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

[Zythryn]

The topic is "Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilization?". This thread is *not* about the psychology of its participants.

 

If you can't reply with something on-topic, please don't reply.

 

Excellent point.

Ok, here is my response to the thread title.

No, I don't believe it will.

We have seen a decline in Christianity over the last few decades and have not seen a corresponding demise of civilization.

This is, of course, a subjective judgement.

It would help to be able to measure both the 'level' of Christianity and any sort of decline or demise of civiliation.

As a rough first approximation I would suggest the number of followers of Christianity and the average quality of life of said societies.

[plumber]

Back on track. I agree. I am honestly unsure about the term civilization used in the original post. Perhaps the original poster was meaning something else? I do agree with the latest post by zythrn. Mighty loose terms being used...hard to follow, the evidence would say no it will not. Anomalies will always be present. Perhaps looking at what has declined would shed light objectively. Otherwise, based on evidence, and the word "civilization" this thread should have been done days ago. Plumber

[Boerseun]

Okay. This thread raises a self-defeating point. "Will the decline in Christianity result in the decline of Civilization."

 

First off the bat, Christianity: Yes, it can be said to be in decline - it can be enumerated: churches are closing down all over the show, world-wide. Churches still in "business" (let's call a spade a spade) report a drop in attendance and membership. The point is that the decline in Christianity is measurable.

 

Now for the big issue: Civilization. How do you define it, and how would you know if it is, in fact, declining? Does "civilization" include the ability to write? It should - it is a demonstrable fact that when the world was opened by western "civilization", "uncivilized" people could not write. This would obviously be true of reading, too. Hence, if the OP thesis holds, we should see a gradual increase in illiteracy world-wide. Is the gradual erosion of American educational standards due to Christianity's collapse?

 

I think not. Romans could read and write very well, thank you very much. They were a civilized bunch, and so were the Greeks. The had fully developed legal systems, public representation, governments, etc. We owe much more to their ancient cultures than we do to an essentially brand new interpretation of ancient writings based in ignorance (thanks to the Reformation, the Christianity we supposedly adhere to is not at all what Christ or any of his disciples taught or even remotely had in mind - modern-day Christianity evolved to enable trade and colonization) And they never even heard of Christianity until only very late in the game.

 

In the absence of arthur telling us what he means by "civilization", which by the looks of things will be very much different from the commonly accepted definition of "civilization", there's really no point in this thread apart from serving as a pulpit for believers and non-believers alike (a very distasteful business, pitching mutually incompatible delusions against each other).

 

Arthur, I have now twice explained to you that Christianity cannot, logically, be the source of any morals that civilization might be resting on. If you take Christianity out of the equation, the original source (not "sauce" - this ain't 4chan) of morality, namely "Society", will still be there. You are not addressing any of the very valid points raised against your assertions. Please start doing so, or this thread will be closed.

[Buffy]

arthur,

 

Thank you for your long-winded, if somewhat oblivious response!

 

I'll try one more time. Look at this:

I have no religious affiliations and I am not a bigot.

followed immediately by:

I am astounded by the amount of religious prejudice and bigotry displayed by people who almost certainly have experienced Christian good will by people who have been influenced by Christianity to become doctors and nurses, aid workers, home and abroad virtually every do good organisations in the 'western world' are run by volunteer Christians, hospitals, clinics...the enormous number of educators of children were trained, as were many doctors, social workers in Christian colleges built run and financed by Christian donations and churches it goes on and on and on.

Apparently it should either be taken as completely obvious that you don't really mean "Christian" here and are really simply discussing the impact of all religious influence on society, or you are oblivious to the somewhat remarkable logical contradiction between having these these two elements of your argument right next to each other.

 

Since you've avoided any acknowledgment of requests to verify the former interpretation, we've pretty much been forced to assume the latter.

 

Your actual arguments on the topic are unfortunately are in direct contradiction to your statements: that is, you say you are not advocating any particular religion and then use only one as the center of your argument and refuse to clarify for the simpletons to whom your thesis is not obvious.

 

Unfortunately it is this single point that is the center of the overwhelmingly negative response you have received here, and yet here you continue to repeat it, seemingly with no recognition of the process that has played out in this thread.

 

It's quite sad because a number of us--myself included--found the more generally stated thesis to be an interesting and worthy discussion topic. We're probably going to open a clean thread with it. It has been quite disheartening that you've chosen not to advance the topic with expansion and explanation of this thread's key topic.

