Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?

[lemit]

To paraphrase, there are more things in heaven and earth, Arthur, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

--lemit

[Qfwfq]

Please don't forget the non-sequiturs,

Well I'm certainly at a loss to follow your points.

 

How does the event in Africa that you described support your contention? What is your contention anyway? A Christian village was attacked, women and children slain, does that mean all who aren't Christian behave so? Does it prove Christianity is the only way to prevent such things? Have no Christians ever done similar things? Who were those "bad men"? Could you make your point manifest, if at all you have one?

 

I won't go through other non sequiturs and it seems you've been making some mighty fat assumptions about Freeztar and others around here.

[HydrogenBond]

When I was younger I was brought up as a Catholic. In my teen years, I became an atheist, so I could get away with stuff and not feel guilty. I could rationalize what I did as collecting life's data.

 

If Christianity had been the same dominate force within culture, it had been in the distant past, I would not be able to flaunt my atheism. I live in modern times and could speak out as to what I believed then. But in a different time, I would have had to to play it smart, or suffer the consequences. I would have needed to keep my philosophy to myself. I would still be free to think, since nobody can read minds. If I wished to move up within the hierarchy of culture for social status, I would need to appear outwardly Christian. But inwardly, I could think and do what I wanted. I would just need to play it smart and be discrete.

 

If the idea of an atheist in Christian clothing, would be easy to spot, consider the gays of the past. They had to marry and have children to hide who they were and could give no clue of what they felt on the inside. One could not tell the difference, as they went through the motions of being what was expected. Inside them, they felt who they were and may have needed a discrete second life to be true to what is on the inside.

 

As an atheist in Christian clothing, if I didn't believe in the sacrament of marriage and there was no moral validity for me, I might have no problem with adultery, as long as I could get away with it and not put any spot light in me. If I got caught it would appear like this Christian man did this. You would not know enough to define me, but might infer the devil made me do it. When all along I was getting ready for the date. But I might use that excuse, since it might work. I tend to believe history is full of atheist, heathens and Pagans in Christian clothing. They lived by different rules on the inside, but were smart enough to know who butters the bread.

[lemit]

HydrogenBond, you point out a fascinating thing about atheists in a Christian culture. They are often as intricately defined by the Christianity they claim to be free of as any cloistered monk or Southern Baptist. In opposing, they simply reflect. They show no sign of freedom.

 

Congratulations on escaping the mirror. Many do not, and remain as thorough pests as any born-again.

 

--lemit

[arthur]

Okay, arthur. In saying "Expecting Arthur to defend his position", I'm stating that we're expecting you to address questions aimed at you, questioning the position you hold that you stated in the original post. Things like the automatic assumption that Christianity is the source of morality - which you claimed. i have demonstrated a quite a few times in this thread that this simply does not follow logically, it simply is not the case, and have asked you in so many words to defend your position, which you flatly refuse to do. I cannot keep asking you only to have "What does this mean?? What is there to defend? What is my position?" as an answer. You say that Christianity is the source of morality. I say that it cannot be - Christianity is continuously adapting itself to the mores of the day, therefore Society is imposing its morals on the Church - not the other way around. I fail to see how I can put the question any simpler.

 

No, arthur. Quite the opposite. 'm not on this thread to fight - don't be presumptious now. I'm on this thread to understand your point, and part of the understanding process is the interrogation of any premise and point raised. It seems you cannot defend your points and you're building your argument on a failed premise - which brings the validity of your entire stance into question. We probe any hypothesis raised here, and if they fail, we point those failures out to the original poster, and they get to learn something. If they convince us, then we get to learn something. It's a two-way street, and no thread here goes on without somebody learning something. If, however, the original poster makes certain claims that is demonstrably wrong, and that is pointed out to the poster, and the poster merely ignores it or pretends not to understand (because it might be easier that to accept that his entire thesis is a failure), then the thread becomes a pulpit, and that is against our rules and we will eventually close it. So - no fighting from my side, arthur. We merely expect you to address points raised and answer questions asked. As simple as that.

 

Nasty is as nasty does, arthur. And totally subjective, too. I do not find any of my postings nasty - up to the point where you point-blank refuse to address the point I raised. Which I will do again: Christianity cannot be the source of morality in the modern world, so, if Christianity were to dissappear, how could it have an impact on civilization? Do you understand my question?

