On what grounds to you disparage my cinder block, yet tout your magic sky wizard? After all, both have as much hard evidence to support their creative abilities, but many more would acknowledge the existence of my block than your wizard.

By the way, you are using a straw man argument here. The block analogy was intended to show how unreasoning belief leads to absurd consequences; attempting to attribute it as the core of my argument is a fallacy.

Again, this is a straw man. I never said that their beliefs were unfathomable; rather, you implied that they were and I objected. My original proposal stated that their beliefs were completely fathomable, and critically flawed.

Allow me to quote you:
Here you basically state that I cannot possibly understand common beliefs, and now less than an hour later you are trying to attribute *your* statement to me; and then ridicule me for it! Either you need to work on reading comprehension or you are purposefully attempting to use logical errors to support your position.

Holy Pot-Calling-The-Kettle-Black Batman!

I have strong feelings about religion, and I'm sure that many of them are not very logical or even well-thought out. Life is a learning curve, after all. As for not being willing to admit that I am wrong...NOT TRUE. In an earlier post I did just that.

In this post, however, I would say that my error is in using a bit of hyperbole...but I still feel that in general, religion needs indoctrination in order to succeed (and thus, faith follows that indoctrination). It is not made up of a bunch of individuals getting together because they have the same 'spiritual experiences', but rather members who were indoctrinated in the philosophy starting at a young age....either through their family or society. For a small example; when I was a toddler, my mother sent me to to Sunday School, even though she wasn't religious in any way. She didn't want me to feel alienated from society because I didn't 'have a religion'. Of course, this was in the Sixties and things have changed dramatically since. An affiliation with a church is not necessary anymore to be accepted in 'society'....although, in some circles it still does help...and if you are running for president.

You got me there...:blush:

This might be an accurate or relevant comment if you had any idea what I believe, but you don't. Go back and read my post again--I in no way suggested anything about non-believers, all or some. But I'm not surprised that you're used to getting knee-jerk responses to your knee-jerk remarks, and start to see them where none exist.

Natural selection says that if that were true, it would die out. Every society known to man has had some sort of religious culture, and new ones are getting started all the time. It's not indoctrination keeping them all alive, but rather something inherent in human nature, the need to search for answers and come up with hypotheses for the questions we can't answer. Your own example demonstrates how indoctrination had the opposite effect on you, as a matter of fact.

Clodfobble...You didn't address my post, you attacked the way I posted. You even gave it a dose of sarcasm for good measure. Thats Ok with me if you want to do that, but isn't it also another form of logical fallacy?

I will grant you that there is something inherent in man that keeps him looking for answers, but I don't think whatever that is proves religion's or spirituality's 'inherentabilty' (sp?). Some may go the route of religion for those answers and while others may go the route of science.

In my case, I think indoctrination probably did play a big part in my atheism. I used my toddler example to point out how strongly societal pressure can affect ones choices. In actually, my Mom never hid her atheist beliefs and I probably share those beliefs as a result.

You say the bird came from a cinder block, with no evidence. I said the bird evolved from dinosaurs, for which there is evidence.
The fact that I also believe in God, doesn't alter the evidence.
You also make the assertion that God is a man and God is in the sky, which I did not... another assumption on your part about what other people think.
No, the cinder block is your strawman.
You're the one that described them as unfathomable, not I.
First you say I "basically" made a statement I didn't. Secondly, above I've shown it was your statement that introduced "unfathomable".
Your basic problem is believing that all people of faith, subscribe to a set of "common beliefs" you have cataloged in your head.
This pigeon, among others, don't fit that hole.

Dude... you smoke crack. I addressed the "pot calling the kettle black" part of your post, and then I addressed the "indoctrination" part of your post, and I referenced the "toddler anecdote" part of your post. I'll readily cop to the sarcasm, I can't usually get rid of that. :) Here, I'll address the parts I skipped:

Okay.

Okay. 'I was wrong, but I'm still generally right' is kind of like 'Some of my best friends are black,' but I'll give you credit for it if you want. It's not about admitting you were wrong in a specific instance but rather acknowledging the possibility that you don't know everything, but you did that in the quote just prior to this statement, so... okay.

Okay.


...See, that wasn't particularly interesting, seeing how I was okay with all the other parts. I figured I'd just address the parts I had something to say about.


