Happy Atheist Forum

Here's an interesting set of statistics about the decline of religion in the USA:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2 ... ARIS_N.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-american-religion-ARIS_N.htm)

FTA:

QuoteAmong the key findings in the 2008 survey:

• So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists. In a nation that has long been mostly Christian, "the challenge to Christianity … does not come from other religions but from a rejection of all forms of organized religion," the report concludes.

• Catholic strongholds in New England and the Midwest have faded as immigrants, retirees and young job-seekers have moved to the Sun Belt. While bishops from the Midwest to Massachusetts close down or consolidate historic parishes, those in the South are scrambling to serve increasing numbers of worshipers.

• Baptists, 15.8% of those surveyed, are down from 19.3% in 1990. Mainline Protestant denominations, once socially dominant, have seen sharp declines: The percentage of Methodists, for example, dropped from 8% to 5%.

• The percentage of those who choose a generic label, calling themselves simply Christian, Protestant, non-denominational, evangelical or "born again," was 14.2%, about the same as in 1990.

• Jewish numbers showed a steady decline, from 1.8% in 1990 to 1.2% today. The percentage of Muslims, while still slim, has doubled, from 0.3% to 0.6%. Analysts within both groups suggest those numbers understate the groups' populations.

Magically Religious,
JoeActor

I just read this before getting here!   This was an interesting article.  Some of the hyperlinked side stories in the main article are good too, I especially liked the one surveying different opinions on cultural issues by religion.  The interactive graphic for it was really well done, too.

It's kind of reassuring to see that there are about 15% of people who have no religion.  And a pretty diverse mix of denominations too. Not too many Buddhists or Hindus, though.  We definitely have a dearth of the dharmic faiths in the U.S. and I was really surprised to see that only a small percentage is Jewish.  I guess I thought there were more Jewish people in the U.S.  I'd kind of like to see a more diverse mix of religions, along with a bit larger nonbeliever population.  Avoid all that group think stuff, keep stuff here culturally interesting and diverse with lots of different perspectives.

Interesting survey anyway.  Glad you posted the link.

Quote from: "LARA"I just read this before getting here! :)

This is an interesting bit of information.  The catholic church has been taking a beating for year's so I'm not surprised to see it declining.  I was surprised at the number that say "christian" without claiming an allegiance.  This is probably a stupid qustion but when they say "born-again" is that the same as baptized? Does it belong to a certain affiliation of christians?  Isn't it strange that you'd be born again when you are born a sinner? Confusing.  Maybe the decline has a lot to do with how confusin it is to be a christian in the first place, you never know if you are in the right group.

I'm not sure if this is a good or a bad thing. I suspect that it is neither.

While I think an increase of irreligion in the US could produce a few positive social changes, I also believe places like the Middle East need secularism a hell of a lot more right now.

Quote from: "VanReal"This is probably a stupid qustion but when they say "born-again" is that the same as baptized? Does it belong to a certain affiliation of christians?  Isn't it strange that you'd be born again when you are born a sinner? Confusing.

It's not a sectarian name per se, but you could probably consider it roughly equivalent to "evangelical".  The born-again Christians (I was one) are the ones who think you need to get saved to avoid hell, and will try the hardest to convert people.  This is contrasted with Catholics, who are not strictly-speaking evangelical, and the more liberal churches (United Church of Canada, for example), who perhaps don't believe in hell or judgment.

Quote from: "VanReal"Maybe the decline has a lot to do with how confusin it is to be a christian in the first place, you never know if you are in the right group.

Most Christians are pretty sure they're in the right group.  

Why veil what is really happening with deceptive wording? We are not losing our religion, instead we are adopting the "religion" (the false tenets) of atheism! This country was founded on the solid principles of Christianity, but man lusted after power and knowledge. What a joke!? We were tricked by a snake! May I remind you that the original sin was to try and be like God. America has thrown off the mantle of Christianity, and is putting on the mantle of godlessness.

What is godlessness? An atheist merely says to himself, "I am God."
Genesis 3:13 "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD." !!!!!!

How vain! This is why America is becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah!  It's time to return to Christianity or suffer a divine judgment.
Genesis 19:24 "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrahâ€"from the LORD out of the heavens."

Think about it... since that seems to be the atheist credo.

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"An atheist merely says to himself, "I am God."

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages22.fotki.com%2Fv724%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6116196%2F1236601064757-vi.gif&hash=db054eb1616ff0c01d9a47c83256c0041d0051e1)

If there is no God, then that makes who the ultimate authority? Yourself... If you are the ultimate authority then you are God. Maybe you are not consciously thinking you are God, but life without God leaves "the self" as the supreme authority.

