Should atheism be considered a movement?

[GreyICE]

And I asked why would I want to do that? What purpose would it serve? I then speculated as to why one would want to make a comparison.

1. Purely academic reasons?
2. To determine whether a school ought to be allowed to stay open?
3. Some other reason? (Not stated in my post. An omission on my part, because someone could be forgiven if it appeared to him that I was creating a false dichotomy. That was not my intention.)

You also spoke about religion, and "how much religion is holding things back". Again, why would that serve a purpose? I am comparing my kid's school to an easily available alternative, specifically, the public schools. How would comparison of my one school to private schools in general serve any purpose at all? Suppose it were below average for private schools? What would that say? Above average for private schools? What would that say? How could we determine how much religion is holding things back by comparing my son's school to an average private school? I don't get it.

You make a baseless assumption. I make the opposite baseless assumption as a rhetorical tool to demonstrate how baseless they are (based on your total presented evidence of worth, both were equally valid, and mutually exclusive, good evidence that there isn't good evidence being presented). If you took the rhetorical tool as an attack on theistic schools, then equally so was your statement an attack on secular schools, and equally so could I accuse you of attempting to establish a theocracy. Of course you never even examined the argument to determine this - it was an article of faith for you. Articles of faith are dangerous. Thus, you amply demonstrated the dangers of non-evidence based thinking, a far more valuable demonstration than anything I could tell you (examine the arguments, and you will see that they were similarly phrased and equal given the presented evidence, yet you chose to react quite strongly to mine without ever considering yours). This hysteria, by the way, is exactly what drives people like the followers of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly - it bypasses rational thinking centers.

I made a couple of claims in my post. I said that my son's school had pretty good standardized test scores. It does. The point is that there is no reason to believe that the children at the school are educationally deprived. Therefore, if anyone is concerned that they aren't getting a good education, they may rest easy. The teaching of religion doesn't appear to be doing any harm.

Nor is it doing any good, according to the statistics. It is value neutral. Really, this is no surprise. I heartily doubt any philosophy - GLBT acceptance, religious tolerance, religion, humanism, or anything else you care to name has a huge impact on childrens' test scores.

Now, I did make a stronger claim than that. I actually said religion helps in this case. To make my statement more accurate, I said that Jewish culture helps in that case. Jewish culture really does emphasize scholarship. I can elaborate if anyone is interested, but unless someone asks, I'll just state that that is my experience, and the school reflects that culture.

Many institutions emphasize scholarship. One of them, hopefully, is schools.

So, you responded to my claims by saying I should compare test scores of my son's school to private schools. I'm not sure I'm following why I ought to do that. Just for emphasis, I'll repeat my claims, and perhaps you can explain how a comparison of my son's school's test scores to public school would help evaluate my claims.

Jewish culture (of which religion is one part) contributes to high academic achievement.
Test scores at my son's school are very good.
The critical thinking skills of people who graduated from my son's school are superior to those of public school graduates with whom I've interacted. Note that this isn't a general, testable, claim, just my experience. My point is not that my kid's school is provably better, just that in my experience in my neighborhood, the kids are turning out just fine.

You stated your son attends a religious school. There are no publically funded religious schools in the US. Thus, it is a private school.

I said, if you followed, that it was unfair of you to compare your test scores against public schools, and you should compare against private schools.

So, to bring this back to the thread topic, why does this matter? I was noting that there was such a thing as an atheist movement. The people in that movement are publicly questioning whether certain changes ought to be made. Specifically, there is doubt about whether religious schools ought to exist. By implication, and in some cases from the lips of some people, there are questions about whether the government ought to allow religious schools to exist. People who happen to not believe in God do not constitute a movement. People who are discussing, proposing, or lobbying for societal changes that are consistent with atheist beliefs are accurately described as a movement.

No they're not. Movement:
a diffusely organized or heterogeneous group of people or organizations tending toward or favoring a generalized common goal.

You have to demonstrate groups and/or organizations before its a movement.

I apologize if you thought I was accusing you of wanting to shut down my kid's school That really wasn't my intention. I think that perhaps some sloppy grammar and occaisional use of "you" when "one" would have been better contributed to that impression.

