Many atheists are excellent, but atheism itself is hurting the West

[kimmy]

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

I don't think Conrad is advocating any kind theocracy or a government theorcracy.  I don't advocate that either.  The danger of a theocracy is often everyone has a different interpretation of the bible. 

...just that one danger? That's the only danger of theocracies?

"I'm not saying we should have a theocracy and I'm not telling everybody that they have to get out and become Christians. I'm just saying that if you're not a Christian, you're destroying western civilization, because of reasons."

7 hours ago, blackbird said:

The best system is what we have.  We elect a government.  It's not perfect but it is the best system in the world.  What Black is emphasizing is while there are many reasonable or good atheists,  atheism is itself a destructive kind of ideology that goes against the best principles of our western civilization.  It has serious dangers in it as well.

... what are these dangers, again?   For a man of such a loquacious vocabulary, Mr Black does a remarkably poor job of articulating what this danger actually is.

From attempting to parse his rambling, scatterbrained diatribe (and the previous one you linked to) as far as I can tell his main concerns with atheism are as follows:

 -if it's not obvious to you that there's a god who created life and the universe and makes miracles and rainbows and pretty music, then you're a stupid-head.

 -atheists are mean and disrespectful and wrote snarky letters in response to his last column.

 -there's a shadowy cabal of elite atheists secretly running the government.

 -if you ain't got Jesus, you ain't got no moral barometer (in the famous words of noted thinker Steve Harvey).

 -if you aren't a Christian, Mr Black doesn't think you're on his side in the fight to Defend Western Civilization.

 

When relieved of his flowery and bloated prose, his arguments just don't seem nearly as sophisticated, do they? In regard to creation and the origins of life, that issue has been debated for ages by people far smarter than Mr Black. I don't think we need to get into that here, there's already other threads on that topic, and there's a wealth of information out there if you're interested in reading on it. Suffice to say that the pompous gasbag is hardly the final word on the subject.

In response to the rudeness of the correspondence he's received, good for him. He's learned a life lesson that most of us learned many years ago, which is that if you act like a jerk, people will treat you like a jerk.

In regard to the elite atheist cabal that's actually running things, it's laughable. Hey, perhaps it's the Illuminati! Perhaps it's those darned globalists that Steve Bannon is always raging about! Perhaps the world is actually run by a cabal of elite atheist globalist Illuminati! 

In regard to "the ghastly enfeeblement of moral relativism", I've already pointed out that the continuous and ongoing reinterpretation of the Bible's real intention demonstrates that "moral absolutism" is complete fiction. Slavery is great, Bible says so! Nope, slavery is bad! Bible says so! How'd that happen? Your source of "absolute morality" got reinterpreted. Moral relativism! Thou shalt not kill!  Except in certain situations! Which situations? Nobody can agree! Moral relativism!

And in regard to Mr Black's concern that he can't count on me to fight creeping Islamism?  I will oppose creeping Islamism with the same intensity with which I oppose creeping Christian Dominionism, and for the same reasons.  Mr Black needn't worry about that.

 

 -k

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, blackbird said:

I am not advocating Conrad's religion, which I strongly disagree with.  But I agree with his diagnosis of society.   Logic and reason has never been a good guide of society or morality because everyone has a different idea of what that should mean.

Nonsense:

"The Age of Enlightenment, sometimes called the Age of Reason...advocated reason as a means to establishing an authoritative system of aesthetics, ethics, government, and even religion, which would allow human beings to obtain objective truth about the whole of reality. Emboldened by the revolution in physics commenced by Newtonian kinematics, Enlightenment thinkers argued that reason could free humankind from superstition and religious authoritarianism that had brought suffering and death to millions in religious wars."

Our modern western society and governments are founded on the rejection of superstition in favour of reason.  Our liberal democratic governments and institutions are founded on philosophy based on reason such as concepts like the social contract, separation of powers, the rule of law etc.

Much of our morals are rooted in Christianity, but you don't need to be religious or believe in God to carry that morality forward.

[kimmy]

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Much of our morals are rooted in Christianity,

That's debatable...

2 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

but you don't need to be religious or believe in God to carry that morality forward.

...and this is really the key point in all of this.  Black's contention that you're a hypocrite if you like our society but you don't believe in God simply fails. It's not a sound argument.

 -k

[Moonlight Graham]

23 hours ago, blackbird said:

My own immediate thought is that atheism creates a kind of vacuum leaving one in a weakened state intellectually and more vulnerable to ideologies or false religions which basically are a threat to civilization as we know it.

