don't have it.

 Originally Posted by NotAnAtheist

Doesn't matter whether it's valid or not. The fact is that skylurker's quote shows your second sentence was false; demonstrably false.

Keep flailing away, Meatcorck.

 

Meta:I just demonstrated it's the same arguemnt. you haven't said anything different. you are confused by the fact it doesn't use the same language. When you don't think about the content of ideas you can often mistake the product for the package. a new package fools them every time.

what you mean it doesn't have to be valid? that's ludicrous. do you have a concept of argument?  Incredible they are so stupid they don't know why it's important to have a valid argument yet they keep finding people to join them!


 Originally Posted by SquareOne

Strawman rant does not deserve the dignity of a proper response.

 

like the thread the thread I'm criticizing. like your arguments against theoloyg: all hot air. you don't know **** about theology and you just want to flap your gums. you can't even back it up enough to show another argument.
 Originally Posted by Dr Pepper

People have recognized this in the past and even more so today with the use of special effects and rediscovery of our supernatural heroes. Superman, the green lantern, Harry potter, and the latest bible movies. WC Fields recognized this when asked what he thought about the bible and he said he didn't believe most of it but it had some good movie plotts. Also for the Stargate lovers out there the Ori series sure sounded like how religion has behaved in the past.

so what you are saying is "I can imagine that is not true so therefore it's not true." which is another way of saying 'I dont' like causes it's what I don't bleieve none of."

this is not profound. this is not a valid argument it's horse ****! you don't have the slightest idea what you are criticizing.

 ginally Posted by Pragmatic

Theology is very important while you assume god exists. However, if god does not exist then theology is essentially only useful for making consistent science-fiction stories. This, of course, ignores the fact that religion is used to control societies.

 

you are assuming that theology is predicated upon belief in God. you can only that by not knowing anything about theology. You are going by what fundies say, what the encyclopedia says and what Wiki says and what atheist websites tell you all based upon 400 year old theology. you haven't actually read any so you don't know what it's about.

that means your argument is just exactly what I said. Look what you said above is just a more sophisticated way to expressed what I said: theology is no good cause it's about what I don't like.


Pragmatic

Assuming god does not exist, as people in a religion controlled society grow wiser and more educated, the theology must also address this in order to keep its god consistent with their new knowledge and hidden protected by their ignorance. 

 

this is based on that same assigning premise. since you don't know anything about theology you are totally ignorant of the anti-God theologians. Again you just said the same thing in yet another way: it's about whut I don't likes, so it ant no good!

As for theology being useless or not: If it produces results then it is useful, if it does not produce results then it is useless. Going back to the science fiction point: I'd say theology would always be useful here.

how can you know if it does or not if you don't read it?

Arguments vs. Facts: The Atheist Fortress of Facts Expossed.

 



I keep hearing this really dumb idea that "we don't want arguments we want facts that prove things." They seem to have adopted this tactic as a new mantra along with "there's no proof for your God." It reminds me of one of my favorite Monty Python things about the "argument clinic." "Argument is an intellectual process by which one lays out a logical heuristic in favor of a proposition, not the automatic gain saying of anything he other fellow says." "Yes it is." Sounds like CARM. I wonder if people who make this distinction between argument and facts understand what argument is.

The problem is, as with all English words, there many meanings and they are determined by context. When logicians say "argument" they mean something as different in the context of logic from when a historian says "argument" as Black Adder from real history. In general when we have people making arguments for the existence of God, the context in which this discussion arises, they are usually going to be people who have read William Lane Craig or Plantinga, and who are given to the emulation of philosophers and philosophical thinking. In that context the definition is going to be closer to that of the "straight man" (Michael Palin) in the Python sketch linked above; the heuristic supporting a logical proposition.

Many atheists speak as though this is just BS, it's just like saying "I deem that X = Y because I like X, and it has sanctifying grace and it reminds me of my geography teacher in eighth grade." Of course they just skip right over the fact that many such arguemnts are attempts to plug scientific facts into propositions confirming belief in God. I have had three major arguments spanning huge threads about the fine tuning argument. In the first one atheists went 40 posts wit out saying anything more substantial than "that's no good, that's not scinece, I don't like that." Every single post I made was about scientific facts, most of them were quoting a scientist named Andre Linde (on Doxa) who is an atheist but you took Fine tuning seriously enough to write an article several years ago (Scientific American, Oct 97) listing many of the more obvious problems facing the formation of life in the early development of our universe.

This argument is all about facts, it contains thousands of facts. Of course their reaction to it was something "this is stupid. this doesn't prove anything." I have a feeling that what they mean by "a fact that proves something" is something DNA. They want to find God's fingerprint or hair sample, but it has to be so obvious the it can't be questioned. Of cousre they can always question. Like the EPCEP thing, it's just another excuse to raise the bar as soon as the request facts are produced. The fact that half of my God arguemnts turn upon scientific facts (in my list of 42 arguments) doesn't even mean anything to them. What they really want is a done deal, something they can't even begin to question that totally prove it so they are forced to believe and they can't possibly be mistaken.

The idea that you have a fact that proves soemthing and you don't have to make an argument to show how it proves something is ludicrous. That's arguments are, they are connecting links that move from evidence to conclusion and explain things.Arguments are not tricks or emotional tirades that seek to lul one into a frame of mind apart form facts. Arguments can be based upon logic, they don't have to be based upon empirical evidence, but you can't make empirical evidence "prove" something without making an argument.Even if you could somehow pull back the curtain of reality and see God at the controls, so to speak, you would still have to make an argument that this si God and these are the controls that govern the universe, just pulling back the veil itself wouldn't do it.