 

So,

If you intend to use your power to unjustly cut this thread and deprive any body who might come to recognise how academically far reaching this proposition actually is...

Nope. We think its a great topic and we'll continue it in another thread with a bit more scientific rigor than has been shown here. We just wish you'd talk about it!

 

In that vein, this is an interesting take:

There is no other universal criterion for anything. Unless you Buffy using the same kind of logic, the same mode of rational, ie, your, "to me this means" which gives no weight to the fact that you had absolutely no understanding of the subject of my proposition to use as a criterion for determining its value, which is without any doubt what so ever a reprehensible act of intellectual prejudice that, in my opinion, should cause the perpetrator to be embarrassed. are you?

Expressing a restatement as a part of requesting clarifications of a hypothesis is critical to the Scientific Method. It is used to improve everyone's understanding of the terms used and the meaning of data presented, and is essential to supporting the hypothesis.

 

So when you finally got around to answering my question:

The answer to your question "Is to say that you think that the definition of "decline" and "demise" are obvious"? is, absolutely, without any doubt what so ever, yes, that almost any literate person will recognise the meaning or even a definition of the word decline and also will recognise the meaning and definition of the word demise

...you pretty much convinced us all that you are opposed to the Scientific Method. If you find it contemptible to have to explain and expand the meaning of your hypotheses which you quite clearly are stating is obvious and does not require clarification, then really you are not interested in discussing but apparently would rather simply grace us with your brilliance.

 

Really, this forum is about discussion. If you wish to pontificate without objection or annoying requests to explain, there are many other places you can do that on the Internet.

 

Claiming that any objection or request for clarification is an offensive and direct personal attack on you, unfortunately does not constitute discussion.

I have no complaints

And we all do wish that were so....

 

All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy, :hihi:

Buffy

[arthur]

Thanks for answering the questions, Arthur. It's a shame it only came in the last paragraph and I had to read through 5000 words about Buffy before getting to the point.

 

As a moderator, this thread is very close to being closed. If you would like to discuss the decline in Christianity being the demise of civilisation, then do so. Otherwise, this thread will be closed.

 

 

freeztar

No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition, the title of which is "Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?" and "not the decline in Christianity being the demise of civilisation". I would like to do it with out moontanman inspired inaccurate criticisms and accusations from moderators and with out all of the aggressive off topic religious prejudices.

 

And out of interest what was the point in asking me "Is that to say that you think that the definition of "decline" and "demise" are obvious"?

 

And is there a rule that I cannot use sarcasm and moderator can?

And is there a rule that I must answer every loaded question presented to me?

 

And what is the reason for your intention to close this thread?

 

And why are you censuring me when I been nothing but polite and honest and not censure your friend who has no interest in my proposition other than using it as a platform to spout his crude, rude and disgusting bigotry?

[arthur]

Okay. This thread raises a self-defeating point. "Will the decline in Christianity result in the decline of Civilization."

 

First off the bat, Christianity: Yes, it can be said to be in decline - it can be enumerated: churches are closing down all over the show, world-wide. Churches still in "business" (let's call a spade a spade) report a drop in attendance and membership. The point is that the decline in Christianity is measurable.

 

Now for the big issue: Civilization. How do you define it, and how would you know if it is, in fact, declining? Does "civilization" include the ability to write? It should - it is a demonstrable fact that when the world was opened by western "civilization", "uncivilized" people could not write. This would obviously be true of reading, too. Hence, if the OP thesis holds, we should see a gradual increase in illiteracy world-wide. Is the gradual erosion of American educational standards due to Christianity's collapse?

 

I think not. Romans could read and write very well, thank you very much. They were a civilized bunch, and so were the Greeks. The had fully developed legal systems, public representation, governments, etc. We owe much more to their ancient cultures than we do to an essentially brand new interpretation of ancient writings based in ignorance (thanks to the Reformation, the Christianity we supposedly adhere to is not at all what Christ or any of his disciples taught or even remotely had in mind - modern-day Christianity evolved to enable trade and colonization) And they never even heard of Christianity until only very late in the game.

 

In the absence of arthur telling us what he means by "civilization", which by the looks of things will be very much different from the commonly accepted definition of "civilization", there's really no point in this thread apart from serving as a pulpit for believers and non-believers alike (a very distasteful business, pitching mutually incompatible delusions against each other).

