Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Rise Of The "Nones"  
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4127 times:

http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2013/03/12/non-believers/

Quote:
Religious affiliation in the United States is at its lowest point since it began to be tracked in the 1930s, according to analysis of newly released survey data by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, and Duke University. Last year, one in five Americans claimed they had no religious preference, more than double the number reported in 1990.

As a nonbeliever, it's something that I find heartening. The interesting bit is that the "nones" are larger than every other religious group, including Southern Baptists and Methodists except for Catholics in the USA.

More worrying for churches is that about 33% of 18-24yo's identified themselves as "nones." Thus, the trend is likely to continue.

Why is this? I have a number of theories, mostly having to do with the fact that the things that churches have been preaching have gotten so absurd that it turns people off (especially educated people). Whether it's creationism, an obsession with sex, or gay-bashing, a lot of young people are sick of hearing it and walking out.

This article has some more commentary:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wayne-...losing-its-religion_b_1951650.html

The above article makes the point that not only is gay-bashing partially to blame, but that the actual number of unaffiliated is actually higher than 20%. A lot of people will check off "Catholic" on a form even when they haven't been to Church in 20 years.

As a nonbeliever (I've stopped calling myself an "atheist" ever since "atheists" co-opted it into a quasi-religion), I find this heartening and I'm quite happy to see everyone stop believing. But I also know that won't happen.

The churches, especially the Protestant ones, are going to have to have a little "Come to Jesus" moment as it were. If they are going to win back the hearts of the young and keep the hearts of the old, they need to switch their tune from one of condemnation to one of welcome and acceptance. "You are loved by God and by this church, no matter who or what you are." And they are going to have to show it in deed, not just in words. They are going to have to back out of social issues like contraception and abortion that matter to young people. They are going to have to re-model themselves not as indoctrination centers that control culture and education, but as community organizations that unite people.

Otherwise, they are going to run into a problem as the donation plate runs dry.

What do you think the future holds? I think many churches will not change and that such ultra-conservative institutions as the Southern Baptist Church is doomed to obscurity.

[Edited 2013-07-01 20:54:19]

91 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4068 times:

This is a sign that the church has failed to adapt to modern times. Its values and ethics seem to be stuck in the dark ages.

I may be a 'none' as well, but I understand the need for faith and its usefulness in society.
People are getting more educated and the idiosyncrasies and hypocrisies of the values preached are starting to become way too obvious. Their stance on gays for instance, sexual behaviors generally speaking, ultra-conservative family policies, the increased division of churches and religions which all refuse to accept each other while preaching 'tolerance'...

There is a place for religion, but I fear none of the offered options live up to the newer generations.
Not to mention that as religion is (unfortunately) something that is often passed on to next generations by parents imposing their views on impressionable children, the trend will likely amplify itself.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlinejetblueguy22 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 2845 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 4042 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why is this? I have a number of theories, mostly having to do with the fact that the things that churches have been preaching have gotten so absurd that it turns people off (especially educated people). Whether it's creationism, an obsession with sex, or gay-bashing, a lot of young people are sick of hearing it and walking out.

I think the gay marriage debate with the younger generation plays a big factor. I attended Catholic school. I think in my class of 100 students, maybe 5 didn't support gay marriage. The sex thing doesn't help either, but I don't think sex is as much of an "epidemic" today as it was even 50 years ago. People are just more open about it.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I find this heartening and I'm quite happy to see everyone stop believing. But I also know that won't happen.

Honest question Doc. Why do you find happiness in people not believing in a God or gods? Just trying to pick your brain. I don't think belief in a God makes you a good or bad person. It's how you live your life. But I also do believe in a higher power.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
What do you think the future holds? I think many churches will not change and that such ultra-conservative institutions as the Southern Baptist Church is doomed to obscurity.

I don't think religion itself as an institution is doomed. The Southern Baptist Churches pull an incredible amount of people. But I do agree if they don't become a little more liberal they are going to have some issues. Churches do need to move forward, but they are never with the times.

I think the problem with the 18-24 generation isn't that their eyes are opening or anything of that nature. It's how our minds are wired. Look at someone in that age group. They are always plugged into the world. Whether it be their smartphone, tablet, or PC. Church you have to devote an hour of your life to unplugging from that world. Yes some of the policies are off putting. It isn't "cool" like attending a football game or some sporting event. Church needs energy to attract young people. You can't do that when a 68 year old priest who typed his sermon on a typewriter is telling you that you are wrong in how you live your life. We had a young priest at my old Parish join the ranks. His masses were always filled with young people because he could connect with us and understand life in current day. The old geezers can't do that. Maybe I'm just blind to the future. But I don't think we are going to see churches disappear left and right.
Pat



All of the opinions stated above are mine and do not represent Airliners.net or my employer unless otherwise stated.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4015 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
More worrying for churches is that about 33% of 18-24yo's identified themselves as "nones." Thus, the trend is likely to continue.

Why is this? I have a number of theories, mostly having to do with the fact that the things that churches have been preaching have gotten so absurd that it turns people off (especially educated people). Whether it's creationism, an obsession with sex, or gay-bashing, a lot of young people are sick of hearing it and walking out.

As one of said young people, I'll say you hit the nail on the head, Doc.

My own personal experience is pretty in line with this. I made the decision in high school (probably around the age 16) to live my life as a non-believer. The timing was not a coincidence though, as this was also around the time I became fascinated with religion. I know that sounds odd, but it was my fascination that lead me to do my research and I came to the following conclusions: 1) I don't need the Bible (or any other holy book) to tell me how to be a good person, 2) religion creates so much harm in the name of what they see as good, and 3) the notion of an all-powerful God (or whichever other supernatural being) is just silly.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
A lot of people will check off "Catholic" on a form even when they haven't been to Church in 20 years.

I know dozens of these people. I find it amusing.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I've stopped calling myself an "atheist" ever since "atheists" co-opted it into a quasi-religion

I still drop the A-word from time to time, but I've started using it much less for that exact reason (we all read about that "Secular Church" out in Calgary...). I prefer to just use the term "non-religious", as "non-believer" sounds rather brash to me, but at the end of the day it's all the same.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
What do you think the future holds? I think many churches will not change and that such ultra-conservative institutions as the Southern Baptist Church is doomed to obscurity.

I hate to say it, but I think you're right. The reason I don't like it is because of the tendency for groups to become more extreme when they are threatened. We really don't need any more Westboro Baptist Churches.

My own prediction is that believers will be in the minority (at least in North America) in my lifetime. Just as obsolete technology will always get dumped for newer, better models, it's inevitable that more and more people will disassociate from religions that are archaic and slow to adapt (if they adapt at all).

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 2):
They are always plugged into the world.

I think that's the point. People our age in 2013 are far more in tune with the world around us than our parents when they were our age. As we "plug in", we see things that never would have been available for our parents to see. Before, we only knew of the good that religion did because that's all we heard in sermon...but with infinite real-time information available at our fingertips, we now get to see the bad that religion can do. I highly doubt that when you unplug for a couple hours on a Sunday morning that the priest is going to tell you about religiously-motivated issues going on in Uganda, Russia, or the Middle East. It's bad for business.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3986 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
A lot of people will check off "Catholic" on a form even when they haven't been to Church in 20 years.

I was baptized catholic but obviously no one asked me at the time if I wanted to sign up for a criminal outfit with a predeliction for young boys and three card monte for those that abuse them.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
What do you think the future holds?

The slow disappearance of religion and relegation to the bin of quackery where it belongs.... I think there was a recent study in the last year or two predicting that based on changing tastes and social patterns, religion will largely disappear from the Western world in a couple generations. I'll have to find it...

I think people are also starting to question the unwavering respect religion has commanded forever. If any corporation acted even remotely similar to any of the world's major religions, it would make Enron look like Martha Stewart's whoopsie-daisie. The effect of religion over the centuries, and still today, is so net negative, that the respect and tax free status they receive is an outright insult.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8293 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3969 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why is this? I have a number of theories, mostly having to do with the fact that the things that churches have been preaching have gotten so absurd that it turns people off (especially educated people). Whether it's creationism, an obsession with sex, or gay-bashing, a lot of young people are sick of hearing it and walking out.

I would say another strong influence is the prevalence of households where both parents work. Important rituals like praying together before eating and such fall by the wayside when kids grow up with a do-it-yourself approach to dinner.

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
What do you think the future holds?

This trend definitely intensifies and continues indefinitely, and has a lot of generational effect.

My grandmother did her best to raise three serious Jews, but my grandfather was working all the time and would sleep on Saturdays when she and the kids went to synagogue. Now only one of my dad's siblings treats his faith seriously, but probably only because he married a woman who later became the director of their JCC!

Similarly, my mom's family was raised by two serious Catholics, as I don't think those grandparents have missed a single Sunday in their 58 years of marriage. Much to their dismay, all five of their kids never attend church regularly now.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
The slow disappearance of religion and relegation to the bin of quackery where it belongs.... I think there was a recent study in the last year or two predicting that based on changing tastes and social patterns, religion will largely disappear from the Western world in a couple generations. I'll have to find it...

I think people are also starting to question the unwavering respect religion has commanded forever. If any corporation acted even remotely similar to any of the world's major religions, it would make Enron look like Martha Stewart's whoopsie-daisie.

LOL, precisely this.   



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3967 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 1):
This is a sign that the church has failed to adapt to modern times. Its values and ethics seem to be stuck in the dark ages.

That's why I'm heartened by the signals coming from the Vatican these days. It's a very small step in the right direction.

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 2):
Why do you find happiness in people not believing in a God or gods?