Absolutely. I don't know that it's inherently true, I just know it's an inherent behavior in people. That's very different from "I think that most people are basing their faith on their upbringing and, perhaps in part, societal peer pressure" which was the statement that I originally had a beef with.

Okay. ;)

Ok ok ok ok

http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s...Bwhiteflag.gif

:D

Either you are comparing apples to oranges here, or you are saying that you never attribute things to God without evidence. Therefore, if you cannot prove the existence of God (something that would be required to draw a causal relationship) then you must never attribute anything to God. If you do indeed believe in an undetectable entity which does absolutely nothing I must confess confusion as to your fondness toward such a belief.

Allow me to summarize the gist of our exchange (as I see it).
Me: Faith-based people operate in this way, which is flawed in this manner.
You: You are foolish to think you can understand what those people believe.
Me: Are you saying I cannot understand what they believe, or that what they believe is inherently impossible to understand? Either way I disagree.
You: You are the one that described them as impossible to understand, not I.
Me: …the hell?

The crux of my statement is that holding a belief that is not based on proof, or “faith” as it is commonly called, is inherently flawed. I support such a claim through ‘reductio ad absurdum’ or “reduction to the absurd,” a well-known style of logical argument.

At this point you have claimed my argument does not apply to you because your beliefs are different. Unfortunately, at this point your beliefs are also *secret* which inhibits my response. I request that you explain exactly what you believe, thus fleshing out your position into more than “just cuz.”

OK, let me cut through the tangents.

You don't believe in God. That is your right and I couldn't care less.

but, when you say;
"A faith-based person concludes that God made it,.."
"What astonishes me the most is that society functions as well as it does with large swaths of the population choosing to be selectively bat-shit crazy."
"...you choose to fill in reality from your imagination..."
it shows that you have decided, that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. That is bat-shit crazy.

You can't understand why faith and science don't have to be mutually exclusive.
It appears, because you've heard some people rail against one or the other, probably in the evolution debate, you to have decided that everyone has to choose a side.
That "fer me or agin me" attitude is offensive to me, and all rational people.

Nonsense! I specifically stated that my criticism was directed toward faith-based people; if they are not basing their beliefs on faith then it is your error in concluding I was speaking about them. If I was criticizing people who drive cars then it would not be valid for you to object that many people ride bikes; I’m not talking about them!

Now hold on, you *just* said that it is crazy to decide that billions of people must think and act in a manner you have predetermined. I should hope that “all rational people” number in the billions, so your hypocrisy here is astounding.


I think it is clear at this point you are unwilling or unable to address the argument in a logical manner. If you have issues with my reasoning by all means continue. Otherwise I ask that you keep insults or accusations against me personally out of the forum, especially those intended to confuse the issue or other readers.

Then you will have to define what you mean by "faith based people". I took it as all people of faith, ie, non atheists/agnostics. If I was mistaken, I apologize.

There is no hypocrisy. Any rational person would be offended by you attacking/insulting them for their faith. The same for deriding what you predict they would think/do, when you have no way of knowing what they would think, or how they would act, in a given situation.

I've already told you why I have no conflict between my faith and science.
You apparently don't believe it on the grounds that, for a person of faith that isn't possible. Hmm, I must be lying.
Insults? Accusations? I've only seen the ones you've hurled at me and billions of "bat-shit crazy" people who believe in a God.

By “faith-based people” I meant people whose beliefs are based principally on the concept of faith, by which I mean holding certain beliefs as true despite no supporting evidence. Undoubtedly there is some overlap in “people of faith” but the distinction is an important one.

For instance, a person who believes they have spoken directly to God and so convinced of his existence is not faith-based. While they may not be able to reproduce such evidence they are basing their belief on evidence that is convincing to them. The question at that point is about evaluative rigor rather than faith.

As a rational person I disagree that questioning someone’s beliefs must automatically lead to offense; indeed, without this questioning progress would be much more difficult.

By your own reasoning since “any rational person would be offended” you have attempted to predict what every rational person would think or do. This is exactly what you claimed is impossible and offensive. Maybe you claim to be an exception.

No, you have *stated* that you find no conflict between faith and science. You have shown examples where you accept conclusions based on evidence, but offered no clear examples of conclusions based on faith. The closest example I can come up with is your original claim that “…everything is the way God made it, often through his helper, Mother Nature.”

