cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/52667802

Experts project an estimated 100,000 churches in the US will close or be repurposed over the next decade.

Many churches will be unable to escape this “tsunami” of closings — a grim trajectory one pastor described as, “Every year the pews are getting emptier and the collection plates getting lighter.”

“Consider if you go the New Testament for instruction on how to live, you are told to give away all your possessions, make no plans for the future, reject your family if they disagree with you, and stay celibate if you can (see respectively Matthew 19.21, Matthew 6.25, Matthew 12.48, and 1 Corinthians 7). This is the outlook of people who sincerely believed that the Messiah was going to return next week or next month, anyway very soon. It is an unlivable ethic, and when after several centuries the Second Coming had still not materialised and hope of it had been deferred sine die, more was needed in the way of ethics. Where did it come from? From Greek philosophy – not least from the Stoics – and from the Roman Republican virtues of probity, honour, duty, restraint, respect, friendship and generosity that Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, and countless others wrote about and enjoined ceaselessly. ‘Christian values’ are largely Greek and Roman secular values. So Christianity is not even Christianity. It is more correct to say that ‘we are Greeks and Romans’ and meant that we are defined by the following words – and therefore concepts – of classical Greek and Latin origin: democracy, liberalism, values, history, morality, comedy, tragedy, literature, music, academy, alphabet, memory, politics, ethics, populace, geography, energy, exploration, hegemony, theory, mathematics, science, theatre, medicine, gymnasium, climate, clone, bureaucracy, dialect, analogy, psychology, method, nostalgia, organ, encyclopaedia, education, paradox, empiricism, polemic, rhetoric, dinosaur, telescope, system, school, trophy, type, fantasy, photography…take almost any word denoting political and social institutions, ideas, learning, science and technology, medicine, and culture, and it derives from the language – and therefore the ideas and the history – of ancient Greece and Rome."

We already knew this, but it's good to see some proper data

I wrote this a few months ago and figured I'd go ahead and post it. I originally wrote it as a way to process my feelings about my own beliefs. TW about depression, paranoia, and leaving one's birth religion.

I don’t know when I realized I was depressive. It should have been something I figured out early on, but didn’t hit me until later. I guess now is still early for most, given I’m 22. Realizing I lost my religion at the age of 17 made me have to recontextualize my worldview in a way that uprooted me from long held beliefs from birth. That was not easy. I remember at the beginning, just conceptualizing right and wrong as ideas that were not tied to a deity was difficult. The urge to pray was instilled in me since childhood, so it took a while before I stopped feeling it out of habit.

Something that has confused me since I started questioning my former faith is how anyone can believe that “objective” morality is an intelligible concept. Morality is a framework for how an individual conceptualizes the weight of actions and situations. Something is considered immoral if one’s moral framework says so. I specified individuals instead of groups because within groups, there is a mismatch between what people consider moral, making a moral framework an inherently individual phenomenon. Objectivity is the idea that something is true regardless of one’s viewpoint. Gravity pulls me down towards the ground whether I believe it or am conscious to experience it. If a deity claims their moral framework is objective, it simply isn’t. They are labeling their subjective moral framework as one that is true regardless of one’s viewpoint, even though the existence of their moral framework is completely dependent on them as an individual. It’s akin to saying my taste in music is the objective taste in music (which it is, of course). My taste in music is my own subjective experience and is completely contingent on me. How would I establish that something I feel is good is good irrespective of others’ viewpoints? It’s an unintelligible claim.

How do you establish objectivity? I don’t know. I also find objectivity as a concept to be hard to wrap my head around given my previous argument. So how do you establish anything as objectively true? I don’t think you can. Every experience you have is contingent on yourself, making them relative experiences, which would make you reach a similar stopping point as the previous argument. It’s hard to let go of the idea that things need to be objectively true. The closest thing I can get to objectivity is the scientific method, which is an attempt to converge onto truths.

I like to separate things I consider true into two categories: “functional” and “convergent” truths. Functional truths are truths I hold because they’re convenient for perceiving and conceptualizing reality. They’re essentially axioms. I try to minimize these because axioms cannot be verified. I hold my senses as being generally accurate as a functional truth. It’s an unfalsifiable claim, but is also convenient to perceiving and experiencing the world. If a functional truth can’t be verified, they may reduce the accuracy of my held worldview because of a direct or implied assumption coming from that functional truth. One example would be god. I’ve had conversations with folks that hold god as an axiom. That creates implied beliefs that reinforce the supernatural, which are unfalsifiable, but due to people’s axiom that a god exists, it allows them to also believe in supernatural phenomena because one of their axioms supports it. Convergent truths are simply truths that are enforced by many people observing the same phenomenon. It’s the scientific process. If many people experience gravity to the point that we can describe it usually mathematical notation, it’s safe to say it exists.