Having been brought up with a set of beliefs without them encompassing a deity or formal religion, I'm always fascinated by the love/hate relationship people have with the structures of belief systems. I've always felt that if someone wants to go to a church, synagogue, mosque, or where ever, peace be with them, the choice is theirs, as the country I was born and live in was founded on the principles of both freedom of religion and the freedom from religion.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3848 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3951 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 6):
It's a very small step in the right direction.

Yes, Pope Francis is definitely a breath of fresh air. As a non catholic and atheist, I must say I really like him.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6846 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 3915 times:

I think that within the hearts and minds of most people there is the common sense side to religion, i.e. be nice to other people, don't steal, don't kill, so they don't really need the fantasy world that's been tagged onto it that then constrains them in what they want to do and leads to all sorts of oddball interpretations of the sacred texts.

I don't even want to be a "None". Everything seems to have a label these days and once you have a label you have the baggage of imagined stereotypes that go with the label and then it becomes a binary situation of you're with us or against us, pride of identity or insult. "Atheist! blah, blah, blah..." "Christian! yak yak yak..."

Lots of the problems these days seem to stem from the polar opposites of a highly technical, instant gratification world of gizmos, social media and communication and the very "backward" slow moving, more contemplative, inward looking, be good and in 80 years you'll get your reward, world of religion and the kids don't go for it. The thrills are online and now, not in the miracles and wonders of 2000 years ago that may or may not have happened anyway. But, beware false prophets leading you astray!

An other issue is the fragmentation of society. In our commercial world people are a lot more likely to move away from their family and community for work and this breaks the psychological ties that had families doing things together, like going to church. That's what you did and you didn't want the social stigma of not going to church. Once you're away from that, the grip isn't so strong.


Does the survey have a state-by-state breakdown of religious affiliation? Is the bible belt still the bible belt? Is it stronger or weaker?



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7846 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3901 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
The slow disappearance of religion and relegation to the bin of quackery where it belongs

It's not the slow disappearance of religion it's the slow disappearance of christianity, islam is growing.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1891 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3883 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
It's not the slow disappearance of religion it's the slow disappearance of christianity, islam is growing.

Give them time to get some education and nice salaries and they'll start going the none route, too.

My kid has a 2nd generation Moroccan on his class whose older siblings booze every bit as much as any local. I don't think they feel any different from the Catholic born, and they will very likely intermarry with a local.

There's the issue of Ghetto-isation on bigger agglomerations (French famous banlieues, Netherlands... to a lesser extent here in Madrid and Barcelona, too) that seem to perpetuate their beliefs and customs for a bit longer, but in the end the easy western middle-class life wins.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7846 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3842 times:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
My kid has a 2nd generation Moroccan on his class whose older siblings booze every bit as much as any local. I don't think they feel any different from the Catholic born, and they will very likely intermarry with a local.

Pakistanis here in Norway are onto the third generation, they don't intermarry, they drag a cousin out from Pakistan to marry or something similar. To you and I they might not appear much different from a local but it's whats going on inside their heads that different, take the London bombers as an example, born in the UK, grown up in the UK but still crazy as muslim religious nutters underneath.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
Give them time to get some education and nice salaries and they'll start going the none route, too.

By the time that happens you and I will most likely be dead.


User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3815 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
As a nonbeliever (I've stopped calling myself an "atheist" ever since "atheists" co-opted it into a quasi-religion), I find this heartening and I'm quite happy to see everyone stop believing. But I also know that won't happen.

I wonder if American religious institutions might evolve toward a different model: instead of being based on faith, being based on shared community ties or a shared heritage (which is not necessarily a bad thing). Non-Orthodox Jewish synagogues and temples essentially already operate this way.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
Why is this? I have a number of theories, mostly having to do with the fact that the things that churches have been preaching have gotten so absurd that it turns people off (especially educated people). Whether it's creationism, an obsession with sex, or gay-bashing, a lot of young people are sick of hearing it and walking out.

The most important reason is that the world has so much interesting things to see and do, religion is just falling below the attention line. Be sure, if a massive crisis comes, religions will rise again.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 1):
This is a sign that the church has failed to adapt to modern times. Its values and ethics seem to be stuck in the dark ages.

That is right. But the churches are in a dilemma: what they preach, IS oldfashioned as its from former times. How can you change rules written down by god himself, or Mohammad, or ...

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 2):
I think the gay marriage debate with the younger generation plays a big factor.

I dont think so, its before all a big media campaign, and it´ll die down once its legalised everywhere. Gays are a very small minority with an overproportionally big lobby nowadays.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
It's not the slow disappearance of religion it's the slow disappearance of christianity, islam is growing.

Because Islam is were anti-westerners to group around and the percentage of uneducated people, or people with restricted information and under oppression is much higher. I find that worrying. But:

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
Give them time to get some education and nice salaries and they'll start going the none route, too.

Exactly. Look at muslims who immigrated to a free society and made some money. The second generation is not much different to westerners.

I do believe in god, someting almighty who is behind this world, whatever that is. I am still a member of the church and will remain so, as I think that the world needs orientation, and the Christian values are the best I can think of (the Christian values, which is not always the same as what the Churches preach). If you take away religion, what rules remain? State rules, laws, and how they can possibly be bent history has shown drastically enough. There is a huge danger in a society of "nones". People who have nothing to loose, nothing to fear but the police are potentially dangerous.


User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1891 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3801 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 11):
Pakistanis here in Norway are onto the third generation, they don't intermarry, they drag a cousin out from Pakistan to marry or something similar.

Hence my mention of ghettoes, at least here that's confined to the bigger cities where they can make their communities, on small towns like the one I live in I don't recall seeing a single covered woman (much less a burka) even though there are Moroccan, Algerian, etc. citizens around.

It may be that Maghrebi might possibly more open-minded than rural Pakistani but as you can see in places with decent incomes like Turkey the more educated and affluent, the more atheist you get.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 12):
being based on shared community ties or a shared heritage (which is not necessarily a bad thing)

This also makes me nervous. "We're together because we share our heritage" sounds fine until you add the necessary counter point: "And if you don't, then you can't be one of us."

Quoting jetblueguy22 (Reply 2):
Why do you find happiness in people not believing in a God or gods? Just trying to pick your brain. I don't think belief in a God makes you a good or bad person. It's how you live your life. But I also do believe in a higher power.

Because belief in a higher power can lead to "charisma." Someone who claims to be plugged into that higher power. And that is a source of a lot of evil. In fact, it has been the root of most (not all) of the evil in Western history.

To have that rejected as simple delusion removes any authority that can be claimed.

As it happens right now, we have seen religious leaders (especially in the Catholic Church) respond to the rise of gay rights with some truly evil and nasty bullying tactics. Take this letter from a priest basically telling a mother to choose between her son and her Church. http://www.truthwinsout.org/wp-conte...loads/2012/10/nienstedt_letter.bmp

The other thing is that it doesn't take a huge leap to conclude that if the good people in your church are believers, then your beliefs must make you a good person. And that's exactly what so many religions have done, especially the Catholic Church, but also Islam. It doesn't matter that you're running brothels and dungeons and killing people in scores, as long as you're Catholic, you're righteous. Similarly, in Bin Laden's lair, we found his porn stash. It leads to horrible hypocrisy.

There are other ways, I submit, to organize communities to come together to do good works without having to invoke a higher power.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
It doesn't matter that you're running brothels and dungeons and killing people in scores, as long as you're Catholic, you're righteous.

Tell me, when has that ever been said by the Catholic Church, the long gone dark middle ages excluded? Its simply untrue what you are saying.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3685 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
net negative

   That's the word of the hour. Religion does plenty good, but in my opinion it doesn't do enough to cover its losses.

Quoting oly720man (Reply 8):
I don't even want to be a "None". Everything seems to have a label these days and once you have a label you have the baggage of imagined stereotypes that go with the label and then it becomes a binary situation of you're with us or against us, pride of identity or insult. "Atheist! blah, blah, blah..." "Christian! yak yak yak..."

What label do you attach to someone who is non-religious? The whole point is that there's nothing to associate to them since they don't prescribe to any belief system. Of course you'll get the odd hardcore Christian who will consider non-believers to be "heathens" or what have you, but that's really their problem since non-believers won't be particularly troubled by it.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
Give them time to get some education and nice salaries and they'll start going the none route, too.

Agreed. Look at the extremists and their supporters. The well-educated ones are quite the minority.

Quoting na (Reply 13):
I dont think so, its before all a big media campaign, and it´ll die down once its legalised everywhere.

You've slightly contradicted yourself. How can something that's not a big factor "die down"? If there's something to die down, surely it must be considerable.

Anyway, I must disagree. As I mentioned in my first post, I am one of said young people, and many of my peers name the equality debate quite high in their reasons for distancing themselves from religion. A reasonable, in-touch youth doesn't want to be linked to a group that actively discriminates against another group that bases their beliefs on their interpretation of 2,000-year old texts.

Although I do agree that as more jurisdictions/countries legalize gay marriage, it won't be as hot a topic.

Quoting na (Reply 13):
There is a huge danger in a society of "nones". People who have nothing to loose, nothing to fear but the police are potentially dangerous.

So because they don't fear an unseen supernatural power, that somehow makes them dangerous? You're going to have to expound on that point a little more before any non-influenced individual is convinced.   



Flying refined.
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3682 times:

Quoting na (Reply 13):
If you take away religion, what rules remain? State rules, laws, and how they can possibly be bent history has shown drastically enough. There is a huge danger in a society of "nones". People who have nothing to loose, nothing to fear but the police are potentially dangerous.

That has always been the claim made by monopolistic religions: That exactly they "owned" ethical standards and that not having their specific religion would turn people into unconscientious monsters.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In actual fact, religious people have turned out to be not any more ethical in their actual behaviours than atheists, if not not actually less so.

Compassion and ethical behaviour are innate traits of human beings. Not always dominant, but that is clearly observable in religious people just as well.

