I thought you might say that, but you're not Catholic. Nor are the great many mobs that are being evangelized in largely developing countries. Making some bum a Pentecostal is no at all the same as converting someone to Catholicism or Orthodoxy. And it was my suggestion earlier that the preying of Protestantism on the uneducated and poor is not a good thing, as that "Church" won't, post-conversion, actually educate them.

The fact that you, Agustino, and your ilk are so afraid of Islam shows the emptiness of your ideas. You just want to keep what's yours and make sure no one else gets their share. — T Clark

Argue that Muhammad was an upstanding and moral man. If you can't do that, there should be an x in the top of right of your screen which you could perhaps click.

What rules the world? Money – military - politics – religion – movies – art – literature - ? What is common to all these things? Ideas. Ideas rule the world – always have and always will. Ideas breathe life into any institution. Civilization is only an idea. Ideas are our life’s blood. The philosopher's job is paramount and profound - one that is needed now more than ever. — Thinker

Money - military - politics - religion - movies - art - literature; most of these have nothing to do with ideas, at least not the kind of ideas we're talking about here. Definitely not "philosophical" ideas. Even if they did, spouting off about ideas on an obscure website won't do anything. You would have to take those ideas out into the world - start a company, run for Congress, write a book.

The fact that you, Agustino, and your ilk are so afraid of Islam shows the emptiness of your ideas. You just want to keep what's yours and make sure no one else gets their share. — T Clark

Right mate. First, I'm totally not afraid of Islam. What's there to be afraid of, at the moment Christianity is still holding sway. However, this doesn't mean that we should neglect a threat and let it grow to levels where it actually becomes dangerous. That's the reason behind the loss of many great powers in history - neglecting "little" insignificant threats.

We both hold a degree in the same profession, but it seems that unlike me, you're not very much self-motivated, by your own previous admissions on the forums. Maybe that explains your lack of understanding of history and your totally unrealistic opinion here:

Economic factors will have a much bigger impact on how things go in the future than religion. It's happening now. As poor countries become wealthier, Western countries' share of the wealth goes down, even if their standard of living does not. Formerly poor countries will take on a greater power role in the world. We will have less of a say in how things go. In terms of overall humanity, it's a good thing. — T Clark

Argue that Muhammad was an upstanding and moral man. If you can't do that, there should be an x in the top of right of your screen which you could perhaps click. — Heister Eggcart

I have no opinion about Muhammad's character. He died 1,400 years ago. It's not relevant to what we are discussing. Thousands, tens of thousands, of Catholic priests have raped tens of thousands of children, in many cases destroying their lives. Does that justify rejecting Christianity out of hand? Actually, maybe it does. That's not the only stain on the robe of Christianity.

As for me clicking on the x at the top right of my screen, are you saying that if I don't agree with you I should not express my opinion? Is that Christian or Islamic dogma?

Right mate. First, I'm totally not afraid of Islam. — Agustino

You certainly seem to be afraid of something.

... you're not very much self-motivated, by your own previous admissions on the forums. Maybe that explains your lack of understanding of history and your totally unrealistic opinion... — Agustino

So, let me see if I understand, I'm wrong not because you can provide any argument against my position, but because I lack self-motivation. It has to do with me and my character rather than the content of what I wrote. You are more qualified to make judgments because you are self-motivated and not because of the quality of your ideas. Is that correct?

I thought you might say that, but you're not Catholic. — Heister Eggcart

That's correct. But so what?

And it was my suggestion earlier that the preying of Protestantism on the uneducated and poor is not a good thing, as that "Church" won't, post-conversion, actually educate them. — Heister Eggcart

It is a curious thing. From afar, protestants (thinking here of evangelicals mainly) seem a lot more into their religion, at least superficially, than many lay Orthodox believers (or Catholic) that I know personally. But obviously I don't have as much acquaintance with protestants as you do. So what's your general take on Protestantism from within the belly of the beast?

