How valuable is personal truth and experience? Although many would deny the fact that we all rely on others life’s experiences and are therefore we have FAITH in others experiences in life. It is faith up until we experience it for ourselves and then in our minds it now a fact but in reality it may not be fact as others may have not had the same experience! As an example an astronaut can relate his experiences to you, who have never traveled in space and you as an individual have three choices in which to form an opinion.
1. Except his/her testimony as reliable personal experience. (Belief that is faith based on a few facts)
2. Reject his/her testimony as unreliable. (Denial of a personal truth and experience)
3. Acquire the experience for yourself and become an astronaut. (Your very own personal truth for others to except or reject)

The common denominator in all our beliefs is accepting and questioning what we believe is the truth. But what actually constitutes evidence of “the truth”. We as humans are very passionate about truth because the mirror of it consists of lies and deceit, something we all wish to avoid because deception equals self delusion and quite possibly self destruction.

Within the physical sciences we have a solid measure of what is considered proof within the ‘scientific method’ of repeated experiments that concur the same results every single time. Yet when we apply the scientific method toward our art, music, dance, literature, philosophy, politics and religion it becomes apparent that we often end up with many different ideals of truth that are of a personal understanding. Some end up concurring with the status quo and some end up within smaller groups of people that arrive at similar conclusions yet are considered to be out of the “norm” of conventional belief. While some individuals arrive at conclusions that are so ‘out there’ as others may consider them to be socially damaged or deranged. You probably know a few of them on these boards.

The truths within art, literature, philosophy, politics and religion are often very subjective toward the personal experience and understanding of truth that they become nothing more than individual opinions that are shared by many or just a few, and in some cases by them alone.

The biggest and darkest drawback to understanding truth is as my sig say’s “Most people do not want to know the truth, they only want confirmation for what they believe is truth”. For the most part humans are lazy thinkers. We want more than anything else to believe in something beyond our small existence and seemingly unimportant lives. When some one comes up with a plausible explanation for everything we would like to know some are all to ready to except it as long as others will do the thinking for us and it suits our lifestyle without making to much work for us or change our lives too drastically. Or we simply reject it outright and must find a way to tear the concept to threads.
We are so busy with everyday living that we often ride the tide of popular opinion or the status quo and never deeply drink from the fountain of knowledge for fear of drowning.

If the truth equals proof what constitute that “proof”? Personal truth and experience or evidence explained by those who seem to grasp it, scientists, wise men or clergy.

The most common sentence on UM is “I need proof” or “where is your proof?” In reality it would be extremely difficult for me to prove that I even exist in the physical world, let alone non human entities outside of our own experiences. Most will just accept the small evidence of my written words without question.

Truth is defined as evidence, but any good layer worth his salt will tell you that ‘evidence’ can and is often used by the plaintiff and defendant is subjective to their own needs and desired results.
Evidence has to be weighed by the individuals involved who intern lobbies others for their definition in order to strengthen their own beliefs. The opposite reaction is often not very desirable as it can shatter the individuals world view as well as turn their lives completely around. Yet at the same time the truth can be liberating, enlightening and rewarding.
To some people proof is good enough in the personal experience to others evidence must be agreed on by a majority of those we hold in esteem in order to be any kind of proof.

Some only accept evidence in the form of physical subjectiveness and often become entrapped within a paradigm of their own making. While others are more willing to explore the esoteric evidence of their own experience as well as others?

Since consciousness itself contains no physical attributes it should exists within the realm of the esoteric rather than the physical plane, therefore those that demand physical evidence of God, Souls, Ghosts or an after life are in fact limiting there sense of reasoning and understanding to a limited paradoxical plane.

In your opinion what constitutes the value of personal truth/evidence? Individual prestige, wisdom, societal status or educational levels and personal accomplishments?

Irish

In order for to believe something is absolutely true I need to experience it myself, and have someone I trust confirm the experience.

They are both forms of proof but I prefer personal truth and experience over what scientist, wise men or clergy say it is.