 

Arthur, I have now twice explained to you that Christianity cannot, logically, be the source of any morals that civilization might be resting on. If you take Christianity out of the equation, the original source (not "sauce" - this ain't 4chan) of morality, namely "Society", will still be there. You are not addressing any of the very valid points raised against your assertions. Please start doing so, or this thread will be closed.

 

 

So Boerseun are you really saying that if I don’t deny all that I believe and know and If I don’t concur with your illogical, irrational, silly and ridicules claims you will close this thread? who did you get your moderatorship from, Stalin?? Never in my life have I heard of or experience such a threat pompous and arrogant misuse of power, you are a disgrace and should be ashamed of your lack of common decency.

 

You don’t have to be here so why are you?

[Zythryn]

Arthur, we are trying to have a discussion here.

We would be pleased if you would join us in discussing the proposition.

If you have nothing to add regarding "will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilization" please stop derailing the discussion.

[Turtle]

So Boerseun are you really saying that if I don’t deny all that I believe and know and If I don’t concur with your illogical, irrational, silly and ridicules claims you will close this thread? who did you get your moderatorship from, Stalin?? Never in my life have I heard of or experience such a threat pompous and arrogant misuse of power, you are a disgrace and should be ashamed of your lack of common decency.

 

You don’t have to be here so why are you?

 

Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

watch your step arthur. :naughty:

[freeztar]

No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition

...

And what is the reason for your intention to close this thread?

 

Your last several posts have had nothing to do with the title or your proposition.

If you're being honest and truly want to discuss, then now's as good as any time to start.

 

If your motive is to shout "persecution" and never actually discuss the topic, then there is no sense in having this thread open and it will be closed.

 

Your choice...

[Boerseun]

So Boerseun are you really saying that if I don’t deny all that I believe and know and If I don’t concur with your illogical, irrational, silly and ridicules claims you will close this thread?

No. That is clearly not what I said. You can call my post illogical, irrational, silly and ridiculous (notice the awesome usage of the spell checker there), but you still, to date, have not addressed my point: Christianity simply cannot be the source of morality that you claim it to be. I have then passed the ball in to your court, to prove your statement. Instead of that, we get such juvenile postings such as these.

who did you get your moderatorship from, Stalin?? Never in my life have I heard of or experience such a threat pompous and arrogant misuse of power, you are a disgrace and should be ashamed of your lack of common decency.

Yes. I got my moderatorship from Stalin. He issued it to me personally in 1944, in the early summer, if memory serves. That was just when Hypo started out. In a little-known sidenote on World War 2 history, Hitler could not have been defeated if it was not for Stalin pitching Hypography against the Third Reich. The fact that Russia suffered like hell since the end of the War till the end of the Cold War had nothing to do with Communism, matter of fact. It was because Hypo (that actually ended up running the USSR) was running on an old, buggy version of VBulletin and bandwidth really sucked.

 

Coming back to the above quote - would you call it a "lack of common decency" when people don't agree with you? I call it a lack of debating powers and maybe a deficiency in the frontal lobe and a failure in the cerebral cortex in general to evade questions like the plague, and to turn legitimate questions (like my assertion that Christianity cannot be the source of morality you claim it to be - and then expecting a cool, calm and reasoned rebuttal from your side) into such unfounded crazy postings such as the above. I might be all the things you blame me of being, but you, kind sir, are splat bang on the left-hand slope of the bell curve. Unless you are willing to engage in debate, which is, after all, what a FORUM is for.

You don’t have to be here so why are you?

Unfortunately I have to be here. I'm a moderator. Besides that, I have to save the planet from evil zombie drones who make claims and can't defend it and then turn to personal attacks when they find out that they have absolutely zero powder left in their kegs. That's a solemn promise I made to Joseph Stalin ("Ol' Joe" to those of us close to him) in 1944, after all.

[Donk]

Just for interest's sake, I pointed this thread out to a couple of bright 15-year-olds and asked for their opinion. Actually, one of them is a couple of weeks past her 16th birthday. I hope I'll be forgiven for that transgression.

 

Both of them agree (mostly) with the Original Post, and agree that my rewording of it:

Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings.

is a valid condensation of Arthur's somewhat prolix version.