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"If there is no God, then that makes who the ultimate authority? Yourself... If you are the ultimate authority then you are God. Maybe you are not consciously thinking you are God, but life without God leaves "the self" as the supreme authority.

Well, no, not "yourself". You are basing this on the assumption that there must be an ultimate authority. It's a faulty assumption.

I don't see how what I'm assuming changes the fact that: without God, each person is solely accountable to no one but himself. This is how post-modernism has come in and eroded society. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. Everything is true, because we all need to find our own reality. What does that even mean? Science says, "There is only one truth and that is what can be proven by science!" and Philosophy says, "There is no ultimate truth, it's all relative." How crazy is this? We've used logic to run ourselves into a circle, and that is this whole "faulty assumption" logical nonsense. It's very simple!

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"I don't see how what I'm assuming changes the fact that: without God, each person is solely accountable to no one but himself. This is how post-modernism has come in and eroded society. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe. Everything is true, because we all need to find our own reality. What does that even mean? Science says, "There is only one truth and that is what can be proven by science!" and Philosophy says, "There is no ultimate truth, it's all relative." How crazy is this? We've used logic to run ourselves into a circle, and that is this whole "faulty assumption" logical nonsense. It's very simple!

This is a jumble of nonsense.  

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe.

Then go to a christian forum and preach where it's allowed. You can pray for each other and everything.  

Just try to keep the out of here.

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"I don't see how what I'm assuming changes the fact that: without God, each person is solely accountable to no one but himself.

Correct, each person is responsible for himself/herself and accountable to the society he/she is a member of.  Those of you that get bogged down in serving a god have difficulty with this part.

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"We are not losing our religion, instead we are adopting the "religion" (the false tenets) of atheism!

There is no religion of atheism.  And no tenets of atheism either.  You won't sway atheists over to your side by using the "your religion is wrong" approach because we have none.

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"Why veil what is really happening with deceptive wording? We are not losing our religion, instead we are adopting the "religion" (the false tenets) of atheism! This country was founded on the solid principles of Christianity, but man lusted after power and knowledge. What a joke!? We were tricked by a snake! May I remind you that the original sin was to try and be like God. America has thrown off the mantle of Christianity, and is putting on the mantle of godlessness.

Atheism?  A religion?  Yeah, and I have a new hobby of not collecting stamps.  As to the nation being founded on Christian principles?  I guess that depends on which ones you want to take from the religion, but the people doing the founding were not doing it with Christianity in mind, and many of the Founding Fathers were nonreligious or deists.  As to the rest, please accept my parody of your words:  How dare man think he could alter anything?  How dare he think he could learn more of the universe?  Desiring such things is not the will of God!  Want to hear a joke?  We were tricked by a talking snake which apparently lacked all the structure necessary for vocalization!  May I remind you that the original sin was Eve making a bad choice back when she still had no knowledge of what a bad choice was.(?)  America, still Christian, or self-proclaimed Christian, by a fast majority, is now a nation of godless atheists.

What is godlessness? An atheist merely says to himself, "I am God."
Genesis 3:13 "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD." !!!!!!

I'm awfully frail for a god.  And mortal.  And I don't seem to wield supernatural powers...  what definition of godliness are we using now?  A moral authority?  Well shoot, I'm aware of my own morals.  Guess that makes me an authority on them.  And those lawmakers, they legislate many moral laws!  Gosh, so there must be loads of gods like me!

How vain! This is why America is becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah!  It's time to return to Christianity or suffer a divine judgment.
Genesis 19:24 "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrahâ€"from the LORD out of the heavens."

Didn't throngs of people travel around raping anything with sex organs back then?  For instance, angels and young women?  Yeah, don't think we're quite there yet.  Oh, and as to being up for divine judgement, I'll start cowering in fear when the far more atheistic nations all start getting razed to the ground in holy fire and people start turning into pillars of whatever spice.

Think about it... since that seems to be the atheist credo.

Finally, which part was I supposed to think about?  You gave me a couple arguments that don't mesh with reality, an appeal to fear, and pretty much preached at me.  I have a hard time believing this has converted people for your cause, but maybe it has.  It's useless here, you have to be willing to reason.  If reason is what brought us out of Christianity, it is surely the only thing that will bring us back into it.  We were enduring the appeals to emotion and fear, the self-degradation and claims of all glory to God long before we met you here.

