Two thirds of teenagers don't believe in God

[Beorn]

Two thirds of teenagers don't believe in God


Teenagers even say family, friends, money, music and even reality television are more important than religion.
It also emerged six out of ten 10 children (59 per cent) believe that religion "has a negative influence on the world".

The survey also shows that half of teenagers have never prayed and 16 per cent have never been to church.
The study of 1,000 teenagers aged 13 to 18 was carried out by Penguin to mark this week's publication of controversial novel 'Killing God' by Kevin Brooks.

The book is about a 15-year-old girl who questions the existence of God.
Kevin Brooks, the author, said: "I can't say I am surprised by the teenagers' responses.
"Part of the reason that I wrote Killing God was that I wanted to explore the personal attitudes of young people today, especially those with troubled lives, towards organised religion and the traditional concept of God.
"How can the moralities of an ancient religion relate to the tragedies and disorders of today's broken world? And why do some people turn to God for help while others take comfort in drugs and alcohol?
"These are just some of the questions I wanted to consider... And I wasn't looking for answers."

The research also found 55 per cent of young people are not bothered about religion and 60 per cent only go to church for a wedding or christening.
Only three out of 10 teenagers believe in an afterlife and 41 per cent believe that nothing happens to your body when you die, but one in 10 reckon they come back as an animal or another human being.

A Church of England spokesman said: "Many teenagers aren't sure what they believe at that stage of their lives, as is clear from the number who said they don't know whether they believe in God.
"On the other hand many of these results point to the great spirituality of young people today that the Church is seeking to respond to through new forms of worship alongside tradition ones."

Hanne Stinson, chief executive of The British Humanist Association, said: "It confirms that young people - like adults - do not need a religion to have positive values.
"The 'golden rule', which is often claimed by religions as a religious value, is in reality a shared human value - shared by all the major religions and the non-religious and almost every culture - that predates all the major world religions."

Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5603096/Two-thirds-of-teenagers-dont-believe-in-God.html)

[Loki]

I think it's good news! :)

Another nail in the coffin for the Church of England, that old establishment institution that is lying to people and brainwashing them as part of a social engineering agenda. Hopefully in about 20 years or so the CofE will disband and cease to exist.

[Beorn]

Hopefully in about 20 years or so the CofE will disband and cease to exist.

Along with Western society. All hail the Wii, Strongbow and Make-up!

[Angantyr]

Two thirds of teenagers can't tell their asses from a hole in the ground. :icon_neutral: :icon_neutral:

[Rainraven]

Society used to be that a child would take the religion of their parents unquestioningly and that was just how it worked. Now with the spread of communication there is a huge choice of religion, if you want to be Heathen, Christian, Buddhist, there will always be somewhere you can go no matter what your location. With such a wide variety of religions and the stupid wars people fight because of them is it any surprise that teenagers would rather believe nothing?

[Beorn]

With such a wide variety of religions and the stupid wars people fight because of them is it any surprise that teenagers would rather believe nothing?

People don't fight because of a religion, but because the religion is an extension of themselves.

People were forever banging on about Protestants and Catholics fighting each other in Northern Ireland because of their religion, when in fact their religion had next to nothing to do with it.

The lines were political and cultural. Not religious.

Religions don't cause wars. People do.

[Sol Invictus]

Religions don't cause wars. People do.

If I wasn't so buzzed I would quote what the Koran (And the Bible) says what should be done about non-believers. All I got to say about that.

[Beorn]

If I wasn't so buzzed I would quote what the Koran (And the Bible) says what should be done about non-believers. All I got to say about that.

Go right ahead. What would it show? That a 'religion' has physically come down and instigated a war with another religion, or would it merely show that a 'man' has corrupted the word of a religion to suit his own end?

[Rainraven]

would it merely show that a 'man' has corrupted the word of a religion to suit his own end?

Exactly.

A fact that has basically put me off organised religion for life.

[Sol Invictus]

Go right ahead. What would it show? That a 'religion' has physically come down and instigated a war with another religion, or would it merely show that a 'man' has corrupted the word of a religion to suit his own end?

No problem. You know, just the same as half the people here, that I used to be a hardcore Bible thumping Christian (just look at Skadi) until I saw through the bullshit of it all. I'll give you numerous quotes about all that once I'm done having my fun. I never had any fear about "schooling" anyone in regards to Christian theology, but I won't let you ruin it right now by forcing me to open that miserable fiction at this present moment.

In the mean time you should do a little research yourself and save me the hassle.

Until then..

:wink

[Beorn]

Exactly.

A fact that has basically put me off organised religion for life.

But has it put you off of God/Gods? If so, why?

[Thorum]

People don't fight because of a religion, but because the religion is an extension of themselves.

Religions don't cause wars. People do.

We agree Wat!! Yes, religion is man-made. Nothing more than a made up fantasy...:lightbul:

[Beorn]

We agree Wat!! Yes, religion is man-made. Nothing more than a made up fantasy...:lightbul:

That is not what I said. I said war is man made dressed up in justification by religion.

[Rainraven]

Put has it put you off of God/Gods? If so, why?

It has put me off trying to fit my beliefs into any other persons set religion. I don't like the assumptions people make when you tell them your religion. I have my own set of morals and beliefs and while they may be similar to some other peoples, I doubt they would be exactly the same.

It has put me off discussing religion with people (:rolleyes:). The majority of people start talking about their religion by saying "I'm not going to try press my beliefs on you but..."

In some regards these factors alone put me off a god/s. If there is a god/s does it matter if people believe in him/her/them? Except if one of these said religions is true then we'll all be kicking ourselves when judgement day comes. If there is no higher being/s then it hardly makes a difference either, it just gave people something to believe in and found them people of similar morals. Religion is a personal choice and if modern day teenagers don't believe in god then I can't see it as the end of the world.

