Why This Growing Trend?

[nPeace]

Yes, like lithium, probably. Maybe Marx just got the wrong chemical, by confusing two latin words. Who can say?

And I have no hatred for God. Where did you get that from?
I don't believe in God. I don't believe in Mother Goose either. And I think it would be silly to say I hate Mother Goose. And since your God and Mother Goose have the same plausibility, and evidence, it would be highly irrational, from my side, to hate one and not the other.

I am just pointing out that secularism correlates positively with high levels of happiness. Nothing more, nothing less. According to polls, at least.

Pointing out to whom? Someone who is among the happiest people on earth? ...and how do you point out things... by merely claiming it?
Certainly, you are not ignorant to what a claim is.

If I you were forced to leave your country, and you could only choose between a very religious country, and a very secular country, without knowing which one, what are your best odds?

What's the difference between the two?

I know what people I would choose to be among. So, if given a choice, I would choose to be anywhere these people are. It would not even matter if there were only a "handful" of them. I could fit right in.
That clearly demonstrates the powerful effect of scriptural application.

But again, I am not sure whether we are secular because we are happy, or we are happy because we are secular. I tend for the former.

Are you able to define, and explain this happiness?
The description various people give of happiness is often conflicting, and often is equivalent to selfishness, and self-gratification.
What's this happiness?

For when you are happy, you have a strong social safety, high levels of education for everyone, a guaranteed high standard of living, free health insurance for you and your kids, free kindergarten, equal opportunities at work, and even a free place when you are too old to be alone, then, well, what do you need a god for?

Ciao

- viole

Ah. Thanks for explaining.
When you say "a guaranteed high standard of living", did you mean what followed - free health insurance for you and your kids, free kindergarten, equal opportunities at work, and even a free place when you are too old to be alone", or something else?

While you focus on receiving for self, and family, as prerequisites to happiness, I have found the words of Acts of the Apostles 10:35 to be true.

So, you are basically saying then, happiness is dependent on getting things... mostly free.
So, if those things are taken from you, your "happiness" goes with them.
No wonder most people re unhappy, and angry when they don't get what they want.

How is that, happiness?
Isn't that more like the feeling one gets from ecstasy... the drug, I mean.

If you can be robbed of happiness tomorrow, it seems very fleeting... almost empty... imagined.
Isn't happiness supposed to be non-dependent of external circumstances. Or am I getting mixed up with joy?

I understand true happiness and joy to be an inner quality, which is not extinguished by external circumstances. It does not depend on 'the right conditions'. Though, there are contributors to increased happiness.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There goes all the data from experts... down the tubes... Tagmonster has spoken.

"all the data" in the extremely rare and exceptional situation of lockdowns where actual socializing was forbidden.

Yes, when there is NO OTHER OPTION, then webcamming with loved ones is pretty much the only alternative.

This in NO WAY invalidates what I said.

Is social media the problem though?

It's at least a big part of the problem.

Isn't that a lot like saying, the internet is a problem, or television?

No.

Granted, socializing offline and online in this world can, and does have negative consequences, but that's true about basically everything... depending on whom one is with.

Again, social media is NOT about socializing. Webcamming with your dad (aka, video-phoning) is NOT what is generally meant with "social media".

Do you think the 200k sheep followers of some narcistic "influencer" personally interact with that person? Do you think this "influencer" knows any of those people personally?

"social media" is about likes and followers. Narcism, jealousy, pettyness and being alone behind your computer stalking other people's lives or posting yours online in the hopes of getting "likes".


Back in the day, we used to have LAN parties. Meaning, we would grab our PC, gather in ONE room, hook them all up in a network and play multiplayer games while physically sitting next to eachother.
This was a real thing in the 90s and early 2000s.

Today, they don't speak about LAN parties. They instead speak about "social gaming". And "social" gaming refers to people sitting at home alone playing games online with anonymous "friends" they have never met and of whom they don't even know where they live - which could be anywhere in the world really.

In fact, MOST games these days don't even have the OPTION of playing off-line, local multiplayer mode.
It all goes through online servers and hooks you up with rando's. And then they call it "social".