Here's an easy concept:

A person doesn't have to believe that Jesus is the son of God and believe we're going to hell if we don't believe he is in order to agree with and follow most of the best stuff in the New Testament.

What if Jesus was just a really nice guy and not the son of God and never walked on water or turned water into wine?  What if we followed many of his moral stances on how to treat others because they make a lot of sense and make us feel good and make society a better place?

I think western society has been built on these moral foundations, and these are secular concepts IMO that don't require a belief in God or Jesus.  I don't think the West has benefited much from the belief that ie: our children will be trapped in purgatory if they're not baptized before they die.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I don't think the West has benefited much from the belief that ie: our children will be trapped in purgatory if they're not baptized before they die.

Limbo, if I remember correctly. 

[blackbird]

22 minutes ago, kimmy said:

...just that one danger? That's the only danger of theocracies?

"I'm not saying we should have a theocracy and I'm not telling everybody that they have to get out and become Christians. I'm just saying that if you're not a Christian, you're destroying western civilization, because of reasons."

... what are these dangers, again?   For a man of such a loquacious vocabulary, Mr Black does a remarkably poor job of articulating what this danger actually is.

From attempting to parse his rambling, scatterbrained diatribe (and the previous one you linked to) as far as I can tell his main concerns with atheism are as follows:

 -if it's not obvious to you that there's a god who created life and the universe and makes miracles and rainbows and pretty music, then you're a stupid-head.

 -atheists are mean and disrespectful and wrote snarky letters in response to his last column.

 -there's a shadowy cabal of elite atheists secretly running the government.

 -if you ain't got Jesus, you ain't got no moral barometer (in the famous words of noted thinker Steve Harvey).

 -if you aren't a Christian, Mr Black doesn't think you're on his side in the fight to Defend Western Civilization.

 

When relieved of his flowery and bloated prose, his arguments just don't seem nearly as sophisticated, do they? In regard to creation and the origins of life, that issue has been debated for ages by people far smarter than Mr Black. I don't think we need to get into that here, there's already other threads on that topic, and there's a wealth of information out there if you're interested in reading on it. Suffice to say that the pompous gasbag is hardly the final word on the subject.

In response to the rudeness of the correspondence he's received, good for him. He's learned a life lesson that most of us learned many years ago, which is that if you act like a jerk, people will treat you like a jerk.

In regard to the elite atheist cabal that's actually running things, it's laughable. Hey, perhaps it's the Illuminati! Perhaps it's those darned globalists that Steve Bannon is always raging about! Perhaps the world is actually run by a cabal of elite atheist globalist Illuminati! 

In regard to "the ghastly enfeeblement of moral relativism", I've already pointed out that the continuous and ongoing reinterpretation of the Bible's real intention demonstrates that "moral absolutism" is complete fiction. Slavery is great, Bible says so! Nope, slavery is bad! Bible says so! How'd that happen? Your source of "absolute morality" got reinterpreted. Moral relativism! Thou shalt not kill!  Except in certain situations! Which situations? Nobody can agree! Moral relativism!

And in regard to Mr Black's concern that he can't count on me to fight creeping Islamism?  I will oppose creeping Islamism with the same intensity with which I oppose creeping Christian Dominionism, and for the same reasons.  Mr Black needn't worry about that.

 

 -k

Hey!   Do you deny there is a globalist agenda to create a kind of socialist global system based on their worldview?     That is the worldview of the liberal left.  I can give a few things that would be on their agenda, and yes they already have made some headway.  So yes, those who believe in the teachings of the bible should be concerned.  I don't say worried because christians have their faith in Christ, who will return in due time and put all opposition down.

Now a few things on the liberal left's agenda.  First abortion on demand.  This is already quite well established in Canada and has been for decades.  Another is doctor-assisted suicide.  A third might be same-sex marriage.  The globalists also want to bring all countries into subjection to their authority.   They would like to ban freedom of thought and christianity.   They would like to indoctrinate everyone on their way of thinking.  They despise christianity.   They seem to be content for the moment to help with the advance of Islam because they will get a lot of votes from that quarter.   Western civilization is already feeling under threat in parts of western Europe. In England there are over 80 Sharia law courts. 

I don't advocate Dominionism.  I know there are some reformed churches that may to some degree support Dominion theology, but I don't think that will gain any traction in Canada.  Most people including many christians would oppose it.