If we want to say a lack of belief in God is leading to a slide in morals and goodness in the world then perhaps we have a problem worth discussing. However I think this is more of a symptom of something bigger than a cause.

[Beorn]

Religion is a personal choice and if modern day teenagers don't believe in god then I can't see it as the end of the world.

Then what is to stop the people of one cohesive culture from replacing the indigenous disparate culture?


However I think this is more of a symptom of something bigger than a cause.

Would you care to elaborate that thought? :)

[Rainraven]

Then what is to stop the people of one cohesive culture from replacing the indigenous disparate culture?

The indigenous culture has the advantage of being longstanding. People are usually not fond of change and such an event would take a number of generations. To stop it happening the indigenous culture needs to keep up with the times. While old things that have been around for hundreds of years may appeal to adults, to teenagers they seem stuffy and old-fashioned. It would also be interesting to come back to the group in 10 years and see how their ideas have changed. It may just be a fact that teenagers are no longer interested in religion and without their parents forcing it on them they don't have any beliefs on the matter. In their later years with some more experience and maturity they may begin to have a desire to believe in something more than this little world.



Would you care to elaborate that thought? :)

I think the majority of teenagers are becoming more materialistic and selfish. I have nothing to compare this to and no real basis of this assumption but my own thoughts. It seems to me that as everything becomes easier we become less willing to do anything for ourselves and teenagers especially just want to spend all their time playing on their toys, or getting drunk/high then doing any real work.

Why would these people take an hour out of their Sunday morning sleep in to pay penance to a god? They are filled with a self confidence that they can do what they like and they are always right. This itself does not lend to the acknowledgement of a higher being or answering to someone other than themselves.

[Beorn]

To stop it happening the indigenous culture needs to keep up with the times.

Like enrolling in the OPs article? :D

[Útrám]

The Flynn effect could account for this, as humankind ages it becomes less genetically predisposed to blind faith.

[Thorum]

The Flynn effect is the rise of the average intelligence quotient (IQ) test scores over generations (IQ gains over time). It is an effect seen in most parts of the world, although at greatly varying rates. It is named after James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. However, the authors of The Bell Curve were the first to coin the label and not Flynn himself.[1] This increase has been continuous and roughly linear from the earliest days of testing to the present. "Test scores are certainly going up all over the world, but whether intelligence itself has risen remains controversial," psychologist Ulric Neisser wrote in an article in 1997 in The American Scientist.[2] The Flynn effect may have ended in some developed nations starting in the mid 1990s although other studies, such as Black Americans reduce the racial IQ gap: Evidence from standardization samples (Dickens, Flynn; 2006), still show gains between 1972 and 2002. [Wiki]

[Cato]

Then it's time to give them a new conception of God to believe in rather than the self-abasing suffering savior or the violence-crazed jihadi.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Go right ahead. What would it show? That a 'religion' has physically come down and instigated a war with another religion, or would it merely show that a 'man' has corrupted the word of a religion to suit his own end?

Corrupted? If you look at the actions of the founders of these religions, it appears to be a primary motivation in the founding of religions.

[Beorn]

The Flynn effect could account for this, as humankind ages it becomes less genetically predisposed to blind faith.

Yet still retains some semblance of faith.


Corrupted? If you look at the actions of the founders of these religions, it appears to be a primary motivation in the founding of religions.

With certain religions, yes. I wouldn't be so pig headed as to deny, say, the beauty of Muhammad's message being then corrupted by first himself and then his predecessors, but the original message of Islam is still there in its uncorrupted form still being adhered to by true believers.

[Phlegethon]

With such a wide variety of religions and the stupid wars people fight because of them is it any surprise that teenagers would rather believe nothing?

People who believe in nothing are a whole lot more dangerous than people who adhere to the dogma of a religion. This whole religious wars story is a joke. Religion was not the factor, territory and rule were. Back in the good old days Throne and Altar were one.

[Inese]

Latvia is a protestant country like all Northern European countrys and not like Russia or some Balkan people who are orthodox --- but i tell you i have lost my belief and trust in a god because a god who allow so many bad things to happen to people who are always nice and inocent in life can only be a idiot and i pray not to idiots!! :mad: Friends suffered, i sufferend and my family suffered too and i was praying so much as a little girl but it never got better and then there was the point where i say that i dont know if a god is in heaven but if a god is in heaven he can piss off!! :coffee:

The religions are liars and i believe we forge our own destiny!!:thumbs up

[Beorn]

...protestant country like all Northern European countrys

Not all together true as you forget to include Ireland which is predominately Catholic, but in general you are correct.


i have lost my belief and trust in a god because a god who allow so many bad things to happen to people who are always nice and inocent in life can only be a idiot and i pray not to idiots!!

Who says that God would want to look after you? What made you and your family, friends and fellow countrymen so deserving of a righteous intervention?


The religions are liars and i believe we forge our own destiny!!

It's not that religion is lying to you, but you are looking to get out of religion more than you put in.
It could be said that God was testing your resolve. In which case you failed and deserve to be resigned to your fate.

[Treffie]

But has it put you off of God/Gods? If so, why?

The only problem I have with Christianity is the fact that the `Brotherhood` is considered an integral part of church life. With this in mind, I can't quite get my head around the church's selected tolerance to some groups and not others.

But having said that, in my opinion there are parallels between the declining influence of the church and the lowering of standards in society.