Being social is about being physically in the same place, talking to each other face to face.

NOTHING that happens on twitter, instagram, tik-tok and all that other junk has anything to do with socializing or being social.

Au contraire... it's as anti-social as it gets.

If for example, all the people on social media were as described at John 13:35, one would not expect the negative effects you mentioned.

It has very little to do with the people and much with the way these things are designed.
As said already (but it falls on deaf ears it seems), these things are literally designed to exploit human psychological weaknesses.


Here's a fun little fact which might make you take a step back and think for a second............

Did you know that the children of the people that designed all this stuff, are not allowed to use them? Why do you think that is? Why is it that the very people that create these services, forbid their own children to use them, or at the very least restrict the use very much?


The reason is extremely simple: because they know it is poison for the mind.


When the very creators of a product forbid their own children to use said product... all alarm bells should be going off.

But nobody asks these questions (or wants to). Perhaps they are too busy collecting "likes" on instagram.

We can choose to use the internet wisely, or not. We can choose to use social media wisely, or not.
Neither are responsible for how we behave.

False, actually. Social media is very much responsible for how the user base behaves.
"hooked" social media users are rather easily manipulated. It's pretty scary actually.

If facebook algoritms decide that it's time for you to order pizza, it knows exactly which buttons to press to make you order pizza. It knows how to manipulate you, because without realizing it, a hooked user has told facebook exactly how to do it. You have no idea.

With every link you click, with every like you give, with every post you make... you are telling that service who you are exactly, how you think, when you like what, who your friends are, who your enemies are, what you do not like, etc... Over time, it builds a gigantic psychological profile on you. And using all those data points, it can manipulate and mold you like play-dough.

What's responsible for our behavior, is our values... which we are either taught, or learned from our environment... whether home or elsewhere.

It's evident that what we need is a better society of people. That would alleviate much of the depression.
...and yes, on social media, is where we open ourselves to the society of people we have to live with today.
I look forward to that changing.

It matters little to how social media works.

What we need is laws that protect privacy and laws that forbid the building of psychological profiles and algoritms that make use of that data.

 

[viole]

Pointing out to whom? Someone who is among the happiest people on earth? ...and how do you point out things... by merely claiming it?
Certainly, you are not ignorant to what a claim is.

Pointing out to you, to the OP. Whether correlation is equal to causation, in this case, is debatable. But for sure, secularism does not appear to be detrimental against progress and happiness.

What's the difference between the two?

I know what people I would choose to be among. So, if given a choice, I would choose to be anywhere these people are. It would not even matter if there were only a "handful" of them. I could fit right in.
That clearly demonstrates the powerful effect of scriptural application.

Well, yeah, like everyone, but this is a gedanken experiment. So, what would you choose?

If you do not want to answer, that would also be an answer. A perfectly understandable one, obviously.

Are you able to define, and explain this happiness?
The description various people give of happiness is often conflicting, and often is equivalent to selfishness, and self-gratification.
What's this happiness?

Of course not. And I do not take those polls too seriously either. However, since people are asked, there must be some truth in it, since ewe can assume people know when they are happy, even if they cannot define it.

Again, my point is to make it clear that high levels of secularism are not detrimental at all.

Ah. Thanks for explaining.
When you say "a guaranteed high standard of living", did you mean what followed - free health insurance for you and your kids, free kindergarten, equal opportunities at work, and even a free place when you are too old to be alone", or something else?

While you focus on receiving for self, and family, as prerequisites to happiness, I have found the words of Acts of the Apostles 10:35 to be true.

So, you are basically saying then, happiness is dependent on getting things... mostly free.
So, if those things are taken from you, your "happiness" goes with them.
No wonder most people re unhappy, and angry when they don't get what they want.

How is that, happiness?
Isn't that more like the feeling one gets from ecstasy... the drug, I mean.

If you can be robbed of happiness tomorrow, it seems very fleeting... almost empty... imagined.
Isn't happiness supposed to be non-dependent of external circumstances. Or am I getting mixed up with joy?

I understand true happiness and joy to be an inner quality, which is not extinguished by external circumstances. It does not depend on 'the right conditions'. Though, there are contributors to increased happiness.