The only potions atheists embrace are those shaped by arguments. They think that when they say "there's no proof for your God so I have no rational reason to believe" that they are making a statement of fact that needs no elucidation and is transparent when spoken. In point of fact that in itself is an argument.All the atheists potions are the result of argument and not of facts.
Science data is not self explainable or self revealing. It only means something when you shape into an argument and make it mean something.

Facts do not announce themselves as such. Nature is not festooned with little tags that say things like "scientific data, by nature." "This is a scientific fact." There is no scientific data until we transform qulia into data by the process of scientific study. No one just stduies raw data by itself. Economists don't collect dates on coins in the economy, sociologists don't count the number of bricks in housing projects, geologists don't count the grains of sand on the shore, then let it go at that rejoicing that they have found scientific facts. Data is put into context of "meaning" through interpretation. Data always must be interpreted and the complexity of the world means there can be more than one interpretation. This is a very simplistic source but I think anyone naive enough to think that scinece is just a pile of facts needs this level of simplicity:

Understanding Science: How
Science Really Works.

Evaluating an idea in light of the evidence should be simple, right? Either the results match the expectations generated by the idea (thus, supporting it) or they don't (thus, refuting it). Sometimes the process is relatively simple (e.g., drilling into a coral atoll either reveals a thick layer of coral or a thin veneer), but often it is not. The real world is messy and complex, and often, interpreting the evidence relating to an idea is not so clear-cut. To complicate things further, we often have to weigh multiple lines of evidence that are all relevant to the validity of a particular idea.
Tests typically generate what scientists think of as raw data — unaltered observations, descriptions, or measurements — but those must be analyzed and interpreted. Data become evidence only when they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy or inaccuracy of a scientific idea. For example, an investigation of the evolutionary relationships among crustaceans, insects, millipedes, spiders, and their relatives might tell us the genetic sequence of a particular gene for each organism. This is raw data, but what does it mean? A long series of the As, Ts, Gs, and Cs that make up genetic sequences don't, by themselves, tell us whether insects are more closely related to crustaceans or to spiders. Instead, those data must be analyzed through statistical calculations, tabulations, and/or visual representations. In this case, a biologist might begin to analyze the genetic data by aligning the different sequences, highlighting similarities and differences, and performing calculations to compare the different sequences. Only then can she interpret the results and figure out whether or not they support the hypothesis that insects are more closely related to crustaceans than to spiders.

That process contains a number steps that are not only very similar to argument but that also require argument when interpretations vary. Just interpreting data requires a form of argument sense one is making a connection from sign to conclusion based upon a logical association involving a claim. In the argumentation theory of Stephen Toulmin data is part of the grounds or a claim. The warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be explicit or unspoken and implicit. It answers the question 'Why does that data mean your claim is true?' That process is just like the process through which one assertions the significance of any given data in hypothesis testing.

On a more sophisticated level we can see that entire scientific project rests upon "paradigms" which in effect are arguments. Science changes when the paradigm is no longer able to adsorb and explain or dismiss anomalies that cause us to question the paradigm. This is part of the thory of Thomas S. Kuhn. Kuhn was the biggest name in history/philosophy of scinece for several decades, even beating Popper (the 60s-90s). When the Postmodern project fell apart in the 90's Kuhn went down with the ship even he was only tangentially related to Postmodernism. I think we can argue that Kuhn's fortunes have risen again as I predicted at the time they would. I see much more Kuhn related material, he's still in universities. One such class is that of Professor Frank Pajares, Emory University. He prepares an online study guide and his summary of Kuhn's first chapter in Structures of Scientific Revolutions runs as follows:

Kuhn begins by formulating some assumptions that lay the foundation for subsequent discussion and by briefly outlining the key contentions of the book.

1. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs (p. 4).
1. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice" (5).
2. The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs exert a "deep hold" on the student's mind.
2. Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
3. To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5).
4. Research is "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education" (5).
5. A shift in professional commitments to shared assumptions takes place when an anomaly "subverts the existing tradition of scientific practice" (6). These shifts are what Kuhn describes as scientific revolutions—"the tradition-shattering complements to the tradition-bound activity of normal science" (6).
1. New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community.
2. When a shift takes place, "a scientist's world is qualitatively transformed [and] quantitatively enriched by fundamental novelties of either fact or theory" (7).

In other words science is like a status quo of a governmental regime or one might liken it unto the negative in policy debate round, it is the status quo, the way we view the world. If it is going to change it must do so because it can no longer answer crucial questions (absorb anomalies) that must be answered to continue to assume the received view of the world. Kuhn himself tells us:

"scientific revolutions are here taken to be those non-cumulative developmental episodes replaced in whole or in part by a new one..." (Thomas kuhn The Structure of scientific Revolutions, 92). "The choice [between paradigms] is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter as they must into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses it's own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense...the status of the circular argument is only that of persuasion. It cannot be made logically or even probabilistically compelling for those who refuse to step into the circle." The Structure of Scientific Revolutions(94)In section X we shall discover how closely the view of science as cumulative is entangled with a dominate epistemology that takes knowledge to be a construction placed directly upon raw sense data by the mind. And in section XI we shall examine the strong support provided to the same historiographic scheme by the techniques of effective science pedagogy. Nevertheless, despite the immense plausibility of that ideal image, there is increasing reason to wonder whether it can possibly be an image of science. After the pre-paradgim period the assimilation of all new theories and of almost all new sorts of phenomena has demanded the destruction of a prior paradigm and a consequent conflict between competing schools of scientific thought. Cumulative anticipation of unanticipated novelties proves to be an almost nonexistent exception to the rule of scientific development.The man who takes historic fact seriously must suspect that science does not tend toward the ideal that our image of its cumulativeness has suggested. Perhaps it is another sort of enterprise. [ Structures...92-94]
(see my entire summary of Kuhn Here)

