The worker may be injured or die on the job. — Metaphysician Undercover

The owner may die in the office from obesity and a sedentary lifestyle too. So what? The owner may die in a car crash from all the travelling he has to do, etc. etc. There's risks with everything in life so don't bullshit. The worker also doesn't necessarily risk serious injury or death - it all depends on the job.

Unless you value money more than life, the worker has the greater risk. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's false.

he or she has far more than what is needed to provide the necessities of life anyway — Metaphysician Undercover

especially when you have many piles of it. — Metaphysician Undercover

First, no, most entrepreneurs don't have easy access to cash, especially when they show inability to handle it. So losing cash, especially other people's cash, is quite a terrible spot to be in as an entrepreneur. And most entrepreneurs aren't rich, even most successful ones, unless you call 1-10 million dollars as rich. That's being a tiny bug in the large scheme of things. True wealth that can be used to have a significant impact on society starts from $50-100+ million, numbers which are absolutely not easy to achieve.

Have you never done physical work in your life? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I have. I've worked as a construction worker for an NGO for example, before I was an engineer. Every night my hands would be more broken than the night before and you'd fall asleep instantly once you hit the bed. So what? Was it difficult? Not really. I certainly don't think I was taking more risk than those who conceived of the project, or those who gave them money. Most people are just very lazy - I don't know but it seems to me you're all born with a silver spoon in your mouths. We are meant to work, and work hard. But most people complain "ugh so hard so this and that" - what the hell?

It's especially ridiculous how academics and university students complain about how "hard" their tasks are >:O

When money is valued to make more money, then it has no value. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's your (uninformed) opinion.

What value could it possibly have if the only use for it were to make more money? — Metaphysician Undercover

I never said ONLY use it to make more money.

Sorry, but you're delusional. Money cannot buy you power, especially is your using that money only to make more money. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, do you want to speak with this guy?


Why don't you tell him that money can't buy him power?

But if power is what you value more than money, then money will buy you the illusion of power, so that the people whom you are paying off will make you believe that you have power, when you really do not have power. — Metaphysician Undercover

So long as you can order them to do something and they execute it, then you do have power.

These are your fair-weather friends. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right, but nobody has any doubts about that. Governing society requires the use of fair-weather friends since most people aren't that moral to begin with. So leaders always have to make good use of these people in order to successfully govern a society. Their energy, greed and lust has to be channeled in productive directions.

ell me please Agustino, and don't be bashful, what do you think is the nature of power? — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't understand why you say I'm bashful, but to answer your question, power is influence and capacity to direct the march of society - capacity to set the rules. Granted that as unenlightened said, and I agree with him, I actually think it's a great idea, we actually live in an anarchy. There are no property rights, in reality. There are no other rights either. All our political systems are mere attempts of hiding the anarchic system we actually live in - attempts to move, however imperfectly, away from the state of anarchy. But fundamentally, we do live in an anarchy, where most people are not moral, and if given sufficient power, will use that power to oppress and subjugate others to their whims. There's only some people who can handle power morally, and they should as per Plato, want it the most.

For example, (and I'm giving you a hypothetical based on a real example now, that I personally know of) someone powerful enough can force you out of your house/property. Or someone powerful enough can force your daughter to marry them. And nothing can protect you, because remember, ultimately we live in an anarchy. The law only exists when it is enforced, and it can only be enforced by the powerful (naturally). And when the powerful are immoral and corrupt, then you're fucked, if they happen to put their eyes on you.

Property rights can only be guaranteed by the powerful. Therefore society depends on strong, reasonable and moral man to govern and rule over the rest in order to guarantee such rights. Otherwise, there is no hope.

To make more and more money with the idea that this money might be used to buy power is completely illogical because it is well known that you cannot buy loyalty. — Metaphysician Undercover

Power doesn't mean loyalty. Loyalty is, or can be, an important aspect of power, but it's not the only one.

In this context, the way you have used it in this post in relation to these phrases, "rise to the top", "influence society", "authority", what does "power" mean to you? — Metaphysician Undercover

Power means the capacity to decide on the direction of society, to influence others, and/or the capacity to guarantee (or not) property and other rights. Ghandi was powerful. Hitler was powerful. Bill Gates is powerful. Jesus was powerful. As was someone like Osho in the modern age. Trump is powerful, Putin is powerful, etc.

