A World without Religion?

[RGCheek]

Hitler was a christian

Yeah right, and so was Stalin, lol.

I don’t think most of those discussing this topic here give much credence to cultural identifications with Christianity when the person in question commits such heinous acts against humanity and all the clear teachings of our Lord and Savior.

If Hitler could have waved a magic wand and turned Germany into Muslim he would have.

He was not a Christian in any meaningful, behavioral, or functional way.

IT was merely a political checkbox and polemical tool to win over the rubes who weren’t reading his writings very closely.

 

[PRmerger]

Hitler was a christian

Whether he professed Christianity is arguable.

That he followed the Christian ethos is quite clearly refutable.

I won’t charge atheism with the crimes of Mao.
Neither should you charge Christianity with the crimes of Hitler.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

If you are ok with massive explosive diarrhea, go ahead knock yourself out, enjoy.

We’re in hypothetical land, where the undesirable effects of eating can be resolved just as easily as the undesired effects of sex.

 

[PRmerger]

And if bulimia had no averse health impacts associated it with it, I wouldn’t see it as a problem. Currently it can kill you, so that’s a problem. Then again you’re also directly wasting food that could have fed someone else, which might be seen as problematic.

Your point that sex only for pleasure has no adverse effects?

Hypothetical- if there was a pill you could take after a meal that would prevent the nutrients from being absorbed, would you see that as a problem?

Absolutely.

You wouldn’t?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Whether he professed Christianity is arguable.

That he followed the Christian ethos is quite clearly refutable.

I won’t charge atheism with the crimes of Mao.
Neither should you charge Christianity with the crimes of Hitler.

Nobody has- the problem is the several in this thread using Hitler as an example of an atheist tyrant, which is simply absurd. Next we’ll hear about atheism launching the crusades.

 

[PRmerger]

You could appeal to his rational self interest.

Yeah. That’s a big problem for rational atheists, isn’t it?

It’s not that rational to give your cloak to the person who has none.
It’s not that rational to give your life for your friend.

Appealing to his rational self interest would be the recipe for a really ugly society, don’t you think?

 

[Aloysium]

We’re in hypothetical land, where the undesirable effects of eating can be resolved just as easily as the undesired effects of sex.

Actually, this is all about reality.

But you are providing a very bad analogy to try and prove your point since, the adverse effects associated with eating are more difficult to deal with than the worst addictions.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Your point that sex only for pleasure has no adverse effects?

When practiced safely, none.

Absolutely.

You wouldn’t?

Nope. Eat, drink, be merry!

 

[PRmerger]

Next we’ll hear about atheism launching the crusades.

I’d put that in the category of “probably not true”.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Actually, this is all about reality.

But you are providing a very bad analogy to try and prove your point since, the adverse effects associated with eating are more difficult to deal with than the worst addictions.

Considering I was having a discussion with someone else, I’m not sure why you feel the need to assert what said discussion is “about.” Contraception was compared to bulimia because both seek to get some of the consequences and not others. I noted that bulimia can kill you, so I proposed a hypothetical where the undesired effects of eating (weight gain) can be avoided just as easily as those of sex (pregnancy). The fact that this is not currently possible is immaterial.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Eat, drink, be merry!

Heaven has been described as a wedding feats. Jesus turned the water into wine.

People who love each other do not use each other; they make commitments and with God’s help they get through the most difficult times.
You sound young and with all that the young are exposed to, is there any point in talking about the tenderness and beauty of coming together in love to participate in the wondrous creation of a unique person who changes your life eternally. whoosh!

 

[Aloysium]

. . . The fact that this is not currently possible is immaterial.

It is possible, and it will cause massive explosive diarrhea.

 

[PRmerger]

When practiced safely, none.

The damage to the psyche is tremendous.

Any person who lives a life of hedonism is almost identifiable by the abysmal emptiness in his life. There is no doubt that the social sciences have demonstrated the utter despair in the lives of these sad, sad individuals.

Nope. Eat, drink, be merry!

I pity the daughter of yours who tries to live this way, Animal.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Heaven has been described as a wedding feats. Jesus turned the water into wine.

People who love each other do not use each other; they make commitments and with God’s help they get through the most difficult times.
You sound young and with all that the young are exposed to, is there any point in talking about the tenderness and beauty of coming together in love to participate in the wondrous creation of a unique person who changes your life eternally. whoosh!

If someone has the means and desire to care for children, more power to them. If they don’t, they shouldn’t. But the desire to have sex and the desire to have children are, clearly, not equivalent- so we have contraception for people who want the former but not the latter. Your positions seems to boil down to “every couple should want children”, but that’s clearly not the case.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

The damage to the psyche is tremendous.

Any person who lives a life of hedonism is almost identifiable by the abysmal emptiness in his life. There is no doubt that the social sciences have demonstrated the utter despair in the lives of these sad, sad individuals.

