posted
The only numbers I know I can get access to are the ones given in General Conference each year, and they are general numbers of conversions and born-in-the-covenants for the whole church. I can give you a link to the source of that on the internet.
Specific numbers from specific countries may be available, but I don't know where they are to be found.
Hopefully from there you can figure out how to find the previous years on your own. Basically, you go to the main index for the General Conferences, and choose the April Conference (it won't be found in the October one) then choose the Saturday Afternoon session, "Statistical Report" or something like that.
posted
Huh, I just scrolled down and saw that they don't have years before 1997 (the 1996 statistics) on there. I just got bored cuttin' and pastin'. I thought it would keep going back. So, I'm not sure where to find older info for ya.
posted
KoM, I've got a question for you. While I have agreed that religion can be used by the unscrupulous to accomplish means that are less than humanitarian, what about love and patriotism? I'm sure you can read your daily paper and find a story about love perverted or the promise of love used to commit heinous acts. Should we grow past our need for love?
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, there are any number of reasons why people stay within their faiths....if it works for them and provides meaning in their lives, why would they change?
You have show no knowledge of sociological current theories, not understanding of current accepted definitions in psychology, and done no more then offer your opinion, with no facts to back it up.
Your straw man argument is that if people stay within the faith of their fathers it is completely because of their social conditioning, for no other reasons. You have also said that religion is fading, and that it serves no good purpose, and that we would be better off with it. You have even inserted a claim that anyone familiar with European history would know, beyond and doubt, that religion is bad and no worth keeping.
I am very familiar with your views, that you very much, although I wasn't completely clear on them before this thread....so I don;t thin I was projecting anything.
There are still a large number of religious people in Europe, right? SO I guess that takes care of your myth that all of Europe, of all familiar with it's history, believe the same as you.
See I countered your arguments without the benefit to linkage, and didn't even break a sweat.
If I am quoting numbers, or arguing a specific view for or against a position that requires links to prove something, then I am more than glad to provide them. SO far I haven't needed to do either against you, because common logic has done just fine.
I simply don;t have the time of energy to link to all the references you would need to begin to have a basic understanding of the issues you are trying to raise.
Here is a clue, though.....next time you want to use a sociological theory or psychological term, try reading up on it first. And I don't mean one study, I mean make sure you know what you are spouting off about. Just because you think you know what a word or term means in common usage doesn't mean you really understand the concept.
And don't make things up, not even for effect. You did that, and then admitted it, so don't play dumb about it now. Your link didn't mention those numbers, or draw all the same conclusions you did from their study.
Also, that study raised it's own issues about the accuracy of their own numbers, and the value of their own numbers in context to the issue they studied. I won't link to it, it is your own post and link..., so if it didn't raise questions to you then I feel it says a lot about your research methods....or lack of them, as the case may be.
Yes Bev, that was a quote from him.....I am not the type of person to make that sort of thing up and attribute to someone else.
Why bother linking to refute an argument that is all opinion and no substance, where the only link provided questions it's own methods and conclusions?
posted
punwit, to the extent that a desire for love leaves us open to exploitation, whether by individuals or organised faiths, we should indeed outgrow it. I think this may be called maturity. That's not to say we should stop looking for love; just that we should stop searching so desperately that any substitute will do.
Kwea, my argument may be good or not, but it is assuredly no strawman. I have not advanced it so I could shoot it down, I have advanced it because I believe it.
As for your claim to have countered my argument, you have done nothing of the kind. You have called it a strawman, which is inaccurate. The question "if it works for them and provides meaning in their lives, why would they change?" is not entirely relevant. My point is precisely that most people 'believe' out of habit and nothing more.
Regarding the questions of whether religion is bad and is fading, I don't see them as central to the argument; but in any case, you haven't refuted them. You have advanced the strawman that all Europeans are familiar with European history; this just ain't true. Hence the number of religious people in Europe means nothing. And you didn't even address the question of whether religion is fading or not, except to call the study I linked into question. Fine, but it's more than you've been able to show.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kwea, I wasn't questioning you, I was just incredulous that it was said at all, by any Hatracker. I didn't want to jump to conclusions in error.