Personal proof and experience has more substance for me but if the consensus believes something I might hold the notion it is true too but I will still want to find out for myself if it is applicable in any way. For instance I believed 911 was terrorist but since it was somewhat important for me to know why, not that I think about 911 since it did not even happen in my city it seems remote, but because so much of what the government is doing is based on 911 from forming the TSA to waging war in two different places overseas, then I wanted to know more to form an opinion and now I do not buy into the government press releases. Instead I looked into all the facts, the mindsets of all involved including Muslims, the so called 'terrorists', and even acts of our own state sponsored terrorism that kills many innocent civilians in those far away places.



I prefer my own evidence especially when it is personal objective evidence but exploring the esoteric (not know to all) evidence that others offer, from scientist to relative, I want to find out for myself it it can be applied to any decision I make or just for curiosity's sake.



It all depends. I value the wise and happy above all others. Nothing is more important than being wise and happy and they seem to go hand in hand but hey ignorance can be bliss too. If someone has individual prestige and I need to accomplish something they have then I would use them as a role model. If someone has societal status and I want some of what they have then it is time to follow their footsteps. If someone has a high educational level and I want to learn their view out of curiosity and their brilliant minds wax eloquent on any topic then I turn to them. Personal accomplishments might be last on the list here but they are almost first and foremost in my mind. My dad was a good father and husband so I want to follow his practical example. My mother always cared for what others think and feel so I want to follow her emotional example. My wife loves with all her heart and I want to learn from her how to love with all mine. Those three people have made great personal accomplishments and are my first and foremost role models above all else.


If a gun was held to my head and I was told to deny God I would die. If a gun was held to my head and I was told to deny evolution....well evolution is not gonna carry me in this life or the afterlife so I would lie and deny evolution even though I find it to be true.

Thank you again Irish for making a thread where I can truly think about things and know how blessed we are. Most but not all threads can be answered on automatic mode.

You are really thoughtful today Irish. I came to my religion through personal experience. I could never say to someone, this is what I experienced and you should believe this way. Most of us Pagans follow the 3rd explanation and become the astronaut and seek our own truth. I think that is the main difference between Earth based religions and revealed religions. My fellow Pagans and I often discuss our experiences and find we have similar experience even though we follow different paths, but don't expect people to just to believe just because one of us says so. A true neo Pagan religion is a religion of experience and not of a single book or the word of a single man or woman.

One of the things I like about the people here on this website is that you all (most) ask questions seek out answers to the unknown; it is what draws people here. I was raised along with two brothers; we are all now in our fifties. My brothers applied themselves to skills that serve them well in attaining good families, jobs, house and car. All the nice things that make life here pleasant.
But outside of that they never seem to question their existence and consciousness or anything beyond their preferred paradigms. In fact they often will turn to distractions such as sports, hobbies or alcohol to avoid facing their inevitable demise or even question why they are here in the first place? There are many who never question up until they are confronted by the specter of death itself whether accident or illness. Then all of a sudden they want all the answers right now.
I am reminded of an old quote: "A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again." Alexander Pope (1688-1744) - An Essay on Criticism, 1709. Knowledge is revered and honored within the mind of men. Yet it is truly an unquenchable thirst and perhaps a curse of the questioning man. Some people drink deep from the fountain of knowledge.....but others just gargle and spit it out.


Irish

What constitutes Value/, Is Experience and truth in it, If one has experienced His truth,Then it has great personal Value. And unless Father(GOD) has instructed one personally to spread the message, it is up to the individual experencer to Share or not, and it will but should not bother the experienced, knowing what he knows is true.

I liked your other post because it said in order to change Hearts one must lead by example, not words. or something to this effect.

If one really needs confirmation of what they believe, they should live this belief, and the experience will enlighten them and others Observing, by experience, if it is tru or not.

Love Omnaka

personal truth is just that ........ personal. valuable to that person , but not a fact to anyone else nor could it be. you may be inclined to believe someone about their experience , but that is not proof or fact..

and on astronauts ......... we can watch the rockets take off. we can watch them land. we can watch them on tv or through telescopes and know what they are experiencing is real. can't do that with faith or belief.

I spent most of my life contemplating why I was here, when it finally dawned on me -----> I was here to live.

Your brothers may be on to something.

At the most basic every animal lives. Humans have the potential do do so much more than just live/exist comfortably through their years on earth.

. Part of the problem is our power as individuals and societies. If we do not consciously choose to live lives of empowerment and goodness (many definitions acceptable here) we will damage others, individually and en masse, by our inactions.