So let’s start with correlation != causation. You’ll probably find that people taking anti-depressants are sad people, but you wouldn’t conclude that antidepressants are to blame./

Given that, there’s no definitive link as far as I know. In terms of correlative studies, there are some going both directions- for example there’s this one: spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/03/1948550614537308.abstract

I pity the daughter of yours who tries to live this way, Animal.

Discipline is only useful insofar as it’s accomplishes something- conserving money, keeping you healthy, that sort of thing. If there comes a day when eating whatever you want has no impact on health, that particular sort of discipline will almost certainly fall by the wayside.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So let’s start with correlation != causation. You’ll probably find that people taking anti-depressants are sad people, but you wouldn’t conclude that antidepressants are to blame./

Given that, there’s no definitive link as far as I know. In terms of correlative studies, there are some going both directions- for example there’s this one: spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/03/1948550614537308.abstract

Discipline is only useful insofar as it’s accomplishes something- conserving money, keeping you healthy, that sort of thing. If there comes a day when eating whatever you want has no impact on health, that particular sort of discipline will almost certainly fall by the wayside.

Assuming that mental health does not require any particular level of internal discipline in order to undertake and maintain an intentional human existence.

What you seem to propose is a kind of infrastructure or scaffolding for the human spirit where the externals (drugs, technology, medical care, etc., ) will make the internal life of the person entirely superfluous in terms of being “human.”

I suggest you read The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis or Lost in the Cosmos by Walker Percy to bring you back to sobriety – if it isn’t too late.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Assuming that mental health does not require any particular level of internal discipline in order to undertake and maintain an intentional human existence.

Do you think you use your food, fuel, or leisure time as judiciously as a paleolithic man? I strongly suspect not- because technology has made those particular constraints less binding, so the need for discipline in those particular areas. Within our own lives, I suspect many of us recall when space on a computer’s hard drive was a precious thing, whereas now the age of terabyte HDs as more or less done away with that.

What you seem to propose is a kind of infrastructure or scaffolding for the human spirit where the externals (drugs, technology, medical care, etc., ) will make the internal life of the person entirely superfluous in terms of being “human.”

I suggest you read The Abolition of Man by CS Lewis or Lost in the Cosmos by Walker Percy to bring you back to sobriety – if it isn’t too late.

I only propose that people should have as many options available to them as feasible, given the current technology.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“If there were no God there would be no atheists.” Chesterton
AnimalSpirits;:

I don’t follow.

If there were no God, the idea of God would be as irrational as a square circle. There would be no atheists because nobody would think it necessary to refute God any more than they would think it necessary to refute a square circle. So not only would there not be anyone to defend the idea of God, but there would be no need for anyone to refute the idea of God.

But many find the idea of God definitely plausible.

So you have those who have to attack the idea of God. They are called atheists, and they cannot even begin to prove that God does not exist, or that anything makes any sense at all without God behind the whole scheme of things.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

“If there were no God there would be no atheists.” Chesterton

If there were no God, the idea of God would be as irrational as a square circle. There would be no atheists because nobody would think it necessary to refute God any more than they would think it necessary to refute a square circle. So not only would there not be anyone to defend the idea of God, but there would be no need for anyone to refute the idea of God.

But many find the idea of God definitely plausible.

So you have those who have to attack the idea of God. They are called atheists, and they cannot even begin to prove that God does not exist, or that anything makes any sense at all without God behind the whole scheme of things.

People all over the world started worshipping gods without hearing of your particular god. People, ancient ones in particular, were quite good at inventing religions- all but one of which you believe to be false. Thus, the fact that people find your god plausible is not proof at all.

I suspect you don’t believe in Thor, Shiva, or Zeus, but can’t definitively prove they don’t exist. As the saying goes, atheism just takes it one good further.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If someone has the means and desire to care for children, more power to them. If they don’t, they shouldn’t. But the desire to have sex and the desire to have children are, clearly, not equivalent- so we have contraception for people who want the former but not the latter. Your positions seems to boil down to “every couple should want children”, but that’s clearly not the case.

It is interesting that you use the word “should” in your statements as if it vaguely brings to mind some distant kind of moral principle. The idea you seem to be missing is that humans can and SHOULD transcend the low moral thresholds they may have “settled” for in the period of hormonal imbalance called adolescence, rather than hold on to those base standards as if they were the new “moral.”

The problem with incorporating base desires into ideals such that those base desires should replace whatever worthy goals a person may have entertained is that standards get lowered and then rationalized away. In fact, not only do you rationalize them away, you go so far as to raise base desires to the level of moral “shoulds.”

This cannot be a very wise way of building a strong society. Reframing the highest ideals of a society such that base pleasure satisfaction is made to be THE loftiest goal for human beings will only result in much misery and suffering. When all self-giving concern is lost as an ideal to strive for, there will be no relenting when so-called “rights” to pleasure satisfaction come into conflict. It will turn into a bloody mess.

We are currently living off the fumes of the Christian values that once held western societies together. Those fumes are quickly evaporating and moral torpidity is prevalent – hopefully we can wake up from the moral stupor before it is too late.