 

Stop dodging the question.

 

 

 

 

You wrote:

"Nasty is as nasty does, arthur. And totally subjective, too. I do not find any of my postings nasty - up to the point where you point-blank refuse to address the point I raised. Which I will do again: Christianity cannot be the source of morality in the modern world, so, if Christianity were to dissappear, how could it have an impact on civilization? Do you understand my question? Stop dodging the question".

 

OK, Boerseun, moderator.

 

let me start with "Nasty" spiteful, mean, malicious, horrible, malevolent, wicked, foul, horrid, revolting, offensive, bad, disgusting, nauseating, sickening, vile, unpleasant, repugnant is your threat to close this thread solely on the grounds that I am unable and unwilling to accept your ludicrous and ridiculous, illogical ideas and your aggressive demands that I answer them. For example, let us, that is you as an individual and not you as a *we* and I, look at your;

 

"Christianity cannot be the source of morality in the modern world, so, if Christianity were to disappear ( not dissappear, we are not on 4what ever) how could it have an impact on civilization? Do you understand my question?"

 

This is not a question; "Christianity cannot be the source of morality in the modern world" but it is an unsubstantiated statement. But, by your referencing it with the word "so", meaning "therefore" or "hence" or "subsequently" to your rather silly question of "if Christianity were to disappear, how could it have an impact on civilization?" you have created a unanswerable question, which in effect is a non question.

 

Even if one were to remove your loaded referencing, and try to redefine the question to relate to my proposition you would have difficulty because Christian and Roman Catholicism's influences that have allowed this sophisticated civilised society to exist and function are integral, therefore inseparable, read the proposition. so ,Will you close this thread because I am unable to answer one of your non questions???

 

And my answer to your second question is "No I don’t"

 

Quote:

(Laughably) "We probe any hypothesis raised here",

 

Who is this *we*? Is this the moderator *we's* who have done little but to display their prejudice and abject lack of objectivity? Is this the moderator *we* who demands I define two obvious and simple words of the title with an implied closure threat? Is this the moderator *we* who by obvious inference related my proposition to the Klu Klux Klan? Is this the moderator *we* who accuses me of montanmans lies? Is this the moderator *we* who posted pictures of kids supporting a hate campaign? is this the modeator *we* who with objectivity? careful consideration? and with academic integrity, who wrote the Blah, Blah, Blah post? etc, etc.

 

And, are you the moderator *we* 'who, not by implication,' claims that all of the millions of people who accept and have a Christian faith are intelligently and intellectually inferior to yourself? and who presented the above two questions to show the type of intellectual prowess used for probing a hypothesis?. Come on, Boerseun moderator, even you must recognise that all of that, is nothing more than mitigated prejudicial tosh as is the rest of this *we* and *us* claim.

 

Other than one of the *us* or the *we* you's have not displayed an iota of integrity or objectivity or good will related to my proposition and most of the you's and the *we's* have preferred to indulge in bias provocative subjective piffle as in this post rather than display good manners and give me an objective critique of a sensible and pretty obvious proposition or ask me non loaded polite questions related to my proposition.

 

Have you read it?? (and have any of your *we's* or *us's* read it??) it seems not when you deliberately?? or, through not understanding?? write "Christianity is the source of morality - which you claimed" when in fact what I claim is no more then the following.

 

It is because we developed and grew up in this environment where the laws, the kind of morality, that have given us our concept of right and wrong, of honesty and dishonesty, etc which has allowed us, that is you and me as well as other people to evolve a psychological dependency on an expectation of us having a future, etcetera, etcetera.

I am sure that any *reasonably intelligent person* could extrapolate for themselves the importance of and the *impact that Christianity has had on, directly and indirectly, developing moral or ethical values* that they them selves might have. I am also sure that *any reasonably intelligent person* could not recognise that there is nobody unaffected by the influences of Christianity and its effects.