But the biggest concern is atheism embedded in political parties, the media, and the academic world.  From that base, they advance their liberal left agenda to make Canada less of a Judeo-Christian nation and more of a humanist, less caring country.  It may not be far down the road until they bring in euthanasia of the old, disabled, or medically-challenged people. 

[kimmy]

8 hours ago, blackbird said:

You missed the point.  The reason women and others receive rights in western civilization is because the attitude of compassion and fairness is a Judeo-Christian principle in the west.  That is why we have democracy, a judicial system with juries, appeal processes, social services, etc.   Go to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, Iran, and most others countries, you will not find these rights.  It is the attitude of people in western countries whether you recognize it or not is influenced by Judeo-Christian thinking.  This attitude in the west developed over centuries.  Australia, New Zealand, western Europe, Canada, and the United States are built on Judeo-Christian principles and thinking.  I am not saying they follow the bible in every law that is made.  I hope you understand it is the general belief in a fair and compassionate socieity that developed over centuries that did not develop in many third world countries.  This did not happen by accident.  Many non-western countries women are still treated as chattel and way down the totem pole.  They have no rights and are more like slaves.  Must remain covered and are subject to absolute control by their husband.  There are places where they do all the had work, work the farmland, etc. while the men sit around.

Russia's Christian roots go back far longer than England's, yet this attitude of compassion and fairness never took hold there. They went straight from heartless monarchy to heartless communism, and now to heartless kleptocracy. Why did the supposedly Judeo-Christian values we purport to follow never catch on in Russia, despite their ancient tradition of Christianity?

Why did a country like England, with a far less ancient tradition of Christianity, somehow become the mother of what we in North America consider "western democracy" that you're describing as "Judeo-Christian"? Why not Italy or some other Mediterranean or Middle-East land where Christianity had a long head start over Christianity?

Italy was the epicenter of Christianity in Europe. Italy had tremendous wealth, prowess in every field of achievement, and advanced the scope of human knowledge. Science, math, commerce, art, music, Italy was at the forefront of these things at a time when the English were still living in caves and trying to figure out if rocks were edible. And yet, somehow, what you're referring to as our modern Judeo-Christian values came from England, and not Italy.

You mention Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand... has it occurred to you that these countries have one thing in common that sets them apart from other nations with long Christian roots like Italy, Spain, Russia?

I suggest that the key factor here isn't "Judeo-Christian tradition", but rather the wealth of secular wisdom we inherited from England-- the Magna Carta, the parliamentary tradition, fundamental ideas about the rule of law that were passed on from England to us and especially to the American colonies who turned them into an example for the whole world.  These ideas about justice, the rule of law, and the power of government, they didn't come deus-ex-machina out of scriptures, they were forged during centuries of conflict and strife in England.  Russia had Christianity before England existed as anything other than a pile of rocks inhabited by pagan savages. But England had Habeus Corpus eight centuries ago and Russia still doesn't, all their centuries of Christianity notwithstanding.

 -k

[kimmy]

17 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Limbo, if I remember correctly. 

When coin in coffer rings, soul, from Purgatory, springs.

 -k

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

 

Now a few things on the liberal left's agenda.  First abortion on demand.  This is already quite well established in Canada and has been for decades.  Another is doctor-assisted suicide.  A third might be same-sex marriage.  The globalists also want to bring all countries into subjection to their authority.   They would like to ban freedom of thought and christianity.   They would like to indoctrinate everyone on their way of thinking. 

 

I don't think the liberal left will force you to have an abortion, marry someone of the same sex, or commit suicide if you don't want to.

 You're not suggesting you should have a say in whether or not anyone else does, surely?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, kimmy said:

When coin in coffer rings, soul, from Purgatory, springs.

 -k

Tormented souls. Not baby souls. 

[blackbird]

30 minutes ago, kimmy said:

Russia's Christian roots go back far longer than England's, yet this attitude of compassion and fairness never took hold there. They went straight from heartless monarchy to heartless communism, and now to heartless kleptocracy. Why did the supposedly Judeo-Christian values we purport to follow never catch on in Russia, despite their ancient tradition of Christianity?

Why did a country like England, with a far less ancient tradition of Christianity, somehow become the mother of what we in North America consider "western democracy" that you're describing as "Judeo-Christian"? Why not Italy or some other Mediterranean or Middle-East land where Christianity had a long head start over Christianity?

