Post: #26

(09-18-2011 05:57 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  Fascinating discussion man's need for god/meaning:

Really interesting video.

I disagree with the priest on one issue.

The priest cites Sartre, and other existentialists, as citing God as the source of all meaning, and that without God, there is no meaning.


I disagree with this. I believe you can believe this is no God, and still believe there lies objective meaning within the world. There's no reason why God is necessary in order for "The Good" to exist.

I've known plenty of Atheists who believe in "The Good". It's a very popular philosophical fallacy: that, without god, there is nothing.

Post: #27

(09-20-2011 11:00 PM)Ajiaco Wrote:  Still, it doesn't seem like getting rid of religion makes anyone any smarter, less warlike, more interesting or a better person.

The least religious countries (Northern Europe and Japan) seems to be doing quite well.

Post: #28

(09-20-2011 11:00 PM)Ajiaco Wrote:  I agree that Atheism has a lot to answer for in the 20th century, and I agree that religious belief has its benefits in terms of disseminating morality, creating culture, keeping dumb people from being reprobrates, and giving people a sense of meaning and selflessness in their lives.

But I can't get past the absurdity of religious belief. It doesn't pass the laugh test. So there's a magic man in the sky, and he created a world with humans who he ordered to pray to him (narcissist much?), and he gave humans a sliver of time to act a certain way, after which they would be judged for ETERNITY with pleasure or punishment. Not to mention the fact that only one religion can really be the true one, or maybe none of them.

Amen.

Quote:Still, it doesn't seem like getting rid of religion makes anyone any smarter, less warlike, more interesting or a better person. Most people who stop going to church replace it with what exactly? Consumerism? Politics? More television?

Self-improvement? Life enrichment? Another job? Hobbies?

I agree with OldNemesis, the least religious countries seem to have the highest quality of life, lower crime rates, etc.. There were a bunch of studies done on 1st world countries but unfortunately I'm unable to find the graphic or data.

Post: #29

(09-21-2011 12:33 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  The least religious countries (Northern Europe and Japan) seems to be doing quite well.

Japan is beginning to experience economic fallout. A lot of Western Europe is beginning to experience the same thing: Greece anyone?

Both the examples you gave are of areas that are steadily declining as the population falls.

Post: #30

(09-21-2011 12:38 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(09-21-2011 12:33 AM)oldnemesis Wrote:  The least religious countries (Northern Europe and Japan) seems to be doing quite well.

Japan is beginning to experience economic fallout. A lot of Western Europe is beginning to experience the same thing: Greece anyone?

Both the examples you gave are of areas that are steadily declining as the population falls.

Explain to me how population decline and economic fallout are related to the religiosity of those nations.

People love to draw false parallels and correlations without anything to back it up.

Consider what OldNemesis was quoting when he said that:

Quote:Still, it doesn't seem like getting rid of religion makes anyone any smarter, less warlike, more interesting or a better person.

Post: #31

(09-19-2011 05:52 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  I have to say your knowledge of history really sucks. Catholicism was a significant power in Nazi Germany.

At least 3,000 Catholic priests, deacons, and bishops were imprisoned at Dachau concentration camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp

Over 1100+ Catholic Clergy were murdered in concentration camps
http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/fa...opic=03#03

There are estimates that as many as 15 million Catholics died in German Concentration Camps, but more conservatives numbers put that at 6 million Catholics murdered. Many of these were Polish.

The Third Reich itself persecuted the Catholic Church and treated it as its enemy. This despite a substantial minority of the population of the Third Reich being baptized Catholic, including some members of the Nazi elite.

Pope Pius XII's and other clergy's actions trying to prevent deportation of Jews, helping ransom Jews from the Nazis, and insistence of the diplomatic immunity measures guaranteed under the diplomatic treaty between the Holy See and pre-Hitler Germany making Catholic properties immune from Nazi search (allowing them to harbor Jewish refugees when this was actually respected) put the Third Reich and the Catholic Church in direct conflict during WWII. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsou.../pius.html

Post: #32

(09-21-2011 01:52 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(09-19-2011 05:52 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  I have to say your knowledge of history really sucks. Catholicism was a significant power in Nazi Germany.

