quote: Your reasons are unclear. Could you clarify?
I will deign to clarify on his behalf. He thinks the religious are a plague somewhere in the neighborhood of Nazis and should be eradicated from the planet.
I think KoM is crazy.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comrade beverly states my position admirably. As for her belief that I'm crazy, well, I've already said what I think of religious types. We'll just have to have a nice little war, Reformation-style, to settle the question.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One study does not a good point make...and as you challeneged not only the beliefs of most of the world in this thread, but the entire concept of religion as a positive force, none of this is changing the subject.
It's calling you on at least a few of your logical fallicies, not to mention complete fabrications.
posted
Well, Kwea, it's one study more than you've managed to come up with. In fact, being a summary of several, it's about ten studies more than you've managed to come up with. So might I suggest that you stop accusing me of fabrications?
Dag, nah. Any atheist can beat six religious types with both hands behind his back. And our fathers are bigger than your fathers.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, Kwea, it's one study more than you've managed to come up with. In fact, being a summary of several, it's about ten studies more than you've managed to come up with. So might I suggest that you stop accusing me of fabrications?
Why, are you going to backpedal on this too?
quote: I also know that my 99% number is made up on the spot, but I'm comfortable with it. Conversion is pretty rare.
I haven't made a single claim that needs a link, not have I fabricated a single fact...or psudo-fact as the case may be.
I have a deal for you,though....Stop being such a sanctimonious prig, and fabricating information to support your weak arguments, and I will stop calling you on it.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Too late to have a productive discussion with *him* maybe. But this is Hatrack. Productive discussion will move on without him just fine.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea. One more time. Try paying attention. I have given you a link to back up my claims. Where are your links?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
KofM, you haven't proved anything other than you're good at pulling "facts" out of your butt. I can't even say "nice try." It's not even a mediocre try. It's pathetic, at best.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I also know that my 99% number is made up on the spot, but I'm comfortable with it. Conversion is pretty rare.
Did KoM say this? If so, it must not be on this page. I will agree that conversion in Europe is pretty rare, at least if we are to base it on what the Mormon missionaries there report. But this is definitely not the case in other parts of the world. I would like to point out that the yearly growth of the Mormon church increases more from conversion than by those born into it.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gah. People, could you please tell me exactly which facts I'm supposed to have made up, so I can check whether I am, in fact, talking total nonsense? I mean, it's possible. If so, I'll retract them and we can try to have a civilised discussion. Bit if it turns out that my linkie supports what I say, I reserve the right to go . Or maybe .
Bev, again with my link :
quote:Some groups such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses appear to attract a large number of converts (in-switchers), but also nearly as large a number of apostates (out-switchers).
I'm not sure what this means for the frequency of conversions, though, since we can't tell whether it is the same people going in and going out. If it is, that raises the question of whether two-years conversions should count.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no information about that. Every year in the General Conference of the Mormon church, statistics are read out. The church continues to grow at an amazing rate, and it would be interesting to know how much of the staying growth is due to conversions and how much is due to those born in. I honestly don't know. When reading the statistics, they don't give info on those having left the church.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and in case you might be wondering, those baptized posthumously are not counted in that number. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: People, could you please tell me exactly which facts I'm supposed to have made up, so I can check whether I am, in fact, talking total nonsense?
What, again? It's not enough that they've already been pointed out, and you then ignored them? Read the thread.
Your argument is based on theory or opinion put forth as fact. You have proved nothing.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A good number of sociologists, even while appreciating the role of symbols in men's social existence, are convicned that modern, industrial society will inevitably lead to the disappearance of religion. ... the advance of rationality and the scientific spirit would inevitably undermine the religious heritage; religious myths would give way to scientific explanations. ... What all these social thinkers observed, quite independantly from their particular theories, was the passage of European society from an old order in which religion was a taken-for-granted dimension of social, political and personal life, to a new, as yet undefined order where religion was losing its social, cultural, and poltiical importance and where even its significance for personal life was beign questioned by more and more people. But was it reasonable and scientific to make the description of this particular historical experience a sociological law of universal application and predict the disappearance of religion forever?
