From atop my jaggedly evil atheist spire I have precisely 0 skin in the game (or any left unscarred at this point), so it's more of a fun contrary position to take than a serious belief, but if I did have to bet then I would bet on secularization, heart and mind. Not just because I think it's generally a more desirable state of affairs but because I hold out hope most developing nations will be able to see that.

In the end it all does come down to factors that are not adequately predictable. Augustino alludes to some future point where our wealth and prosperity go away (almost as if he holds out hope for it :p), and it troubles me that he might be completely correct. For the loser now might be later at a win, for the times, they are a changin'.

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 agree with what you said, and as distressingly stupid as some POMO 'texts' are, in all fairness I don't think POMO, a few French Philosophers and American graduate students are responsible for the Decline of the West.

My personal opinion is that economics has done much more damage to the family, religion, and other important institutions than any philosophical strand could have. Concentration of wealth has resulted in a concentration of power, and in both cases, most individuals lack both wealth and power -- sometimes having too little to keep body and soul together.

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

Yes, and I'm sure all Christians drink water, too.

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. — Bitter Crank

I think I'd venture to agree with you here, though I still think it's important to separate x believer with y believer on the grounds of what they believe, not merely how fervently they believe.

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

Firstly, that you're either Lutheran or Methodist, considering the bitterness of your tenor at present. Secondly, I never claimed that all Methodists or Lutherans or what have you are fakes. In this thread at least I'm not being positive with regard to Protestants because they've been very little good to me and my family. Those legions of charlatans I've come in contact with ought to feel the heat of hellfire, but tu, Bitter Crankus? No, I like you. You seem like a good, upstanding gentleman.

Firstly, that you're either Lutheran or Methodist, considering the bitterness of your tenor at present. — Heister Eggcart

I was being bitter at present? (Hrumphs bitterly to himself... O the fickleness of the world!)

but tu, Bitter Crankus? No, I like you. You seem like a good, upstanding gentleman. — Heister Eggcart

I'm far more of a cultural Christian than an ardent believer. Whether I even believe in it is unclear. I hang around a Lutheran church because it is near by (across the street) and it helps me maintain a little community with other people. I would prefer a bit more community, and would like to have more gays and oddball outliers among my circle,. But success in seeking oddballs and outliers in Lutheran churches is contraindicated.

That is certainly what I hope for, I have a feeling that young people just might disregard the foolish philosophical ideas of those who came before them. Young people who were born within the last 16 years in particular. Who knows, could be another Great Awakening.

Did you ever read Young Man Luther by Erik Erikson?

I'm far more of a cultural Christian than an ardent believer. Whether I even believe in it is unclear. I hang around a Lutheran church because it is near by (across the street) and it helps me maintain a little community with other people. I would prefer a bit more community, and would like to have more gays and oddball outliers among my circle,. But success in seeking oddballs and outliers in Lutheran churches is contraindicated. — Bitter Crank

I got that sense, but...you sort of prove my point from earlier, that a lot of religious people aren't particularly religious, they just value a sense of community super highly.

Edit: I mean, how many religions would even survive without a community component? How many Christians would there be if they couldn't hang out, go to church, play basketball in the gym after a potluck, etc.? No community and you just end up with a couple monks out in the middle of nowhere.

No, but I have read some of Luther (little catechism) and read some other books about him, and of course sung some of his lyrics.

Interesting aside... Luther represented his childhood as quite poor. It wasn't. Luther's family was fairly well off. They were in the mining and smelting business.

a lot of religious people aren't particularly religious — Heister Eggcart

True enough. Perhaps we differ in what we mean by "religious'. If religion refers to the rituals of the church (kneeling, genuflecting, saying certain creeds, praying certain prayers, singing certain responses, etc.) then sure, a lot of people aren't religious.

However, if you mean by religion that they enact the beliefs of the faith (the various corporal acts of charity, unconditional generosity, etc.) then you find far fewer pseudo-religious people, because people aren't unconditionally generous, usually, unless they really are motivated by good feeling toward others. In fact, you probably don't find a lot of genuine believers, period, because following Jesus or Buddha is hard.

how many religions would even survive without a community component — Heister Eggcart

I'd go so far as to say a religion which doesn't foster community (people together) isn't worth having or saving.

