Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Don't you think so? I mean, back in ancient times, we would consult religion for everything. If there's a war, we consult an oracle for what to do. If someone is accused of a murder, then we would use a technique like "I'll stick your hands in fire and if your hands are burnt then you're guilty and if you're innocent then God will protect you".

And before, the church was very powerful. And before, you had to worship X religion. And before, almost none had doubts about the existence of God(s).

Now however, the church no longer has any political power in most major countries. We no longer consult oracles to make decisions. And we use forensics to find criminals, not religious faith. And now there are more Atheists than there are Hindus and Jewish people combined.

What do you think?

Political power among churches is slowly dying out in the United States. I'd say the existence of religion itself is pretty stable.

agree with Quark

people will always have subjective experiences that are too personally important and formative and will have existential questions, neither of which can be answered in a really significant way without some form of spirituality or religion.

New religious movements are quickly growing, new age and personalistic spiritualism is growing, while the church may not have as much direct power over political establishments (and there is reason to think they still do have significant control of some political bodies) religion is still going strong, and probably will be forever.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
And now there are more Atheists than there are Hindus and Jewish people combined.
That's not true.

Islam is in the ascendency...

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Don't you think so? I mean, back in ancient times, we would consult religion for everything. If there's a war, we consult an oracle for what to do. If someone is accused of a murder, then we would use a technique like "I'll stick your hands in fire and if your hands are burnt then you're guilty and if you're innocent then God will protect you".

And before, the church was very powerful. And before, you had to worship X religion. And before, almost none had doubts about the existence of God(s).

Now however, the church no longer has any political power in most major countries. We no longer consult oracles to make decisions. And we use forensics to find criminals, not religious faith. And now there are more Atheists than there are Hindus and Jewish people combined.

What do you think?

What the hell are you talking about?

Romans had a war strategies. They didn't just barge into another territory based on religion.

And you seem to be confusing ''ancient times'' with 16th centruy.

actually the number of atheists is understated. most christians will not admit it, but they have severe doubts about their faith. theres a bunch of people who have doubts about theyre religion, but wont share it. although the guys statistic is non-existant, it doesnt mean the basic premise is wrong.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Islam is in the ascendency...

only because they have more children then the wrest of the world.

as for converts, people ine the west sick of rape/sexualisation{it isnt a bad thing if it isnt objectification thoough}/liberalism are turning towards it kinda like the nazis turned towards facism due to opression. its a counter poison. and funny how these convert statistics never show the number of muslims turning out of islam to atheism etc. and really, being marginally ahead of relegions who are losing members in the CONVERT race is no big feat. as i said, more babies=more muslims.

I wish this were true but it isn't. People will always look to this crutch. As world conditions continue to deteriorate look for there to be an upswing in people joining religions

As long as there are problems in the world, there will be people who turn to what they feel is a higher power or an organized religion for comfort.

And there will always be problems in the world.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
actually the number of atheists is understated. most christians will not admit it, but they have severe doubts about their faith. theres a bunch of people who have doubts about theyre religion, but wont share it. although the guys statistic is non-existant, it doesnt mean the basic premise is wrong.

Chances are that even Christians who doubt their faith but won't admit it are, at best, agnostic. There's doubtless a little bit to be said for this, but not a whole lot. Non-religious adherents wouldn't jump by more than a percentage point or two worldwide if we removed such affects.

As to the question, it seems silly to me. There's actually strong reason to believe that somewhere along our evolutionary track, a certain credulity in relation to paranormal matters was a boon. So we have an ingrained tendency toward religion. Its affects will change, certainly, and technology's globalization of the world has yet to see its extended outcome in the religious world, but I feel fairly confident that religion will remain a strong force in the world for the foreseeable future.

I hope it does, even though I am agnostic (Or at least an extremely doubtful Christian.)

The reason there is doubt is because 1. People are afraid of a torment after life and believe this to be too evil an act for a merciful God to have in the renewed universe 2. The source is so obscured from the interpretations of man that it seem doubtful that the Bible is of any real knowledge from a supreme being. Interpreted by ,What became to be, the Orthodox church 1054AD So you had Catholic and Orthodox and then again interpreted by Luther 1517AD then you had Lutheran(beginning of Protestant) Then you have Calvin,s interpretation then you had Calvinist (contemporary to Luther) Ect.Ect. Catholic and Most Protestant denominational believe in a lake of fire. Eternal torture Physically and Mentally . But some Christians believe that ,according to Paul, ALL are saved not mater what you do in this life "Universalism" this is the Apocatostasis school of theological thought. The Orthodox believe Satan will be destroyed and the people who do not worship God are destroyed in the end. So.....We get confused and think its all crapp. THe reality of it is these religions are all valid. If you try and live your life to the philosophy of Jesus Christ, which very much coincides with Buddhism, Zoroastrianism etc. We are all spiritual no mater what your intellect tells you you feel as a spiritual being so understand Evil and do what you can to a good person, caring,self sacrificing,gracious hosts, and honest . Imagine a world like that. So don't stay ignorant to all aspects and to what you really are. I don't mean ignorant as a slander i mean educated you self be it Science or religion you will find yourself still having a spiritual being.

In the US the number of people reporting to follow no religion has been growing, slowly. And many religion's numbers are declining.

As we learn more from science, we're less dependent on religion to explain the unknown. But science will never be able to explain everything. I think eventually most people will focus on general beliefs, without the dogma that will be proven wrong by science. This of course will be a long long long time from now.

If it is, it's much more slowly than will ever effect us.

Actually, 0.2% of the world is Jewish, and about 27% or so is Hindu based on this poll I saw. About 30-35% are non religious.

Not religious does not mean Atheistic.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Actually, 0.2% of the world is Jewish, and about 27% or so is Hindu based on this poll I saw. About 30-35% are non religious.
In studies I saw, only about half of "nonreligious" people were atheist/agnostic.

In pre-classical societies, agriculture gave a boost to a society's birthrate, among other benefits. The increase in food supply allowed for a population expansion. With an increased populace, the society would be at an advantage in terms of competition with local enemies.

