The Unbeliever Thread

[SeattleUte]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032

Do atheists do this kind of thing to religious bloggers who disagree with them?

[LA Ute]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33819032

Do atheists do this kind of thing to religious bloggers who disagree with them?

You do it in your hearts, which is just as bad.

[SeattleUte]

You do it in your hearts, which is just as bad.

Welcome to the new unbeliever blog. I have a feeling this forum will not be chloroform in print like its alter ego blog. Maybe you and I will be the Hannity and Holmes of UB5.

[LA Ute]

Welcome to the new unbeliever blog. I have a feeling this forum will not be chloroform in print like its alter ego blog. Maybe you and I will be the Hannity and Holmes of UB5.


Perhaps. But maybe believers will let unbelievers have their own thread so the poor faithless souls can talk to each other without someone trying to drop in and start a food fight. Not that anything like that has ever happened on this board, of course....

[Ma'ake]

My question is what is exactly an "Un-Believer" or a "Dis-Believer", or whatever? Don't believe in the theology of a particular religion? Disbelieve any notion that there might be something beyond this life?

I think it was Dawkins who qualified his non-belief by confining it to the so-called "personal God" that western religions believe in, not a criticism of eastern religions' concept of universal consciousness, Nirvana, etc.

There was an atheist on British TV who said his proof there is no God are all the horrible things that happen to completely innocent people, like children who have some kind of insect eat their eyes out. "A merciful God would never allow that to happen".

Hinduism has no problem explaining all the miserable things that happen to good people. Life is brutal, it is suffering. What do we learn along the way?

[Utebiquitous]

It appears Hannity & Homes is already happening. Love it.

[SeattleUte]

My question is what is exactly an "Un-Believer" or a "Dis-Believer", or whatever? Don't believe in the theology of a particular religion? Disbelieve any notion that there might be something beyond this life?

I think it was Dawkins who qualified his non-belief by confining it to the so-called "personal God" that western religions believe in, not a criticism of eastern religions' concept of universal consciousness, Nirvana, etc.

There was an atheist on British TV who said his proof there is no God are all the horrible things that happen to completely innocent people, like children who have some kind of insect eat their eyes out. "A merciful God would never allow that to happen".

Hinduism has no problem explaining all the miserable things that happen to good people. Life is brutal, it is suffering. What do we learn along the way?

Unbelief as I use it refers to essentially to religions; unbelief in all religious institutions and their literature and metaphysics as anything other than man-made. It means outright rejection of all religion as deserving any special status whatsoever or anything I am at all willing to subject or subjugate myself to. Historically this attitude has been enough to get oneself branded an atheist. But I prefer the term unbelief, as a clean descriptive term that is the converse of belief. Atheist is too loaded, too subjective, and, I submit, misunderstood. Same for agnostic. Personally, I regard the difference between a thoughtful person who calls himself an atheist and one who calls himself an agnostic to be nil, other than self-definition. And of course this type of self-definition can be crucial to one's social acceptance and standing, even in the USA. Tom Paine nicely put the unbeliever's creed.




I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.

In the mid-seventeenth century a young Jewish man living in the Netherlands named Baruch Spinoza said essentially as much to himself. His primary preoccupation became biblical exegesis -- he thought it obvious that the Bible was wholly analogous to the Iliad. His critique of scripture got him excommunicated from Judaism, and also ignited the Enlightenment, which led to Darwin, modernism, the United States, 14th Amendment, Brown v. Board of Education, same sex marriage, et al. Unbelievers, like believers, see these events in terms of a cosmic battle. When Dallin Oaks condemned the Renaissance, humanism, the Enlightenment, and modernism , he was right, as an advocate of religion. So was Boyd K. Packer, when he said that intellectuals, feminists, and gays are the chief enemies of the LDS Church.

[tooblue]

I was starting to get worried. It's been over a year since you mentioned Spinoza here. Praise to the man!

LOL ... SeattleUte fancies himself a modern day Spinoza! Ironically asserting he has exercised his free will, emancipating himself from religion, and then in the same breath insisting that free will is an illusion because we are the sum of nature and it's laws, and nothing more. Leaving the church is "his" evolutionary advantage ensuring he will survive, by natural selection, and the believers will be rendered extinct.

[Ma'ake]

LOL ... SeattleUte fancies himself a modern day Spinoza! Ironically asserting he has exercised his free will, emancipating himself from religion, and then in the same breath insisting that free will is an illusion because we are the sum of nature and it's laws, and nothing more. Leaving the church is "his" evolutionary advantage ensuring he will survive, by natural selection, and the believers will be rendered extinct.

Actually, I'll defend Seattle Ute, here. It's really, really easy pickins to dissect most religions, with their metaphysical claims. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are easily deconstructed, with innumerable contradictions, tall tales and text that has to be very, very finely parsed, and some parts ignored, in order to maintain any semblance of a coherent theology.

For LDS and Christian believers to understand this perspective, they should try to read the Bhagavad Gita, which is a similarly styled book, essential scripture for 900 million Hindus. I work with a number of Indians, mostly Hindu, and while most of them don't denigrate their faith, the educated Hindus we see in American Universities aren't exactly devout. I see very few Indian women who wear the Bindi, the little dot Hindus put on their forehead, unless their parents are in town and they're giving a tour of our facility.

I think the (apparent) losses in membership Mormonism is seeing is not at all unusual, and more and more people decide traditional religions just don't measure up, in terms of rationality.

For example, there was a recent poll of Russians about religion, and the number of church goers is quite low, in the 20-25% range, which is odd, considering their having been denied religion during the Soviet era, and religion hence being one of the freedoms they were re-connected with after the fall of communism. I think most Russians, having a break in intergenerational religion, didn't have the continuity in culture and belief passed down within their families, and so they were getting a "fresh" look at religion, and the overwhelming majority found it wanting. LDS missionaries have "modest" success in Russia, where it was once thought there would be eager potential converts, having suffered without the gospel for so long.