The question. (emphasis mine)
quote: Andrew Greely, in several important studies <yes, they are referenced>, has examined the empirical data on religion in America and presented the contrasting pattern as an argument against the theory of secularization. The available information reveals a certain cycle of slightly higher and slightly lower church attendance and membership, for which it is difficult to find a sociological explanation, but there is no evidence whatsoever for the theory that increasing industrialization and individualism lead to a weakening of religion.
The rest of the article deals specifically with the US and Canada, and isn't as relevant, unless someone wants to argue for some reason that "American religion doesn't count." Also note that the data mentioned spans approximately 80 years. From Baum, Gregory. Religion and Alienation. 1975, pp.140-1; 142-3.
quote:Who still believes in the myth of secularization? Recent debates within the sociology of religion would indicate this to be the appropriate question with which to start any current discussion of the theory of secularization. There are still a few "old believers," who insist, rightly, that the theory of secularization still has much explanatory value in attempting to account for modern historical processes. But the majority of sociologists of religion will not listen, for they have abandoned the paradigm with the same uncritical haste with which they previously embraced it. ...
How can one explain this reversal? How could there have been so much myth before and so much light now? It is true that much empirical counterevidence has been accumulated against the theory since the 1960s, but similar counterevidence has existed all along and yet the evidence remianed unseen or was explained away as irrelevant. The answer has to be that it is not reality itself which has changed, as much as our perception of it, and that we must be witnessing a typical Kuhnian revolution in scientific paradigms. ...
... we may say with certainty that the assumption that premodern Europeans were more religious than modern ones reveals itself precisely as that, as an assumption in need of confirmation. Those versions of the theory of secularization which begin precisely with such an unfounded assumption and conceive the process of secularization as the progressive decline of religious beliefs and practices in the modern world are indeed reproducing a myth that sees history as the progressive evolution of humanity from superstition to reason, from belief to unbelief, from religion to science. ...
It was then [the 1960s] that the first flaws in the theory became noticable and the first critics were heard. For the first time it became possible to separate the theory of secularization from its ideological origins in the Enlightenment critique of religion and to distinguish the theory of secularization, as a theory of the modern autonomous differentiation of the secular and religious spheres, from the thesis that the end result of the process of modern differentiation would be the progressive erosion, decline, adn evnetual disappearance of religion. The new functionalist theory of secularization, formulated most systematically in Thomas Luckmann's The Invisible Religion, did not postulate the inevitable decline of religion in modern societies, only the loss by religion of its traditional societal and public functions, and the privitiation and marginalization of religion within its own differentiated sphere. ... Only in the 1980s, after the sudden eruption of religion into the public sphere, did it become obvious that differentiation and the loss of social functions do no necessarily entail "privatization."
In any case, the old theory of secularization can no longer be maintained. ...
The main fallacy in the theory of secularization, a fallacy reproduced by apologists and critics alike that has made the theory nearly unservicable for social-scientific purposes, is the confusion of historical processes of secularization proper with the alleged and anticipated consequences which those processes were supposed to have upon religion.
I apologize for any typos. I can only type "theory of secularization" so many times before my fingers go on autopilot, and they don't fly well.
KoM, have fun disputing some of the most respected sociologists of religion in the western world. You can screech about how your stats are newer, but frankly, the depth and breadth of their research puts yours to shame. You're beating an out-dated and long-discredited horse here. Good luck to you.
Edited for some worse typos than expected.
Oh, and I also wanted to note that both these books are concerned with secularization as a world-wide phenomenon. The United States is almost universally regarded as an aberration, the exception to the rule of "public religious piety". The study KoM linked to is relevant only to the States.
posted
I have no links to back this up, but I strongly suspect that a reason for the "rise in secularism" is because cities have been expanding, and more and more people work well away from their neighborhoods. It's more common to hang out with your friends and coworkers than your neighbors these days, and not very uncommon to not even know your neighbors' names.