I am just saying that social security could be a motivator to rely less on a god. For sure reduces the need to pray, like people from some other counties need to, say, to get money for the medicines for their kids, because dad lost his job and there is no income. On account of having no social security nor health insurance. And if having those goodies causes big tax pressure, then why not, if everything is taken care for from the cradle to the grave?

What is mind boggling to me is that there are countries where precisely the most vulnerable are the ones who fight social security, higher taxes for the rich, and health care for every one. They call it "socialism", lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

"all the data" in the extremely rare and exceptional situation of lockdowns where actual socializing was forbidden.

Yes, when there is NO OTHER OPTION, then webcamming with loved ones is pretty much the only alternative.

This in NO WAY invalidates what I said.



It's at least a big part of the problem.



No.



Again, social media is NOT about socializing. Webcamming with your dad (aka, video-phoning) is NOT what is generally meant with "social media".

Do you think the 200k sheep followers of some narcistic "influencer" personally interact with that person? Do you think this "influencer" knows any of those people personally?

"social media" is about likes and followers. Narcism, jealousy, pettyness and being alone behind your computer stalking other people's lives or posting yours online in the hopes of getting "likes".


Back in the day, we used to have LAN parties. Meaning, we would grab our PC, gather in ONE room, hook them all up in a network and play multiplayer games while physically sitting next to eachother.
This was a real thing in the 90s and early 2000s.

Today, they don't speak about LAN parties. They instead speak about "social gaming". And "social" gaming refers to people sitting at home alone playing games online with anonymous "friends" they have never met and of whom they don't even know where they live - which could be anywhere in the world really.

In fact, MOST games these days don't even have the OPTION of playing off-line, local multiplayer mode.
It all goes through online servers and hooks you up with rando's. And then they call it "social".

Being social is about being physically in the same place, talking to each other face to face.

NOTHING that happens on twitter, instagram, tik-tok and all that other junk has anything to do with socializing or being social.

Au contraire... it's as anti-social as it gets.



It has very little to do with the people and much with the way these things are designed.
As said already (but it falls on deaf ears it seems), these things are literally designed to exploit human psychological weaknesses.


Here's a fun little fact which might make you take a step back and think for a second............

Did you know that the children of the people that designed all this stuff, are not allowed to use them? Why do you think that is? Why is it that the very people that create these services, forbid their own children to use them, or at the very least restrict the use very much?


The reason is extremely simple: because they know it is poison for the mind.


When the very creators of a product forbid their own children to use said product... all alarm bells should be going off.

But nobody asks these questions (or wants to). Perhaps they are too busy collecting "likes" on instagram.




False, actually. Social media is very much responsible for how the user base behaves.
"hooked" social media users are rather easily manipulated. It's pretty scary actually.

If facebook algoritms decide that it's time for you to order pizza, it knows exactly which buttons to press to make you order pizza. It knows how to manipulate you, because without realizing it, a hooked user has told facebook exactly how to do it. You have no idea.

With every link you click, with every like you give, with every post you make... you are telling that service who you are exactly, how you think, when you like what, who your friends are, who your enemies are, what you do not like, etc... Over time, it builds a gigantic psychological profile on you. And using all those data points, it can manipulate and mold you like play-dough.



It matters little to how social media works.

What we need is laws that protect privacy and laws that forbid the building of psychological profiles and algoritms that make use of that data.

Let me get this straight.
Google... What is social media?
websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

So,
1) you think people cannot socialize on an app. They can only socialize in person. Yes?
2) you think people cannot use social media without being subjected to the "poison", or being "hooked". Yes?

So, tell me please...
If social media is used in the following way, how does its use fit into your descriptions, and outlook? How is social media bad for them?
Roughly two thirds (67%) of social media users say that staying in touch with current friends and family members is a major reason they use social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or LinkedIn; about half say they use these sites to reconnect with old friends.

Knowing that with social media, we can block those whom we do not want to socialize with... allowing only those we invite, how is that as you described? How is it not socializing?
For example, I went to a social gathering online. Are you saying I was not socializing, with people from different parts of the island, or world?

