Okay here's some simple math for you. GDP/capita growth rate.

West - 29156/5663 = 5.15
Africa - 1620/852 = 1.90
Latin America - 7163/2554 = 2.80
Eastern Europe - 8886/2120 = 4.19
Former USSR - 6450/2834 = 2.28
World - 8100/2114 = 3.83

CONCLUSION: The West is growing faster in its share of wealth relative to its population than pretty much any other region listed above, including, on average the world as a whole.

The Catholic Church has already made a lot of concessions. I just don't see them making a bunch more. — Heister Eggcart

The point is they've made too many. Why are they making them? Sometimes I feel that the high up Church officials have adopted a Wayfarer mentality of not "pushing hot buttons". Quite the contrary, they should push hot buttons so much that their position stops being taken as laughable in the general culture, and is given a fair hearing.

Won't change for the better if the Christian standard is evangelical Protestantism. — Heister Eggcart

I didn't mean to suggest switching to evangelical Protestantism is the answer.

At the moment, the leftist media is driving the narrative by ostracising views which are not politically correct. The Church can't express its position with regards to abortion properly, because then Amy Schumer will be upset that she can't use her pussy as she wants to. The solution to that is to overwhelm them with continuous expression of those views, to show that the people who hold them are not ashamed of holding them, and they aren't views one should be ashamed of holding in the first place.

Not only will continuous and public expression of such views overwhelm them, the media itself will start reporting on it because it would be outrageous in their eyes. News worthy! Suddenly religion would be gaining a lot of air-time, for free.

I was simply quoting Wikipedia about the different ages of consent in various parts of North America. Probably off-topic. Sorry if that was so upsetting. Want to talk and share about it? You are among friends here. Though i am not a therapist. I am not even a lawyer, let alone a supreme arbiter of Universal Justice.

Hey, if Ted Nugent can put aside the harsh words, surely we can too.

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? — T Clark

Yes, I think it's relevant -- that's why I posted it.

You were discussing charts of relative GDP over time. That's important, but it isn't the only operative factor in the way wealth affects cultural trends, including economic trends (see Piketty). The point I was making is that a very small number of people -- from a number of countries, including countries like Mexico--not a top GDP player itself--control a vast amount of wealth, wherever it is coming from.

If wealth were equitably distributed, then GDP would be of paramount importance, but wealth isn't evenly distributed. You know about the 1% in the US, but in the world it is far less than 1%. We could assemble the richest people in the world, put them in a large ballroom, and they would have room to move around--get to the drinks and hors d'oeuvre tables, do some slow dancing, and do whatever the richest people in the world do together -- I don't know what they do, maybe sit around in a circle and jerk off. This group would control more wealth than maybe 70% of the world's population (just a guess, could be more).

Rich people have always pushed their own agendas -- what's the point of being rich if you can't do that? -- and that includes religious agendas. For instance, the Saud family which more or less owns Saudi Arabia, are quite rich and can regretably pay for the promotion of ultraconservative Wahabi Islam.

It's hard for me to even find your argument. Why won't you substantively reply to my last post to you? What's wrong? — Heister Eggcart

Your last post to me was a reiteration of your other posts to me. I've responded to it several times already. I think it makes sense for us to recognize that it doesn't make any sense for us to keep kicking the can back and forth. We are not getting anywhere.

Not only will continuous and public expression of such views overwhelm them, the media itself will start reporting on it because it would be outrageous in their eyes. News worthy! Suddenly religion would be gaining a lot of air-time, for free. — Agustino

For better or worse, in the eyes of many, including many Catholics, the Catholic Church has lost the authority to preach morality. The major cause for that is the abuse of Catholic children by priests. That's not a moral statement, just a practical one.

For better or worse, in the eyes of many, including many Catholics, the Catholic Church has lost the authority to preach morality. — T Clark

Yes, that perception is exactly what must change. And it begins by the Church not being ashamed of its positions.

CONCLUSION: The West is growing faster in its share of wealth relative to its population than pretty much any other region listed above, including, on average the world as a whole. — Agustino

You shur are a slippery feller. You keep changing the question. Here is the statement in question - "As poor countries become wealthier, Western countries' share of the wealth goes down.."

Here is the statement in question - "As poor countries become wealthier, Western countries' share of the wealth goes down.." — T Clark

Yes, that statement is false.