Previously, when most of America lived in smaller towns, you knew your community, and they knew you, and if you weren't a church-goer it stood out. Even if you weren't a true believer you probably went anyway for the fellowship and because you didn't want to get tagged as the town heathen.
Now, if you don't go to church, who'll know? If anyone cares to pay attention to you they could just as easily assume you attend in a church farther away. Atheists and agnostics and lapsed whatevers could associate with like-minded friends or family and never come into regular contact with the religious aspect of their community. When none of your friends go to church, it's easy to make the assumption that religion is faltering.
I think this is why there was such a huge disconnect after the last election, and why secularists are so shocked at the massive sales of the Left Behind series and The Passion of the Christ. They never dreamed that so much of America still believed. They sure never saw it...
I don't think that a larger percentage of people are areligious than before. I do think that a larger percentage feel more comfortable admitting it, or even taking pride in it, since agnosticism and atheism is no longer the mark of the pariah as it once was. But neither do I think that the percentage of people who believe has changed much.
[ March 25, 2005, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You admitted it, man, and now I am suppose to put a link to your own comments here in this very thread? Look it up yourself.
Where did I quote anyone and not provide a link? Where did I claim to have any stats? Where did I defend any particular religion in this thread?
I don't need links to show inconsistencies (or arrogance) in your arguments, nor do even have to look hard. Your link wasn't particularly good, nor did it say anything about a ((% figure anywhere it, did it?
It also didn't use your "method" of rating conversions, did it? You now, the one that would be laughed out of any serious discussion of religion anywhere but here, where you claimed that a conversion to Islam from Christianity may not be considered a major conversion?
I was not making any spurious claims, nor even saying that you were completely wrong. I said that it would be more surprising if upbringing didn't have anything to do with religious beliefs...and you countered by saying that religion wasn't a good thing for human society, and was on it's way out.
No link there to back anything you said about religion being a universally bad thing for human societies...as "fact that flies counter to every accepted sociological theory in the past 50 years!
And I am suppose to link to something?
I don't think so. You made all sorts of ignorant, uneducated claims here, and I called you on it. Ignorance of this magnitude doesn't require a link...to be honest I don't think I could pick a link, there is just too many to choose from, and I don't have the time or the inclination to try and teach you when you have no interest in listening or learning.
After all, you have already made up your mind.... I am just another crackpot, insane as the rest of the 84% of the US that you are so superior to...
quote: In popular culture, someone may be deemed insane if they have likes and dislikes outside those common for average people, especially if their actions are seen as frantic.
Seems to me that insanity, in this case, applies more readily to atheists. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And punwit, let us for a moment assume that there is some deep-rooted need to believe. How does that make religion either true, or a good thing? Compare with the 'programming to rape' that some people have suggested for males.
Kom, I've never made the claim that religion was true. I'm not a true-believer so any religion I professed always seemed like convenient self-delusion. As regards the goodness of religion, I'd have to reiterate what I've said all along. Religion can be a force for good or evil. It is much like any other psyche handle in that those in a position of influence can bend the flock to their will.(I've stated this badly and may offend some true-believers so please accept my apologies. I do know there are many with strong moral values that would resist pressure if they thought their flock leaders were overstepping their bounds.) I am ignorant of the 'programming to rape' that you referenced so I can't respond to that.
Edit to add that I don't view religion (the personal need to believe in some overarching purpose to life) as either good or bad. I just believe it is a function of our nature, a by-product of our inquisitive nature and our desire for meaning and purpose. I disagree with you primarily in your claim that believers are either brainwashed or mentally diminished.
quote: I will agree that conversion in Europe is pretty rare, at least if we are to base it on what the Mormon missionaries there report. But this is definitely not the case in other parts of the world. I would like to point out that the yearly growth of the Mormon church increases more from conversion than by those born into it.