On another note, would you say that this:

I'm very promiscuous, definitely. But you know what? Most of the females I've been promiscuous with were religious. Most people in general are still religious. A couple of the wildest females I've known seemed to be the most religious--one was a minister's daughter, one was at church more days of the week than not, etc. — Terrapin Station

Is a common experience with Protestant believers? >:O >:O

there should be an x in the top of right of your screen which you could perhaps click. — Heister Eggcart

Right, so now we know that you don't own a Mac ;) ;) ;)

You certainly seem to be afraid of something. — T Clark

The semblance is of your own making, it's a creation of your mind which has misjudged. Have you taken that possibility into account?

Is that correct? — T Clark

No.

If you used your mind I'm sure you could figure it out. Because I'm self-motivated I have studied the development, growth and decay of civilisations, which you, not being self-motivated and needing someone to prod you to do this and that, probably didn't.

If you used your mind I'm sure you could figure it out. Because I'm self-motivated I have studied the development, growth and decay of civilisations, which you, not being self-motivated and needing someone to prod you to do this and that, didn't. — Agustino

You missed my point. In the previous post and this one, you made a statement about my lack of understanding without addressing the content of my statement. Is my statement incorrect? Show me why.

There are a couple of factors which seem to have been left out of the projections.

One factor is the tenor of the two leading religions. In their local manifestation, either/both of the religions can be fiercely militant or accommodating, and have been both. The distribution of militant and accommodating believers coupled with demographics will matter a great deal. Some Christians and some Moslems are hot, cold, and lukewarm.

Global warming looms over all predictions. No area of earth will be untouched, but some will be touched more than others. How severe the effects of global warming are (and not just warming per se, but other consequences like drought, insect vectors and disease distributions, flooding, unpredictable rains and dry periods, food production, etc.) is going to result in disruption of population predictions and familiar climate conditions.

Now, people in North Africa, the Eastern Mediterranean, Western Asia, and Southern Asia are (sadly) unlikely to become Christians, Buddhists, or Atheists just because the weather is bad, but they may not be as successful in reproducing as they have been. The water crunch in the Middle East has not really hit hard yet. Their aquifers have been overdrawn (just like aquifers in the US great plains have been) and will be recharged only in the distant future. As oil production diminishes (owing to diminishing supply) the amount of income in the Middle East could be insufficient to support massive desalination projects and food imports.

So, projections of population growth may not be fulfilled.

A third factor is change in religious tenor. Christianity has gone through periods of decay and rejuvenation. In the colonial period, religiosity was not very intense. This changed in the early part of the 19th century in the unpredicted "great reawakening" episodes, the effects of which were long-enduring. I don't anticipate a great reawakening in Europe or North America, but it isn't at all inconceivable.

A new religion might appear; that would not necessarily be a good thing. There are possibilities that are quite unsavory.

Yes! Yes, my brethren and sisterern believers in our most solemn Krusade! The time draws nigh to use our most holey and scared defence! Yes, I could only be referring to this, the One and Only:


From the holy Book of Armaments, Chapter 2:
And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, "O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade that with it Thou mayest blow Thine enemies to tiny bits, in Thy mercy." And the Lord did grin and the people did feast upon the lambs and sloths and carp and anchovies and orangutans and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats and large chu... [At this point, the friar is urged by Brother Maynard to "skip a bit, brother"]... And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin, then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.

Yes, amen! And strength to the Writeous. And chronic diarrhoea to those who shall quarrelth with them, disputing their Glorious Mandate.

Is my statement incorrect? Show me why. — T Clark

For the simple reason that there is no evidence that as poor countries become wealthier, the share of the wealth of Western countries becomes lower. The GDP of the US relative to the GDP of the world was at roughly 25% in 1980 and it is at roughly 25% today, 40 years later.

Here's a chart for you to look over. Generally what led to changes in economic power were technological advances. When Europe became technologically superior to the whole rest of the Earth, they went around conquering and pillaging. Currently America, Russia, and China hold the world's power in their hands. It will be difficult for anyone to wrestle it away.


That's why the statement you made is hardly worth refuting. It's purely nonsense - a fantasy. You may believe that fantasy because it sounds nice for the world or some bullshit, but it doesn't make it true.