 

Consider what it is that has held the (westernised) Sophisticated "Christian" Civilised Societies that 'we' are all a part of together. Consider firstly from your own personal perspective the characteristic of you expecting others to adhere to *the basic laws and the rules and values which have evolved out of the basic tenets of "Christianity"*. The laws, rules and taboos which have been the bonding meme of the society of tens of millions of free thinking individuals. The laws and rules that you have never really questioned, the ones that you have absorbed and which have become an integral part of your being, from being that young child and screaming "But that’s not fair" to the maturity of becoming spontaneously distressed by the evil or immoral activity of others who do not respect the same values

 

Was that an example of you probing a hypothesis???

 

Why are you and your ilk so emotionally uptight that you put this thread under threats? You's and your ranting bigoted cohort have done nothing but try to discredit any value of this thread from the out set, Will there be any point in asking why? If you don’t like it why participate? (don't give me the tosh that you have to) Why haven't you and you ilk done the job of moderating instead of encouraging the prejudice B/S that you have. Why have you and your ilk not displayed the qualities of a moderator, good-will, honesty, objectivity and action to facilitate a flow of intelligent debate from the beginning instead of what you have created. As I have said before, you should hang your heads in shame.

 

If you KNOW that something is incorrect then, axiomatically and logically you will KNOW why it is incorrect.

 

Boerseun, moderator, when you claimed emphatically that I was incorrect I politely asked you, 'then, what is correct? where did the morals, ethics and values that allow millions of free people to live together in comparative harmony originally come from? Will you use this question as an excuse to close this thread as an attempt to save (your) 'face' or will you try to answer with a view of having a honest and sensible debate?? If you do, think why then did you not do it from the beginning, a simple and honest request, give me a critique. *It is not part of a religious debate. It has nothing to do with the veracity of The Bible, of God, of ones religious convictions or of Christianity per se* Why did you as a moderator allow and encourage a obvious religious bigot to dictate how 5 or 6 editors/moderators/staff should respond to some thing that they and you had no understanding of by joining in his bigotry, Have non of you minds of your own???

 

Finally Boerseun moderator.

 

THE questions;

 

Will the decline of goodwill, honesty, good manners, and politeness by the participants result in the demise of this thread?

 

Could the intensification and the increasing growth of hate, bigotry, disenchantment, violence, greed, selfishness, and such amongst the citizens result in the demise of acquiescence to the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society?

 

Will the decline in the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society promote its demise?

 

Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?

 

I think, Boerseun moderator, as well as your *we's* and *us's* you should, particularly for this last question, make use of an English language dictionary and a 'New Testament'.

 

 

Arthur.

[arkain101]

Skimming through:

 

As some what of a non participant of this thread, skimming along, I havn't been able to find any explanations from the author as to how religion affected/affects society.

 

I could come up with my own, but it would be more appropriate to read what Arthur has to say in his own words.

 

I'm probably incapable to prove you wrong Arthur, considering that I haven't studied much history. However, in the same respect, I have not been able to see where you have provided some form of credible proof on your behalf.

 

If I've missed it... please direct me..

 

Point being I'm left unconvinced, and surely this is not something I would take on as a belief of which I would feel comfortable explaining to other people in a way that is fact.

 

Sleep calls me.

[Moontanman]

Arthur, either point out where I lied and correct me or leave me out of your arrogant rants please. At no point have I lied to you or about you, I have been matter of fact, direct, and to the point but because I disagree with you does not make me rude, or a lier. Please desist from name calling and personal attacks Arthur.

[arthur]

Well I'm certainly at a loss to follow your points.

 

How does the event in Africa that you described support your contention? What is your contention anyway? A Christian village was attacked, women and children slain, does that mean all who aren't Christian behave so? Does it prove Christianity is the only way to prevent such things? Have no Christians ever done similar things? Who were those "bad men"? Could you make your point manifest, if at all you have one?

 

I won't go through other non sequiturs and it seems you've been making some mighty fat assumptions about Freeztar and others around here.

 

 

Hello Qfwfq,

Let me assume that you, Qfwfq, the only person who claims to, I quote; *"find your arguiments based on some assumptions and full of non-sequiturs"* and who refuses to divulge them are not being silly, provocative or trying to be emotionally augmentative, and, let me assume that you are familiar with the concept that information read from the word (writing) is an interpretation, also, let me assume, that you are familiar with trying to be objective. (The art in being an intellectual an so objective is being able to interpret meanings without reference to bigotry, bias or prejudice) therefore on the above assumptions I will address your post.