I’ve struggled with mental illness in the past. Like most people, depression, but also lots of delusions. Deep paranoia about imminent supernatural things that I felt deeply in my heart but knew in my head were delusions. I got to the point that I wasn’t sure whether my reality was real at times. I’ve heard the argument that if life wasn’t real that it wouldn’t be worth living and that you should just lay there until you die because it doesn’t matter. It’s interesting because you get to establish what you think is real up to a certain point. Even if my life wasn’t real, that wouldn’t make the sensations and experiences I have any different. Why should life being real deter me from experiencing it? I don’t hold an opinion on whether my life is real because, frankly, I don’t give a fuck. I still get to drive two hours to see my brother and almost throw my guts up at an Indian restaurant. I still get to hit that riff for the first time after a week of practicing it. I still get to tell my mother how I lost my faith and have to sit there to hear her remarks. Those experiences don’t change.

This idea of relativity in morality is such a shallow topic but once stepped in, instantly engulfs me. Starting meaning from where I draw it is such a freeing yet threatening idea because of the amount of, essentially, creative freedom you have to apply to your own wants. Whenever I make a song, I almost always run into a block. Whether I should add more chords or if I should put another instrument in, after a certain point the amount of freedom I can apply to that song is just too much and I need to take a step back to listen, and listen, and listen and understand what it is will scratch that itch in my brain. I find morality to be a similar concept. Because of the amount of freedom you have to do different things that inevitably feel right or wrong, the possibilities are endless. You have to figure out what direction you want to go in by understanding the width and breadth of your emotions surrounding as many things as you can. This contrasts an “objective” morality which dictates what direction people should tend to go in as better or worse and leaves less decision to an individual. This is not about the merits of individuality, nor am I making an argument for individuality, but I feel more at peace knowing I have a choice.

Sometimes the world doesn’t feel real. Sometimes I need to look at the veins in my mother’s hands, or the leaves on a tree, or hear the happiness in a loved one’s laugh to ground me. Those things feel right. But how do I choose to experience those? When do I choose to experience those? It’s much like creative block. How do I go about expressing and consuming love for those things in my life which I hold sacred? I have to decide. It’s not up to a deity, or a religious figure to tell me how many times I should be doing those things, but it’s my decision. The world doesn’t feel real because I am the experience of sensory information being processed by a flesh calculator. There is no inherent meaning to what or why I want to see things, and I don’t think there’s a higher purpose to what is happening on our planet. Moral relativity is the idea that things matter to individuals, not as some sort of objective Cartesian grid you can plot morality coefficients across, but just as internal, intransitive experiences that can conglomerate on a larger scale to create moral trends across a specific population, time, and place. But it all starts with individuals trying to reach inside to understand themselves, because living is a journey to knowing oneself before it passes.

This morning I went on a walk and saw a squirrel stealing a tomato from someone’s garden. It was a green tomato that it could barely bite into, being roughly half its size. I was feeling like nothing really mattered and putting one foot in front of the other felt like trudging through mud. This squirrel had given me eyes that told me not to knock on that house’s door to tell on it. I’m not a snitch. I had originally planned on running, but I couldn’t run in the mud. My mind switches between the ideas of “feeling nothing matters, so why should anything matter” and “so many things matter to me, why should nothing matter”. I don’t really know why it switches like that, but I prefer the latter. The former places me in the mud. The latter lets me giggle at the squirrel and go on with my day.

WTF... Ofc churches want in on the grift... Microsoft is a garbage company that should be disbanded. But no, it shouldn't fund churches.

A central Bible verse left Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville puzzled Wednesday — as he compared himself to America’s poorest people.

...

“Some of the people say your party’s, you know, punishing ‘the least of these,’” he was told.

“Punishing what? ‘The least of these?’”

“‘The least of these’ — biblical reference,” the reporter explained, referring to the famous verse in Matthew 25:40, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

...

“The least of these?” Tuberville asked again, clearly puzzled.

