In my country we have strong religious influences from missionary work. The Swedes in particular did a lot of work here. It is then to me quite a shame to read articles on how Sweden is rife with atheism and how Christianity is on such a downward spiral their.
My question to any person from Scandinavia is why is your nations so unhappy with God? You really could not claim it is because of a lack of blessings.
Several hundred years of religious warfare, colonialism framed with religious themes, rise in skepticism, and Calvinism is a pretty individualistic religious creed which with increased education leads to more questioning and on and on from there.
Europe in general is also declining as a power because of demographics, there's some trends with religious fervor that coincide with youth bulges and economic expansion. Like South Korea now exports a ton of Christian missionaries or states like Utah.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Of course there are many religious people in Nordic countries as well but most of them are just cultural Christians who go to church because it is traditional to do so. Then there are some hardcore believers but usually they don't get much publicity.
Except when they commit atrocities, unfortunately.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is a wide gap between the questions "Why are you unhappy with God?" and "Why don't you think God is real?" It isn't even remotely a matter of semantics.
There is a wide gap between the questions "Why are you unhappy with God?" and "Why don't you think God is real?" It isn't even remotely a matter of semantics.
Exactly. I mean, read the book of Job, or some of the Psalms... you had people who were entirely convinced that God is real and yet were not at all happy with Him. For example, just opening the book of Psalms at random, Psalm 74 begins with this frustrated inquiry: "O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture?"
Indeed, sincerely believing in God does mean being angry with Him from time to time. But atheism, methinks, has more to do with unhappiness with religion rather than unhappiness with God.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Indeed, sincerely believing in God does mean being angry with Him from time to time. But atheism, methinks, has more to do with unhappiness with religion rather than unhappiness with God.
Dissatisfaction with the justification of religious truth claims. Not unhappiness in the colloquial sense of a negative emotional response. While without a doubt there are some atheists with this response, it is purely optional.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In my country we have strong religious influences from missionary work. The Swedes in particular did a lot of work here. It is then to me quite a shame to read articles on how Sweden is rife with atheism and how Christianity is on such a downward spiral their.
My question to any person from Scandinavia is why is your nations so unhappy with God? You really could not claim it is because of a lack of blessings.
Its illogical too be unhappy with something that doesn't exist. Why hasn't "god" proven his existence in some meaningful and scientifically provable way?
Dissatisfaction with the justification of religious truth claims. Not unhappiness in the colloquial sense of a negative emotional response. While without a doubt there are some atheists with this response, it is purely optional.
I believe you've gone out to meet PRP2 on the wrong battlefield. Speaking causatively, why is it, with actual psychological Human beings, is there, are there, atheists?
I have a narrow view of the demographics. To me, either of your statements demands proof, as a summary of numbers.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Speaking causatively, why is it, with actual psychological Human beings, is there, are there, atheists?
That's the question I answered. Even creatures with as much crazy psychological baggage as we are occasionally capable of making rational assessments of the evidence and forming opinions concerning the facts of objective reality therefrom. An atheist (meaning in this context a strong atheist, an active believer in nonexistence) is caused by a person examining theistic claims and rejecting them. And as you can see, theism ontologically precedes atheism - where there are no theists to make such claims, there can be no atheists to reject them. This means the more interesting question is: why are there theists?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I have a narrow view of the demographics. To me, either of your statements demands proof, as a summary of numbers.
What sort of proof would suffice? An opinion poll of self-identified atheists, asking them to rate separately how they felt about (A) the attitudes and behaviors of religious people and (B) the truth claims made by religious institutions; and then crunching the numbers?
I'm not sure what that would really demonstrate... especially since I don't believe that, for most people, intellectual and emotional response are entirely separable. If you like and admire a group of people, you'll be more likely to find their beliefs plausible, and vice versa.
My personal impression is that the rise in atheism in Europe and America is due less to science, education, etc. and more to the fact that the religious response to modernity has widely been miserable (i.e. adopting a deliberately anti-scientific stance with fundamentalism; marching lockstep with political conservatives; the Catholic Church covering up priest pedophilia in a vain effort to preserve its veneer of infallibility; outright terrorism at times -- 9/11, last year's massacre in Norway, the shooting of abortion doctors, etc.)
I suspect many atheists, privately at least, would agree with the sentiment attributed to Gandhi: "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." But I could be wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
Most atheists are fine with theists as long as they keep to themself.
Problem is that a lot of theists don´t seem to be capable of doing exactly that.
If everyone just "kept to themselves," there would be no community, no exchange of knowledge or ideas.
