A World without Religion?

[Charlemagne_III]

And in breaking news, we find that in the overwhelmingly Christian society of the United States of America we find that…

…one-third of American children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Nearly five million more children live without a mother. lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in

I eagerly wait your ‘no true Scotsman’ reply.

I hate to burst your bubble of joy, but there was no mention or breakdown of statistics demonstrating that Christianity is the cause of broken homes.

More likely is it that the defiance of Christian values with pro-choice attitudes toward drugs, alcohol, promiscuity etc. is at the heart of the causes of broken homes. Christianity is not all in favor of divorce. Did you never read the Bible? But atheism I have noticed is entirely for the breaking up of traditional religious values since it thrives on the notion that doing so will set you free and make you oh so happy.

P.S. The “no true Scotsman” fallacy was invented by a famous British atheist, Antony Flew, who abandoned atheism before he died several years ago.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Conservapaedia? Are you kidding me?

Never even bothered to read it, didya?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve been to Sweden three times, mostly Stockholm. If people’s expressions on their faces is any sign of their mental state, I’d say Swedes are more resigned than happy. I think resignation can easily be mistaken for happiness.

Indeed! Resigned to their fate rather than their vocation.

The Lutheran church ceased to be the state church in 2000 and now Catholicism is the fastest growing religion in Sweden.

Enough to put a smile on this Swede’s face.

A fascinating fact, Karl.

 

[Bradski]

I hate to burst your bubble of joy, but there was no mention or breakdown of statistics demonstrating that Christianity is the cause of broken homes.

Did I say it was? I’m pretty certain I didn’t. Hang on, let me check…nope. No reference to Christianity being the problem at all.

I think most reasonable people would see the post as a response to the fatuous claim by Tony that secularism leads to more one parent families. But your post is yet another classic case of what’s good enough for you and those who support your views being apparently not good enough for those in disagreement.

It is perfectly OK for you to accept, without comment, this arbitrary and unsupported (and most probably unsupportable) claim which Tony apparently pulled out of his butt…

As illustrated by more than a million one-parent families in the UK’s secular society.

…but if I give a specific quote from a linked article simply to highlight the inanity of Tony’s post, then you are up in arms complaining about something I hadn’t even suggested.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Did I say it was? I’m pretty certain I didn’t. Hang on, let me check…nope. No reference to Christianity being the problem at all.

I think most reasonable people would see the post as a response to the fatuous claim by Tony that secularism leads to more one parent families. But your post is yet another classic case of what’s good enough for you and those who support your views being apparently not good enough for those in disagreement.

It is perfectly OK for you to accept, without comment, this arbitrary and unsupported (and most probably unsupportable) claim which Tony apparently pulled out of his butt…

…but if I give a specific quote from a linked article simply to highlight the inanity of Tony’s post, then you are up in arms complaining about something I hadn’t even suggested.

The first sentence from your post # 337:

“And in breaking news, we find that in the overwhelmingly Christian society of the United States of America we find that…”

How else is that to be interpreted but as a slam against Christian society?

 

[tonyrey]

]And in breaking news, we find that in the overwhelmingly Christian society of the United States of America we find that…

…one-third of American children – a total of 15 million – are being raised without a father. Nearly five million more children live without a mother. lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in

I eagerly wait your ‘no true Scotsman’ reply.

Surely it is obvious that “Christians” cannot help being influenced by advertising in the media which panders to their instincts. How else can people be persuaded to buy things they don’t really need? Your epiphet “Christian” has failed to take that into account.

And by the way, the suicide rate in Sweden is comparable to that in the US. Other countries with similar suicide rates are New Zealand, Austria and Switzerland at around 10 or 11 suicides per 100,000. Strangely enough, a secular society such as Australia is a lot lower at 7.8. Oh, and in the Tony-nominated secular state of the UK it’s even lower at 6.9. worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/

If you’re going to keep shooting yourself in the foot, Tony, I can recommend a good podiatrist.

If you’re going to keep misinterpreting words such as “Christian” I can recommend a good logician, Brad. In the “overwhelmingly Christian (according to Brad) society of the United States of America” criminal activity is soaring:

In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population.[2] While the United States represents about 5 percent of the world’s population, it houses around 25 percent of the world’s prisoners.