The simplistic concept that science is a pile of facts that prove the truth of all reality as long as we peruse the proper scientific methods is just a fantasy. There is no neat simplistic choice between fact and argument. Expecting to test the validity of God belief on the basis of the belief to conform to the norms of scientific is equally stupid. This is why I do not argue for the existence of God. All of my arguments I bill as "rational warrant for belief" simply becuase God is beyond empirical data. It would be as absurd to expect to prove god empirically as it would be to prove reality itself empirically. If you remember what I've said in the past about basic epistemology, that cannot be done. No one has. The only thing that was every produced along those lines is a epistemological judgment based upon warrant. Every time I argue it out with atheists to this point they say proudly and triumphantly "I can rest assured with a very good implication of what I know based upon the probability suggested by empirical data." I love to deflate that line when I say "that's what I get with my God arguments."

That's all they have to do, all we need is a rational warrant becasue the gap there between absolute certainty and warrant, which even the atheists admit they can't fill, that's the gap one leaps over in a leap of faith. The atheist has just admitted he leaps over it too. So the big fortress of facts that seems so assuring in atheist rhetoric is really just propaganda sloganeering.

Athiests biat ridicule trap.

ON CARM (message boards) Drachmas says:

  "list some miracles that have happened in your life here

lets hear some of them"

Does that mean they really want to hear this stuff? No of cousre not. I knew what we would find. I knew they just wanted more ammunition to ridicule. They proved to want just that.I have it to them anyway because I wanted ammunition of my own. I got it.

Meta:
two incidents invovling my father.

(1) died and came back.

the real miracle was that an 89 year old man with very arrhythmical heart and lots of scar tissue came bounding back with strong rhythmical heart beat after being clinically dead for several minutes.

(2) readings changed before eyes of ER guys

they were at the house, they responded to call it seemed he having a heart attack or stroke. The readings of vital sings showed he his vitals were failing. We prayed for him and laid hands on him right then and there, and the came back to normal all signs of distress went away.

the ER guys were stunned. they were going "wow that's not supposed to happen." One was angry and shouting "this is didn't happen! It's impossible! there is no God this didn't' happen!"

Notice i said two incidence. this became important early on as one of the ridicule thugs says:

Originally Posted by drugstar

this story of meta's has evolved over the years. lol.

Deist: 

Yes. In one post he forgot the story and said he was there at the time, but forgot he said in other posts he wasn't.

Notice he speaks one where I'm there and the other I'm not there, that's the way it is in the two stories but he can't follow the fact that it's two stories. So he remembered come muddled version that he can't keep track of, he's too stupid to observe that fact that there are two stories (see my post above) and just asserts that they are two versions of the same story. After some amount of counter mocking he says "there are two stories now!" As though there was a time when it was just one story, which is, of course, a lie. What else would I expect from such little brown shirt bullies?

But this was not my first clue (as though I needed a clue) that they were just looking for a ridicule gauntlet. The first response fomr the guy who started the thread was:

Dumbass *(Drackmas)

cool story man. did you see angles when you were dead or anything?

chalupa batman

While I'm glad your father didn't die, it does seem as though you're setting the bar on miracles a little low here. If ything this sounds like a "miracle" of medicine to me. Maybe if he were dead for a week or something... That sounds more than a little fishy... kind of unrelated to the miracle claim but - really? I'm kinda skeptical that their first reaction was "there is no god"

Suqraecirlce

I thought that it sounded a little embellished as the "medic in denial" had no relevance to communicating a story about a miraculous event and sounds too much like how Meta behaves, so it is likely just a projection of his behavior into the story for the effect of 'poisoning the well' against all that would doubt the story.

At this point Deist pops back in like a little child who is being ignored to say:

Originally Posted by Deist

I was there.
I wasn't there.

And we're supposed ANYTHING you say thereafter??

If it isn't lying, it's a very severe psychological issue. You may want to seek professional help.

Our old pal musffins (MFFJM2) tries to do a "rational" reconstruction of the facts.

Originally Posted by MFFJM2

We've all heard these stories before, but they never fail to entertain.

that's what you say because you can't admit the turth. what if you did accept the story as I said it. you have admit you are going to hell. that makes you uncomfortable, o you can't let yourself believe it can you?

they all said that. "we've heard this before" like that's supposed to disprove it.

Muffins; No, he didn't die.

Meta: Yes he did. did you talk to his doctor. No of course not. I did. I talked to the doctor who was there in the ICU he told me that. there were his words. you were not there!

His heart stopped for a few minutes, and that happens all the time. It is not to be equated with clinical death,

Meta:you don't know what hapepned because you weren't there. you are intriguing it to soften blow so you want feel damned. the surgeon said it was CLINICAL death, that's the term he uses. If that means brain death I guess it was brain death. you don't know you weren't there, you are only assuming becuase you ideology says it can't be otherwise.see how easy it is to be an atheist. you just re-write the truth to what you want it to be.