Italy was the epicenter of Christianity in Europe. Italy had tremendous wealth, prowess in every field of achievement, and advanced the scope of human knowledge. Science, math, commerce, art, music, Italy was at the forefront of these things at a time when the English were still living in caves and trying to figure out if rocks were edible. And yet, somehow, what you're referring to as our modern Judeo-Christian values came from England, and not Italy.

You mention Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand... has it occurred to you that these countries have one thing in common that sets them apart from other nations with long Christian roots like Italy, Spain, Russia?

I suggest that the key factor here isn't "Judeo-Christian tradition", but rather the wealth of secular wisdom we inherited from England-- the Magna Carta, the parliamentary tradition, fundamental ideas about the rule of law that were passed on from England to us and especially to the American colonies who turned them into an example for the whole world.  These ideas about justice, the rule of law, and the power of government, they didn't come deus-ex-machina out of scriptures, they were forged during centuries of conflict and strife in England.  Russia had Christianity before England existed as anything other than a pile of rocks inhabited by pagan savages. But England had Habeus Corpus eight centuries ago and Russia still doesn't, all their centuries of Christianity notwithstanding.

 -k

Yes, I would agree with your assessment of Russia, Italy.  The difference , I tried to point out, is the brand of christianity in Italy (Roman Catholic) and Russia (Russian Orthodox) is the key to understanding why they never really changed the way England and part of northern Europe did.   Roman Catholicism, Russian Orthodox are a very liturgical or mechanical kind of religion.  The religion makes much of ceremonies performed by priests such as sacraments i.e. mass.  They are full of rituals.  They use icons and statues.  People bow down to these and expect the priest to intervene on their behalf with God.  That is the problem in a nutshell.  The Reformation did not take place in Italy or Russia.  They kept the old man-made rituals and practices as their religion.  In England, Scotland, the Netherlands, and part of Germany the Reformation took place.  They threw out the old ritualistic religion to different degrees.  They wanted to return to the original christianity of the apostolic times.  That entailed a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. a new birth by the Holy Spirit.  This made believers become disciples of Christ.  This was totally different from the Roman Catholicism or the Russian Orthodox religion of rituals and a priesthood between the people and God.  This created a different kind of christian in England, Scotland and other countries.  They believed what counted was their personal relationship with God, not what some priest or church would do for them.  Around the same time, you had people demanding democratic institutions.  They realized they were no longer under the shackles of a pope or church.  After centuries of being under the heavy dictatorship of kings, bishops, priests, monks, and popes, they suddenly literally woke up to find that the church was not infallible and therefore the people had rights.  It was not a big leap to then want democracy and self government rather than a absolute monarchy any longer.  The die was cast.

They rejected the church, pope, and priest as the final authority on all matters of faith and embraced grace and faith with Christ being the only mediator between God and men.  The bible became their sole rule of faith, not the church.  

The Roman church fought this in Europe with the formation of the Jesuit order in about 1540 and the use of the Inquisition but they could not stop the Reformation when kings rebelled against the pope in England and other places.

Edited April 18, 2017 by blackbird

[kimmy]

...

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Do you deny there is a globalist agenda to create a kind of socialist global system based on their worldview?     That is the worldview of the liberal left. 

What does the Bible actually say about globalism? 

13 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So yes, those who believe in the teachings of the bible should be concerned. 

Would Jesus be concerned about a more global world?  He seems like the kind of guy who'd reach across borders, not build walls.

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I don't say worried because christians have their faith in Christ, who will return in due time and put all opposition down.

Well, they've been saying that for around 1980 years... they're bound to be right one of these times. I promise that when those multitudes with trumpets and pipers and kettle drums do arrive, I'll accept that as proof that you guys were right all along.

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

They would like to ban freedom of thought and christianity.  

Nonsense. Why do you view disagreement as oppression?

19 minutes ago, blackbird said:

They would like to indoctrinate everyone on their way of thinking. 

Nonsense.

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

But the biggest concern is atheism embedded in political parties, the media, and the academic world. 

What are you saying?  People who don't believe in god shouldn't be in politics or media or academics? What kind of jobs are ok for atheists, in your view?

23 minutes ago, blackbird said:

they advance their liberal left agenda to make Canada less of a Judeo-Christian nation and more of a humanist, less caring country. 