I know you see the Bible as your sword, but would you stop swinging it at us and talk to us for a moment?

Alright, I've stayed silent long enough, here I go...

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"Why veil what is really happening with deceptive wording? We are not losing our religion, instead we are adopting the "religion" (the false tenets) of atheism!

Atheism is incapable of being considered a religion in an equivalent fashion as Christianity.  The only way it could be placed under that term is if the most vague definition for religion is utilized (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary online):

Quote4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

However, utilizing this definition Trekkies can be a religion, the KISS Army definitely qualifies as do ICP Juggalos and American Idol fans.  Do you see the problem here?  Atheism is simply a (no) theism (belief in god).  This hardly is something that can be said to be a religion.  Furthermore, there are no "tenets" of atheism - the ONLY aspect uniting those who claim the label "atheist" is a lack of belief in god(s), that is it - the concept extends no further than that.

As far as religion is concerned, a more appropriate definition is utilized in anthropology and was published by F.C. Wallace:

Quote...a set of rituals, rationalized by myth, which mobilizes supernatural powers for the purpose of achieving or preventing transformations of state in man and nature (pp. 107).

Therefore the contention that atheism is a "religion" in the same context as Christianity is an false comparison.

QuoteThis country was founded on the solid principles of Christianity, but man lusted after power and knowledge. What a joke!? We were tricked by a snake! May I remind you that the original sin was to try and be like God. America has thrown off the mantle of Christianity, and is putting on the mantle of godlessness.

The founding fathers, regardless of their own personal views made sure to put a clause indicating tolerance for all beliefs and was specific in stating that the government would not endorse one religion over another which was/is a good idea.  When a governing body wants to be based upon the ideals of freedom, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for its citizens important personal choices such as religious affiliation or lack thereof should not be a concern for that government.  To exemplify this idea further, Lambert (2003) explains:

QuoteOne hundred and fifty years later, George Washington took another oath, swearing to "faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States" and pledging to the best of his ability to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." The constitution that he swore to uphold was the work of another group of America's progenitors, commonly known as the "Founding Fathers," who in 1787 drafted a constitution for the new nation. But unlike the work of the Puritan Fathers, the federal constitution made no reference whatever to God or divine providence, citing as its sole authority "the people of the United States." Further, its stated purposes were secular, political ends: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." Instead of building a "Christian Commonwealth," the supreme law of the land established a secular state. The opening clause of its first amendment introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."4 In debating the language of that amendment, the first House of Representatives rejected a Senate proposal that would have made possible the establishment of the Christian religion or of some aspect of Christian orthodoxy. There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself to the world as a Christian Republic.

QuoteWhat is godlessness? An atheist merely says to himself, "I am God."

Negative Ghostrider.  None of us, at least here, would declare ourselves supernatural entities.  However, if you mean to insinuate that we are only responsible to ourselves for anything - that is a gross oversimplification of our society and our place within it.  Accountability has many forms and many layers and connections.  It is not some linear dynamic by any means - it includes a vast network of effects from particular choices and behaviors with consequences for those actions.  We also have the ability to reason, conceptualize the future based upon present information, understand how others may react based upon experience, we also have something called empathy which is contributed to by our mirror neuron system (I can explain if need be but it won't be a short explanation) as well as genetic predispositions for functioning as social beings.  Therefore your statement is sophomoric and extremely inaccurate.

QuoteGenesis 3:13 "Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD." !!!!!!

How vain! This is why America is becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah!  It's time to return to Christianity or suffer a divine judgment.
Genesis 19:24 "Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrahâ€"from the LORD out of the heavens."

People have been touting religion as a cure-all for declining morality in society for centuries and centuries, this is nothing new - society has yet to be destroyed by a downpour of sulfur from the skies.  Morality is independent of a deity as a divine law-giver - it exists outside of this concept, such a point was attempted to be shown in one of Plato's Euthyphro dialogue when addressing the logical shortcomings of such a view.

So how can morality be independent of a divine law giver?  I'll attempt to explain.  Morality is a vague term and can become too ambiguous to speak of in a technical sense. Therefore I shall operationalize the term, defined as “the particular practices, precepts, and customs of people and cultures” (Di Leo, 2002). This definition reflects the source of morality which is the culture, a product of a social group. This also alludes to the origins of what we would call “morals” within an evolutionary framework:

QuoteAffiliative behaviors probably evolved in vertebrates, from basic patterns of parental nurturance. Kin selection theory suggests that the altruism that was directed from parents to offspring could easily evolve to be directed to other related individuals. Once group living organisms had reached a certain level of complexity, altruistic acts could be directed toward non-kin with the understanding that the assisted individuals would return the favor. Gratitude, sympathy, trust, suspicion, and guilt can be viewed as adaptation that facilitate the functioning of the highly evolved reciprocal altruism system of humans (pp. 188) (Palmer and Palmer, 2002).