I take this to mean that you believe God is the origin of the universe. You have already stated that you have no problem with a bird having come about because of dinosaurs, so I will assume that you are willing to continue that chain back to the origin of the universe. At what point does God become the cause of an effect?

Obviously this cannot be at a point where science has an explanation based on hard evidence, otherwise there would by definition be a conflict between faith and science. Instead the point of faith must reside beyond the progress of science and retreat before it. Because of this science and faith *cannot* coexist without conflict.

I would think that most people of faith, have spoken to God. Speaking to God is easy, and once you've gotten an acceptable answer, it's easy to maintain your faith. Everyone must decide what constitutes an acceptable answer for themselves.
Who are you to question anyone's faith, Torquemada? Unless they are trying to convert you to their beliefs, it's not your concern.
Show me someone that would not be offended, when you call them "bat-shit crazy" for their beliefs. You might even loose your head.
That's right.
I didn't say that. God might have caused the universe to form, or just watched it happen. I don't know, you don't know, I don't really care.
Nonsense, theories of science give us a glimpse at what has happened, not hard evidence as you call it, but enough that to make a reasonable case that is plausible most people. For example, the dinosaurs to birds theory. What science doesn't give us is the why.

Who are you to question my views on other’s beliefs, Herod? Unless my posts are far too intrusive for you to ignore, you have *made* it your concern. Besides, it is the TOPIC so it makes a lot of sense for such a discussion to be found here.

Ahh yes, this is classic. “You cannot possibly know what everyone thinks. On the other hand, I can because I am right. How could I be wrong, it makes sense to me!”

As I already said, you can ascribe intent and intelligence to things without evidence as long as this does not in any way affect the results. I just don’t understand the attraction of such a belief system since it never really ends up meaning anything. As long as two people agree on what causes rain to fall it does not make that much difference if one person believes that the rain drops were “angry” as they fell.

I don't give a crap about your views of others beliefs, they're your views and you're entitled to them. My only concern is how you treat other people because of their beliefs.
No, unlike you, I never claimed to know what all those people think. But I do know enough about human nature to know they don't liked being attacked verbally or physically... except for a few people that get off on being abused. That shouldn't be a surprise to even you.

I believe you when you say you don't understand, otherwise you wouldn't be babbling about angry raindrops. Personally I don't try to attach human emotions to objects, but whatever blows your skirt up.:rolleyes:

Late into the convo, but I'm gonna try.

To me science doesn't trump religion nor religion trump science. I believe science over religion but don't completely trust it. There have been many scientific "facts" or theories that have been debunked. Science is a constant search for the truth and is always modifying and updating itself to incorporate new discovers. Religion claims to be the only truth (at least most of them do), the core of religion doesn't change. The religious text will dictate the (general) belief of its followers even though the text has not changed (beyond translation) in thousands of years. In the end, they were written by man and are subject suspicion because of this. We don't teach out of science books from even a hundred years ago, but many people center their life around an ancient text. On that note I don't believe such texts are obsolete, just like the Pythagorean theorem is not obsolete. They have their uses, laying out generally a good moral system for one thing, even if I do think parts of that are outdated. In the end I'm agnostic, I can't prove to myself God is there, that he isn't there, or that one religion is right about Him over another. Science I can believe in, even if I can't always trust it.

Late as well.

I see little conflict between the two and the potential to have conflict if you so desire.

I have always viewed organized religion from a historical perspective, something that was developed by less educated people, when science was infintile, and the world left most without a logical explaination for what we observed going on around us in our daily life. Religion was also a form of power and a method to rule the common people. Even the King/Queen feared the power of the Bishop. As science evolved more about the observed world was explained logically and the reason to have things explained by religion lessoned. Even today there is much we can't explain and people like to fill that void in with religon. Religious texts which continue to be in use to day were written by people at the direction of people. Some person(s) were told what to include and what not to include in those texts. History(Science) has shown us that much may have been excluded. Yet we have, in this day and age, people who will quote you from various texts as if they are(were) the voice and word of some God.

Spirituality is a similar topic, but hardly the same. Spirituality and religion are often confused as being the same.

I heard an interview with Michael Heller the other night.
He had just won some prize for being a smarty.
Anyway he sounded quite brilliant, he claims science and religion can fit in perfectly together.
Its strange to hear such logic from a Cath-Aholic priest

Catholicism seems to produce some pragmatic thinkers. Unlike, say, Southern Baptists.