Making up facts or statistics in order to "win" an argument is contemptible behavior, IMO.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, people, I said in the same post that the number was made up. I never tried to present it as anything more than a ballpark estimate. 99% == 'an overwhelming majority'. In somewhat the same vein I might say '42' instead of 'lots'. What is the problem, as long as I don't pretend to have scientific backing?
quote: Making up facts or statistics in order to "win" an argument is contemptible behavior, IMO.
Bev, I think it would be more accurate to phrase it as follows:
"Making up facts or statistics in order to attempt to "win" an argument is contemptible behavior, IMO." Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
Your numbers are American only (here I presume you got them from the link you posted, which when I skimmed it, was concerned solely with America). I am not American, nor is most of the planet Earth. As I stated before, the United States has long been the exception to all sociological studies of secularization - even contradicting studies agree on this.
The rest of the world, which on the surface is more supportive of your theory (having much lower rates of "believers" than the US does), still obstinately holds on to religion. You yourself have stated in this thread that the low numbers of religious people in Europe is evidence for the decline and disappearance of religion. And yet I have numerous published and accredited sources saying that this is not the case. (And for the record, these were texts used in my university course on Religion in Canada, when we discussed the theory of secularization in general. I add this only because I know if I don't, I am going to be accused of using un-scholarly sources.)
Frankly, "my theorists" are probably jumping for joy at this trend, since it means they no longer have to try and explain why America is just so damned religious. Now they just have to explain the delay. That is, if the trend continues. It could simply be another manifestation of what I quoted before:
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.
Oh, you Americans! High time you caught up with the rest of the world.
quote:You have advanced the straw man that all Europeans are familiar with European history; this just ain't true.
You're right it isn't...the fact that I used a straw man argument at all, that is.
I simply pointed out that what you said isn't true, yet again. You said that anyone who knows European history would have to agree with your points....which is a logical fallacy. Lots of people "know" European history, but once again you claim that I said that that all Europeans do, so I used a straw man...where did I say or imply that again?
Or are all Europeans idiots as well as insane?
Once again you go making claims about what is of isn't obvious to everyone, when in reality it is so far from obvious that even people who agree with you won't defend you or your points.
I haven't needed to post a link, all I needed to do is show that the very link you used doesn't draw most of the conclusions you do, even with it's own questionable methodology.
Try taking a 100 level course on some of this, you might actually learn something.....that is, if the whole campus isn't "insane"....
quote: Look, people, I said in the same post that the number was made up. I never tried to present it as anything more than a ballpark estimate. 99% == 'an overwhelming majority'. In somewhat the same vein I might say '42' instead of 'lots'. What is the problem, as long as I don't pretend to have scientific backing?
But you have claimed, earlier, that your whole approch is the logical, systematic approch, and so MUST be the correct one, and that all who disagree with you are insane, moronic, or both.
Since it is possible to disagree without being any of those, your whole argument is simplistic, arrogant, and logically false. You have been using poor debating techniques from the start, and nw you are whining that we didn't "know" you didn't really mean an actual 99%?
Bulsh*t.
The problem with that is that if you said 42 when you meant lots, and lots really means anything over 11, there is a lot of room between over 11 and 42 which could be covered by your false statement.
quote: Kwea, my argument may be good or not, but it is assuredly no strawman. I have not advanced it so I could shoot it down, I have advanced it because I believe it.
And now you show that you don't really even understand what a straw man is, which could explain a lot...and by that I don't mean 42....of things.
A straw man isn't about your argument, not if you are the one mentioning it....it is not about your ideas at all. It is the way you present your opponants arguments, picking a weak argument that they never intended ans using that to attempt to disprove their position. Bascially risrepresenting thei position, and then using that false position, which really has nothing to do wit their actual beliefs, to advance your own arguments.
Like when you said I had claimed all Europeans knew their history. Where sis I say that? Provide a link, all-knowing one, and enlighten me....
I said that there were religious people in Europe, and so they must not agree wit the universal blanket statment you made about religion. Unless yuo can prove that every single person who disagrees with you is completely ignorant about their own history, your statment was false.
So yuo rephrased my argument into something I never actually said and then refuted it, claiming that by doing so you were refuting my logic and position.
That, KoM, is a straw man...although to be honset, it wasn't even that good of one.
posted
I am coming to this thread late, so if I merely repeat some argument that has already been made, feel free to direct me to that section of the thread. If someone believes my argument is misdirected, feel free to correct my aim.