In contemporary first world societies, there is a general trend towards small families, with some European countries even experiencing population decline.

In a strange reversal of cause and effect, where once population expansion fueled the spread of religion, now religion is spurring population growth. It is a fascinating subject, but I'm most interested in why, with the Catholic Church's opposition to birth control and abortion, the Muslim seems to be 'Out Breeding' the West.

Oh and the influence of religion is still evident- one must only look at the sponsors of Prop. 8 to see that. When also considering the Monkey trials, Kansas School board fiasco, (I think those were separate) and the influence that the Religious Right has with the Conservative party, to see that religious influence in politics is far from finished.


To quote Blaxican: "Not religious does not mean atheist."

Many people identify as "spiritual" but don't like the dogma or creed of a specific church. I've met tons of people who identify themselves as nondenominational Christians.

I'm not entirely sure what your stance is here. You say that science will abolish the need for religion, but will not be enough to dispel superstition? General beliefs 'without dogma' would mean that a religion admitted that their rituals and tradition were worthless- ineffectual at best, damaging at worst- but that there was still a god! In my experience, the ritual and community of a faith is more rewarding than the abstract beliefs themselves. I don't see people abandoning the community but retaining their faith in god.

If we got to such a point where "science had disproved dogma" (which is ironically, a very un-scientific phrase) then as a side effect it would also have had evidence that suggested a lack of the Deity. (or Deities)

Religion might not die out, people may still go to church, but their religion won't be able to tell them much that science can't. God and the afterlife are the only things i don't see science ever being able to explain. But there will be less literal belief in dogma.

So far science has explained many things previously explained by religions. One is the story of Genesis. Since evolution is accepted as fact, science has disproved the way the Bible tells it. Science still can't however tell us how the first form of life was created, so religion is still relied on for that. So now people interpret Genesis as a myth thought up to teach us a lesson.

As for superstitions, they can't survive in a world where everything is explained. Even today most people consider them something you follow just because its tradition.

I of course realize there will always be people who reject science for religion, I'm talking about the majority of people.

k







I haven't found anything I can disagree with yet.

Since a lot of numbers are being batted around without much backing, I found a fairly reliable chart for # of adherents to various religions. There's other similar ones dotted through google searches and such, some from generally-reliable .edu sites or purporting to be backed by various scientific and/or census results. And this particular site backs their numbers with studies and publications at nearly every turn. So it's probably as close to accurate as we'll get:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

If you scroll down, it breaks down each group into smaller lists, so that we see how many in, say, "nonreligious" are agnostic, atheist, others, etc.

Apparently in the US (2001 study) while about 13% claim to be non-religious, around 0.5% are atheist. So it's not exactly a booming group. Atheists barely outnumber Jews. Highest estimates of the world's non-religious population are at about 20%, but a lot of it depends on where you draw the line for "non-religious." Because a lot of beliefs, including a creator or higher power (just not in the Western sense of the word) can still fall loosely under a non-religious banner.

Originally posted by cococryspies
Religion might not die out, people may still go to church, but their religion won't be able to tell them much that science can't. God and the afterlife are the only things i don't see science ever being able to explain. But there will be less literal belief in dogma.

So far science has explained many things previously explained by religions. One is the story of Genesis. Since evolution is accepted as fact, science has disproved the way the Bible tells it. Science still can't however tell us how the first form of life was created, so religion is still relied on for that. So now people interpret Genesis as a myth thought up to teach us a lesson.

As for superstitions, they can't survive in a world where everything is explained. Even today most people consider them something you follow just because its tradition.

I of course realize there will always be people who reject science for religion, I'm talking about the majority of people.

Have you ever heard of creationism? Evolution isn't exactly widely accepted among the religious crowd. Hey, remember when there was such a fuss in Kansas because they were teaching evolution, and not creationism?

There can be a scientific explanation for everything, but those people who have faith enough to beilieve in whatever religion they believe in, will continue to reject scientific explanations, or at least doubt them.

Further, the "majority" of people , are absolutely immersed in religion/rituals/belief systems, etc. There is no scientific proof whatever that proves that there is an afterlife, for example, and even if there were, Christians would still believe in heaven/hell, Hindus would still believe in reincarnation... etc.

Whether right or wrong, people will cling to their beliefs. Religion is not about fact; religion is about faith.

On another note, that's what makes me so angry about people who try to prove that their religion is the right one - because people aren't supposed to be able to prove their religions... otherwise there would be no point in faith.

this thread is full of such gross misunderstandings about why people believe in religion.

LOL, does anyone REALLY think that any human being has ever sat down, made a flow chart, and weighed the empirical pros and cons of different forms of beliefs in order to discover how they feel about the world?

Or maybe, people are religious because that is the narrative by which they have learned to explain and internalize the experiences they have in life? And as humans, one of the existential truths of our existence is that things that make no intuitive sense will happen to us?

Taken from the link Digi provided here's a good argument about why even if "religion" dies out religion will always exist (paragraphs added for ease of reading):


Of course, in the absence of traditional religions, society exhibits the same behavioral, social and psychological phenomena associated with religious cultures, but in association with secular, political, ethnic, commercial or other systems.

Marxism and Maoism, for instance, had their scriptures, authority, symbolism, liturgy, clergy, prophets, proselyting, etc. Sports, art, patriotism, music, drugs, mass media and social causes have all been observed to fulfill roles similar to religion in the lives of individuals -- capturing the imagination and serving as a source of values, beliefs and social interaction.

In a broader sense, sociologists point out that there are no truly "secular societies," and that the word "nonreligious" is a misnomer. Sociologically speaking, "nonreligious" people are simply those who derive their worldview and value system primarily from alternative, secular, cultural or otherwise nonrevealed systems ("religions" rather than traditional religious systems.

Like traditional religions, secular systems (such as Communism, Platonism, Freudian psychology, Nazism, pantheism, atheism, nationalism, etc.) typically have favored spokespeople and typically claim to present a universally valid and applicable Truth. Like traditional religions, secular systems are subject to both rapid and gradual changes in popularity, modification, and extinction.