That's why the statement you made is hardly worth refuting. It's purely nonsense - a fantasy. You may believe that fantasy because it sounds nice for the world or some bullshit, but it doesn't make it true. — Agustino

I look at the charts you provided and they show a fairly constant decrease in the US's share of world GDP since 1950. Other Western countries also show something of a decrease. China shows a dramatic increase. This data is only through 2008. How have things changed since then?

I look at the charts you provided and they show a fairly constant decrease in the US's share of world GDP since 1950. Other Western countries also show something of a decrease. China shows a dramatic increase. This data is only through 2008. How have things changed since then? — T Clark

Well since 2008-2009 was the period of the financial crisis, those years marked a decrease for US/Western world. After that, if we use IMF statistics for 2016, the US is back at 25% of the world's GDP. US -> 18.5 trillion, World -> 75 trillion.

The fact is that the US is not decreasing at all, rather China, a nation of almost 2 billion people is growing and it should! It's completely unnatural for China to have a share of global GDP of 10% when it is home to 37% of the world's population. But if you look at the a better indicator for well-being, GDP per capita, you'll see that the US and UK and other Western countries have been growing far more as a percentage of world gdp/capita compared to the poor countries.

There is a problem within the liberal thinking community of philosopher’s. The problem is too much tolerance. There is nothing to salvage in Islam as a religion. The reason is because of Muhammad. When the head of the religion is impeached – the religion must fall. I imagine that is what happened to Zeus and Baal. The culture of Islam has good and bad aspects – like any culture. The religion is bankrupt; the culture will stand or fall on its merits alone.

There is a salient aspect of the Islamic culture which is extent today - the headscarf or hijab in Islamic culture. What does the hijab mean? It means men get to say how women dress. It means women are viewed as sexual objects. It means women are controlled and become the vessel and vehicle of Islamic propagation and domination. There is an Islamic cleric in Brussel’s that has recently said: “Democracy is the train we will ride to domination”. This is a true and disturbing statement. It is partially true because of the hijab. The hijab is part of the culture but comes from the Quran and Ahaditha and the ideas of Muhammad. The hijab is a type of enslavement.

What we need more than ever in society is the participation of women. For the last 5000 years men have dominated civilization. This fact still continues today. Have men done a good job? Not so much. Women are 50% of the human intellect and they are different than men. Women think differently than men and this is a good thing. We are not fully using 50% of our toolbox. This is dumb. Women are here to balance our prospective – not to overpower it – like men do now. We need a partnership in order for human beings to flourish and reach a new horizon. We need to honor women and men alike. This is common sense – not a radical idea.

Christianity may grow in the rest of the world, but it is on a steady decline in the West. Which is very unfortunate, as more and more people stumble upon a worldview that is a cancer on Western society - postmodernism. And all that it encompasses. Existentialist thought, nihilism, moral relativism, all of it is causing the West to decay. It truly is a sad sight, what once was the bastion of human civilization, has been reduced to nothing more than a fraction of what it once was. Nuclear Families are now a rarity, nobody has hope, individuality and responsibility are downplayed. The psychological impact of this can be seen clearly across the West, with rates of depression and other mental illnesses skyrocketing. You cannot expect Western values to remain afloat when you tear apart the very institutions, ideas, and beliefs that they stand on. You can't have the West without God, it is as simple as that.

Christianity may grow in the rest of the world, but it is on a steady decline in the West. Which is very unfortunate, as more and more people stumble upon a worldview that is a cancer on Western society - postmodernism. And all that it encompasses. Existentialist thought, nihilism, moral relativism, all of it is causing the West to decay. It truly is a sad sight, what once was the bastion of human civilization, has been reduced to nothing more than a fraction of what it once was. Nuclear Families are now a rarity, hope is a commodity, individuality and responsibility are downplayed. You cannot expect Western values to remain afloat when you tear apart the very institutions, ideas, and beliefs that they stand on. You can't have the West without God, it is as simple as that. — Gust

I fully agree with your sentiments, and commend you for making this post.

You are correct the growth of the very cancerous forms of hedonism, nihilism, moral relativism, sexual immorality which have largely swept through the Western world have left it in tatters. That's why our divorce rate is over 50%, most people actively fornicate and have no respect towards their own body or the body of their future partner, engage in idol worship, and are not at all concerned about the state of their souls.