Yes, that statement is false. — Agustino

I think you and I are going around in circles. Probably a good time to stop.

Well I don't actually understand what you don't understand about it now. The facts are clear. You seem to agree to this:

CONCLUSION: The West is growing faster in its share of wealth relative to its population than pretty much any other region listed above, including, on average the world as a whole. — Agustino

If you do, then your statement is false. How can it be true that as poor countries become wealthier, Western countries' share of the wealth goes down when Western countries' wealth grows FASTER than the wealth of poor countries? In relative terms the West is getting richer while the poor are getting poorer.

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 — Agustino

Yes, and what does this stem from?

Yes, and what does this stem from? — Noble Dust

It stems from the fact that the atheists have created a world and a society which is profoundly anti-Christian. They have employed the means of social pressure and ridicule to make Christians ashamed of what they believe, and to make them feel inferior. They have made them feel that this is not their world, and they can't make a home here.

I disagree, I don't think atheists (such a broad term!) have any sort of ulterior motive to destroy a Christian viewpoint. Some may, and some leading "new atheists" may. But I don't think the average atheist has this view.

They have made them feel that this is not their world, and they can't make a home here. — Agustino

To the contrary, I think the Christian feeling of not "owning" this world is due exactly to Christian theology. Christians of every ilk are taught that this world is fallen, and that salvation exists in a world that is beyond this world. What exactly do you want, Augustino? Do you want this world, or the world to come? This world does not belong to Christian dogma and theology, but the next one does. Which is it?

Some may, and some leading "new atheists" may. But I don't think the average atheist has this view. — Noble Dust

The average atheist today is a New Atheist.

Do you want this world, or the world to come? — Noble Dust

Both.

This is a common misunderstanding that is floating around which is doing much damage. The irony, which Socrates best revealed, is that surprisingly, the person who most prepares for the next world, will also live the best kind of life in this world. I posted this over 1 year ago, read especially the underlined bits:

Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. It is wrong because participants who engage in it hurt their own psyche, in ways that prevent them from fully enjoying intimacy. Sex has the potential to bring people together, but misused, it just shuts one inside of themselves even more. Someone who has sex without being committed loses out. Also, promiscuous sex betrays a character defect - it shows someone who cannot control their passions, and does not respect their body and mind and is easily lured by easy pleasure. In the end, Sapientia, regardless of what you think, virtue is its own reward, and the virtuous man, as Socrates said, "cannot be harmed, either in life or in death!". Or as Jesus said, "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven [Virtue] and ALL things shall be added unto you". Or to come back to Socrates: "Wealth does not bring about excellence, but EXCELLENCE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively". It is not sex that is bad, but the lack of virtue that underlies promiscuous sex that is bad. And if you think it's otherwise, then I think you are decieved and under the spell of an illusion, so I advise that you think carefully about this. By abandoning virtue, a man or a woman abandons that which makes everything else good in this world. That is why the first Biblical commandment was: "have no other Gods before me" - because virtue (God) makes ALL other things good, and nothing can be good without virtue. — Agustino

Mutual consent or not doesn't change the wrongness of it. It is wrong because participants who engage in it hurt their own psyche, in ways that prevent them from fully enjoying intimacy. Sex has the potential to bring people together, but misused, it just shuts one inside of themselves even more. Someone who has sex without being committed loses out. Also, promiscuous sex betrays a character defect - it shows someone who cannot control their passions, and does not respect their body and mind and is easily lured by easy pleasure. In the end, Sapientia, regardless of what you think, virtue is its own reward, and the virtuous man, as Socrates said, "cannot be harmed, either in life or in death!". Or as Jesus said, "seek first the Kingdom of Heaven [Virtue] and ALL things shall be added unto you". Or to come back to Socrates: "Wealth does not bring about excellence, but EXCELLENCE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively". It is not sex that is bad, but the lack of virtue that underlies promiscuous sex that is bad. And if you think it's otherwise, then I think you are decieved and under the spell of an illusion, so I advise that you think carefully about this. By abandoning virtue, a man or a woman abandons that which makes everything else good in this world. That is why the first Biblical commandment was: "have no other Gods before me" - because virtue (God) makes ALL other things good, and nothing can be good without virtue. — Agustino

These are beautiful thoughts - thank you.