[Inese]

Who says that God would want to look after you? What made you and your family, friends and fellow countrymen so deserving of a righteous intervention?
Religion says god loves and created all people and when he loves all people why happen all the bad things to inocent beliefers?? :rolleyes2:
I tell you one!! I dont know if a god is in heaven but if a god is in heaven he deserves me not!!

It could be said that God was testing your resolve. In which case you failed and deserve to be resigned to your fate.
Hm i prefer to have failed but have my own fate!! Because a god wo tests his beliefers if they are worthy or not is not worthy to be a god at all , okay?!! :mad: What a idiot "Hey i create all people and love them all but if they fail at my test they are not worthy!!" lol!! O.o :D

If a god exist and created all people he already know which people are worthy or not dont you think?? Why testing people if he created all of their mind and everything??? "He who knows all " need tests?? Stupid religious logic!!

Have fun with your god i trust only in me and the people i love!

[Beorn]

Religion says god loves and created all people and when he loves all people why happen all the bad things to inocent beliefers?

Because God said he cannot interfere with his creations free will. All the bad things that happened to you were either because of you, or because of the free will of another individual.


I tell you one!! I dont know if a god is in heaven but if a god is in heaven he deserves me not!!

Very true. You are not deserving of God.


What a idiot "Hey i create all people and love them all but if they fail at my test they are not worthy!!"

Out of interest, but have you never tested someone you love?


If a god exist and created all people he already know which people are worthy or not dont you think??

I'm starting to wonder if you actually understood the religion you freely discarded.

[Inese]

Because God said he cannot interfere with his creations free will. All the bad things that happened to you were either because of you, or because of the free will of another individual.
The old religious thinking that humans are born sinners blah blah. O.o Believe it yourself because i do not!! :coffee:

Very true. You are not deserving of God.
No, that bad god ---- if he exists!! does not deserve my prayers and fate.

Out of interest, but have you never tested someone you love?
Not with true love!! Do you test your parents for their love?? :confused:


I'm starting to wonder if you actually understood the religion you freely discarded.
Religions are fantasy products it is not about understanding it is about believing in the fantasy world or not!! Preachers sell religious products , products of human minds you know??

[Beorn]

Believe it yourself because i do not!!

You don't believe you have free will?


No, that bad god ---- if he exists!! does not deserve my prayers and fate.

He's neither bad or good. God is your perception. Interesting that you place him as 'bad'. To me that speaks a lot about a person.


Not with true love!! Do you test your parents for their love?

I did. Very often in fact. Thankfully they still love me and are there to comfort me when I need them.


Religions are fantasy products it is not about understanding it is about believing in the fantasy world or not!! Preachers sell religious products , products of human minds you know??

I'll take that as your admittance to not fully understanding the religion you once followed.

Thank you for your input. :)

[Groenewolf]

The Flynn effect could account for this, as humankind ages it becomes less genetically predisposed to blind faith.

So then why are so many proclaiming a blind faith in materialism. Namely the statement there is only this world and it is utterly material and profane? Then you then probaly follow with al kind of arguments to proof that blind faith. However they are only valid in so far they are based on that belief. They are you basic assumption on wich all your arguments are based. Someone whose basic belief is that there is more then just a profane material world would have his own arguments that are valid from the point of vieuw of their own basic assumptions. Atheists and theists do not differ from each other in intelligence. Both groups speak completly different languages.

[Cato]

So then why are so many proclaiming a blind faith in materialism. Namely the statement there is only this world and it is utterly material and profane? Then you then probaly follow with al kind of arguments to proof that blind faith. However they are only valid in so far they are based on that belief. They are you basic assumption on wich all your arguments are based. Someone whose basic belief is that there is more then just a profane material world would have his own arguments that are valid from the point of vieuw of their own basic assumptions. Atheists and theists do not differ from each other in intelligence. Both groups speak completly different languages.

I've always been of the opinion that materialists are also believers in God and divine powers. They veil their wording in scientific terms, spouting from the bible of empiricism, but seem to forget that you can't conduct a lab test on God to prove his existence. So, by exiting the world of the mundane to take up the fight against God, they enter into the world of the sublime and, in effect, become partisans for God.

Also, their allegiance to what can only be called blind or dumb luck is an allegiance to chaos, disorder and entropy- fwhoch are orces of creation in themselves, from which the Creator-God, portrayed as Marduk or Zeus some other figure, "slays" to give rise to the physical universe.

Living as they do in Plato's shadow world (from the cave allegory), materialists are ill-equipped to tackle matters divine, which they categorically deny even though their science has nothing to do with metaphysical questioning. They holler that Gods don't exist and when you ask them for proof, all you get are scientific sophistries or appeals to the works of known atheist luminaries (Dawkins, Harris). This is exactly how some theists operate: theological sophistries and appeals to scriptural and doctrinal authority.

[Loki]

He's neither bad or good. God is your perception. Interesting that you place him as 'bad'. To me that speaks a lot about a person.


I also perceive God as "bad", so I guess that says something about me also.

Do you honestly believe that God is merely your perception? Because then you aren't a true Christian believer, but something else new-agey. :wink

[Cato]

I also perceive God as "bad", so I guess that says something about me also.

Do you honestly believe that God is merely your perception? Because then you aren't a true Christian believer, but something else new-agey. :wink

The myths say that Zeus keeps two jars next to his throne, out of which he hurls good and bad upon the world and in a manner that only he understands. The book of Job also presents God as antagnostic towards man, a user of tough love to train and purify his followers.

[Beorn]

I also perceive God as "bad", so I guess that says something about me also.

It does. Yet you forget that you have divulged your reasoning for abandoning your faith to me, so rightly or wrongly, I believe you have perceived God as 'bad' because your ultimate 'test', if you will, was one that was preceded by...well, it's not for me to repeat your experience again.