Since we live in an anarchy as unenlightened has correctly identified (I believe), the only solution which can maintain peace and stability is reliance on good, reasonable and strong men - exactly as Plato identified in the Republic. Without such men reaching out to grab and maintain power by whatever means, society can never be at peace, and will instead be ruled by tyrants - regardless of what political system is actually at play. We have democracies which are ruled by tyrants too, and the democratic aspect certainly makes no difference.

And this is true whether we're talking about business, or politics. The Jews needed a Moses to get them out of Egypt.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Explain. I don't see what you're getting at here. — Heister Eggcart

They don't articulate their position frequently on the media. For example, they don't speak against promiscuity loudly and openly. Instead those in favor of promiscuity get all the screen time. What's the Church doing, are they embarrassed of their position?!

I mean, what's this thread about, then? — Heister Eggcart

Multiple things. First it's about discussing the future of religions. Second, it's about discussing the role of Christianity in the future, including what actions are likely to be favourable/unfavourable for it. And thirdly, there's a lot of side discussions going on which are addressing issues on the side of these main topics of discussion, which is exactly what should be happening in my honest opinion (for example, me discussing economics with Mr. Clark).

If it's the former, I don't think we can get every Christian to be true believers. Do you? — Heister Eggcart

No that is indeed impossible. But that's not really the point. The point is that Christianity's influence on culture has sharply decreased, to the point that, especially in the West, as evidenced by some responses in this thread, it is viewed with ridicule, as a museum artefact (to quote Mongrel). That's something that has to change.

I don't think the Church is going to budge much, to be honest... — Heister Eggcart

Why not?

f you have sex with a child, you are a pedophile, a rapist, and a creep. — Heister Eggcart

Incidentally I know a few people who have done this in real life (not that I'm friends with them, but I do know them). It's hard to prevent it when others hold social power and use it - even if it's just local power, say being the mayor of a village. It's not an infrequent affair in Eastern European countries, unfortunately.

Yes, I agree on the dubiousness, fundamentalism, and evangelism present in this thread. But maybe the moderators are choosing to be like NBA officials in the playoffs, and letting the players battle it out. If then, so be it. ;) — 0 thru 9

This thread is in the philosophy of religion section. If you can't even discuss religion there, where can you discuss it then? We're discussing the evolution and relationship amongst religions, including, yes, deciding and talking about which religion is best. You have an issue with that? Has it hit your "politically incorrect" button?

And further, for those others obsessed with such matters, there is significant doubt whether the girl in question was really pre-pubescent. She may have been 15 or 16. And those were different times and a different place. He had six wives for example, and was esteemed by most contemporaries. For whatever that is worth. — 0 thru 9

Yes, he had 6 wives, while other men were only allowed a maximum of four. But Muhammad was special, God let him have more.

And the fact that someone is ESTEEMED for having multiple wives is no different than someone being esteemed for being rich, or for being powerful, or for having an army of slaves. I'm not quite sure if that esteem is worth having in the first place. Sounds to me like pandering after social approval.

At the very least I don't think it's prudent for the Catholic church to water down its liturgy — Heister Eggcart

Did I say anything about watering down? The problem at the moment is that they're not forcefully representing their REAL position.

Is Orthodoxy watering itself down, though? And if it isn't, is it also dying? — Heister Eggcart

No, it's not watering itself down, but the dumb people call themselves Orthodox, even though in reality they're following local traditions more than the teachings of the Church. Is it also dying? Not in Eastern Europe and Russia it isn't, but neither is it growing very fast - although there are some young people who show keen interest in religion.

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. — Heister Eggcart

Well part of the problem is that the Church isn't emphasising its position in a coherent way. It is afraid not to upset the gay community, or not to upset other religions, etc. etc. It's so politically correct, that it is in reality in a straight jacket, even though it has all the power that it needs, if it wanted to do something.

Also, a lot of the Church's arguments for religion, while valid, are antiquated, and don't speak well to people today. These arguments need to be reframed and recast in a way that speaks to modern people.

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. — T Clark

First, you are shamelessly dishonest. What did I say here?

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. — Agustino

Now, look at those graphs, and tell me, is it a continuous decrease if in 2016 the GDP is 25% of the world's GDP? No. It's virtually the same.

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. — T Clark

No, that graph does not show per capita INCOME. It shows GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT per capita. The two are absolutely not the same. Really this is my last response to you on this topic, as it seems you don't even understand basic economics. And it is absolutely relevant to the discussion, since you're trying to say that the poor countries are catching up and the relative share of the wealth is more evenly spread - and that's not true. The US and the rich countries are getting further ahead relative to their populations compared to the poor countries.