As I understand it, this trend is at its highest point in Europe compared to the rest of the world. That Europe is in the forefront of industrialization and of science is obvious. But something else should be as well: for centuries, Europe was the center of activity for a powerful religious hierarchy that at various times was corrupt, decadent, and/or violent. Then that era gave way to a period of multiple, conflicting state religions that repeatedly led their states in religious warfare against their neighbors.
None of this is to attack any of the various European churches, which have also done considerable good. Rather, these are the events for which said churches are best remembered. The burning of the Library of Alexandria. Witch hunts. Crusades. The Borgia popes. These and certain others, all in the same region, are the events constantly cited by opponents of religion in general, or of Christianity specifically.
I suggest that it is this specific experience that is leading to a decline in religious sentiment in Europe and its former colonies, as well as many secondarily Westernized nations. That is an understandable and natural response. But the events in question are not universal to religion, or even to Christianity, and where they did not occur or have been obscured by a later history of peaceful religious coexistence, naturally the trend is different. Thus we see an upswing in religious belief in the developing world and a greatly weakened anti-religious trend in the US.
This is, of course, a hypothesis, not a proof. But the same is true of the belief that industrial and scientific development naturally lead away from faith. And, since the latter belief developed precisely in the area most affected by the anti-religious trend, it is worthwhile to treat it with suspicion as a possible form of bias.
posted
Mabus has it on the nose. And the popular explanation for why America has maintained such a high proportion of religious till now (or perhaps more properly, a high status of religion) is because it suffered very little from religious domination. Right from the beginning, there was no Establishment Church. And thus relatively little reason to rebel against that Established Church. There's dispute on this, but more support, I think.
quote: 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.
I just want to address this. For the most part, those who go completely against the church (Public displays of hatred towards the church) are usually those who have been excommunicated for various offences. These peoples' names are removed from the church rosters and are effectively not counted as members. In addition, there are several who simply choose to have their names removed from the lists of church members. They are granted their request if it is given, signed, to proper authority (A bishop, for example). This happens VERY rarely. In general, the number of people who completely fall away from the church and choose to no longer be members are not counted as part of the church and thus, not part of the yearly membership count. Since that count seems to be increasing by over 100,000 each year, it is safe to assume that a larger number of people are converting to the church than those leaving it. Of course, this doesn't account for people who become members but just stop going to church. Many of these people actually consider themselves Mormons, but choose not to attend meetings for various reasons. The most effective way to determine how much the church is actually growing is by paying attention to the number of stakes or wards are organized in each year. Wards only split based on the number of active members in a geographical location. The average ward has roughly 200 members (This number is reached in two ways, by having a knowledge of the way the church operates as well as by assuming an activity rate among registered members of 50%, then dividing by the number of actual wards). There was an increase of 687 wards during the 6 year span given by beverly. By multiplying 687 by 200 we come to a total of over 130,000 new, active members in a 6 year period. Doesn't sound like much? That's a 10% growth every year. That's just one religion, KoM. Islam grows about as fast, if not faster world wide. Considering there are about 2 billion Muslims around the world, that's about 20 million more every 5-6 years. [sarcasm] Yes. I can see how people are begining to reject religion. It's completely clear to me now. Thank you for enlightening me. [/sarcasm]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also find it a bit odd that we began talking about religious sentiment in general, but the link talks about how many people are active in specific religions...not how many believe in god in general but don't like organized religion. I know KoM's link said that according to their study the single largest group was from believers to non-believers, but when compared to the total the figure was much less than the whole picture gathered. In other words, while the single largest group was "converted" to atheism, that group was dwarfed by the number of people who still believed in a higher power but changed denominations..... ...hardly convincing proof of KoM's point, don't you think?