Interestingly, the same poll indicated that many Russians have "faith" that something lies beyond this life, something the religions are trying to embody, but clearly lots of churches struggle in getting and keeping members, not just Mormons.

[Rocker Ute]

I was starting to get worried. It's been over a year since you mentioned Spinoza here. Praise to the man!



I have to teach the "no Renaissance" lesson in Sunday School this week. Sometimes I wonder if Mormons take our Renaissance bashing too far. It's such a strong part of the culture.

Wait, Renaissance bashing? I've decided I live on an island within my own church. I've never heard ANY of that sort of stuff... Kind of the opposite in fact -- that technological, philosophical, social, religious, etc movements, advancements and enlightenments were predecessors and necessary for the restoration of the gospel.

What is more beautiful to Christians than the Pieta?

1528

This is what I get for sleeping through General Conference I suppose.

[tooblue]

Actually, I'll defend Seattle Ute, here. It's really, really easy pickins to dissect most religions, with their metaphysical claims. The Bible and the Book of Mormon are easily deconstructed, with innumerable contradictions, tall tales and text that has to be very, very finely parsed, and some parts ignored, in order to maintain any semblance of a coherent theology.

For LDS and Christian believers to understand this perspective, they should try to read the Bhagavad Gita, which is a similarly styled book, essential scripture for 900 million Hindus. I work with a number of Indians, mostly Hindu, and while most of them don't denigrate their faith, the educated Hindus we see in American Universities aren't exactly devout. I see very few Indian women who wear the Bindi, the little dot Hindus put on their forehead, unless their parents are in town and they're giving a tour of our facility.

I think the (apparent) losses in membership Mormonism is seeing is not at all unusual, and more and more people decide traditional religions just don't measure up, in terms of rationality.

For example, there was a recent poll of Russians about religion, and the number of church goers is quite low, in the 20-25% range, which is odd, considering their having been denied religion during the Soviet era, and religion hence being one of the freedoms they were re-connected with after the fall of communism. I think most Russians, having a break in intergenerational religion, didn't have the continuity in culture and belief passed down within their families, and so they were getting a "fresh" look at religion, and the overwhelming majority found it wanting. LDS missionaries have "modest" success in Russia, where it was once thought there would be eager potential converts, having suffered without the gospel for so long.

Interestingly, the same poll indicated that many Russians have "faith" that something lies beyond this life, something the religions are trying to embody, but clearly lots of churches struggle in getting and keeping members, not just Mormons.

The LDS church is growing at a steady clip and will continue to grow. The issue of keeping members is no more significant now than it was at its inception, save the optics on scale: it looks like many because there are many, simply because there are exponentially more members of the church etc.

But all this is not germane to the question of whether or not SeattleUte is a true Spinozist. I suspect he is not, based on my many interactions with him. And maybe therein lies the root cause of his internal conflict: his desire to be something he's not. Which is the battle we all face on some level. Though, I think it's fun to observe that each of us defending or talking about him renders him God-like in a sense and feeds his weltanschauung, or the "logos" that governs (his) reasoning.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Wait, Renaissance bashing? I've decided I live on an island within my own church. I've never heard ANY of that sort of stuff... Kind of the opposite in fact -- that technological, philosophical, social, religious, etc movements, advancements and enlightenments were predecessors and necessary for the restoration of the gospel.


.

You definitely live on an island. Your ward will actually accept people who are open and admitted Democrats. That is rare in Utah.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?71377-Dallin-Oaks-condemning-the-Renaissance-science-humanism-and&p=1075226&viewfull=1#post1075226

[LA Ute]

Here's how Dallin Oaks "condemned" the Renaissance:


The denial of God or the downplaying of His role in human affairs, which began in the Renaissance, has become pervasive today. The glorifying of human reasoning has had good effects and bad. The work of science has made innumerable improvements in our lives, but the rejection of divine authority as the ultimate basis of right and wrong by those who have substituted science for God has many religious people asking this question:

“Why [is] the will of any of the brilliant philosophers of the liberal tradition, or, for that matter, the will of the Supreme Court of the United States . . . more relevant to moral decisions than the will of God”?

Now that you know how SU, a very bright man, shamelessly plays fast and loose with truth, accuracy and intellectual honesty, you can decide how seriously to take his Unbeliever's Creed.

P.S. Mornin', Ralph.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3ayJuj2PbYv

[Ma'ake]

Is this a reasonable paraphrase: "The moral decay of society began with the Renaissance, continued through Thomas Jefferson and other Deists, and now results in people using human reasoning in place of God's commandments" ? The obvious responses would be "who's God, and which commandments?"

I read Oaks' words to mean "our downfall began with the Renaissance", if you had to boil down the first part. And you could make the case, that from a faith standpoint, there's truth in that statement, as the evolution of human reasoning and quest for knowledge has had a detrimental impact on religions, and faith.

As people have their material needs better met, and life is not as precarious as it has been over the course of human history, the need for faith is generally less, overall, which is manifested in it being much easier for LDS missionaries to find converts in poor countries, and a lot tougher to find converts in more "advanced" countries, where life's problems don't involve locating next week's food.

Clearly, modern mankind has problems - there is no utopia, no nirvana - and you find people searching for faith when they're facing the really big problems in life, but in general. But when life becomes comfortable, philosophy emerges, reason and critical thinking arise, and with the relative confidence of education and material success, people try to make sense of life, in the process giving a jaundiced eye to mythology, or looking past the metaphysical, searching for lessons.

You have people like Thomas Jefferson editing the Bible to exclude the parts he thought to be preposterous.

[LA Ute]

Is this a reasonable paraphrase: "The moral decay of society began with the Renaissance, continued through Thomas Jefferson and other Deists, and now results in people using human reasoning in place of God's commandments" ? The obvious responses would be "who's God, and which commandments?"