Less caring?  To me the right-- especially the American religious right-- are the walking definition of "less caring".  What could be less caring than the "screw the poor!" attitude that typifies Republicans right now?

 -k

 

[kimmy]

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Tormented souls. Not baby souls. 

I always get my souls mixed up.

 -k

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, kimmy said:

...

What does the Bible actually say about globalism? 

Would Jesus be concerned about a more global world?  He seems like the kind of guy who'd reach across borders, not build walls.

Well, they've been saying that for around 1980 years... they're bound to be right one of these times. I promise that when those multitudes with trumpets and pipers and kettle drums do arrive, I'll accept that as proof that you guys were right all along.

Nonsense. Why do you view disagreement as oppression?

Nonsense.

What are you saying?  People who don't believe in god shouldn't be in politics or media or academics? What kind of jobs are ok for atheists, in your view?

Less caring?  To me the right-- especially the American religious right-- are the walking definition of "less caring".  What could be less caring than the "screw the poor!" attitude that typifies Republicans right now?

 -k

 

Well, first of all, Jesus did not come to build a political kingdom on earth.  He is not in the business of building some kind of global government.   Jesus kingdom is a spiritual kingdom he said, not of this world. 

So, christians should do what they can to help those in need and many do.   The bible does not say to set up a socialist system with every conceivable social service.

The American Republican party would not be a christian party, although there may be a lot of christians who support it.   They have to vote for one of two parties.  Not much choice.  There is no such thing as a "christian" political party.  We have no idea how many people in the U.S. are actually christians.  There may be a lot.  But they do not control a political party.   I would not say the religious right are less caring simply because they don't believe in a socialist system that Democrats might want.  Jesus never taught marxism or socialism.  Charity in the bible is an individual act, not something enforced on a nation like communism.  That said, there no prohibition against having government provide some social service such as medicare or the old age pension or welfare to take care of the poor.  How one votes for those things are a matter of individual preference, not bible commandments.  The bible says if a man will not work let him not eat.   It also exhorts charity and helping those in need. 

 

[kimmy]

17 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Yes, I would agree with your assessment of Russia, Italy.  The difference , I tried to point out, is the brand of christianity in Italy (Roman Catholic) and Russia (Russian Orthodox) is the key to understanding why they never really changed the way England and part of northern Europe did.   Roman Catholicism, Russian Orthodox are a very liturgical or mechanical kind of religion.  The religion makes much of ceremonies performed by priests such as sacraments i.e. mass.  They are full of rituals.  They use icons and statues.  People bow down to these and expect the priest to intervene on their behalf with God.  That is the problem in a nutshell.  The Reformation did not take place in Italy or Russia.  They kept the old man-made rituals and practices as their religion.  In England, Scotland, the Netherlands, and part of Germany the Reformation took place.  (snip)

The Magna Carta and the secular conflict between the rights of man and the authority of government predates the rise of Protestantism by centuries.

And really, trying to blame the failure of Christianity to launch great things in countries not linked to England seems kind of like making excuses. "Oh, it's those darned Papists and their darned rituals that messed everything up."  I mean, the Bible is still the same, right? The important parts are still there, aren't they?

 -k

[blackbird]

20 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Well, first of all, Jesus did not come to build a political kingdom on earth.  He is not in the business of building some kind of global government.   Jesus kingdom is a spiritual kingdom he said, not of this world. 

So, christians should do what they can to help those in need and many do.   The bible does not say to set up a socialist system with every conceivable social service.

The American Republican party would not be a christian party, although there may be a lot of christians who support it.   They have to vote for one of two parties.  Not much choice.  There is no such thing as a "christian" political party.  We have no idea how many people in the U.S. are actually christians.  There may be a lot.  But they do not control a political party.   I would not say the religious right are less caring simply because they don't believe in a socialist system that Democrats might want.  Jesus never taught marxism or socialism.  Charity in the bible is an individual act, not something enforced on a nation like communism.  That said, there no prohibition against having government provide some social service such as medicare or the old age pension or welfare to take care of the poor.  How one votes for those things are a matter of individual preference, not bible commandments.  The bible says if a man will not work let him not eat.   It also exhorts charity and helping those in need. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, kimmy said:

The Magna Carta and the secular conflict between the rights of man and the authority of government predates the rise of Protestantism by centuries.

And really, trying to blame the failure of Christianity to launch great things in countries not linked to IEngland seems kind of like making excuses. "Oh, it's those darned Papists and their darned rituals that messed everything up."  I mean, the Bible is still the same, right? The important parts are still there, aren't they?