Do you honestly believe that God is merely your perception?

Yes, and have always thought that God is what you make of him.


Because then you aren't a true Christian believer

But I've never declared myself as a Christian. I have, until recently, called myself a Pagan for many years because according to the Christian faith my belief that Jesus was only a mere mortal and not the son of God, amongst many other dual ideological differences, would have me marked as a Heathen, Pagan, whatever...yet I still practice what is essentially a Christian faith.

[Loki]

It does. Yet you forget that you have divulged your reasoning for abandoning your faith to me, so rightly or wrongly, I believe you have perceived God as 'bad' because your ultimate 'test', if you will, was one that was preceded by...well, it's not for me to repeat your experience again.


You must have understood me wrong then. Bad experiences were only the catalyst to get me thinking rationally. In the end, pure logic and reasoning put the final nails in the coffin of God for me.



Yes, and have always thought that God is what you make of him.


Then (at least to you) he is not real, but a figment of your illustrious imagination.

[Beorn]

Then (at least to you) he is not real, but a figment of your illustrious imagination.

Of course God exists. God has shown himself to me in an individual and personal way completely different to the next person, just as my father showed his love and truth to me in one manner different to the next child he cared and nurtured.
I wouldn't therefore declare my fellow sibling was/is undergoing a figment of its imagination as both our experiences were/are ultimately the same.

[Loki]

Of course God exists. God has shown himself to me in an individual and personal way completely different to the next person, just as my father showed his love and truth to me in one manner different to the next child he cared and nurtured.
I wouldn't therefore declare my fellow sibling was/is undergoing a figment of its imagination as both our experiences were/are ultimately the same.

Your experience is not the same as a father-child relationship. The difference is that yours is intangible, relying on a fictional make-believe character named God. I.e. completely made up in your mind, like a childhood imaginary friend. :)

[Cato]

Yes, and have always thought that God is what you make of him.

Given that what we're dealing with here is omnipotence and omnipresence, this statement is very true.


But I've never declared myself as a Christian. I have, until recently, called myself a Pagan for many years because according to the Christian faith my belief that Jesus was only a mere mortal and not the son of God, amongst many other dual ideological differences, would have me marked as a Heathen, Pagan, whatever...yet I still practice what is essentially a Christian faith.

Matthew Tindal, an English deist of the 17th and 18th centuries, wrote a book titled Christianity as Old as the Creation, which puts forth that the doctrines of Christianity aren't unique in time and place and are, in fact, universal in nature:

"Unlike the earlier system of Lord Herbert of Cherbury which relied on the notion of innate ideas, Tindal's system was based on the empirical principles of Locke. It assumed the traditional deistic antitheses of external and internal, positive and natural, revelations and religions. It starts from the assumptions that true religion must, from the nature of God and things, be eternal, universal, simple and perfect; that this religion can consist of nothing but the simple and universal duties towards God and man, the first consisting in the fulfilment of the second -- in other words, the practice of morality."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Tindal

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Tindal#Christianity_as_Old_as_the_Creation

To this I would add that God is best approached via his attributes, as the mind cannot grasp the totality of the Supreme Being. Thus, the beings we call Gods and Goddesses, who are the personified attributes of the Supreme Being.

[Beorn]

Your experience is not the same as a father-child relationship.

Of course it is.


The difference is that yours is intangible, relying on a fictional make-believe character named God. I.e. completely made up in your mind, like a childhood imaginary friend. :)

Have you proof that God does not exist? I have proof that God does exist, but whether you would except that proof as evidence would be another thing altogether.

[Loki]

Have you proof that God does not exist?


The onus is not on me to prove that something doesn't exist. I can no more prove that God doesn't exist, than I can prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. If people claim that something exists, without evidence to back it up, then it can't be taken seriously by people who rely on reason and rationality.



I have proof that God does exist, but whether you would except that proof as evidence would be another thing altogether.

Please present it! :thumbs up I have an open mind and I actually want to believe that God exists -- but I would not be able to convince my mind that it does, unless hard evidence is presented. So I would welcome and hail such a discovery. Who knows, this may be the discovery of a million years! :thumb001::thumb001::thumb001:

[Cato]

God's existence isn't certain when approached using the scientific method. However, if as notorious an atheist as Anthony Flew can change his mind using his own mental faculties, perhaps inferences of God's existence can be gained from science- like the ripples on a pond's surface after a stone has been thrown into it. The stone is God, which can't be seen from the surface, but the ripples of that stone striking the water can be seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

God's existence can be proven in any physical sense; God has to be intuited.

[Beorn]

The onus is not on me to prove that something doesn't exist.

You are the one who wants/needs validation for God existing. Not me.


I have an open mind and I actually want to believe that God exists -- but I would not be able to convince my mind that it does, unless hard evidence is presented. So I would welcome and hail such a discovery. Who knows, this may be the discovery of a million years!

Unfortunately you would not get that from me. All you would get is anecdotes of visions, experiences not easily explained by conventional science, etc...

I can't manifest hard evidence from the time I died and felt God's presence, but you would just have to believe my assertion that that was what happened.

[Loki]

You are the one who wants/needs validation for God existing. Not me.


I don't want and I don't need. :) It doesn't bother me at all to be honest.



Unfortunately you would not get that from me. All you would get is anecdotes of visions, experiences not easily explained by conventional science, etc...

I can't manifest hard evidence from the time I died and felt God's presence, but you would just have to believe my assertion that that was what happened.

Fascinating, please tell more. You died? :eek:

[Cato]

I can't manifest hard evidence from the time I died and felt God's presence, but you would just have to believe my assertion that that was what happened.