Only a person who really doesnt care about others would live life this way.

. This idea is encapsulated in ethical/philosohical statements of many religious and non religious cultures.. "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." "No man is a island" "One individuals rights begin to cease, where another's begin" etc

But more than that, how we live life determines the quality of life we enjoy. All can say "I have lived." Only a fortunate few can exclaim," I have LIVED"

Sorry. that sounded both pompous and patronising. And I am slowly learning to recognise humorous statements when others make them. However, sports, material possessions, and alcohol are far from guaranteed to provide a happy or meaningful, or truly successful life, even if most westerners are educated from birth to believe they will; along with good looks, a slim body, and an active sex life.

An understanding of self and of humanity has a much better chance of doing so.

But faith and belief are very real! It may not be something you can see or prove but it is real all the same. I believe my faith is very real just as God is but to prove it to you would be difficult but the fact remains you can't disprove it either.


Always a pleasure

Shared experiences can be very valuable to others , Maby it relates Whole hartedly with anothers experience, And just listening to anothers experience can reinforce the listeners experience.

I think sharing is caring, I learned that from the great Purple prophet, Barny.

Love Omnaka

yes it is real to you and you alone ........... not to anyone else because there is no proof.

One doesn't have to disprove anything -- the burden is on you since your making a claim without proof.

God is real to me also, and I have had personal proof/ truth which was only for me. Now if I share this truth or proof with anyone else it is Just to share, not to be debated, basically me just sharing my experience.

This experience may relate to anothers truth and be confirmation of their truth.

Nothing wrong with it at all, and is perfectly understandable if one does not believe.

I still share.

Anyone looking for truth about God needs to seek God on his or her own, not rely on anothers testimony.

Love Omnaka

A thought provoking post, Mr. Walker.



And why do you think that is? Many who are indoctrinated through man's ignorance would make a blanket statement and say that the reason a person doesn't care for others is because of their 'sinful nature', all the while ignoring all other possibilities of the cause of the behavior. We are evolving past the crude and archaic methodologies of civilizing mankind. We are entering an age of information and understanding about our nature that will continue to enlighten us to many of the causes of what has been considered evil behavior. This will make room for compassion towards our own species as well as others, and hell, who knows...maybe, hopefully, we won't ignorantly annihilate ourselves before we finally get it! Reinforcing the Golden Rule in a humane and educated manner will create socially beneficial hardwiring.

Some people may have conditions that no amount of reinforcing of rules will solve, unless other measures, i.e. medical/psychological/environmental evaluations are fully incorporated in the process. I do believe in the ultimate overall goodness of mankind. However, from a psychological standpoint, indoctrinating society with beliefs that mankind is sinful and evil by nature, has a very negative impact on the individual and society as a whole, and tends to create codependency. The symptoms may include the need to control, an overall distrust in mankind, perfectionism, avoidance of feelings, problems with intimacy, excessive caretaking, hypervigilance, unworthiness, physical illness and depression. The codependent succumbs to feelings of frustration or sadness over his or her inability to improve the situation via archaic methodologies.
.



Oh, the irony! lol



I don't believe that's true.



Just as having those things in your life are not a guarantee for fulfillment and happiness, not having those things in your life are also not a guarantee of fulfillment and happiness.



I couldn't agree with you more, but mankind has, for the most part, not been able to understand his nature and humanity from a perspective that we can now. We are in an evolutionary process of moving out old, unsuccessful methodologies, and replacing them with new ones. Not sure if we'll see a successful implementation in our lifetime though.

edit: modification/typos

what constitutes the value of personal truth/evidence?
Personal truth/evidence is generally spoken of as awareness. Awareness is energy. Physical or spiritual it is the same.
What value would I place on energy would be self-evident in my actions. Sometimes you have lots of 'energy' and sometimes you have next to none at all. I will say the more energy/truth/evidence one has the better for whatever may be. However, knowledge without action has no energy at all.
simple question really. as we are forced to rehash our lives on a regular basis, questioning oneself is as natural as looking over your shoulder.

yes, action, verry good.