I'd go so far as to say a religion which doesn't foster community (people together) isn't worth having or saving — Bitter Crank

Most major religions have always had an ascetic component, practiced to varying degrees. I personally have trouble with both concepts; I see value in each.

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. — Heister Eggcart

Sure, what does that have to do with me using the Catholic Church for the sake of this discussion though?

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. — Heister Eggcart

Well yeah, I don't think there's much comparison between strapping bombs to your chest and blowing yourself up, and fervently praying, reading, discussing the Bible.

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. — Heister Eggcart

Okay thanks for sharing that.

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

>:O

But we both know that Sappy sure does, ;) — Heister Eggcart

Sappy has a poster of Jeremy Corbyn on his bedroom wall for sure! :D

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

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning.

And the ability of parents to adequately indoctrinate them seems to be on a down slope. — VagabondSpectre

Parents don't need to be indoctrinated at all. My parents most certainly didn't "indoctrinate" me in my religious views. I learned myself, through self-education.

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. — VagabondSpectre

God BLESS the unending hordes of self-absorbed hipsters and social media addicts - without them, religion could most definitely not win. But their weakness, sloth, laziness and complete lack of virtue is a gift. These people will change with the winds, they pose no resistance at all. So let's see - on the one side, we have the fervently religious, who are determined to save their societies, and on the other you have punk-ass kids who like to have lots of sex and play video games and don't give a fuck about their world. Whose going to win, you tell me?

What makes you think that watered down religion is going to go away? — VagabondSpectre

It's not going to go away, it's going to reduce. People will understand where nihilism and atheism lead to, namely complete social disintegration, which is, by the way, exactly what we're witnessing in the West right now. The rise of rampant hedonism, an ideology that takes life as something to be enjoyed, rising divorce rates (50%+), broken families, the dissolution of hope (and I'm not talking about some puny ass "better technology" or "better economic conditions" hope that liberals always trump about - that's fake hope as far as I'm concerned), the promotion of vices by the media and Hollywood, etc.

Religion will bring the missing order into society.

What's going to change that will reverse these trends in the west and possibly globally as we slowly but surely globalize? — VagabondSpectre

The rise of religious movements combined with a complete renunciation of PC and neo-liberal dogma that permits such unnatural trends to exist in the first place. The election of Donald Trump, and BREXIT, are just the beginnings.

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. — VagabondSpectre

Right, I don't see how development is antithetical to religious values. Religious values, on the contrary, have given birth to all that development we've witnessed in the West. It's only in recent history, once those values were abandoned, that the West started to collapse, which is where we stand today in history.

Augustino alludes to some future point where our wealth and prosperity go away — VagabondSpectre

No, actually I don't. We'll be more prosperous than ever, and it will be a true golden age, when religion and morality finally return in full force in Western society - it will be a new Renaissance.

Concentration of wealth has resulted in a concentration of power, and in both cases, most individuals lack both wealth and power -- sometimes having too little to keep body and soul together. — Bitter Crank

Right. When Job had everything taken away from him, had diseases cast on him, and saw his whole world collapsing, he could keep his soul and faith in God together. And yet, these weaklings today can't even keep their body and soul together in much less pressing circumstances because of the concentration of wealth and power. Give me a break.

This faux paradigm confuses many people. It's not the outward circumstances that determine the inner, but the other way around - the inner determines the outward. As above, so below.

When you see these feminazis sometimes you feel bad for being a fellow human being >:O

So let's see - on the one side, we have the fervently religious, who are determined to save their societies, and on the other you have punk-ass kids who like to have lots of sex and play video games and don't give a fuck about their world — Agustino

I know many "fervent atheists" who are "determined to save their societies". I don't agree with them, but I respect their fervor, and find it lacking in more of (but not all of) my Christian friends.