 

 

"I won't go through other non sequiturs" you wrote.

 

Why not? an explanation might be helpful, and what did you mean by 'other'?

 

and you also wrote, "and it seems you've been making some mighty fat assumptions about Freeztar and others around here"

 

I'm not sure what is meant by fat but like the assumptions I made about you, above, they were the result of my objective interpretations of their posts, as opposed to, what I assume and so suspect, your tacit assumptions about me are not objectively compiled, but are interpretations based upon, and so influenced by, your subjective/emotional/hormonal feelings towards me. This will certainly result in, as can be seen throughout this thread, perversions and misinterpretations of anything that I might say.

 

So, Qfwfq, If I were to make the effort to reply to your slanted and rather silly questions would the relies only be used as a springboard to launch more irrationalities at me?

 

Have you read my proposition?, Have you read it with a view of understanding it or have you read it with a view of continuing this B/S by selecting, maybe, non sequiturs or snippets that you can make use of to ask me similar questions to use to satisfy you emotions rather than to satisfy your sense of intellectual enquiry? If the reason was not to satisfy your sense of intellectual enquiry what are posting on this thread for? and if it was, why did you not politely respond to my hope that, on the basis of understanding it, it will receive a just and honest, unbiased and rational consideration as to its merits. Well Qfwfq, why didn't you???

 

 

Arthur

[modest]

Could the intensification and the increasing growth of hate, bigotry, disenchantment, violence, greed, selfishness, and such amongst the citizens result in the demise of acquiescence to the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society?

 

Will the decline in the morals, values, and ethics that are integral to the functioning of a stable, free and democratic society promote its demise?

 

Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?

 

The quote above is an argument fallacy called begging the question:

• Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer, Tautology):
  
  

reasoning in a circle. The thing to be proved is used as one of your assumptions. For example: "We must have a death penalty to discourage violent crime". (This assumes it discourages crime.) Or, "The stock market fell because of a technical adjustment." (But is an "adjustment" just a stock market fall?)

A List Of Fallacious Arguments

 

The proposition in post one of this thread:

Now, and here is the nub, consider that we all, you, me and every person who we know and every person who we have ever known or met and every person who we have ever seen, and, every person who we have ever heard of and every person who lives or has lived in a Sophisticated Civilised Society; AND, Everything that you or I and any of these other people have ever done, thought, wanted or owned as well as every judgement and decision that you, I or they have ever made has been, or is, directly or indirectly influenced by or is the product of the tenets of Christianity and the Judaic ten Commandments irrespective whether you, I or they are conscious of the fact.

It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists.

 

The proposition is itself a non-sequitur. Even if every person on the planet were aware of Judeo-Christian tenets, it could not be concluded that "It is because of these tenets that, Sophisticated Civilized Society exists". It is, as an analogy, like saying, "Every person in the city has a hat. It is because of hats that the city exits". The second sentence does not follow from the first—it is non-sequitur. The analogy is proved correct only if hats are proved to be the cause of the city. Likewise, the proposition in post one is proved correct only if Judeo-Christian tenets are proved to be the cause of sophisticated and civilized society.

 

A means of disproving the proposition would be to find a counterexample. A proposition that Judeo-Christian tenets are the cause of sophisticated and civilized society cannot withstand an example of sophisticated and civilized society with no Judeo-Christian tenets. While I haven't kept up with this thread, I'm sure I'm repeating a very obvious fact: classical Greece was an extraordinarily sophisticated, cultured, civilized, and enlightened society which predates Judeo-Christian influence (the Septuagint was translated toward the end of the classical Greek age).

 

As this provides a sufficient counterexample the proposition is disproved by example. It is not possible to say:

It is because of these [Judeo-Christian] tenets that, Sophisticated Civilised Society exists.

At best, a person could say that the tenets of Christianity and Judaism have helped shape western society. I would, in fact, not take this influence lightly. It is very possible that without Judaism and Christianity we would be living in a very, very different culture today. But, as demonstrated, it cannot be claimed that such an alternate culture needs be uncivilized or unsophisticated.

 

If nothing can be proffered in support of the OP's proposition then I propose closing this thread.

 

~modest

[Donk]

Arthur, Arthur, Arthur...