Love Omnaka

Thank you ,and before i respond to your comments i would like to say that my beliefs in this area matured before i had any religious inclination at all.They came from observation of human nature which has basicaly been unaltered by a "religious"perspective. Thus they are, admittedly, a personal perspective, and skewed perhaps by the fact that more than 90% of the humans i have close contact with are adolescents from 13 to about 18 years of age. As an ex principal of my school once said "well mr walker, you are acting under a fundamental misunderstanding, in that you believe adolescents are human beings""




Observation suggests humans are innately selfish. This is probably an biological imperative created through evolution, but it may be a flaw which has evolved in what was the true template for humanity. To me, sins are actions created by human choice rather than a part of the nature of man.

I agree with your last statement but not necessarily with the rest. If modern beliefs, treatment and ethical standards are less than those of old, then why are al, the social indicators trending downward, as those modern standards become more common. Also you cant hardwire ethical preferences into humans through social conditioning.( Unless i misuntdrstand what you mean by hardwire)

Each individual and each generation must be taught the ethical standards of that society. Modern failures are related to both the nature of modern ethical beliefs, but also to the failure of all institutiions, from families to schools and work places, to educate the young on what those standards are, and why it is important for individuals to apply them in their own lives.

I do think that in future we may be able to genetically engineer ethical standards and behaviour into people but whether or not that is a desirable thing is another question.



Im not sure this is true, although i do not have your professional expertise to decide. I think perhaps any behaviour can be conditioned into any person, but the question is , is our society ready to accept what that would mean?

For example i would not attempt to reprogramme sexual orientation, although i think that could be done. If, however, i could genetically engineer it i would. To reprogramme already thinking beings in this area, has its own dangers. However i would strenuously reprogramme men who beat women ,for example. Personally i would rather eliminate them altogether,( If only by physical isolation for life from society) but forced reprogramming is a more acceptable alternative to me.

Goodness is first a social construction by definition, and secondly something which, once defined, has to be worked towards through education law and justice among many factors.

Personally i think a lot of the things you fear (in moderation) are necessary for a functioning society, because some way has to be found for millions of individuals to live and operate safely and efficiently in close proximity. No we dont have to think man is naturaly sinful, but we do need to be realistic about the nature of man, and construct our social systems and controls appropriately.

Adolescents particularly( as im sure you are aware) physically lack the development of that part of the brain which makes good judgements.They find it difficult to actually see the consequences of behaviour on future outcomes. Sadly this condition carrries onto adult hood (not physicaly but in evolved responses) with'perhaps a majority of ädults. Thus sometimes we need to repress our feelings and act logically. Sometimes we need to put in place control mechanisms that force people to act responsibly, where they would not otherwise choose to do so.




I dont think i got the irony here, but perhaps i can guess at it from your overall position. Would it be something along the lines of the evil done by men with good intentions?





Fair enough. You may be one of the fortunate few. I look around me, at young peole especially. Not one in a hundred lives life to its full potential.Nnot one in a hundred achieves what they should. They are seduced and way laid by priorities which are entirely artificial in nature ( well apart from their interest in sex. That is a nuisance but i will grant it is a valid and natural distraction)

I have attended too many funerals and cried for too many young people who have died due to their chosen lifestyle and never reached what they could have been to feel otherwise. Risk taking which involves physical or mental challenge, growth, development learning and skill development. or anything else of value is part of living life, and even if death or injury results an acceptable part of life.

Casual unprotected sex, drinking and smoking (even in moderate amounts for teenagers) along with many other things such as starving yourself to achieve a certain body image people seem to find inherent in living a full life are simply counter productive in any cost benefit analysis of lifestyle






True there is no formula for a guarantee of happiness in life. My point was two fold. Many of these beliefs are actually physically and emotionally dangerous especially to young people eg body image. At least we should point out the dangers along with the fact that artificial concepts of beauty need not affect your life if you have a strong countervailing belief system in what is really important about yourself.

I have little tolerance for people who argue the social good of things like alcohol, for instance. Latest statistics in Australia show that between 40 and 60% of cases in every one of the followng is directly attributable at least in part to alcohol. Road deaths and injuries. Violence against women, social violence (in the street and at social events0. These statistics are proportionally much higher among the young.