I read Oaks' words to mean "our downfall began with the Renaissance", if you had to boil down the first part. And you could make the case, that from a faith standpoint, there's truth in that statement, as the evolution of human reasoning and quest for knowledge has had a detrimental impact on religions, and faith.

As people have their material needs better met, and life is not as precarious as it has been over the course of human history, the need for faith is generally less, overall, which is manifested in it being much easier for LDS missionaries to find converts in poor countries, and a lot tougher to find converts in more "advanced" countries, where life's problems don't involve locating next week's food.

Clearly, modern mankind has problems - there is no utopia, no nirvana - and you find people searching for faith when they're facing the really big problems in life, but in general. But when life becomes comfortable, philosophy emerges, reason and critical thinking arise, and with the relative confidence of education and material success, people try to make sense of life, in the process giving a jaundiced eye to mythology, or looking past the metaphysical, searching for lessons.

You have people like Thomas Jefferson editing the Bible to exclude the parts he thought to be preposterous.

Elder Oaks was decrying "The denial of God or the downplaying of His role in human affairs," not the Renaissance. He mentioned the Renaissance only to mark the time when the change in thinking began. SU said Oaks "condemned the Renaissance," which is simply dishonest. Oaks wasn't condemning anything but excessive secularism. You've done a much better (non-trolling) job of articulating the position that Oaks does not like. It's an argument on which reasonable people can and do disagree.

And now I've allowed SU to troll me. Then again, sometimes he actually means what he says about such things.

1529

[chrisrenrut]

LA and Rocker apparently haven't heard - "down with renaissance" is this year's primary program theme.

Our ward tried to make it more Christ-centered, and changed it to "Jesus loves everyone, except Galileo".

[Rocker Ute]

You definitely live on an island. Your ward will actually accept people who are open and admitted Democrats. That is rare in Utah.

Apparently I've hit all five of them in my adult life.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Our ward tried to make it more Christ-centered, and changed it to "Jesus loves everyone, except Galileo".

Speaking of Galileo, it is perhaps one of life's best paradoxes that his anti-science accusers/tormentors (Jesuits) became some of the Renaissaince's most influential scientists and champions of gaining a secular education to augment a religious education. Jesuit astronomers established the Vatican Observatory, developed the highly-accurate Gregorian Calender we still use today, and drove the church to (nominally) accept science. Jesuit scientists contributed to the study of Genetics, mathematics, biology, paleontology, etc., all of which were previously seen by conservative fundamental religious types as anathema to religious belief. They also established some of the world's finest universities. And the current Pope is a Jesuit who spent time as a Chemistry professor.

Give this excellent podcast a listen. Neil Degrasse-Tyson interviews Richard Dawkins as well as a pair of Jesuit priests who are strong proponents of the Theory of Evolution. It is well worth a listen.

http://www.startalkradio.net/show/exploring-science-and-religion-with-richard-dawkins/

[SeattleUte]

Nice graphics, LA. I wish I had thought of that. One of my favorite cartoon series ever. They don't make them like they used to.

[SeattleUte]

Is this a reasonable paraphrase: "The moral decay of society began with the Renaissance, continued through Thomas Jefferson and other Deists, and now results in people using human reasoning in place of God's commandments" ? The obvious responses would be "who's God, and which commandments?"

I read Oaks' words to mean "our downfall began with the Renaissance", if you had to boil down the first part. And you could make the case, that from a faith standpoint, there's truth in that statement, as the evolution of human reasoning and quest for knowledge has had a detrimental impact on religions, and faith.

As people have their material needs better met, and life is not as precarious as it has been over the course of human history, the need for faith is generally less, overall, which is manifested in it being much easier for LDS missionaries to find converts in poor countries, and a lot tougher to find converts in more "advanced" countries, where life's problems don't involve locating next week's food.

Clearly, modern mankind has problems - there is no utopia, no nirvana - and you find people searching for faith when they're facing the really big problems in life, but in general. But when life becomes comfortable, philosophy emerges, reason and critical thinking arise, and with the relative confidence of education and material success, people try to make sense of life, in the process giving a jaundiced eye to mythology, or looking past the metaphysical, searching for lessons.

You have people like Thomas Jefferson editing the Bible to exclude the parts he thought to be preposterous.

Hmm, I think you're being too charitable to religion. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Three things inevitably converge: increased rate of education, increased rate of unbelief, increased prosperity. I think you may have your chronology twisted up.

[LA Ute]

Nice graphics, LA. I wish I had thought of that. One of my favorite cartoon series ever. They don't make them like they used to.

I'm just glad I thought of it first so I could have first dibs on being Sam the Sheepdog and relegate you to being Ralph the Wolf (cousin to Wile E. Coyote, IIRC).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

I'm just glad I thought of it first so I could have first dibs on being Sam the Sheepdog and relegate you to being Ralph the Wolf (cousin to Wile E. Coyote, IIRC).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have no problem being Ralph. A guy like Ralph, eventually winds up on top. Perseverance is the most important quality for success; that's what I tell my kids. Anyway, in this crowd I'm definitely Ralph and you're Sam.

[Rocker Ute]

LA and Rocker apparently haven't heard - "down with renaissance" is this year's primary program theme.

Ha! I love when I miss the sarcasm and fall for it. You got me today, apologies on the slow uptake.

I hope they put this picture up for the 'Down with Renaissance' program:

https://fashionistajennlevis.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/dvid.png

[U-Ute]

You definitely live on an island. Your ward will actually accept people who are open and admitted Democrats. That is rare in Utah.

This is a dangerous precedent. Next thing you know they will allow people to have their pets join.

It is a slippery slope.

[#1 Utefan]

Is this a reasonable paraphrase: "The moral decay of society began with the Renaissance, continued through Thomas Jefferson and other Deists, and now results in people using human reasoning in place of God's commandments" ? The obvious responses would be "who's God, and which commandments?"