Theists believe that they have knowledge of something wonderful, and they want to share it. The problem isn't evangelism per se. It's inconsiderate, badgering, duplicitous, condescending, angry and otherwise bad evangelism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
I suspect many atheists, privately at least, would agree with the sentiment attributed to Gandhi: "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." But I could be wrong.
While I would agree that very few Christians are much like Christ, that's not in and of itself a reason to dislike them. Not being Christian, after all, I am not obliged to believe that Christ was perfect. And Christians are a very large and diverse population. There's as much good and bad among them as among anyone.
Gandhi was kind of a bigot, is what I'm saying.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Bakgat what country do you live in? You said the Swedes did alot of missionary work there. There are plenty of reasons people are not excited about Christianity because Christianity has been used to justify alot of brutal acts. Slavery of Africans and others in the Americas was justified because many of the important people in the bible kept slaves. Genocide of the Native Americas was justified because they were pagan. Witch hunts were justified becuase the bible says in Exodus 22:18 "though shalt not suffer a witch to live". The poor treatment of the Catholic Irish by the Protestant English culminating in the complete lack of relief attempts during the by the English during the Irish potato famine was also religiously motivated.
You say Scandinavia has many blessings, but are these from human cooperation or diving intervention? I believe from cooperation.
If everyone just "kept to themselves," there would be no community, no exchange of knowledge or ideas.
Theists believe that they have knowledge of something wonderful, and they want to share it. The problem isn't evangelism per se. It's inconsiderate, badgering, duplicitous, condescending, angry and otherwise bad evangelism.
That being the majority of evangelism I've had to deal with, I'm sure you can understand why people get annoyed at the evangelism without specifying bad evangelism.
Heck, even Penn Jillette http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w kind of appreciates evangelism because, well, if people think your gonna burn in hell then they'd have to be a douche to not want to help you.
Gem's, from Penn, "I don't respect people who don't proselytize" and "How much do you have to hate someone to not proselytize"
It's kind of funny, he used the same analogy of a moving car about to hit someone that Sam Harris used in "The End of Faith"
Anyway, great video, I really like Penn's stance on how to deal with evanglism. However, sadly, most evangelism isn't like that.
That being the majority of evangelism I've had to deal with, I'm sure you can understand why people get annoyed at the evangelism without specifying bad evangelism.
Yeah, I know. For a lot of evangelists it's a numbers game, or at least it seems to be. They discuss one of their crusades/revivals/whatever, and there's boastful talking like, "We won more than a hundred souls for Christ that day." Lots of talk about the "work of soul saving" -- despite their own theology being quite clear on the point that no man can save or damn another.
And then some of them are simply ignorant, obnoxious boors. I recall one year going to GenCon when it was still in Milwaukee. On leaving the convention hall we encountered a man in the street who was trying to press Bible tracts into our hands. As we passed by him he said, "You know, you're going to hell." As if the very fact of our being in attendance at a fantasy gaming convention was proof of our perfidy!
Evangelism has a bad name in this day and age, no doubt about it. Probably some of it has to do with the stance of proud, willful ignorance that's been inculcated in a lot of American Christians by fundamentalism and its offshoots, i.e. "We don't need to know what evolutionary science says because we trust the Biblical account of creation. We don't need to know what other religions say because it's enough to know that salvation comes through Jesus alone. We don't need to know what D&D or MtG is really like because our pastor assured us that those games are Satanic."
Thankfully this brand of religion seems to be on the decline, although it's not going down without a fight. In the meantime, it is incumbent upon more reasonable and empathetic Christians to preach the gospel in a way that won't instantly turn people off.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Love. Forgive. Trust. Be willing to be broken that you may be remade.
The only way it would be a matter of semantics would be if "is angry with God" and "doesn't believe in God" meant essentially the same thing. They do not mean the same thing. They don't really even mean close to the same thing.
And again, based on your sig, I recognize that English isn't your first language and we may just be having difficulty communicating because of the language hurdle between us, but I really don't see how you could say that it is merely a matter of semantics.
I guess I'm wondering if you really do think "is angry with God" and "doesn't believe in God" mean essentially the same thing?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
I'm just wondering why has Scandinavia become known as this very atheistic place. (If it is indeed true.) They seem to have a lot going for them. I wonder why they do not see their blessed countries for what they are.
Never being in the place I could be mistaken. This is the point of this thread to get more knowledge about religion in these Nordic countries and Europe in general.
I really hope people on this thread are not claiming it is a good education that leads people away from religion.
People often speak about Catholic pedophiles, but what about the atheist ones? Do atheist think that they are immune to such abnormal behavior? Christians generally are not so convinced of our own virtue as atheist are.