The medical correlation between not just tobacco, but alcohol, and many diseases and illnesses is well established. Even if these things bring a modicum of physical pleasure to people, is this a good enough reason to accept them. I do not propose prohibition, but campaigns against smoking have reduced its incidence by more than 50% and (apart from with young women) are continuing this trend. Alcohol on the other hand is basically glorified in every element of society, particularly those elements which appeal to young people.



Again, its just personal observation over 50 plus years, but so far i would suggest that these new methodologies are proving an abject failure. I've spoken on another thread about life fifty years ago ',and now. Then i could walk down the streets in perfect safety day night or early morning. Now i would not dare to walk my hometown streets at night and worry even during the day. Then we left our cars open with the keys in them. Then as children we roamed the neighbour hoods from dawn to dusk and out parents never needed to worry about our safety.The occasional cut bent/broken bone and exensive bruising incurred wa considered a normal part of growth and development for children. Now peole in that same small town do nt feel safe(and justifiably) so allowing their children to walk to school in broad daylight.

You know the sort of anecdotal evidence on so many fronts. However the statistics and facts that have been collected (and for many reasons these are not as extensive as they should be) support these observations

We live in a society where individual freedoms and liberty are at a premium . However we pay a very high price ( in my opinion a prohibitively high price ) for those freedoms. Thus i would suggest that modern understandings of human nature, and the best way to inform and motivate humanity to safe, productive and happy outcomes are either incorrect or are being incorrectly applied.

I would dearly love to think that you are correct and that modern methods work better than the old ones. However the evidence, so far, suggests otherwise. Science for example has made incredible strides in the last 150 years in improving our physical quality of life, but in that time our spiritual/emotional quality of life has declined, by all the indicators which are available to assess it.

Very insightful post and many people's views do not take into account the overall decline in the quality of society (criminal behavior, bad parenting, declining educational standards, etc..) much less the spiritual and emotional economies of the individuals themselves. House are made to keep people separated from even their own families. Before I get too far off topic the social decline of much of Western society seems to go hand in hand with the decline of the church, religion, and faith in general. The very thing which seemed to be a glue to hold society together in the past. If we continue the elimination of church, religion, and faith within society I feel we are in for an even further descent into social illnesses. Eventually we will reach a point of no return and society will fail if that point has not already been crossed.

Im not quite so pessimistic, but it is a worry clovis Once upon a time(deliberate fairytale intro here)many institutions taught both ethical standards, the rationale behind those standards and the techniques required to attain those standards. Thus familys sat quietly at the table and listened to opinions and stories.They learned, not only theoretical and practical wisdom from their elders, but also had discipline imposed on them to condition them towards socially accceptable mores.

Then they went to school, where this education continued in the same shape and form. They then went into the work force as apprentices, juniors or trainees. Again, they had to sit back and learn both aceptable behaviours, and the knowledge required to do their job. In the meantime, cultural instituions like churches, libraries and grandparents reinforced the social conditioning and accrued wisdom of the elders.

Today all these institutions have broken down, and chaos reigns. The church, for all its faults, had the power, authority and physical resources to play a significant part in social conditioning. Today there is no institutin to take its place and places like schools actually pride themselves on being values neutral.

Today there is no similar force for social cohesivity except perhaps the media and commercial interests. By default, and by design, they take on the social conditioning of our youth. This should not be allowed or acepted. By any definition there are far superior value systems and ethical systems out there. We need some organisation be it church, state ,or other, to take responsibilty and promote more positive standards than those offered by default through the media. At present young peoles strongest single influence is their peers, followed closely by the media'.

If no physical medium for social cohesivity, learned discipline and self discipline is created then, i agree, that the social future of western societies looks glum. One result that is growing in popularity is s movement of peole to fundamentalist religions for the value systems they offer . Also a growing number of westerners are turning to islam for similar belief systemsand ethical standards. Those who fear and do not want these movements will have to refind or create not just workable social ethics but a mechanism for inculcating this into modern western societies. otherwise religious based ethical systems will win by default even if only a significant portion of western society. In places like america it is even possible that they will reintroduce a form of religiou stheocracy if enough people want it. Those who decry religiously imposed ethical systems must find a workable replacement. Other wise they do face either increased chaos or the natural human response to that; Imposed autocratic order.

A study of the history of societies in just the last two centuries shows the ebb and flow of freedom and authority in societies. History going back further simply confirms the inevitability of this process.