Both. — Agustino

So do I, but I'm saying that this focus on the next world to come is ingrained in Theology itself.

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

That's just like, your opinion, man...

In all seriousness, I have no clue why you think "the desire for god" was there "at the very beginning of mankind" (which is a controversial subject).

I would argue that early human desires had a lot to do with physical comforts and safety given that much of our hard-wiring is oriented toward keeping us physically healthy. What evidence or actual argument do you have to indicate that spiritual health might have been an early human drive, and if so why did it necessarily include "god"?

Babies themselves don't exactly have ordered thoughts because they haven't yet constructed an ordered mind through experience. A baby cannot tell the difference between it's mother leaving the room and going into non-existence. Are you telling me that babies wax philosophical about god or that all humans grow up to desire god?

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. — Agustino

That's well and good, you're an outlier, but your entire "birth rate" argument is predicated on the idea that parents will indoctrinate their children successfully.

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? — Agustino

What do you mean "who is going to win"? Is it a competition? A battle? A war? I don't get how you can see apathy towards your religion as a boon for your religion unless you think some kind of grandiose event is coming.

I really don't buy into that kind of rhetoric, but since that's your argument: religious apathy is seemingly a trend among the youth, they don't need to "win", they just need to wait a generation or two...

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. — Agustino

So you think that the west is going to croak in a pool of it's own un-Christian moral degeneracy because anything not god oriented clearly leads to no-good?

Hmmmmmm... While divorce rates are up, so too is the average standard of living (thanks secular hedonism!) People are living longer and happier lives in the west than they ever have before and it's all thanks to better economic conditions and better technology. We're more free to choose how to live despite the hypocritical condemnations of those who choose to worship this or that specific idea. Crime, especially violent crime, is way down, and many nations are making great leaps and bounds when it comes to reducing the suffering of their people due to poverty and the oppression of them due to superstitious old world beliefs and plainly bad moral policy. Hysteria is up though. Some people are saying that it's all coming to and end, but they don't explain how; they just state that hedonism and godlessness will be to blame.

You are trying to convince me that I'm going to be less happy because of my irreligion and therefore should be religious, while simultaneously arguing that doing what leads to happiness is self-serving and evil.

Religion will bring the missing order into society. — Agustino

This is... Laughable... Going to break out the bible and claim it has all the best moral solutions to our problems? Or is it the divine power of god that will cause Christianity to sweep once more across the unwashed masses? You might be a bit late to the game on that one...

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. — Agustino

So once we renounce political correctness, (which does not have a majority stake currently, and has already suffered wide-spread rebuke for decades) we're going to default back to religion? I'm asking why religion will rise: "the rise of religious movements" is not an answer.

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. — Agustino

You have a very peculiar view of history...

America was founded on democracy, not on god. It enshrined the idea that the people rule, not god or king who represents him. It enshrined freedom from religion, and that the laws of the land should be the law of the people, not of one particular religious sect.

The separation of the church and state was an undeniably successful turning point in the history of the west, and the relevant gains of the west which have occurred in post theocratic society have dwarfed any achievement of any civilization to come before us. No longer does religion have legal footing in the realm of politics, and no longer can it force itself into the ideas of the unwilling. It wasn't religion or even religious values that made the west great in the 18th and 19th centuries, it was freedom from it.

In the 1940's Britain was still castrating gays thanks to Christian values, thankfully though they realized the immorality of many of their dogmatic positions.

Which Christian value or values did the west abandon which triggered the beginning of it's collapse?

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. — Agustino

Wait what?

You just got finished saying how atheism leads to social disintegration, rampant hedonism, "broken families" and the loss of hope.

So we're going to be more prosperous than ever (thanks hedonism?) when suddenly, for no apparent reason, religion will come rushing in and claim responsibility for finally cleaning up the moral shit hole that the Earth has been for many millennia?

I have a hard time seeing how if we're more prosperous than ever why we will suddenly pine for religion. If we spoil ourselves on earthly delights then sometimes in our want for more we reach for the metaphysical sacramental wine (a la Tolstoy), but I doubt that we're ever going to reach such a utopia, and if we did I don't think Christianity would necessarily be a popular answer to such existential dilemmas. Buddhism seems more exotic, I think that would make me happier!