Boris, how does that compare to the overall growth of the population though? It is an impressive feat, to be sure, but if the total number of people is what you are going to look at rather than a percentage of the population, you have to figure in the fact that the population in the US is expanding very rapidly, and that is a factor in the growth of your religion as well. Not that you didn't have a good point, But I am not sure how it relates to the overall population growth lately..and it is too late for me to look it up myself...
posted
Interestingly enough, Kwea, the world's population grows at a slightly slower rate, percentage-wise. The world's population in 1999 was about 5.94 billion. Today it is about 6.5 billion. That's about 9% growth every 6 years. The LDS church grows by roughly 12-13 percent in the same period (speaking in purely active member terms). My estimate on Muslim growth percentage was inacurate, I'm sure. I don't know how to get exact figures on it (10% growth each 6 years comes out to about 200 million, not 20. Though that may well be an acurate estimate for a 6 year period, considering the population growth percentage, if one third of the world is Muslim, one third or more of the world's population increase will be born into a Muslim family). Population growth in the US is roughly the same percent as world-wide. The Census Bureau states there is a net gain of one person every 12 seconds in the US. There are 31536000 seconds in a year, divided by twelve, comes to about 2,635,200 each year. That's about .9% per year, making a US population growth of about, we'll suggest 6-7% every 6 years to make things more realistic.
edit: I should go to bed, huh?
[ March 26, 2005, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with your suggestion that we all should be discerning, mature beings KoM, but my point was that there are many facets of being human that open us to manipulation. Religion is not alone in that aspect. If we all were devoid of emotion and aspirations we wouldn't be susceptible to outside influences but we would be a sad reflection of what we are now. I'm reminded of a song by Simon and Garfunkel called I Am a Rock.
A winter's day In a deep and dark December I am alone Gazing from my window To the streets below On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow
I am a rock I am an island
I've built walls A fortress deep and mighty That none may penetrate I have no need for friendship Friendship causes pain It's laughter and it's loving I disdain.
I am a rock I am an island
Don't talk of love Well, I've heard the word before It's sleeping in my memory I won't disturb the slumber Of feelings that have died If I'd never loved, I never would have cried
I am a rock I am an island
I have my books And my poetry to protect me I am shielded in my armor Hiding in my room Safe within my womb I touch no-one and no-one touches me
I am a rock I am an island And the rock feels no pain And an island never cries
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The woman stayed where she was, looking at him as if without comprehension. Mikal grew angry, but he said nothing because suddenly her melody counseled silence, insisted on silence, and instead Mikal turned to Nniv. "Make her stop humming," he said. "I refuse to be manipulated."
"Then," Nniv said (and his song seemed to shout with laughter, though his voice remained soft), "then you refuse to live."
"Are you threatening me?"
"Nniv smiled. "Oh, no, Mikal. I merely observe that all living things are manipulated. As long as there is a will, it is bent and twisted constantly. Only the dead are allowed the luxury of freedom, and then only because they want nothing, and therefore can't be thwarted."
quote:There are still a large number of religious people in Europe, right? SO I guess that takes care of your myth that all of Europe, of all familiar with it's history, believe the same as you.
I grant that your grammar is not of the best, but it certainly looks to me like a claim that all of Europe knows European history, and therefore ought to agree with me.
130k yearly is a pretty small number compared to the population even of the US, much less the world.
Eaquae, I think if you look back at my posts, I didn't say much about rates of religion in all of Europe, but rather in Norway. Certainly Norway and the US are the only places I gave any numbers for.
punwit, I love that song too, but I don't think it invalidates my point. As I see it, the singer has given too much to someone who didn't deserve it, and gotten badly hurt. He then draws the wrong lesson, namely that one shouldn't love at all, which is not what I'm saying. I'm saying one should be careful with giving love and trust; they are precious things, and not everybody is worthy of them.
quote:A straw man isn't about your argument, not if you are the one mentioning it....it is not about your ideas at all. It is the way you present your opponants arguments, picking a weak argument that they never intended ans using that to attempt to disprove their position. Bascially risrepresenting thei position, and then using that false position, which really has nothing to do wit their actual beliefs, to advance your own arguments.
Kwea, are you really arguing in good faith? This is precisely what I said a strawman is : Advancing a weak argument for the other side, so you can shoot it down. When I advance an argument for my own side, it cannot be a strawman!
quote: know KoM's link said that according to their study the single largest group was from believers to non-believers, but when compared to the total the figure was much less than the whole picture gathered. In other words, while the single largest group was "converted" to atheism, that group was dwarfed by the number of people who still believed in a higher power but changed denominations..... ...hardly convincing proof of KoM's point, don't you think?
No, Kwea, you are reading those statistics wrong, or at least drawing unwarranted conclusions. It said that 16% of adults had changed their faith (so my 99% wasn't that far off, actually) and that of those 16%, the largest group was those who changed away from any religious belief. You cannot conclude from this that the converted-to-atheism group is 'dwarfed' by the changed-faith groups, there just isn't enough data.