I would have to agree with your above post and also add that religion as one of the stabilizing forces within society does not have to be Christianity. History has guided the course and that is what it was in the past. As far as the media and commercial interests you could not be more current but they do not have the best interest of society at heart. Other individual factors leading up to the state we are in are industrialization, credit based markets, and the introduction of dual income families. Without at least one parent at home we have removed the most vital and first defense to keeping society stable.

First I'd like to apologize to Irish for going OT. Mr. Walker, this will be my last follow-up post on this subject, because we have gone OT. Maybe another thread can be started relating to this topic. However, I wanted to mention that as of 2005, your own country indicates that there is no evidence showing an increase in crime and violent behavior. This study is from the Crime Research Centre, Law School, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia Source

According to FBI figures, the rate of "murder and non-negligent manslaughter" in 2003, was 5.7/100K population, a decrease of 4 when compared to murder and manslaughter in 1933 at 9.7/100K. Source

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the homicide rate nearly doubled from the mid 1960's to the late 1970's.

In 1980, it peaked at 10.2 per 100,000 population and subsequently fell off to 7.9 per 100,000 in 1984.

It rose again in the late 1980's and early 1990's to another peak in 1991 of 9.8 per 100,000.

From 1992 to 2000, the rate declined sharply. Since then, the rate has been stable. Source

Conventional history has long shown that, in many ways, we have been getting kinder and gentler. Cruelty as entertainment, human sacrifice to indulge superstition, slavery as a labor-saving device, conquest as the mission statement of government, genocide as a means of acquiring real estate, torture and mutilation as routine punishment, the death penalty for misdemeanors and differences of opinion, assassination as the mechanism of political succession, rape as the spoils of war, burning at the stake, flaying, disembowelment, homicide as the major form of conflict resolution...all were unexceptionable features of life for most of human history.

Criminologist Manuel Eisner has assembled hundreds of homicide estimates from Western European localities that kept records at some point between 1200 and the mid-1990s. In every country he analyzed, murder rates declined steeply. For example, from 24 homicides per 100,000 Englishmen in the fourteenth century to 0.6 per 100,000 by the early 1960s.

Violence has been in decline over long stretches of history, and today we are probably living in the most peaceful moment of our species' time on earth. Possible theories for the decline are 1) we can't take the law into our own hands anymore, we have centralized governments for that, 2) as technology improves our lives, we put more value on living, 3) the importance of cooperation in trading goods and dividing labor leads us to the idea that our neighbors are more valuable alive than dead and finally 4) we evolved a sense of empathy that only applied to family members, but over time our moral circles slowly encompassed whole tribes, nations, both sexes, the various ethnicities and even animals . . . in other words, our moral circles are getting bigger and bigger. Source

The studies are encouraging.

Statistics indicates that murder is possibly going down, although it has peaks and troughs over the last hundred years. Academic argument to the reasons for this are ongoing However there is some consensus that this is due to the increase in police resourcing going ito this crime and the success in using modern methods to catch and punish criminals. It is a crime very easy to detect, with well established protocols for investigation, and relatively few causes.

Tell me how al other crime rates; from street violence, to vandalism of property, to shop lifting are going. Just today our local paper repoerted an ongoing increase in shoplifting.Hows abuse of women trending? I really hope itgoing down, given the incredible political media and social pressures and campaigns quite rightly directed against it.

Murder is a significant crime but affects extremely few people (And yet it directedly affected my family in this decade for the first time in more than 150 years.) Two members of my extended family were murdered and both murders were drug or alcohol related.This was in a small country australian town of approx 10,00o peole where murders, in my formative years, simply did not happen.

Street violence by contrast , vandalism and even shoplifting, have a direct impact on almost every family. Then if you look at drug related crime either including or excluding alcohol, the statistics show an upward trend . This does not even reflect the fact that many peole no longer report crimes like vehicle theft or housebreaking because they find that police resources are so stretched that police have great difficulty responding seriously to them.

Sorry, will have to disagree with you on this one also. I dont feel any particular concern about going off topic. The general thrust of the argument relates directly to the principle of the opening post and threads often morph gradually to include related concepts. but im also happy to leave it for a more directly related thread.