And in the Brad-nominated spiritually-aware UK:

Prisons in the United Kingdom had a sharp rise in suicides between 1972 and 1987, with hanging being the most common suicide method.[1]

wiki

Male Suicides in England and Wales Hit 15-Year High By CALM - 29th October 2014
**Now Single Biggest Killer of Men Aged Under 45, Male Suicides in England and Wales Hit 15-Year High - *Department of Health must finally recognise the enormity of gender problem as ratio of male to female deaths shows sustained rise over 30 years
Responding to the suicide statistics released today by the Office for National Statistics, CALM, the charity dedicated to preventing male suicide in the UK, call upon the government to finally take action to comprehensively tackle what is now the UK’s single biggest killer of men aged under 45.
Suicide statistics for England and Wales, show not just a record number of self-inflicted male deaths in 2013, but also an increasingly marked divergence between the ratio of male to female suicides; almost 80 per cent of all such deaths in England and Wales were male. The statistics show
· The highest total number of suicides since 2000, with 5,140 suicides recorded in England and Wales
· The highest number of male suicides since 1998

wiki

Is it a mere coincidence that far fewer men in the UK go to church, I wonder…

And there seems to be some general confusion hereabouts. A Catholic will quote a survey that shows Christianity in a good light and then when it is corrected, some other Catholic will claim that surveys aren’t worth the paper they are written on.

Then another Catholic will use the term secular to refer to a country like the UK (which has a state religion, for heaven’s sake) to show why it has a particular problem, then another will deny that the US is a Christian when it is pointed out that America has the same or even worse problems.

Jeez, guys, these goalposts really need to cemented in and bolted down.

And the chief offender is the one who uses the word “Christian” so frequently… (e.g. the overwhelmingly Christian society)…

 

[Bradski]

The first sentence from your post # 337:

“And in breaking news, we find that in the overwhelmingly Christian society of the United States of America we find that…”

How else is that to be interpreted but as a slam against Christian society?

Confused? You seem to be easily confused, Charles. The reference to the US being overwhelmingly Christian is a riposte to Tony’s unsubstantiated reference to the ‘secularist’ UK. The reality behind one parent familes is no doubt incredibly complex and complicated affected by many variables. To link the term secularist with the problem is no more justified than suggesting that in a Christian society, the problem is caused by Christianity.

I don’t really believe I had to explain that.

Surely it is obvious that “Christians” cannot help being influenced by advertising in the media which panders to their instincts. How else can people be persuaded to buy things they don’t really need? Your epiphet “Christian” has failed to take that into account.

I have no idea what you are talking about whatsoever.

If you’re going to keep misinterpreting words such as “Christian” I can recommend a good logician, Brad. In the “overwhelmingly Christian (according to Brad) society of the United States of America” criminal activity is soaring.

OK, guys. Time out. I think we need you, Tony and Charles, to give us an example of a Christian society. If you are going to use the term secular to indicate a country where the minority of people identify as being religious, then, call me stupid, but it would seem that a country where the vast majority of people class themselves as Christian could reasonably be classed as ‘a Christian country’.

It seems that you guys will shout it from the rooftops to defend your point of view where that epithet supports your view but will actively deny it when something is pointed out that causes you a problem.

How about you have the cojones to call it as you see it and stick to that view and not flip, flop, slide and slink around whether you are indeed a Christian Nation or not depending on which way the debating wind is blowing.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

OK, guys. Time out. I think we need you, Tony and Charles, to give us an example of a Christian society. If you are going to use the term secular to indicate a country where the minority of people identify as being religious, then, call me stupid, but it would seem that a country where the vast majority of people class themselves as Christian could reasonably be classed as ‘a Christian country’.

I think where you are running wild with your ideas is that you chronically confuse dominantly Christian country with the problems pervasive in that country.

Christianity is in decline everywhere in the world, creating a moral vacuum that devils rush in to fill. So the problems of these Christian countries are not designed, promoted and effected by Christians so much as by the anti-Christian forces that plague Christianity. These forces have always advanced themselves against Christianity (Nero blamed the Christians for burning Rome). Hitler attacked Judaism and Christianity invoking the prophetic and damnable inspiration of that “God is dead” philosopher Nietzsche.