The appearance of such behaviors was advantageous for grouped primates. There is strength and safety in numbers. For our ancestors, this became a major survival tool. Those who displayed traits conducive to survival of the group were kept, those who did not were ostracized most likely and their genetics were not kept in the gene pool (Evans and Zarate, 1999). Because of this selection of group-beneficial predispositions in behavior, we have inherited those predispositions in our genetics and they are usually expressed in what we would term “universal morals” â€" something many often cite as evidence of a deity, however it is explained well by evolutionary means (Barkow, Tooby and Cosmides, 1992). There has been research which supports a biological basis for morality such as universal taboos like incest (Lieberman, Tooby and Cosmides, 2003).

The formation of a social group aids in the ability to repel predators, help in the acquisition of food resources and the protection of offspring. Within the formation of these social groups, interaction is impossible to avoid. The groups became essential for survival of our ancestors and to help ensure that the species would continue to grow and thrive.

However, living within groups can have its consequences:

Quote...with lots of other conspecifics around you, all with the same food preferences, competition becomes more intense. Squabbles for scare food resources become common (Evans and Zarate, pp. 63).

The consequence of this problem was the formation of alliances with others which share common interests or goals. This splintering of the larger social unit gave way to a huge social group which is divided into smaller groups of individuals in alliances to achieve the same goals. This was the beginning catalyst for the formation of what we have become to know as morals.

Steven Pinker (2002), in his book The Blank Slate comments on three features of the group of cooperators:

QuoteOne is the cognitive wherewithal to figure out how the world works. This yields know-how worth sharing and an ability to spread goods and information over larger territories, both of which expand opportunities for gains in trade. A second is language, which allows technology to be shared, bargains to be struck, and agreements to be enforced. A third is emotional repertoire â€" sympathy, trust, guilt, anger, self-esteem â€" that impels us to seek new cooperators, maintain relationships with them, and safeguard the relationships against possible exploitation. Long ago these endowments put our species on a moral escalator (pp. 168).

As with all other social groups, hierarchies would form and the most dominant individuals would keep control and delegate responsibilities. The enforcement of the traits of which the group would find acceptable behavior became the enforce “guidelines” of being part of the group. These traits of behavior within this group would find those people of like mindedness and as a subsequence, of like genetic predispositions to that behavior. Reproduction carried out within these groups would preserve these hereditary predispositions for a certain behavior.

From the evolutionary/biological standpoint of genetic heredity, certain behaviors will persist in a population as long as the individuals carrying those genetics are able to reproduce viable offspring. Within the formation of groups, our ancestors found that it could better protect young and provide a safe place in which to reproduce. Those of the predispositions toward an isolationistic lifestyle and one away from the protection of a large group would soon find themselves at a loss. Without the aid of others, a loner would find it harder to find food, defend themselves from predators and harder to find a mate. With these overbearing problems, those who were prone to isolationism found themselves quickly excluded from the gene pool. This natural selection promoted the genetics for those who harbored tendencies toward social behaviors.

The sectionalization of the groups along with other environmental factors such as migration and geographic isolation contributed to the formation of the differentiated cultures as well as their differentiated morality and from that their moral codes of their cultures. The late Carl Sagan (1997) commented on such saying:

QuoteMoral codes that seek to regulate human behavior have been with us not only since the dawn of civilization but also among our pre-civilized, and highly social, hunter-gatherer ancestors (pp. 217).

The common formation through social groups and the division of smaller sub-groups into like-minded individuals provided the common ground for some of the moral items which seem to remain the same throughout different cultures and ethnic backgrounds. Items such as murder being considered “bad” or “immoral” seem to be universal among all cultures, which can be attributed to those early social groups.

The behavioral tendency to view murder as “wrong” was a trait of those ancestors to promote the general welfare of the group. Those who killed others in the group would quickly find themselves ejected from the group if not killed in return, the “eye for an eye” response which may have also originated either within the groups or interactions between two groups.

Common behavior is not just found in human groups but also with other primates as well. Robert Pennock (1999) agrees with the common genesis of morality stating:

Quote...the commonalities we find with other primates is persuasive evidence that the intellectual and emotional characteristics that allow moral action in human beings are the result of our evolutionary development (pp. 115).

