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

[Qfwfq]

I am very wary of inferring such a tight causal nexus from a few events of history.

 

For one thing the first collapse of western civilization wasn't the fall of the Roman Empire, it was when the Romans defeated Magna Graecia. By the time the Western Roman Empire fell, Christianity had become its official religion (and remained that of the Eastern RE for quite a while). So it had seen a mighty growth in hardly five centuries, before the collapse. What happened then in Europe was that the barbarians increasingly became Christians, so was it Christianity that knocked down civilization? What exactly is the causality that has been implied?

 

The Holy Roman Empire was what ended the dark ages and its mechanism of feudalism was designed to hold Europe together, against the Saracens; this was a contention between a European Christian civilization (laboriously recovering from the collapse) and an Arabic Muslim civilization that had been expanding and prospering. On both sides the classic texts were being conserved and perpetuated; in Europe it was the monks that were struggling to do this, while the Arabs were also adding advances to it, which were brought to Christian Europe (when it was doing more than just surviving) later into the middle ages.

 

During that whole contention, the Crusades were of course aiming to regain what had been the Eastern Roman Empire and the great strategic advantages of the Mediterranean part of the Middle East. As the disaster recovery of Christian Europe completed and the Arabic Muslim empire lost ground, the way was paved for the Renaissance and what came after it, up to our current industrial and technological era. During this, Christianity did not cease to be a cultural driving force and it continued to expand, a growth no less fast than during the dark ages. It was this civilization that began colonizing the entire planet and is now somewhat sagging under the weight of what had been its own achievement, now that the defeated have been recovering.

 

Of course it's not so simple as my brief, concise description may suggest, There was the recent role of the Soviet Union for instance, but I still basically fail to see the matter being black and white. Various religions have had a role in prospering civilizations, Christianity is just one of them and it certainly had its role; I don't really see where it knocked down or fought civilization any more than Islam, Hinduism and others. They have been instruments of governing and organizing civilizations. This implies they were sometimes fighting against the rival ones. I don't see the point about Christianity and the dark ages when it was the Barbarians that knocked down Rome, seems more like maybe it was this that caused further spread of Christianity.

[arthur]

arthur,

 

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

 

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

 

followed immediately by:

 

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,

 

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:

 

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:

 

...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.

 

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

 

All day long I think of things but nothing seems to satisfy, B)

Buffy

 

Ok Boffy It is about time that I gave you a little info about me to save you any more speculation.

 

I am a 94 year old Jew, son of a scientist, paternal and maternal grand son of scientists. Brother, a industrial physicist retired, sister, a mathematics lecturer slaughtered by Boesan's ilk in Belson. I am dying of cancer hence the difficulty of typing. My religion would be Judaic if my mother had not been ostracised by my uncle Nick, a rabbi, because she refused to accept a rabbinic butcher genitally mutilating her youngest son, me.

 

Please don’t give me any stupidity about understanding science, unless you mean the kind of science that you manifestly do understand and that your fellow moderators and your friend Moontainman uses. There is no need to continue embarrassing yourself by your digging the hole to save face your credibility as a fair moderator, as is your cohorts credibility, as low as it could be.

 

Nobody with an ounce of integrity would have treated me or my thread with the despicability that you and you ilk have, and by any standard you should be embarrassed, although sadly I know that you wont be.

 

In answer to your last post I offer you the following examples of "scientific" posts sent to me by your moderator friends and which you supported.

 

Originally Posted by arthur (Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?)

Hi, 60 + years ago I developed the following deceptively simple proposition which I am presenting here in the hope that ...

 

Blah Blah Blah Blah ...

 

Good Grief! What a long winded sales pitch on your personal beliefs there. Carl Sagan said it best when he said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." and there's nothing in your extraordinary blathering that supports or proves your extraordinary claims. Maybe you can find someone interested in them here.

Clay Editor and Forum Administrator

 

Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan!

The Knights Party, USA

Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!