This might call for a definition of "conversion". If you're just talking an affiliation change in the paperwork then you have an uncontested point, bev, but I served in Brazil and have a somewhat different view. I had always heard about the huge numbers of conversions in South America before going on my mission. While serving there I found that a majority of those "converted" went inactive within months if not weeks of the "converting" missionaries being transferred. I served in several wards where around 10% of members of record actually attended services. In one ward, the bishop actually asked the missionaries (4 of us) to lay off the new investigators and help them find and reactivate the members. There was one town that hadn't had missionaries in a few years, though there was a ward there. Our mission president sent missionaries to re-open the area. When they found the church building, there hadn't been a meeting there in over a year and the custodians were actually living in a classroom in the building. The bishop of the ward had even gone inactive.
I'll grant you that this was in 1986-88. The church was changing its tactics in Brazil even then. But I doubt people have changed significantly in that short time. My experience was that it was very difficult to tell a converstion to Mormonism from a conversion to charismatic American missionary fandom, and the latter was a huge problem for the church there.
NOTE: I'm not arguing any of KoM's points, but I think it is fair to point out that numbers on paper do not accurately reflect reality in many cases.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Johnathon, AnitCool was joking with someone near and dear to him. He was responding to this post by Beverly.
quote: I will deign to clarify on his behalf. He thinks the religious are a plague somewhere in the neighborhood of Nazis and should be eradicated from the planet.
posted
Interesting that you singled out that post, JH, which was a reply to KoM saying the eradication of religion will be as beneficial to humanity as the eradication of nazism.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a spelling Nazi. Jon Boy's a grammar Nazi.
JH, you're out of line. Context, context, context-- and yes, in this case, the intended humor makes all the difference.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fine, who am I to stick morality into the forum. My values aren't impeccable themselves, right? So I forfeit. But - for your information - it's not much better than calling each other's mothers molls (in any variant you may think of).
It's one thing if John Cleese does it; even then - it was excessive. Knowing that he's one of Monty Python, however, gives a certain level of reasoning.
The "Hitler in England" was even worse. Funny, yes, but horrid. I never liked John Cleese after seeing that. It's one thing talking about "The War" and Basil Fawlty's panicking. Whole other thing when one starts using Nazism as something of humour or insult. I'm not banning the word ideologically - but for humour it's a little too much.
Frankly, you're acting like Israeli politicians. All talk, talk and talk - and calling each other Nazis.
All I'm saying is that the use of Nazis - even by "joke" - is something that is unacceptable by anyone with some form of moral values within him/her.
Shame on you.
I didn't say YOU said it. I said KoM said it. You're really making me doubt your reading comprehension ability here, JH.
The point was that KoM said religious people are as bad as Nazis. AC called his wife a nazi because, according to KoM's criteria, she is as bad as one. And AC has the exact same beliefs as Bev, so the name would easily apply to himself under those criteria. In so doing he exposed, to those with the ability to comprehend what he was doing, the absurdity of the claim.
posted
JH-- um. . . do you see the smiley after AC's post?
KoM compared religious beliefs to Nazism. Beverly is well known on this site as being religious. AntiCool is also well known on this site as being religious. His calling bev a 'Nazi' was intentionally ironic, and, IMO, meant to highlight the absurdity of such a claim.
He was not seriously proposing that bev is a Nazi.
EDIT: And my summation of the situation is better than Dag's because he's vampiric.
[ March 25, 2005, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Porter could've gone off on KOM for comparing religion to you-know-what. He would be within his rights to do so, but he didn't. Instead, Porter largely ignored the comparison and tried to diffuse the insult with a little humor. I thought it was a classy move on his part.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
KarlEd, it is true that many of the conversions that happen in fast growing missions don't "take". I served in the Philippines and the situation was similar. But the fact cannot be denied that a few decades ago there were very few members there (Philippines) and now there are an astounding number. While many are not taking, many are. The church really has made significant lasting growth there. In the tiny archapelligo, there are 13 missions (last I checked anyway, there may be more now.) On the other hand, the number of missions in slow-growing areas like Europe have been slowly shrinking. Just not much going on there at all in comparison.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
I still think AntiCool acted in a way I oppose; regardless of KoM. I already know KoM is insane, no point changing him.