I read Oaks' words to mean "our downfall began with the Renaissance", if you had to boil down the first part. And you could make the case, that from a faith standpoint, there's truth in that statement, as the evolution of human reasoning and quest for knowledge has had a detrimental impact on religions, and faith.

As people have their material needs better met, and life is not as precarious as it has been over the course of human history, the need for faith is generally less, overall, which is manifested in it being much easier for LDS missionaries to find converts in poor countries, and a lot tougher to find converts in more "advanced" countries, where life's problems don't involve locating next week's food.

Clearly, modern mankind has problems - there is no utopia, no nirvana - and you find people searching for faith when they're facing the really big problems in life, but in general. But when life becomes comfortable, philosophy emerges, reason and critical thinking arise, and with the relative confidence of education and material success, people try to make sense of life, in the process giving a jaundiced eye to mythology, or looking past the metaphysical, searching for lessons.

You have people like Thomas Jefferson editing the Bible to exclude the parts he thought to be preposterous.


Not surprised at all you interpreted his comments that way. Selective listening and hearing what you want to hear to fit a narrative unfortunately isn't uncommon.

[Solon]

LOL ... SeattleUte fancies himself a modern day Spinoza! Ironically asserting he has exercised his free will, emancipating himself from religion, and then in the same breath insisting that free will is an illusion because we are the sum of nature and it's laws, and nothing more. Leaving the church is "his" evolutionary advantage ensuring he will survive, by natural selection, and the believers will be rendered extinct.

Spinoza wasn't emancipated from religion. On the contrary, he sought to re-kindle spirituality from the vapid ritual-based religion of his time. Spinoza worshiped God - not the words on a page of scripture or the ritual in a church at Mass. Richard Bushman, whose opinion seems to be in hot demand these days, spoke in the same vein when he suggested recently (http://www.wheatandtares.org/17915/richard-bushman-on-mormonism/) that LDS should worship God, not Mormonism. Similarly, the O.T. prophet Amos (5.5-6) urged Israel to seek The LORD, not Bethel (a holy site that means "House of God"). Spinoza advocated an ethical love that stripped away all of the unnecessary convolutions of religion, ritual, bureaucracy, and tradition - is this not what Jesus did to the Judaism of his time?

We need more Spinozas in today's world to advocate for the freedom to allow people to think for themselves, to decide what kind of ethics, beliefs, and morality they want to adopt as they pursue happy lives;
just like we need more Seattle Utes who (in real life) advocates for those who have no other advocate. There is more Jesus in SU than he might be comfortable admitting.:)


Not surprised at all you interpreted his comments that way. Selective listening and hearing what you want to hear to fit a narrative unfortunately isn't uncommon.

Let's keep this place friendly, please.

[LA Ute]

Let's keep this place friendly, please.

Shut up, you jerk! ;)

[SeattleUte]

Since 2011 Mississippi has been ranked the most religious state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Religious_US_states) in the country--Wikipedia

Mississippi's flag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi#/media/File:Flag_of_Mississippi.svg

Mississippi is the only state in the Union that bans same sex couples adoptions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/us/mississippi-ban-on-adoptions-same-sex-couples-challenged.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


Mississippi is ranked low or last among the states in such measures as health, educational attainment, and median household income--Wikipedia


Coincidence?

[SeattleUte]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[SeattleUte]

This is a fascinating article. What is interesting is that these girls are drawn to ISIS by the same impulses that I'm sure any one of us have seen at work on girls raised in religious environments that turn their backs on all the liberty and opportunity that Western society now offers women, particularly intelligent women like these--a combination of hormones, teenaged rebellion, inferiority complex ingrained by a paternalistic society and resulting despair, and a romantic and delusional outlook on religion vs. secularism inculcated by their religious upbringing. What a terrible irony that they were actually originally brainwashed by their parents who came to the west because of the economic and freedom opportunity, and now despair at how this has developed. Some of the readers' comments are outstanding, particularly the ones with the NY Times gold medal. The problem is that these girls' families never really did leave the Old World that they left behind only in a physical sense. It's a cautionary tale about raising girls in conservative religious environments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/world/europe/jihad-and-girl-power-how-isis-lured-3-london-teenagers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

[LA Ute]

This is a fascinating article. What is interesting is that these girls are drawn to ISIS by the same impulses that I'm sure any one of us have seen at work on girls raised in religious environments that turn their backs on all the liberty and opportunity that Western society now offers women, particularly intelligent women like these--a combination of hormones, teenaged rebellion, inferiority complex ingrained by a paternalistic society and resulting despair, and a romantic and delusional outlook on religion vs. secularism inculcated by their religious upbringing. What a terrible irony that they were actually originally brainwashed by their parents who came to the west because of the economic and freedom opportunity, and now despair at how this has developed. Some of the readers' comments are outstanding, particularly the ones with the NY Times gold medal. The problem is that these girls' families never really did leave the Old World that they left behind only in a physical sense. It's a cautionary tale about raising girls in conservative religious environments.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/world/europe/jihad-and-girl-power-how-isis-lured-3-london-teenagers.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

What? No express comparison to Mormonism?

[SeattleUte]

There's noting really revelatory here; in my community it's well understood and actually common sense.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html#page=1

[Rocker Ute]

There's noting really revelatory here; in my community it's well understood and actually common sense.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0115-zuckerman-secular-parenting-20150115-story.html#page=1

Interesting. I'm curious about the demographics of the secular population and how that factors into all of this. That old stats thing about stray cats and prostitution comes to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

According to the last comprehensive Pew religion poll people who claim atheist/agnostic beliefs or no religion at all comprise one of the largest single religious groups in America, approaching 55 million people. It is also the fastest-growing groups. So in a sense the demographics of the group will mirror the society at large, with the possible exception of the more patriarchal/fundamental conservative portions of society. So in general it would likely skew more toward the more liberal, compassionate, and openly accepting types.