At least 3,000 Catholic priests, deacons, and bishops were imprisoned at Dachau concentration camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp

Over 2500+ Catholic Clergy were murdered in concentration camps
http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/fa...opic=03#03

There are estimates that as many as 15 million Catholics died in German Concentration Camps, but more conservatives numbers put that at 6 million Catholics murdered.

The Third Reich itself persecuted the Catholic Church and treated it as its enemy. This despite a substantial minority of the population of the Third Reich being baptized Catholic, including some members of the Nazi elite.

Is that so? If I'm not mistaken, Hitler and the pope collaborated (at least passively) quite a bit... regardless of how many people were killed.

Post: #33

(09-21-2011 02:00 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(09-21-2011 01:52 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(09-19-2011 05:52 PM)oldnemesis Wrote:  I have to say your knowledge of history really sucks. Catholicism was a significant power in Nazi Germany.

At least 3,000 Catholic priests, deacons, and bishops were imprisoned at Dachau concentration camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp

Over 2500+ Catholic Clergy were murdered in concentration camps
http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/fa...opic=03#03

There are estimates that as many as 15 million Catholics died in German Concentration Camps, but more conservatives numbers put that at 6 million Catholics murdered.

The Third Reich itself persecuted the Catholic Church and treated it as its enemy. This despite a substantial minority of the population of the Third Reich being baptized Catholic, including some members of the Nazi elite.

Is that so? If I'm not mistaken, Hitler and the pope collaborated (at least passively) quite a bit... regardless of how many people were killed.

They started off collaborating with the Reichkonkordat in 1933, but this was reversed in 1937 when the Vatican issued a declaration criticising the Nazis' breaches of the previous agreement and even Hitler himself. Clergy read this out from pulpits all over Germany, which can't have made them very popular with the Fuhrer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mit_Brennender_Sorge

Actually something like 40% of the population of the Reich considered themselves Catholic. I think Catholics were only persecuted insofar as they were seen as politically subversive, much like any other group whose loyalty was questioned (political opposition groups, freemasons, etc.)

Post: #34

(09-21-2011 02:00 PM)Gmac Wrote:  Is that so? If I'm not mistaken, Hitler and the pope collaborated (at least passively) quite a bit... regardless of how many people were killed.

Um, no. That's been debunked for years:

http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-War-Pope-Ro...1592765653
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260344

But catholic defamation happens, and you'll see old propaganda circulated by catholic haters and repeated as if it's true still today.

Have we demonstrated Godwin's Law once again?

Post: #35

(09-21-2011 02:23 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  Have we demonstrated Godwin's Law once again?

Haha. The forum is certainly not immune:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=01264455029...earch.html

Post: #36

(09-20-2011 11:24 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Really interesting video.

I disagree with the priest on one issue.

The priest cites Sartre, and other existentialists, as citing God as the source of all meaning, and that without God, there is no meaning.


I disagree with this. I believe you can believe this is no God, and still believe there lies objective meaning within the world. There's no reason why God is necessary in order for "The Good" to exist.

I've known plenty of Atheists who believe in "The Good". It's a very popular philosophical fallacy: that, without god, there is nothing.

Yeah, I could refute his arguments. The video was still pretty awesome.

Too many guys don't have any appreciation for opposing views.

It should be possible for a man to say, "He's wrong, for the follow reasons...." while still saying, "Nevertheless, he's quite thoughtful and makes an point I hadn't previously considered."

I.e., men need to stop being like women by crying whenever someone OFFENDS them.

Post: #37

(09-21-2011 12:38 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  Japan is beginning to experience economic fallout.

Really?
What about US, haven't we been in recession for three years or so?

Quote:A lot of Western Europe is beginning to experience the same thing: Greece anyone?

Did you see I mentioned Nothern Europe? You do know geography, don't you? Hint: Greece is really not there. Actually Greece is not even in Western Europe, it is Southeast Europe.