I cited him earlier in this thread. Perhaps you missed the citation from the Christian philosopher Etienne Gilson, and would like to comment on it? Gilson was talking about the consequences of advancing atheistic philosophy by developing an absurdist philosophy. After all, it was not long after Nietzsche that atheists Sartre and Camus came along to do just that when they explored the nausea and suicidal tendencies of a godless world…

“Unless we welcome the eerie invitation to suicide, our problem is to live. A half dozen intellectuals may find meaning for the absurd in the literary success they gain by it, but such justification has no value for the masses of ordinary men liberated by atheism and who, having become gods without asking for it, do not know what to do with their divinity. The latter make no pretense to save themselves, they eagerly beg to be saved. Then there appear other men who undertake to exploit atheism in their turn, and who organize the cult of the new god. It is not without a profound philosophical reason that Marxism required atheism as one of its necessary principles.”

 

[Bradski]

I think where you are running wild with your ideas is that you chronically confuse dominantly Christian country with the problems pervasive in that country.

What is being pointed out, ad-bloody-nauseum, is that being a Christian country does not protect you from the ills and evils in this world. That, using the US as an example, a country that any reasonable person would describe as overwhelmingly Christian, many aspects of life are far from being what you might call world’s best practice. The amount of crime, the number of murders, the abortion rate, the difference in wealth distribution, all in the toilet.

And all this, not BECAUSE you are a Christian country but AS WELL as being a Christian country.

And this is being pointed out because of the constant bleating that rampant atheism (4% in the States!) is a cause for concern. And what is also being pointed out is that losing one’s religion, as so many Scandinavian countries have done has not, is not and in all certainty will not result in your ‘barbarian’s at the gate’ scenarios.

Everything points to the conclusion that maintaining your religion is no guarantee of social well being and losing it is no guarantee of social ills.

You are a Christian country. Deal with it. You have your problems. Deal with them. But don’t whinge to me that people with no belief in your God are the cause of the problems. Get your head out of the sand (or wherever else you have it jammed) and take a good look at yourself and your fellow Christians and ask yourself: ‘Where are WE going wrong’ not ‘Who can we blame’.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You are a Christian country. Deal with it. You have your problems. Deal with them. But don’t whinge to me that people with no belief in your God are the cause of the problems. Get your head out of the sand (or wherever else you have it jammed) and take a good look at yourself and your fellow Christians and ask yourself: ‘Where are WE going wrong’ not ‘Who can we blame’.

Christians do this all the time when they go to confession. They blame themselves for their sins

To whom does the atheist confess his sins? Oh, I forgot, they don’t sin.

Even Voltaire, no friend to Christianity, could see the moral vacuum created by atheism and was not averse to asking where the atheists went wrong and why.

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

I notice you totally refuse to answer difficult questions, such as the ones raised by Gilson.

1. Where is the atheist’s moral system without God?
2. Is the atheist his own Divinity?
3. Where is the atheist’s help?
4. How does atheism build a moral consensus when all morality is relative?

 

[Latias]

Christians do this all the time when they go to confession. They blame themselves for their sins

To whom does the atheist confess his sins? Oh, I forgot, they don’t sin.

Even Voltaire, no friend to Christianity, could see the moral vacuum created by atheism and was not averse to asking where the atheists went wrong and why.

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

I notice you totally refuse to answer difficult questions, such as the ones raised by Gilson.

1. Where is the atheist’s moral system without God?
2. Is the atheist his own Divinity?
3. Where is the atheist’s help?
4. How does atheism build a moral consensus when all morality is relative?

What is the full context of the quote?

This is from my favorite philosopher.