Clay Editor and Forum Administrator

 

Here's another "Love thy neighbor" influence on civilization brought to you by the Westboro Baptist Church...

clay

Editor and Forum Administrator

 

My regards. .arthur...

[arthur]

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?

 

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?

 

 

 

Zythrin

As I have pointed out to "The moderator" and all of the contributors to this thread and I quote; No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition.

 

I will accept that you had no intention of being sarcastic by posting.

 

Quote:

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

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.

 

And I will accept that your 'impossible to definitively answer question' was not intended by you to be a loaded question, ie. "Arthur, how do you measure the 'demise' of civilization."? The answer is simple, I DON’T and I don't believe that any one could measure an non-defined entity. Do you? if not why did you ask me??

 

Now to the second question, the answer is also no, But, if you read and understood the proposition which does not contain the word *civilisation* and if you had read and understand my earlier post that I sent to you with good will and in good faith, which was not reciprocated, objectively you would be able to extrapolate that *if the use of the morals, standards, and values, etc which a society is dependent upon it for survival, decline enough, the society will fail. It doesn't take a PhD in the bleeding obvious to recognise the veracity of such a statement, but it would not necessarily be bleeding obvious to your disagreeable pals who display little but religious intolerance.

 

Part of the reason for being bothered to answer your post, in spite of its provocative and accusatory tone, is to give you enough information to show you that one of these bosom buddy pals is not only completely ignorant of European history, ignorant of the meaning of my proposition but displays an ignorance of good manners that can only be matched by an insecure frightened egocentric bully who is desperate for people to recognise his vast intellectual prowess.

 

Quote:

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

 

Without giving you, and any one else who might be reading this, a basic history lesson, (you would be able to find it some where on the web) but the European, Mid East and North African invasions by Huns, Goths, Vandals, Arabs, Alans, etc, etc, and the chaotic vacuumed of disorder left by the collapse of the Christian Roman empire, and so its power to maintain order. Death through pandemics of small pox and such nearly matched by the deliberate slaughter of people brought the only chance of survival of most of the proletariat was for them to become rural subsistence farmers, etc, etc, etc, where eventually one could say that was the Dark ages compared with now because for something like 1500 years Roman Catholicism brought about an element of order etcetera, see my proposition.

 

So Zyth' if any ignoramus tries to convince you that "Christianity's fastest growth phase to date coincided with the Dark Ages" Or that secular Law in not influence the tenets of Christianity, Or that morality, justice and honesty can come about in a society that is run only on expedience. just politely explain to them how ignorant they are and explain to them how immoral and childish it is to demand agreement of their illogical, irrational, silly and ridicules claims to threaten to stop the game by "It's my bat and my ball, so there"

 

I admit that I got a little enjoyment from writing the above but not nearly as much as I would have got if you had asked me your questions with the good will I have shown you.

 

Arthur

[arthur]

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.

 

 

OK, Boerseun, moderator.

Let me start by commenting on your "Expecting Arthur to defend his position" What does this mean?? What is there to defend? What is my position? Maybe all that this is, is just another bit of stupidity that you demand that I agree with. So, again?? There is no competition, there is no fight, except that I do know that is what you are on this thread for, because you have no interest in understanding my proposition. Why on earth would you expect any one to willingly comment or answer you when you not only express complete and utter B/S but express it in such an aggressive and provocative and demanding way. (So very different from two of your posts to me, what happened to turn you to be so nasty?)

 

only two of the many.

Arthur, I have now twice explained to you that Christianity cannot, logically, be the source of any morals that civilization might be resting on.

 

Christianity evolved to enable trade and colonization.

 

You are not addressing any of the very valid points raised against your assertions. Please start doing so, or this thread will be closed. Here, if any one with a degree of honesty were to look they would be hard put to find any valid points related to my proposition that I haven't' politely answered

[Moontanman]

Ok Boffy It is about time that I gave you a little info about me to save you any more speculation.