Did you have a near-death experience? If so, which is most likely the case, did you take away the impression that God was the Abrahamic deity or something else? I've always been fascinated, but also a little skeptical, of tales of NDEs. Such events are intuitive, to follow up with my earlier post that God can be felt but not measured.

I've always had the belief that God is an intelligent, transpersonal force force with a code of ethics that only we can understand. In other words, an alien entity with alien behaviorisms. This makes perfect sense given that God is the being in whom every concept, form and idea is united. I feel that God is ultimately good, but I'm baffled by the evil in the world. But, that this is good and evil from the human perspective. God emanates life, our sublime selves, soul and spirit, are effulgences of God. I think an NDE is expressive of the return back to God, the part being absorbed back into the whole. If God is non-local in space and time, and if God is omnipotent and omniscient, perhaps our physical existence is the way in which God is omnipotent and omniscience- he is in us and we are in him so to speak. Our experiences, lives and such, even tragic and short-lived, provide God with depth and fullness. Such a concept exists in Hinduism: atman (self-as-God, divine immanence) and brahman (God-as-self, divine transcendence). Atman and brahman are ultimately the same thing.

[Loyalist]

A disturbing statistic.

Now, I know how much flak I am going to take for saying what I am about to say. There will no doubt he at least half a dozen individuals quoting my post with all sorts of criticism, ridicule, and indignation. I will say in advance not to bother; I will neither read nor care about it.

Europe is a Christian continent, and Europeans are Christian people. European civilization, both at home and in its global dispoara, is influenced and shaped by a Christian tradition in every way. Therefore, the fates of Christianity and Europeans are inextricably linked. Individuals complaining about the invasion of Islam and other alien religions, but who themselves subscribe to atheism, agnosticism, Odinism, Asatru, or any of those other pagan revival movements are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. To be more specific, they are the problem. There is no distinction between a Muslim fresh off the boat from the East, and a Nordid Halstatt from some isolated fjord who wears a Mjöllnir, or who rejects the existence of God in general. If Christianity disappears from the native populace of Europe and ethnic Europeans in Colonial lands, then I hope the European peoples fall with it.

It is not only the anti-Christian sentiment prevelant around here with which I take issue, but also the general anti-religious atmosphere. Whether your distaste for religion stems from your belief that it is all an alien system brought to Europe from some far off desert, or you simply reject the idea of a Higher Power in favour of a scientific or some other origin of all things, the fact that this is wholly incompatible with European civilization is being ignored. No, Christianity was not a factor in Europe more than 2,000 years ago, however, religion has always formed a core element in every European group since the dawn of time. The Christian faith may not have been practiced by proto-European peoples, but then again, neither was atheism.

[Loki]

It is not only the anti-Christian sentiment prevelant around here with which I take issue, but also the general anti-religious atmosphere.


As opposed to what? A religious atmosphere? No, as I see it (correct me if I'm wrong), people are totally free to express their religious thoughts here. We have Christians, heathens, atheists, agnostics. I wouldn't have it any other way. We can enrich and challenge one another with our different perspectives. It's all good in the end. :)



Whether your distaste for religion stems from your belief that it is all an alien system brought to Europe from some far off desert, or you simply reject the idea of a Higher Power in favour of a scientific or some other origin of all things, the fact that this is wholly incompatible with European civilization is being ignored. No, Christianity was not a factor in Europe more than 2,000 years ago, however, religion has always formed a core element in every European group since the dawn of time. The Christian faith may not have been practiced by proto-European peoples, but then again, neither was atheism.

Personally, I have a distaste in religion -- especially the Christian variety. But this is my own personal experience and opinion, and it does not mean that others, who may be believers, should feel threatened by this. I respect people's right to follow any religion they like, or none at all.

My personal atheism is part of my life's journey at present. I cannot predict whether it will still be prevalent at the end of my life's days ... who knows. Life is a journey. :)

[anonymaus]

A...theism.

Not to be ruder than is necessary, but there's too much nonsense in that post for a serious person to spend time parsing and rebutting it all.

You, as a theist, accede to the same foundational principle of unthought--of being satisfied with, even elated by having, no evidence for your worldview--which is the basis for all the world's sundry and colourful versions of mind and self-destroying religious nonsense.

Your behavioural outcome as a Christian will be, nine times out of ten, very much different than a Muslim; you are, however, simply a different mutation of the same sickness.

It is you, the gentle believer, who gives aid and comfort to the forces of Jihad. Not we who refuse to believe.

[Jamt]

Loki, come on, anti Christian stuff about slave religion is galore here.
I dough you and Fox would be as nice about heathens as rootles Californian new-age pop-culture, though they really are that.

[Cato]

It is you, the gentle believer, who gives aid and comfort to the forces of Jihad. Not we who refuse to believe.

And how, exactly do believers, of Christianity I assume, aid and abet the forces of jihadism? Are the Elders of Zion manipulating both factions for their own nefarious purposes of world domination? :D

[Óttar]

Wat, the belief that Christ was not divine was called the Arian heresy, named from their founder Arius, which was followed by the Goths and other Northern Europeans.

I cannot believe the statement that it is not religion which is evil, but it is humans which use it for their own ends per se. I take issue with the idea that Islam was initially great, but was somehow perverted later on. The seeds of intolerance are inherently a part of mainstream Abrahamic religions. For example, in the Bible, God orders pagans to "be slaughtered in his presence." simply because they worshipped other gods.

In the Quran, it is written that Allah is angry with people because they have declared that the angels were females, and worshipped the goddesses Al-Uzza, Al-Menat, and Al-Lat (presumably in the form of angels.)

