Okay seriously

[Esquilax]

No. I just used logic (you should try using it for once) and the fact that Christians told me of their great successes at converting prisoners; it was much more difficult doing the same with the prison guards. The prison guards were open to having the ministry at the prisons because they wanted the clerics to tame the most unruly of inmates.

What's your sample size? Anywhere approaching even half of the prisons in the US? I doubt it, leaving this as an intuitive leap based on what you want to be true, rather than what the data reflects. And that's even assuming I just accept your sources, which I wouldn't, as "christians" is so vague as to be useless.

There's also the fact that your entire support here only fulfills half of what your claim was, even if it was useful data: converted from what? To what? Converted how? See, without establishing these prisoners as non believers all you've really demonstrated is that predatory preachers were able to find people at a vulnerable time in their life and offer them a little merit badge that goes over well with parole boards. Hell, becoming a catholic from a protestant is converting, going from vague, noncommittal deism to any form of christianity is converting.

You say you use logic, but is this really what you think logic is? "A friend of a friend told me..." plus vague language, not to mention the extreme inbuilt bias that comes with christian proselytizers and their habit of piety-bragging. It's like you're overstressing a case that isn't even there, and you say I'm not using logic?