 

I am a 94 year old Jew, son of a scientist, paternal and maternal grand son of scientists. Brother, a industrial physicist retired, sister, a mathematics lecturer slaughtered by Boesan's ilk in Belson. I am dying of cancer hence the difficulty of typing. My religion would be Judaic if my mother had not been ostracised by my uncle Nick, a rabbi, because she refused to accept a rabbinic butcher genitally mutilating her youngest son, me.

 

So what? How do these things qualify to you to dismiss all opposition to you with no evidence to back up your claims but your relentless arrogant rants?

 

 

Please don’t give me any stupidity about understanding science, unless you mean the kind of science that you manifestly do understand and that your fellow moderators and your friend Moontainman uses. There is no need to continue embarrassing yourself by your digging the hole to save face your credibility as a fair moderator, as is your cohorts credibility, as low as it could be.

 

It's called real science Arthur, REAL SCIENCE not some senseless blathering and appeals to authority.

 

 

Nobody with an ounce of integrity would have treated me or my thread with the despicability that you and you ilk have, and by any standard you should be embarrassed, although sadly I know that you wont be.

 

So far everyone has treated you with more decency and integrity than you have shown those who disagree with you.

 

 

In answer to your last post I offer you the following examples of "scientific" posts sent to me by your moderator friends and which you supported.

 

First Arthur just because it was posted here doesn't mean every one supported it. It was up to you to show it was not true or that it didn't stand up to your evidence, (which you never showed)

 

 

 

Originally Posted by arthur (Will the decline in Christianity result in the demise of civilisation?)

Hi, 60 + years ago I developed the following deceptively simple proposition which I am presenting here in the hope that ...

 

Blah Blah Blah Blah ...

Good Grief! What a long winded sales pitch on your personal beliefs there. Carl Sagan said it best when he said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." and there's nothing in your extraordinary blathering that supports or proves your extraordinary claims. Maybe you can find someone interested in them here.

Clay Editor and Forum Administrator

 

You Arthur are the one who keeps making extraordinary claims and not backing them up, if you could back them up these other people would either have to refute your evidence or shut up. I am a big fan of Sagan and you my friend are the one making extraordinary claims.

 

 

Welcome to the Ku Klux Klan!

The Knights Party, USA

Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America! A Message of Love NOT Hate!

Clay Editor and Forum Administrator

 

Here's another "Love thy neighbor" influence on civilization brought to you by the Westboro Baptist Church...

clay

Editor and Forum Administrator

 

My regards. .arthur...

 

Although extreme these things are real evidence that Christianity isn't exactly the end all be all of civilized behavior. Your initial claim was so broad and ill defined that these things do indeed figure into the argument.

[arthur]

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...

 

Hi,

What a beautiful picture of the parents of the next generation, are they your children?

 

I wonder if they understand the meaning of what they are advertising, and I wonder if you will-are-might encourage them to learn the truth and not that religious clap trap and learn that to keep their civilisation and themselves together they must understand that all they are, are just self programming independent biological machines, and that they have no inherent purpose for existing? Should they be given to understand the "scientific" reality is that any roles or aspirations, that any rhyme or reason for their being or existing will have to be psychologically contrived or faked in the future? Should they be given to understand they are only an assembly of lifeless chemicals which as the result of a few spontaneous electro-chemical reactions develop in them a delusion of 'self'? AND, Should thes children be encouraged to understand that the way to maintain their delusion of self should be no more that the pursuit of anything, using any expedience what so ever, that might appease the biological stresses, which are caused by the spontaneous effects of particular chemicals in them responding to environmental influences thereby promoting activity for self gratification at any expense as the Dawkinites, his acolytes and disciples overtly encourage, and, as a great many other, supposedly intelligent, people who through ignorance or lack of concern inadvertently encourage? Then having so educated the children should we, that is you and I, who have this decency and morality thing as an integral aspect of our being (intellectually??) question, why 'they' act as they do?

 

Because in a world controlled by nothing more than expediance love, beauty, charm and such stupidity does not exist, but as what you wrote implies 'what do children or indeed any body need all of that stuff for' Perhaps there will not be a next generation.