In Islam, it is shirk or unpardonable sin for someone to worship another deity. This belief comes from the Quran. Muhammad in old Arabia went to the Kaaba and destroyed all the images of gods within it.

Now, in Islam, it is considered the most worthy thing that a Muslim should follow the example of the Prophet. So then what is to stop a Muslim from going to India and, following the example of the Prophet, smashing Hindu temples and statues? As a matter of fact, Muslims did invade India and smash thousands of Hindu temples and statues. They had their very own holy book giving them sanction to do this. Was it an example of them perverting the text for their own ends? No. I don't think so. It's their book, it gave them the sanction in the first place, they didn't pull it out of their behinds after the fact.

People always talk about interpretation saying "it's all interpretation." I beg to differ. I think if the book actually says something is permitted, well then, what is to stop someone from doing exactly what their book says? After all, their holy book says it. I think people use the word "interpretation" as a code for "conveniently ignoring that which doesn't accord with ethical behavior." So instead of realizing the inherent flaw in their texts and belief system, they conveniently ignore the verses so as to not have to do an overhaul of the whole system.

There are two types of religion. There is that type of religion which believes "this way is the only way, and all else can (literally) go to Hell." The texts of Abrahamic religion provide much fertile ground for acts of religious intolerance. Sometimes in Abrahamic religion, especially in mystical schools such as Kabbalah, Sufism and Gnosticism there is tolerance and the ability for expression, cultivating praiseworthy qualities like compassion, tolerance, love, etc. These traditions emphasise Love above all else.

People often think religion equals bloodshed because they think religion = Abrahamic religion. Pagans generally did not go about killing other pagans simply because they worshipped other gods. In the ancient world, and in Hinduism, there are these beliefs, (a) polytheism and (b) monism. These beliefs run like this "(a)There are many gods, or (b)there is One God with various names and manifestations." These two forms of belief are fertile ground for religious tolerance.

Take the following parable to illustrate my point.

I am a Muslim with an expedition force. I come to India, and I see a Hindu temple with a statue of the goddess Durga inside. I see the local priest and I say "Alas, what is this ignorance (Arabic. jahililyya), which seeks to associate partners with Allah Most High?!" "Verily, this is ignorance and an affront to God." I then order my expedition force to destroy the Hindu temple and its apparently blasphemous idol.

^ The above is an example of the kind of thinking made possible in Abrahamism.

Now compare the same scenario with a few differences:

I am an Arab pagan with an expedition force. I come to India and see a Hindu temple with a statue of the goddess Durga inside. I see the local priest and I say "Alas, this is your goddess? We have a goddess a lot like yours. We call Her Al-Uzza!" So then the priest replies "In these parts we call Her Durga." The two parties realize that their gods must be compatible deities and thus the two are identified with each other. A statue of Al-Uzza is placed in the temple, and pagans from all around come to see the temple. Thus the cult of Durga-Al Uzza is born.

^ The above is an example of the kind of thinking the ancient polytheists and monists subscribed to.

See the difference?

[SwordoftheVistula]

I wouldn't be so pig headed as to deny, say, the beauty of Muhammad's message being then corrupted by first himself and then his predecessors, but the original message of Islam is still there in its uncorrupted form still being adhered to by true believers.

How can the founder corrupt his own religion? It's more the tame version of the religions which are the 'corrupted' version, under pressure from civil authorities for public order reasons, or just a general relaxation of religious belief.


People who believe in nothing are a whole lot more dangerous than people who adhere to the dogma of a religion.

Ever heard of an atheist suicide bombing because he thinks he'll be rewarded in the afterlife?


...righteous intervention...


Because God said he cannot interfere with his creations free will.

Ok, in that case he can't do anything at all, period, because any act would be 'interfering' with someone's 'free will'


God is your perception.

Meaning he only exists in the minds of his worshippers.


And how, exactly do believers, of Christianity I assume, aid and abet the forces of jihadism?

Shit like "I don't care what you believe, as long as you believe in something" meaning they place Osama bin Ladin on a higher level than atheists.

[Cato]

Shit like "I don't care what you believe, as long as you believe in something" meaning they place Osama bin Ladin on a higher level than atheists.

Osama isn't exactly an authority in the Islamic world; his use of violence, to me, merely brings out the savage tendencies of his co-religionists. Osama's stock has tanked since 9-11, that was his big fifteen minutes of fame.

A belief in something can be a belief in anything, and philosophy and religion can range from complete pacifism to Osama's brand of violent Islam.

[Cato]

Europe is a Christian continent, and Europeans are Christian people. European civilization, both at home and in its global dispoara, is influenced and shaped by a Christian tradition in every way. Therefore, the fates of Christianity and Europeans are inextricably linked. Individuals complaining about the invasion of Islam and other alien religions, but who themselves subscribe to atheism, agnosticism, Odinism, Asatru, or any of those other pagan revival movements are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. To be more specific, they are the problem. There is no distinction between a Muslim fresh off the boat from the East, and a Nordid Halstatt from some isolated fjord who wears a Mjöllnir, or who rejects the existence of God in general. If Christianity disappears from the native populace of Europe and ethnic Europeans in Colonial lands, then I hope the European peoples fall with it.

This "my way or the highway" attitude is what is causing the total collapse of the Christian religion in the west. Christianity which has stifled the nature of European man for centuries, just doesn't cut it any longer. Read Might is Right; if something no longer works, get rid if it.