Originally posted by inimalist
LOL, does anyone REALLY think that any human being has ever sat down, made a flow chart, and weighed the empirical pros and cons of different forms of beliefs in order to discover how they feel about the world?

Clearly you haven't seen my "My Documents" folder.



But yeah, co-signed. I also like the quote Sym dug up. It's from the link I provided, so I'll take partial credit for it.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Since a lot of numbers are being batted around without much backing, I found a fairly reliable chart for # of adherents to various religions. There's other similar ones dotted through google searches and such, some from generally-reliable .edu sites or purporting to be backed by various scientific and/or census results. And this particular site backs their numbers with studies and publications at nearly every turn. So it's probably as close to accurate as we'll get:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

If you scroll down, it breaks down each group into smaller lists, so that we see how many in, say, "nonreligious" are agnostic, atheist, others, etc.

Apparently in the US (2001 study) while about 13% claim to be non-religious, around 0.5% are atheist. So it's not exactly a booming group. Atheists barely outnumber Jews. Highest estimates of the world's non-religious population are at about 20%, but a lot of it depends on where you draw the line for "non-religious." Because a lot of beliefs, including a creator or higher power (just not in the Western sense of the word) can still fall loosely under a non-religious banner. Man I've used that link so many times, good to see that it is still going around.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Man I've used that link so many times, good to see that it is still going around.

It's a useful tool. Especially in threads like these, where guesses about religious groups are thrown about that have little backing. Glad it made you smile.

I see some religions dying out but the other more fanatical ones will become more obstinate and bold. There will be a huge gap between normal thinking and radical fundamentalist thinking.

Sorry if this is offensive.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I see some religions dying out but the other more fanatical ones will become more obstinate and bold. There will be a huge gap between normal thinking and radical fundamentalist thinking.

Sorry if this is offensive. I'm very offended

Originally posted by Deja~vu
I see some religions dying out but the other more fanatical ones will become more obstinate and bold. There will be a huge gap between normal thinking and radical fundamentalist thinking.

Sorry if this is offensive.

There already is. And unfortunately you're probably right about the future.

*Looks into the crystal ball*

I see that the more radical fundamentalists will believe that we are living in the last days spoken of by their pastors. They will exploit scriptures to state that others will fall away and that they must hold true to their faith, for this is the "Great Tribulation" of testing....The "End of Days."

Originally posted by Deja~vu
*Looks into the crystal ball*

I see that the more radical fundamentalists will believe that we are living in the last days spoken of by their pastors. They will exploit scriptures to state that others will fall away and that they must hold true to their faith, for this is the "Great Tribulation" of testing....The "End of Days."

I see everything changing... like normal.

Can't you just say, "Deb is right." LOL

Pastor Shaky.

Originally posted by Deja~vu
Can't you just say, "Deb is right." LOL

Pastor Shaky.

Deb? I haven't seen Deb in a long time.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Political power among churches is slowly dying out in the United States. I'd say the existence of religion itself is pretty stable.

I wouldn't go so far as to say religious influence and power is going away. It simply seems to work in cycles. Look at all this Palin hype and the fact that the republicans are already headed to New Hampshire to begin preparing for the next election. In fact, listening to the talking heads in these few days since the election, I'd venture the opinion that this election was apparently lost for the republicans, and they knew it, before a candidate was even picked and that McCain was talked in to picking Palin so she could spend the next four years furthering the very religious influence on politics that so often bring the republicans back into power. Religion will play a big part in elections in the US for a very long time to come, even though it really shouldn't.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Don't you think so? I mean, back in ancient times, we would consult religion for everything. If there's a war, we consult an oracle for what to do. If someone is accused of a murder, then we would use a technique like "I'll stick your hands in fire and if your hands are burnt then you're guilty and if you're innocent then God will protect you".

And before, the church was very powerful. And before, you had to worship X religion. And before, almost none had doubts about the existence of God(s).

Now however, the church no longer has any political power in most major countries. We no longer consult oracles to make decisions. And we use forensics to find criminals, not religious faith. And now there are more Atheists than there are Hindus and Jewish people combined.

What do you think?

QAAAURK!!! What are you doing on your night shift!?

Originally posted by Devil King
In fact, listening to the talking heads in these few days since the election, I'd venture the opinion that this election was apparently lost for the republicans, and they knew it, before a candidate was even picked and that McCain was talked in to picking Palin so she could spend the next four years furthering the very religious influence on politics that so often bring the republicans back into power.

That seems like a likely possibility.

Assuming how well Obama does in the next four years: when it comes to the Republican candidates in 2012, I might vote for Pawlenty or Jindal but definitely not Palin.

Originally posted by Devil King
I wouldn't go so far as to say religious influence and power is going away. It simply seems to work in cycles. Look at all this Palin hype and the fact that the republicans are already headed to New Hampshire to begin preparing for the next election. In fact, listening to the talking heads in these few days since the election, I'd venture the opinion that this election was apparently lost for the republicans, and they knew it, before a candidate was even picked and that McCain was talked in to picking Palin so she could spend the next four years furthering the very religious influence on politics that so often bring the republicans back into power. Religion will play a big part in elections in the US for a very long time to come, even though it really shouldn't.
I don't know if it shouldn't, I think the religious policy of "love thy neighbour" and "render unto Caesar" would be quite useful ethics for any society...

If a government is going to govern a society effectively, it should reflect that society...

I say we round up all the religious people in one place, give them spoons and let them go at it, last religion standing wins

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I don't know if it shouldn't, I think the religious policy of "love thy neighbour" and "render unto Caesar" would be quite useful ethics for any society...

If a government is going to govern a society effectively, it should reflect that society...

Sadly, the vast majority of the American population are religious in name only. Actually, most people of one faith or another are only adherents when it comes time to pass judgement on others. The US is a nation of the faux religious who spend very little of their time subscribing to their religion until it becomes effortlessly convenient for them to do so.