Is Kin a social media platform? According to this info, your description does not apply to their site. Can social media exist that does not fit your description?

 

[idea]

I love social media - the chance to hear from people all over the world, all beliefs and backgrounds, a human library - interactive.

My cousin used to get lonely - before the internet - he would pick up the phone and just call random people as a kid until someone was kind enough to talk to him. Now no one is alone, we're all connected.

GenX latch key babies - grew up alone, working moms, no daycare. I suppose genX parents didn't want their kids feeling alone so daycare/programs/too much for this next group - younger generation has always been surrounded by instructions, surrounded by groups and planned activities, might make it difficult for them to be independent.

No perfect answer, its difficult for everyone - I don't think anything has changed as far as depression/anxiety, just now people admit it, now people understand it and can talk about it, now it isn't hidden.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me get this straight.
Google... What is social media?
websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.

Using the label "social" to refer to certain internet services, doesn't mean it is actually "social".
In fact, using that term is part of the scheme.

So,
1) you think people cannot socialize on an app. They can only socialize in person. Yes?

Yes.
Zombified staring at screens is not "socializing".

2) you think people cannot use social media without being subjected to the "poison", or being "hooked". Yes?

No.

So, tell me please...
If social media is used in the following way, how does its use fit into your descriptions, and outlook? How is social media bad for them?
Roughly two thirds (67%) of social media users say that staying in touch with current friends and family members is a major reason they use social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace or LinkedIn; about half say they use these sites to reconnect with old friends.

Depends.
The services have algoritms running in the background. They log every click you make, every person you follow, every post you like, every picture you post,...
Through cookies and plugins, they even log everything you do online on OTHER websites and services. So much so that they even invade your phone and upload your entire contact list, analyse the pictures you snap, the locations you frequent, how many times you check your notifications, how many hours per day you stare at your screen, which apps you install, how much you use those apps, which apps you delete after how many time, etc etc etc etc.

It's nothing short of "legalized" spyware.

All those data points are logged and used to build a gigantic psychological profile on you, which in turn is used to serve you with "customized" ads and which can (and will) be used to push your buttons.

Literally, there is no escape. Once you agree to that EULA, that is the stuff that happens. The only way to prevent it, is to not sign up and / or log in with that device.

I have never had a facebook account. Ever.
Yet, I know for sure that facebook already knows who I am, what my mail address is, what my phone number is, who my family is, where I live, who my friends are, in which pictures I can be seen (so it even knows my face),...

How? It got all that intel from my friends and family who ARE on facebook. Who have me in their contacts. Who uploaded pictures I'm on. Etc.

Upon first creating an account using your main mail address and logging in, instantly facebook will serve you with a list of "people you may know". And you'll see most of them are from your inner circle. You indeed WILL know them. How does facebook know all that, do you think?

Knowing that with social media, we can block those whom we do not want to socialize with... allowing only those we invite, how is that as you described? How is it not socializing?

You don't get it.
It's not about who you "allow" on your friends list. It's not about other people. It's about the data the services collect on you. All you accomplish by "blocking" or "not inviting" rando X, is that you won't see the posts of that person. It makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to the psychological profile the service has on you. In fact................ blocking people only makes sure the service collects even more data on you. Now it knows who you don't like.

Again, EVERY click you make no matter what you click, is intel for the service.
It ALL only serves the purpose of the services getting to know you better and better.

That is where the danger lies. The data they have on you, and the way that data is then used to push your buttons. Regardless of how you use those services... you are a human and you are not immune to the exploits of human psychology that those services are designed for from the ground up.

The only way to avoid it, is to stay away from it as far as you can.........

For example, I went to a social gathering online. Are you saying I was not socializing, with people from different parts of the island, or world?

Not in the sense of socializing by simply entering a bar and actually talking and actually connecting to people. The psychological difference is huge

Is Kin a social media platform? According to this info, your description does not apply to their site. Can social media exist that does not fit your description?

I have never heard of that. And I couldn't care less.
As a software engineer, I don't trust ANY of them.