It's not nit picking if the words mean different things. One speaks to emotion, the other speaks to belief. I just read the Hunger Games, which is why I'm post at 330 in the morning (picked it up earlier today and just couldn't stop reading) and I really ****ing hate the capitol, but I don't believe Panem is real.
They're are probably pedophiles in any given group past a certain basic size.
What you don't see much, if at all, with the non-catholic groups is the systemic protection of the pedophile at the expense of the victims and the creation of newer victims via shuffling. Your comment reeks of a strawman.
Has anyone claimed that a good education leads people away from religion? I don't know. Strange, though, is it not that, with the exception of America, you get a pretty nice inverse correlation between how educated a country is and how religious they are. Funny. That.
They seem to have a lot going for them. I wonder why they do not see their blessed countries for what they are.
You see good fortune and you reach for the explanation that God has blessed the people. This is understandable, because you believe in God. However, people who do not believe in God are not going to reach for the same explanation. And if you wish to participate productively in a debate, you are going to need to start looking at the world through other people's eyes, searching for and entertaining alternative explanations for the phenomena you see. You cannot simply cling to the explanations with which you and your coreligionists are already comfortable, and assume that everybody else will feel the same way. This attitude reeks of small-mindedness.
I'm just wondering why has Scandinavia become known as this very atheistic place. (If it is indeed true.) They seem to have a lot going for them. I wonder why they do not see their blessed countries for what they are.
I guess I'm wondering if you think good things can come about without any involvement from God? Like when something good happens in my life is that because of God (even though I don't think he's real), or do good things happen in my life without any involvement from God?
The reason I ask this is because I'd imagine many individuals in the Scandinavian countries think good things have happened to their country without any involvement from God. To get any more specific would require knowing exactly which good things in these countries you are wondering about. For example, someone from a Scandinavian country would probably say that their country being in a good financial situation is due to sound fiscal policy and that God is not involved in the economics of their country.
People often speak about Catholic pedophiles, but what about the atheist ones? Do atheist think that they are immune to such abnormal behavior?
Of course atheists as a group aren't immune to such behavior. As others have pointed out, it's the fact that these child-raping priests were simply moved to different areas instead of being brought to the attention of law enforcement. I find that truly disturbing.
I'm just wondering why has Scandinavia become known as this very atheistic place. (If it is indeed true.) They seem to have a lot going for them. I wonder why they do not see their blessed countries for what they are.
Blinking Spirit has this one covered.
Never being in the place I could be mistaken. This is the point of this thread to get more knowledge about religion in these Nordic countries and Europe in general.
It's a personal belief of mine that the correlation between religious education and lack of belief says volumes about the claims being made.
I really hope people on this thread are not claiming it is a good education that leads people away from religion.
While it's not necessarily a causation, numbers do show that, as education increases, religiosity decreases.
People often speak about Catholic pedophiles, but what about the atheist ones? Do atheist think that they are immune to such abnormal behavior? Christians generally are not so convinced of our own virtue as atheist are.
Most criticism of the pedophilia scandal is not that pedophilia occurs, it's the responses made by the church when it became known.
A point of comparison: what happened when pedophiles were found in the Catholic Church? There was an organized effort to hide them from justice and put them into positions where they could rape again. What happened when a pedophile was found at Penn State? They fired him and let the police handle the rest.
While it's not necessarily a causation, numbers do show that, as education increases, religiosity decreases.
Looking at this wiki article, the correlation is not so clear. There does seem to be a statistically significant inverse correlation between IQ and religiosity, but it isn't quite as clear for education and religiosity:
Quote from Wikipedia, (emphasis mine) »
An analysis of World Values Survey data[19] showed that in most countries, there is no significant relationship between education and religious attendance. However, in 65 former socialist countries "there is a negative relationship between years of education and belief in God", with similar negative correlations for other religious beliefs, while there were strong positives correlations in many developed countries such and England, France and the US. They concluded that "these cross-country differences in the education-belief relationship can be explained by political factors (such as communism) which lead some countries to use state controlled education to discredit religion".The study also concludes that, in the United States and other developed nations, "education raises religious attendance at individual level," while "At the same time, there is a strong negative connection between attendance and education across religious groups within the U.S. and elsewhere." The authors suggest that "this puzzle is explained if education both increases the returns to social connection and reduces the extent of religious belief", causing more educated individuals to sort into less fervent denominations. [20]
If you have other data, I'd be interested to see it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love." --Carl Sagan
If you restrict it to only those with PhDs, the % that believe in a personal god fall to between 5 and 10%. (This could be because your soul is smashed, insulted, and taken from you by your advisor. :))
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My question to any person from Scandinavia is why is your nations so unhappy with God? You really could not claim it is because of a lack of blessings.