And so will all religion, said Philo, except the philosophical and rational kind. Your reasonings are more easily eluded than my facts. The inference is not just, because finite and temporary rewards and punishments have so great influence, that therefore such as are infinite and eternal must have so much greater. Consider, I beseech you, the attachment which we have to present things, and the little concern which we discover for objects so remote and uncertain. When divines are declaiming against the common behaviour and conduct of the world, they always represent this principle as the strongest imaginable (which indeed it is); and describe almost all human kind as lying under the influence of it, and sunk into the deepest lethargy and unconcern about their religious interests. Yet these same divines, when they refute their speculative antagonists, suppose the motives of religion to be so powerful, that, without them, it were impossible for civil society to subsist; nor are they ashamed of so palpable a contradiction. It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural honesty and benevolence has more effect on men’s conduct, than the most pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems. A man’s natural inclination works incessantly upon him; it is for ever present to the mind, and mingles itself with every view and consideration: whereas religious motives, where they act at all, operate only by starts and bounds; and it is scarcely possible for them to become altogether habitual to the mind. The force of the greatest gravity, say the philosophers, is infinitely small, in comparison of that of the least impulse: yet it is certain, that the smallest gravity will, in the end, prevail above a great impulse; because no strokes or blows can be repeated with such constancy as attraction and gravitation.

…
We must further consider, that philosophers, who cultivate reason and reflection, stand less in need of such motives to keep them under the restraint of morals; and that the vulgar, who alone may need them, are utterly incapable of so pure a religion as represents the Deity to be pleased with nothing but virtue in human behaviour. The recommendations to the Divinity are generally supposed to be either frivolous observances, or rapturous ecstasies, or a bigoted credulity. We need not run back into antiquity, or wander into remote regions, to find instances of this degeneracy. Amongst ourselves, some have been guilty of that atrociousness, unknown to the Egyptian and Grecian superstitions, of declaiming in express terms, against morality; and representing it as a sure forfeiture of the Divine favour, if the least trust or reliance be laid upon it.

Emphasis mine.

 

[Bradski]

Christians do this all the time when they go to confession. They blame themselves for their sins.

Well, so much for piety. It doesn’t seem to be working, does it, Charles. Do you have a Plan B?

I notice you totally refuse to answer difficult questions, such as the ones raised by Gilson.

You think those are difficult?

1. Where is the atheist’s moral system without God?
   We read, discuss, argue, debate, evaluate, cogitate, ponder, test, learn. We doubt. We listen to all sides of any given argument. We learn from those who suggest ways to make the world a better place and also from those who have already made mistakes from which we can learn. We use the wisdom of those who have gone before us, including great religious figures, to build on. We reject cant, hypocrisy, affected piety and likewise appeals to authority. We discount the supernatural. We believe that not everyone is born equal, but each deserves to be treated equally. We agree to change our views when presented with a better argument.

Let me know if you need any more.

1. Is the atheist his own Divinity?
   Divinity references the supernatural, so obviously not. If I were divine I would always be right. As I am often wrong that would seem to confirm it.
2. Where is the atheist’s help?
   Family and friends. They can rely on me so I in turn can rely on them.
3. How does atheism build a moral consensus when all morality is relative?
   I think you need to re-read number 1.

Emphasis mine.

Well emphasised.

 

[inocente]

@ Inocente

You said it all when you remarked, about a study that did not investigate the matter,
inocente;12636528:

I couldn’t find any correlation between the religiosity of a nation and the emotional well-being of its children.

:doh2: ya, think?

It would be helpful if you could use the quote system rather than your @-sign invention, so people don’t have to go searching for the post you are responding to. It’s easy to do, you just click on the quote button and edit out any text you don’t want to quote. Thank you for your consideration.

In your rush to be sarcastic, ya think, you completely missed the point that there is no correlation between the happiness of a nation and the religiosity of its citizens, which you can find from other reports, e.g. for Europe.

If happiness was proportional to religiosity then all over the world religious fundamentalists would be happier than everyone else and Taliban Afghanistan would be a deliriously wondrous paradise.

 

[inocente]

Well no, since you appear to be a moral relativist, you would find a way to keep moving them.

conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_suicide

Whenever you link a website it seems my browser always puts up a big red warning sign. This was no exception: "Users have identified the following issues: Hate, discrimination, misleading claims, unethical."

51 pages of user comments follow, the first of which was: “This is a wiki site which contains articles written from the standpoint of the American religious right. It includes uncritical references to pseudoscience (e.g. creationism, denial of general relativity, reparative therapy, and some others), political propaganda and bigotry against homosexuals and liberals. Not recommended for anything other than a few laughs.”