On the other hand, I did want to ask you, specifically, if you wanted to do that, because some people on JREF, when asked that question, have responded affirmatively. I use that question sometimes to bring out the fact that while some people are simply atheists who want the religious majority to leave them alone, there are others who are trying to take control, a movement if you will, and if allowed to do so, they would be just as bad as the previous zealots of other religions.

False Dichotomy strikes again! Either they want to be left alone, or they're trying to take control. Nope, no excluded middle there.

I wish for religion to be removed from the status of sacred cow that it has always had, and for common tolerance of it being examined critically. Why is it that when people are asked why homosexuals are evil, and they answer "Leviticus" or "The Koran says..." we either talk about tolerance or let them off the hook? Why don't we get to ask "Okay, but is there any logic behind it?" And if they can't think of any, why aren't we allowed to question this God who offers no explanation? I am for opening religion to the criticism that any other school of thought - communism, new age movement, etc. - are subject to. Its status as a sacred cow is dragging new woos into its sacred cow envelope, and its time to puncture that.

So am I for religious schools being shut down? No. Do I just want to be left alone? No. Hi, I'm the excluded middle.

 

[CFLarsen]

Skeptigirl,

My question was about how you would control who gets to be in this critical thinking movement. How will you do that? Make it a condition that you are an atheist? Take a test? Pledge, in public, with your hand on...presumably not the Bible, but what, then?...that you are now an Atheist?

I'm genuinely curious. What constitutes a member of this Movement of Critical Thinkers? What do they have to live up to? What are the tenets?

They have to be Atheists. What else?

 

[Menalitus]

What does one do? I hate the thought of imposing my (lack of) beliefs on anyone or being part of any kind of anti freedom movement but at the same time I strongly feel that religion is some kind of brain equivalent to glaucoma where you can only see directly ahead .

It worries me that kids are being educated into this acceptance of belief without evidence and that our countries are being run by people with strong religious beliefs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7327623.stm). So what do we do? It is NOT ok to just bury our heads in the sand and claim that we are not willing to get off the fence, if you really do not care what are you doing here in the first place? I am not suggesting that this is a hotbed of radicalism but it is a place where views are put forward and discussed, maybe that is one of the first steps toward a solution.

 

[Menalitus]

I have it! We need to force all schoolkids to spend 2 hours+ a week in these forums. That should get their brain juices flowing

 

[Meadmaker]

You make a baseless assumption. I make the opposite baseless assumption as a rhetorical tool to demonstrate how baseless they are (based on your total presented evidence of worth, both were equally valid, and mutually exclusive, good evidence that there isn't good evidence being presented). If you took the rhetorical tool as an attack on theistic schools, then equally so was your statement an attack on secular schools, and equally so could I accuse you of attempting to establish a theocracy. Of course you never even examined the argument to determine this - it was an article of faith for you. Articles of faith are dangerous. Thus, you amply demonstrated the dangers of non-evidence based thinking, a far more valuable demonstration than anything I could tell you (examine the arguments, and you will see that they were similarly phrased and equal given the presented evidence, yet you chose to react quite strongly to mine without ever considering yours). This hysteria, by the way, is exactly what drives people like the followers of Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly - it bypasses rational thinking centers.;

I'm not sure I follow the chain of reasoning that leads from a question about your stance on the permissibility of religious education to Sean Hannity.

I said, if you followed, that it was unfair of you to compare your test scores against public schools, and you should compare against private schools.

Typo in my last post. I wrote "public" on the first go round. I caught it on edit, but you had already replied. My question was intended to be (quoted from the edited version)

I'll repeat my claims, and perhaps you can explain how a comparison of my son's school's test scores to private school would help evaluate my claims.

Jewish culture (of which religion is one part) contributes to high academic achievement.
Test scores at my son's school are very good.
The critical thinking skills of people who graduated from my son's school are superior to those of public school graduates with whom I've interacted. Note that this isn't a general, testable, claim, just my experience. My point is not that my kid's school is provably better, just that in my experience in my neighborhood, the kids are turning out just fine.

Either they want to be left alone, or they're trying to take control. Nope, no excluded middle there.

I don't think it's a false dichotomy. It's a dichotomy between those people who want the freedom to be atheists, but want no government action except where their own freedom is concerned, versus those who want to take government action that is somehow correlated with their atheistic beliefs and which places restrictions on others' behavior. I've found that the question of religious education is a great way to separate the two groups.