Europe in general is also declining as a power because of demographics, there's some trends with religious fervor that coincide with youth bulges and economic expansion. Like South Korea now exports a ton of Christian missionaries or states like Utah.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What makes you think they're unhappy with God? Maybe they just don't think He's real.
Semantics my dear.
Except when they commit atrocities, unfortunately.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is a wide gap between the questions "Why are you unhappy with God?" and "Why don't you think God is real?" It isn't even remotely a matter of semantics.
Exactly. I mean, read the book of Job, or some of the Psalms... you had people who were entirely convinced that God is real and yet were not at all happy with Him. For example, just opening the book of Psalms at random, Psalm 74 begins with this frustrated inquiry: "O God, why do you cast us off forever? Why does your anger smoke against the sheep of your pasture?"
Indeed, sincerely believing in God does mean being angry with Him from time to time. But atheism, methinks, has more to do with unhappiness with religion rather than unhappiness with God.
Dissatisfaction with the justification of religious truth claims. Not unhappiness in the colloquial sense of a negative emotional response. While without a doubt there are some atheists with this response, it is purely optional.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Its illogical too be unhappy with something that doesn't exist. Why hasn't "god" proven his existence in some meaningful and scientifically provable way?
I believe you've gone out to meet PRP2 on the wrong battlefield. Speaking causatively, why is it, with actual psychological Human beings, is there, are there, atheists?
I have a narrow view of the demographics. To me, either of your statements demands proof, as a summary of numbers.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
That's the question I answered. Even creatures with as much crazy psychological baggage as we are occasionally capable of making rational assessments of the evidence and forming opinions concerning the facts of objective reality therefrom. An atheist (meaning in this context a strong atheist, an active believer in nonexistence) is caused by a person examining theistic claims and rejecting them. And as you can see, theism ontologically precedes atheism - where there are no theists to make such claims, there can be no atheists to reject them. This means the more interesting question is: why are there theists?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
What sort of proof would suffice? An opinion poll of self-identified atheists, asking them to rate separately how they felt about (A) the attitudes and behaviors of religious people and (B) the truth claims made by religious institutions; and then crunching the numbers?
I'm not sure what that would really demonstrate... especially since I don't believe that, for most people, intellectual and emotional response are entirely separable. If you like and admire a group of people, you'll be more likely to find their beliefs plausible, and vice versa.
My personal impression is that the rise in atheism in Europe and America is due less to science, education, etc. and more to the fact that the religious response to modernity has widely been miserable (i.e. adopting a deliberately anti-scientific stance with fundamentalism; marching lockstep with political conservatives; the Catholic Church covering up priest pedophilia in a vain effort to preserve its veneer of infallibility; outright terrorism at times -- 9/11, last year's massacre in Norway, the shooting of abortion doctors, etc.)
I suspect many atheists, privately at least, would agree with the sentiment attributed to Gandhi: "I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." But I could be wrong.
If everyone just "kept to themselves," there would be no community, no exchange of knowledge or ideas.
Theists believe that they have knowledge of something wonderful, and they want to share it. The problem isn't evangelism per se. It's inconsiderate, badgering, duplicitous, condescending, angry and otherwise bad evangelism.
While I would agree that very few Christians are much like Christ, that's not in and of itself a reason to dislike them. Not being Christian, after all, I am not obliged to believe that Christ was perfect. And Christians are a very large and diverse population. There's as much good and bad among them as among anyone.
Gandhi was kind of a bigot, is what I'm saying.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You say Scandinavia has many blessings, but are these from human cooperation or diving intervention? I believe from cooperation.
Slobad AKA Old Uncle Slobodan
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7801329#post7801329
That being the majority of evangelism I've had to deal with, I'm sure you can understand why people get annoyed at the evangelism without specifying bad evangelism.
Heck, even Penn Jillette http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhG-tkQ_Q2w kind of appreciates evangelism because, well, if people think your gonna burn in hell then they'd have to be a douche to not want to help you.
Gem's, from Penn, "I don't respect people who don't proselytize" and "How much do you have to hate someone to not proselytize"
It's kind of funny, he used the same analogy of a moving car about to hit someone that Sam Harris used in "The End of Faith"
Anyway, great video, I really like Penn's stance on how to deal with evanglism. However, sadly, most evangelism isn't like that.