Ps ive spent about 3 hours perusing the web and will accept parts of your argument.

Older peole, like myself, perceive that crime rates are worse than they currently are (Personally i think this is because we lived through a time when personal crime was almost non existent and thus have higher expectations).but be that as it may.

Second it is difficult to find statistics or trends before 2000 because much of it was not directly added to the web. General sets of statistice indicate that my historical perceptions and recollections are correct Crime in Australia was low in the 50s . It increased with the baby boomers coming into adolescence and peaked shortly after(there was a lot of supporting data to show that young people are 300 to 500 percent more likely to be involved in criminal behaviour.)

After that, criminality waxed and waned with demographics, including youth and migration intakes. Where you are most correct, although even there only partly, is in the govt collected and published statistics since 2000. In australia these are a very mixed bag ,and vary considerably from state to state, but generally in those years some crimes trended down, including property crime and vehicle theft.

However assaults and malicious damage increased noticeably. Crimes such as organised crime, drug use and related criminal activity, and identity theft and fraud were all up . It seems that as our population grows older, its aging criminal element turns away from crimes of violence to less physical crimes more suited to their age and experience.

Lastly you have to be very careful accepting and interpreting these statistics All governments do their best to provide data that crime is decreasing under their watch. For example, one report acknowledged (as i feared) that assualts and particularly sexual assaults, had risen considerable since 2000. However they suggested that this was because more people were reporting assaults, not that the incidence had increased. In the next paragraph they claimed credit for a reduction in reported burglaries and robberies over the coresponding years. No mention was made there that people might actually be undereporting or reporting these less often than they usd to, because of a perception that police did not treat them with a very high priority

So perhaps things arent as bad as i feared. They may have been worse in some decades, such as the 60s and 70's, but i was correct that they are much worse than my childhood years. The jury is still out on current trends. I will admit that possibly i was overpessimistic, but the figures illustrate also that you may be a little optimistic. This may more reflect a difference in our natures, and our respective belief about the nature of people ,skewing both our beliefs about crime rates.

Thank you for getting me to have a look at the actual situation. As i said earlier, i think in a way it absolutely parralels the religious experience irish alluded to in his op

ppsTthe statistics i alluded to in the earlier post were not just related to crime but the use of drugs alcohol and the rate of depression etc in young people. Im sorry if that was not clear, and reading back over my post. i can understand why it may not have been, but it followed on from the comments i made based on my personal experiences and continued association with young people for half a century (if you include my own youth) I was saying that not only anecdotal but statistical data supports my concerns.

Don't worry too much Clovis!

http://www.humaniststudies.org/enews/index...9&article=7

Several weeks ago, a ground-breaking study on religious belief and social well-being was published in the Journal of Religion & Society. Comparing 18 prosperous democracies from the U.S. to New Zealand, author Gregory S Paul quietly demolished the myth that faith strengthens society.

Drawing on a wide range of studies to cross-match faith – measured by belief in God and acceptance of evolution – with homicide and sexual behavior, Paul found that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God.

Top of the class, in both atheism and good behavior, come the Japanese. Over eighty percent accept evolution and fewer than ten percent are certain that God exists. Despite its size – over a hundred million people – Japan is one of the least crime-prone countries in the world. It also has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy of any developed nation.

(Teenage pregnancy has less tragic consequences than violence but it is usually unwanted, and it is frequently associated with deprivation among both mothers and children. In general, it is a Bad Thing.)

Next in line are the Norwegians, British, Germans and Dutch. At least sixty percent accept evolution as a fact and fewer than one in three are convinced that there is a deity. There is little teenage pregnancy , although the Brits, with over 40 pregnancies per 1,000 girls a year, do twice as badly as the others. Homicide rates are also low -- around 1-2 victims per 100,000 people a year.

At the other end of the scale comes America. Over 50 percent of Americans believe in God, and only 40 percent accept some form of evolution (many believe it had a helping hand from the Deity). The U.S. has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy and homicide rates are at least five times greater than in Europe and ten times higher than in Japan.

All this information points to a strong correlation between faith and antisocial behavior -- a correlation so strong that there is good reason to suppose that religious belief does more harm than good.