When I ask, "Should my son's school be shut down," I find that I get responses that can generally be grouped into three areas.

1) No. Doing so would be a limitation of religious freedom.
2) Hem and haw and say that maybe it should and maybe it shouldn't and we need more information.
3) Yes.

(There's a variant on 3 that is common. Some people say that it shouldn't be shut down, but their religious activities should be restricted. That's the same thing as shutting it down. If you did that, there would be a different school in the same building where mine happens to be right now.)

And if they can't think of any, why aren't we allowed to question this God who offers no explanation?

Who's stopping you?

 

[Meadmaker]

I am not suggesting that this is a hotbed of radicalism but it is a place where views are put forward and discussed, maybe that is one of the first steps toward a solution.

What "problem" are you trying to "solve"? That kids are being raised as Anglicans, or Muslims, or Jews? If you think the "problem" is that there are too many people who accept Judaism, and you want the government to do something about that, I would say that you're pretty radical. (Likewise for Anglicans or Muslims or Druids or whatever.) Unfortunately, in my opinion, it isn't as radical as it used to be.

If your "solution" is limited to merely speaking your own views and hoping to win the rhetorical battle for hearts and minds, then by all means carry on and I'm with you.

 

[Menalitus]

What "problem" are you trying to "solve"? That kids are being raised as Anglicans, or Muslims, or Jews? If you think the "problem" is that there are too many people who accept Judaism, and you want the government to do something about that, I would say that you're pretty radical. (Likewise for Anglicans or Muslims or Druids or whatever.) Unfortunately, in my opinion, it isn't as radical as it used to be.

If your "solution" is limited to merely speaking your own views and hoping to win the rhetorical battle for hearts and minds, then by all means carry on and I'm with you.

I say in my post that "It worries me that kids are being educated into this acceptance of belief without evidence and that our countries are being run by people with strong religious beliefs (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7327623.stm). " this is true and is what I am trying to "solve" although I am not exactly what you would call an activist . This does worry me increasingly though, (probably from haunting these forums more than anything) however I do not advocate agressive action to force my views on people, what I do expect is that people who share my concerns should be vocal in their condemnation and not just sit on the fence denying any responsibility for the world they live in. My personal action is to argue my viewpoint to anyone who will listen. Its not a lot but hey what the hell.

 

[GreyICE]

I'm not sure I follow the chain of reasoning that leads from a question about your stance on the permissibility of religious education to Sean Hannity.

Questions usually don't contain statements. To wit, this:

So, why do you think it is appropriate to make such a comparison? If your interest is academic purely, then no problem. However, if you are trying to decide whether you think it ought to be allowed to stay open, then I have an objection. Why would anyone think that they have the right to decide that a school ought to be shut down because of the non-academic activities that occur at the school? I'm not following the reasoning here, unless it's just another case of "I know better than you, so you ought to do things my way, and I'll use government force to make that happen if necessary."

Is a persecution complex.

Typo in my last post. I wrote "public" on the first go round. I caught it on edit, but you had already replied. My question was intended to be (quoted from the edited version)

I don't see the need - unless someone is going to make the testable claim that religion is a benefit. Once again, you are running on a persecution complex here. You seem to think the question is coming out of the blue, and is totally unfair when, in fact, it is simply a logical response to your claim.

I don't think it's a false dichotomy. It's a dichotomy between those people who want the freedom to be atheists, but want no government action except where their own freedom is concerned, versus those who want to take government action that is somehow correlated with their atheistic beliefs and which places restrictions on others' behavior. I've found that the question of religious education is a great way to separate the two groups.

When I ask, "Should my son's school be shut down," I find that I get responses that can generally be grouped into three areas.

1) No. Doing so would be a limitation of religious freedom.
2) Hem and haw and say that maybe it should and maybe it shouldn't and we need more information.
3) Yes.

(There's a variant on 3 that is common. Some people say that it shouldn't be shut down, but their religious activities should be restricted. That's the same thing as shutting it down. If you did that, there would be a different school in the same building where mine happens to be right now.)