So do I, but I'm saying that this focus on the next world to come is ingrained in Theology itself. — Noble Dust

Which is a problem. That's precisely why Church bureaucrats are no longer capable to adequately deal with what is happening. They're not pragmatic enough.

In all seriousness, I have no clue why you think "the desire for god" was there "at the very beginning of mankind" (which is a controversial subject). — VagabondSpectre

Worship is one of the first and most ancient actions of mankind. From the very beginning, man was religious. Man had a connection with the transcendent, which was obvious and evident - very different from all the rest of the animals. Cave paintings indicate this, early worship rituals indicate this. Man was on his knees worshipping divinity from the very earliest moments of recorded history. No civilisation exists without the concept of divinity. It is absolutely essential that what being human is.

What evidence or actual argument do you have to indicate that spiritual health might have been an early human drive, and if so why did it necessarily include "god"? — VagabondSpectre

I never spoke of spiritual health. I spoke of an innate desire for the divine.

Babies themselves don't exactly have ordered thoughts because they haven't yet constructed an ordered mind through experience. A baby cannot tell the difference between it's mother leaving the room and going into non-existence. Are you telling me that babies wax philosophical about god or that all humans grow up to desire god? — VagabondSpectre

And? What's your point? Babies are born with certain desires, including the desire for food, the desire for water and momma's breast, etc. They're even born with desires that don't manifest right away, like the desire for intimacy.

That's well and good, you're an outlier, but your entire "birth rate" argument is predicated on the idea that parents will indoctrinate their children successfully. — VagabondSpectre

Actually, statistically speaking, parents are quite successful at that. Christianity for example is losing a net 1.5 million adherents a year based on conversion data, but overall it is growing because of birth rate. Of course there are exceptions. And it's not indoctrination, it's simply introducing the child to things he would not otherwise be introduced to. Most of religious growth happens not because of conversions, but rather because of giving birth to new children, just so you know. Religion should also be taught in schools again. I studied religion in school, and looking back it was probably one of the most interesting classes I had to take at that young age. Much more interesting than math, history, and other bullshit.

What do you mean "who is going to win"? Is it a competition? A battle? A war? — VagabondSpectre

Yes it is absolutely a conflict for who will dictate the direction of society. If you haven't realised this until now, I don't know what to say. It's a battle for the soul of man.

So you think that the west is going to croak in a pool of it's own un-Christian moral degeneracy because anything not god oriented clearly leads to no-good? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, I am quite sure of that in fact. Man does not live on bread alone.

While divorce rates are up, so too is the average standard of living (thanks secular hedonism!) — VagabondSpectre

Right, I guess broken marriages are an increase in the standard of living. Never knew. :-}

and happier lives in the west than they ever have before — VagabondSpectre

Prove it. Stats actually show the opposite. People are more depressed and upset than ever, so I don't know what kind of pot you're smoking.

For example http://college.usatoday.com/2016/10/22/depression-is-at-an-all-time-high-for-college-students/ .

It seems that this is a mere repetition of your axiom that the better technology and comfort available, the better lives people will live. Despite the evidence, you just have to believe that, because that's what your atheism hinges on. Give people bread, pussy and "freedom" - and they'll be happy. Where's the evidence to back it up? Once again, my axiom which is better supported by evidence is that man does not live on bread alone, contrary to your own vile materialism.

We're more free to choose how to live despite the hypocritical condemnations of those who choose to worship this or that specific idea. — VagabondSpectre

No, you're actually not. You're less free than ever to choose. You are only given the illusion of freedom of choice. That's like telling a slave you're perfectly free to run away, you'll just get shot when you do. For example, how are you free to get married and have a life-long marriage when divorce rate is 50%+?

There is no pure freedom. There is freedom to do something. You're less free to be moral today than before. You're less free to be happy today than before.

America was founded on democracy, not on god. — VagabondSpectre

Bullshit.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness — Declaration of Independence

America is a nation founded first and foremost on God. That is why, even on your dollar bills, it is written "In God We Trust". It doesn't say "In The People We Trust"... And quite the contrary, America would count as a constitutional republic, by the way, not a democracy.

http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

You might be a bit late to the game on that one... — VagabondSpectre

I don't think I am at all. I think I'm right on time.