Muffins

requires that all brain functions cease. Unless he was hooked up to an EEG, there would be no way of determining if this had happened. An EKG only monitors the heart functioning. It's still nice that he was returned to health, but this doesn't even qualify as unusual, let alone supernatural. 

 why is it hard to believe he would be hooked up to an EEG? They were in the ICU.

do you really think all the nurses in the ICR would be calling it a miracle if it was just his heart stopping? No they would not. they did. the first thing in the door they go "did you hear about the miracle?"

The GP said the heart stopping and coming back strong is the real miracle. the actual being dead and coming back is not that difficult that does happen. It's the coming back from the heart thing with a strong rhythmical beat at his age that is the Miracle.

I did say "clinically dead" the first 200 times I told it.

btw since you were not there you don't know if he took his brain waves or not. Since the surgeon who was there said he was dead I rather think they did so.

There are several natural explanations for this. The first is that this is after this therefore because of this reasoning. 

Or it may be because two different doctors said it was "a miracle."

The second is that the human mind has the ability to control many autonomous features including vital signs. You prayed over someone who thought that prayer would help, and then his own mind decided it did help and changed the vitals signs being registered. Yogis have been shown to be able to control these same vital signs, but perhaps you think they do it through prayer as well.

here he's jumped over to the other story. He thinks his answer is so rational but actually getting your brain to control your hear beat and other vitals such that you reverse a heart attack would be extremely rare.

My account of the story:the ER guys were stunned. they were going "wow that's not supposed to happen." One was angry and shouting "this is didn't happen! It's impossible! there is no God this didn't' happen!"

MUffins: Of course they did, because that makes the story so much better, and so appropriate to this website.

Meta:you have to believe that is an embellishment because you don't want the discomfiture of feeling that you are going to hell. so you are willing to buy into BS anaswer your brain comes up with to twist the truth because you don't want to feel damned.

The Anti-God Argument Industry: J.L. Schellenberg Arguments

possible worlds






Over the last couple of decades atheists have been so put up on by God arguments and the success of thinkers such as Plantinga, Alston and Hartshorne that they have become radicalized in their attempts at making anti-God arguments. I have hunch that they basically see God arguemnts as a trick. I've actually seen atheists at the popular level refer to logic as a trick. They don't take God arguments seriously yet seem intimidated by the use of logic. This has led to a plethora of attempted anti-God arguments, disproofs that seek to pit the concepts of religious thinking against each other to produce seeming contradictions. One of the more legigitate academic attempts in this vain is due to the efforts of J.L. Schellenberg, who is a philosopher form Canada. Some of his published works include:

Prolegomena to a Philosophy of Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.

The Wisdom to Doubt: A Justification of Religious Skepticism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2007

The Will to Imagine: A Justification of Skeptical Religion. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

Schellenberg is one of the leading voices in the atheist attempt to flood the net with ant-God arguments hat seek to turn dobout toward conflicting concepts and questions regarding the logic of God arguments. Below are a few examples of his and  other arguments. These are arguments I've seen atheists use on boards that are attributed to Schellenberg. The teaches at Mount Saint Vincent University, in Nova Scotia.

The Argument from Horrific Suffering (J. L. Schellenberg):

Horrific Suffering (def.) = that most awe-full form of suffering that gives the victim and/or the perpetrator a prima facie reason to think that his or her life is not worth living.

(1) Necessarily, if God exists, finite persons who ever more fully experience the reality of God realize their deepest good.
(2) Necessarily, if God exists, the prevention of horrific suffering does not prevent there being finite persons who ever more fully experience the reality of God.
(3) Necessarily, if God exists, the prevention of horrific suffering does not prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good. (from 1, 2)
(4) Necessarily, if God exists, there is horrific suffering only if its prevention would prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good.
(5) Necessarily, if God exists, there is no horrific suffering. (from 3, 4)
(6) There is horrific suffering.
(7) God does not exist (from 5, 6)

....This argument seems to turn on a hidden premise that God allows suffering and evil so that some ultimate good might exist. That's the really premise as to why God would allow suffering, the argument asserts a second hidden premise that a good God would stop the worse forms of pain and suffering if his aims could be achieved without. It then cliams to know what that ultimate good is, thus asserts the stated premises that the good could be achieved without allowing such suffering. The argument as a whole says God can allow us to know him fully and achieve the highest good without allowing the worst forms of suffering, thus their existence in the world is an arguemnt against God's existence.
....P1 asserts that the greatest good is knowing God: "finite persons who ever more fully experience the reality of God realize their deepest good." It shows asserts that this can happen without the most horrific forms of suffering, thus such forms of suffering in so far as they do exist stand out against God's existence. There's a lot wrong with this argument:

(1) It asserts to know things we don't. We an asserting knowing God is our highest good but how that plays into God's plan for creation we can't assert to know so confidently as to assert to know that it can b acheied without allowing horrifc evil.


(2) It asserts to know that the most horrific forms of evil are not prevented. We don't know the most horrific forms. If God is protecting us and preventing the most horrific forms of evil how can we know? they don't exist in our world so we don't know.

(3) The argument is basically taken out by my soteriological drama which says that God wants us to search for truth so that we can internalize the values of the good. The risk that we make the wrong choices must be open or there's no search. Thus it's  not a matter of balance good against evil, nor is it a matter of needing evil to know good, but of risking evil so we can choose the good freely. In so doing the most horrific forms of evil (that we know of) must be part of the risk. If God habitually prevented the most horrific kinds of evil it would soon become apparent that there is a supernatural force protecting us and there would be no search.