However - my assessment is that this is now changing. A lot of the younger people are getting interested in religion once again, and have started to rebel against the prevalent nihilism and moral relativism prevalent in their societies. I've been saying this for a very long time, and some people question it, thinking that nihilism has already won, but that's far from the truth. I think we're on the edge of a rebirth of religion in the West, which will slowly spring up in the next 10 years, and enter into full force only in the coming decades.

One of the variables which has changed in the last 10 years is the percentage of wealth a small number of people control. "Eight men own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of humanity, according to a new report published by Oxfam today to mark the annual meeting of political and business leaders in Davos." If you take the richest 2000 people, there isn't much left.

Yes, these figures are open to various interpretations. "The Oxfam report calculates the wealth of the richest individuals using the Forbes Billionaires list and the wealth of the poorest groups from the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Report." When various caveats are figured in, it isn't 8 people that have more wealth than 50% of the world's population, it's about 60 people. 8, 60, 120, 500, 1000, 2000 -- what difference does it make? It's all very disproportionate.

And, chances are it will stay that way, because that much wealth controlled by a few people, the wealth can hardly avoid increasing at a generous rate. Poor farmers just can't generate new wealth for themselves quickly, unless they unearth a gold mine. And if they do unearth a gold mine, chances are that it will be taken away from them.

And, chances are it will stay that way, because that much wealth controlled by a few people, the wealth can hardly avoid increasing at a generous rate. Poor farmers just can't generate new wealth for themselves quickly, unless they unearth a gold mine. And if they do unearth a gold mine, chances are that it will be taken away from them. — Bitter Crank

Money is the best way to make money, and power is the best way to make power. However intelligence often does find ways to beat even those advantages, so they are never certain. But yes, due to the magic of compound interest, people who spend conservatively and have a lot of money are likely to remain rich for many generations to come.

Worthy is Atilla and his band of jolly Huns, but you know there weren't any hand grenades in 5th century Hungary, right? How the Germans became associated with the Huns is another story -- they were not associated in any way, shape, manner, or form. Also, Hungary wasn't Christian at the time -- not for a few hundred years.

What do you think? What's the future of religions looking to be on the Earth? Which religions will be popular 100 years from now and why? — Agustino

I think that the future of religion on Earth is irreligion. Christianity and Islam will go the way of Judiasm, and like cultural Jews might identify somehow with the values espoused by traditionalists but won't take them very seriously. Christianity already has a great number of these in the form of families who attend church ceremonies less than once a year and whose main connections to the ideology come in the form of Christmas, Easter, and contemplating existence and belief in the afterlife when confronted with death.

While I don't think religion will ever go away, in regions where technology and wealth continue to offer more and more diversity in choice and quality of education, indoctrination (especially of one's children) into religious schools of thought will become more and more difficult. Islam will likely outlast/overtake Christianity because the regions where it's popular are currently more orthodox on average and lag behind the west in terms of technology, but I suspect that the trend of atheism will continue grow. We will take religious beliefs less and less seriously as our societal intellect matures and the need for it is lessened.

Have you not read what I said? Atheists aren't reproducing. They will be gone as fast as they have appeared. Religion is currently in that watered down form, but that's not going to be forever. As I've said, if you look at the young population, you'll see many religious "revolutionaries", myself included.

our societal intellect matures and the need for it is lessened. — VagabondSpectre

>:O My IQ is quite high, believe me on that, there's no problem with it. And I totally see a need for religion. But forget myself, many of the brightest minds in history have been theists - Leibniz, Newton, etc.

I have no opinion about Muhammad's character. — T Clark

Enough of an opinion to suggest that Thinker's characterization of Mohammad was and is an "empty idea" ...

He died 1,400 years ago.

Having sex with a child is immoral, whether it's now or 1,400 years ago. Do you contest this?

It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

Seeing as you replied to Thinker's post about Muhammad's character and the need for [Christians] to use moral argument in light of Islam's cherished prophet, I fail to see any other discussion being attempted, from either you or Thinker.

Thousands, tens of thousands, of Catholic priests have raped tens of thousands of children, in many cases destroying their lives. Does that justify rejecting Christianity out of hand? Actually, maybe it does. That's not the only stain on the robe of Christianity.