Or JW`s

In respect to any religion:

It seems to me that many people fail to see the beauty of the forest, distracted by the ugliness of a few of the trees.

Often the forest is ugly.

Times of London: "A third of Muslim students back killings"

oh, UT. You know you're lying again.

So who's house is the Ramadan party at this year? It seems my schedule conflicts a little because Rash Hashanah will also be happening during this period....hmmm...


So who's house is the Rashamadan party at this year?!?
:)
(at least one thing is clear, no one will be bringing the ham)

Oh hai, just making jokes..I'm out!
:bolt:

As I see it, the 'conflict' between science and religion need not be confined to the external world. That conflict can fully rage within an individual. It's less about people who are scientists versus people of faith, as it is decisions or theories based on science versus theories and decisions based on faith.

At the point that somebody chooses to seek an answer from faith, they are no longer acting scientifically. When someone seeks their answers from scientific study, they are no longer acting on faith. The two cannot coexist in answering a question, but they can coexist within the same individual. As modes of thinking they are entirely atithetical. People, however, are very multi-levelled in their thinking. It's quite possible to embrace scientific reason and faith ....but it's highly unlikely one will exercise them at the same time.

For the record (and for those who don't click the link and read the whole article):
I was very surprised to see the figure so high. But I also accept that many 18-21 year olds hold views I find abhorrent. From the same article, 4% of non-Muslim students had little or no respect for gays. Which would be wonderful... except it certainly doesn't reflect what I hear. And (in this country at least) non-Muslims don't have religion to hide behind.

I may be wrong, the survey may be right. It's pretty grim if it is. But just wait. These Muslim students will face the reality of the jobs market pretty soon. A lot of attitude ends up washed away in the 07.30 shower when you have to get up 5 days a week to go to work. And I mean that across the religious and racial spectrum.

Dana - any comment on the Muslim students at your Uni?

632 is not a very large survey group. In fact, I'd be surprised if this so called study was even acknowledged by scientific journals with figures like that.

eta: I don't find it alarming that any number of students might think it's ok to kill in the name of religion. Muslims certainly do not have the sole rights to that view.

I'm not an athiest, but I do completely agree with what you've said here.
I have a much different viewpoint than many of my Christian peers, which has lead on multiple occasions to them trying to swing up a faith based argument that I refuse to take part in. All I say is look at history and you will see that us folks here on earth don't have it all together by any stretch of the imagination. So for you to come and say that my faith is wrong, and you know the one true way is being ignorant of all those before you who had the same thought pattern and ended up trying to extinguish other faiths by a variety of different means.
So even though I have my Christian based faith, I feel closer and much more sympathetic to athiests than my "fellow" Christians.

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!"
A favorite quote of a very conservative, fundamentalist Christian I went to school with.. and he had friends.
:greenface

""At the point that somebody chooses to seek an answer from faith, they are no longer acting scientifically. When someone seeks their answers from scientific study, they are no longer acting on faith. The two cannot coexist in answering a question, ""

Faith will take you nowhere, stick with science.

If you like you can claim God gave you intelligence to find the answers with science

Just for clarity: I am an atheist. I do not seek any answers from faith, though I take much that I have been told by experts on faith, inasmuch as I have not personally conducted the research. I do not believe in the existence of a supreme being, I do not believe in 'supernatural' phenomenon. Just because we don't have the answer, doesn't mean the answer isn't there to be found. If the answer is not contained within our current understanding of 'nature' then that doesn't place the answer outside of nature, it merely means we drew the boundary lines incorrectly.

It is in our nature, as human beings to take certain things as facts based on an act of faith. We do not need, as a species to hardwire all the instincts and behaviour patterns that we will need in life, because we can learn and remember. We do not need to relearn the world anew with each generation, because we are able to share and pass along knowledge: we do not need to experience something personally, to know of its existence. This drives us forward as a species, but it has also allowed anachronisms to thrive.*
[*] I am fairly sure that the more spiritual dwellars might take exception to my characterising religious faith as anachronistic. No offence intended.

Just throwing this in ...

I get paid to talk about this stuff.

So I'm certainly not going to talk about it here. Union regs, you know.

Carry on, and have fun.

Bah, just noticed, I wrote 'phenomenon' instead of 'phenomena'.

That's because you are Godless.
True believers are laughing at your poor writting skills right now.