And this is not related to political positions. After all, 70% of the Democrats in Congress are Christians or Jews (along with one Muslim).

[LA Ute]

According to the last comprehensive Pew religion poll people who claim atheist/agnostic beliefs or no religion at all comprise one of the largest single religious groups in America, approaching 55 million people. It is also the fastest-growing groups. So in a sense the demographics of the group will mirror the society at large, with the possible exception of the more patriarchal/fundamental conservative portions of society. So in general it would likely skew more toward the more liberal, compassionate, and openly accepting types.

1557

[Rocker Ute]

To answer my own question, according to some website I've never heard of nor know the validity other than Google sent me there claims that atheists in the US tend to be more affluent, white or asian, male, and to have more education as well as enjoying more guilt free sex. Wikipedia claims atheists have a higher suicide rate. The male, guilt-free sex and affluence part might explain the whole men-paying-for-Ashley-Madison thing, I'm sure there were no religious people there.

http://atheistscholar.org/AtheistPsychologies/AtheistDemographics.aspx
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

[SeattleUte]

According to the last comprehensive Pew religion poll people who claim atheist/agnostic beliefs or no religion at all comprise one of the largest single religious groups in America, approaching 55 million people. It is also the fastest-growing groups. So in a sense the demographics of the group will mirror the society at large, with the possible exception of the more patriarchal/fundamental conservative portions of society. So in general it would likely skew more toward the more liberal, compassionate, and openly accepting types.

And this is not related to political positions. After all, 70% of the Democrats in Congress are Christians or Jews (along with one Muslim).

Well stated. Actually, the only people I interact with socially or professionally who go to church (or admit to it) are my Jewish friends. They are all reform, and so none of them believes the Bible is a history book or in its miracles or creation story. I do have some family and old friends in Utah that go to church; many who don't, though they used to. Other than that, I can't think of any colleagues, family or friends who go to church. Go to Europe and visit those magnificent religious monuments to Western civilization and, with a few exceptions, the only people you'll see at church are gawking tourists and tour guides. So, Rocker's suggestion that that this writer's subjects are aberrant or cherry picked doesn't make sense to me. Mostly I see religion making news in very negative ways.

[Rocker Ute]

Well stated. Actually, the only people I interact with socially or professionally who go to church (or admit to it) are my Jewish friends. They are all reform, and so none of them believes the Bible is a history book or in its miracles or creation story. I do have some family and old friends in Utah that go to church; many who don't, though they used to. Other than that, I can't think of any colleagues, family or friends who go to church. Go to Europe and visit those magnificent religious monuments to Western civilization and, with a few exceptions, the only people you'll see at church are gawking tourists and tour guides. So, Rocker's suggestion that that this writer's subjects are aberrant or cherry picked doesn't make sense to me. Mostly I see religion making news in very negative ways.

I'm not saying the stats are cherry picked, I'm saying correlation isn't necessarily causation. In other words, atheism isn't the cause of reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc, rather affluence is.

You could say the same thing about the research that shows atheists donate far less a percentage of their income to charity than religious people.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

I'm not saying the stats are cherry picked, I'm saying correlation isn't necessarily causation. In other words, atheism isn't the cause of reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc, rather affluence is.

You could say the same thing about the research that shows atheists donate far less a percentage of their income to charity than religious people.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do. Whatever your explanation--and I agree that poverty is the root of all evil--clearly there isn't a necessary correlation between going to church and reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc. (You throw around that word atheist, and I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought to what it means.)

[LA Ute]

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do.

I'm pretty sure the opposite is true and that this has been an accepted fact for many years.

Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds (https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973)

[SeattleUte]

I'm pretty sure the opposite is true and that this has been an accepted fact for many years.

Religious Americans Give More, New Study Finds (https://philanthropy.com/article/Religious-Americans-Give-More/153973)


About 75 percent of people who frequently attend religious services gave to congregations, and 60 percent gave to religious charities or nonreligious ones. By comparison, fewer than half of people who said they didn’t attend faith services regularly supported any charity, even a even secular one.


This article doesn't make the point you seem to be saying it does. It's extremely vague, probably deliberately so. I have no idea what this study says about comparable giving to non-church charities. Interestingly, the demographics that it claims are the most generous probably have the least means to give. I do know that more than half of the charitable giving in the United States is to churches--this does not include religious owned activities such as hospitals and schools. I think this is unfortunate.

[LA Ute]

This article doesn't make the point you seem to be saying it does. It's extremely vague, probably deliberately so. I have no idea what this study says about comparable giving to non-church charities. Interestingly, the demographics that it claims are the most generous probably have the least means to give. I do know that more than half of the charitable giving in the United States is to churches--this does not include religious owned activities such as hospitals and schools. I think this is unfortunate.

You said:


I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do.

You need to find some support for your position. Then you need to explain why, if your position is supported, that is a significant fact.

[Rocker Ute]

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do. Whatever your explanation--and I agree that poverty is the root of all evil--clearly there isn't a necessary correlation between going to church and reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc. (You throw around that word atheist, and I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought to what it means.)

That's my point I think. I won't use atheist any more (as it should be used in reverence), but rather how about we use 'none' or secular population to keep everyone happy. The original article you cited notes some fine attributes of the secular population which are all commendable. What I was alluding to was perhaps the secular population tended to be more affluent and educated and hence the lower crime rates, sense of well-being etc had more to do with the fact that they neither grew up in a culture nor ever had a need to go and rob a store, if that makes sense.

In other words, how much of these good attributes have to do with their affluence versus their personal beliefs? I agree that religion doesn't necessarily make a person better, or in many cases it might be a 'shallow good'. I'm just curious if you took a sampling of similar demographics to the secular or 'none' population in a religious population if you'd see similar results.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood that is as melting pot as you can get in Salt Lake City. A little more than 1/3 are LDS, a variety of nationalities, but mostly white... with really the only commonality across the board being the type of house we each can afford. I'm not really seeing any of us, religious or not, committing crimes.