The real Wikipedia says "Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia include accusations against and strong criticism of US President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party, evolution, a wide array of alleged liberal ideologies, Wikipedia’s supposed liberal bias, of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism ], claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praise of a number of Republican politicians, praise of celebrities and artistic works that it views as “conservative” and/or promoting moral standards in line with Christian family values, and acceptance of fundamentalist Christian doctrine such as Young Earth creationism. Conservapedia’s “Conservative Bible Project” is a crowd-sourced translation of the Bible ] which Conservapedia claims will be “free of corruption by liberal untruths ]”.

I think linking such sites is more likely to turn people into atheists than do you any good. Imho the world would definitely be much better off without religious fanatics.

Meanwhile, back amongst us moderates, Pope Francis gives a completely different message: catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077

Love not hate.

 

[inocente]

quote=Bradski;12637455
Surely it is obvious that “Christians” cannot help being influenced by advertising in the media which panders to their instincts. How else can people be persuaded to buy things they don’t really need? Your epiphet “Christian” has failed to take that into account.

I think advertizing executives could only be more powerful than the gospel in churches without enthusiasm.

“It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.”

Written by that well-known Pentecostal evangelical, Joseph Ratzinger - catholicbridge.com/catholic/ratzinger_creationism.php

 

[Latias]

It is obvious to me that one can behave ethically and morally without the influence of religion. It is indeed possible to inculcate secular virtue into citizens so they can treat their fellow citizens with benevolence and amity.

---

The argument that society would disintegrate if it were not for the alleged benignant influence of religion comes from what I now regard a “white” Christianity/Catholicism. (I do not think there is any contradiction between myself identifying as a Catholic, and militating against “white” Christianity with my aforementioned quote.) Even during my conversion, when I did not struggle with lukewarmness and apathy, I never really embraced “white” Catholicism (in the sense that religion should have official influence in the political domain and that “traditional values” should be stressed). I was too much of a political realistic to accept that an acceptance of conservative/traditional values would result in social harmony and shared economic prosperity because those who possessed political power would use it to advance their own interests and subvert the desires of the commonwealth even under the institutions of liberal democracy, I had a discussion with a Sister in Fall 2012 about what is the “Kingdom of God”, and I argued that no known sociopolitical system could satisfy such a definition, given that social, political, ethnic, religious, and economic conflict would be rife in any era and there is no reason to suppose that technological advancement would significantly ameliorate the maladies of the human condition. Furthermore, politics is often associated with pragmatic means and rational self-interest, not righteousness, benevolence, or love. Thus, religious doctrine should not align itself to a particular political ideology, although an individual faithful person may identify one particular political movement as promoting his/her material interests or those that he or she sympathizes with. My personal epiphany, with the Sisters’ help, was narrow the scope of “Kingdom” to my immediate peers and community, and to love God and pray to him, and be the imitation of Christ to my peers.

Unfortunately, my disposition has grown lukewarm and I have failed to do this last year.

 

[Aloysium]

I have not met any religious person, Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Hindu, who, in spite of whatever their personal suffering, was not grateful for the many blessings bestowed upon them, who would trade any part of their lives for another, who basically who was not happy. To know God, our strength in the dark hours, is to know Joy.

 

[Paradoxical]

Consider whether the people who have lived under the atheist governments of the Soviet Union, China, and North Korea are happier than the people who have not lived under such governments.

Voltaire:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic." (from Voltaire’s essay On Atheism).

The Middle Eastern countries believe in the same OT God Catholics do. How’s that working for them?

If one needs the belief in an afterlife with harps and angels to keep them from killing their neighbors child and eating his dog. I say by all means to keep your religion. Some don’t need the imaginary hammer of hell.

 

[Paradoxical]

Do you really worship yourself, your family and your friends?

tonyrey, why do I need to worship myself? This whole bit about worship comes from cave dwellers who imagined there were volcano gods, earthquake gods, sun gods and that they could get these gods to stop their wrath by worshiping them and offering sacrifices. Sound familiar?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If one needs the belief in an afterlife with harps and angels to keep them from killing their neighbors child and eating his dog. I say by all means to keep your religion. Some don’t need the imaginary hammer of hell.

Apparently so, preferring the real life hammers of prison or the death sentence.