I do not believe in leprechauns, pixies, ghosts, werewolves, jujus, angels, Tooth Faeries, Odin, Thor, Zeus, Ra, Brahma, Athena, Hera, Poseidon, Yahweh, Allah, or the Trinity, demons, devils, Astrology, the Tarot, Satan. For the same reason in every case: there is not the tiniest shred of 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐨𝐟 empirical, 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥, 𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 any 𝐆𝐨𝐝 and the burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe. Even given no evidence for specific gods, we could make a case for some unspecified "intelligent designer" or "prime mover" or begetter of "something rather than nothing"? By far the most appealing version of this argument is the biological one - living things do present a powerful illusion of design. But that is the very version that Darwin destroyed. Any theist who appeals to "design" of living creatures simply betrays his ignorance of biology. Go away and read a book. And any theist who appeals to biblical “evidence” betrays ignorance of biblical scholarship. The burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe. Even given no evidence for specific gods, could 'his ignorance of modern scholarship. Go away and read another book. As for the cosmological argument, whose God goes under names such as Prime Mover or First cause, again no evidence. Because physicists are closing in, with spell-binding results. Even if there remain unanswered questions - where do the fundamental laws and constants of physics come from? Obviously, it cannot help to postulate a designer whose existence poses bigger questions than he purports to solve. If science fails, our best hope is to build a better science. The answer will lie neither in theology nor - its exact equivalent - reading tea leaves. In any case, it is a fatuously illogical jump from deistic Unmoved Mover to Christian Trinity, with the Son being tortured and murdered because the Father, for all his omniscience and omnipotence, could not think of a better way to forgive "sin". Equally unconvincing are those who believe because it comforts them (why should truth be consoling?) or because it "feels right". The wife of a former UK prime minister may stand for the” feels right” brigade. She based her belief on “an understanding of something that her head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true.” She aspired to become a judge! My’lud, I cannot provide the evidence you require. My head cannot explain why, but my heart knows it to be true. Why is religion immune to the critical standards we apply not just in our courts of law, but in every other life?”

Cross posted from https://thelemmy.club/post/56020493

https://appgateway.drc.ohio.gov/OffenderSearch/Search/Details/A770209

Cross posted from https://lemmy.ca/post/70884233

Cross posted from https://lemmy.ca/post/70884231

It's a little after nine in the morning in Provo, Utah. And this morning, in a county government building here, a man sits down at a desk and opens a laptop. He isn't a bishop. He isn't a judge. He works for the county clerk. And according to his calendar, he is marrying people today. A lot of people. Nobody is in the room. No bride, no groom, no parents, no flowers, no mormons. There are two witnesses, because Utah law insists on two adults over eighteen. Then he clicks "join". A couple appears on the screen. It's already evening where they are. Nine hours ahead. Before he can marry them, the State of Utah now requires him to read them a sentence - one that was written into the law this year. "A marriage solemnized according to the laws of the State of Utah through online remote appearance may be invalid in the country where the parties to the marriage reside." Which seems weird and unromantic, especially on a wedding day. Unless you know where the couple is. They are not in Utah. They are not in the United States. They're in Tel Aviv. He marries them anyway. They say yes from Israel, the certificate is issued in Utah and posted across the Atlantic. Then the next couple appears. Also from Israel. Then the next. And the next. This one clerk's office has married couples from China, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Madagascar. But Israelis are the biggest foreign group using it by a distance: about three thousand couples in 2024 alone, roughly one in every three foreign couples Utah County marries. So: why are thousands of Israelis, every year, getting married by a government clerk in the most Mormon corner of the most religious state in America - over a video call, in a country most of them have never set foot in? And why does the State of Israel have to recognize their marriage when Utah does?

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/56526647

Stephen Wolfe is the author of the book "The Case of Christian Nationalism"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Christian_Nationalism

Day by day, the advancements in human knowledge has caused us to know so many things. Many religious arguments have been debunked in an awesome manner. Many religions have to soften themselves now, in order to be accommodating to the modern mind. Do you think that in our future, say 2060 or 2100, will we humans have religions as we have now or will we all reject God and other supernatural and pseudoscientific hypothesis and become atheists?

PARIS (AP) — The Eiffel Tower reopened Tuesday, a day after one of the world’s most-visited landmarks was closed by a strike to protest what a union official called “unacceptable” management instructions limiting the presence of women during a visit by a Hindu delegation on Saturday.

Diane Davoine of the CGT union told The Associated Press anger grew among staff of the iconic 330-meter (1,083-foot) tower over the weekend after management told employees that female workers should ″not be in contact″ with a visiting delegation from Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha.

The group, known as BAPS, is a worldwide religious and civic organization within the Swaminarayan sect, a branch of Hinduism. It has been holding celebrations to mark the inauguration of a traditional Hindu stone temple in the French capital.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51650924

Thought today's smbc comic was too funny not to share. Source

Cross posted from https://lemmy.ca/post/70423353

Corie A. Walsh, the mother of a boy killed in a domestic homicide in a Brook Stone Court home, was charged with murder, Frankfort police said.