[SeattleUte]

You said:



You need to find some support for your position. Then you need to explain why, if your position is supported, that is a significant fact.

This happens all the time. I think you are deluded, and it turns out that you are being mendacious.


Probably the most notable statistics, though, are those which compare religious and non-religious philanthropy. Religion is supposed to make us better people, which includes, I assume, being more generous. So, is it the case that religious people give more generously than the non-religious?
Well, yes and no. Remember that statistic, that 65% of religious people donate to charity? The non-religious figure is 56%. But according to the study, the entire 9% difference is attributed to religious giving to congregations and religious organizations. So, yes, religion causes people to give more—to religion itself.

What did Richard Dawkins say? The primary function of a meme is to replicate itself. Which is what religions do, brilliantly.
As between different religions, the numbers are fairly consistent—except for American Jews, who give more to secular causes than anyone else. Coming in the wake of the recent Pew Survey on American Jewish Life, these findings may shed new light on Jewish secularism, a trend which has greatly worried the Jewish establishment. Maybe the secular social-justice commitments of American Jews are a sign of Judaism’s success.

So, most religious people are equally generous; they only give more than non-religious people because they give to religious organizations; and they, like the rest of us, give to overwhelmingly religious organizations. For better or for worse.


http://religiondispatches.org/new-study-three-quarters-of-american-giving-goes-to-religion/

So I understated the share of charitable giving that goes to religion (excluding laudable and important secular causes owned by religions)--it's 75%! What an awful figure.

[SeattleUte]

That's my point I think. I won't use atheist any more (as it should be used in reverence), but rather how about we use 'none' or secular population to keep everyone happy. The original article you cited notes some fine attributes of the secular population which are all commendable. What I was alluding to was perhaps the secular population tended to be more affluent and educated and hence the lower crime rates, sense of well-being etc had more to do with the fact that they neither grew up in a culture nor ever had a need to go and rob a store, if that makes sense.

In other words, how much of these good attributes have to do with their affluence versus their personal beliefs? I agree that religion doesn't necessarily make a person better, or in many cases it might be a 'shallow good'. I'm just curious if you took a sampling of similar demographics to the secular or 'none' population in a religious population if you'd see similar results.

I live in a middle-class neighborhood that is as melting pot as you can get in Salt Lake City. A little more than 1/3 are LDS, a variety of nationalities, but mostly white... with really the only commonality across the board being the type of house we each can afford. I'm not really seeing any of us, religious or not, committing crimes.

I totally agree. If we solve the economic problem, human rights improve for a million reasons. I said to someone recently, there are many reasons to hate the republican party, and one ultra-important one to like it--it believes in capitalism.

[LA Ute]

So I understated the share of charitable giving that goes to religion (excluding laudable and important secular causes owned by religions)--it's 75%! What an awful figure.

LOL.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

LOL.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The following links are from a couple of years ago, but interesting still:

http://www.macleans.ca/general/do-atheists-care-less/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-value-of-giving-in-the-valley/

[Ma'ake]

Charity is a function of affinity.

The poor are often amazingly generous, because they know the plight of the poor very well. People who've had cancer strike their families are more apt to donate to cancer research.

Church goers are generally better educated about the charitable needs of the community, because the needy seek assistance from churches. The faithful are also commanded to be charitable.


Liberals tend to support governmental programs in the social safety net, where conservatives are more likely to think government programs should be eradicated, and thus charity is a private responsibility.


For example, the Canadians I've met often express pride in paying higher taxes, as they feel a more equitable society is a safer society, where all Canadians can achieve and prosper, and have a sense of community. The crime rates between the US and Canada certainly support this thinking.

[SeattleUte]

Charity is a function of affinity.

The poor are often amazingly generous, because they know the plight of the poor very well. People who've had cancer strike their families are more apt to donate to cancer research.

Church goers are generally better educated about the charitable needs of the community, because the needy seek assistance from churches. The faithful are also commanded to be charitable.


Liberals tend to support governmental programs in the social safety net, where conservatives are more likely to think government programs should be eradicated, and thus charity is a private responsibility.


For example, the Canadians I've met often express pride in paying higher taxes, as they feel a more equitable society is a safer society, where all Canadians can achieve and prosper, and have a sense of community. The crime rates between the US and Canada certainly support this thinking.

Apparently Ma'ake has lost his faith in capitalism, which makes me very sad.

[tooblue]

Is this what a secular society governed by moral relativism looks like?

Why drivers in China intentionally kill the pedestrians they hit:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/09/why_drivers_in_china_intentionally_kill_the_pedest rians_they_hit_china_s.html

[NorthwestUteFan]

No. Toronto is a better example of what a secular society looks like, because it is among the most diversified melting pot cities in the world. So many different nationalities and religions and belief systems are represented that people have exposure to a broader world view and as a result people are generally more accepting than in narrower communities.

The ties binding the society together are based more in shared humanity than in the similarity of belief (especially when those beliefs can be in opposition to each other, sometimes violently)

[tooblue]

No. Toronto is a better example of what a secular society looks like, because it is among the most diversified melting pot cities in the world. So many different nationalities and religions and belief systems are represented that people have exposure to a broader world view and as a result people are generally more accepting than in narrower communities.

The ties binding the society together are based more in shared humanity than in the similarity of belief (especially when those beliefs can be in opposition to each other, sometimes violently)

Apples and oranges. Toronto is a wonderful melting pot, culturally and especially religiously. And it is not the best example of what a secular society looks like. Religion plays as big a role as anywhere else in north America. The hard truth is that Canadians, generally speaking, are more tolerant and peaceable.

[Ma'ake]

Apparently Ma'ake has lost his faith in capitalism, which makes me very sad.