(4) the argument turns upon premise (5) "Necessarily, if God exists, there is no horrific suffering. (from 3, 4)" what does these say?

(3) Necessarily, if God exists, the prevention of horrific suffering does not prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good. (from 1, 2)

(4) Necessarily, if God exists, there is horrific suffering only if its prevention would prevent there being finite persons who realize their deepest good.

....P3 is where I get the notion of hidden premises. Why would the prevention of horrific suffering be said to prevent finite persons realizing the deepest good? He must be expecting an answer of this as the reason for the allowing of horrific suffering...yet it doesn't preclude the need to run the risk in order to internalize the values through the search. So the objection stands but in a somewhat different from, one that his argument doesn't prevent. P4 this an explicit statement of what I felt was a hidden premise that the conflict is bewteen realizing the deepest good vs allowing horrific evil. The whole argument turns upon asserting that horrific evil can be prevented and the deepest good be accomplished. We don't need the most horrific evil so good God would not allow it. That doesn't answer the issues that I've raised. That we might question if the most horrific evil does exist, (after all, Hitler didn't win WWII, the cold war didn't produce nuclear war, and George Wallace did not win the 1968 Presidential election) and that there is still need to risk the doing of abhorrent evil in order to necessitate the search.

This next argument is still really a version of the first one, it's just tweaking it to induce the aspect of hiddeness.

Argument from Divine Hiddeness (Also from J.L. Schellenberg):

(1) If a perfectly loving God G exists, then for any human subject S at time t, if S is at t capable of relating personally to G, S at t believes that G exists on the basis of evidence that renders the existence of G probable, except insofar as S is culpably in a contrary position at t.
(2) There exists at least one human subject S who at time t does not believe that G exists on the basis of evidence that renders the existence of G probable and who is not culpably in a contrary position at t.
(3) No perfectly loving God exists.

....He's made it more complex with the use of symbols. I know this is done to make it more efficient to disuses repeated concepts but it doesn't. I have quoted he original argument so I will re word in a way that I think makes it more understandable.
....This argument is essentially saying that if there is an individual who doesn't find God to be real on the basis of evidence then we can asserting there is no loving God because if God was loving he would want everyone to know. There are numerous problems. Again a hidden premise, that God's love means everyone must believe at the same time. Of course the background assumption that we must have instant gratification, life is not a journey so that everyone must believe at all times and have the same outcomes. It would also seem that this argument is made to counter a more traditional view of Christianity that sees hell and damnation and eternal conscious torment as the consequence of unbelief. If we take that result out of the picture and look at life as journey of learning which culminates in our own successful search for the answers, then there is no need to assert that everyone must believe at the same time or there's no good God.
....It would also seem that he's missed the point about hiddeness. If my guess is right and Gods apparent hiddeness is in order to facilitae the search so that we might internallize the values of the good, then there is no ultimate contradiction between God's hiddeness and the need for salvation. The apparent hidden state of God is not an impediment to belief but rather an inducement to search.

This one is not by Schellenberg, but Mark Walker, New Mexico State University.

The Anthropic Argument against the existence of God (Mark Walker):

This argument uses a moral scale. 0 is perfectly immoral and 10 is perfectly moral S is the set of all possible worlds which is populated only by beings greater than 5 on the scale.

(1) God is omnipotent
(2) So, it is possible for God to actualize a member of S
(3) God is omniscient
(4) So, if it is possible for God to actualize a member of S, then God knows that He can actualize a member of S
(5) So, God knows that He can actualize a member of S
(6) God is morally perfect
(7) So, a morally perfect being should attempt to maximize the likelihood of moral goodness and minimize the likelihood of moral evil in the world
(8) If God knows He can actualize a member of S, then every world in which God exists is a member of S
(9) Therefore, every world in which God exists is a member of S
(10) Therefore, if God exists in the actual world then the actual world is a member of S
(11) The actual world is not a member of S
(12) Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God does not exist.

And then there's the Argument from Dwindling Probabilities (Alvin Plantinga) in which he concludes "The conclusion to be drawn, I think, is that K, our background knowledge, historical and otherwise (excluding what we know by way of faith or revelation), isn't anywhere nearly sufficient to support serious belief in G."

An abstract version of the argument from Sophia:

If God is morally perfect then He must perform the morally best actions, but creating humans is not the morally best action. If this line of reasoning can be maintained then the mere fact that humans exist contradicts the claim that God exists. This is the ‘anthropic argument’. The anthropic argument, is related to, but distinct from, the traditional argument from evil. The anthropic argument forces us to consider the ‘creation question’: why did God not create other gods rather than (...)[1]