What happens with those who are ardent followers of their religion is that they seem to think that a good, moral descision can only be made by people who somewhat share their perspective on god. If a catholic walks into the booth to vote for a person, they instantly think that if that person doesn't subscribe to some form of christianity that he or she is likely a morally bankrupt and dangerous individual. As you point out, "ethics" for society is in the mind of the person pulling the lever and to many followers of the (insert denomination here) religion, it ends up placing a blinder on the idea that anyone can be ethical or moral no matter what religion they do...or do not...subscribe. It's that very arrogant and self-centered idea that a person is moral or ethical or just only if they maintain even the most superficially similar religious beliefs held by the person voting for or against them.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sadly, the vast majority of the American population are religious in name only. Actually, most people of one faith or another are only adherents when it comes time to pass judgement on others. The US is a nation of the faux religious who spend very little of their time subscribing to their religion until it becomes effortlessly convenient for them to do so.

there is a new evangelical mega-church erected every 48 hours, iirc

EDIT: in the United States.

Originally posted by inimalist
there is a new evangelical mega-church erected every 48 hours, iirc

EDIT: in the United States.

The bigger the Wal-Marts get, the bigger the mega churches get.

I can only assume taking advantage of this mindset is why Mr. Pawlenty says the republicans have to focus on the "Sam's Club" voters, as he calls them.

Originally posted by Devil King
The bigger the Wal-Marts get, the bigger the mega churches get.

I can only assume taking advantage of this mindset is why Mr. Pawlenty says the republicans have to focus on the "Sam's Club" voters, as he calls them.

no, I totally agree

but still, those are 2000+ occupancy churches a lot of the time, so I don't know. Just because people attend them doesn't mean they are any more sincere in their beliefs, I was just saying, you know?

Oh, I get what you're saying and I agree, as well.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sadly, the vast majority of the American population are religious in name only. Actually, most people of one faith or another are only adherents when it comes time to pass judgement on others. The US is a nation of the faux religious who spend very little of their time subscribing to their religion until it becomes effortlessly convenient for them to do so.

What happens with those who are ardent followers of their religion is that they seem to think that a good, moral descision can only be made by people who somewhat share their perspective on god. If a catholic walks into the booth to vote for a person, they instantly think that if that person doesn't subscribe to some form of christianity that he or she is likely a morally bankrupt and dangerous individual. As you point out, "ethics" for society is in the mind of the person pulling the lever and to many followers of the (insert denomination here) religion, it ends up placing a blinder on the idea that anyone can be ethical or moral no matter what religion they do...or do not...subscribe. It's that very arrogant and self-centered idea that a person is moral or ethical or just only if they maintain even the most superficially similar religious beliefs held by the person voting for or against them.

Your sweeping generalization is kinda made moot by the fact most Catholics voted Obama...also, from my understanding most Catholics don't regard his, or most other forms of protestantism as real Christianity...

Originally posted by inimalist
no, I totally agree

but still, those are 2000+ occupancy churches a lot of the time, so I don't know. Just because people attend them doesn't mean they are any more sincere in their beliefs, I was just saying, you know? I agree. It is mostly a show, like, "I'm good, you can trust me, and I go to church."

Soon as they start speaking in such a manner, red flags start to go up. They'll screw you over because God/Bible told them that they should.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Your sweeping generalization is kinda made moot by the fact most Catholics voted Obama...also, from my understanding most Catholics don't regard his, or most other forms of protestantism as real Christianity...

I would say you were right if there was a remote chance that every one who said they were catholic and voted for Obama were as diehard about being catholic as you. As I said, most people in the US profess one faith or another, but practice it only when it suits them.

Originally posted by Devil King
As I said, most people in the US profess one faith or another, but practice it only when it suits them.

Have you met most Americans?

If not, then why are you so sure of that statement? Speaking for over 50% of 300-million people is pretty bold.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you met most Americans?

If not, then why are you so sure of that statement? Speaking for over 50% of 300-million people is pretty bold. Well, there's the whole thing about Christians claiming they believe in the Bible but actually not doing what it says in it (which makes sense, cause some of it is ridiculous...but still, that should count).

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you met most Americans?

If not, then why are you so sure of that statement? Speaking for over 50% of 300-million people is pretty bold. Yep, been in their house too and played with their dog and drank all their booze when they weren't home.

Originally posted by Devil King
I would say you were right if there was a remote chance that every one who said they were catholic and voted for Obama were as diehard about being catholic as you. As I said, most people in the US profess one faith or another, but practice it only when it suits them.

So your inferring that I, and all devout Catholics, don't believe non-Christians have a suitable moral framework and thus don't vote for them?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So your inferring that I, and all devout Catholics, don't believe non-Christians have a suitable moral framework and thus don't vote for them?

You cant deny that Catholics don't believe that non-Catholic denominations, much less non-Christians, have a suitable moral framework.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So your inferring that I, and all devout Catholics, don't believe non-Christians have a suitable moral framework and thus don't vote for them? Maybe not all but it does seem to be quite prevalent, when was the last time you have ever seen a non-religious person ever run for president? In just my experience it is better that I say I believe some other faith then saying that I'm Atheist.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Maybe not all but it does seem to be quite prevalent, when was the last time you have ever seen a non-religious person ever run for president? In just my experience it is better that I say I believe some other faith then saying that I'm Atheist.

There will be some religion involved because its in our fabric as a Nation. Its instilled in us as children,the first colonies that started,what would become America, were searching Religious freedoms. Our Money has "In God we trust". Our Pres. swears on a Bible at inauguration. The only reason G.W.Bush said he was a Christian is because C.Rove saw the power in the numbers. B.H. Obummer is as much a Christian as Heinrich Himmler.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
There will be some religion involved because its in our fabric as a Nation. Its instilled in us as children,the first colonies that started,what would become America, were searching Religious freedoms. Our Money has "In God we trust". Our Pres. swears on a Bible at inauguration. The only reason G.W.Bush said he was a Christian is because C.Rove saw the power in the numbers. B.H. Obummer is as much a Christian as Heinrich Himmler. And that is what I was saying, it is because you have to "be of faith" to get elected in the US for most major political offices. There has been some lower seats that I can remember that non-religious people have won. However you do not have to swear an oath on the Bible or any other book, this is a custom and is not enforced or is even a law to take an oath.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you met most Americans?