Post: #38

(09-21-2011 01:52 PM)Blackhawk Wrote:  At least 3,000 Catholic priests, deacons, and bishops were imprisoned at Dachau concentration camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dachau_concentration_camp

Unfortunately this information is not supported by a reference. I'd be interested to know if those were German Catholic priests, or those captured as prisoners in Poland, Western Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and so on.

Quote:There are estimates that as many as 15 million Catholics died in German Concentration Camps, but more conservatives numbers put that at 6 million Catholics murdered. Many of these were Polish.

I don't understand what you are trying to prove, that Nazi prosecuted the church since being a Catholic wasn't a guaranteed ticket to avoid concentration camps?

Post: #39

Hitler was born and raised Catholic, but turned against religion at some point before the Nazi party came about. Most of those Catholics in the concentration camps weren't killed because their religion, but for other reasons such as being Slavic or dissenting from Nazi authority. Catholics priests both German and non-German were put in concentration camps, but German Catholics weren't unless there was another reason. The two strongholds of Nazi power were Munich and Nuremberg in Bavaria, which is the most Catholic area in the German speaking world (which is why Bavarian's aren't as "sexually liberated" as Northern Germans), so its pretty clear they didn't exactly put Germans into camps JUST for being Catholic.

Also, Hitler tried to create his own Nazi version of Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

Post: #40

In the end, all religion, or lack of, is about politics. One group trying to influence, or keep form being influenced by, another group.

Religions believe in a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

Agnostics don't believe in anything, but would themselves make up a large political group if there were enough of them. There aren't enough to warrant further discussion about them, really. Only religions groups and atheists have had any meaningful impact on the world. BTW, I'm agnostic.

There is no real difference between atheism and religion. They both have beliefs that they have, at various times and places, tried to foist upon others.

Its my conviction that this continued influence of religion or atheism isn't caring about what people believe for the sake of belief, but to strengthen their own political group either through increasing numbers or repressing other political groups.

Communist atheism is a clear example of this, but that's the core of what is behind all religious proselytizing as well. Whether those or become preachers and missionaries for their belief realize this or not, political power is the core cause.

Post: #41

(09-22-2011 04:56 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  In the end, all religion, or lack of, is about politics. One group trying to influence, or keep form being influenced by, another group.

Religions believe in a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

Atheism isn't belief, it's the absence of belief in a god. A-"theism"

A common misconception.

Still I agree that it is all politics.

Post: #42

(09-22-2011 05:05 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

(09-22-2011 04:56 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  In the end, all religion, or lack of, is about politics. One group trying to influence, or keep form being influenced by, another group.

Religions believe in a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

Atheism isn't belief, it's the absence of belief in a god. A-"theism"

A common misconception.

Still I agree that it is all politics.

Im having deja-vu. I think that we've had this discussion on another thread:-)

But, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Its a firm belief that god does not exist. Hence, it's a belief.

Agnosticism is the realm of thought that disavows all firm belief. "A"-gnosticsim (knowing). In other words, literally, "I don't know". or "I don't have a firm belief".

"A"-theism (existence of a deity). Atheism doesn't disavow belief. It disavows the existence of god. Hence, it believes that god doesn't exist.

Atheism is a belief.

Atheism is no different from religion, in practice. Its the religion (belief) of no god. Its political actions and consequences are very similar to politically influential religions of the past. Instead of god being the moral center, the state is the moral center. That really the only difference in practical and political practice in large groups of people. And you don't have to go anywhere on Sunday.

Most of the benefits that atheist avow, are easily dismissed with the moral relativism of the state at the helm.

Religious leaders:
"Go kill these people because they don't believe in our god"
People:
"Okay"

Atheist State:
"Go kill these people because of reason XYZ"
People:
"Okay"

Remember, in an atheist state, the state is the moral leader. At least in the religious state, most morality is rooted within the family and tradition. Although, that has been abused in the past, as well, through rewriting of religious doctrine. However, that is much more difficult to do than it is for the state, who can dictate morality at their whim. Would you feel comfortable leaving all societal morality to the people who are in charge of the USA today? The aristocracy and the bankers? State dictated morality generally doesn't go well for humanity. Neither does politically corrupted religious morality. But, at least its easier for society to find its center again with religiously dictated morality.