I'll remeber that.;)

Well DanaC if you are an atheist you have too much faith that you know everything
Stick with us agnostics, have a bet each way and admit there just might be things out there you have not seen or understood

At what point have I suggested that there are not things out there which I have not seen or understood? I do not believe in the supernatural, because if something exists then it is natural. I do not pretend to know what does or does not exist, with the sole exception of a human-conceived fantasy creature. Are there more things on heaven or earth than are dreamed of in my philosophy? Most assuredly, yes.

But I no more feel the need to remain open to the possibility of God and the supernatural, than to the possibility that the River Styx flows somewhere beneath. I have no way to know for sure that gravity will not one day desert us; yet I have enough experiential evidence and access to scientific reassurances that this will not be so. This does not make me closed minded, it makes me a pattern recognising, expectant human being.

Have a bet each way? Oh please. That particular fence must be groaning under the weight of such intellectual indecision. The God of the Gaps has already been mentioned in this thread. It is, to me, one of the most compelling single arguments against the existence of 'God'. Humanity keeps encroaching onto the divine and finding nothing but nature. Whilst you are keeping your bets so thoroughly hedged (and if the God most people are praying to does exist, I doubt he'll be much impressed by that little act of inconstancy) on the existence of God and his ineffable plan, do you also keep in mind the possibility that the sun won't rise or that the moon might inexplicably fall from the sky?

Agnosticism. I have little time for it. Have a bet each way? Dear God, give me a fire breathing priest over that watered-down philosphy any day.


[eta] *reads that back and winces, realising she's insulted every agnostic on the Cellar*

I'm with you there chick.
I'm not against agnosticism as such, but I can't bear the wishy-washy pseudo-spiritualism I hear on a daily basis.

"Well I'm not religious, but yes I do believe there is a God. I do pray, but I don't go to Church, I do things in my own way." Which really means, "I ask for things when I need them. I don't worship, or thank, or praise. I don't follow any set rules and don't feel obliged to behave in any way, but I expect an afterlife of bliss, just for being vaguely nice."

Bleurgh.
At least people who follow the major religions suffer for what they perceive as their eventual reward. At least they put some effort in to thank their Creator and show Him some respect. Not just assume a "right" to everlasting paradise.

There, I've probably insulted everyone else now. Full house for the Godless Brits!

"Humanity keeps encroaching onto the divine and finding nothing but nature. "

I can be quite flexible on this one.
I am prepared to consider nature to be Divine.

I don't think agnostics suffer from intellectual indecision, more a pragmatists rat cunning

I think the religions give the search for the divine a bad name, I mean all the dogma and virgin birth garbage, that's obscene.

Its when I am reading about space and physics that I tend to want to hedge my bets.

miketrees, you're a good guy. Stick around.

But first... do you think this is an American board? Your thoughts...

I like the people who believe in god "just in case." Is that really believing? Helllllll no!

Sundae,

I'm not sure about the afterlife. I don't think it's something we have to worry about. I don't believe God barters. I don't believe then, that there is an eventual reward. The only reward for good character, is good character. The effort and payment for that, is quite enough. We do indeed reap exactly what we sow, if not more.

I don't think it's wishy washy to be able to believe in the concept of a higher power or god or whatever you want to call it, but to not believe in organized religion.

I am not anti religion, but going to church doesn't make me feel more spiritual and it doesn't make me believe in god. I do pray though. All day long. Every time I'm hoping for something or wishing for something, it's a prayer for any god who happens to be listening. I believe we all have a soul and when we die it leaves our worn out body. What happens after that I don't know, but I don't believe in hell or heaven for that matter. Not as the church would have us believe anyway.

Anyway, I just think that suggesting someone is a bit pathetic because they don't have a label for their particular belief system is a bit unfair.

At least they suffer? People don't naturally suffer enough?

People aren't holy if they don't flog theirselves?

Life is full of suffering. Everyone will have enough of it I am sure. There's no reason to invite more suffering in this world for the sake of a perception of god.

"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says anything else is selling something."-The Man in Black in The Princess Bride.

@ Flinto
You are only saying that since I offered to do that cyber thingy with you.
Until I found out what cyber thing is of course

Particularly when people are actively working on their belief system. How can you effectively label what isn't static?

But that's kind of the point really. Labels I mean. It's not agnosticism that is irritating. It is the suggestion that agnosticism is a superior intellectual position to either faith, or atheism. Intellectual agnosticism presupposes that atheism is closed to the unknown. It is not. That would be as absurd as holding that faith is not open to doubt.