 

 

Very sadly ...Arthur Webb

 

 

 

As I said in my post to you. "No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition"

so why did you reply with "Your last several posts have had nothing to do with the title or your proposition?"

 

So let us, Freeztar, that is you and I, discuss a ramification of understanding the proposition You didn’t honour me with the courtesy of replying to my response to your post, the one with the picture of the children. But that is ok, I'm sure that you have a lot more important things to consider than the future of mankind.

 

Having, because of your interest in my proposition, considered the psychological effects of children being taught as, I explained in the post. Which one of them might be the suicide because they are a thinker? because like so many young people who are trying to understand, when they realise that they have nothing to live for because there is no meaning to their life because they have not managed to contrive a meaning and because they understand that we are all just a pile of dead, lifeless, and inert chemicals. Which one/s will become junkies because there is no right or wrong? Expediency irrespective of any consequences other than avoiding causing themselves pain, just like many of the rapidly increasing number of disenchanted violent street gang kids, who have no empathy, no care, no love, no respect for anything, just greed, hate, anger and violence to support self gratification whether it be their ego or dope or sex.

 

What will be the situation when these kids breed at a faster rate than the Law enforcement agencies and the diminishing number of caring agencies can cope becoming over whelmed, as is increasingly happening as more and more parents have no concern or no idea of giving their kids any example of morality other than might is right, get what you can because there is no intrinsic honesty, because you have never learned it, it doesn’t make sense.

 

Freeztar, will it take being gratuitously robbed and beaten up, will it take the car, the house, the family being vandalised, robbed or stolen to let the pseudo intellectual religious bigots like your self and other staff on this thread to recognise that the parents of the next generation need to be given, by example, a decent morality and not be given the foulmouthed rhetoric of people like you friend moontaman.

 

I would be interested freeztar in how long do you think that you have before this sophisticated societies cracks start to adversely effect you to the extent that you see no hope?? just like the kids who will go through the type of education the I suggested in my post to you.

 

So where do you think the standards of decency come from and why are humans the only animal to manifest such values that allow a free democratic civilised society to exist??

 

Looking forward to hearing your considered opinion. Arthur.

 

As a P.S.If your motive is to shout "persecution" and never actually discuss the topic,

[Moontanman]

I forgive you Arthur, you know not what you say.

[Boerseun]

OK, Boerseun, moderator.

Let me start by commenting on your "Expecting Arthur to defend his position" What does this mean?? What is there to defend? What is my position?

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.

So, again?? There is no competition, there is no fight, except that I do know that is what you are on this thread for, because you have no interest in understanding my proposition.

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.

Why on earth would you expect any one to willingly comment or answer you when you not only express complete and utter B/S but express it in such an aggressive and provocative and demanding way. (So very different from two of your posts to me, what happened to turn you to be so nasty?)

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.

[Qfwfq]

Arthur, I very much understand your concerns about how society has been going these days but I find your arguiments based on some assumptions and full of non sequiturs.

 

Freeztar has been on these boards long enough for me to be confident that he won't be the kind of parent that will educate his children so badly as to become gangsters; on which grounds do you take the liberty of likening him to the parents of today's most ill-bred youths? I know many people who are not Christian and not of another religion but do have their moral and ethical standards, and bring their children up very well if they have them. Religion is not the only source of morality, people need to get along with each other. The social tissue is necessary but religion is not the only way to knit it.

 

There have always been problems of delinquency in all societies down through history and the causes are complex. Economic status is a large factor but not the only one, religious education is by no means the principal one. You mention the causes of current increases in these phenomena as being pretty much the kind of hedonistic and social darwinistic type of mentality that has been bandied around, you seem to blame it a bit more on these than on moral relativism. Try looking at the correlation between how folks support or reject each of these and how they preach or avoid religion. It strikes me that in the past few decades it has been the bigots that caused more social problems.