Post: #43

Holy shit, it's hydrogonian. Back from the dead!

Post: #44

(09-22-2011 04:56 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Religions believe in a god.
Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

From political standpoint, it is different.
Religious people ACT like there is some god.
Atheists and agnostics ACT like there is no god.

This is why I say there is no real difference between atheists and agnostics. One either rides the god's cock (with hope for something or without), or he does not. It is not possible to act like "there may be god" - you either follow the rituals, traditions, rules (which makes you religious) or you do not (then you're not religious).

Quote:There is no real difference between atheism and religion. They both have beliefs that they have, at various times and places, tried to foist upon others.

There is some major, significant difference.

I can't remember any case of wars started in the name of atheism.

I don't remember a lot of cases when masses of religious people were prosecuted by atheists simply because they were being religious, or forced to somehow abandon their religion without converting into another religion.

I don't remember a single atheist who - in the name of atheism - exploded himself in a bus full of people, murdered an abortion doctor or a bunch of people on some military base, or hijacked a plane and flew it into a building.

So yeah, I disagree.

Post: #45

(09-22-2011 05:23 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  Im having deja-vu. I think that we've had this discussion on another thread:-)

But, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Its a firm belief that god does not exist. Hence, it's a belief.

Agnosticism is the realm of thought that disavows all firm belief. "A"-gnosticsim (knowing). In other words, literally, "I don't know". or "I don't have a firm belief".

"A"-theism (existence of a deity). Atheism doesn't disavow belief. It disavows the existence of god. Hence, it believes that god doesn't exist.

Atheism is a belief.

Atheism is no different from religion, in practice. Its the religion (belief) of no god. Its political actions and consequences are very similar to politically influential religions of the past. Instead of god being the moral center, the state is the moral center. That really the only difference in practical and political practice in large groups of people. And you don't have to go anywhere on Sunday.

Most of the benefits that atheist avow, are easily dismissed with the moral relativism of the state at the helm.

Religious leaders:
"Go kill these people because they don't believe in our god"
People:
"Okay"

Atheist State:
"Go kill these people because of reason XYZ"
People:
"Okay"

Remember, in an atheist state, the state is the moral leader. At least in the religious state, most morality is rooted within the family and tradition. Although, that has been abused in the past, as well, through rewriting of religious doctrine. However, that is much more difficult to do than it is for the state, who can dictate morality at their whim. Would you feel comfortable leaving all societal morality to the people who are in charge of the USA today? The aristocracy and the bankers? State dictated morality generally doesn't go well for humanity. Neither does politically corrupted religious morality. But, at least its easier for society to find its center again with religiously dictated morality.

Quote:Achristianity is the belief that there is no christian god. Its a firm belief that the christian god does not exist. Hence, it's a belief.

Quote:Aislam is the belief that there is no islamic god. Its a firm belief that the islamic god does not exist. Hence, it's a belief.

And so on and so forth. Therefore, every non-christian person is an Achristian, and same for Aislam. If you're not a Christian, then you probably have a firm belief that the christian god doesn't exist, unless you're agnostic. Repeat for every other religion in the world. It's a logical fallacy to call a lack of belief an actual belief.

Quote:Religious leaders:
"Go kill these people because they don't believe in our god"
People:
"Okay"

Atheist State:
"Go kill these people because of reason XYZ"
People:
"Okay"

Remember, in an atheist state, the state is the moral leader. At least in the religious state, most morality is rooted within the family and tradition. Although, that has been abused in the past, as well, through rewriting of religious doctrine. However, that is much more difficult to do than it is for the state, who can dictate morality at their whim. Would you feel comfortable leaving all societal morality to the people who are in charge of the USA today? The aristocracy and the bankers? State dictated morality generally doesn't go well for humanity. Neither does politically corrupted religious morality. But, at least its easier for society to find its center again with religiously dictated morality.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. What? Are you saying that Atheist states kill because of random reasons? I don't want those people in charge of morality, but they wouldn't define my morality anyway. Keep in mind, not all religious morality is perfect. Remember the God Hates Fags folks? Need I hardly mention all the various incidents involving Catholic priests, especially the one protected by the Pope himself.. And are you saying that Atheists have no family morals? That's a pretty general sweep you're making there.