1) Yes
2) Yes, but I wouldn't want to live under a government that had the power to shut down schools for that.
3) Maybe, we should do a study to see if the religious element is beneficial or harmful
4) There should be at least some attempt at a fair presentation of critical thinking towards religion in the school
5) The school is too secular, and should teach religion better
6) It's fine, as long as it isn't government funded
7) The school should allow students to opt out of religious classes
8) The school should not discriminate on the basis of religion
9) The school is a fair result of free market capitalism, and should not be shut down
10) The school is a commendable institution

I really don't see how you can just excluded middle every possible position. There's more I haven't thought of. If you insist that any question has merely two answers, you're living in Hannity-world. To paraphrase Cracked, simplicity is bigfoot.

Who's stopping you?

The media and prevailing attitudes in this country.

 

[Meadmaker]

The media and prevailing attitudes in this country.

I don't know. They seem to not be able to stop you. Meanwhile Dawkins seems to be making a bigger name for himself as an atheist than he did as a biologist. Colbert is pretty irreverent, although I don't know if he himself is an atheist, and he seems to be getting along pretty well. I'm guessing his car is nicer than mine. Not only is the media not stopping him, last time I checked he was the media.

I think you're pretty free to question whoever and whatever you want.

And you should be. And I am glad that there are lots of atheists who are not part of any movement to restrict that freedom.

 

[Dancing David]

People who don't collect stamps Unite!

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

People who don't collect stamps Unite!

A-Odinists need not apply.

 

[joobz]

People who don't collect stamps Unite!

Hey, Don't laugh. While in grad school, I started a "We don't watch survior club." It simply amounted to us going to the bar and having a few pints while everyone else was watching survior.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Hey, Don't laugh. While in grad school, I started a "We don't watch survior club." It simply amounted to us going to the bar and having a few pints while everyone else was watching survior.

Hmmm ... that sounds more like a "let's pop down to the pub and have a few" club to me. Good on yer.

 

[Olowkow]

Sam Harris is studying "belief" using fMRI:
http://www.samharris.org/site/articles/
I heard him discussing this on a podcast, I think it was SETI Are we Alone.
There are a lot of insights into why theists just can't understand what atheism actually is.

 

[Meadmaker]

1) Yes
2) Yes, but I wouldn't want to live under a government that had the power to shut down schools for that.
3) Maybe, we should do a study to see if the religious element is beneficial or harmful
4) There should be at least some attempt at a fair presentation of critical thinking towards religion in the school
5) The school is too secular, and should teach religion better
6) It's fine, as long as it isn't government funded
7) The school should allow students to opt out of religious classes
8) The school should not discriminate on the basis of religion
9) The school is a fair result of free market capitalism, and should not be shut down
10) The school is a commendable institution

Before I get to the quoted remarks, let me add something. I don't really have a persecution complex, but I can see why, reading my responses, you might think so. Really, what happened is I jumped ahead a few spots. I've discussed this topic before, and I was getting ahead of myself. Perhaps it will become clearer when discussing the above.

You posted the above as a means of illustrating that my choice of selections (yes, no, hemming and hawing) excluded the middle ground, and said that these 10 different possibilities covered extra territory that I had excluded. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case because I wasn't asking about attitudes toward the school, but rather attitudes toward government attempts to regulate the school. Your 10 points are 10 different things that people might say about the school, but they aren't 10 different answers to the question of whether or not it should be restricted.

For example, in a previous thread on the subject, one poster more or less said that the school was a vile and evil institution and that I was a horrible person for subjecting my son to such a place, but that he would absolutely defend my right to send him there. Excellent. We'll put that fellow down as a "no" vote on government regulation. He goes in exactly the same category as the guy who says, "We need a lot more Jesus in this country, and if you try to shut down Smallville Baptist Academy we will use our second ammendment rights to defend our first ammendment rights!" Both are anti-government intervention.

There are people, however, including some on JREF, that are not in that category. They tend to say things like, "When you send your child to that school, you are inflicting your views on him and depriving him of his constitutional rights. Such a school should not be allowed!" That person is willing to use the government to "solve" the "problem" of religious education.

There isn't much middle ground, in my opinion, and with respect to my son's school in particular, there is none. Either you would allow them to continue to do what they do, or you would restrict them from doing what they do. I can understand asking a bit more about what they do before you decide what side you are on, but you are either on one side or the other. There's nothing excluded.