Religions have just co-opted what humanity always had, and in many cases twisted it beyond recognition through dogma and orthodoxy.

When you're an atheist, you yourself have the responsibility to treat others with respect and dignity – and there is no cop-out á la "These people are not members of my own cult, so they deserve to be treated badly!"

Atheists can be horrible people as well, but they don't have the convenient excuses available which are provided by religious hypocrisy.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
Because belief in a higher power can lead to "charisma." Someone who claims to be plugged into that higher power. And that is a source of a lot of evil. In fact, it has been the root of most (not all) of the evil in Western history.

That is not really dependent on religion, nor is it automatically evil. Lenin and Hitler were highly charismatic, but also Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

When you have the power to inspire people, your personal responsibility grows proportionally. And you may or may not be capable and willing to meet that responsibility.


User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3677 times:

Quoting us330 (Reply 12):

I wonder if American religious institutions might evolve toward a different model: instead of being based on faith, being based on shared community ties or a shared heritage (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

If that ever happens then churches in America should just shut their doors and give up. Local churches are not meant to be social clubs.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3659 times:

Just to add: The development in Germany is similar. We now have about a third each of (nominal!) catholics, protestants and unaffiliated people (with a few percent of other denominations).

The unaffiliated part has been growing here as well, and even many if not most of the officially registered religious people actually aren't – most just haven't declared their exit from their parents' and grandparents' church yet (which determines whether church tax is deduced from your income).

Religion plays a much smaller role in Germany than in the USA, however – intensely religious people are mostly regarded as weirdos here (if not as outright lunatics) and are not taken seriously in the public discourse.

"Normal" religion-affiiliated people and clerics are recognized and heard, however, as long as their arguments are generally reasonable. Even our current widely respected president is a former protestant pastor. But his religious background is not a significant factor.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3646 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
What do you think the future holds? I think many churches will not change and that such ultra-conservative institutions as the Southern Baptist Church is doomed to obscurity.

A church's hands are tied - at least if the leaders themselves are true believers, and not just in it as a business. The whole idea of a Church is that the rules that govern right vs wrong are unchanging and immutable. If adultery was wrong a thousand years ago, how can it be OK now, unless there is some sort of divine intervention to that effect?

In America, where you can start your own church very easily, you could easily start a "Church of Sex Drugs and Rock & Roll" which might be very popular, but would be obviously seen as a sellout.

I would argue that part of the decline in church membership is not due to their refusal to change the rule, but just the opposite. I know that the Episcopal church, for instance, lost a lot of members when they officially recognized gay marriage. Members saw the church selling out their values.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6846 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3638 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
What label do you attach to someone who is non-religious?

Atheist, usually, though now atheist seems to have been claimed by the "fundamentalists" another one may be needed.

What I was trying to say is that people aren't seen as people, but judged by whatever label gets ascribed to them as if that's their only defining identity.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3611 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
you could easily start a "Church of Sex [...]" which might be very popular

Au contraire!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsnXQdkqChg (NSFW)

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
I would argue that part of the decline in church membership is not due to their refusal to change the rule, but just the opposite. I know that the Episcopal church, for instance, lost a lot of members when they officially recognized gay marriage. Members saw the church selling out their values.

That's a completely different conversation though. The members who left the Episcopal Church left and joined other churches that aligned more with their "traditional" beliefs...they didn't suddenly fall into this category of "none". They remained to identify themselves as Christians. As far as the OP's study goes, that movement wouldn't be statistically relevant.

Quoting oly720man (Reply 22):
Atheist, usually, though now atheist seems to have been claimed by the "fundamentalists" another one may be needed.

Not the answer I was expecting, but I see your point. I don't see that as necessarily being a negative label in a reasonable society. I only have one friend/acqaintance in my age bracket that uses the word "atheism" as if it were some terrible taboo...but he works for The Dream Center, so nothing particularly shocking about that.



Flying refined.
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
You've slightly contradicted yourself. How can something that's not a big factor "die down"? If there's something to die down, surely it must be considerable.

Why? I said, gays are a small minority, one percent, maybe two. And I said that the media attention is big. That is two different things. I think once the media becomes quiet, an it will after it has been achieved what is being claimed for, the discussion around it will die down.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
Anyway, I must disagree. As I mentioned in my first post, I am one of said young people, and many of my peers name the equality debate quite high in their reasons for distancing themselves from religion.

Why do they name the equality debate quite high? Not the least because there´s such a huge media campaign going on. If it would be treated like other things concerning small minorities no one would talk about it.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
That has always been the claim made by monopolistic religions: That exactly they "owned" ethical standards and that not having their specific religion would turn people into unconscientious monsters.

Thats grossly exaggerated, buth true at the core.

Nothing could be further from the truth.[/quote]
Oh really? Any proof? It might no have extreme effects on rich societies as long as they are rich, but I am afraid about what would happen to the huge rest of the world.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
When you're an atheist, you yourself have the responsibility to treat others with respect and dignity

Sadly there are far too many irresponsible people living on this planet. Its all fine in theory.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3570 times:

Quoting na (Reply 24):
Why? I said, gays are a small minority, one percent, maybe two. And I said that the media attention is big. That is two different things.

The relative importance of the factor is not tied to the size of the population it concerns. Just because gays make up 2% of the population, it doesn't mean that it should only be a tiny factor of why someone should dislike Christianity/Islam.

Quoting na (Reply 24):
Why do they name the equality debate quite high?

Today's well-connected youth recognize the injustice of granting certain rights to one group and not another, based on factors that are outside of the individual's control. Equality in general (not just on the gay marriage front) is listed as a priority of any of today's more progressive youth. Where church was once the social glue in communities of like-minded people, technology serves as that glue today, and thus allows the secular humanists to come together and educate others.

(I totally sound like some communist liberal arts student there, but I promise I'm not!   )

Quoting na (Reply 24):
Not the least because there´s such a huge media campaign going on.

And why do you suppose such a media campaign was initiated?

Quoting na (Reply 24):
Oh really? Any proof?

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I feel like putting in my two cents...As someone who semi-frequently engages in debates of theism vs. atheism, I can assure you that there are no shortage of religious people (typically Christians, because that's the religion most of my religious friends prescribe to) that truly believe that we would not have laws against murder, theft, etc. if it were not for the Ten Commandments. According to them, if not for the Ten Commandments and the Bible, society would descend into anarchy whereby everything would be fair game.

Of course the idea that any religion could claim they own ethical standards in modern society is the furthest thing from the truth.

Human morality is birthed from the human condition, not from an ancient text. Of course it can be altered by influences and experiences during the course of one's life, but 99.99999% humans aren't born saying "I'm going to devote my life to killing people".



Flying refined.
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3531 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
The churches, especially the Protestant ones, are going to have to have a little "Come to Jesus" moment as it were. If they are going to win back the hearts of the young and keep the hearts of the old, they need to switch their tune from one of condemnation to one of welcome and acceptance. "You are loved by God and by this church, no matter who or what you are." And they are going to have to show it in deed, not just in words.

There actually are such churches in the U.S., even if relatively few in number... and they are not only 'maintaining' their congregations but growing, some having weekly attendance of ~10k, plus others seeing 1k+ every week and growing... with much if not most to nearly all of their growth seeming to come from the 18-30 age group. In many (if not most) cases, such churches are not so much "win[ning] back the hearts of the young" as they are winning their hearts for the very first time.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3526 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):
A church's hands are tied - at least if the leaders themselves are true believers, and not just in it as a business.

But history has shown that churches bend. Sometimes slowly. I believe it was Pope JPII who finally admitted that the Catholic Church's handling of the Galileo affair might have been a bit inappropriate. Similarly, the Book of Revelations clearly describes a flat Earth with four corners and yet few churches insist on that model.

Until relatively recently, several American churches essentially canonized racism. The LDS Church (a church with a long history of backtracking on multiple issues) used to ban non-Whites from joining, IIRC. They also banned polygamy after coming to an agreement with the government, even though this was supposedly central to their theology. The Southern Baptist Church is *still* in the end stages of finally accepting interracial marriage without question. In fact, the entire impetus for the formation of the Southern Baptist Church (its separation from the Northern Baptist Church) was the fact that the Northern Baptist Church would not condone slavery.

So I disagree that hands are tied. Changes can and do happen.

Quoting na (Reply 16):

Tell me, when has that ever been said by the Catholic Church, the long gone dark middle ages excluded?

Translation: "When has that ever been said by the Catholic Church other than when it was said by the Catholic Church?" That's an absurd question. It was the position of the Church during the 15th and 16th centuries. They ran brothels in Spain, for example. To work in one, you had to be 14 and your name could not be Maria.

Oh wait... except TO THIS DAY it turns out that the Catholic Church has been sheltering pedophiles, running child prostitution rings and human trafficking and the only reason that they've taken any action on it is because it got out and went public.

Quoting na (Reply 13):
If you take away religion, what rules remain?

This argument always frightens us nonbelievers. What you are saying is that religion is necessary to impose morality. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc. etc. etc. Without religion (and the inherent coercive threat of hell and promise of heaven), then what is there to make people play nice?

Do you not see how this scares the bujeezus out of us? What you are saying is that the only thing between you behaving like a civilized man and turning into a marauding mongol warrior (remember: always pillage before you burn) is your belief in God, Heaven, and Hell. Yes, that is actually what you are saying.

As a nonbeliever, the idea that I should treat other people with kindness and dignity is self-evident and I don't need a deity to spell it out.

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 26):
There actually are such churches in the U.S., even if relatively few in number...

There are, and I find it heartening. After all, we may disagree on whether there needs to be a "God," but I will not respect the dehumanization of others based on religion.