 

They think the thread title should have reflected the original post: many people have disagreed with the title, not realising that Arthur himself hasn't actually said whether he agrees with it or not.

 

In particular, I asked them to look at this quote, ignoring the bad grammar and hysterical construction:

why are you censuring me when I been nothing but polite and honest and not censure your friend who has no interest in my proposition other than using it as a platform to spout his crude, rude and disgusting bigotry?

They were puzzled. Surely Arthur could see that he has been very far from polite throughout the thread? One of them suggested that his definition of "polite" means that he hasn't used obscenities; the other had a less forgiving answer.

 

As for "honest": they both pointed out two obvious untruths in Arthur's postings; one of them found a third.

 

They want to invite him to one of the forums where they usually hang out, but even Arthur doesn't deserve the treatment those kids would mete out to him! :evil:

[arthur]

Oh, dearie me deary me, Arthur. Too many words, too much froth. You really should learn to précis. You should also be careful not to repeat yourself. You run the danger of boring people. 662 words, saying what I said in 23:

 

Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings.

 

Why subject us to all this unnecessary verbiage? If you took a vote, you'd find that just about everybody posting on this thread agrees with my 23 words. How about accepting the fact that I've helped you explain things and move on?

 

Donk, you wrote;

Our civilisation is inextricably bound up with Christianity. Its history, its laws, its morals, its very mindset are all based on Christianity's teachings.

 

Hello Donk, Close but not quite,

You might be correct in that I'd find that just about everybody posting on this thread would agree with your 23 words. as I would almost certainly be correct in claiming that if those just about everybody posting on this thread were to logically and with out prejudice consider there meaning, they would disagree with your 23 words.

 

To understand this all that one really needs to do is to read my proposition with a view of trying to understand it rather than trying to find in it things to criticise. You will of course have noticed that the word civilisation does not occur in the proposition.

 

Our/this Sophisticated Civilised society is inextricably bound up with (the tenets, or the creed,of) Christianity and Roman Catholicism. This I propose, is true.

 

Its history, Yes. its laws, No. its morals, No. its very mindset, This I don’t know on account of I don't know what is meant by it. are all based directly or indirectly on Christianity's teachings, Yes.

 

There are many laws, legislative and legally binding requirements, rules and regulations that are completely out side of any Christian influences of morality, ethicalness, fairness or justice, etc.

 

Morals are the standards and principles that determine how a person behaves, and are dependent upon their responses to developmental influences. Supported by the maxim that 'all of biology is a product of the results of its responses to environmental stimuli'. Therefore if a person is not exposed either directly or indirectly to influences of Christianity their morals will not be related to Christianity.

 

Donk, you will see that in regards to the proposition there an enormous difference.

 

quote:

Consider firstly from your own personal perspective Donk, 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, creed, code of belief, doctrine, professed values, of "Christianity". The laws, rules and taboos which have been the bonding meme of the society of tens of millions of free thinking individuals.

 

A bit of a silly question 'Why subject us to all this unnecessary verbiage? If you and the rest of the all had understood it, it would not have been verbiage, and I am subjecting no body to anything. To read it and to be here is your choice. You choose to be here as you choose to be rude to me, which might be the same as, you choose to be here for the purpose of being rude to me, which if that is so, to me, it seems all pretty sad,

 

So Donk, again, why don’t you stop your competitiveness and try to understand my proposition of which you have only been presented a précis of, the particular work that this proposition is a small part of extends to over ¾ of a million words.

 

I have visiting me at the moment a very old friend, a professor from the old 'Nanking university.' After reading this thread he exclaimed "No wonder the 'West' is falling to pieces". He also said that "this kind of behaviour would never happen in China because as you explain, he said, the process of absorbing values and standards as a meme, we absorb respect for age and experience as well as a fear of loosing 'face' which would happen if we were to be rude and if we were to aggressively argue about things we don’t understand". Another remark he made after reading some posts was that these people aught to understand the saying that " Beware, the hole you dig to save face my end up being your or some one else's grave" Interesting don’t you think?

 

You may not like me Donk but cannot you not honestly see the immorality and injustice that supposed moderator have committed to save face? Why did you not speak up?

 

I would like to continue this dialogue but only within the realm of sensible debate.

 

In the hope that you agree, my regards …arthur..