Something that by the way even you recognise in the underlined bit. So thanks for admitting to your ignorance. Next time please stay in the areas you're comfortable with.

The fact is, this world does not belong to them. It never has. — T Clark

Well, that remains to be seen.

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 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?

How is it that putting up a whack of cash is called "risk"? — Metaphysician Undercover

If the investment goes bad, the entrepreneur loses. The worker gets his wage. Simple.

You don't seem to have respect for the fact that "money" has a different value to people who earn a wage or salary and use this money to live off of, to pay for the necessities of life, then it does for those who use money to make more money, the capitalist. — Metaphysician Undercover

All smart people should be using money to make more money, since money is one of the levers of power, and we all know, that if good men don't rise to the top, then the bad will rise to the top, and everyone will have it bad.

The guy who has to physically move the material, dealing with the hazards of the physical world has it easy, while the guy who sits in the office moving numbers around in the books has the difficult job? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes he does have it easy. He takes no risk - if the project goes bad, he still gets paid at the end of the day.

Crossing that line means giving "money" that unnatural sense of value — Metaphysician Undercover

The only unnatural sense of value that can be attributed to money is when money is seen as a means for facilitating hedonism. If someone uses their wealth in order to sit on a yacht, then yes, that is immoral and unnatural.

But, otherwise, the more money, the better. Money is one of the key resources you need to influence society. But money isn't the whole of it. The right authority is also needed (which also requires money to acquire). Otherwise you have shit like this happening:

You know why a prick like this is allowed to mock the entire justice system, laugh at the people he has hurt, and put himself above the law? Because the law is weak - the justice system is weak. It's not run by strong and reasonable men. At least in Russia or China - no rich man - regardless of how rich - dares mock the government. None. Not a single one. Authority must be respected. Authority shouldn't "beg" some despicable thief to cooperate... authority should force them to cooperate, whether they like it or not.

This is immoral. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, money is just a tool, the way it is used is either moral or immoral. Money in itself isn't immoral.

You might well disagree with this or at least find it exaggerated to the point of vacuity. — unenlightened

I don't have a problem with billionaires, I have a problem with multinational corporations which use their financial power to squeeze out entrepreneurs. Billionaires, at least most of them, have earned it (through ingenuity and hard work largely). There are some billionaires - like hedge fund managers - who have stolen it, and they often control the corporations (that's how they've made their money).

Nevertheless, that it makes sense to say it illustrates that a government can become a mafia. — unenlightened

Indeed. And how will you oppose the government become mafia? By voting? Don't kid yourself. A government become mafia doesn't care about what goes in the pot, but what comes out.

The only way to oppose a government become mafia is by counterplay. That means effectively getting involved in politics yourself, undermining the present regime, and replacing it. How? By using the instruments of power - the whole arsenal, deceit, treachery, leverage, pressure etc. Whatever it takes. Until you get yourself into a position of power - then you can assure a good government, until your death (think here Ghandi).

The history of man is written by the struggle between the good and the bad to hold the reigns of power. More often than not, the bad have held them. There is no alternative. If you care about politics, then YOU and YOU alone have to do it (and the very few who are determined and share your vision, obviously).

It seems to me that democracy has infected our mentality and we often like to pretend that voting actually makes a huge difference. It has become a way of being emotionally satisfied that we're doing something, doing something with 0 risk, of course.

we live in an anarchy — unenlightened

Interesting.

So you just have to decide which busybodies you want to align yourself with — unenlightened

Exactly, but that decision cannot be one that you stick to forever. That decision changes with circumstances.

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

But let's just say that the government is the only arbiter and guarantor that your money is your money, and not the mafia's or the marauding mob's. — unenlightened

I'm not sure about that. The government can just as easily one day seize all my money and put me in jail. If they hold absolute power, then they can also use absolute power. So no - it's not at all certain that the government is working for me, and even if it is, that it will keep working for me. Look at what happened to this guy.

So no, the state isn't certainly out there to protect you.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

WORD!!! (Y)

If you happen to be a Jew fleeing Nazi Germany, or some other flavour of refugee, you are physically desperate and helpless and depend on the kindness of strangers in a strange land. — unenlightened

Sure, but in that extreme case, the law is not going to help you. It's people's kindness, as you say.