Ah, yes, this ole flimsy defense. Sees discussion about Muhammad and Islam, decides to move the goal posts so the topic changes to being about Catholic priests. Sigh, I really do tire of seeing this argumentative approach, here and elsewhere. If you or anyone wants to critique Mohammad, compare him to Jesus. If you want to analyze immorality in Catholic priests, compare it to Muslim Imams. But, this would rubbish your position, so I'm sure you won't do that, which is why you've proclaimed not to have an opinion on a psychopathic, child molesting desert warlord in Muhammad, but will readily scream about pedophilic priests, giving your opinion on them when no one desired it.

Have you not read what I said? Atheists aren't reproducing. They will be gone as fast as they have appeared. Religion is currently in that watered down form, but that's not going to be forever. As I've said, if you look at the young population, you'll see many religious "revolutionaries", myself included. — Agustino

Atheists don't need to reproduce! All babies are atheists ;) And the ability of parents to adequately indoctrinate them seems to be on a down slope. If we actually look at the young population, we see many religious "revolutionaries", but we also see unending hordes of self-absorbed hipsters and social media addicts. How successful has religion been at branding itself through social media so far? If you want to win the children, you've got to do it in an arena that cannot be formalized or controlled.

What makes you think that watered down religion is going to go away? Why shouldn't it just get more watered down (especially as more countries begin to figure out that secularism is blatantly a better bet than theocracy)? What's going to change that will reverse these trends in the west and possibly globally as we slowly but surely globalize?

The main reason why I'm not very swayed by birth and conversion rates is that historical trends aren't going to be representative of the novel and sweeping change that is happening across the globe. The real history of religious growth and decline is a messy line of ups and downs which correlate with the local contributory factors of the time, and so drawing conclusions about the immediate future from long term trends can be quite risky. For instance, Islam might be on the rise especially in borderline third world countries (countries with large and impoverished populations) but as the wealth of these nations grows, maybe that trend will be reversed as it has been for Christianity by a surge of irreligion. I prefer an analysis of the causation over statistical projections, but if we focus on recent trends only and set aside the prediction that we will soon return to a world of fire and brimstone, then atheism and irreligion is set to rise...

Change (more than ever before) is what typifies the contemporary world, and so I would have predictions of the future take this into account, but that usually makes it far too difficult.

Christianity may grow in the rest of the world, but it is on a steady decline in the West. Which is very unfortunate, as more and more people stumble upon a worldview that is a cancer toward Western society - postmodernism. And all that it encompasses. Existentialist thought, nihilism, moral relativism, all of it is causing the West to decay. It truly is a sad sight, what once was the bastion of human civilization, has been reduced to nothing more than a fraction of what it once was. Nuclear Families are now a rarity, hope is a commodity, individuality and responsibility are downplayed. You cannot expect Western values to remain afloat when you tear apart the very institutions, ideas, and beliefs that they stand on. You can't have the West without God, it is as simple as that. — Gust

So, you bemoan the decay of the west. Ok – I bemoan the decay of the world, because we do not understand how civilization got here. Where do you think civilization comes from? How did it get its start? Think back – way back – in the cave – or even before the cave – what happened? Or, maybe I should first ask – what is civilization? Civilization is a social contract. People band together for mutual benefit – right? So, what is the first “banding” together for mutual benefit? It is a mother and a child. A mother and child is the first social contract and the foundation of all civilization. What holds a mother and child together – love. A mother loves her child because she loves herself. A mother loves herself because she learned love from her mother. A very practical dynamic – that - sets in motion a force - which humans use to propel themselves through life’s journey. What is the basis of civilization – it is the love bond between a mother and child. Love is a kind of contract between two beings. I call mother/child love the first human contract. It is an agreement to protect, nurture, cherish and persist. This contract is what gives civilization its start. More importantly – it is what holds civilization together – today and on into the future.

Want to save the world – honor and cherish women – now. It is not a guarantee – but it is a good start. You want a better world – support your local love machine – mother and child.