If I wish to talk to my family in Paris, I just phone them. I don't see why I should be handing over data of contacts and whatnot to some third party (who'll do god-knows-what with it), to do so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I love social media - the chance to hear from people all over the world, all beliefs and backgrounds, a human library - interactive.

My cousin used to get lonely - before the internet - he would pick up the phone and just call random people as a kid until someone was kind enough to talk to him. Now no one is alone, we're all connected.

GenX latch key babies - grew up alone, working moms, no daycare. I suppose genX parents didn't want their kids feeling alone so daycare/programs/too much for this next group - younger generation has always been surrounded by instructions, surrounded by groups and planned activities, might make it difficult for them to be independent.

No perfect answer, its difficult for everyone - I don't think anything has changed as far as depression/anxiety, just now people admit it, now people understand it and can talk about it, now it isn't hidden.

Kids who have been to daycare, generally grow up having far better social skills then kids who were cared for by a mom or grandparents.
They make friends more easily, are better equipped to deal with conflicts etc.

Off course all individuals are different. Speaking statistically / in general here.

I'm a soccer coach for U7/U8/U9. The correlation is easily seen between children who went to daycare and those that didn't, in terms of handling themselves in social situations, making friends,.. even to the point of being "team players".

Obviously, a healthy connecting relationship with parents is very important as well. Working parents that pick their kid up at daycare and then put them in front of the TV (or some other screen) instead of actually connecting with them and engaging in activities.... well... that's on them off course.

 

[nPeace]

Using the label "social" to refer to certain internet services, doesn't mean it is actually "social".
In fact, using that term is part of the scheme.



Yes.
Zombified staring at screens is not "socializing".



No.



Depends.
The services have algoritms running in the background. They log every click you make, every person you follow, every post you like, every picture you post,...
Through cookies and plugins, they even log everything you do online on OTHER websites and services. So much so that they even invade your phone and upload your entire contact list, analyse the pictures you snap, the locations you frequent, how many times you check your notifications, how many hours per day you stare at your screen, which apps you install, how much you use those apps, which apps you delete after how many time, etc etc etc etc.

It's nothing short of "legalized" spyware.

All those data points are logged and used to build a gigantic psychological profile on you, which in turn is used to serve you with "customized" ads and which can (and will) be used to push your buttons.

Literally, there is no escape. Once you agree to that EULA, that is the stuff that happens. The only way to prevent it, is to not sign up and / or log in with that device.

How does that contribute to depression and suicide?

I have never had a facebook account. Ever.
Yet, I know for sure that facebook already knows who I am, what my mail address is, what my phone number is, who my family is, where I live, who my friends are, in which pictures I can be seen (so it even knows my face),...

How? It got all that intel from my friends and family who ARE on facebook. Who have me in their contacts. Who uploaded pictures I'm on. Etc.

Upon first creating an account using your main mail address and logging in, instantly facebook will serve you with a list of "people you may know". And you'll see most of them are from your inner circle. You indeed WILL know them. How does facebook know all that, do you think?

How does that contribute to depression and suicide?
Are you saying that that is the cause of teen depression?

You don't get it.
It's not about who you "allow" on your friends list. It's not about other people. It's about the data the services collect on you. All you accomplish by "blocking" or "not inviting" rando X, is that you won't see the posts of that person. It makes NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL to the psychological profile the service has on you. In fact................ blocking people only makes sure the service collects even more data on you. Now it knows who you don't like.

Again, EVERY click you make no matter what you click, is intel for the service.
It ALL only serves the purpose of the services getting to know you better and better.

That is where the danger lies. The data they have on you, and the way that data is then used to push your buttons. Regardless of how you use those services... you are a human and you are not immune to the exploits of human psychology that those services are designed for from the ground up.

The only way to avoid it, is to stay away from it as far as you can.........

Were we talking about what contributes to teen depression, or what internet services are about?

Not in the sense of socializing by simply entering a bar and actually talking and actually connecting to people. The psychological difference is huge

How so?

I have never heard of that. And I couldn't care less.
As a software engineer, I don't trust ANY of them.