So once we renounce political correctness — VagabondSpectre

Once we renounce political correctness, atheism/hedonism will have no means of defence anymore.


What defence will someone like this have from being shouted off and kicked out of civilised society? She should be ashamed of herself (certainly not proud), and the rest of us should shun any dealings with her. Society needs to govern itself by showing individuals that they are not above the necessities of decent behaviour, and if they are, then they will be kicked out, or at least labelled and treated adequately. If she wants to be a prostitute, she should be absolutely free to be one.

In the 1940's Britain was still castrating gays thanks to Christian values, thankfully though they realized the immorality of many of their dogmatic positions. — VagabondSpectre

Sorry, but since when is castrating gays a Christian position? Where in the Bible does it say that if you find a homosexual you are to chop his balls off? Where in the Catechism, or the ecumenic councils, or any other official church position (either Orthodox or Catholic) do you find such nonsense?

You Sir, don't even know what you're talking about.

Which Christian value or values did the west abandon which triggered the beginning of it's collapse? — VagabondSpectre

• Belief in a transcendent order.
• Charity (real love, not the bullshit leftist version of it).
• Belief in the purpose and meaning of life.
• Duty (life is not here to enjoy it).
• Courage.
• Respect for tradition, culture and continuity.
• The sanctity of marriage.
• Chastity.
• Devotion and selflessness.

You can read more on a similar topic here.

So we're going to be more prosperous than ever (thanks hedonism?) — VagabondSpectre

No, I actually said we're going to be more prosperous than ever once religion takes over, not now.

Buddhism seems more exotic, I think that would make me happier! — VagabondSpectre

Buddhism is a failing and dying religion, and the statistics prove it. The people in the West who are interested in Buddhism don't generally have the commitment necessary to be "religious" - they're just wanna-bes. Without virtue, religion cannot flourish. Buddhism ruined itself when, greedily, it sought to take converts from Christianity by downplaying its own harsh morality. It's a failed religion. Look at the statistics I've posted. Buddhism will suffer the most out of all religions in the coming 50 years. There's absolutely no indication that Buddhism will prosper, apart from the media generated "hype".

With all due respect...

Remember when I mentioned before that, in my opinion, this thread was coming dangerously close to being evangelism? Well, with that last post of yours it seems you have unabashedly become an evangelist, the preacher to save all of humanity ("battle for the soul of man"), starting apparently with the nihilistic atheists and the holders of other worldviews present here. One could quote several individual sentences to support that, but what is more relevant is the whole tone and tenor of your post, which caps off where the thread seemed to be headed all along. Evangelism is discouraged, if not outright prohibited by this forum's guidelines. And for good reason, I believe. This forum, as far as I honestly understand it, is not the virtual equivalent of a street corner, where absolute free speech seems to rule. I am not going debate you point-for-point on which religion (and related political position) or worldview will be or should be crowned eventual World Champion, because it appears that you believe it to be a settled matter. And please don't suggest that if a sensitive soul is offended by your posts, not to read this thread. That would be obscuring the issue, which to repeat, is your engaging in evangelism.

Please understand this is not meant as an attack even on your beliefs or viewpoints, let alone on you as an individual or esteemed member of this forum. I am actually sympathetic to many of the views you hold, for whatever that is worth. I generally enjoy your posts, and admire your passion and scholarship. And I think for the most part, your posts show respect and courtesy. It is the approach that seems to me both unproductive and against the guidelines. Because I unfortunately have to say that here it seems that you are just pissing on anything that contradicts your manifesto, for lack of a better way to put it.

This is simply my honest and hopefully constructive opinion. If the moderators or other members wish to tell me that I have misunderstood the guidelines or am off-base, that would be welcome.

@Baden @Sapientia Please tell us whether my previous post is considered evangelism.



Number 1, drop the political correctness. In my view (and moderators can correct me if I'm wrong), you're just trying to shut down discussion because you do not like what you hear. A philosophy forum is, unfortunately, a place where you do have to hear what you don't like to hear some of the time. This is your second attempt, after your first attempt at ridicule completely flopped.

VagabondSpectre has a very strong opinion, which he has adequately expressed. He thinks that religious views will not even be taken seriously in the future. Is he evangelising, or is it only when the theist has strong beliefs that it's evangelism?

Furthermore, I don't think you quite understand what evangelism is.