On another subject, this of industrialisation is actually somewhat irrelevant. I have not claimed any cause for the weakening of religion, only that it has been occurring. Hence, the findings of sociologists that the industrialisation->secularisation theory is false does not weaken my position in any way. You need to show that secularisation is not happening; it is insufficient to show that any particular cause has been discredited.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You need to show that secularisation is not happening; it is insufficient to show that any particular cause has been discredited.
I did that. You're not listening, apparently.
The causes of the why or why not I posted mostly for interest's sake.
Very well, you've posted one European country and the United States as examples of your theory. I've adressed the United States' unique situation and offered conclusions against secularization for the whole of Europe.
The simple fact that everyone agress on except you is that like it or not, religion is NOT going to disappear any time soon. Or any time that we can forsee at all. Religion is becoming more privatized, but it is not going to end.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that all depends on whether or not I become God-Emperor of Earth and can send the faithful to Siberia.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What possibly is worthwile in arguing about the demographics of the future? IMO, models and statistics can't predict to much certainty how people will feel years from now.
It's obvious that no one here is going to change anyone else' current beliefs. Thus, I see no point in arguing about the future.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, that all depends on whether or not I become God-Emperor of Earth and can send the faithful to Siberia.
KoM, while Siberia might be a bit larger than your ego, it's still too small to hold all of the believers of the world.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think it is adorable that KoM is so optimistic that he thinks the muderous, prideful, barbarbic traits of humanity are eradicable.
Or, I would if I didn't think he was sixteen years and as excited with his discovery of bashing religion as a four-year-old is with his discovery of...swear words.
That's not what I was thinking, and I swear it's because I've been reading Shadow of the Giant. Let's blame that unladylike lapse on OSC.
[ March 26, 2005, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Lady Jane ]
Posts: 1163 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sarcasticmuppet, you're failing to take into account the bloody war before my coming to power. Also, I think you underestimate just how big Siberia is. At a pinch, I can add Canada - the current inhabitants can be given the more fertile parts of the continent, they deserve it more than most Americans.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, KoM, 130k a year is small, but percentagewise, it's faster than the population growth rate. And it doesn't show any signs of slowing down, as opposed to the population growth rate, which, when you take into account the general dislike that the rising generation has for having kids, is more likely to decrease than stay steady. But here's one reason I believe in God, and maybe you should think about this...If there is a God, I'll probably be better off believing in him than not. If there isn't a God, well, when I die it isn't going to matter that much, now is it. On to the argument of scientific advancement vs. religion. Yeah, it's bad for religion to impede scientific advancement. In my opinion, we should allow scientists to explore the universe in an ethical manner. But I think something that is dangerous is the obvious prejudice and near-racism you show in your belief that you are better than those who religious. In honesty, your views, as you have presented them, seem more like blatant bigotry than actual coherant thought.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, please, not Pascal's hoary old Wager. In the first place, belief is not cost-free : It embroils you in arguments with fanatical atheists on interwebnet discussion boards. More to the point, it has an opportunity cost in terms of going to church, donating, and such activities. If indeed we have only this life, that's many hours of it you've wasted when you could have been doing something fun instead.
Second, you are arguing as if the choice were between your god and no god. You are forgetting the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If the IPU theory is true, and it has just as much evidence in its favour as any other theology, then you believer types are going to be in Serious Trouble (tm) when you die. The IPU strongly disapproves of worship. Likewise, it is entirely possible that the punishment for believing in the wrong way is worse than that for not believing at all - I don't offhand recall what Dante does to atheists, but the fate of heretics is just nasty.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: seem more like blatant bigotry than actual coherant thought.
Seem like? That's very generous, Boris. It isn't seem like. It is blatant bigotry just like it is incoherent logic.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: More to the point, it has an opportunity cost in terms of going to church, donating, and such activities. If indeed we have only this life, that's many hours of it you've wasted when you could have been doing something fun instead.
Oh, thanks for making me realize how much nicer it is to believe in something. Go ahead and have "fun". You won't have to die to regret it. You'll regret it while you're alive. Of course, you'll probably be doing it all alone.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, are you trying to imply that atheists do not fall in love, or that our lives are empty of meaning? Speaking of bigotry.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Boris, are you trying to imply that atheists do not fall in love, or that our lives are empty of meaning? Speaking of bigotry.