User currently offlinezippyjet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 5554 posts, RR: 13
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3413 times:

There are many reasons, such as religious institutions becoming like our government, bloated out of control, judgemental with several nasty scandals. Also people are tiring of the fundamentalist "street gang mindset." Meaning it's our way or the highway to hell. Just my 2 cents.


I'm Zippyjet & I approve of this message!
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3346 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 21):

A church's hands are tied - at least if the leaders themselves are true believers, and not just in it as a business. The whole idea of a Church is that the rules that govern right vs wrong are unchanging and immutable

Sounds like a personal problem...

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
What you are saying is that religion is necessary to impose morality

Which is a problem because there's, you know, history, and millenia of religions behaving badly.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3345 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 29):
Which is a problem because there's, you know, history, and millenia of religions behaving badly.

And yet oddly, some don't. Like the Bhuddists and Taoists. And then there are the Jain, who are infuriatingly harmless. They wear cloths over their mouths to avoid breathing in flies and prepare their food in such a way as to kill as few bacteria as possible. Jain extremists are a strange thing, because unlike, say, Christian extremists, Jain extremists are extremely harmless. Frustratingly so.

One of the strongest predictors of violence in a society is the presence of a dominant religion that believes in an omnipotent entity who intervenes in daily affairs. Oddly, such societies are the most abstemous when it comes to physical affection of parents towards infants and in permitting teenagers to explore their sexuality.


User currently offlineDoona From Sweden, joined Feb 2005, 3772 posts, RR: 13
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3320 times:

Quoting na (Reply 24):
Sadly there are far too many irresponsible people living on this planet. Its all fine in theory.

So it's only thanks to religion that those "irresponsible people" stay on the straight and narrow?

Cheers
Mats



Sure, we're concerned for our lives. Just not as concerned as saving 9 bucks on a roundtrip to Ft. Myers.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3318 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
And yet oddly, some don't.

I don't know much about Taoists or Jains but I like that Buddhism requires a lot of work to improve oneself, and not a lot of things, whereas the major religions have proud histories of amassing wealth at horrible expense, and doing as little self improvement as possible whilst maximizing blame on everyone else.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3287 times:

Quoting Doona (Reply 31):
So it's only thanks to religion that those "irresponsible people" stay on the straight and narrow?

No one said "only". But you have to see that in many societies there isnt much orientation left.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
Oh wait... except TO THIS DAY it turns out that the Catholic Church has been sheltering pedophiles, running child prostitution rings and human trafficking and the only reason that they've taken any action on it is because it got out and went public.

Where does THE Catholic Church run child prostitution rings? You seem to mix some criminal priests with THE Church.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
Translation: "When has that ever been said by the Catholic Church other than when it was said by the Catholic Church?" That's an absurd question.


No, it isnt. Because always when it comes to argue against the Churches the main horror stories that are cited are 500 years old and older. Thats not the church of today.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
They ran brothels in Spain, for example. To work in one, you had to be 14 and your name could not be Maria.

I have never heard about that.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
As a nonbeliever, the idea that I should treat other people with kindness and dignity is self-evident

Again you mix yourself with other people. YOU, as a single person, are a responsible person for whom its self-evident. I am afraid many are not.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
And why do you suppose such a media campaign was initiated?

Among others because there is an overrepresentation of gays in the media. Btw, I am not against gay marriage as a symbol of partnership.

That said, again, I am not a devoted Christian swearing on everything in the bible, but I have come to the conclusion that the basic rules TODAYS Christian Church stands for (and I do not care if Catholic or protestant) are very important to society. The humanity needs some largely, or potentially independent orientation beside state law. I wont even limit it to the Christian Church. Look at overcrowded India, without the Hindu religion it would be a nightmare slaughterhouse. Thats my opinion after having been there numerous times.


User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3267 times:

Quoting na (Reply 33):
You seem to mix some criminal priests with THE Church.

I find the church far more despicable in this case, since I don't believe the criminal (read: pedophile) priests are mentally sound. The higher ups however, that shuffle around and hide the problem priests rather than ejecting them and/or getting them help, are totally aware of what they are doing and know better.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13765 posts, RR: 61
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 3268 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DocLightning (Thread starter):
I find this heartening and I'm quite happy to see everyone stop believing.

While I'm not the most religious person, I do believe in God. I'm absolutely not offended in any way by those who believe otherwise, however can you see where this post could be considered offensive by some?

For example; how would you react if there were a thread posted by someone talking about the "Rise of Catholicism/Judaism/Hinduism/whatever" and how they "find it heartening and quite happy to see people believing" the same way that individual does?

I have a feeling many here would be shouting them down about how inappropriate the thread was, how people should be applauded for believing what they want, not what YOU think is right, etc.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineus330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3877 posts, RR: 13
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3233 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15):
This also makes me nervous. "We're together because we share our heritage" sounds fine until you add the necessary counter point: "And if you don't, then you can't be one of us."

The counter point is far from "necessary," but I do understand concerns that such groups could promote self-segregation and prevent intermixing among people from different backgrounds. It's a question of balance, one that can really only be measured by the individuals associated with the group. Does the benefit of providing some sort of a community/social safety net outweigh the potential for individuals to stay solely within the group and use it for more than just a safety net?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 19):
Local churches are not meant to be social clubs

If that's the case, then why do so many churches offer sunday school programs, youth groups, and other events designed to facilitate social ties and interactions among congregants?


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3227 times:

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 35):
Catholicism/Judaism/Hinduism/whatever"

Dare not even mention scary Islam in there alongside the other two but add in Hinduism, funny and no whatever does not count, its not like the other philosophy and mythical types that can be labeled whatever.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 9):
It's not the slow disappearance of religion it's the slow disappearance of christianity, islam is growing.

True but its not the right type.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
Give them time to get some education and nice salaries and they'll start going the none route, too.
Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
My kid has a 2nd generation Moroccan on his class whose older siblings booze every bit as much as any local. I don't think they feel any different from the Catholic born, and they will very likely intermarry with a local.

No wont happen as KiwiRob pointed out with example in his reply.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 10):
but in the end the easy western middle-class life wins.

No have you not seen what immigrants are like in your countries despite many generations of being there, only a very small group opts for the western life style and most in that too the theiscultural and religious beliefs to an extent.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 14):
in places with decent incomes like Turkey the more educated and affluent, the more atheist you get.

Tuks aren't atheist theyre secular, belieiving but not practicing or letting religion govern. And yes Pakistanis are more conservative than North Africans but less than Gulf Arabs.

[Edited 2013-07-03 05:20:08]

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3177 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 34):
I find the church far more despicable in this case, since I don't believe the criminal (read: pedophile) priests are mentally sound. The higher ups however, that shuffle around and hide the problem priests rather than ejecting them and/or getting them help, are totally aware of what they are doing and know better.

Without a doubt the treatment has been far from ideal in the past. But you are generalising, how these cases were treated was rather different in different countries/dioceses. In some places the bishops looked away or send those criminals to other places, which of cause is inexcusable and criminal in itself. In other places they were removed completely and/or treated. All this was then, and I hope the new rules do not let that happen again. Child molesting or even rape is one of the worst crimes I can think of, and if a priest does it, its even worse.
Please note that the percentage of pedophiles in the catholic church isnt higher than in the wider society. Its only that the position of a priest that makes misbehavior easier. Something similar applies to trainers and teachers.


User currently offlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5373 posts, RR: 24
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3157 times:

I was baptised Greek Orthodox. We weren't particularly religious, but my mom would take us to church here and there. However, most Greek-Americans I know are actually quite religious. When I was a kid, I attended Greek language school taught by a very religious woman. I recall one day being called a liar in front of the whole class even though I was telling the truth, and then sitting through a lecture about how I was a sinner and could go to hell for lying. I was probably no more than 8 or 9 at the time. Why would you ever do that to a child? It's episodes such as this that made me drift from the church and organized religion. I can't abide this sort of behavior.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 4):
I think people are also starting to question the unwavering respect religion has commanded forever. If any corporation acted even remotely similar to any of the world's major religions, it would make Enron look like Martha Stewart's whoopsie-daisie. The effect of religion over the centuries, and still today, is so net negative, that the respect and tax free status they receive is an outright insult.

I would also say that many crimes committed by various governments pale in comparison to the crimes committed by various churches.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
Religion does plenty good, but in my opinion it doesn't do enough to cover its losses.

Precisely.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):
In actual fact, religious people have turned out to be not any more ethical in their actual behaviours than atheists, if not not actually less so.

Exactly! Some of the least ethical people I know also claim to be highly religious and vice versa.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 34):
The higher ups however, that shuffle around and hide the problem priests rather than ejecting them and/or getting them help, are totally aware of what they are doing and know better.

Truth. Had any other organization acted similarly to the Catholic Church, it would have collapsed under the weight of the scandal, and many of its leaders would now be imprisoned. Meanwhile, Pope John Paul is on the fast-track to sainthood.  



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 40, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3142 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 39):
I would also say that many crimes committed by various governments pale in comparison to the crimes committed by various churches.

Hitler, Stalin and Mao together likely killed more people than all other political or so-called religious criminals in the whole human history. All three were "Nones".

Quoting OA412 (Reply 39):
Truth. Had any other organization acted similarly to the Catholic Church, it would have collapsed under the weight of the scandal, and many of its leaders would now be imprisoned.

Agreed.


User currently offlinecgnnrw From Germany, joined May 2005, 1171 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3137 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 39):
I recall one day being called a liar in front of the whole class even though I was telling the truth, and then sitting through a lecture about how I was a sinner and could go to hell for lying. I was probably no more than 8 or 9 at the time. Why would you ever do that to a child? It's episodes such as this that made me drift from the church and organized religion. I can't abide this sort of behavior.