It's defined by Baden himself:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm stating my views, and debating with another member, and each of us is providing justification for what we believe, and sharing what we believe.

That would be obscuring the issue, which to repeat, is your engaging in evangelism. — 0 thru 9

I don't think that's the issue at all, I think that's what you'd like the issue to be, so then you could shut down discussion. Typical leftist anti-religious tactics.

starting apparently with the nihilistic atheists and the holders of other worldviews present here — 0 thru 9

I think atheism (not all atheists) is having a negative effect on culture and society. Is that a problem? I'm not allowed to express that view or what's the matter?

battle for the soul of man — 0 thru 9

Well, again, I do think the conflict between atheism and religion is a battle for the soul of man. What's wrong with that? Where did I tell you that you should think the same too, or otherwise you're an idiot?

because it appears that you believe it to be a settled matter. — 0 thru 9

In-so-far as I have evidence to back up what I believe and arguments, then yes, I do believe I am right. Wouldn't you?

Please understand this is not meant as an attack even on your beliefs or viewpoints, let alone on you as an individual or esteemed member of this forum. I am actually sympathetic to many of the views you hold, for whatever that is worth. I generally enjoy your posts, and admire your passion and scholarship. And I think for the most part, your posts show respect and courtesy. It is the approach that seems to me both unproductive and against the guidelines. Because I unfortunately have to say that here it seems that you are just pissing on anything that contradicts your manifesto, for lack of a better way to put it. — 0 thru 9

Yes, I see you're smart, this certainly adds to the credibility of your post and thoughts :-} We call this pretence of being unbiased, it's a tactic that is often used and recommended to gain influence.

And please don't suggest that if a sensitive soul is offended by your posts, not to read this thread. — 0 thru 9

Well, unless the moderators think differently, that's precisely what I will suggest you do. And no, it wouldn't be obscuring the issue, because I'm not evangelising to begin with. So if you're offended, don't follow this thread anymore.

Well, with that last post of yours it seems you have unabashedly become an evangelist, the preacher to save all of humanity ("battle for the soul of man"), starting apparently with the nihilistic atheists and the holders of other worldviews present here. — 0 thru 9

Cite where I claimed to be a preacher to save all of humanity please. I think it's more likely that it's all in your mind.

One could quote several individual sentences to support that — 0 thru 9

Yeah, if you can do it, cite it. Otherwise there's no point.

If you want to make a complaint to us about a post or poster, please PM us or flag the post.

Please tell us whether my previous post is considered evangelism. — Agustino

I don't see anything that needs to be moderated in the context of this discussion.

I don't see anything that needs to be moderated in the context of this discussion. — Baden

Thank you.

I remain unconvinced that any religion, including Christianity, enables people to live significantly better lives. Until that's the case, I suppose I'm lukewarm about the suggestion that there's a war between irreligion and religion. As it has always been, the only war I see is between morality and immorality, and no religion has a monopoly on either of those.

better lives — Heister Eggcart

What does a "better" life mean to you? And why are you unconvinced that a religion (take your pick) doesn't enable people to live better lives?

What does a "better" life mean to you? — Agustino

A better life is one that has facilitated a person more toward actualizing virtue from a position of humility. Christianity accomplishes this more than any other religion, apart from some strains of Buddhism (which really just end up being philosophies more than strict theologies.)

And why are you unconvinced that a religion (take your pick) doesn't enable people to live better lives? — Agustino

Because most religious folks are more concerned with issues of an afterlife instead of, "spending [their] heaven doing good on earth."

America is a nation founded first and foremost on God. That is why, even on your dollar bills, it is written "In God We Trust". It doesn't say "In The People We Trust"... And quite the contrary, America would count as a constitutional republic, by the way, not a democracy. — Agustino

What, exactly, "America" was "founded on" depends on where and when in history you place the founding.

The initial settling of the English colonies was for the express purpose of making money. Even the Puritan "City on a hill" colony was expected to produce raw material (lumber, in particular) for shipment back to England. The Middle Atlantic colonies -- same thing -- and the southern colonies, more of the same.