The conditions that allow and encourage exploitation and unfair dealing are many and varied; it is not the case that there is some economic system that is immune or that there is some market place that is inherently fair. Justice is something we can impose on the world to the extent that we value it, not something natural. — unenlightened

You may be right, but it's also possible that some people need to be exploited to realise what kind of work is worth doing and what kind of work isn't worth doing. Someone may work for 50 cents an hour, but soon they'll be sick of that work, and learn not to get themselves in such situations again. Or they may gain valuable experience at that 50 cents an hour job, allowing them to move to something much better. Who knows - a lot of it depends on the person, how ambitious they are, etc.

tax — unenlightened

I don't know man, I'm paying that at the moment, but I'm just thinking it would be so fun not to pay it :P Why should the government decide what to do with my money? They'll likely put it in their own pockets. I'm better off donating it, 10% to the Church, 10% to charity. Why pay the fucking government instead? Is that really more moral?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ;) ;) ;)

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

What is the "Church"? — Heister Eggcart

The body of Christ, the cumulative number of faithful Christians. But, for the sake of this argument, you can take it as just the Catholic Church, which is a clear cut institution.

It encourages an economy of desperation. — unenlightened

Okay, so let us think, where does desperation come from? Is it a material thing? I don't think so. It's more of a spiritual thing. One can be content with the idea of starving, then one will not despair when faced with the possibility, but rather sit Stoic-like and do something about it - if anything at all can be done.

And of course low wages lead to low consumption which is bad for business. — unenlightened

Yes, I didn't claim otherwise. You should pay high wages IF YOU CAN. But many entrepreneurs, especially small entrepreneurs, can't.

It should be otherwise because it is unfair — unenlightened

Can you explain why you consider it unfair? Granted that desperation is primarily something spiritual, and not material, why is it the entrepreneur's fault someone agrees to work under certain terms?

After all, one of the essential steps to being successful as an entrepreneur is mastery over the carrot and whip mentality. You cannot despair except if you hold to the carrot and whip mentality. Then hope and fear rule your life and determine you to take (bad) decisions.

I don't think I have forwarded that notion; — unenlightened

I didn't address that comment to you in particular.

it is generally something that employers use to trumpet their social value, like they're doing their workforce a favour. — unenlightened

Yes wrongly - and because people are stupid. Hence why I made my post to correct that misunderstanding.

Yes you are complaining; your whole response to me is about how hard done by you and your fellow heroic business folk are. As a former business person myself, my heart bleeds, of course. — unenlightened

Well I don't know what kind of a business you used to run, or why you don't think it was hard (or at least harder than being an employee).

destroying ISIS — Thorongil

ISIS is also an ideological virus. This means that there is no ISIS headquarters that can be bombed and ISIS would be eradicated. If we dropped nukes on Syria and wiped them out, we'd still have terror attacks in the West from people claiming to be affiliated with ISIS.

We as philosophers are on the front lines of this war. We are both the generals and foot soldiers in this war. We have an important function to play. Most importantly, we have an obligation to civilization to maintain and advance the dialog of what is right and moral. We must not abdicate or abstain from this job. — Thinker

Excellent statement, I agree.

It's already happening:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/30/muslim-refugees-converting-christianity-find-safety/

Also, there's this totally idiotic notion around that the job of the entrepreneur is to create jobs. NOPE! Entrepreneurs aren't here to create jobs, they're here to make money by fulfilling needs that society has. Notice how that has nothing to do with creating jobs. It's consumers who are actually creating the jobs by giving their money over to entrepreneurs, who can then pass it on to other people and set the entire mechanism up. But yet, our whole media is speaking of entrepreneurs as "job creators" - that's a load of bullshit.

On topic, Christianity's growth includes fundamentalist Protestant denominations herding the dumb and uneducated in SEA, South America. and southern Africa, which is not going to save what's already being hemorrhaged. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, but the uneducated are an important source of converts. Those are the battlegrounds that all religions are actively seeking to win over.

How else would you suggest stopping the haemorrhage*?

The haemorrhage will stop naturally. Christianity needs to get rid of those people who aren't actually Christians in the first place. This cleaning is more than welcome in my eyes. They are free to go waddle in their permissive atheism, natural selection will take care of them.

It's better to know who your enemy is and have him far away from your breast, than hold the snake close so that you get bitten. In a certain way, the permissiveness of modern liberal Western culture is a blessing in disguise. Because they fear no shame and there is no compulsion in religious adherence, the wheat will be separated from the chaff by itself.

If I was the Pope, I'd be adamant about this. An important job of the Church should be to find a mechanism to even speed up the process of removing fake believers from within. A wolf in sheep's clothing is more dangerous than even a pack of wolves! What is necessary are people who are totally committed to the traditions of the Church, to its history, to living moral lives, and to God.