[lemit]

Arthur,

 

I think there have been several times when I've been your only friend here. I'm sorry, but I can't continue that friendship. You have abandoned your original ideas and substituted personal attacks on the character of other members. You also are confusing Christianity with religion and immorality with amorality. You also forget that the ages in which both you and I grew up were regarded at the time as being signs of the demise of civilization, while they are now thought of as examples of all that is grounded, religious, and morally decent, if somewhat bland. They are the measure of what the present should be.

 

The future will contain good, moral, decent people like Freeztar, who might not be recognizable to us as such, just as we would not be recognized as such by generations before us.

 

How dare you use something as sinful as a computer to talk about morality? Have you seen the depravity and degradation that pervades the internet? How can you be a good, decent, Christian person when you use something only Satan could have designed? And if you use the excuse that you don't touch those parts of the internet, remember that our sinful nature comes from a simple taste of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, not a devouring of the whole of its fruit. Once you touch the internet, you have become a part of all that it is, and you have joined in our collective descent into chaos. You are no better than us, and have no right to judge any of us.

 

At least that's what seems to be happening. I could be wrong. I get that theology stuff wrong a lot of the time. But I'm pretty good at the history part. I've spent my whole life studying American cultural history. I've read contemporary newspapers and magazines from the 1840's on, and have seen that same slippery slope argument over and over and over. It's more a function of individual age than of a particular cultural age. In our collective history, we were early on beset by the Transcendentalist, Utopian Socialist (Socialist!) movement from the 1850's, promoting agnosticism and free love. Our nation fell apart, but not because of that. That movement came back even stronger in the 1870's and 1880's. We've been declining, according to our perpetually rose-colored rearview mirrors, ever since. Every decade of the 20th Century, a large part of the populace knew the end was at hand. The end is still at hand, and will be until it comes, at a time not of your or my selection nor prediction.

 

But right now, Arthur, it seems to me that you have questioned Freeztar's character. I wouldn't be able to defend all of my fellow staff members, but Freeztar has defended me when I've needed it. That is character. That is a Christian value. It's also a pre-Christian value. It will be a post-Christian value.

 

You need to take your head out of your lap and put it on your neck again. We are not the enemy, unless you need us to be. Then we'll do as well as anyone. I wanted to be your friend. I will accept my new role with a certain sadness, but I'll soon forget you and will be just fine.

 

--lemit

[Turtle]

so this is all about arthur's foreskin?

[lemit]

My attempt at self-censorship failed.

 

--lemit

[Moontanman]

It happens to the best of us lemit

[arthur]

Arthur, I very much understand your concerns about how society has been going these days but I find your arguiments based on some assumptions and full of non sequiturs.

 

Freeztar has been on these boards long enough for me to be confident that he won't be the kind of parent that will educate his children so badly as to become gangsters; on which grounds do you take the liberty of likening him to the parents of today's most ill-bred youths? I know many people who are not Christian and not of another religion but do have their moral and ethical standards, and bring their children up very well if they have them. Religion is not the only source of morality, people need to get along with each other. The social tissue is necessary but religion is not the only way to knit it.

 

There have always been problems of delinquency in all societies down through history and the causes are complex. Economic status is a large factor but not the only one, religious education is by no means the principal one. You mention the causes of current increases in these phenomena as being pretty much the kind of hedonistic and social darwinistic type of mentality that has been bandied around, you seem to blame it a bit more on these than on moral relativism. Try looking at the correlation between how folks support or reject each of these and how they preach or avoid religion. It strikes me that in the past few decades it has been the bigots that caused more social problems.

 

 

 

 

 

Hello Qfwfq

Very sadly I no longer feel concern about the impending plight of mankind as a whole or of 'this sophisticated civilised society'. My real interest in your post is that you find my "arguiments based on some assumptions and full of non-sequiturs". I am interested in what you mean.

 

I accept that your familiarity with Freezer is as you write, but to understand my answer to your question you will need to understand, as I have said elsewhere, that I make 'no judgment about the nature of a creature' bigots do what bigots do, and with regards to my proposition, I don’t care.