If not, then why are you so sure of that statement? Speaking for over 50% of 300-million people is pretty bold.

So, you are only disagreeing with his numbers, but not the general concept?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you are only disagreeing with his numbers, but not the general concept? Its all about the numbers

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Maybe not all but it does seem to be quite prevalent, when was the last time you have ever seen a non-religious person ever run for president? In just my experience it is better that I say I believe some other faith then saying that I'm Atheist.

All that proves is that Atheists suck at politics.

lol, ya, they don't have the necessary myths to manipulate the public

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All that proves is that Atheists suck at politics. Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, they don't have the necessary myths to manipulate the public http://www.pjlighthouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/laughter-funny-cat-laugh.jpg

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Have you met most Americans?

If not, then why are you so sure of that statement? Speaking for over 50% of 300-million people is pretty bold.

If we were to get into sweeping generalizations, I would have to call the other side of the coin on your argument, as well. Have you met most Americans, either? I've met a great many people and the vast majority of them don't attend church and cling to their professed religion only when it suits them or their purpose.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So your inferring that I, and all devout Catholics, don't believe non-Christians have a suitable moral framework and thus don't vote for them?

I don't think I inferred it. I said it rather plainly. Most Americans need to feel like the guy they vote for has at least some reasonably acceptable similarity to themselves. Perhaps you are enlightedned enough to vote for an atheist, but the majority of Americans are not. Most Americans think that an atheist is evil. It's a concept that has been pounded into us.

Originally posted by Lycanthrope
There will be some religion involved because its in our fabric as a Nation. Its instilled in us as children,the first colonies that started,what would become America, were searching Religious freedoms. Our Money has "In God we trust". Our Pres. swears on a Bible at inauguration. The only reason G.W.Bush said he was a Christian is because C.Rove saw the power in the numbers. B.H. Obummer is as much a Christian as Heinrich Himmler.

You're stupid.

Originally posted by Devil King
You're stupid.

nono

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
All that proves is that Atheists suck at politics.

Heh. Hopefully that's a joke.

The word you are looking for is imply.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
The word you are looking for is imply.

Infer is a synonym with Imply...

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Infer is a synonym with Imply...

No. Not at all.

They're essentially opposites.

However, I do know what inference is.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
However, I do know what inference is.

You do realize that you're probably the only person in the world who uses infer to mean imply and thus the correction is very much justifiable, right?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You do realize that you're probably the only person in the world who uses infer to mean imply and thus the correction is very much justifiable, right? I thought they meant the same thing too

My, my, my.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I thought they meant the same thing too

Yeah but that's just because you're dum, uh, dun. Well, something like that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
You do realize that you're probably the only person in the world who uses infer to mean imply and thus the correction is very much justifiable, right?

No, its very common from where I am and its clearly stated in the dictionary that we were correct in our usage.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
nono

You didn't pick up on it? How sad.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Heh. Hopefully that's a joke.

Half-joke. Half-ogre. Half-social commentary.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, its very common from where I am and its clearly stated in the dictionary that we were correct in our usage.

You come from a wierd place that should be burned. The dictionary lists it is number 4 out of 4 definitions, making it the least used/least valid meaning of the word especially since the other meanings are antonyms of it.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
No, its very common from where I am and its clearly stated in the dictionary that we were correct in our usage.




Etymology: Sense of "draw a conclusion" is first attested 1529.

In common English, imply is used to add unspoken meaning, and infer is used to decipher such meaning. I am completely blown away that Dictionary.com has imply and infer as synonyms- I have been taught that they are antonyms. I suppose that the problem here is (loosely) analogous to the effect/affect confusion. They can be used interchangeably (apparently) but cause confusion when used abnormally.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Etymology: Sense of "draw a conclusion" is first attested 1529.

In common English, imply is used to add unspoken meaning, and infer is used to decipher such meaning. I am completely blown away that Dictionary.com has imply and infer as synonyms- I have been taught that they are antonyms. I suppose that the problem here is (loosely) analogous to the effect/affect confusion. They can be used interchangeably (apparently) but cause confusion when used abnormally.

I admit, you are correct, I suspect the 4th definition has been added due to misuse of the term, you were correct.

How about it's all bullocks in favor of the actual conversation that was taking place before the dispute over split hairs?

Man is too gullible to let religion die out.
In fact, I foresee that more cults like Scientology will pop out from nowhere and more idiots will worship these sci-fi bullshit.

Originally posted by occultdestroyer
Man is too gullible to let religion die out.
In fact, I foresee that more cults like Scientology will pop out from nowhere and more idiots will worship these sci-fi bullshit.

Amen! LOL

Originally posted by cococryspies
I of course realize there will always be people who reject science for religion, I'm talking about the majority of people.

In some cases that could be rational.
Conspiracies exist, humans are not perfect.

If humans have made a mistake, conspiracies are abound or supernatural forces are at work which are the ones who are going to notice it first?

The one's who succumb to "known" scientific knowledge or the ones who are highly critical of science due to their religion?

The unknown should never be an ignored option, despite how little the chances appear to be.

Originally posted by siriuswriter
Further, the "majority" of people , are absolutely immersed in religion/rituals/belief systems, etc. There is no scientific proof whatever that proves that there is an afterlife, for example, and even if there were, Christians would still believe in heaven/hell, Hindus would still believe in reincarnation... etc.

Whether right or wrong, people will cling to their beliefs. Religion is not about fact; religion is about faith.

On another note, that's what makes me so angry about people who try to prove that their religion is the right one - because people aren't supposed to be able to prove their religions... otherwise there would be no point in faith.

That's one of the most logical things I've ever read in this forum.

You are ignoring the fact that scientists (in general) are all watching each other and waiting for a chance to prove someone wrong or catch a mistake- Scientists thrive on dissent(sp?).