 -k

The Magna Carta might have come before the Reformation, but in the 1500s, kings still ruled as absolute monarchs.  It took much longer before they obtained an elected parliament.

No I am not opposed to atheists being in government, the media, and academic world.   I believe in democracy, not totalitarianism.   I am not oppressed by people who disagree with me and not oppressed by atheists.  Everyone has the right to believe what they wish.  That wasn't always the case.  Especially during the time of the Holy Roman Empire.  Even in the 1500s one could not publicly express contrary views.  Men were burned at the stake for translating the bible into the English Language.  Men paid with their lives for us to have the freedom of belief we have today.

Edited April 18, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

31 minutes ago, kimmy said:

 

And really, trying to blame the failure of Christianity to launch great things in countries not linked to England seems kind of like making excuses. "Oh, it's those darned Papists and their darned rituals that messed everything up."  I mean, the Bible is still the same, right? The important parts are still there, aren't they?

 

The Roman Church does NOT recognize the bible as it's final authority   Their final authority is called the Majesterium, a council of hierarchy.  Only Protestant Bible believers believe the bible as their final authority.  Of course today, many churches have gone downhill and fallen into error.  But at the time of the Reformation, the Jesuits were formed to counter the REformation.   They started the Counter-reformation.  They held a council around 1545 and decreed a long list heresies which Protestants believed.  I believe one of them was the Protestant belief of the right of private interpretation of the bible.  They condemned this.  You can mock my view that the Roman church held back progress in many countries, but the evidence is there.  Mexico, South America and Central America were exploited by Spain 500 years ago.  There are books written on that. 

Edited April 18, 2017 by blackbird

[Argus]

15 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Christianity also had many internecine wars in Europe...all good.

Irrelevant. There was internecine wars all across the globe, and they were worse in China and the Indian subcontinent. The point is that Christianity was a religion which allowed for change. Islam was and is a religion which does not allow for change since the Koran is considered to be the literal and perfect word of God.

[Argus]

15 hours ago, hot enough said:

If we shorten that time period to a realistic one, we find that all the European countries and its ancestors in the new world were responsible for raping and pillaging the whole world. 

The point you are ignoring is the question of why the Christian world was able to develop the scientific, technological and organizational tools which allowed them to conquer others. They started from behind, after all. Both the Chinese and the Muslim worlds were ahead of them.

[hot enough]

6 minutes ago, Argus said:

which allowed them to conquer others.

What you are ignoring is that they did conquer others, genocides, mass murder, and this has continued with a vengeance post WWII by the USA, tens of millions murdered, untold wealth stolen from the poor of the world. 

Why would be such an avid defender of such evil?

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Irrelevant. There was internecine wars all across the globe, and they were worse in China and the Indian subcontinent. The point is that Christianity was a religion which allowed for change. Islam was and is a religion which does not allow for change since the Koran is considered to be the literal and perfect word of God.

China had an emperor over the entire region, and a different structure with regards to power.  Christianity didn't "allow" for change, but change came as a myriad of centres of power disagreed on religious orthodoxy and other things.

It's possible to look at the attributes of a culture to determine how certain aspects result in certain effects, but not if your goal in the outset is to make your culture look better, to blame others etc.  It's called objectivity and you need to have it to consider such questions in a worthwhile way.

[eyeball]

On 4/16/2017 at 9:29 PM, blackbird said:

My own immediate thought is that atheism creates a kind of vacuum leaving one in a weakened state intellectually and more vulnerable to ideologies or false religions which basically are a threat to civilization as we know it.

My sense is that theism is a far more prevalent and direct threat to our existence.  Weak intellectualism is a result of the widespread long-running respect that has been demanded by and afforded to religious beliefs in the super-natural. It's the manner by which religion has normalized delusional thinking that has given rise to a veritable Babel of fantastical belief systems that exist in the world with new ones appearing almost daily. Even more damaging is the way religion has enculturated so many people in society to suspend their disbelief in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, climate change denial is a prime example. Anti-vaccinating is another.

Christianity in particular has taught billions of human beings to believe our planet is effectively disposable due to its being here for the taking and that there's another one waiting for them in the afterlife.  God's going to destroy it anyway so its no wonder so few care about it. 

Atheists are like people trapped in an insane asylum that is under the authority of the inmates.