I know many "fervent atheists" who are "determined to save their societies". I don't agree with them, but I respect their fervor, and find it lacking in more of (but not all of) my Christian friends. — Noble Dust

Indeed, fervor is the key. I see atheists as spiritual beings of a sort. Atheists are profound thinkers. They have looked deeply at the universe and come to an understanding – a knowing. This knowing has logic, but more importantly it is a feeling of what is right. After all the logic and reasoning is done they arrive at a conclusion – an evaluation. The conclusion is almost superfluous to their sense of being settled. What we seek is to be settled – we want to know – something. This knowing is a spiritual journey – no matter what you think. The journey is special and it is worthy. Atheism is a religion of one. It doesn’t matter if they think they are God or there is no God. They have come to a knowing. What we see in an atheist intellect is courage – this is noble.

Is it right? Who cares – it is a conclusion of significance. The significance is that they have a feeling – a knowing. We live our entire life moving from one feeling to another. We play leap frog in our minds from one moment to the next. The feelings are what makes our journey unique and it is a spiritual quest to find ourselves. To know thyself is a holy quest and it is unending. I applaud the man or woman of courage who seeks their own destiny and knowing. Those people who line up to be told what to think – do not show much courage.

In fact, you probably don't find a lot of genuine believers, period, because following Jesus or Buddha is hard. — Bitter Crank

How many Christians would drop everything and follow Him if He came upon your doorstep? Methinks very few. The idea of Jesus is quite nice, but if the reality came knocking...hard, I agree.

Sure, what does that have to do with me using the Catholic Church for the sake of this discussion though? — Agustino

If the discussion is about saving Christianity, getting a bunch of evangelical Protestants mucking about doesn't save Christianity or the Catholic Church.

but I respect their fervor, and find it lacking in more of (but not all of) my Christian friends. — Noble Dust

You know what I've found in many Christians? Fear. Fear that somehow this world doesn't belong to them, and they must adjust to that fact. Reticence. They're not willing to take action - they're not willing to fight for their beliefs. The atheists act as if they are right, and anyone in their right mind should follow them. Christians should adopt the same attitude and fight back, otherwise they can't win. So yes, the fact that fervor is lacking in your Christian friends is a problem. Fire them up. Get them to believe.

If the discussion is about saving Christianity, getting a bunch of evangelical Protestants mucking about doesn't save Christianity or the Catholic Church. — Heister Eggcart

Good, now you're finally saying something. What should be done then?

Good, now you're finally saying something. — Agustino

What should be done then? — Agustino

Kill the infidels.

Kill the infidels. — Heister Eggcart

No, something moral and realistic please. I expected you to have an opinion if you're so into criticising what you see.

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. — Agustino

Either you are interpreting the charts wrong or I don't understand what you are trying to say. The first two charts show that the US's share of worldwide GNP has been decreasing fairly steadily between 1950 and 2008. That is relevant to my statement about the changing world. Agreed - the data does not show the past 10 years.

The third chart shows that the absolute value of per capita income in the US has been increasing faster than other countries. That is something completely different and is not relevant to what we were discussing.

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. — Bitter Crank

That is an important issue, but I'm not sure if it is relevant to the point I was trying to make. Do you think so?

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. — Heister Eggcart

Sigh? That's a cogent argument? Furthermore, I disagree. The behavior of priests is much more a measure of the health and value of a religion than what happened more than a thousand years ago. Beyond that, you are being disingenuous. Muhammad is your straw man. If you thought Islam was a religion that shared values and dogma with yours, you wouldn't have brought up Mohammad's behavior. You only bring it up for rhetorical purposes - to try to convince people when your other arguments can't.

It doesn't matter what Mohammad did 14 centuries ago. It matters what Islam does now.

My personal opinion is that economics has done much more damage to the family, religion, and other important institutions than any philosophical strand could have. Concentration of wealth has resulted in a concentration of power, and in both cases, most individuals lack both wealth and power -- sometimes having too little to keep body and soul together. — Bitter Crank

I agree. Related to the concentration of power and wealth is the corporatization of the world economy. Maybe the rise of corporations caused the concentration of wealth.