Within what is called "the atheist movement", there are people who genuinely believe that there is a need to protect children from parents like me. That disturbs me greatly. Fortunately, not all atheists think my children need to be protected from me. For example, I don't think my son needs to be protected from me. For those of you who are atheists in a similar position, who don't think government ought to regulate parents' options with respect to religious education, be advised that there are people who are a bit more willing to use government to achieve their ends, and that you will be judged, unfairly, by the company you keep. If that bothers you, you need to make clear that even if you think religion is absurd, you are not part of any "movement" to get rid of it.


, and I hope, and believe, that he will turn out a better person as a result of his religious education. As bizarre as it may seem to some, I think it will help his critical thinking skills. If you think that is impossible, you are either confused about what critical thinking means, or about how he will be taught.

 

[GreyICE]

Before I get to the quoted remarks, let me add something. I don't really have a persecution complex, but I can see why, reading my responses, you might think so. Really, what happened is I jumped ahead a few spots. I've discussed this topic before, and I was getting ahead of myself. Perhaps it will become clearer when discussing the above.

You posted the above as a means of illustrating that my choice of selections (yes, no, hemming and hawing) excluded the middle ground, and said that these 10 different possibilities covered extra territory that I had excluded. I don't think that's the case. I don't think that's the case because I wasn't asking about attitudes toward the school, but rather attitudes toward government attempts to regulate the school. Your 10 points are 10 different things that people might say about the school, but they aren't 10 different answers to the question of whether or not it should be restricted.

For example, in a previous thread on the subject, one poster more or less said that the school was a vile and evil institution and that I was a horrible person for subjecting my son to such a place, but that he would absolutely defend my right to send him there. Excellent. We'll put that fellow down as a "no" vote on government regulation. He goes in exactly the same category as the guy who says, "We need a lot more Jesus in this country, and if you try to shut down Smallville Baptist Academy we will use our second ammendment rights to defend our first ammendment rights!" Both are anti-government intervention.

That's exactly the problem with false dichotomy. It eventually snowballs to the point where the libertarian atheist and the religious fanatic who wants a theocracy land in the same court because you're doing a straw poll instead of thinking about the issue.

It's fine if all you want to do is vote yes or no on an issue, but if you actually want to think about the issue and consider it, excluding the middle is ridiculous. Saying that all answers fit into yes, no, or didn't vote just shuts off debate and discussion. And obviously that's not worthwhile in a forum, which is designed to encourage debate and discussion.

If you want my input on an issue, ask for it. If you want me to give a one word position statement, my one word is: "I don't have any opinions on any subjects simplistic enough to be expressed in one word."

There are people, however, including some on JREF, that are not in that category. They tend to say things like, "When you send your child to that school, you are inflicting your views on him and depriving him of his constitutional rights. Such a school should not be allowed!" That person is willing to use the government to "solve" the "problem" of religious education.

I imagine their insight on their position is slightly more complex, and they would not appreciate an obvious strawman.

There isn't much middle ground, in my opinion, and with respect to my son's school in particular, there is none. Either you would allow them to continue to do what they do, or you would restrict them from doing what they do. I can understand asking a bit more about what they do before you decide what side you are on, but you are either on one side or the other. There's nothing excluded.

Oh, okay. When you put it that way, I'm against you. Whenever someone says that you're either with me or against me, that person has entered zealotry. Anyone who sees the world through that filter has lost their ability to think rationally, and is entering the irrational, bordering on insane, territory. Abortion protesters, suicide bombers, religious fanatics in Iran, communists in Russia and China, Joe McCarthy, all were firm believers in 'you are either with me or against me.' I can't think of a single positive role model in history who espoused such hateful rhetoric.

Since I will never follow anyone into the territory of insanity, I obviously am against you in the worldview of your persecution complex.

If you want to step back and admit that human opinion is diverse, and that understanding the full range of opinion is important, I fully support that movement. Otherwise, you are irrational, pure and simple.

Within what is called "the atheist movement", there are people who genuinely believe that there is a need to protect children from parents like me. That disturbs me greatly. Fortunately, not all atheists think my children need to be protected from me. For example, I don't think my son needs to be protected from me. For those of you who are atheists in a similar position, who don't think government ought to regulate parents' options with respect to religious education, be advised that there are people who are a bit more willing to use government to achieve their ends, and that you will be judged, unfairly, by the company you keep. If that bothers you, you need to make clear that even if you think religion is absurd, you are not part of any "movement" to get rid of it.