 

You aren't having a very good time here. If you're going to convince anyone, Arthur, you need a lesson or two on how to conduct yourself on the internet.

 

You started out, Arthur, by posting in very large type. When this was pointed out, you stopped. Good. You're clearly capable, Arthur, of learning at least one thing. You need a few more lessons though.

 

For instance, Arthur, it's very bad manners to keep pasting the same words over and over again. If somebody's already read them, Arthur, they have to wade through them again only to find nothing new. This makes them a little tetchy, Arthur. Maybe you didn't know that, Arthur. Perhaps you do now.

 

To take another instance, Arthur, if you ask somebody a question and they answer it, it's polite to acknowledge it. Maybe you didn't know that, Arthur. Perhaps you do now.

 

If somebody tries to get your thread back on track, Arthur, by posting what he believes is a summary of your hard-to-follow OP, it isn't sensible to say

Hello Donk, Close but not quite

and then follow it up with 475 words that are as hard to follow as the OP was. Can you understand that, Arthur? I seriously doubt it.

 

You said, Arthur, that your group of 15-year-old acolytes (and a professor from Nanking U) understand you. I seriously doubt that statement, Arthur. Not if you've been giving them the same as you've been giving us. More clarity, Arthur. Less words, Arthur.

 

Anywhere on the internet, Arthur, if you feel that you're being picked on, you should report the post. PRIVATELY, Arthur. Flaming your own thread is quite counterproductive. As you've no doubt found out by now, Arthur. If that doesn't work, Arthur, or worse still if it's a bunch of admins and moderators who are picking on you, the only sensible thing to do is to leave. The Internet isn't a democracy, and probably never will be. Can you understand THAT, Arthur?

 

And last, but by no means least, Arthur: continually repeating the name of the person you're talking to is the internet equivalent of standing eyeball to eyeball and poking them in the chest. I suspect you already knew that, Arthur, and did it deliberately. If not, you do now.

Will the decline of goodwill, honesty, good manners, and politeness by the participants result in the demise of this thread?

I can think of one participant who has shown little goodwill or honesty, few good manners and no politeness at all. Can you guess who I'm thinking of? :rolleyes:

[HydrogenBond]

The idea of Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian Clothing is useful. With the strong hold of Christianity falling on modern times, the above categories are able to leave the church very easily. What remains in Christianity will have less pagan, heathen and atheist influence.

 

Nowadays, Christianity is only a trace of its historical might and brutality, when the closet door was shut tight and the Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian clothing, were averaged into the blend. The church may be getting smaller, but it is getting more concentrated with Christians in Christian clothing.

 

When the first Christians appeared in the first century, there was little atheist, pagan and heathen influence. When its merged with Rome, all these influences were added to the blend, since Rome was all these other things. Now that these influences are able to leave, what remains is becoming more purified again.

[Moontanman]

The idea of Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian Clothing is useful. With the strong hold of Christianity falling on modern times, the above categories are able to leave the church very easily. What remains in Christianity will have less pagan, heathen and atheist influence.

 

Christianity is full of pagan influences, always has been. Most of the Christian holidays were held on the same days as the pagan holiday they were men to replace. Christianity didn't win out of Paganism because it was a superior philosophy it won by assimilation and changing to reflect the Paganism it replaced. Many pagans I have talked to recently have come from the Catholic church. They say that Catholicism is about as close to paganism as you can get with out dancing naked in the moonlight.

 

Nowadays, Christianity is only a trace of its historical might and brutality, when the closet door was shut tight and the Atheist, Pagan and Heathen in Christian clothing, were averaged into the blend. The church may be getting smaller, but it is getting more concentrated with Christians in Christian clothing.

 

If true this is a disturbing idea that the Christian church is become ever more hard core when you can see that our civilization has flourished because of the decline in the power of the Christian Church.

 

When the first Christians appeared in the first century, there was little atheist, pagan and heathen influence. When its merged with Rome, all these influences were added to the blend, since Rome was all these other things. Now that these influences are able to leave, what remains is becoming more purified again.

 

Again if true this is very disturbing, pagans are far more tolerant of other religions and philosophies than Christianity, no penalties for many of the things Christianity persecutes it's members for.