Edited April 19, 2017 by eyeball

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

My sense is that theism is a far more prevalent and direct threat to our existence.  Weak intellectualism is a result of the widespread long-running respect that has been demanded by and afforded to religious beliefs in the super-natural. It's the manner by which religion has normalized delusional thinking that has given rise to a veritable Babel of fantastical belief systems that exist in the world with new ones appearing almost daily. Even more damaging is the way religion has enculturated so many people in society to suspend their disbelief in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, climate change denial is a prime example. Anti-vaccinating is another.

Christianity in particular has taught billions of human beings to believe our planet is effectively disposable due to its being here for the taking and that there's another one waiting for them in the afterlife.  God's going to destroy it anyway so its no wonder so few care about it. 

Atheists are like people trapped in an insane asylum that is under the authority of the inmates.

You seem to be making up a number of assumptions with no proof or evidence.

Yes there are many different religions in the world.  Of course each believer thinks his or her religion is the true one and all others are false.

There are many different denominations calling themselves christian.  I believe many of them probably are christian.  But there are others which are not biblical and would fall under the category of cults. 

You make the assumption that christians disbelieve in science.   This is not correct.  I can't really speak for other people so I will limit my answer to my own view.  I had a great interest in science when I was a kid and had my own chemistry lab at home.   I believe in true science, not fake science.  Of course the big debate is about evolution versus creation.  I don't think evolution is supported by science.   Also I am not convinced man-made global warming is proven.  I believe in climate change.  There has always been climate change, but not man-made climate change.  Anti-vaccination people are not restricted to certain christians.  I know there are some christians who don't believe in it, but I think the great majority are not anti-vaccination.   There are a lot of vegans or vegetarians who are anti-vaccination but who are not christians. 

You also err in saying christians think the planet is disposable.  I have talked to christians for decades and have never met one christian who believes that.  I think you made that one up on the fly.  Christians believe in responsible use of the creation that God has given us.  But they don't support environmental fanaticism, which we see a lot of these days.  Those people have their own religion, worshipping mother earth.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, blackbird said:

You seem to be making up a number of assumptions with no proof or evidence.

Yes there are many different religions in the world.  Of course each believer thinks his or her religion is the true one and all others are false.

There are many different denominations calling themselves christian.  I believe many of them probably are christian.  But there are others which are not biblical and would fall under the category of cults. 

Yes, I'm well aware there are a multitude of beliefs in super-natural things.  That's not what I'm getting at.  What I said is that the respect they're afforded is a threat because of how it normalizes belief in super-natural things with little to no basis in reality.

 

Quote

You make the assumption that christians disbelieve in science.   This is not correct.  I can't really speak for other people so I will limit my answer to my own view.  I had a great interest in science when I was a kid and had my own chemistry lab at home.   I believe in true science, not fake science.

What I said is that Christians along with all the other other super-naturalists will suspend their disbelieve and eschew science when it suits them, and so will you.

Quote

Of course the big debate is about evolution versus creation.  I don't think evolution is supported by science.   Also I am not convinced man-made global warming is proven.  I believe in climate change.  There has always been climate change, but not man-made climate change.  Anti-vaccination people are not restricted to certain christians.  I know there are some christians who don't believe in it, but I think the great majority are not anti-vaccination.   There are a lot of vegans or vegetarians who are anti-vaccination but who are not christians.

I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that many believers in super-natural will believe in multiple delusions, but again that isn't the point I was getting at. 

Quote

You also err in saying christians think the planet is disposable.  I have talked to christians for decades and have never met one christian who believes that.  I think you made that one up on the fly.  Christians believe in responsible use of the creation that God has given us.  But they don't support environmental fanaticism, which we see a lot of these days. 

This became obvious to me decades ago.  Some Christians believe in responsible use but many also don't. It's a fact that the most Christian nations on Earth are also the most profligate users of it and I think we're seeing a LOT more economic fanaticism than environmental.

 

Quote

Those people have their own religion, worshipping mother earth.

The object of their worship has a basis in reality at least which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for God.

[Argus]

23 hours ago, hot enough said:

What you are ignoring is that they did conquer others, genocides, mass murder,

Every nation with power conquered others. Europeans didn't tend to want genocide, however. Witness what happened when they conquered India, as opposed to what happened when Muslims conquered much of India. The point you are ignoring (again) in your zeal to condemn the West is how come the West grew more powerful while other powerful areas like the Muslim world and China grew weaker.