That's correct. But so what? — Agustino

There's a pretty big difference between not being Catholic and being Catholic, just as there's a huge gulf [teehee] between Sufism and some other sect of Islam. Pentecostalism doesn't save Christianity, just as radical Islamism doesn't save Islam.

It is a curious thing. From afar, protestants (thinking here of evangelicals mainly) seem a lot more into their religion, at least superficially, than many lay Orthodox believers (or Catholic) that I know personally. But obviously I don't have as much acquaintance with protestants as you do. So what's your general take on Protestantism from within the belly of the beast? — Agustino

Islamist suicide bombers seem pretty "into their religion." But does that make what they say or believe in right? Or does it mean that they actually understand their "religion"? I don't think so.

And for what it's worth, since you inquired, I don't think Protestants are any more pious, let's say, than their Catholic or Orthodox counterparts. Although it's true I've not been in contact or have surrounded myself with as many Catholics and Orthodox Christians, I can confirm from my own experience that the mumbling and hand flipping many evangelical Protestants do have no bearing on how they treat others. They're as rotten and sinful as everyone else, so there's definitely an outward, superficial aspect there that you had best not get lured in by.

I also think that Lutherans and Methodists and all other bland ass, more leftist Protestant denominations are as fake as the evangelicals. Though, perhaps James Comey is the most moral Methodist I "know", 8-)

Is a common experience with Protestant believers? — Agustino

Many of the minister's daughters I have met are simply strange, dunno about promiscuous...haven't tried them out >:)

Right, so now we know that you don't own a Mac — Agustino

But we both know that Sappy sure does, ;)

>:O My IQ is quite high, believe me on that, there's no problem with it. And I totally see a need for religion. But forget myself, many of the brightest minds in history have been theists - Leibniz, Newton, etc. — Agustino

I'm not suggesting that smart people cannot be theists or even that dumb people tend to be theists; I don't doubt your IQ. What I was more so referring to is the basic degree of sophistication that exists in a society not just in terms of the average intellect, but also in the social institutions which enshrine and enact the social services which religion has historically been a primary provider of. Secularization seems to occur as a developing society realizes that it needs improved standards (such as reason and fact based justice) to confront the novel challenges that growth and success produce.

Some argue that individually there is a psychological need for some religious values, and while I consider myself an exception I might assent to that reality for many. But socially, in terms of how we organize and how we can best improve, I don't see any strictly religious values that could be of assistance, so I think they'll decline.

Unpredictable, indeed. In 1950 the future of Christianity in the United States looked very bright. Everything pointed toward the enduring popularity of Christian faith and institutions. Then, in the 1960s, there was an abrupt mass exodus. The hippies left? I suppose the hippies left, but the millions of Catholics, millions of Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, et al who left were mostly very conventional people--not outliers. They left, and they didn't come back. Nuns and monks left the orders in droves. Seminaries started retrenching, as vocation applicants shrank.

The Christian church in the United States is certainly not dead, and it isn't dying--it is diminished. Fewer adherents, and adherents with more varied theological stances, but adherents none the less.

From the experience of the last 60 years we can not conclude that the church will continue to shrink, or that it will suddenly start expanding again. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Atheists don't need to reproduce! All babies are atheists — VagabondSpectre

True. Rather than the term "atheist" I think "secular" and "secularized" is better. Secularization is an active process brought about by urbanization, technology, communication, prosperity, education, and other factors. Of course, urban, techno-sophisticated, plugged in, prosperous and educated people may be religious, but they are more likely not to be, certainly less likely to be traditionally religious.

They're as rotten and sinful as everyone else, so there's definitely an outward, superficial aspect there that you had best not get lured in by. — Heister Eggcart

They also have as much integrity, interest in salvation, and are as attentive to the teaching of Jesus as everyone else.

I have had lots of interaction with conservative and liberal Catholics, mainline Protestants and evangelicals. Sincere and earnest believers are all pretty much alike, as are lukewarm believers, whatever their denominational membership.

I also think that Lutherans and Methodists and all other bland ass, more leftist Protestant denominations are as fake as the evangelicals. — Heister Eggcart

My, such a glittering generality. What, actually, do you know about Lutherans and Methodists?

What is your idea of the Genuine article?