Ah, I see. I need to divorce myself from other people who have examined a subject and come to a different conclusion with me, or you'll lump me into the category with them. Unfortunately I only apologize for myself. So, once again, I guess I am against you. Isn't it funny how you've turned someone who essentially agrees with your right to school your child however you wish into someone who wouldn't do a thing to help you, because you are 'against' him? Is the insanity of your worldview now apparent?

, and I hope, and believe, that he will turn out a better person as a result of his religious education. As bizarre as it may seem to some, I think it will help his critical thinking skills. If you think that is impossible, you are either confused about what critical thinking means, or about how he will be taught.

I don't see any way religious education will ever help critical thinking skills. The entire basis of religion is faith, the entire basis of critical thinking is questioning and searching for answers. The two cannot be reconciled, and religious education will not help (except perhaps to say: "Think critically, or you'll end up like that").

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I added that up and got an assertion of overwhelming evidence and two philosophical arguments. I would be genuinely interested in what this evidence might be. Should we start a new thread rather than take this one off topic?

You mean what is the evidence god beliefs originate in the human imagination and not real encounters with actual gods?

I've posted on this before. You can start a thread if you want but it's pretty basic stuff. The Bible has nothing in it, for example, that suggests special knowledge that would come from a god. They got the germ theory wrong, they didn't note the rest of the world was populated, they thought the Moon was a light rather than reflected light and so on. If you break it down it is typical of all the other myths that developed in every other culture.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....Zero evidence? You don't think 2000 years of christianity, several billion worshippers and millions of eyewitness accounts count as evidence? You should check the meaning of the word! It's almost certainly all flawed, but to claim it doesn't exist is as dumb as claiming a sky-daddy does.

Never mind, in what passes for your thought patterns, I'm sure you agree with yourself 100%.

Predictably boring.

Eye witness accounts? Surely you jest. People believe in nonsense all over the world to this day. See any artificial limbs left behind by anyone cured at Lourdes or Mejugoria? Think eyewitness testimony that homeopathy cured someone or belief by millions in Scientology means anything?

And belief in Christianity? Have you not noticed how many people believe in Hindu gods?

You have zero in the way of real evidence TA. Most of us notice that. But you and a couple others who post here can't seem to figure it out.

 

[CFLarsen]

A-Odinists need not apply.

Being an A-Odinist is clearly blasphemy. Prepare for the longships.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

They certainly will not be taught the former. As to what conclusions are reached, I think the possible range is broader than you allow, although your statement is not entirely wrong.

FWIW: A significant fraction of the graduates of that school are agnostic, or variants thereof, in my experience.




Certainly there are places where these things are taught, but I wouldn't send my son to any of those places.

ETA: On the other hand, what do you think ought to be done if I did? In my opinion, it's ok to hold schools to standards. I think it's ok to ask questions about real history on standardized tests, for example, as opposed to the mythic version in religious texts, and to shut down schools whose students don't have adequate knowledge about basic math, literature, science, and core curriculum subjects. However, if after doing that, they also teach that you'll go to heaven if you repeat magic words while counting beads, I say that's fine. It does me no harm.

I'm glad to hear the school turns out many well educated kids that don't have a critical thinking exception to god beliefs. I believe many Israelis are secularists and I also think, on the whole, the Jewish culture highly values a good education.

I think any child given the evidence and facts and not given an indoctrination in god beliefs will conclude god beliefs are not supportable conclusions. If the school provides the education and religion is an elective or a cultural awareness topic, then it sounds like a good school.

As a parent, I'd just want to be sure there was not an indoctrination class. Other than that, no worries. I'd be concerned if they added the magic beads and ritual chanting. There are more than a few Catholics who think they were indeed damaged by that sort of thing if taken to the extreme. I'm sorry but when I see the Orthodox Jews rocking their heads in prayer rituals at the Temple Wall I can't help thinking of the institutionalized kids I've seen doing the same due to mental disorders. Those nonsensical rituals are not a healthy way to spend one's time, IMO.