It's hard for me to get involved with topics of religion, I myself being agnostic see it as just a breath of fresh air for certain people... I know religion will never die out.. it might calm down a bit.. but never go away.. I see a lot of people use God(s) as a scapegoat and solution to their problems... almost like alcohol to some people... when people ask "why is God doing this to me?" then they reply to themselves "He's not doing it, he's giving me the strength to get through it" and so forth... I myself just can't get myself to do that.. even my Aunt who turned Christian still swears, doesn't go to church n the such, but she listens to Christian rock and the likes, reads the bible.. is in love with frogs, so on and so on... everyone needs something to "help them get through the hard times"... whether it be God(s), drugs, sex, what have you.. if it makes them happy, let em be happy... I'm content with how my life is.. does it suck sometimes? Of course, who's doesn't? But I just keep pluckin away at it.. *shrugs* I dunno...

fact of the matter is.. I don't think religion is "dying out" it's just eased up a bit.. with all that's going on.. all the people in the world now.. no one can keep up... there will always be believers, non-believers, and people who want to believe but just, can't....

as the world turns......

My ten pence worth.

I feel from my own perspective that man as a species is learning to rely on itself and not rest all its hopes on the magic beardy man living in the clouds. Wide spread education, advances of science and medicine and breaking free of the Earths surface have taught Man that he can achieve greatness on his own.

Also I think its more correct to say that the dominant Western organised religions are losing out because people are starting to work out that the church (or controlling authority) don't have all the answers, don't move with the times and were solely there to generate money (look at the tax haven known as Vatican City) and keep it.

Look at Christianity. They are holding on so hard to stop women and gay members of their faith from advancing and holding equal place. This is the year 2009 not 1009. People are not under the fear of being struck down where they stand for disobeying the faith.

Religion will never die out. People will always want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Faiths of today will not 'die out' as such but will become fringe groups.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
My ten pence worth.

I feel from my own perspective that man as a species is learning to rely on itself and not rest all its hopes on the magic beardy man living in the clouds. Wide spread education, advances of science and medicine and breaking free of the Earths surface have taught Man that he can achieve greatness on his own.

Also I think its more correct to say that the dominant Western organised religions are losing out because people are starting to work out that the church (or controlling authority) don't have all the answers, don't move with the times and were solely there to generate money (look at the tax haven known as Vatican City) and keep it.

Look at Christianity. They are holding on so hard to stop women and gay members of their faith from advancing and holding equal place. This is the year 2009 not 1009. People are not under the fear of being struck down where they stand for disobeying the faith.

Religion will never die out. People will always want to believe in something bigger than themselves. Faiths of today will not 'die out' as such but will become fringe groups.

Wow, I'd give you have a cent for your ten cents worth.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow, I'd give you have a cent for your ten cents worth. Damn the recession is even hear

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Damn the recession is even hear

Yeah I am morally bankrupt.

In Australia, people who called themselves Christians declined from 96% in 1901 to about 63% in 2006.
Also, the people who subscribe to no religion increased from 2% to 30%...
So, religion is slowly going down here, but we will have to wait and see if any new religions come into prominence.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow, I'd give you have a cent for your ten cents worth.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow, I'd give you have a cent for your ten cents worth.
What is a have a cent? Is it supposed to be a half cent?

Originally posted by Prabhodh
In Australia, people who called themselves Christians declined from 96% in 1901 to about 63% in 2006.
Also, the people who subscribe to no religion increased from 2% to 30%...
So, religion is slowly going down here, but we will have to wait and see if any new religions come into prominence.

I don't know if stats really matter in these type of things. Spirituality or religion are personal experiences and ideas before they become communal or institutionalized. Essentially, I'm saying you can't be sure about where religion is just by looking at stats.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is a have a cent? Is it supposed to be a half cent?

Ahh Buddhists, you have to be very slow with them.

YES! It is, well done...you worked that out by yourself? I'm proud. Have a cookie and go try some facepaint OK?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Ahh Buddhists, you have to be very slow with them.

YES! It is, well done...you worked that out by yourself? I'm proud. Have a cookie and go try some facepaint OK?

I have a half cent in my coin collection and it's worth a lot more then 10 cents.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have a half cent in my coin collection and it's worth a lot more then 10 cents.

Not the half-cent I was going to be giving out.

I think I was on here earlier refuting the titular argument. But now I'm not sure. If we redefine "slowly" to look at the movement of human civilization since we've had civilized society, it really has been a strong trend toward non-religion in a hurry. 1900, for example, in most parts of the Western world, wasn't much less religious than, say, the Middle Ages. But in the century or so since that, a sharp decline. Information is powerful.

I feel like the onset of massive technological advances means that we can't accurately predict much of anything even as close as maybe 50 years into the future. So speculation would be idle. But the hypothesis that religion is dying out, and perhaps not slowly but quickly by history's standards, isn't an outlandish one.

...

A different perspective, perhaps:

If we look at most social or biological models, there exists an equilibrium for certain characteristics. Take population totals for a herd of animals in a given area. Overpopulate, not enough food. Death. So it swings the other way until there's an overabundance of food and population totals rise again. Somewhere in there exists the equilibrium. Sometimes it is never maintained, other times systems regulate themselves more strictly and don't experience such fluctuations. Nature is rife with examples, as any biologist will attest to. Gender totals are a good example. We've learned that biology slightly favors females, so the equilibrium is roughly 51/49, for reasons we don't quite know right now.

Social and economic fluctuations aren't revolutionary ideas either. Fluctuating markets, societal trends, opinions, etc. So why not religion? There likely exists a theistic/non-theistic equilibrium for the planet. Depending on the planet's conditions (the humans on its, their motivations, education, technology, etc.) that equilibrium will shift over time, but it exists. And we've never seen a sharp turn upward in religion as a species...we've never "bottomed out" our population totals, to match the earlier example. So we're likely above the equilibrium line in sheer number of theists (in percentages, not totals, obviously).

So religion dying out entirely is about as silly as secularism dying out entirely. Neither will ever happen. But it will certainly fluctuate, and we seem to be in the middle of a sharp downturn, which makes me believe that theists are a bigger percentage currently than what will make a "stable" ratio for the planet. But theists won't decline without end, and eventually the ratio will either fluctuate back up or stabilize at a ratio we can't hope to predict.

So evolution is wrong.