I experienced a similar incident, except I wasn't threatened with eternal damnation, I was in the 7th grade and attending a public school. I was accused of cheating and neither the teacher, the principal nor the guidance counselor believed me. Three adults threatening, shouting, name calling, making false accusations to a defenseless kid. The situation escalated to point they only relented after I fell to the floor crying and started to hyperventilate. Only then did the school decide to call my parents. They never proved I cheated (which I didn't) but I was "branded" a potential cheater and had to take all my tests in the principal's office for the rest of year.

My point is religion has done some screwed up stuff but they don't have a monopoly this type of behavior.



A330 man.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 42, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3106 times:

Quoting na (Reply 40):

Hitler, Stalin and Mao together likely killed more people than all other political or so-called religious criminals in the whole human history. All three were "Nones".

They were, except they weren't. Their behavior was very similar to that of a religion. There was a focus on absolute dogma and infallability. Rather than worshipping gods, they demanded that people worship the state.

So in many ways, the "atheist" communists are the exception that proves the rule.

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 35):
While I'm not the most religious person, I do believe in God. I'm absolutely not offended in any way by those who believe otherwise, however can you see where this post could be considered offensive by some?

Offensive because I idly wish everyone in the world would think like I do? I wonder who doesn't idly wish that?

Quoting na (Reply 33):
No, it isnt. Because always when it comes to argue against the Churches the main horror stories that are cited are 500 years old and older. Thats not the church of today.

Really? I was under the impression that the Vatican had existed in continuity. But to this day, the Vatican has sheltered prostitution rings and pedophiles, not to mention money launderers and other such criminals. So I reject any claim that the Vatican has on moral authority.

Quoting na (Reply 33):
Where does THE Catholic Church run child prostitution rings? You seem to mix some criminal priests with THE Church.

The Church is responsible for the behavior of its priests. It is responsible for conspiring to protect and hide those priests. They could not be exposed because knowledge of their existence would be seen as damaging to the Church. Except it turns out that the cover-up was far more damaging. So damaging that it led to the resignation of a Pope. A Pope whose future travel will be curtailed because certain countries might actually arrest and prosecute him on child endangerment charges.

Quoting na (Reply 33):
Again you mix yourself with other people. YOU, as a single person, are a responsible person for whom its self-evident. I am afraid many are not.

And if they are not, then religion will not help them. They will simply use religion to justify their behavior.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/...-religion-to-justify-their-crimes/

Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 35):
For example; how would you react if there were a thread posted by someone talking about the "Rise of Catholicism/Judaism/Hinduism/whatever" and how they "find it heartening and quite happy to see people believing" the same way that individual does?

Well, I'd disagree. Disagreements are healthy.  


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 3077 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
And yet oddly, some don't. Like the Bhuddists and Taoists.

Buddhists have quite a long history of engaging in conflict. It even happens still today in Thailand and Myanmar. Buddhists being completely non-violent is somewhat of a western myth.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):
And then there are the Jain, who are infuriatingly harmless. They wear cloths over their mouths to avoid breathing in flies and prepare their food in such a way as to kill as few bacteria as possible. Jain extremists are a strange thing, because unlike, say, Christian extremists, Jain extremists are extremely harmless. Frustratingly so.

This is true. I have a childhood friend who is Jain and his family are the quietest, least aggressive people I know.

Quoting na (Reply 33):
No, it isnt. Because always when it comes to argue against the Churches the main horror stories that are cited are 500 years old and older. Thats not the church of today.

Well, apart from the whole sexual abuse thing...

How about the Church going into Africa with all their missionaries and imposing their radical views of the Bible onto the natives? Do you really think Ugandans would be trying to put gays to death today if it weren't for the Christians coming in and convincing them that the Bible says being gay is wrong? It's really only an issue of the last 100 years that Africans have been radicalized by various religions.

Quoting na (Reply 33):
The humanity needs some largely, or potentially independent orientation beside state law.

Again, why? I'm not convinced that we need to believe in stories made up a couple thousand years ago or else we'll descend into chaos.

Quoting 777way (Reply 37):
Dare not even mention scary Islam in there alongside the other two but add in Hinduism, funny and no whatever does not count, its not like the other philosophy and mythical types that can be labeled whatever.

Who cares? The recurring theme of this thread is how ALL religions cause conflict and harm...nobody is picking on solely on Islam.

Quoting na (Reply 40):
Hitler, Stalin and Mao together likely killed more people than all other political or so-called religious criminals in the whole human history. All three were "Nones".

Well, Hitler's religious beliefs are highly debatable. I've seen convincing proof from both sides of the argument, so I'm not even going to touch that one.

But since you brought it up, the Crusades killed more people than Hitler and Stalin put together. Mao killed about 40,000,000 (average of the estimates), and there are no other comparable religious conflicts that are that high, but rather I would have to string a bunch of smaller ones together (and there are so, so many to choose from) to match that number, which I don't feel like spending the next 30 minutes doing. The point being, religious conflicts has most definitely killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.



Flying refined.
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43):
Who cares? The recurring theme of this thread is how ALL religions cause conflict and harm...nobody is picking on solely on Islam.

I just found it funny the poster acted as if the religion did not even exist keeping in mind events of the last decade and passed it onto the "whatever" group of philosophies and make beliefs, its like he went blank or hid his head ion the sand like an ostrich.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43):
Buddhists have quite a long history of engaging in conflict. It even happens still today in Thailand and Myanmar. Buddhists being completely non-violent is somewhat of a western myth.

True.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30):And then there are the Jain, who are infuriatingly harmless. They wear cloths over their mouths to avoid breathing in flies and prepare their food in such a way as to kill as few bacteria as possible. Jain extremists are a strange thing, because unlike, say, Christian extremists, Jain extremists are extremely harmless. Frustratingly so.

No mass following or conversions despite, says a lot.

[Edited 2013-07-03 13:32:38]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 45, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2995 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43):
The recurring theme of this thread is how ALL religions cause conflict and harm

Not all. Some, yes. Some more than others.

Religion is not necessary to cause evil. It certainly is one major cause, but the communists have demonstrated (in a way) that it is not necessary. Of course, I would argue that communism shares many features with a religion, but that's a different debate.

Religion is certainly sufficient to cause a lot of evil, though.


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 46, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

Quoting na (Reply 40):
Hitler, Stalin and Mao together likely killed more people than all other political or so-called religious criminals in the whole human history. All three were "Nones".

They all made their own religion of which they were the gods. Mao has still a huge flock, Hitler a small one, even Stalin is still highly appreciated in Russia from recent polls.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8965 posts, RR: 24
Reply 47, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2955 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 43):
But since you brought it up, the Crusades killed more people than Hitler and Stalin put together. Mao killed about 40,000,000 (average of the estimates), and there are no other comparable religious conflicts that are that high, but rather I would have to string a bunch of smaller ones together (and there are so, so many to choose from) to match that number, which I don't feel like spending the next 30 minutes doing. The point being, religious conflicts has most definitely killed more people than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

Estimate for Crusades: between 1 and 3 million (from the first through 3rd crusades - i.e. the big ones),

Estimates for Stalin: between 8 and 61 million,

Estimates for Mao: between 49 and 68 million,

Estimates for the Holocaust (not just Jews but political dissenters, all non-ayrians taken to the camps: between 4.2 and 17 million (And that does not count combat deaths for WWII itself.)

So where did you hear the Crusades killed more than Hitler and Stalin put together?

Oh yes - I forgot to mention. Mao, Stalin and Hitler were in the 20th century. The crusades were the better part of a millennium ago.

[Edited 2013-07-03 17:15:47]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

I'm only 30 years old but, I'm more religious now than ever before. I don't know why exactly. Maybe I'm getting more religious with age or maybe I'm getting more religious because of how I view the world around me. As far as numbers go, I don't care. It doesn't impact my faith one way or the other.

User currently offlineHOmSaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 49, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 17):
Quoting na (Reply 13):
There is a huge danger in a society of "nones". People who have nothing to loose, nothing to fear but the police are potentially dangerous.

So because they don't fear an unseen supernatural power, that somehow makes them dangerous? You're going to have to expound on that point a little more before any non-influenced individual is convinced.

Wouldn't someone who is convinced that their mission is ordained by god itself, and they will be rewarded in the afterlife for carrying out god's wishes in this world be far more dangerous?

I mean, after all, we have quite a long list to choose from for examples of the latter.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2917 times:

People can label themselves whatever they want and violence will always be around. Since when has laws, whether man made or not, stopped violence? *turns on local news* Yep, certainly not here and certainly not motivated by religion.

User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 51, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
Not all. Some, yes.

No, I still say that it's all.

There's two levels to this argument:

1) Religion oppressing/discriminating against certain groups based on their beliefs
2) People worshiping a supreme being based on fairytales

Now not every religion is guilty of point #1, which is the much more serious one...but I still can't stand the fact that educated people around me buy into the nonsense that almost every religion propagates. Treating ancient writings as the be-all and end-all of how they live their lives  
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 45):
Some more than others.

Definitely agree there.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Estimate for Crusades: between 1 and 3 million (from the first through 3rd crusades - i.e. the big ones),

Your numbers are on the far lower end of what I've seen. I've read that estimates for the first four Crusades were pegged at around 5 million (that's an average), and the rest were at 3 million (again, an average), for a total of 8 million.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Estimates for Stalin: between 8 and 61 million,

That's only if you include famines that occurred while he was in power. Under Stalin's rule, about 700,000 were executed.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 47):
Oh yes - I forgot to mention. Mao, Stalin and Hitler were in the 20th century. The crusades were the better part of a millennium ago.

Why does that matter, exactly?

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 50):
Since when has laws, whether man made or not, stopped violence?