Yeah, I know. For a lot of evangelists it's a numbers game, or at least it seems to be. They discuss one of their crusades/revivals/whatever, and there's boastful talking like, "We won more than a hundred souls for Christ that day." Lots of talk about the "work of soul saving" -- despite their own theology being quite clear on the point that no man can save or damn another.
And then some of them are simply ignorant, obnoxious boors. I recall one year going to GenCon when it was still in Milwaukee. On leaving the convention hall we encountered a man in the street who was trying to press Bible tracts into our hands. As we passed by him he said, "You know, you're going to hell." As if the very fact of our being in attendance at a fantasy gaming convention was proof of our perfidy!
Evangelism has a bad name in this day and age, no doubt about it. Probably some of it has to do with the stance of proud, willful ignorance that's been inculcated in a lot of American Christians by fundamentalism and its offshoots, i.e. "We don't need to know what evolutionary science says because we trust the Biblical account of creation. We don't need to know what other religions say because it's enough to know that salvation comes through Jesus alone. We don't need to know what D&D or MtG is really like because our pastor assured us that those games are Satanic."
Thankfully this brand of religion seems to be on the decline, although it's not going down without a fight. In the meantime, it is incumbent upon more reasonable and empathetic Christians to preach the gospel in a way that won't instantly turn people off.
The only way it would be a matter of semantics would be if "is angry with God" and "doesn't believe in God" meant essentially the same thing. They do not mean the same thing. They don't really even mean close to the same thing.
And again, based on your sig, I recognize that English isn't your first language and we may just be having difficulty communicating because of the language hurdle between us, but I really don't see how you could say that it is merely a matter of semantics.
I guess I'm wondering if you really do think "is angry with God" and "doesn't believe in God" mean essentially the same thing?
I'm just wondering why has Scandinavia become known as this very atheistic place. (If it is indeed true.) They seem to have a lot going for them. I wonder why they do not see their blessed countries for what they are.
Never being in the place I could be mistaken. This is the point of this thread to get more knowledge about religion in these Nordic countries and Europe in general.
I really hope people on this thread are not claiming it is a good education that leads people away from religion.
People often speak about Catholic pedophiles, but what about the atheist ones? Do atheist think that they are immune to such abnormal behavior? Christians generally are not so convinced of our own virtue as atheist are.
They're are probably pedophiles in any given group past a certain basic size.
What you don't see much, if at all, with the non-catholic groups is the systemic protection of the pedophile at the expense of the victims and the creation of newer victims via shuffling. Your comment reeks of a strawman.
Has anyone claimed that a good education leads people away from religion? I don't know. Strange, though, is it not that, with the exception of America, you get a pretty nice inverse correlation between how educated a country is and how religious they are. Funny. That.
You see good fortune and you reach for the explanation that God has blessed the people. This is understandable, because you believe in God. However, people who do not believe in God are not going to reach for the same explanation. And if you wish to participate productively in a debate, you are going to need to start looking at the world through other people's eyes, searching for and entertaining alternative explanations for the phenomena you see. You cannot simply cling to the explanations with which you and your coreligionists are already comfortable, and assume that everybody else will feel the same way. This attitude reeks of small-mindedness.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well it hardly seems like nit picking either, but I'm not going to dwell on this issue since you've clarified what you originally meant.
I guess I'm wondering if you think good things can come about without any involvement from God? Like when something good happens in my life is that because of God (even though I don't think he's real), or do good things happen in my life without any involvement from God?
The reason I ask this is because I'd imagine many individuals in the Scandinavian countries think good things have happened to their country without any involvement from God. To get any more specific would require knowing exactly which good things in these countries you are wondering about. For example, someone from a Scandinavian country would probably say that their country being in a good financial situation is due to sound fiscal policy and that God is not involved in the economics of their country.
Of course atheists as a group aren't immune to such behavior. As others have pointed out, it's the fact that these child-raping priests were simply moved to different areas instead of being brought to the attention of law enforcement. I find that truly disturbing.
Oh? What makes you say this?
A point of comparison: what happened when pedophiles were found in the Catholic Church? There was an organized effort to hide them from justice and put them into positions where they could rape again. What happened when a pedophile was found at Penn State? They fired him and let the police handle the rest.
Looking at this wiki article, the correlation is not so clear. There does seem to be a statistically significant inverse correlation between IQ and religiosity, but it isn't quite as clear for education and religiosity:
If you have other data, I'd be interested to see it.
Such a relationship does exist with science education.
http://www.pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
If you restrict it to only those with PhDs, the % that believe in a personal god fall to between 5 and 10%. (This could be because your soul is smashed, insulted, and taken from you by your advisor. :))