If I wish to talk to my family in Paris, I just phone them. I don't see why I should be handing over data of contacts and whatnot to some third party (who'll do god-knows-what with it), to do so.

Okay. It's important to be wise, and cautious. I also take that seriously.

 

[nPeace]

Pointing out to you, to the OP. Whether correlation is equal to causation, in this case, is debatable. But for sure, secularism does not appear to be detrimental against progress and happiness.

Really? That is debatable.
Try a survey. There are many on line. Your view has the lowest percentage.
In this article - Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nation, look! They even mention your country.
Atheism is strongest in northwest European countries such as Scandinavia and those of the former Eastern Bloc (except for Poland). The former East Germany had the highest rate of people who said they never believed in God (59 percent); in comparison, 4 percent of Americans had that response.

Well, yeah, like everyone, but this is a gedanken experiment. So, what would you choose?

If you do not want to answer, that would also be an answer. A perfectly understandable one, obviously.

I think I answered. What's the difference? got no reply, so the rhetorical answer was none... I assume.
That is correct. There really is no difference. So location does not matter. People do.

Of course not. And I do not take those polls too seriously either. However, since people are asked, there must be some truth in it, since ewe can assume people know when they are happy, even if they cannot define it.
Is is not the case people can think they are happy, while thinking they know what happiness is?

Many people have admitted that they thought happiness was gained in fame, money, mansions, flashy cars, many girls... or guys, depending on the sex. They realized that it was an illusion.
Who haven't already committed suicide, are either on the verge, or drowning their "sorrows" in alcohol, drugs, of prostitutes. Some have found true happiness though.

Remember, you can't see what's inside.

Again, my point is to make it clear that high levels of secularism are not detrimental at all.

...but viole. Look around you. What do you think made all this?
Since when did Jesus and his apostles, or Gandhi, or Buddha, or Mohammad, or... ever say "Hey! Greed. Be Greedy. Relish in greed."
Um... Please don't mention the Catholic Church.

I am just saying that social security could be a motivator to rely less on a god.

Ah. Informative.
Yes. God is like the rich man you seek out when you reach 'rock bottom', for a lot of people.
This is why the claimed happiness is a mirage. It's really a self serving way of life.
That's no different to the robber, and the greedy merchants, who only realize their "mistake" when they are caught, and lose more than they had, isn't that so.

For sure reduces the need to pray, like people from some other counties need to, say, to get money for the medicines for their kids, because dad lost his job and there is no income. On account of having no social security nor health insurance. And if having those goodies causes big tax pressure, then why not, if everything is taken care for from the cradle to the grave?

People pray to win the lottery also.
Yes, God is that crutch, when you lose your foot... for some people.
Does God answer such prayers?
Remember Job? The Bible says of Job, "he was an upright man of integrity; he feared God and shunned what was bad. Job would send for his children in order to sanctify them. Then he would get up early in the morning and offer up burnt sacrifices for each of them. For Job said: “Maybe my sons have sinned and have cursed God in their heart.” That is what Job would always do."

Job did not wait for a calamity to pray, and worship God. He was constant in that.
So, when Job got really sick, he stuck to God through those difficult times.
Faithful servants of God rely on God at all time. They trust that he helps them at all times. They do not only lean on God when they face difficult times.
I can share many experiences of this, but here is not the place.

What is mind boggling to me is that there are countries where precisely the most vulnerable are the ones who fight social security, higher taxes for the rich, and health care for every one. They call it "socialism", lol.

Ciao

- viole

You lost me with this one.

 

[viole]

In this article - Belief in God rises with age, even in atheist nation, look! They even mention your country.

We know. People start freaking out at a certain age. And social security does not extend beyond termination.

It is actually consistent with my point.

I think I answered. What's the difference? got no reply, so the rhetorical answer was none... I assume.
That is correct. There really is no difference. So location does not matter. People do.

You did not answer. Or are you telling me you do not care?

Many people have admitted that they thought happiness was gained in fame, money, mansions, flashy cars, many girls... or guys, depending on the sex. They realized that it was an illusion.
Who haven't already committed suicide, are either on the verge, or drowning their "sorrows" in alcohol, drugs, of prostitutes. Some have found true happiness though.