Yeah, let's totally just get rid of laws and see how that works  



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 52, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2901 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 51):
2) People worshiping a supreme being based on fairytales

Not all religions worship a supreme being. Some do not actually have gods. For example, the aboriginal religion in Australia is a series of stories, but there are no gods, just "dreamings" and they do not pray. And those religions are not violent.

Also, while Bhuddists have fought, they have not waged mass crusades. There are Bhuddist extremists who have incited hate, but they are generally rejected by the world-wide Bhuddist community. Bhuddists do not "worship" in the Western sense. They have no "god" in the Western sense. They have no sense of absolute authority.

Hindus, on the other hand, have a large extremist wing.

In general, religions tend to become more violent and more dogmatic when they are pitted against other religions.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 51):
That's only if you include famines that occurred while he was in power. Under Stalin's rule, about 700,000 were executed.

Irrelevant. Stalin created a religion in which he was God (or Pope or whatever). He just didn't call it that. But was David Koresh any less evil than Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler? The difference between the two is not religion vs atheism, it is simply the resources available to them.

Body counts reflect available resources, not degree of evil.


User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13202 posts, RR: 16
Reply 53, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2895 times:

Some other thoughts on the decline of involvement in active faiths and the rise of the 'nones'.

As more people become more educated, including college, one is exposed to more 'liberal' ideas, a wider range of though, from a wider range of people. More science education also adds to explain what seem to be what one though could only by religion.

The shift of many functions of social services, medicine, education, community activities from faith groups to governments and private non-religious organizations over the last 150 years.

Many have become or were raised by parents lazy about going to faith services.

As others have noted, the spiritual and economic corruption, too much involved with politics and politicians.

The rejection of sexual repression by almost all faith groups, unreasonably so vs. real human feelings.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 54, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 53):
As more people become more educated, including college, one is exposed to more 'liberal' ideas,

Let's get away from this attitude that facts and education are "liberal." They are simply truth.

If conservatives want to call such ideas that rape causes abortion, or global warming is true, or evolution happens "liberal" then that is their problem. It does not make these facts liberal.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 55, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
Not all religions worship a supreme being. Some do not actually have gods. For example, the aboriginal religion in Australia is a series of stories, but there are no gods, just "dreamings" and they do not pray.

Perhaps I was too specific. I would group religions that give unrealistic powers to humans/animals as being silly as well. Of course they seemed completely plausible hundreds and thousands of years ago (there were no other answers), but I would have to question anybody who believed them in 2013.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
Stalin created a religion in which he was God (or Pope or whatever)

Interestingly enough, he often proclaimed in public that people should never idolize an individual leader. There's also some literature that suggest, even in private, he was troubled by how much fanfare there was about him.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 52):
But was David Koresh any less evil than Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler? The difference between the two is not religion vs atheism, it is simply the resources available to them.

Fair enough.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 53):
As more people become more educated, including college, one is exposed to more 'liberal' ideas

Yes, but they are also exposed to more conservative ideas as well. I have recently completed post-secondary education, and during my time at university I came across peers and professors alike who could be labeled as ultra-liberal or ultra-conservative. They're all there. As you go on to say:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 53):
wider range of though, from a wider range of people

...which would include all points in the spectrum.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 56, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2857 times:

Quoting OA412 (Reply 39):
I would also say that many crimes committed by various governments pale in comparison to the crimes committed by various churches.

Now this statement is utter nonsense. The Catholic Church did not invade Iraq and kill innocents. The Southern Baptist Convention did not pass a resolution and invade Afghanistan. Hindus are not behind the military coup that appears to be imminent in Egypt.

The Catholic Church has a systemic problem with gay pedophile priests and they shamefully tried to hide it. But even that horror doesn't compare to war or torture.


User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 57, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 56):
Hindus

Hindus and Church, connected how?

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 56):
would also say that many crimes committed by various governments pale in comparison to the crimes committed by various churches.


User currently offlineAesma From Reunion, joined Nov 2009, 6957 posts, RR: 12
Reply 58, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2822 times:

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 49):
Wouldn't someone who is convinced that their mission is ordained by god itself, and they will be rewarded in the afterlife for carrying out god's wishes in this world be far more dangerous?

If you look at the mafia or latino gangs, it seems that religion and killing don't clash that much.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineJJJ From Spain, joined May 2006, 1891 posts, RR: 1
Reply 59, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2803 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 37):
No wont happen as KiwiRob pointed out with example in his reply

My experience with middle-class muslims is rather the opposite. I am yet to meet a practising, educated, middle-class muslim born in Spain. And a lot of those born abroad no longer practise (I work side-to-side with a Palestinian born in Saudi Arabia and a Berber Moroccan, both of whom don't pray (at least in office hours), do not observe Ramadan or Muslim dietary practises.

All practising muslims living in Spain I know either have only basic education only or were born abroad and did not pass the practising part to their children.

And usually it's their religious leaders themselves who alienate those westernized muslims. They preach against being too much like the locals as losing their heritage etc. etc. so in the end they stop being part of the flock altogether.


User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2775 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 51):
Yeah, let's totally just get rid of laws and see how that works

Um.... What?!  

I was merely pointing out that people are under the impression that without religion, the world will be filled with peace and happiness and that just isn't the case. I'm not sure how you got the idea that I wanted to get rid of laws all together -_-


User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 3077 posts, RR: 36
Reply 61, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2753 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

For my part, I am part of the "nones" I guess...
I consider myself an Agnostic Christian, I can't follow any of the organized churches, but I tend to believe in God to some extent.

But granted being raised Protestant, sent to Catholic school and basically being taught to believe in what I feel comfortable with probably skewed my views... I've also read pretty much every major religious book/scripture/etc including 6 versions of the bible, the Qu'ran, and many Hindu texts... the basic tenets of belief are basically the same in all of them:

- Treat others fairly and with compassion
- Do not steal, kill or otherwise commit bad acts against others

Beyond that, well, lets just say it's interesting to see how each religion starts to dictate what and where to believe...



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 62, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2742 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 56):
The Catholic Church did not invade Iraq and kill innocents. The Southern Baptist Convention did not pass a resolution and invade Afghanistan.

The Catholic Church has generally had a following of dovish voters these last 100 or so years. The Southern Baptist Convention may not invade Iraq, but look at the most hawkish politicians and you will find yourself a lot of Southern Baptists. A lot.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 55):
I would group religions that give unrealistic powers to humans/animals as being silly as well.

OK, and I am a nonbeliever and I agree that it's silly. But if you want to believe that rabbits actually created the world, that's fine as long as you don't try to legislate it into law. Silly can be harmless. Look at the Jains. Ridiculous... but harmless.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 63, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2722 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
Look at the Jains. Ridiculous... but harmless.

What Jains believe in terms of reincarnation, karma, and liberation of the soul are shared by a significant number of fellow humans worldwide, and has its roots in some of the most ancient texts and respected religions.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 64, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2704 times:

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 56):
gay pedophile priests

They have a problem with pedophile priests. Not sure where the "gay" comes into play there.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 56):
But even that horror doesn't compare to war or torture.

The Catholic church has its own history of war and torture. As mentioned earlier in the thread, just look at the Crusades.

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 60):
I'm not sure how you got the idea that I wanted to get rid of laws all together

Because you said:

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 50):
Since when has laws, whether man made or not, stopped violence?

Clearly laws serve a purpose. If you claim that laws do not stop violence (at least to a significant level) then surely you don't believe in such laws? I was exaggerating to point out the flaw in your comparison.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 61):
But granted being raised Protestant, sent to Catholic school and basically being taught to believe in what I feel comfortable with probably skewed my views

I had a very similar upbringing. I was baptized Protestant, went to Catholic school (just in elementary school), and I was raised by parents who taught me to carve my own beliefs...which of course ultimately lead me to not believing in any religion.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
Silly can be harmless. Look at the Jains. Ridiculous... but harmless.

Absolutely. Although it still grinds my gears a bit that people would believe in it even today...especially intelligent, educated individuals. Just a pet peeve I'll never get over I guess   



Flying refined.
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 65, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 2693 times:

Quoting WestJet (Rep 64):

"They have a problem with pedophile priests. Not sure where the "gay" comes into play here."

Hmmm. About everytime such an affair is publicised it's usually a priest with a young boy. As a matter of fact, the ONLY time I've ever heard of such is between a priest and boy(s). regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineSFBdude From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 64):
Clearly laws serve a purpose. If you claim that laws do not stop violence (at least to a significant level) then surely you don't believe in such laws? I was exaggerating to point out the flaw in your comparison.

I believe your looking too much into that one sentence that you keep quoting. Read my post as a whole. A lack of religion will not solve the world's problems. If religion didn't exist today, there would still be hunger, rape, shootings, etc.


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 67, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2680 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 65):
Hmmm. About everytime such an affair is publicised it's usually a priest with a young boy. As a matter of fact, the ONLY time I've ever heard of such is between a priest and boy(s).

Pedophiles don't experience sexual attraction like normal people. These men (well, most often men) are attracted to children in a way where gender is less important. Notice how many pedophiles are otherwise straight men who have a wife and kids? I've also read (albeit on Wikipedia) that gay men abusing boys is extremely rare. I don't claim to be an expert on the topic though, so maybe someone with more knowledge could shed more light on the intricacies I'm missing.

Quoting SFBdude (Reply 66):
A lack of religion will not solve the world's problems. If religion didn't exist today, there would still be hunger, rape, shootings, etc.

Well I don't think anybody has proclaimed atheism to heal the world of all its problems, but it would certainly help alleviate some. Rape, murder, theft, etc. will still occur because there are simply bad people out there regardless of their faith or lack thereof...but I do believe that less religious influence would result in less discrimination against multiple groups, less conflict (i.e. war between groups whose main difference is religion/culture) and so on.