Social interaction also gave rise to means of cooperation and what is considered “good” behaviors within the group.

QuoteOne of the most widely studied forms of pro-social behavior is altruism, or helping behavior that is performed voluntarily for the benefit of another person with no anticipation of reward (Walster and Piliavin, 1972 ).

Such behaviors within groups would be seen as beneficial and encouraged. Reciprocal altruism is a major player in social interactions of groups. The idea of reciprocal altruism is that if one does something for another, that individual is expected to do something in return for the other. By this practice a sort of trading of favors came about which promoted beneficial interactions not only within a group but between separate groups as well.

From the exchanging of favors comes a problem however, that known as the “free rider” problem, or those who accept favors but do not return the favor. As a consequence, a modified version of the exchange of favors arose.

QuoteFree riders who have refused to do return favors can be punished by refusing to do any more favors for them. Cooperators can be rewarded by continuing to help them when they need it. This simple strategy is called ‘tit-for-tat’. We punish free riding by refusing to cooperate (Evans and Zarate, pp. 68-69).

Along with these social items the concept we know today as reputation also arose in respect to interactions. Those who had a “bad reputation” would find it increasingly difficult to form alliances and receive favors. This helps to eliminate the free rider problem and make certain that only “good” individuals prosper in the group. We can still see the group dynamics of reputation at work in smaller social groups â€" a quick peak at our evolutionary history in action (Panchanathan and Boyd, 2004).

As the groups prospered and continued to grow and perpetuate themselves, change over time added to the complexity of the basic social interactions and “guidelines” of what is proper behavior within the group. The tendencies towards a socially aligned behavior were continually promoted and those against the group attitude were ostracized, basically speaking of course.

Civilization progressed, human groups became large populations and the interactions became ever harder to keep track of in such large groups. However, with the “guidelines” still intact, societies decided to go further and began to set a sort of official “moral rules” within their populations. With the commonalities of their ancestors still with them, the “universal” ideas show up in most cultures and the variation can be seen as a product of the cultures special environment and their specific needs in order to promote the welfare of the population.

The behavior of how people interact with each other has become an extremely complex thing. Entire fields of science have been founded just to study the different aspects of the human social animal. Just as long as there have been social groups, there have been ideas of what is seen as “good” behavior or what is “best” to do within the group. The traits that led to what we call morals are nearly as old as the social aspect itself but it actually only a necessary product of the social construct.

The perseverance of certain behaviors thought of as “universal morals” is in actuality the result of natural selection and group interaction, and also explains why modern humans are so deeply social in nature. Some moral “guidelines” became actual codes of some cultures and even eventually evolved into what we think of as laws. Which, just like morals, have a common beginning but differ greatly in many aspects from country to country.

The human is often referred to as a “social animal”. From that social aspect came the genesis of morality. Therefore such a view might add credence to the assertion that man is a “moral animal” as well. Just as our social behaviors have evolved and become complex, so have our moral codes, guidelines and laws, which are often so complex that they come into contradiction with each other.

Also, the claim that we do not see morality in animals is unfounded and refuted by the evidence to the contrary. We see evidence of sharing, protection of kin, instances of reciprocal altruism et cetera. We also have observed culture among other primates as well such as chimpanzees â€" our closest living relatives â€" and orangutans (van Schaik, Ancrenaz, Borgen, Galdikas, Knott, Singleton et al, 2003). Behaviors such as social conformity to the group which most would see as a uniquely human social trait has also been documented (Whiten, Horner, and de Waal, 2005).

I can provide specific calculations for social evolution if need be from Steven Franks Foundations of Social Evolution as well.

QuoteThink about it... since that seems to be the atheist credo.

I think that it is you who needs to do some higher effort thinking.


References:

Barkow, J., Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. New York: Oxford U.P.

Di Leo, J. (2002). Morality Matters: Race, Class, and Gender in Applied Ethics. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Evans, D. and Zarate, O. (1999). Introducing: Evolutionary Psychology. Duxford: Icon Books.

Lambert, F. (2003). The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America.  Princeton: Princeton U.P.

Lieberman, D., Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London - Series B, 270, 819-826.

Palmer, J. and Palmer, L. (2002). Evolutionary Psychology: The Ultimate Origins of Human Behavior. Boston: Pearson Education.

Panchanathan, K. and Boyd, R. (2004). Indirect reciprocity can stabilize cooperation without the second-order free rider problem. Nature, 432, 499-502.