....Here we have an example of the flawed possible worlds thinking that atheists have employed to overwhelm Plantinga's possible world's argument. I use a version of Plantinga's possible worlds argument on my 42 argument list on Doxa. It's no 14 on my list. The argument essentially says that God is such that he can't just be necessary in one possible word but if he exists he must be necessary in all possible worlds. That means he has to be necessary here,  in this world. the issue is there's nothing to stop the cocnept that God is necessary in all possible worlds. The argument turns upon the premise that there has to be some possible world in which God is necessary. If there is such a world then for him to be God and to be necessary in a true sense he must have to be necessary in all possible worlds, including this one. The issue is that this is mandated, it is the case logically speaking so it' snot something that can be negated if the premise are true. The point of the argument is to drive home the implication of the model argument that there is no maybe with God; either God is necessary or impossible but since he can't be contingent there's no "maybe he exits and maybe he doesn't. He exists for sure or he can't exist logically becuase he's impossible. Thus if he's not impossible then he has to exist.
....The atheists decided what we have to do is come up with a world in which there could not possibly be a God. They assert this can be done by imagining it because the foolishly assume that "possible world" means any world i can imagine. They assume they are imagining such a world by thinking about his one because they dont' believe in God anyway. Since the point is to prove that God must exist in this world that's actually circular reasoning n the atheists part. These anti-God possible world arguments all do this, they assume that the formation of an imaginary world that is imagined without God, without having to work out all the other philosophical details that build God arguments, based upon the pretense that we live in such a possible world (without God--when in fact that's what is under dispute) controls the essence of God and makes him not exist, so to speak. The shape the concept of God around the need to imagine that we are in a possible world in which there is no God.
....The problems with the above arguemnt are several. The argument  is a good example of an arguemnt in when they try to just imagine into existence a possible world of no God becuase they  model it on their disbelief.

(1) It's three arguments in one that each is nested in the other to make it hard to deal with them as one coherent arguemnt. It really should be broken up. It's a moral argument, its about contradictions of omnipotence and omniscience, it's about possible worlds.

(2) The omniscience and omnipotence are used as "plan spikes" (we use to call them in debate) to negate possible answers; God must know this is goign t be the case and has to negate it or he's not just trying becuase he would know and he would be able to. That ignores the real reasons for taking the risk that we make the wrong choices (of course God would know we are going to). Again, my soteriological drama, free will is necessary to morality so that we may freely choose the good; we can't make moral decisions without freely choosing to. Not a matter of God not knowing it, it's a matter of having to take the risk because we must be allowed to choose; they never calculate the fact that God can understand the balance sheet and see that it's worth it. That point alone destroys the whole argument.

(3) the argument turns upon this premise: (9) "Therefore, every world in which God exists is a member of S. S is the perfectly moral world populated only by those whose morality exceeds 5. He doesn't use the scale in the actual argument. We also don't know the values that make up the scale so that might tip the argument if we knew what he was calculating.

(4) P9 is the turning point and it means it's also the defeat of the argument. It's based upon the question begging premise. To be true P9 must assert the conclusion of the argument to make the argument, that God would only allow possible worlds with S content. If god must risk our evil choice as a matter of our freely choosing the good they can  hardly restrict planetary formation to S worlds.

(5) The argument doesn't account for the search. It's assumes static worlds where everyone has achieve moral perfection at the same time. It doesn't take life as a journey or individual lives as individual searches for truth. Everyone has to be in the same place at the same time.

(6) Edward Feser has some important things to say about these possible worlds arguments; they have it backwards, the essence of God is not controlled by possible worlds.

It is also often said that for God to be a necessary being is for Him to exist in every possible world. This too is at least very misleading. It leaves the impression that there are these things called “possible worlds” that have some kind of reality apart from God, and it turns out – what do you know! – that God happens to exist in every one of them, right alongside numbers, universals, and other necessarily existing abstract objects. To be sure, since possible worlds other than the actual one are themselves mere abstractions (unless you are David Lewis), they would not exist as concrete entities that God has not created. But the “possible worlds” account of God’s necessity nevertheless insinuates that that necessity is grounded in something other than God Himself – that what is possible or necessary in general is to be determined independently of God, with God’s own necessity in turn defined by reference to these independent criteria. For A-T, this is completely muddled. The reason God is necessary is that He is Pure Act or Subsistent Being Itself, not because He “exists in every possible world.” And since God just is Being Itself – rather than “a being” among other beings, existing in one possible world or in all – all possibilities and necessities whatsoever are themselves grounded in the divine nature, rather than in anything in any way independent of God.[2]

....All of these argumetns, this entire approach, the moral conflicts anti-God arguments the possible worlds anti-God argumetns, with their attempt to control God's essence by indexing it to possible worlds rather than vice versa, it's a grand example of what Tillich talked about when he said that if we know being has depth we know God has to be. That means if there is more to being alive and existing thus just the mere fact of existence then we know there has to be God becuase God is the depth of being, God is that "more to it." The atheist thinking on this score is a good example of what Tillich talks about when he speaks of the "surface level." The atheist says life is just a straight up proposition of it exists or it doesn't, either the world is morally perfect as an extension of a moral perfect creator or it's not, in which case there is no morally perfect creator. That's just the surface level of existing or not existing. It fails to take into account the meaning of life, the meaning of what it means to be. What it means to be is to be the creature of a necessary creator, thus our contingency is proof of a transcendent necessity that makes the "something more."
....They can't assert that their unbelief is proof of a Godless universe then use that as a proof of a possible world of no God, especially when they mere ignore the depth in being that tell us there more to being than just the surface issue of apparent existence. The nature of possible worlds does not determine the nature of God, it is God who determines possible worlds. Philospher J.N. Findlay was the first to tray and reverse the ontological argument as a disproof of God. He admitted at the time that Hartshorne had convienced him that his argument led to a ready inversion that this is what set up the realization that if God is at all possible then he must be necessary. The original attempt winds up in disproof of the reversal and brings the modal argument back rightly.