A century and a half later (1776): There were religious people here, of course -- people you would recognize as faithful Christians, and there were churches and missionaries (like John Wesley). The colonies' upper crust was not very religious. Religion didn't come to a boil in the United States until the early 19th century--the Second Great Awakening. (The Second Great Awakening was a Protestant religious revival movement during the early 19th century in the United States. The movement began around 1790, gained momentum by 1800 and, after 1820, membership rose rapidly among Baptist and Methodist congregations whose preachers led the movement.)

"In God We Trust" didn't end up on the currency until mid-19th century.

From the very beginning, man was religious. — Agustino

This is an assumption based on behavior observed long, long after homo sapiens achieved species status. We really don't know what our early direct ancestors were doing. They were sitting around the fire, but only long after 25,000 years ago (cave paintings, fertility figurines) do we have evidence of something as vanishingly insubstantial as "worship" activity. Maybe Neanderthal and early homo sapien peoples were profoundly religious -- maybe not -- there just isn't any evidence, one way or the other.

Belief in a transcendent order.
• Charity (real love, not the bullshit leftist version of it).
• Belief in the purpose and meaning of life.
• Duty (life is not here to enjoy it).
• Courage.
• Respect for tradition, culture and continuity.
• The sanctity of marriage.
• Chastity.
• Devotion and selflessness. — Agustino

Well, some of these are admirable traits. Whether all of them are essentially Christian -- and whether your take on them is essentially Christian -- is debatable.

I commend a biography of Dorothy Day -- "A Harsh and Dreadful Love: Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement" by William D. Miller and "The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day" for a swift kick in your derriere by this likely-to-be-sainted Christian leftist.

"Belief in the purpose and meaning of life" is a nothing generality. What do YOU mean?

On Duty, I recommend James Thurber's short tale of the faithful bloodhound. “The paths of glory at least lead to the Grave, but the paths of duty may not get you Anywhere.”

Courage. Pretty much everybody needs courage. More so every day that passes.

"Respect for tradition, culture and continuity -- The sanctity of marriage, Chastity, and Devotion and selflessness.

There is an uncomfortable odor of fascist ideology here. I don't think you are a fascist. Yes, there are strains of Christian thinking that are very conservative. Dorothy Day was very conservative in her daily Mass attendance and her recognition of the authority of the church. That didn't stop her from being harshly critical of some highly UN-Christlike aspects of American tradition, culture, and continuity.

Had Jesus followed your advice, he would have stuck with carpentry, gotten married, and fathered children--all that for tradition, culture, and continuity. Ditto for the 12 Apostles, Paul, and various saints, martyrs, missionaries, etc. down through the last 2000 years (and longer, if you count the OT prophets).

Christianity is a sword--two sharp slicing sides. There is the dead-hand-of-history conservative side and the revolutionary claims of the Kingdom of God side, It's either-or.

That's precisely why Church bureaucrats are no longer capable to adequately deal with what is happening. They're not pragmatic enough. — Agustino

It seems like church bureaucrats are either not pragmatic enough or altogether too pragmatic -- whichever works least well.

I spoke of an innate desire for the divine. — Agustino

They're even born with desires that don't manifest right away, like the desire for intimacy. — Agustino

We don't know this. Why? Because, as you said, these "innate desires" don't manifest themselves right away. By the time the manifest themselves, most children have been thoroughly exposed to all sorts of divine-thinking by their parents, culture, school, church -- the machinery of tradition and continuity.

"The only gain of civilisation for mankind is the greater capacity for variety of sensations -- and absolutely nothing more"

A better life is one that has facilitated a person more toward actualizing virtue from a position of humility. — Heister Eggcart

Maybe. However, I'm not so sure anymore that this is sufficient for a good life. Don't get me wrong, virtue (and humility) are necessary but ultimately insufficient. In the end, it does feel like virtue is the reaction to a decadent and corrupt world - virtue belongs to the warrior, and the warrior belongs to war. And of course, this world is itself a war-torn kingdom, and has always been such.

There is always a fleeting sense of paradise, where there are no conflicts, people are grateful for what they have, and live in simplicity and peace. That is but a dream in this world - for one must always prepare for evil, time and time again. One cannot put down one's ruthlessness - the sword cannot be dropped, but must time and time be wielded to keep evil at bay. Marcus Aurelius dreamt of giving up his kingdom to live peacefully at the countryside - it never was more than a dream. It can never be more than a dream.