Flying refined.
User currently onlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13765 posts, RR: 61
Reply 68, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2661 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 777way (Reply 37):
Quoting EA CO AS (Reply 35):Catholicism/Judaism/Hinduism/whatever"
Dare not even mention scary Islam in there alongside the other two but add in Hinduism, funny and no whatever does not count, its not like the other philosophy and mythical types that can be labeled whatever.

The "whatever" was meant as an "et cetera", don't get your panties in a wad because I failed to mention your religion of preference. I can't imagine you'd have expected me to name off every single religious affiliation.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offline777way From Pakistan, joined Dec 2005, 6093 posts, RR: 4
Reply 69, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2645 times:

Oh please Christianity, Judism ______ Hinduism, if you had said Christinaity, Hinduism, Shinto one could understand, its not about my religion, which is there no matter how much you dislike it.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 70, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2642 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 69):
Oh please

Anyone having grown up or lived on the west coast of the United States for any length of time would be well acquainted with Christianity, and depending upon where, Judaism, and/or at least one of the Eastern religions. Muslim populations simply aren't known out here, and wouldn't be the first thing to come to mind when listing religions in the way EA CO AS did in an informal forum posting.

These constant accusations that people are intentionally insulting Islam are becoming quite offensive.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 71, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2627 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 64):
Absolutely. Although it still grinds my gears a bit that people would believe in it even today...especially intelligent, educated individuals.

Mine too, my friend. Mine too.

But as long as you aren't trying to legislate your religion and use it to hurt others, then I am willing to live and let live.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 72, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2625 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 71):
Mine too, my friend. Mine too.

What grinds your gears about Jainism? Is it the reincarnation and karma part, the sweeping bugs out of their path after a rain (which someone I knew who claimed to be Jain didn't do), or something else?



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 73, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 72):
What grinds your gears about Jainism?

The absolute absurdity of the idea that you don't even want to kill bacteria. I mean, c'mon, it's absurd.

But they aren't hurting anyone and they aren't trying to pass laws mandating that I wear a HEPA filter everywhere I go, so I have as much right to be mystified and frustrated by their irrational ways as they do to keep those ways.

I don't have to agree with everyone; just live and let live.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 74, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 73):
The absolute absurdity of the idea that you don't even want to kill bacteria. I mean, c'mon, it's absurd.

That's a very western way of looking at it. The way this guy I knew who was Jain explained it, in everyday life it was more of a practice of the principle that they aspired to vs. the western way of looking at religious tenets which would make the killing of bacteria a sin. Life is life, and all part of the greater soul, no matter what bodily form it takes. If you believe that way, in the greater soul, I could see how doing your best to avoid killing bacteria when not necessary wouldn't appear absurd.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 75, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2610 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 74):
That's a very western way of looking at it.

No, it is a rational way of looking it. All life, by virtue of its existence, exists at the expense of and to the benefit of other life. Both are true.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 76, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2594 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 75):
All life, by virtue of its existence, exists at the expense of and to the benefit of other life.

That's still a very western view. Very roughly, an eastern view would be that each level of individual souls of the group soul (or infinite life, that which is without beginning or end) grow through learning in each lifetime (karma being a learning instrument rather than a punishing instrument), with free will being your opportunity to learn specific things in each incarnation as different beings.

Some feel it's the responsibility of more evolved life to assist lesser evolved life to advance up the ladder of life (a rising tide lifts all boats outlook). To treat even something as small as bacteria as life that could be expensed, if done for one's own benefit in a selfish way if it was doing you no harm, would be intolerable in the grand scheme of things as for one, it rejects absolute compassion.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 77, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 76):
That's still a very western view.

No, that is a statement of scientific fact from a man with a graduate degree in molecular biology.

Science is not Western or Eastern or Liberal or Conservative. Science is the collection of facts gained through experimentation.

All life exists at the expense of other life, if only by consuming resources (including space) that another life form could be consuming. All life benefits other life, either by providing food or some other benefit (symbiosis).

That is a statement of fact. If you want to call it "Western" then you can join the Conservatives who call global warming "Liberal."

There is one and only one way of knowing a thing for certain and that is the scientific method.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 78, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 77):
No, that is a statement of scientific fact from a man with a graduate degree in molecular biology.

Men with graduate degrees also used to say that homosexuality was a mental illness. Viewing life as simply a scientific fact is a very western concept which you've laid out succinctly.

Science doesn't have to live in a vacuum to the exclusion of all else. Science can co-exist with the ideals of religion and philosophy.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2302 posts, RR: 7
Reply 79, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

So, do the Jain not want to kill E. coli, Rickettsia, and other potentially deadly bacteria either? How about viruses? What's the deal with those? Alive, not alive... Who knows. Better be safe and not kill the Ebola virus... (I guess there's no Ebola virus where most Jain live, just an example)

I guess these things might be useful... in reducing the world's population somewhat.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 80, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 79):
So, do the Jain not want to kill E. coli, Rickettsia, and other potentially deadly bacteria either? How about viruses? What's the deal with those?

Not being Jain, and not having studied this for 20-some years, this is what I understand:

It is impossible to exist without killing or injuring things, as even in the process of breathing you kill organisms. The ideal is the minimum of killing things, as the higher orders of life have a responsibility to look after the lower orders of life, just as parents have the responsibility to look after their children and family. So care is taken in their daily activity to insure that violence towards any living thing is minimized.

If a living organism, which by its very existence gives it a right to life, is causing harm to another, then it's okay to kill it. So it would be okay to take an antibiotic if you had a staph infection, and receive other medical care and treatments, as long as you don't kill more living things than necessary through indifference.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 81, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2460 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 78):

Men with graduate degrees also used to say that homosexuality was a mental illness.

And they had no evidence on which to base that claim. It would not be the first baseless claim.

The fact that people have used pseudoscience does not invalidate science.

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 78):
Science can co-exist with the ideals of religion and philosophy.

Not when it comes to falsifiable hypotheses. Reality is not a democracy; ignorance is not as valid as knowledge.

When it comes to non-falsifiable beliefs, then science has no role.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 82, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2436 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81):
The fact that people have used pseudoscience does not invalidate science.

Of course it doesn't, but it stands as an example to be careful of placing unquestioned belief and acceptance in diploma wavers. Even science itself has a half-life to it:

Economist: The half-life of facts

Quote:
For example, in the area of medical science dealing with hepatitis and cirrhosis, two liver diseases, researchers actually measured how long it takes for half of the knowledge in these fields to be overturned. They gave a whole bunch of research papers from fifty years ago to a panel of experts and asked them which were still regarded as true and which had been refuted or no longer considered interesting. They plotted this on a graph. What they found is that there is a nice, smooth rate of decay; you can predict that every 45 years, half of this particular sort of knowledge gets outdated.


Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81):
ignorance is not as valid as knowledge.

You made the statement that Jainism is absurd. Now you're claiming that it's ignorant, even though it doesn't reject science?

While I consider myself non-religious, I actually find eastern religions intriguing. Imagine if everyone lived without having to visualize a god they prayed to for salvation or holy intervention, nor belief in a devil on which to blame bad works and temptations. Just taking responsibility via free will to use only what one needs, and making as little impact on others as possible as they learn in life. Then rinse and repeat in their next lifetime. Very simple and easy to understand and apply.

It's understood that we'll never see eye-to-eye on this. Your whole raison d'être is based upon supporting scientific facts even though what is accepted as factual may change over time. Unwavering acceptance of facts looks as absurd to me as does the principles of Jainism apparently looks to you.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineHOmSaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2371 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 81):
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 82):

This really gets into a philosophical debate over what constitutes a fact.

The reality is that there is so much about the universe that we don't know, that we really can't be sure of what we do know.

I was at a philosophical get-together a few weeks ago about the nature of belief (e.g. What is a belief? Is belief different from knowledge? Etc.). Most of the folks there were non-religious, even if they believed in the concept of god. One of the most scientific-minded people in the group posited that it is impossible to know anything for certain, only that certain things have a significantly higher probability of being correct vs. other things. Someone else suggested that the only thing you can truly know is that you exist, even if you don't know the nature of your existence. Everything else is relative to your own experience.

Relativity suggests that there is no single, objective state of the universe at any given time. Essentially everything is dependent on the observer. Einstein, the author of this theory, was himself troubled by this concept. Yet, he could not disprove it.

This is not to say that everyone is entitled to inventing their own facts, and that anything they say is automatically correct. There are still many items within this world of experience for which the probability of one answer being correct is so high that it might as well be equivalent to 1. But when it comes to the existence of life, and its purpose, you really have to recognize that we don't have all of the answers. In fact, we have very little in the way of answers.

Science has studied the heck out of biological organisms, how they reproduce, how they interact with their environment, etc. Yet science still doesn't explain where consciousness comes from. There's no scientific explanation for what happened to your consciousness before you were born, or what happens to it when you die. Yet, many people have had memories of their past lives, so there must be something that offers a continuity of consciousness between lives. Many more have out-of-body experiences, or near-death-experiences, and despite those that experience them describing, essentially, the exact same thing, there is still no scientific explanation for exactly what happens. There are plenty of suggestions on what it could be, but that really amounts to no more than guessing or hypothesizing, with no scientific grounding to back up their rejection of the idea of an OBE any more than there is anything supporting it.

Plus, 100% of the life forms we've studied are from Earth. The universe, of course, is so vast and infinite that, if even only one star per 100 galaxies were capable of sustaining life on a nearby planet, you still have billions upon billions of potentially inhabited planets (and this assumes that life needs planets, or even nearby stars, to exist; the life we know of does, but that still leaves the possibility for plenty that we don't know). How can anyone here state, with certainty, that "all life exists at the expense of other life" when, potentially, we only have experience with 0.00000000001% of the life in this universe, all concentrated on one tiny little rock orbiting a very average star? That's hardly a balanced sample, and would be akin to polling one household and using the results to predict the outcome of the next presidential election.