Professor Hartshorne has, however, convinced me that my argument permits a ready inversion, and that one can very well argue that if God's existence is in any way possible, then it is also certain and necessary that God exists, a position which should give some comfort to the shade of Anselm. The notion of God, like the notion of the class of all classes not members of themselves, has plainly unique logical properties, and I do not now think that my article finally decides how we should cope with such uniqueness.[3]

That's still the case now and it will always be so.

[1] Mark Walker, "Anthropic Argument Againt the Existence of God," Sophia, 48 (4) 351-378

[2] Edward Feser, "God and Possible Worlds," Edward Feser Blog (June 6, 2010): URL: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/06/god-and-possible-worlds.html

[3] J.N. Findlay, "Can God's Existence Be Disproved?" Di Text URL: http://www.ditext.com/findlay/god.html

Atheist Cheat on evidence: atheist build mythology of Slander

two statements made by atheists on carm recently, dealing withe slavery in the Bible issue I discussed some time ago:

Originally Posted by Nonprofit

Bad scholarship for misrepresenting your source. I don't need to quote counter experts, the plain text of the bible supports my position, and that text has been quoted. Your pedantic attempts to redefine chatell to mean having no rights

Skyjerker

His own reference from the Christian Think Tank shot him down concerning chattel slavery and rights... (the part he removed from his post) But he won't admit to it because as he is always "winning"...

 these were said in reference to the Garnsy quote on the slavery debate. The issue in the second is that there were brackets on the Burke website and Burke put in the term Chattel just before the quote.

that's a valid thing to do becuase he was just pointing to the context of the quote which was not spelled out. That's valid and permitted and nothing wrong with it. that's the proper use of brackets. Unless you find the original which I did you have to trust.

Of cousre these atheists want to turn it their advantage so they made as though I put the braketts in

then they want to drop big statments like "you are so dishonest about sources." they totally remain silent and jsut sneak when I confront them with the original and prove I'm right which I have done several times.

I did this time by getting the Garnsy book and showing that the quote is on page 2 and the contest is indeed chattel and he actually use the term just a few sentences latter. They are wrong I am right, I am vindicated but they wont admit it.

also the same thing with the Tillich issue on Tillich saying god is not less than personal. see my signature for that. in that case too Sky snuck and didn't say a thing.

the quote I got from Burke was in page 1 the quote on 2 is in the same context. Talking about the same thing, chattel.


http://books.google.com/books?id=nCb...epage&q&f=true

page 2 he says:

"there were other types of unfree" that backs up what I said about different types of servitude. then he says:

"Chattel slavery has been historically a rare mode of unfreedom." that would be in sink with the idea that Israel didn't have it, although that by itself doesn't prove the point.

It is in the same context of the things he speaks of before which includes the quote wit the brackets. This proves he's talking Chattel.This just disproves their position completely. Of course the atheists are not going to accept that. They can't possilby accept it becuase their whole self esteem and the truth of their ideology is riding on everyone of them feeling that he's smarter than everyone of us. Let's look at their ratinalizations.

Skylurker knows hes beaten so he shifts to other grounds to claim a consolation prize:

Skyluker:

I can't make out a coherent line of reasoning in that above.

Again the reference that was identified as THE definitive source does not use the word Chattel in the sense you stridently claimed was so. The phrase "chattel slaves" means humans that are slaves as in property who could be provided some protection. End of story on this one... you are just digging the hole deeper.

 Meta:
 First he claims he can't figure out what I'm saying, but he figured it out well enough to try and argue that the original didn't say what it dos. But yes, it does I quoted it ver batium.

 then he says:

 My beef with you and Tillich was his position on the supernatural... you thought he struggled against those who opposed the supernatural when the opposite was the case and he himself rejected supernatural theism.

 Of course his real beef was the issue that Tillich didn't accept any sort of peronal God. He just believe God was an imperosnal force like magnatism. Then I quoted Tillich form his systematic theology saying:

 Tillch: "personal God does not mean that God is a person. It means that he is the ground of everything personal. HE CARRIES WITHIN HIMSELF THE ONTOLOGICAL POWER OF PERSONALITY.he is not a person BUT HE IS NOT LESS THAN PERSONAL."
--Paul Tillich, Systematic theology vol 1, 245

notice he backs off completely and falls back o the supernatural issue. 

Bigthinker, chimes in with the old chestnut:

Another failure to demonstrate that God exists outside of the imagination.

 Meta: you always know they know they have lost when they fall back to position no 1. They never see the importance of an argument, so they see they lost on some point fall back to the basic atheist's fetal position. "Who cares if I can't prove this slavery stuff, you still can't prove there's a God." All roads lead to Rome.


look what the lying scum bags say
Originally Posted by MFFJM2

This thread is just too funny. The king of misrepresenting sources calls the kettle black.

this lying jerk is calling me the king of misrepresentation when he's too lazy to click on the link and scroll to page 2 and see that it's proved in front of his ignorant little face.


The real lesson here is that they have tried to build a mythology of my dishonesty. They lie constantly about myuse of sources. They tried to argue that I added  a word in brackets to change the meaning of the quote and I proved I did not. So they can't that they are wrong. they go building the myth. the impression has been created they don't bother to correct it. This is another exampel their brown shirt tactics.

they attempted slander and when prvoed wrong they just refuse to accept their wrong doing.

