The first problem is that many people who report they belong to a religion are in fact (if you could force them to be honest) nonbelievers conforming to family expectations and peer pressures.
Couldn't agree more. Statistics to do with faith are as pointless as ejector seats in helicopters.
Of course you realise that that comfortably enables you not to be associated with the inconvenient aspects of masses, while not addressing whatsoever any of the points raised
And as always, the horror of the tar brush is not just about the stain, but also about the unfairness of such black or white judgements.
Of course such stats cannot discern the greys.
That is a given.
And when you look at the stats in every category, the unspoken real outcome is the awareness that the vast majority of individuals in all categories appear law abiding (at least).
So as per usual, the members of any particular category, if indeed they fall within the vast majority of good people, are going to feel defensive regarding any data assembly that generates an outcome that doesn't appear to represent them or their personal mores accurately.
Let's look at this another way mm
Let's for the sake of your argument say that every one of these stats is flawed.
Let's propose that if people were being strictly honest the reported numbers of atheists would be higher and theists lower.
Let's propose the idea that those adjusted numbers would actually mirror the categorical percentage breakdown found outside of prison.
Then I ask you three questions specific to the OP linked article addressing the hypocrisy of the theist attack on atheists' morality and trustworthiness
1. If a god given morality is the only real source of trustworthy and accurate morality,(as claimed by some theists in their condemnation of atheists) why is there (even with this hypothetical's necessarily adjusted figures) absolutely no discernible difference in "apparent and observable" morality between the categories?
If atheists and theists are jailed in direct proportion to their population stats, it only shows god does not enter the equation what so ever.
2. If there is no observable effect (due to the morality's source) on the efficacy of the specific categorical morality as a guiding tool, what actual tool, or what actual database, are these theists using to condemn atheists out of hand to be untrustworthy and immoral?
3. Would you agree that to maintain this hypocritical condemnation of atheists even in the face of these (massively tweaked for the hypotheticals) figures would be an immoral act by any theist doing so?
And mm please understand, I am not including you among them, I am talking about the theists who do condemn atheists out of hand to be untrustworthy and immoral.