As a side note, a joke I like - Republicans think life begins at incorporation.

I think the religion Mongrel is referring to will look a lot like Noblosh's avatar. Apathetic, bored, passive aggressive, and claiming to have read "that fucking book" even though the drool has soiled the ink. — Heister Eggcart

That's not true, I'm full on aggressive! But yes, I'm bored, bored of worthless and off the point critiques like yours, not designed with any productive purpose in mind but the satisfaction of a disgruntled and pretentious jerk. Apathetic because of so much uncodemned foolishness in the world that goes on to reproduce ad infinitum.

Because Islam will not permit this forum! — Thinker

And why would Christianity permit it? Christian or Islamic theocracy, I can't care less for the difference.

That's your opinion, but I'd argue that you are absolutely wrong. The desire for the transcendent (including God) is a natural human desire, which existed from the very beginning of mankind. So babies aren't born atheists, they're born with a desire for God from the very beginning. — Agustino

I have argued something similar on another post, although I don't think the "transcendent" necessarily means "god," at least as Christianity and Islam see him. I think there is a (possibly) hardwired capacity and motivation to look for something beyond ourselves.

No, something moral and realistic please. I expected you to have an opinion if you're so into criticising what you see. — Agustino

I don't necessarily think there's a clear cut solution to the problem. At the very least I don't think it's prudent for the Catholic church to water down its liturgy so it's more agreeable with vacuous, stupid people, which is the targeted demographic of many Protestant denominations. ~ Is Orthodoxy watering itself down, though? And if it isn't, is it also dying?

Also, I'd say there needs to be more of a shift in society in general toward the arts, philosophy, etc., which would create an environment where thinking is appreciated and religion isn't just some afterlife bet or community dispenser. The "fixes", say, that the Catholic Church need in order to preserve Western Civ can't only come from itself. A whole more needs to fall into line in order for there to be generations of thoughtful Christians.

You know what I've found in many Christians? Fear. Fear that somehow this world doesn't belong to them, — Agustino

The fact is, this world does not belong to them. It never has. I doubt it will. I'm glad it doesn't. It will be good for the Christians to learn a bit of humility. Didn't Jesus talk about the importance of humility?

Sigh? That's a cogent argument? Furthermore, I disagree. The behavior of priests is much more a measure of the health and value of a religion than what happened more than a thousand years ago. — T Clark

Priests did not establish Christianity, however, Jesus Christ did, just as Muhammad founded Islam. As I said, critiquing priests in light of critiquing Muhammad is moving the goal posts, and is in fact a straw man.

Beyond that, you are being disingenuous. Muhammad is your straw man. If you thought Islam was a religion that shared values and dogma with yours, you wouldn't have brought up Mohammad's behavior. You only bring it up for rhetorical purposes - to try to convince people when your other arguments can't. — T Clark

Huh? I do not think Islam shares the same values as Christianity, which is why Muhammad was brought up, seeing as his reprehensible nature is entirely inferior to that of Jesus Christ's.

It doesn't matter what Mohammad did 14 centuries ago. It matters what Islam does now. — T Clark

I think it does matter that Islam now glorifies a child molesting warmonger as their religion's most moral man and enlightened prophet. I, among others, find this reverence toward Muhammad to be appalling and sickening.

Additionally, you're trying to paint me as a hypocrite for defending Christianity and not Islam, solely on the grounds of there being pedophilic priests. I contest this because the Church, and indeed 99.9% of all Christians, vehemently condemn the actions taken by those improper priests, which has resulted in their defrocking, being thrown out of the Church, and in many cases being charged criminally by secular law. So, on one hand we have a religion in Christianity that has been immensely embarrassed by the sex abuse scandal and which has taken drastic steps to eradicate the occurrence of such instances within its institution, while on the other hand, we've Islam that looks at child molesting sex abuse as a virtue in Muhammad, the ideal man. If you fail to see this dichotomy, then I don't know what else I can do to assuage you of your irrationality.