...
I don't see religion "dying out" either, but for reasons other than the ones you suggest. Religious faith is a deep rooted tradition in (almost) every culture on the planet. People will find a way to reconcile (or ignore, I suppose) scientific facts with their historic beliefs. That a black family attends a 'sons of the confederacy' convention in order to honor an ancestor that fought for the south illustrates this. People will learn to cope with their most treasured contradictions and preserve a traditional way of life.

Religion is some major factor in much pain caused on this planet. Well, that's my opinion.

If you are different then you ARE a/the problem...sadly enough

I've read some of the posts (skipping Moff's after his blowing up abortion clinics is A-OK statement) and am coming to the thinking that "Religion" is so deeply implanted in society that it will never truly "die out" but I still believe that as information and education become more freely available (for everyone) that religion as a ingrained part of life with diminish.

You only have to look at the rise in registry office weddings in the UK compared to the fall in church weddings. Getting married is a legally binding contract which has nothing to do with religion. The whole church thing is tacked on for the giggles of it. As is divorce, just another legal action and has nothing to do with religion.

Originally posted by MilitantDog
Getting married is a legally binding contract which has nothing to do with religion. The whole church thing is tacked on for the giggles of it. As is divorce, just another legal action and has nothing to do with religion.

Actually marriage is a religious thing with law tacked onto it. Nice try.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually marriage is a religious thing with law tacked onto it. Nice try.

Yep from the onset of civilization from mother Africa marriage has often been in the domain of one form of religion or another.

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
So evolution is wrong.

facepalm

lol, btw. But the quote actually didn't mean to say we don't know why females outnumber males. We do. Evolution favors reproductive efficiency (among other things). A single male can impregnate multiple females, so it's only natural for there to be more females. We just don't know why the ratio is 51/49, when it could actually be more toward the female side without sacrificing possible reproductive numbers. There has to be some mitigating factor that pushes it more toward 50/50. That's what we don't know, though there are several theories that offer possible solutions, some based in culture, others in biology.

Originally posted by Digi
facepalm

lol, btw. But the quote actually didn't mean to say we don't know why females outnumber males. We do. Evolution favors reproductive efficiency (among other things). A single male can impregnate multiple females, so it's only natural for there to be more females. We just don't know why the ratio is 51/49, when it could actually be more toward the female side without sacrificing possible reproductive numbers. There has to be some mitigating factor that pushes it more toward 50/50. That's what we don't know, though there are several theories that offer possible solutions, some based in culture, others in biology.

Diversity, I assume. Fewer men would make the population more vulnerable to genetic defects on the Y chromosome.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Diversity, I assume. Fewer men would make the population more vulnerable to genetic defects on the Y chromosome.

As good a theory as any, and it sounds logical. Maybe we do know why it's almost equal (and maybe you're absolutely right), and I just haven't read it. Despite having specifically looked for it at one point, I obviously can't claim to have read anywhere near all the literature on the subject.

The world would certainly be a better place if the vast majority of religions didn't exist.


If I had to give up Mormonism if it mean 99% of all the world's religions disappeared, I'd do it. (Before anyone mistakes that for weak faith, it's not. I just dislike religion as a whole.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
The world would certainly be a better place if the vast majority of religions didn't exist.


If I had to give up Mormonism if it mean 99% of all the world's religions disappeared, I'd do it. (Before anyone mistakes that for weak faith, it's not. I just dislike religion as a whole.)

You would abandon God for the good of mankind? :O

Originally posted by dadudemon
The world would certainly be a better place if the vast majority of religions didn't exist.


If I had to give up Mormonism if it mean 99% of all the world's religions disappeared, I'd do it. (Before anyone mistakes that for weak faith, it's not. I just dislike religion as a whole.)

Th- then why are you Mormon at all?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Th- then why are you Mormon at all?

I can't help but feel flabbergasted by that statement...(dadudemons)

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You would abandon God for the good of mankind? :O

It would be more like agnosticism that abandonment, but, yes. Quite selfless and Christ-like of me, isn't it? Abandon my God in practice for the betterment of mankind? Much too easy of a decision to make for probably any normal person.


If you could do the same, would you? Never again could your think or utter a prayer. Never again could have have mass. Never again could you thank the Lord for anything. Could you do it?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Th- then why are you Mormon at all?


You missed the point (not really, because I clearly defined what I meant by the statement, so I'm confused as to why you are confused.) I would never have to make that decision, but, if I had to, I would. It's not really a statement of a reality as much as it is just a statement of how cynical I am concerning religion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You missed the point (not really, because I clearly defined what I meant by the statement, so I'm confused as to why you are confused.) I would never have to make that decision, but, if I had to, I would. It's not really a statement of a reality as much as it is just a statement of how cynical I am concerning religion.

I just don't understand what sort of reasoning could result in the sentiment that "religion is one of the worst things ever" coupled with "I believe in God" and lacking "I'm some manner of supernatural evil that has absolute proof of God but has a compulsion to stick it to the man".

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just don't understand what sort of reasoning could result in the sentiment that "religion is one of the worst things ever" coupled with "I believe in God" and lacking "I'm some manner of supernatural evil that has absolute proof of God but has a compulsion to stick it to the man".



WTF?


It would have been a lot quicker just to re-post what I said. Then you could have captured the real meaning.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It would be more like agnosticism that abandonment, but, yes. Quite selfless and Christ-like of me, isn't it? Abandon my God in practice for the betterment of mankind? Much too easy of a decision to make for probably any normal person.


If you could do the same, would you? Never again could your think or utter a prayer. Never again could have have mass. Never again could you thank the Lord for anything. Could you do it?

It is not Christ-like at all, it is a fallacy to believe that mankind would benefit with the absence of the Church HE founded. There is no greater sin than the one you suggest.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is not Christ-like at all, it is a fallacy to believe that mankind would benefit with the absence of the Church HE founded. There is no greater sin than the one you suggest.


There will come a time when Christianity is forgotten, but there will never be a time without religion, as long as there are people.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
It is not Christ-like at all, it is a fallacy to believe that mankind would benefit with the absence of the Church HE founded. There is no greater sin than the one you suggest.