If it becomes more than a dream, then that person, along with their family and relatives, are headed towards destruction. That is the danger of immanentizing the eschaton. But the eschaton is useful, as a source of motivation, so it cannot be dropped. There is a certain tension there at play - - - .

Christianity accomplishes this more than any other religion — Heister Eggcart

I agree, and would add that other religions aren't wrong, but just less correct.

apart from some strains of Buddhism — Heister Eggcart

• Do you say that these strains of Buddhism produce more of what you've identified as "the better life" than Christianity?
• Which are these strains of Buddhism, and can you offer some examples of people who exemplify this better life?
• What's your take on the coming disappearance of Buddhism as per the statistics I've presented?

Because most religious folks are more concerned with issues of an afterlife instead of, "spending [their] heaven doing good on earth." — Heister Eggcart

Good is a relative and not absolute term in the world. The good that is possible to achieve in the world is always tainted by evil, in that it may necessitate acts which are in themselves evil. Hence why we are prodded to be wise as serpents. A good King is also a ruthless king, and therein lies the paradox. A merciful master is also a cruel master - indeed must be such. Part of what makes them good (relatively) however, is their willingness to engage in such ambiguous acts.

This is an assumption based on behavior observed long, long after homo sapiens achieved species status. — Bitter Crank

Sure, as I said in my first post, I'm referring to ever since recorded history. Of course you, nor I, can have evidence of what happened before. This however seems like sufficient evidence, especially when you consider men across different geographies, and you realise that no other animal worships. What's his face, G.K. Chesterton wrote very well about this in The Everlasting Man.

Maybe Neanderthal and early homo sapien peoples were profoundly religious -- maybe not -- there just isn't any evidence, one way or the other. — Bitter Crank

Sure, as I said there is no direct evidence for it. However, the earliest evidence we do have, suggests that man was religious from the beginning. Things seem to heavily point to religion being something intrinsic and particular to man.

I commend a biography of Dorothy Day -- "A Harsh and Dreadful Love: Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement" by William D. Miller and "The Duty of Delight: The Diaries of Dorothy Day" for a swift kick in your derriere by this likely-to-be-sainted Christian leftist. — Bitter Crank

I think a swift kick in my couilles is better :P Thanks for those resources.

There is an uncomfortable odor of fascist ideology here. I don't think you are a fascist. Yes, there are strains of Christian thinking that are very conservative. Dorothy Day was very conservative in her daily Mass attendance and her recognition of the authority of the church. That didn't stop her from being harshly critical of some highly UN-Christlike aspects of American tradition, culture, and continuity.

Had Jesus followed your advice, he would have stuck with carpentry, gotten married, and fathered children--all that for tradition, culture, and continuity. Ditto for the 12 Apostles, Paul, and various saints, martyrs, missionaries, etc. down through the last 2000 years (and longer, if you count the OT prophets).

Christianity is a sword--two sharp slicing sides. There is the dead-hand-of-history conservative side and the revolutionary claims of the Kingdom of God side, It's either-or. — Bitter Crank

I didn't mean to suggest that tradition should be BLINDLY respected. But neither should it be overthrown without reason or quickly. We must have respect for our ancestors, their work, and the traditions they have passed unto us, even when we proceed to modify them.

It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention—a word much abused in our time—that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless. When successful revolutionaries have effaced old customs, derided old conventions, and broken the continuity of social institutions—why, presently they discover the necessity of establishing fresh customs, conventions, and continuity; but that process is painful and slow; and the new social order that eventually emerges may be much inferior to the old order that radicals overthrew in their zeal for the Earthly Paradise.

Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. Order and justice and freedom, they believe, are the artificial products of a long social experience, the result of centuries of trial and reflection and sacrifice. Thus the body social is a kind of spiritual corporation, comparable to the church; it may even be called a community of souls. Human society is no machine, to be treated mechanically. The continuity, the life-blood, of a society must not be interrupted. Burke’s reminder of the necessity for prudent change is in the mind of the conservative. But necessary change, conservatives argue, ought to be gradual and discriminatory, never unfixing old interests at once. — Russell Kirk

I am probably less of a traditionalist than Mr. Kirk explains above, but I do share the general gist of that description. In fact, I'm starting to feel conservative is something of a misnomer with regards to many of my positions, especially with regards to economics, but there's no better label.