Lol. Ma'ake has always been stubbornly pragmatic. The United Order was a commendable effort, high ideals.

A wise, visionary mentor once told me the organizational structure is far less important than the people in it. If you have good people, you'll have good results.

American capitalism definitely has some rough edges, but Americans are largely good, moral people, religious or not. Contrast this with China, where the results justify the means. China could definitely twist capitalism into unfettered Darwinism.

[SeattleUte]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmat...&st_refQuery=/


Since non-LDS publications generally do not accept ancient Book of Mormon studies as a legitimate discipline, this essentially means that no publication on ancient Book of Mormon studies can be acceptable as authentic scholarship at BYU.

This blog post is a pretty good backhanded compliment to BYU.

[LA Ute]

Right up your alley, SU:

There are are more atheists and agnostics entering Harvard than Protestants and Catholics

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/09/09/there-are-more-atheists-and-agnostics-entering-harvard-than-protestants-and-catholics/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[#1 Utefan]

I'm confident that people who don't go to church give more to charities other than churches (including non-church interests owned by religions such as schools and hospitals) than religious people do. Whatever your explanation--and I agree that poverty is the root of all evil--clearly there isn't a necessary correlation between going to church and reduced crime, self-fulfillment, empathy etc. (You throw around that word atheist, and I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought to what it means.)

You have no basis to make this conclusion other than it is seemingle what you want to believe. All indications are the opposite is true.

[SeattleUte]

You have no basis to make this conclusion other than it is seemingle what you want to believe. All indications are the opposite is true.

And you are probably fully unconscious of the irony in what you say.

[NorthwestUteFan]

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/enigmat...&st_refQuery=/



This blog post is a pretty good backhanded compliment to BYU.

This is particularly funny after he absolutely got his ass handed to him by a real theologist from Baylor. The debate started with Hamblin's claim that Ancient Book of Mormon Studies is an academic discipline on par with Biblical Studies.




[Hamblin] wrote,

“Jenkins asks about the question of falsifiability. I’ll set aside the problem that this is really a methodology issue for empirical experimental science, which doesn’t really work with non-empirical historical questions.” You [referring to Hamblin] then proceed to apply the issue to one limited and very specific topic in the area of personal names. “But, the best test of “falsifiability” for the Book of Mormon would be the absence of BOM names in the corpus of Preclassic inscriptions. If we had, say, phonetic readings for several thousand personal and place names in Preclassic Mesoamerica, and found no BOM names there, that would be problematic for the BOM.” However, we have no such lists, so no problem. So that’s all right then.

Jenkins responds:

"This statement is utterly revealing in multiple ways. Primarily, it shows that you are completely ignoring the far more critical question, namely whether there is any evidence whatever for the existence of any of the peoples mentioned in the Book of Mormon in the New World, at any place, at any time. Throughout, you are assuming that presence, and then working to discredit any form of disproof that might be offered. I did not initially recognize that rhetorical technique because it is so completely odd to me and, I would say, to any standard form of argumentation. You are, so to speak, going to stage twelve of an argument without passing through the prior eleven steps that constitute the essential foundation for that conclusion. To you, questions and arguments about testing and verifying might seem inappropriate, irrelevant and “naïve” (your pet word). They are absolutely not so to anyone who is not already a thoroughgoing believer in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Throughout, you are assuming rather than testing or proving, or indeed thinking that testing and proving might be worthwhile or necessary activities. You are making that assumption of truth –assuming that the Book of Mormon scenario is correct –which is extremely far-fetched for anyone not already convinced of the religious views that you espouse. Those religious views, moreover, are the sole and solitary ground for believing that historical and archaeological hypothesis. Because you do not acknowledge that point, and don’t even appear to understand it, you are left concluding that anyone who disputes your position must either be ignorant or suffering from religious bigotry. "





http://www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2015/07/the-book-of-mormon-revisited/

[SeattleUte]

I came over here to explain my answer to Ma'ake in the Crucible of Doubt thread. I am quite familiar with the Givenses mentality and approach to religion. Many Mormons have decided that with respect to the LDS community, the thing speaks for itself, and it is worth saving and supporting regardless of the historical truth of Joseph Smith's claims. They love their community. They participate in and support Mormonism because of love. There could be no better reason. Hence, this concept among progressive Mormons that many mainstream Mormons and apostates are alike unduly "binary". There is a third way by which meaning is sought from the institution irrespective of the fantastic claims, and you just live with the realism that belies those claims because that's a part of life. It is what it is.

I have no criticism of this, as I don't believe in attacking people's faith. All I'll say is that my approach was admittedly binary. I didn't know a whole lot about the stuff about Mormonism that excites exmormons. I simply decided I didn't believe in angels etc. and that would be a part of my value system. I also had a lot of problems with the LDS Church and civil rights progress.

Actually, it's part of the Givenses tactic to make it all seem so complicated but it's really not.

[LA Ute]

Actually, it's part of the Givenses tactic to make it all seem so complicated but it's really not.

I like the Givens(es) and what they try to do but I do think their approach is over-wrought. So I think you and I actually agree on this.

[Scratch]

I am quite familiar with the Givenses mentality and approach to religion.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. Should be "Givenses'" here. Since you asked.

[SeattleUte]

See, this is exactly what I was talking about in the other thread. Should be "Givenses'" here. Since you asked.

I was using it as an adjective, not possessive.

[Scratch]

I was using it as an adjective, not possessive.


Well played.

[SeattleUte]

"An insult to an ideology is not the same as a threat made to a people. Nor does one in any sense, logical or historical, flow from the other—a truth we know exactly because the people most inclined to say that a religion is ridiculous are those who were brought up practicing it." -- Adam Gopnik, The New Yorker, "PEN has every right to honor Charlie Hebdo" (April 30, 2015). ...