No, I think you said that yourself earlier. But really, what kind of "fun" would I be having if I didn't go to church and donate money to the poor and needy and give part of my life to serve my fellow man? I'm curious. Cause I think our definition of the word fun may be different.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, what do you like doing? Reading books? Writing? Sitting about posting on Hatrack? Studying for Quals? (I don't, personally, enjoy that last very much, but I'm glad I don't have to break into studying time by going to church.) Maybe you're a masochist who enjoys listening to sermons; if so, I won't stop you. You could still use your money for something else, though.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and I can do those things in abundance while I'm not in church, as well. Religion doesn't keep me from doing those things. The only "fun" I think I'm really missing out on would be the drugs, partying, drinking, etc. that most people my age are doing right now (and technically, I'm not really missing out on anything there, am I?). And spend my money on something else...Like what? A better computer? Wow. Selfish.
[ March 26, 2005, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drugs, partying, and drinking? Well, you certainly have an un-bigoted view of non-Mormons, don't you? Seriously, Boris, if you go to church X hours a week, that's X hours you could not be doing something else. What the 'something else' is, is completely up to you. How about helping your mother around the house, if you absolutely must feel virtuous?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow...I go to church for about 3 hours each week, I study scripture for about 3-4 hours a week. So about 7 hours of my entire, 168 hour week is spent going to church. It would take me about 80 hours to drive home to North Carolina to help my mom around the house, in case you were wondering. Leaving me with 160 hours roughly to do whatever the heck I feel like doing. Sleep takes up maybe 60 hours. School takes up 14 hours...86 hours of free time during the week. Do I really need 7 more hours to waste watching TV? No. Seriously, I'm not at any loss for going to church. It would not benefit me at all to stop going to church. Only a completely selfish, childish person would tell people to stop going to church so they could claim those 7 hours a week to do what that person wants to do. And so far, you're really showing youself to be that kind of person. Good job. You're a tribute to non-believers everywhere. I will now use you to increase my level of bigotry against atheists. I appreciate the help.
edit: And let us all thank the Invisible Pink Unicorn for the fact that not all atheists/agnostics are as immature as KoM.
[ March 26, 2005, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Boris ]
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, certainly watching TV is even more a waste of time than going to church is, I'm completely with you there. If you do this a lot, stop! But seven hours is a precious resource. You only get so many of them, you know - even if you believe in eternal life, only a small portion of it will be spent on Earth. Talk to some girls, learn a programming language, learn a foreign language - there's all sorts of worthwhile things to do with your time!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I gotta say that that last was all my fault...I know what I meant to type, and you are right about that at least...it didn't resemble any sort of grammar, did it?
I was trying (unsuccessfully) to combine two thought there, and I find that I didn't phrase either at all. Oh well.......
I WAS implying that not all Europeans who believe in religion, or more specifically in a God of some sort, were ignorant of European history. I am fairly well schooled in it myself, although not to the extent I would like to be (and not European either... ), and I still believe. I hardly doubt that most Europeans are completely unfamiliar with their own history, but a significant number of them, indeed a majority, still believe. That points to a direct flaw in your arguments, doesn't it?
Also, I spent a lot of time when I was younger not believing myself, or at least not identifying with any particular religion...according to your study as well as your personal beliefs that would somehow equate with the end of religion. Not at all, I just think that Churches are filled with all sorts of people, and are at times controlled by people who don't see the world that same way I do, and I don't like to have myself identified with people who act and believe differently that I do. That didn't mean I was non religious, as in didn't believe in God at all, but that is how your study might have interpreted my response had I been called. I know they have an category for that, agnostic, but the study itself states many possible/probable flaws with it's own data gathering, that not being the least of them...that many religious people would not be counted in the proper categories due to non specific responses.
As far as if I am arguing in good faith, why would I still be here in this thread if I wasn't? I have better things to do than practice mental onanism here with you, and if I wasn't acting/posting in good faith that is what it would be...mental masturbation.
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. Is this the fact you've been complaining 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.
It could be one reason, although the study didn't say anything about that, but you have not excluded any of the many other reasons mentioned here, so your conclusion is still unsupported. That fact is crystal clear. That hasn't stopped you from declaring the point irrefutable, though.