Post: #46

Hey ON, how've you been?

Quote:From political standpoint, it is different.

A large political group acts like a large political group, in general. The only difference here is where they believe that their moral guidance comes from. In the end, who cares when the moral guidance is corrupted either way and the result is the same? However, like I before stated, at least religious morality isn't relativistic (although changing in the new America) and therefore isn't as easily changed moment from moment at the whim of leaders.

Quote:This is why I say there is no real difference between atheists and agnostics. One either rides the god's cock (with hope for something or without), or he does not. It is not possible to act like "there may be god" - you either follow the rituals, traditions, rules (which makes you religious) or you do not (then you're not religious).

Umm...Just because you don't follow the "rituals, traditions, and rules" does not make you an atheist. As a human, i have the ability to think, and I can accept the fact that it is impossible for me to have the information that allows me to decide if there is a god or not. Hence, I would be an agnostic and not an atheist. Most of the time, there would be no practical difference in daily "action" between an atheist and an agnostic, but there sure is heck a lot of difference of philosophy. A lot of difference in the environment of the mind. All large political groups tend to act similarly; however, I'd like to think that an large agnostic group, who hypothetically should have more respect for different modes of thought (acceptance of the possibility that one of many beliefs may be true), would be less internationalist and therefore leave other political groups alone (ie: be more peaceful). However, there has never been a large agnostic group and so we don't have their behavior to reference.

Quote:There is some major, significant difference.

All large political groups tend to act the same. More power for themselves at the expense of other groups.

Quote:I can't remember any case of wars started in the name of atheism.

Bolshevik communism

Quote:I don't remember a lot of cases when masses of religious people were prosecuted by atheists simply because they were being religious, or forced to somehow abandon their religion without converting into another religion.

Bolshevik Communism

Quote:I don't remember a single atheist who - in the name of atheism - exploded himself in a bus full of people, murdered an abortion doctor or a bunch of people on some military base, or hijacked a plane and flew it into a building.

So yeah, I disagree.

With the exception of the abortion doctor, all done for political purposes, not religious. It's simple propaganda that I thought everyone was aware of: the propaganda that these people do these things for religious reasons. When these actions are blamed on religion, it allows governments to have an enemy to target, it gives their people a tangible enemy to hate, and it hides their own sins (why they were targeted) under the accusations of fanaticism by the other side.

We can count communist murder of Christian religious leaders as a "one-for-one" for the abortion doctor thing. Although, the atheist communist murders far outnumber abortion doctor murders.

Post: #47

Quote:I don't want those people in charge of morality, but they wouldn't define my morality anyway. Keep in mind, not all religious morality is perfect. Remember the God Hates Fags folks? Need I hardly mention all the various incidents involving Catholic priests, especially the one protected by the Pope himself.. And are you saying that Atheists have no family morals? That's a pretty general sweep you're making there.

I was more branching off into the natural political expression of an atheist state, which is the communist state.

Communism uses atheism as a tool to remove the family and god as the moral absolutes, so that the state can then dictate morality. Otherwise, the strong family unit gives rise to essential political unity needed for competing political groups to truly be a political threat. Religion is also a political threat. However, religious unity starts with the family, it doesn't end there. Religious unity is the natural expression of family unity, not vice versa. Unified group power always starts from the most basic smallest unit of group loyalty: the family.

You may not understand what I'm talking about, but look around. then go read about communism. I could care less about what individuals believe. Of course I know that there are atheists with strong family values. However, politics, which is at its core about group power, is inseparable from religion. I think that the forces which strive to destroy the cultural and value based unity of the populace are a allowed to persevere due to the decreased influence of religion.