[SeattleUte]

Here's a crushing irony:

"I'm very proud of our football team, all the adversity, everything that went down. It means everything. That's what you do this for." – Gary Pinkel, his voice cracking, after he had stood with his black players’ boycott and following Missouri’s 20-16 victory over BYU.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/undefined

"The victory was the most satisfying one I've ever had in coaching." – Lloyd Eaton after he suspended the Black 14 and his Wyoming Cowboys, suddenly an all-white team, still defeated all-white BYU 40-7.

http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/black-14-race-politics-religion-and-wyoming-football

[tooblue]

I don't know if it's ironic but it is crushing ... with the rise of a secularism, and an over sexualized society comes a dramatic rise in STD's: "There’s an ‘STD epidemic’ in the U.S. — and it’s getting worse ..."

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/theres-an-std-epidemic-in-the-u-s

[NorthwestUteFan]

I don't know if it's ironic but it is crushing ... with the rise of a secularism, and an over sexualized society comes a dramatic rise in STD's: "There’s an ‘STD epidemic’ in the U.S. — and it’s getting worse ..."

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/theres-an-std-epidemic-in-the-u-s

About that...



The increase in STDs is in many ways a result of cuts in funding to public health clinics, Gail Bolan, director of CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, told NBC.

"Most recently, there have been significant erosions of state and local STD control programs," Bolan said. "Most people don't recognize that the direct clinical care of individuals with sexually transmitted diseases is supported by state and local funds and federal funds."


Let's just say that it isn't the rise of secular believers who are to blame for fighting to close public health clinics.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/18/cdc-alarming-increase-stds/75978596/

[SeattleUte]

About that...



Let's just say that it isn't the rise of secular believers who are to blame for fighting to close public health clinics.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/18/cdc-alarming-increase-stds/75978596/

I am guessing that unbelievers are more likely to use condoms.

[Rocker Ute]

I am guessing that unbelievers are more likely to use condoms.

I always pictured you guys as a bunch of Trekkies or something, so I expected it to read as "I am guessing that unbelievers are more likely to use condoms if the theoretical opportunity ever presented itself..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scratch]

I always pictured you guys as a bunch of Trekkies or something, so I expected it to read as "I am guessing that unbelievers are more likely to use condoms if the theoretical opportunity ever presented itself..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not fair. They are clearly successful enough to hire escorts and buy "Seven of Nine" costumes for said escorts, who will presumably require condom use.

[tooblue]

About that...



Let's just say that it isn't the rise of secular believers who are to blame for fighting to close public health clinics.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/18/cdc-alarming-increase-stds/75978596/

So wait: people are having more unprotected sex because public health clinics are closing? Your logic is interesting. Kinda like a poster on the sister site (an ER doctor no less) who insisted that the prevalence of prostitutes offering their services in close proximity to strip clubs is a coincidence ... lol ... But still, let's address the issue of STD's in a country where public health clinics are plentiful, ever increasing in fact, and which are under no threat of being closed ... especially on college campuses:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/hook-up-culture-and-why-chlamydia-is-on-the-rise/article7781891/

And despite concerted efforts and considerable government $ spent on education, sexually transmitted diseases rise, and rise and rise ... no pun intended:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/sexually-transmitted-diseases-rise-in-edmonton-northern-alberta-1.2950487

And that then just leaves officials perplexed:

http://www.catie.ca/en/hiv-canada/3/3-2

So yah ... it's the closing of health clinics that's the problem. Unless it's not:

http://www.metronews.ca/news/vancouver/2014/05/19/stis-rising-across-all-age-groups-in-canada-and-b-c.html


But Gilbert believes to help stop the trend it has to start with the people.

[tooblue]

By the way, condoms are free on all university and college campuses in Canada. Every campus has a health clinic in addition to a student life health services centre. At McGill University in Montreal it's called the Shag Shop. On our campus it's just called the Health and Wellness Centre.

And yet STD's are on the rise ... :blink: You could almost say it's an epidemic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/we-really-are-in-an-epidemic-of-syphilis-ontario-expert-says/article4497069/

[SeattleUte]

By the way, condoms are free on all university and college campuses in Canada. Every campus has a health clinic in addition to a student life health services centre. At McGill University in Montreal it's called the Shag Shop. On our campus it's just called the Health and Wellness Centre.

And yet STD's are on the rise ... :blink: You could almost say it's an epidemic:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/we-really-are-in-an-epidemic-of-syphilis-ontario-expert-says/article4497069/

Canada is like the United States lobotomized. What's happening there is not relevant.

[SeattleUte]

I always pictured you guys as a bunch of Trekkies or something, so I expected it to read as "I am guessing that unbelievers are more likely to use condoms if the theoretical opportunity ever presented itself..."


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need to get out more. There is sex out there (outside Mormonism) so exquisite that if you had an inkling of what you are missing you would be crushed and debilitated under an intolerable weight of despair and regret.

[LA Ute]

You need to get out more. There is sex out there (outside Mormonism) so exquisite that if you had an inkling of what you are missing you would be crushed and debilitated under an intolerable weight of despair and regret.

Isn't that a copyright violation?

[Rocker Ute]

You need to get out more. There is sex out there (outside Mormonism) so exquisite that if you had an inkling of what you are missing you would be crushed and debilitated under an intolerable weight of despair and regret.

Yes... They say that about the Vulcan people... but being allowed to mate only once every 7 years seems difficult for mere humans like me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

Canada is like the United States lobotomized. What's happening there is not relevant.

To progressives like you, Canada is heaven. I'm living in your future. What happens here will happen where you live. That actually, kinda renders you a type of Dr. Who, who is asexual ... Now that's exquisite.

[wally]

You need to get out more. There is sex out there (outside Mormonism) so exquisite that if you had an inkling of what you are missing you would be crushed and debilitated under an intolerable weight of despair and regret.

haha, that may be true..... right up until your genitals start burning!