[arthur]

Just for interest's sake, I pointed this thread out to a couple of bright 15-year-olds and asked for their opinion. Actually, one of them is a couple of weeks past her 16th birthday. I hope I'll be forgiven for that transgression.

 

Both of them agree (mostly) with the Original Post, and agree that my rewording of it:

 

is a valid condensation of Arthur's somewhat prolix version.

 

They think the thread title should have reflected the original post: many people have disagreed with the title, not realising that Arthur himself hasn't actually said whether he agrees with it or not.

 

In particular, I asked them to look at this quote, ignoring the bad grammar and hysterical construction:

 

They were puzzled. Surely Arthur could see that he has been very far from polite throughout the thread? One of them suggested that his definition of "polite" means that he hasn't used obscenities; the other had a less forgiving answer.

 

As for "honest": they both pointed out two obvious untruths in Arthur's postings; one of them found a third.

 

They want to invite him to one of the forums where they usually hang out, but even Arthur doesn't deserve the treatment those kids would mete out to him! :evil:

 

Well Donk,

What could possibly be the reason for what appears, to me, to be your distressful manifestation of emotional pique, which I suppose might be called a display of your abhorrence of me? Does all of this emotion stem from being politely asked for a critique of my proposition? (note not a critique of the title of the thread but of the proposition)

 

I'm not sure what you mean by people have disagreed with the title. I am not sure how one can agree or disagree with a question and particularly with a question that is not understood.

 

Of course I would not have used that particular title if I even imagined it would prompt people to display their horrible, vicious and sad religious hatred that it did. But having said that, if any one were to understand the proposition the title would make absolute sense and they would also understand the destructive nature of such, or indeed any, hatred to the stability of a society. And even your girls would understand that enough of it and society would collapse. I genuinely am at a loss to understand why you and others cannot see that. I expect that you have heard the adage "when hatred and bigotry rules common sense and justice withers" well I suspect that is what is happening on this thread, sad, but that's life.

 

Anyway Donk if you are not interest in sensible and honest discussion or non-competitive debate don’t you think that I would fair and honest of you not to contribute to this thread?

 

still in spite, my regards ..arthur..

[Moontanman]

I think it needs to be asked if Arthur will ever stop skating around the issue with obfuscation, cries of persecution, appeals to authority, and off topic rants and address the original topic in a honest and straight forward manner?

[Zythryn]

I don't believe so. He has been asked many times and continues to ignore the questions asked.

I do think this is a cool topic, but there seems no one willing to take the 'pro' side of the original proposal (including Arthur).

I'll give it yet another shot though.

Arthur, how do you measure the 'demise' of civilization.

Are there any examples you can give us where Christianity declined where the civilization declined at the same time?

[Boerseun]

Are there any examples you can give us where Christianity declined where the civilization declined at the same time?

Expecting Arthur to defend his position might be asking a bit much. I know, I've done it a few times in this thread now, with nary an answer in the offing.

 

However, as to Zyth's question above - quite the opposite, in fact. Christianity's fastest growth phase to date coincided with the Dark Ages - or, as it can also be described, the First Collapse of Western Civilization. Coincidence? I don't think so.

[lemit]

Expecting Arthur to defend his position might be asking a bit much. I know, I've done it a few times in this thread now, with nary an answer in the offing.

 

However, as to Zyth's question above - quite the opposite, in fact. Christianity's fastest growth phase to date coincided with the Dark Ages - or, as it can also be described, the First Collapse of Western Civilization. Coincidence? I don't think so.

 

It's fascinating to me that we've got this far in this thread without dealing with the thousand or so years that turn the original proposition on its head. Thank you, Boerseun, for reminding us that Christianity has spent more of its time fighting civilization than promoting it.

 

Having got those cobwebs cleared out of the cloisters of my mind, I can see pretty easily the difference between religion-sponsored civilization and the state-sponsored, business-sponsored, or simply sponsorless creativity and human development that comes with a minimal comfort level.

 

Are we at a level in our collective development in which we no longer need the protection religion offers? Is it equivalent to parents, and are we collectively grown up now? I know this isn't the right place to ask those questions, because the main people who will answer them have precluded the need at any time by anyone for religion, and have therefore disqualified themselves to answer. They won't let that stop them, though.

 

I hope it isn't off-topic to discuss the relationship between Christianity and civilization in a different way, because I want answers to those questions.

 

--lemit