So, in essence, even though atheists can have strong family values, the rise of secularism leaves society vulnerable to the cultural influences that cause your wives to be spoiled princesses who will divorce you at their whim, to daughters who fuck 30-50 guys by age 30, to television which teaches your kids about raunchy ass sex by age ten, to mock the moral standards of traditional religious values that traditionally has allowed you to have a family as well as a strong political group that fights for your interests, and generally causes people to not care about anyone but themselves.

In the end, you have no political affiliation. No power. No family (at least according to the numbers - of course I know that there will still be 'families", but in general the numbers of failed families or failed to form families are what does the damage to society - and your political group). You are castrated and at the whim of stronger groups. That's the danger of giving up moral authority to the state through atheism.

Post: #48

(09-22-2011 11:41 PM)megaframe Wrote:  

Quote:Achristianity is the belief that there is no christian god. Its a firm belief that the christian god does not exist. Hence, it's a belief.

Quote:Aislam is the belief that there is no islamic god. Its a firm belief that the islamic god does not exist. Hence, it's a belief.

And so on and so forth. Therefore, every non-christian person is an Achristian, and same for Aislam. If you're not a Christian, then you probably have a firm belief that the christian god doesn't exist, unless you're agnostic. Repeat for every other religion in the world. It's a logical fallacy to call a lack of belief an actual belief.

Exactly my point. Thanks.

Post: #49

You guys are arguing nomenclature. That's worse than arguing about the existing of God

Post: #50

(09-22-2011 11:41 PM)megaframe Wrote:  Need I hardly mention all the various incidents involving Catholic priests

Here we go with the Catholic defamation again. This time with the "Priests are pedophiles" trope. Maybe I should declare Blackhawks Law: As an online religious discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving priest pedophilia approaches 1.

Most of the cases involving Catholic priests breaking their vows of celibacy are from the small group of gay radicals in the Boston diocese centering on Paul Shanley. The gay community there demanded their own special gay priest to minister to them as a specials needs population. They got it in the form of Paul Shanley, who conveniently defined celibacy as "not having sex with women" and then proceeded to fcuk every willing gay man in sight. Attempts to have Paul Shanley removed ended with the radical gay community chaining themselves to pews and throwing blood at people. So he continued as the "Special Liason to the Gay Community" and with their protection continued on screwing everything in sight. He even attended meetings of NAMBLA. Which made the gay community support him even more against attempts to have him removed.

Paul Shanley particularly liked to run "Summer Camping Retreats" with young gay men just past the age of 18. He spent summers boning hundreds of teenaged men, mostly age 18 and 19 and 20, and the radical gay community gave him full protection while doing so. Like it or not, gay sex is legal at age 18. So while he did have sex with gay teens, they were of legal age of consent.

Most of the "hundreds of cases of pedophilia by priests" are really hundreds of cases of pedophilia by one man: Paul Shanley. A man many outside the gay community argued from the beginning was unfit for priesthood.

When Paul Shanley was finally removed from the Boston parish, he relocated to California to run a gay-centered bed and breakfast in Palm Springs as a way of continuing to cash out his support from the gay community while also conveniently proving a steady stream of hundreds more gay men to have sex with. While continuing to be a priest in name.

After being defrocked, Paul Shanley eventually was convicted for having sex with an underage boy (17 year old) in an extremely controversial lawsuit --20 years after the fact, recovered memories, and a whole lot of other junk claims that wouldn't stand in court today.

This is well documented in http://www.amazon.com/Goodbye-Good-Men-S...0967637112

Since the turn of the century the Catholic church has become extremely open and somewhat puritanical against its own priests with regards to any claim of sexual misconduct. There is mandatory day long training each year for all staff that have contact with children, not just priests (they get the 3 day version). I'm told it's just as unfun as your annual sexual harassment training class. No one closes doors and is alone with children anymore. There is always another adult in sight at all times. Security cameras have been installed for the safety of the teachers, staff and priests and have been very effective in disproving false claims.

While no doubt there will continue to be some fallen individuals in the future, education, better aptitude screenings and other tools have been successful in reducing the rates of incidence far below that of public school teachers. http://badbadteacher.com/