Remember, you can't see what's inside.

Yes, but that would render any argument moot. Including your OP.

...but viole. Look around you. What do you think made all this?
Since when did Jesus and his apostles, or Gandhi, or Buddha, or Mohammad, or... ever say "Hey! Greed. Be Greedy. Relish in greed."
Um... Please don't mention the Catholic Church.

Made what? I don't live where you live, which is probably a very Christian place. That is why you should choose a very secular place.
Everything looks pretty OK round here.

Ah. Informative.
Yes. God is like the rich man you seek out when you reach 'rock bottom', for a lot of people.
This is why the claimed happiness is a mirage. It's really a self serving way of life.
That's no different to the robber, and the greedy merchants, who only realize their "mistake" when they are caught, and lose more than they had, isn't that so.

Well, who knows? I am just noticing that places with strong social security tend to be atheistic. And happier.

People pray to win the lottery also.
Yes, God is that crutch, when you lose your foot... for some people.
Does God answer such prayers?
Remember Job? The Bible says of Job, "he was an upright man of integrity; he feared God and shunned what was bad. Job would send for his children in order to sanctify them. Then he would get up early in the morning and offer up burnt sacrifices for each of them. For Job said: “Maybe my sons have sinned and have cursed God in their heart.” That is what Job would always do."

Job did not wait for a calamity to pray, and worship God. He was constant in that.
So, when Job got really sick, he stuck to God through those difficult times.
Faithful servants of God rely on God at all time. They trust that he helps them at all times. They do not only lean on God when they face difficult times.
I can share many experiences of this, but here is not the place.

Who knows? It could be that true Christians are even less than I thought, then.

Job? You mean that guy who was object of a wager between God and Satan? Always reminded me of that movie with Eddie Murphy.

Statistically, it does not seem God answers any prayers, anyway. If you prayed to your TV set, you would probably get the same hit ratio.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

We know. People start freaking out at a certain age. And social security does not extend beyond termination.

It is actually consistent with my point.

Perhaps you missed the point.
Take away the elderly, and your percentage is still lower.
Aside from that, it supports my point. People use God as a crutch, when they have nothing, or are lacking what they thought was security.
No amount of "security" can stop you dying.

You did not answer. Or are you telling me you do not care?

I'm saying both secular and religious lands are the same - none offer anything better than the other.
There is only one people that makes a difference. I chose that.

Yes, but that would render any argument moot. Including your OP.

Only if you are not listening to what I am saying... or you are not understanding.
The Bible is not religion. Living by its standards is not religion.
So, no, I don't think you got the OP.

Made what? I don't live where you live, which is probably a very Christian place. That is why you should choose a very secular place.
Everything looks pretty OK round here.

Well I am not talking about where I live. Where I live, is relatively peaceful. Not quite different to where you live, and what we read in the paper, or hear on the news.
‘Very chaotic situation’: Gun violence on the rise in Sweden
Rate of fatal shootings in Sweden ranks ‘very high’ compared to other European countries, says Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention

What? No thanks. I'll stay where I am.
I think some people tend to live on pipe dreams.

Well, who knows? I am just noticing that places with strong social security tend to be atheistic. And happier.

Yeah. Dreams tend to do that to us. I find a lot of people don't like to wake up to reality.

Who knows? It could be that true Christians are even less than I thought, then.

Yes. They are. Did you not read that in the Bible?
I find people say they read the Bible, but then they say, and believe things that makes one wonder... Which Bible?

Job? You mean that guy who was object of a wager between God and Satan? Always reminded me of that movie with Eddie Murphy.

He He. No.

Statistically, it does not seem God answers any prayers, anyway. If you prayed to your TV set, you would probably get the same hit ratio.

Ciao

- viole

Ha Ha. Thanks. Always good hearing jokes.

 

[metis]

I was just reading an article, which was both surprising and sadly disturbing.
On Monday, February 13, 2023, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States released a report on the mental health of U.S. teens. It noted that over 40 percent of high school students experienced persistent sadness and hopelessness.