"If Christianity disappears from the native populace of Europe and ethnic Europeans in Colonial lands, then I hope the European peoples fall with it." Then why are you on this forum? Go and prepare for the End Times, shake your fist at the prince of darkness or whatever it is that Christian defeatists do. There's more to the world than the Christian religion; people naturally gravitate to what's strong and, right now, traditional Christianity is in the wane; new religions are rising to take its place, including new forms of Christianity. Rather than hoping your motherland falls if a recent religion falls (Christianity being no older than 1,000 years in some places in Europe when homo sapiens have been there for tens of thousands of years), you should be prepared to fight tooth and nail for your homeland and your kindred people- be they in Europe or elsehwhere where Europeans have settled.

Don't forget what Christendom was built upon, the bones of the Greco-Roman giant, without which there would be no Christianity to speak of.

Comparing an Asatruar to some Muslim savage reminds me of "Only Sith deal in absolutes." Bollocks, Asatruar are no more like Muslims than I'm like some feral negro from Africa.

[Phlegethon]

people naturally gravitate to what's strong and, right now, traditional Christianity is in the wane; new religions are rising to take its place, including new forms of Christianity.

Actually, traditional Christianity is on the rise all over the world, while wishy-washy , ecumenical, homo marriage deviations and statist political outfits like the Church of England are losing ground massively.

[Loki]

Actually, traditional Christianity is on the rise all over the world,

Yes, in Africa, China, India and Latin America.

[Cato]

Actually, traditional Christianity is on the rise all over the world, while wishy-washy , ecumenical, homo marriage deviations and statist political outfits like the Church of England are losing ground massively.

Let the non-Europeans deal with it then; Christianity began among the rabble of the near east, so let it gravitate back to wherever.

[Phlegethon]

Actually it is gravitating back to your place, thanks to the Mexicans and to a lesser degree the highly-qualified Asians who are doing the work Americans aren't qualified for.

[Cato]

Which proves my unspoken belief that Christianity can be anything, for anyone, at anyplace in time or space.

[Phlegethon]

That is the secret of its success. The old Norse religious belief waas lost in obscurity because of thee Germanic lack of documentation. That is why I cannot really comprehend the fanaticism some heathens put into some made-up fantasy book rituals. Every Scandinavist or Germanist could tell them that there is hardly any archaeological evidence to substantiate their interpretations.

Islam has the benefit that it started out in the 7th century and thus was pretty much fully (and voluminously) documented. And the same is true for the Christian churches since their doctrinal incorporation.

[Cato]

That is the secret of its success.

And this doesn't bother you, that, if not for its elasticity and willingness to burgle the theological beliefs of others, the blood of Christ would've congealed long, long ago?
:confused:

[Óttar]

And this doesn't bother you, that, if not for its elasticity and willingness to burgle the theological beliefs of others, the blood of Christ would've congealed long, long ago?
:confused:

All the wacky pagan-"Christian" syncretism of the Catholic Church is a perfect example of the above point. It's become a Frankenstein entity no longer pagan or Christian. There have been priests ostracized by the Church because they have criticised the Church's vanity and building of grandiose churches at the expense of helping the poor. The irony is that Jesus says that Christians should help the poor. Rich men having a harder time going to heaven then a camel passing through the eye of a pin and so forth. Jesus points out the corrupt (albeit Jewish) priests of his time saying 'there are those who wear flashy vestments, but inside their souls are pustules of rotting filth.'

Like I heard once in a Skyclad song: "Those who nailed him to a cross, now rule in his name."

I remember reading the story of a former pope in a time of lecherous and corrupt popes (has there ever been any other time?) who, realizing Christ's true message, gave away all his possessions and rode away into the desert on a donkey. He was later caught and imprisoned by the next pope's faction, where he was starved to death.

I think if these "Christians" nowadays and in the past were worth their salt, they would give away all their possessions, and go with some close friends and disciples into the desert where they would spend their time praying and keeping Jewish sabbaths.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I think if these "Christians" nowadays and in the past were worth their salt, they would give away all their possessions, and go with some close friends and disciples into the desert where they would spend their time praying and keeping Jewish sabbaths.

There's been some sects which have done that, but they haven't lasted too long. Most people would recognize that as suicidal, so they choose other parts of the bible to be front & center.

[Phlegethon]

And this doesn't bother you, that, if not for its elasticity and willingness to burgle the theological beliefs of others, the blood of Christ would've congealed long, long ago?
:confused:

That is your interpretation, not mine. It is up to everyone to live according to the doctrines of the Doctors of the Church and the New Testament, without the eccentricities of following every word in it slavishly (which can be tricky, as it is a flawed translation in parts). And at the same time you can stand firmly in the real world and spread the world in the most unlikely places, like the Jesuits.

If one maintains a 2000 year tradition there naturally are aberrations and parts of the herd going astray, but as long as the tradition lives on all that can be reversed eventually.

[RoyBatty]

I think it's good news! :)

Another nail in the coffin for the Church of England, that old establishment institution that is lying to people and brainwashing them as part of a social engineering agenda. Hopefully in about 20 years or so the CofE will disband and cease to exist.

Yes that's all good and well but I'm a bit apprehensive about what has come to replace the COE brainwashing, some examples being media personality cult worship, dubious "social causes" and materialism. Sometimes it's better the devil you know than the devil you don't.

[RoyBatty]

The irony is that Jesus says that Christians should help the poor.

That's always been the crux of the matter for me. To spot the real Christians, always follow the money. Jesus never had money or much use for it.

Compare that with the Vatican mafia, the Televangelists and the many other scheissters parading themselves as "Christians" but who aren't.

[Loki]

That's always been the crux of the matter for me. To spot the real Christians, always follow the money. Jesus never had money or much use for it.

Compare that with the Vatican mafia, the Televangelists and the many other scheissters parading themselves as "Christians" but who aren't.