It's not about what we believe, it is about how we arrive at our belief systems. Agnosticism is a perfectly acceptable way to lead one's life, but when you intellectualise it, it is an uncomfortable pairing of two modes of thinking (scientific and non-scientific). It attempts to view the world on the basis of evidence, but allows for the possibility that faith can answer our questions more effectively. It is a chimera.

Atheism has multiple positions, so careful with that one as well.

There are atheists that assert that there is no God and there are atheists that simply refuse to take a position based on the evidence at hand.

To me it's the agnostics that have the weakest position morally and the the strong atheists who have the weakest position philosophically.

I repeat: Atheism has a very specific definition. How people choose to argue their atheism, how they choose to interpret their atheism and their reasons for that stance, are an individual affair. But to presuppose atheism as a closed-minded state is incorrect. Intellectual atheism bases its conclusions on a lack of evidence for God and a lack of reason to suppose his existence. By that definition, intellectual agnosticism is unnecessary. If the evidence existed for God, then the conclusions drawn by intellectual atheism would be different than they are.

Intellectual agnosticism does not differ from atheism in that it allows for the possibility of God, it differs from atheism in that it allows for the possible value of faith.

I've never considered people who are agnostic to be more or less intellectual than anyone else. They are what they are regardless of how they do or don't perceive god and religion.

Is this just what you believe or is it a fact?

I've known a number of people who call themselves atheists but who are still quite spiritual and allow for the notion of a god somewhere.

The biggest problem with the rest of the world versus agnostics is that both believers and non-believers can't understand how you can see no scientific evidence of god, but still believe he or something that constitutes what we perceive as god to exist, whilst still believing in the spirit of living things. From my perspective, most believers or non-believers simply can't handle not knowing what's going to happen when they die, so in order to validate the way they live their lives, they decide to either believe there's a benefit to being good so they can go to heaven, and the non-believers (in god) believe their judgement is right here and now, so the ultimate judgement of their lives is in the here and now. So they'd better be good or everyone will think they're arseholes. ;)

Anyway, you see now how agnostics are forced to intellectualize their belief system because people wont let them just believe what they want to believe?

Mmm. I disagree. The reason I started railing against agnosticism in this thread was this post from miketrees:

It was this attitude I was taking exception to, an attitude (and argument) I have encountered many times from people who consider themselves to be agnostic. The fact that I have stated I am an atheist, does mean that I consider I know, or understand everything 'out there'. And I still consider the bet-hedging approach a cop-out.

Well I don't know what miktrees' point was, but I thought he was having a bit of a joke actually.

I don't personally see my beliefs as hedging my bets though. In all things in life I try to avoid the all or nothing approach. This has served me fairly well. I find it hard to justify simply following what any church tells me about how I should live my life because I find too much ambiguity in most religious doctrine. I do however believe there's a higher power, and I don't need a middle man like a priest or reverend to put me in touch with him/her/it.

How bout this as a metaphor. The church is to the faithful, what the unions are to workers. If you have enough faith in yourself, and an ability to stand for your own actions and to have faith in your convictions, you don't need a middle man or someone else to speak for you or tell you what you should do. You just do it, knowing that you are doing the job of life the best way you possibly can.

Not sure how well that analogy works though Ali. Unions aren't just about bolstering your convictions and speaking 'for' you. Unions are about strength in numbers which in some circumstances provides a useful counterbalance to the economic strength of the employers. You can stand for your own actions and be brimful of faith in your convictions, but it won't stop you getting shat on if unemployment is high and union power low.

I understand how unions work. I realize they have a very useful purpose for many employees, just as the church has a very useful purpose for the faithful. It wont stop lots of the faithful from being shat on if and when their so called judgement day comes around though, and certainly wont save them all if 'the rapture' happens to occur either.

As far as unions go, they are good for workers of lower status who don't have an opportunity to speak up for themselves in times of crisis. I'm not against unions, just as I am not against the church. I simply have had no use for either in my life.

Just a note to add.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from joining a church or a union if they felt it was what was right for them. There are far worse things one can do with life than to believe in the safety and strength of numbers.

They're not just useful for lower paid workers y'know:P

I know, but it's the proletariat they were designed for. ;)

Well, depends on your definition of proletariats really. Initially they were developed by and for the artisan class, the so-called working-class aristocracy.