Are Christians More Likley to Go to Prision? ( Vol III)

For years atheists have been making a simplistic analysis that we can assume a causal inference bewteen the percentage of prisoners who are Christians and the effect of Christianity on behavior. The assumption is being a Chrsitains make you more likely to go to prison. The classic page on this is Holy smoke.org which I have discussed on Atheist Watch as pure propaganda. The page demonstrates a set of spurious data supposedly showing that there are many more times Chrsitains in prison than non Christians. I've raised questions about the validity of the data. Even an atheist site calls it a questionable source.[1]
....This same site recoginizes the fact of the Pew study on Chaplins that there are atheists then thought prevoiusly:

Last week, the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life released the results of a survey of professional prison chaplains across the United States. The results (PDF) offer some insight into the religious lives of prisoners. But keep in mind it’s not necessarily accurate — they’re asking chaplains across the country what they think the religious makeup of the prisoners is.

Although chaplains, like all observers, undoubtedly bring their own perspectives and predilections to bear, they also occupy a valuable vantage point as correctional workers who have regular, often positive interactions with inmates and take a strong interest in the role of religion in inmates’ lives.(ibid)

 While I laud his honestly in acknowledging that the percentage of atheists is higher than Swift's 2% (putting it up at 11%) he misses the real import of the Pew study (not to criticize an honest man). The real import is that it shows that prisons switch their faiths a lot. So there's no evidence that all of the Christians in prison at any given moment were Chrsitians when they went to prison. That means they can't argue Christianity is a moral failure. It's true that there are many nominal Chrsitains who mouth the words but don't have the experiences. It's only a correlation in the first place, there's no real way to make into a viable indictment of Christian life, but how what we know prisons are not even going in as Christians necessarily the data becomes totally useless.
....The Study is "Religion in Prisons: 50 state survey of prison chaplains," by the Pew Research [2] Of course the atheists have already begun the cry of "this is not accurate becuase they chaplains so they lie (see comment section of friendly atheist site), the Chaplins have access to prison stats which are not typically available to the pubic.

A majority of chaplains surveyed report that the prison where they work has a formal system in place both for documenting the religious affiliation of inmates (84%) and for documenting changes in religious affiliation (76%). However, such records typically are for in-house use only. As previously noted, official statistics on the religious affiliation of the state prison population generally are not publicly available. Thus, the Pew Forum survey provides a unique look —based on the chaplains’ own estimates — at the relative size and growth of religious groups behind bars.

The Chaplains show that switching groups religiously is quite common and that growing of both Islam and protestantism is due to largely to switching.

A majority of chaplains say that attempts by inmates to convert or proselytize other inmates are either very common (31%) or somewhat common (43%), while 26% say such attempts are not too or not at all common...Still, a majority of chaplains say that there is either “a lot” of religious switching (26%) or “some” switching among inmates (51%). About one-fifth (21%) say that switching occurs “not much” or not at all in the prisons where they work.

I'm sure the survey is not as unbiased or accurate as it could be. Yet there's just as much confusion about surveys asking prisoners directly for their affiliation. They still dont' include a place in the data for conversion history nor do they try to ascertain the person's affiliation before prison. The conclusion is corroborated by the book Religion, the Community, and Rehabilitation of Criminal offenders. "The most common reason for conversion in prison is seen as protection. So then it's not surprising that religion as a form of protection is closely connected with the deprivation of security."[3] This is a study of original research. although they do point out that their research does not support the parole theory of insincere conversion.[4] This applies to insincere this doesn't' mean that there isn't sincere conversion.
....As to the question about convesion for parole, while the O'Connor evidence doesn't agree two other studies show that this might be a factor. Two studies on race and religions show that religion could be a factor.

Parole board members (PBMs) decide whether to release inmates on parole. Decisions may be affected by in-group bias or stereotypes regarding religion and race. Two experiments investigated whether religious conversions/secular lifestyle changes and race affect mock PBMs' release decisions, emotions, and perceptions. Mock PBMs read a case file of an inmate who was eligible for parole and decided whether to grant parole. Study 1 manipulated whether the inmate had converted to Christianity or Islam, had a secular lifestyle change, or had no lifestyle change. Study 2 also varied race (African American or Caucasian). Race was not a significant factor, possibly because the manipulation was not strong enough to influence participants or because participants did not want to appear racist. Conversions to Islam and Christianity impacted the parole decision, and effects were mediated by believability of the conversion. Secular lifestyle changes affected release decisions and were mediated by perceptions of the inmate and beliefs about his likelihood of recidivism. Such inmates were the most likely to be released and were perceived most positively; their conversions were the most believable. Inmates who made no changes were perceived least positively, indicating that any lifestyle change is better than none. Importantly, no bias towards either religion (Islam, Christianity) was found. Furthermore, conversion type affected how scared PBMs were of the inmate, but this fear did not impact release decisions.[5]

[1] Friendly Atheist URL: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/29/what-percentage-of-prisoners-are-atheists-pew-forum-offers-an-answer/
[2] The Study is "Religion in Prisons: 50 state survey of prison chaplains," by the Pew Research, Form the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. URL:
 http://www.pewforum.org/government/religion-in-prisons.aspx#muslims
[3]Thomas P. O'Connor and Nathaniel J. Pallone, Religion, the Community, and Rehabilitation of Criminal offenders.Routlege, 2013, also published as Journal of Offended Rehabilitation vol. 35, numbers 3/4 2002.
[4] ibid.
[5]Monica K Miller, Samuel C Lindsey, and Jennifer A Kaufman. Legal and Criminological Psychology: The religious conversion and race of a prisoner: Mock parole board members' decisions, perceptions, and emotions. (vol 18, issue 1) First published online 26 SEP 2012 URL:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8333.2012.02063.x/abstract