 

Your question; "On which grounds do you take the liberty of likening him to the parents of today's most ill-bred youths"? I am not sure about today's most ill-bred youths but I am absolutely sure of the destructive effects, not only to the children involved but to society at large of using and involving immature innocent children to encourage and perpetuate a regime of adult hate for any particular defined group within a particular society.

 

To help you understand let me tell you of a recent trip. I was invited to take to Africa as an observer. A formerly self sufficient Christian desert village, ten dwellings, twenty five decapitated babies and children being consumed by fly grubs and cockroaches, the stench of ten women's, mothers, carcases, some with arms, feet, breasts and legs macheted off, Four stinking carcase of old men etc, etc. I was given the opportunity to question one of the perpetrators of this horror, a 19 year old boy who at the age of thirteen was forced by 'bad men' to hack his father to death with a machete to save his mothers life. He told me that he was told that these people worship the devil and they should die.---- I cant be bothered to continue, I don’t even know if you are interested or can even understand.

 

I wouldn’t consider, per se, that an adult who uses young kids in "T" shirts to advertise that they or their god hates homosexuals, niggers, Jews, Arabs or who ever, is a "bad" parent, but I can and will say that any adult who uses kids to advertise their bigotry to boost their egos is definitely not concerned with the survival of their society or is just too thick to understand.

 

You wrote; "It strikes me that in the past few decades it has been the bigots that caused more social problems". I agree whole heartedly, see above.

 

Please don't forget the non-sequiturs,

 

Arthur.

[arthur]

Arthur,

 

I think there have been several times when I've been your only friend here. I'm sorry, but I can't continue that friendship. You have abandoned your original ideas and substituted personal attacks on the character of other members. You also are confusing Christianity with religion and immorality with amorality. You also forget that the ages in which both you and I grew up were regarded at the time as being signs of the demise of civilization, while they are now thought of as examples of all that is grounded, religious, and morally decent, if somewhat bland. They are the measure of what the present should be.

 

The future will contain good, moral, decent people like Freeztar, who might not be recognizable to us as such, just as we would not be recognized as such by generations before us.

 

How dare you use something as sinful as a computer to talk about morality? Have you seen the depravity and degradation that pervades the internet? How can you be a good, decent, Christian person when you use something only Satan could have designed? And if you use the excuse that you don't touch those parts of the internet, remember that our sinful nature comes from a simple taste of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, not a devouring of the whole of its fruit. Once you touch the internet, you have become a part of all that it is, and you have joined in our collective descent into chaos. You are no better than us, and have no right to judge any of us.

 

At least that's what seems to be happening. I could be wrong. I get that theology stuff wrong a lot of the time. But I'm pretty good at the history part. I've spent my whole life studying American cultural history. I've read contemporary newspapers and magazines from the 1840's on, and have seen that same slippery slope argument over and over and over. It's more a function of individual age than of a particular cultural age. In our collective history, we were early on beset by the Transcendentalist, Utopian Socialist (Socialist!) movement from the 1850's, promoting agnosticism and free love. Our nation fell apart, but not because of that. That movement came back even stronger in the 1870's and 1880's. We've been declining, according to our perpetually rose-colored rearview mirrors, ever since. Every decade of the 20th Century, a large part of the populace knew the end was at hand. The end is still at hand, and will be until it comes, at a time not of your or my selection nor prediction.

 

But right now, Arthur, it seems to me that you have questioned Freeztar's character. I wouldn't be able to defend all of my fellow staff members, but Freeztar has defended me when I've needed it. That is character. That is a Christian value. It's also a pre-Christian value. It will be a post-Christian value.

 

You need to take your head out of your lap and put it on your neck again. We are not the enemy, unless you need us to be. Then we'll do as well as anyone. I wanted to be your friend. I will accept my new role with a certain sadness, but I'll soon forget you and will be just fine.