Kwea: (me)
quote:Your straw man argument is that if people stay within the faith of their fathers it is completely because of their social conditioning, for no other reasons.
That is a straw man, because you are saying that the ONLY reason people stay within their faith is social conditioning, and so therefore it makes no sense and must be because they are brainwashed/insane. You are saying their faith is because of X, which isn't what they say at all, and therefore Z MUST be true......You create the straw man that excludes what the actual believers say, which is that there are many reasons why they continue to believe as they do, and postulate a completely unsupported reasoning, and then attribute it to them.
Believers here is this thread have said that they stay within their faith because it makes them feel like they are connected to their communities, and that it fit their world view. They have also said that while social conditioning may contribute to their choice of religion, there are many factors that contribute to choosing a faith that fits them..including social aspects that you yourself have mentioned. If the social conditioning that "brainwashed" us was so powerful, why is there any change in denominations and faiths at all?
You have discounted all these first hand experiences with a wave of arrogance and said that none of them are the REAL reason, the REAL reason is early childhood conditioning, without supporting that theory with anything other than poor speculations and personal observations, and one phone study that questions it's own numbers and methods.
I wonder if YOU are arguing in good faith.
I do know this...I started off in this thread a lot more mild than I ended, and while I don't doubt you believe what you are saying, I am appalled by your lack of sensitivity, your complete arrogance in assuming you know better than us about one of the most important details of our lives, and by your incredible lack of knowledge of psychology, sociology, and human relationships.
I don't think I will bother posting in here any more, as we have reached an impasse.
I don't think I can believe anything you say at this point, and we obviously disagree on the fundamentals of your argument, such as it is.
quote: You are forgetting the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
It bugs me when atheists pull this crap. See my last post in the "Believers" thread.
I think there needs to be a counterpart to Godwin's law that states when an atheist pulls out pink unicorns, purple pandas, and the easter bunny, productive conversation has died.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So only religions hallowed by age and blood are to be permitted, then? If you would discriminate against the Invisible Pink Unicorn (all praise to her name!) on the grounds of newness, how can you defend the Mormon faith, an upstart of a mere two hundred years? Christianity itself was at one point an obscure cult, practised by a few peasants in an unimportant corner of the Empire.
Really, if you can postulate an invisible, supernatural entity, why can't I? If it bugs you, well, maybe you should take another look at just why you believe. You might learn something.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, well, witnesses. Let's see. Revelations and testimonies. Now, I ask you, why do you put any more credence in, say, testimonies of five thousand people fed from two loaves of bread, than in these statements? Besides, by Her very nature, no-one can see the Invisible Pink Unicorn. The reason being, she's Invisible in addition to being Pink.
In any case, why would you discriminate against gods too shy, or too merciful, to show themselves on Earth? I consider the IPU's hooves-off attitude to be one of her greatest blessings.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, sarcasticmuppet, you're failing to take into account the bloody war before my coming to power. Also, I think you underestimate just how big Siberia is. At a pinch, I can add Canada - the current inhabitants can be given the more fertile parts of the continent, they deserve it more than most Americans.
I probably do underestimate the size of Siberia...and subsequently, the comparative size of your ego.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I imagine I know far more about the testimonies of my faith than you do. It doesn't compare to what you have shown any more than pulling up a random deity with no evidence compares with the one in which I believe.
You see, some say that faith is believing without evidence. My understanding of faith is believing *with* evidence. If there were no evidence, I would imagine "hope" would be a better defining word.
If you actually had hope in an Invisible Pink Unicorn, I would have some respect for that belief (assuming you were not causing harm). I would respect it because it was sincere, even if I thought it silly, illogical, and without evidence. But you only bring it up to mock the beliefs of others. The problem is, it is a poor comparison for reasons already stated.
Example for contrast:
Scenario A: You tell me there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn. You have no evidence to provide, no witnesses.
Scenario B: You report that you have been contacted by an Invisible Pink Unicorn. You were not the only one present when this occurred. Your stories collaborate. You willingly suffer persecution for your faith, in fact, you and your witnesses face death rather than recount your testimonies.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Basically, you go to the main index for the General Conferences, and choose the April Conference (it won't be found in the October one) then choose the Saturday Afternoon session, "Statistical Report" or something like that.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
