I think posting in forums is not significant part of social life. If it is there is a problem. You can call this activity a conversation. I have nothing against that. I prefer to call it "posting on forums".

Having a discussion, no matter the media, is still carrying on a conversation... this just happens to be written rather than oral. I am writing to someone through nanotubes and interwebz and on the other end, the correspondent writes an answer to me in the same fashion.

We are not face to face, but skype can remedy that...

You make a good argument, I mean I like it, but we have absolutely different understanding of the same concepts.

While conversation is an important part of social life, it is not the whole of it.


As for the places in America where what Thirdeye said is valid, you yourself said:

Conversation = Communication and dare you say it's not the whole of social life? I dare you to have a social life without interacting (written, verbal, over any medium of expression; communication, thus conversation, discussion) with people...



That is no excuse not to have a social life outside of a Church and certainly does not make the church the only place people can gather to meet with each other...

Should I list them?

Post Office
Grocery Store
Gym
Park
Lake
Work
Cleaners
Restaurants

None of those places are churches and people interact and have a social life

Shall I go on?

No?

Ok...

Of course I dare say it. Did I say something monstrously offensive? You need to chill out, we aren't trying to insult you personally or anything...

Conversation is an important part of social life, but they are not synonyms. What I'm trying to say is that if you talk to someone once or twice, but if you don't really know them, then I would not consider that a social life.

Those are places where you can have conversations with people, but its easier to make friends with people you are in a group in, and in some places, its the church that's the dominant group.

How did this topic get into the god thread anyway?

idk... something about the church being the only place where you can have a social life or something...

The correct relation is:
Conversation < Communication.
It is a subset, it is not equal.

Again there is an important difference between implication and equivalence. You will never agree with anyone unless you define at leas logical structures similarly.


The "conversation" is about church enhancing social life not about the church being the only social life, but as I said I have seen examples of that too.

It appears we have a different definition of social life.

No.
I hope you find your social life satisfying.

As a matter of fact I do and I don't need a Church or the people in it to feel otherwise...

That's not something that anybody actually said.

It seems to me to have been a point about the dominance of religious organizations in some areas of the country. Nothing was said of any innate need for faith/church in social interaction, or anything like that...

I know what was being said... and I attack it because a Church is not the only place people can go to have a social life... it is one of the places, but not the main place...

Lolwut?

And with that, I am done...

I edited that comment in the meantime...

Re-read what you quoted, it answers everything you said if you actually read it carefully...

Agree and it's still true.

I was listening to AM radio the other day as I drove along a very empty looooooong stretch of foothills highway. I found one godly radio station, and only listened because it was like an audio trainwreck.

The rant of the hour was homosexuality and how it is an abomination to mankind and all that jazz. Then the announcer started talking about sex changes and transgendered people... oh, I mean "sinners who are turning their backs on Jesus and his Light".

He claimed that if someone who was born a male and had surgery to become a female, or vice versa, that in god's eyes that individual was still the gender they were born.

In my head, it kind of made sense how someone could think that, until I thought about people born with both genders. What are they in god's eyes? Both? Neither? Penance for their parent's sins?

If God matters, then so does free will.
Free will seems to be crucial in more than one respect in religion.
What is free will?
Is our will free?

Religion requires a lot of Escape Answers for the many, many questions that people ask when they start questioning all the dogma that doesn't make any sense.

Free will is one of them. Anytime someone points out the illogical inconsistantcies that belief requires, the typical answer is conveniently attributed to Free Will.

Religion, when closely examined, with all it's nonsense answers to logical questions, would probably fit the legal definition of a scam.

Interesting idea.

I think scam is not a legal term, but I have found Fraud defined for legal purposes:
Fraud:
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue, (3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim, (4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Lets look at the promise land as an example:
1) it turned out to be a desert
2) God claims to know everything so he must have known how the area is unfit for living
3) God definitely ordered the Jews to go there
4) God himself proclaimed how he is benevolent and all knowing, and wrathful if it comes to disobedience
5) several thousands of years of damages with compound interest

This will probably make sense of a lot of things to a lot of people.