 

--lemit

 

lemit

Do you really want to understand that God is nothing more than a human contrivance. Do you really want to understand that all of those beautiful human biological machines, including yourself have been and are being programmed to accepted a concept of a God as a rationale and reason for existing, leave this thread, go away, it really is not for you, unless of course you already know that God is just a figment of your programmed delusion, if you don't already know, understand that once it has gone you will be left with nothing, just an empty human shell.

If you already understand all of this you will understand that any claims of any horrors perpetrated by any religious factions have absolutely no relevance to my proposition. But I am sure that a new thread would be welcomed by the Christian haters to ***** about stuff that they do not understand. Arthur.

[freeztar]

Hi,

What a beautiful picture of the parents of the next generation, are they your children?

 

No, I don't have any children.

I wonder if they understand the meaning of what they are advertising

 

I'm quite sure they do, assuming they can read. Of course, they probably don't understand all the implications.

 

and I wonder if you will-are-might encourage them to learn the truth and not that religious clap trap and learn that to keep their civilisation and themselves together they must understand that all they are, are just self programming independent biological machines, and that they have no inherent purpose for existing?

 

First, I don't go around talking to children. If I ever have some children of my own, then yes, I will teach them the truths that I hold dear. I would never tell them they have no purpose for existing. I'm not sure how you came to such a conclusion about me.

 

Should they be given to understand the "scientific" reality is that any roles or aspirations, that any rhyme or reason for their being or existing will have to be psychologically contrived or faked in the future? Should they be given to understand they are only an assembly of lifeless chemicals which as the result of a few spontaneous electro-chemical reactions develop in them a delusion of 'self'?

 

I'm an agnostic atheist and I'm perfectly happy with my existence. In fact, I see the delusions of soul and eternal life as much more threatening. Muslim extremists make this point very clear.

 

From my position, such things are a waste of time, of which there is precious little in life.

 

AND, Should thes children be encouraged to understand that the way to maintain their delusion of self should be no more that the pursuit of anything, using any expedience what so ever, that might appease the biological stresses, which are caused by the spontaneous effects of particular chemicals in them responding to environmental influences thereby promoting activity for self gratification at any expense as the Dawkinites, his acolytes and disciples overtly encourage, and, as a great many other, supposedly intelligent, people who through ignorance or lack of concern inadvertently encourage? Then having so educated the children should we, that is you and I, who have this decency and morality thing as an integral aspect of our being (intellectually??) question, why 'they' act as they do?

 

Because in a world controlled by nothing more than expediance love, beauty, charm and such stupidity does not exist, but as what you wrote implies 'what do children or indeed any body need all of that stuff for' Perhaps there will not be a next generation.

 

 

Very sadly ...Arthur Webb

If you think I made an argument against moral upbringing of children, you are mistaken. The picture I posted illustrates the opposite. When morals become political and forced on to people, then you start to see problems in society. How many witches are we going to burn before we decide that we don't need to ruin people's lives like that? How many children are we going to indoctrinate with hate and spite before every one of them is wearing shirts that say "God hates fags"?

 

The picture shows a bad side of Christian morals, in my opinion. I quite like a lot of the Christian morals (I was brought up on them). But as John Lennon said, "If you want money for people with minds that hate all I can tell you is brother you'll have to wait".

 

As I said in my post to you. "No I would not like to discuss the title, but I would very much like to sensibly discuss my proposition"

so why did you reply with "Your last several posts have had nothing to do with the title or your proposition?"

Because they didn't.

 

You see, usually a title encapsulates the main point of discussion. I suggest you either change your title to match your proposition, or vice versa.

 

So let us, Freeztar, that is you and I, discuss a ramification of understanding the proposition You didn’t honour me with the courtesy of replying to my response to your post, the one with the picture of the children. But that is ok, I'm sure that you have a lot more important things to consider than the future of mankind.

I hardly equate your response to my post as "the future of mankind". Do you not see the egotism in that?

Anyhow, I responded above.