“Although we have seen worsening trends in mental health for young people over the last 10 years,” stated Dr. Kathleen Ethier, director of CDC’s Division of Adolescent and School Health (DASH), “the levels of poor mental health and suicidal thoughts and behaviors reported by teenage girls are now higher than we have ever seen.”

With all the problems we face, it's sad that many youth face this as well.
What do you think are the reasons or contributing factors for this?

One thing they've found out is because of the media they access, whereas they may get negative feedback or feel left out or not as good as others.

 

[nPeace]

One thing they've found out is because of the media they access, whereas they may get negative feedback or feel left out or not as good as others.

If I felt left out, on social media, what advice would you give me, and what might you think was a major problem in my life?

 

[metis]

If I felt left out, on social media, what advice would you give me, and what might you think was a major problem in my life?

That happiness cannot be found on the outside but only what's inside of us, thus don't compare yourself to others, especially since you can only see what's on the outside with them.

IMO, parents should highly restrict media access with their children and then teach them life will never be perfect and to give them all the love and attention we can.

 

[nPeace]

That happiness cannot be found on the outside but only what's inside of us, thus don't compare yourself to others, especially since you can only see what's on the outside with them.

IMO, parents should highly restrict media access with their children and then teach them life will never be perfect and to give them all the love and attention we can.

Thank you for that.

Yes. Something is wrong in my family. It starts there.
If love and affection is there, and I remain in it, as well as good instruction, I'd be okay.

The problem is, some youth don't get the love, affection, or good instruction, and, or, some don't want what's at home. They want what their peers have.
In any case, social media is a cry for help. Something is missing.

The negativity on social media then is just added straw to the camel's back. Something is bound to break it, if they don't get help.

 

[idea]

Kids who have been to daycare, generally grow up having far better social skills then kids who were cared for by a mom or grandparents.
They make friends more easily, are better equipped to deal with conflicts etc.

Off course all individuals are different. Speaking statistically / in general here.

I'm a soccer coach for U7/U8/U9. The correlation is easily seen between children who went to daycare and those that didn't, in terms of handling themselves in social situations, making friends,.. even to the point of being "team players".

Obviously, a healthy connecting relationship with parents is very important as well. Working parents that pick their kid up at daycare and then put them in front of the TV (or some other screen) instead of actually connecting with them and engaging in activities.... well... that's on them off course.

Yes, army brats - who move around a lot, are also good socially, have learned to integrate into new schools, new communities.

 

[nPeace]

@viole I only just took the time to read past the headlines.
Am I glad I did.
LONDON
In the last decade, gang-related shootings have escalated in Sweden, with authorities struggling to contain the war-like violence.

The Scandinavian country is now often referred to as “the capital of Europe” when it comes to deadly shootings.

This year has been the bloodiest on record in Sweden as 48 fatal shootings have taken place so far..

That's was April 2022.
Now, I am interested in this tear.
Since it's obviously not religion to blame, what was your point again?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How does that contribute to depression and suicide?


How does that contribute to depression and suicide?
Are you saying that that is the cause of teen depression?


Were we talking about what contributes to teen depression, or what internet services are about?


How so?


Okay. It's important to be wise, and cautious. I also take that seriously.

You know what........

Do yourself a favor and watch the documentary called The Social Dilemma on Netflix.

The Social Dilemma | Official Trailer | Netflix - YouTube


Hear what the very creators of key features and algorithms of these platforms have to say about it. Many of the original engineers have quit, resenting the monster they helped create.

Seriously, watch it.

Don't take my word for it. Listen to what they themselves have to say about it.


EDIT: specifically in context of this subject, note what is being said around the 40 minute mark onwards. Don't just skip what comes before that mark though, you might miss a lot of framing and context of what it's all about.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I felt left out, on social media, what advice would you give me, and what might you think was a major problem in my life?

Delete all your accounts and actually connect to people in real life.

Cold turkey.

 

[nPeace]

Delete all your accounts and actually connect to people in real life.

Cold turkey.

I don't use social media... Does RF count. I'm not here to make friends. You should know that.
Oh wait. I join meetings with fellow believers on zoom.