Actually, it's not a sin. It's a sacrifice. Big difference, really.

Also, judge not, etc. Only God can know the contents of a man's heart. I could be rewarded for sacrificing something so important to me for the betterment of all of man kind.

And, yes, it would benefit. All of humanity would benefit if the vast majority of religions disappeared. Just think, hasn't it been proven, empircally, that Atheists are just as moral as most other theist groups? (Let's just pretend that mores, which can and are influenced by religion, have no place). What is the need for religion if that's the case? There are those that say that we are built with our altrustic tendencies due to evolution. Wouldn't all the negatives of religion cease and the positives of altruism remain? Of course, things like abortion would be a lot more accepted...but then there's no idiot Christian/muslim fanatic craming his or her religion down others' throats, either.




Think about it: why do you think it so bad to give up your religion, even if it saved the lives (both emotionally and physically) of tens of thousands a year? The answer should be obvious: it's partially due to selfishness. Your whole world revolves around a religion, so I can understand why you would consider it so personal. God is there in his justice, mercy, and glory, regardless of people not paying homage to Him every five minutes. He's not petty, despite the old testament's stories of otherwise. Humans are too immature to give up their religion, much less stop forcing their beliefs on others. The day humans evolve, socially, enough to stop with the religious B.S., then there would be no reason to get rid of religion, no would there?



Religion should ONLY be kindly offered, and not forced. No tolerance. No government exceptions for religious beliefs, with in reason. (Of course, don't force people to do stupid stuff like drink alcoholic beverages, dress without much clothes, etc. Stuff like that that doesn't affect anyone should have exceptions.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Actually, it's not a sin. It's a sacrifice. Big difference, really.

Also, judge not, etc. Only God can know the contents of a man's heart. I could be rewarded for sacrificing something so important to me for the betterment of all of man kind.

And, yes, it would benefit. All of humanity would benefit if the vast majority of religions disappeared. Just think, hasn't it been proven, empircally, that Atheists are just as moral as most other theist groups? (Let's just pretend that mores, which can and are influenced by religion, have no place). What is the need for religion if that's the case? There are those that say that we are built with our altrustic tendencies due to evolution. Wouldn't all the negatives of religion cease and the positives of altruism remain? Of course, things like abortion would be a lot more accepted...but then there's no idiot Christian/muslim fanatic craming his or her religion down others' throats, either.




Think about it: why do you think it so bad to give up your religion, even if it saved the lives (both emotionally and physically) of tens of thousands a year? The answer should be obvious: it's partially due to selfishness. Your whole world revolves around a religion, so I can understand why you would consider it so personal. God is there in his justice, mercy, and glory, regardless of people not paying homage to Him every five minutes. He's not petty, despite the old testament's stories of otherwise. Humans are too immature to give up their religion, much less stop forcing their beliefs on others. The day humans evolve, socially, enough to stop with the religious B.S., then there would be no reason to get rid of religion, no would there?



Religion should ONLY be kindly offered, and not forced. No tolerance. No government exceptions for religious beliefs, with in reason. (Of course, don't force people to do stupid stuff like drink alcoholic beverages, dress without much clothes, etc. Stuff like that that doesn't affect anyone should have exceptions.)

You would reject God in order to alleviate the suffering of men on Earth.

As a mormon you think everyone is saved anyway so I guess it doesn't matter...but for a Catholic to abandon the Church and therefore God in order to alleviate the suffering of men on Earth would be a bad thing. As though they are not suffering on Earth they would ultimately suffer for all eternity in hell. (Flood of Noah?)

Though ofcourse, your "sacrifice" wouldn't even alienate men of suffering, sure religion would be gone but something else would take its place to use as propaganda for power grabbing...so in essence your sacrifice (from a Christian perspective) is actually damning mankind.

You have committed the sin of Adam and Eve...again.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
You would reject God in order to alleviate the suffering of men on Earth.

As a mormon you think everyone is saved anyway so I guess it doesn't matter...but for a Catholic to abandon the Church and therefore God in order to alleviate the suffering of men on Earth would be a bad thing. As though they are not suffering on Earth they would ultimately suffer for all eternity in hell. (Flood of Noah?)

Though ofcourse, your "sacrifice" wouldn't even alienate men of suffering, sure religion would be gone but something else would take its place to use as propaganda for power grabbing...so in essence your sacrifice (from a Christian perspective) is actually damning mankind.

You have committed the sin of Adam and Eve...again. Man that is a positive look on life

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Man that is a positive look on life

So...you think that without religions the world would stabilise and conflict would decrease dramatically?

You also think that people do not need to worship God and the world would be a better place without him?

Oh ofcourse...you buy into universalism right?

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
So...you think that without religions the world would stabilise and conflict would decrease dramatically?

You also think that people do not need to worship God and the world would be a better place without him?

Oh ofcourse...you buy into universalism right? No I do not, I do understand human nature and I have also seen it evolve and change over time. Could the human race be peaceful and a "Garden of Eden" I think it could but I also think I have the same chance of winning the lottery 5 times in a row, could it happen yes but not likely.

Diversity in thinking will always lead to conflict.

Originally posted by Hewhoknowsall
Don't you think so? I mean, back in ancient times, we would consult religion for everything. If there's a war, we consult an oracle for what to do. If someone is accused of a murder, then we would use a technique like "I'll stick your hands in fire and if your hands are burnt then you're guilty and if you're innocent then God will protect you".

And before, the church was very powerful. And before, you had to worship X religion. And before, almost none had doubts about the existence of God(s).

Now however, the church no longer has any political power in most major countries. We no longer consult oracles to make decisions. And we use forensics to find criminals, not religious faith. And now there are more Atheists than there are Hindus and Jewish people combined.

What do you think?

You're slightly right, although the Jewish priests felt they were being insulted by Jesus.

And also, not all priests can be good. Before the priests in other conquered countries could enjoy having so much political power and so much wealth (they owned lands).

Then they are actually breaking the "Poverty" vow?

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Diversity in thinking will always lead to conflict.

Join me

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Join me