Pennock, R. (1999). Tower of Babel: Evidence Against the New Creationism. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Pinker, S. (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking.

Sagan, C. (1997). Billions and Billions: Thoughts On Life and Death at the Brink of the Millenium. New York: Ballantine Books.

van Schaik, C., Ancrenaz, M., Borgen, G., Galdikas, B., Knott, C., Singleton, I. et al. (2003). Orangutan Cultures and the Evolution of Material Culture. Science, 299, 102-105.

Wallace, F. (1966). Religion: An athropological view..  New York: Random House.

Walster, E. and Piliavin, J. (1972). Equity and the innocent bystander. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 165-189.

Whiten, A., Horner, V. and de Waal, F. (2005). Conformity to cultural norms of tool use in chimpanzees. Nature, 437, 737-740.

Quote from: "Squid"Alright, I've stayed silent long enough, here I go...

I really like it when you don't stay silent.  I learn so much from your posts.  Thank you so much... you've given me, at least, much to ponder and read.  

Quote from: "rlrose328"

Quote from: "Squid"Alright, I've stayed silent long enough, here I go...

I really like it when you don't stay silent.  I learn so much from your posts.  Thank you so much... you've given me, at least, much to ponder and read.  ;)

What a great response to read, thank you for that squid.

Hey Squid, what sort of software or reference-sorting system do you use? I can't imagine you do all the research on the spot.   I just use RefWorks and an alphabetized list of annotations, but it can be somewhat tedious to find what I'm looking for if I only vaguely remember what article something was from.

Actually they're just all a combination of stuff off my shelf and on my hard drive categorized into sections according to discipline and sub-disciplines.  Although I have a much more extensive collection of journals, books and such on my external 500GB HD which could definitely use some sort of organizational software.

I've contemplated putting it all together in a database using Access or some other specialized software before, just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Well, if you've got some time to burn, check out RefWorks (http://www.refworks.com/). Your university will most likely have a group account. If they don't, you may want to suggest it to your reference librarian. It also comes with an in-text citation manager called Write-n-Cite that's pretty handy, too. Most journal catalogs (like EBSCOhost) will have a RefWorks export mode, too. With the amount you have, it might be worthwhile to check it out.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Well, if you've got some time to burn, check out RefWorks (http://www.refworks.com/). Your university will most likely have a group account. If they don't, you may want to suggest it to your reference librarian. It also comes with an in-text citation manager called Write-n-Cite that's pretty handy, too. Most journal catalogs (like EBSCOhost) will have a RefWorks export mode, too. With the amount you have, it might be worthwhile to check it out. :beer:

Quote from: "Dilj4Jesus"If there is no God, then that makes who the ultimate authority? Yourself... If you are the ultimate authority then you are God. Maybe you are not consciously thinking you are God, but life without God leaves "the self" as the supreme authority.

In which case you should be nice to atheists. Your God's one of them!

Oh and by the way it takes an ego to condemn the ego. Hypocrite  

Most of the founders of the USA were deists but here's something even more powerful to point out - Thomas Paine, the person who the revolution may not have happened at all without, was not just a deist but a very anti-Christian deist who published many texts against Christianity and said "Christianity is a parody of sun worship".

 Pointing out Jefferson's deism as usual and related is factually correct but I think it's a greater counter-argument to point to Paine.

There are roughly 225 million Christians in the U.S. That is around 82%.

Source; www.adherents.com (http://www.adherents.com)

Quote from: "Psalm23"There are roughly 225 million Christians in the U.S. That is around 82%.

Source; http://www.adherents.com (http://www.adherents.com)

If you're going to cite a source, at least cite one that has some credentials other than "I have a BS in computer science".

From the American Religion Survey, a nationally representative, longitudinal and on-going study of the religious or non-religious beliefs of Americans, updated last in 2008:

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fb27.cc.trincoll.edu%2Fweblogs%2FAmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS%2Freports%2FTABLE01.png&hash=d133eef47b48a395e6456988d8d297494ce8cac8)

It's also important to remember that the Christian portion runs the gamut from vaguely, non-practicing, basically-Christian-kind-of to the full-blown, asshat Pat Robertsons. There are a lot of Christians who are only de facto Christian.

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/p1a_belong.html

Americans are losing their religion? All I can say is,"Thank god."

I hope so, but I don't know.....I am all for letting anyone believe in what they want to or not....but this religious horse shit is really keeping mankind back in many ways, and I am starting to resent it......as that does affect me.........