 

Having, because of your interest in my proposition, considered the psychological effects of children being taught as, I explained in the post. Which one of them might be the suicide because they are a thinker? because like so many young people who are trying to understand, when they realise that they have nothing to live for because there is no meaning to their life because they have not managed to contrive a meaning and because they understand that we are all just a pile of dead, lifeless, and inert chemicals. Which one/s will become junkies because there is no right or wrong? Expediency irrespective of any consequences other than avoiding causing themselves pain, just like many of the rapidly increasing number of disenchanted violent street gang kids, who have no empathy, no care, no love, no respect for anything, just greed, hate, anger and violence to support self gratification whether it be their ego or dope or sex.

Kids end up this way because their parents did not raise them properly and did not give them attention. Kids who turn to the street and immorality can be Christian, Jewish, Atheist, etc. No bible in the world can stop this behavior if there is no parent that takes the time to sit down and read it to them.

 

So, I think you have your blame misplaced.

 

What will be the situation when these kids breed at a faster rate than the Law enforcement agencies and the diminishing number of caring agencies can cope becoming over whelmed, as is increasingly happening as more and more parents have no concern or no idea of giving their kids any example of morality other than might is right, get what you can because there is no intrinsic honesty, because you have never learned it, it doesn’t make sense.

I suppose it would be a very bad situation. Though, you make it sound as if it is eminent. As Lemit pointed out, people have been claiming that the sky is falling since the beginning of time. It hasn't fallen yet and I don't expect it will in my lifetime.

 

Freeztar, will it take being gratuitously robbed and beaten up, will it take the car, the house, the family being vandalised, robbed or stolen to let the pseudo intellectual religious bigots like your self and other staff on this thread to recognise that the parents of the next generation need to be given, by example, a decent morality and not be given the foulmouthed rhetoric of people like you friend moontaman.

Arthur, you don't know me or anyone else on this site. Why do you resort to personal attacks? It is against the site rules and does not help you win friends (or debaters). Please refrain from doing this or you will quickly find yourself banned.

It's also amoral and I'm wondering why you were raised to believe that such behavior is ok. Before you go condemning every malaligned child in the world, you might want to hold up a mirror and then look past it to see where you can make a positive difference in the world.

 

You've got me curious though. What made you label me as a "pseudo intellectual religious bigot"?

I would be interested freeztar in how long do you think that you have before this sophisticated societies cracks start to adversely effect you to the extent that you see no hope?? just like the kids who will go through the type of education the I suggested in my post to you.

There's always hope. So, to answer your question directly, never.

 

So where do you think the standards of decency come from and why are humans the only animal to manifest such values that allow a free democratic civilised society to exist??

Ah, back to the topic...

 

The standards of decency probably arose as a result of human emotions and empathy/sympathy. We realized that hurting another person can hurt ourselves, hence we developed simple moral laws, such as the Code of Hammurabi. As civilization expanded, we honed our morals. The church certainly played a big role in this, historically more so than now. I agree with you on this and I suspect most (if not all) participants in this thread agree as well. The disagreement comes from saying that without the church there would be no morals and no moral authority. It's impossible to play the experiment back again without Church to see where we would end up today, but I suspect something else would fill the niche, with or without religious practices.

 

I think animals have a sense of decency. For example, a good friend of mine was saved from drowning by his dog. The dog didn't save my friend because of its moral convictions, but because he cared for his owner and didn't want him to die. Christianity didn't factor into the dog's decision making process at all.

[freeztar]

understand that once it has gone you will be left with nothing, just an empty human shell.

 

I'm sorry if you tried to reject the concept of God and felt this way, Arthur.

But, it's only your own experience. It makes me believe that you've never sat down and actually talked to an Atheist. I don't know of any Atheist that sees their life as an empty shell.

any claims of any horrors perpetrated by any religious factions have absolutely no relevance to my proposition.

 

Then why did you bring up your trip to Africa?

 

But I am sure that a new thread would be welcomed by the Christian haters to ***** about stuff that they do not understand. Arthur.

 

Not here. :phones:

We don't tolerate hate very well, from any side.