Science is important, certainly. The scientific method does give us lots of answers with (usually) a pretty good degree of certainty, and when we don't have that level of certainty, we're honest about it. But existing science only explains what we've already studied. It doesn't explain what we haven't studied. Make no mistake about it, there is a hell of a lot more that we haven't studied than what we have.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3379 posts, RR: 8
Reply 84, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

As a person educated under the Catholic school system up to senior year of high school, I can say that the church is simply antiquated. It has failed to evolve with the times and accept that there's a world outside the walls which is FAR more different than the one in their book.

I consider myself an atheist and I attribute it all to people who use religion to impose their way on others. To me it's inconceivable that a person who calls his/herself a follower of "God" behaves and acts 180 degrees opposite. But this is perhaps what I hate the most:



I remember I was quite happy with the election of Pope Francis and his message that atheist can also go to heaven. Not that I believe in heaven or hell (besides, I joke that I'll be burning in hell anyways), but it's how he recognized that to be a good person you don't have to have religion in your life.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 85, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

Quoting 777way (Reply 69):
Oh please Christianity, Judism ______ Hinduism, if you had said Christinaity, Hinduism, Shinto one could understand, its not about my religion, which is there no matter how much you dislike it.

It's gotten to a point where I think you're trying to be offended. Just because EA CO AS didn't put your religion as one of his three examples, it doesn't mean it's a slight against that particular religion. Maybe if he had included a fourth religion it would have been Islam, but who knows. It really doesn't matter.

This also plays into some of the points in the thread: conflict arising from obsessing over one's religion. You're making a big deal because you feel someone has offended your religion and by extension, you...while in reality no such thing has occurred.

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 83):
many people have had memories of their past lives

Many people say they have had memories of their past lives. Nobody that I'm aware of has yet been able to prove that they aren't just making it up.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 84):
But this is perhaps what I hate the most

Too true.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20358 posts, RR: 59
Reply 86, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2335 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 82):
You made the statement that Jainism is absurd. Now you're claiming that it's ignorant, even though it doesn't reject science?

It doesn't reject science, but it rejects a fundamental truth, which is that all life exists at the expense of other life. A more rational viewpoint is that one should not cause unnecessary harm or harm for amusement.

The behavior of a strict Jain is more consistent with OCD than rational behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jain_vegetarianism

But if they are going to try to cause as little harm as necessary and they are happy, then I am perfectly willing to let them be.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 84):
(besides, I joke that I'll be burning in hell anyways),

I'll have the place decorated by the time you get there.  
Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 82):
Of course it doesn't, but it stands as an example to be careful of placing unquestioned belief and acceptance in diploma wavers. Even science itself has a half-life to it:

You and I are arguing different things. I stated that life cannot exist unless it is at the expense of other life. Now, that is one of those basic tenets that is really hard to falsify. In fact, it's a theorem. And you called it "western." That's like calling math "western."

I am not arguing that science is infallible. The scientific method, properly applied is infallible. The reason the body of knowledge that is "science" is fallible is because it is misused by humans being humans. It has nothing to do with the scientific method, which is, by definition, incapable of error.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 87, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 83):
One of the most scientific-minded people in the group posited that it is impossible to know anything for certain, only that certain things have a significantly higher probability of being correct vs. other things.
Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 83):
How can anyone here state, with certainty, that "all life exists at the expense of other life" when, potentially, we only have experience with 0.00000000001% of the life in this universe, all concentrated on one tiny little rock orbiting a very average star? That's hardly a balanced sample, and would be akin to polling one household and using the results to predict the outcome of the next presidential election.

   Valuable things to remember.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
it rejects a fundamental truth, which is that all life exists at the expense of other life.

Life can also be complementary and supportive. An example would be that cherry tree cannot bear fruit without pollination. Neither the tree nor the bee exists at the expense of the other, but as a complementary unit they create new things, a cherry by the tree, honey by the bee, which continues, supports, enhances and regenerates life.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
The behavior of a strict Jain is more consistent with OCD than rational behavior.

In your example you could substitute paleo for Jain and come to the same conclusion.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
I stated that life cannot exist unless it is at the expense of other life. Now, that is one of those basic tenets that is really hard to falsify. In fact, it's a theorem. And you called it "western." That's like calling math "western."

Deductive reasoning, which is how conclusions are arrived at in science, is considered a 'western' thought process. It just is what it is without being prejudiced for or against it one way or the other, or claiming that it is better or worse than other schools of thought.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineHOmSaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 88, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2296 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 85):

Many people say they have had memories of their past lives. Nobody that I'm aware of has yet been able to prove that they aren't just making it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT0B4V_kowo

It really hasn't been possible to prove memories until recently, because so much of history goes unrecorded (particularly for average people who wouldn't get much notice in the world throughout their lives anyway). Still, when it comes to what goes on inside one's head, I don't think anyone is really qualified to say what someone else is or isn't experiencing.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineHOmSaR From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 89, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2287 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
a fundamental truth, which is that all life exists at the expense of other life.

Again, how do you know, given that you've only ever studied life here on Earth? How do you know that in all of the hundreds of billions of galaxies throughout the known universe (to say nothing of what may lie beyond that which we can see), that absolutely none of them contain life which does not exist at the expense of other life?

You are making an assumption, based on very limited available data, and applying it to all of reality. If, tomorrow, someone discovers life somewhere in the universe which does not exist at the expense of other life, then this "fundamental truth" will turn out to be completely wrong.

The more we know, the more we realize we don't know. The more we know that we don't know (sorry for sounding like Rumsfeld, but as nutty as he was, he could still be right as often as a broken clock), the less likely we are to state that anything is a fundamental truth. There are just too many opportunities for the universe to prove us wrong.

This isn't an affront on the scientific method, but a basic recognition that there is so much that has gone untested, unresearched, etc., that we simply don't even have anywhere near the capabilities to apply the scientific method to answer some very basic questions about the nature of our existence.

When we can start testing the soul through scientific methods, then perhaps those who will accept only that which has been scientifically tested will believe. But right now, scientifically tested knowledge can't tell me where my consciousness comes from, nor how the universe originated (nor the bigger question of why), nor how someone I didn't know for more than a day, and who didn't know me, and doesn't have any knowledge of my background or where I came from or grew up or anything, can not only identify, by name, age and physical appearance, an old friend of mine who died 10 years ago, but also give details about his death, without me giving so much as a single indication that I may have known this person.


That said, some folks are trying to set up scientific research into more supernatural subjects, such as near-death or after-death experiences.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20.../04/consciousness-after-death/all/

The main limitation to our current application of the scientific method is that we can't go beyond our physical, three-dimensional world (four, if you count time). Those who are able to transcend the three-dimensional experience aren't able to bring back any physical proof, which is what the scientific method requires. It's really akin to someone who lived in the tropics in the time before electricity and refrigeration, and went on a journey to the far north, and saw ice. You can't bring it back, because it would melt into water long before you got back home, so you have no way of proving what you saw to those who have never experienced it. It doesn't make it any less real, even though the scientifically minded inhabitants of this tropical island refuse to believe that ice could exist, because they've never seen it, there's no physical evidence of it ever existing, and none of them have any capability to cool water down to below 32 F/0 C. So, they might say that it's a fundamental truth that water is liquid and not solid.

It's really the same problem, just on a much higher level.



I was raised by a cup of coffee.
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1939 posts, RR: 10
Reply 90, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Quoting HOmSaR (Reply 88):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sT0B4V_kowo

It really hasn't been possible to prove memories until recently, because so much of history goes unrecorded (particularly for average people who wouldn't get much notice in the world throughout their lives anyway). Still, when it comes to what goes on inside one's head, I don't think anyone is really qualified to say what someone else is or isn't experiencing.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced. A kid who has an excellent knowledge of planes and talks about plane crashes does not meet the burden of proof. Especially damning is that they don't even interview the kid once in that 15-minute special. It's all the parents doing the talking. It's a very real possibility that the parents are fudging the truth for whatever reason they may have.

I remember a particularly good (and recent) example of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_boy_hoax



Flying refined.
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17827 posts, RR: 46
Reply 91, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2154 times:

Quoting na (Reply 38):
Please note that the percentage of pedophiles in the catholic church isnt higher than in the wider society. Its only that the position of a priest that makes misbehavior easier

Maybe they should drop the holier than thou bit then 
Quoting OA412 (Reply 39):
I would also say that many crimes committed by various governments pale in comparison to the crimes committed by various churches.

I'm not so sure--for a long time the two were--in some cases still are--the same.



E pur si muove -Galileo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Fake Passports On The Rise... posted Mon Dec 31 2007 19:41:30 by BR715-A1-30
4: Rise Of The Silver Surfer posted Thu Jun 21 2007 19:04:39 by EK20
Theft/Shoplifting On The Rise At Wal-Mart posted Wed Jun 13 2007 23:00:30 by PSA53
Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer posted Tue Mar 20 2007 11:15:50 by EK20
Nixon's Rise From The Ashes Of Defeat? posted Wed May 11 2005 05:59:01 by Zippyjet
Rise Of The New Metal CD's/Metal Head Thread posted Thu Apr 7 2005 17:52:58 by AA61Hvy
Rise Of The Vulcans, Great Book! posted Fri Apr 30 2004 03:51:10 by Rjpieces
Rickets On The Rise In America posted Fri Aug 29 2003 22:55:32 by Superfly
Is Anti-Semitism Really On The Rise? posted Sat Jul 13 2002 09:59:47 by Ryanb741
The Fog Of Obamacare posted Sun May 26 2013 01:09:30 by Geezer