At first glance that is a preposterous suggestion, given that religions preach non-violence and sexual restraint. However, close inspection reveals a different story. Faith tends to weaken rather than strengthen people’s ability to participate in society. That makes it less likely they will respect social customs and laws.

All believers learn that God holds them responsible for their actions. So far so good, but for many, belief absolves them of all other responsibilities. Consciously or subconsciously, those who are "born again" or "chosen" have diminished respect for others who do not share their sect or their faith. Convinced that only the Bible offers "truth", they lose their intellectual curiosity and their ability to reason. Their priority becomes not the world they live in but themselves.

The more people prioritize themselves rather than those around them, the weaker society becomes and the greater the likelihood of antisocial behavior. Hence gun laws which encourage Americans to see each other not as fellow human beings who deserve protection, but as potential aggressors who deserve to die. And hence a health care system which looks after the wealthy rather than the ill.

As for sex… Faith encourages ignorance rather than responsible behavior. In other countries, sex education includes contraception, reducing the risk of unwanted pregnancies. Such an approach recognizes that young people have the right to make their own choices and helps them make decisions that benefit society as a whole. In America faith-driven abstinence programs deny them that right -- "As a Christian I will only help you if you do what I say". The result is soaring rates of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

Abstinence programs rest on the same weak intellectual foundation as creationism and intelligent design. Faith discourages unprejudiced analysis. Reasoning is subverted to rationalization that supports rather than questions assumptions. The result is a self-contained system that maintains an internal logic, no matter how absurd to outside observers.

The constitutional wall that theoretically separates church and state is irrelevant. Religion has overwhelmed the nation to permeate all public discussion. Look no further than Gary Bauer, a man who in any other western nation would be dismissed as a fanatic and who in America is interviewed deferentially on prime time television.

Despite all its fine words, religion has brought in its wake little more than violence, prejudice and sexual disease. True morality is found elsewhere. As UK Guardian columnist George Monbiot concluded in his review of Gregory Paul’s study, "if you want people to behave as Christians advocate, you should tell them that God does not exist."

I might express that another way. The flip side of Monbiot's argument is that God would be an atheist...

Original study:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Article that shows charts:
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featur..._healthier.html

Very valuable, until we start to use it as a stick to beat others with.





Ahem........

Our earth is degenerate in these latter days. There are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end. Bribery and corruption are common, Children no longer obey their parents. Every man wants to write a book, and the end of the world evidently is approaching.
Assyrian tablet circa 2800 BCE



So what's new?


fullywired

yea i know. It was bad back then too. lol
Sounds like that tablet might have been written by an elderly, literary agent.

~V this is the best comment on this thread.....I came to this after much wasted time myself.....

You know I look at my 40 almost 41 year old face these days and see the aging process in full bloom and think, I have arrived, yahoo( I always wanted to be older ) i always loved the etched faces of the wise so full of life, so full of living.... I have spent many days laying under sunshiney skys to get my wrinkles and sun kissed skin.. I have so far heard most of my childrens laughter, I have immersed myself in the dramas of life for all its worth , matty my son and i recently had this amazing converstation about laughtrer and how good it feels for what ails ya this is my church.. 'a good laugh...."

I don't waste my moments on things i just can't know, and and my personal beleifs change all the time and are a reflection of my experiences and are for me to ask myself am I here now or am i wasting this gift i call life????( I dont' really think there is such a thing as personal truth) certainly anothers truth is not mine ... but it doesn't matter....to live truly live is the challenge and one I'd like to see more people take on....when you are living a life to its fullest you dont' need religions or man made systems...IMO...

No need to apologise Inner Space, I kind of like the slight diversion it has taken. Some very valid points have been expressed from both sides. I agree, somewhere along the way we have lost the village mentality. It does indeed take a village to raise a child and we have surrendered that responsibility to courts, judges and lawyers. I was one of those kids that run wild from dawn to dusk in safety mainly because of the watchful eyes of the neighbourhood.
I was caught red handed defacing public property as a teen by the local constable. His first action was to slap me about the back of the head, when I regained my senses he stood there while I cleaned up the mess I had made. I was never to repeat that action out of shame and humiliation I experienced from that deed. Today the same incident would involve a law suit against the policeman, therapy for me and a city crew to clean up the mess I had made.

Irish

Irish,
What is your answer to Thye OP.

Love Omnaka