As for your "spelling Nazi" and "grammar Nazi", ever thought about "fascist"? It's more accurate and to the point, it's not offensive and it's completely impartial (from that terminological point of view). Yes, "The Soup Nazi" - good episode, but I still oppose the concept.
This is controversy: you go your way, I go mine. I just tried to make my opint clear.
JH
Going to have a shower, my father is a hygiene Nazi.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, my husband was sticking his tongue out at me and calling me a Nazi. He is in the shower right now and has no clue that any misunderstanding took place. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, I *could* make the outrageous claim that if "being religious" is genetic and runs in families, all the religious genes ran off to America, first because of the oppression towards various Protestants and later when Mormon missionaries came through and large numbers of people converted and came to America.
I think this is entirely possible. Certainly, in both the Believers thread and the Non-believers thread, we've seen some evidence that people are just predisposed to faith -- or not.
------
By the way, Jon, before you claim I'm on your side on this one, you should probably ask me. Quite frankly, I think you're being a Nazi Nazi.
posted
JH -- It boggles my mind that you would get upset when the term is used jokingly, but don't appear to mind when somebody viciously compares a large swath of the board members to Nazis.
posted
OK, let's all take a deep breath, shall we? (Breathes deeply).
I might note that I did not claim religion is as bad as Nazism. If I thought that were true, it would be my plain duty to start bombing churches. Rather, I used nazism as an example of how one may legitimately hope that an evil ideology will go away. There can be degrees of evil. It's not my fault if you people's irony detectors are on the blink.
Kwea, last try. I have claimed that an overwhelming majority of people stay within the faith of their parents. I later modified this to 'except those who abandon all religion'. Does my study back this up, or not? You may disagree with my reasoning from this, but let's get our facts straight first.
As for whether religion is bad, well, I do believe this is true, and I haven't given any links for it; I think this is a touch unnecessary for anyone familiar with European history. Is this the fact you've been compaining about? If so, no wonder we've been growing increasingly frustrated, because I see this as totally irrelevant to the actual subject under discussion, which was whether religious believers are brainwashed. I think you are projecting what you know about my beliefs onto my posts.
So let me re-iterate : I have been arguing that social conditioning is the only reason people believe. For support, I offer the claim that the overwhelming majority of believers stay within their parents' religion, which I think is backed up well by the study I linked.
Now, if you have a different view of what the subject of discussion is, that's fine. But could you please tell me what it is, and not just refer me back to previous posts? I've already read them once, and they don't appear to have helped my understanding. I've laid out what I think is going on; please will you do the same?
Bev, do you happen to recall the raw numbers of conversions? As in, 'this year we baptised 10345 people in Brazil.' Or worldwide, whatever you have statistics for - I'm interested in the actual numbers now, rather than the general pattern of more conversions than born-into-the-faith.
Eaquae, sociology is a notoriously divided subject; I think your theorists are still going to have to explain the numbers linked in my previous posts. In particular, if there's no trend towards secularisation, why do the numbers of nonreligious people rise from 8% to 14% in a decade? And why are the religious found mainly among the elderly?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not my fault if you people's irony detectors are on the blink.
Actually, it is your fault. You have shown us that you have no qualms making vicious and outrageous claims against people that you disagree with on religious issues.
quote:As for whether religion is bad, well, I do believe this is true, and I haven't given any links for it; I think this is a touch unnecessary for anyone familiar with European history.
It is unnecessary only if you are talking with people that already agree with you. You are not.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
. Or maybe ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