[HydrogenBond]

One has to get back to the initial Christian philosophy to see how these other influences helped shape Christianity and had an impact on its nature over the past 2000 years. The first Christians believed, as spoken by Paul, who addressed the Roman Senate, that the righteous man shall live by faith, apart from the works of law. Through the law comes knowledge of sin. Where there is no law, sin is not imputed. Christianity was originally not about a bunch of moral laws. Although Paul distinguished between the children of the promise (no law) and the children of the bondwoman (enslaved by law).

 

As a modern example of what Paul said in action, it was not a (social) sin to smoke marijuana 100 years ago. But once this law was create, it became a (social) sin. Sin was not imputed until we created the law.

 

"Through the law comes knowledge of evil". The law needs to points out the two choices, to everyone, so one can chose the proper social path. Unfortunately, this makes people aware of the negative choice, who might never have thought it is on their own. "Sin taking opportunity through the commandment produces sin of every kind". The drug problem expanded beyond what it was before it was a sin, with the drug transgression branching out into newer areas needing new laws to define these new sins. Culture then has to get stricter and tougher to maintain a sense of law and order, because of the compounding problem created by the original law.

 

This was actually very advanced thinking about human nature.

 

Rome was an empire of laws and this "without law" philosophy had the potential to be destabilizing. Say everyone in the empire stopped being under Roman laws, they could lose control. Christianity became a threat and the pressure was applied. Rome had no problems with other gods, but don't mess with their laws. When the merge came, centuries later, stricter laws for righteousness was instituted into Christianity, even though this was never taught at the beginning.

 

From Paul, "all things are lawful to me, but I will not be mastered by anything. All things are lawful to me, but not all things edify".

 

This quote below is about his philosophy in action:

 

1 Corinthians 9:19: “For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, that I might win those who are without law; to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

 

Rome was in charge of the Roman Catholic church and law was how they conducted business and maintained order. Christianity, after the merge, went back to old testament type thinking of law and sin.

[Mrrzy]

I can't find my post! Help?

[Turtle]

I can't find my post! Help?

 

http://hypography.com/forums/silly-claims-forum/20988-will-decline-christianity-result-demise-civilisation-11.html#post281426

post #102 in this thread. :)

[carlton-temple]

Were the catholic monastries to disappear in Belgium would this mean that such wonderful brown beers as 'Chimay' would go to? that would certainly be a sore blow to any future western civilisation! The monastery in Chimay ( a very very wealthy setup in S. Belgium), also does a very good blond beer available to all (12%) regarless of creed or colour.

 

P.S. I seem to remember reading a historical study somewhere stating that only about 5% of any population any where has or has ever had any real religuos beliefs, mostly the peoples affiliation to a 'religion' is more customary or traditionally conditioned than heart felt. As the western world was/ is traditionally 'Christian' you could, I suppose claim that without 'christianity' there would have been no western progress, but it would be similar to saying without humans with two legs and two arms there would have been no human progress!

 

(How do I get an English text worker going here? every thing is in French!!!!!!)

[HydrogenBond]

There are a few wild card variables that atheists forget to take into account. I can fully appreciate the atheist philosophy of using science and the scientific method to define reality. However, what about someone who is uneducated, in general, and more so in science and the scientific method. Say he becomes an atheist. He can't use the best principles of atheism; rational scientific. by default. He may assume if religion says X, then the -X has to be true since, if he uses X that makes him religious.

 

Another wild card is connected to psychology. In many people's opinion, this is not hard science since the human psyche is not a phenomena that is easy to fully quantify and predict using the hard principles of the philosophy of science (look at the results of psycho-therapy). If I had a dream, I can't prove anything using science, even if this was real. This means the atheist can't comment on optimizing the human psyche, if it does, it is being unscientific or soft with science, religion/philosophy. Science tends to use animals since they are easier for science. This may lead to the erroneous conclusion, since this is the limit of hard science, it also applies to humans. That is not science but philosophy.

 

This soft science of human behavior connects to the first wild card, since the uneducated atheist is depending on atheism leadership to tell him how to deal with various effects within his own psyche, that are hard to nail down in a hard scientific way. This adds elements of atheist subjectivity, to what is pitched as being based on pure rational and hard science. This can create a hybrid that can cause repression as much as progression, especially within the uneducated who can't reason the subtleties through.