Indeed! I remember some crooked "evangelists" back in South Africa. The most important part of their services was the collection. They even admitted it, and said that to give money to the church is "the most spiritual thing you can do". Shameless. If someone really trusts in God and believes in his provision, as they often declare from the pulpit, they wouldn't be Mammon's servants.

[Phlegethon]

Well, we have church taxes here in Germany. If you're a meber of a church you get the membership fee deducted automatically.

[Loki]

Well, we have church taxes here in Germany. If you're a meber of a church you get the membership fee deducted automatically.

Are they allowed to collect more money then apart from the tax? And do they?

[Cato]

I think if these "Christians" nowadays and in the past were worth their salt, they would give away all their possessions, and go with some close friends and disciples into the desert where they would spend their time praying and keeping Jewish sabbaths.

That'll never happen because, when it's all said and done, the Christians are as materialistic as the rest of the world. They need money more than the rest of us, perhaps, to fund their churches and socio-political programs. This has nothing to do with the hucksters who swindle money out of people, but that's also a nice observation to make as well; religion is big business and there are some who've become quite adept at milking the faithful. :rolleyes2:

[Phlegethon]

Are they allowed to collect more money then apart from the tax? And do they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_tax

[Cato]

That is your interpretation, not mine. It is up to everyone to live according to the doctrines of the Doctors of the Church and the New Testament, without the eccentricities of following every word in it slavishly (which can be tricky, as it is a flawed translation in parts). And at the same time you can stand firmly in the real world and spread the world in the most unlikely places, like the Jesuits.

If one maintains a 2000 year tradition there naturally are aberrations and parts of the herd going astray, but as long as the tradition lives on all that can be reversed eventually.

It's not an interpretation, it's a fact. The current Pope has referred to Christianity, Catholicism more specifically I'd say as, the religion of the Logos. The logos is a bit of pre-Socratic Greek philosophy first writen of by Heraclitus of Ephesus about five centuries centuries before there were any Christians wandering about. The doctors of the church, as you call them, taught the doctrines of Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics and other Greek philosophers.

Paul writing in Acts 17:28 "For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own [Greek] poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’"

Aratus of Soli, writing in his Phaenomena, about 3 centuries before Paul:

"From Zeus let us begin; him do we mortals never leave unnamed;
Full of Zeus are all the streets and all the market-places of men;
Full is the sea and the heavens thereof;
Always we all have need of Zeus
For we are also his offspring."

“When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter.” Justin surnamed Martyr, First Apology to Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus

There are many other examples, such as survive from the ancient theology, and the charge was laid at least as early as 2nd century by Celsus, a philosopher, that the doctrines of the Christians were, in fact, the doctrines of the pagans- reversed-engineered and made to fit into the emerging Christian theology. Against these attacks by pagan critics, a new literary genre was required: that of apologetics.

I suppose Jesus was teaching Platonic theory when he gave the sermon on the mount and the Father he spoke of was Zeu Pater, Father Zeus? Christian doctrine is predicated upon Greco-Roman doctrine and anyone who knows about the latter will know that the former has nothing to do with its named founder. Jesus was bout as connected to Greco-Roman philosophy and theology as he was to the practice of voodoo.

Jesus taught a simple deistic message: love God and love your neighbor. His followers of later years, most notably the gnostic Paul, added what is now called "Christian doctrine."

[Phlegethon]

Of course there are syncretistic elements in what the doctors of the Church taught. After all they were on a misssion with a new idea that had to be linked somehow to what has been practiced before. And depending on where they came from different heathen customs were incorporated.

[Sol Invictus]

http://i43.tinypic.com/2usednc.jpg

Where is your god now?

[Osweo]

Then what is to stop the people of one cohesive culture from replacing the indigenous disparate culture?


You SERIOUSLY look to the traitor Church of 'England' for THIS?!?

It's spiritually bankrupt. It desperately tries to grab onto the coattails of the philanthropic movement just to keep its head above water. Its efforts to ingratiate itself with the Orthodox churches are pathetic; have you noticed how every church now has an Ikon in it? And yet the Orthodox brush them off with thinly disguised distaste.

[Beorn]

Wat, the belief that Christ was not divine was called the Arian heresy, named from their founder Arius, which was followed by the Goths and other Northern Europeans.

Yes, I was well aware of it. :)


For example, in the Bible, God orders pagans to "be slaughtered in his presence." simply because they worshipped other gods.And then, from whichever book you read, you have God saying the exact opposite. What does that suggest? That the religion is wrong and evil, or the people dedicated to following that particular religion were twisting their religion in order to justify a war?


Now, in Islam, it is considered the most worthy thing that a Muslim should follow the example of the Prophet. So then what is to stop a Muslim from going to India and, following the example of the Prophet, smashing Hindu temples and statues?
Again, mistranslation and a twisting of a religion.

You can't deny that Muhammad began his prophesying with peace and tolerance of religions in mind.
It's only as the Jews began betraying Muhammad did the onus become from killing the pagans who take up arms against Islam, to now any religion that takes up arms against Islam.


Ever heard of an atheist suicide bombing because he thinks he'll be rewarded in the afterlife?

No, but since when do the mentally ill count as the representative of a group?


Meaning he only exists in the minds of his worshippers.No, meaning he manifests to those who do believe.


You SERIOUSLY look to the traitor Church of 'England' for THIS?!?

In a word: No! The Church of England is not the true representative of the Christians of England.

[Cato]

No, meaning he manifests to those who do believe.


The biblical lore portrays God as a hidden God, who chooses when and where to approach mankind. To the believer or the seeker, he is near; to the unbeliever or the scoffer, he is far.

[SwordoftheVistula]

And then, from whichever book you read, you have God saying the exact opposite. What does that suggest?

That the bible is not any 'divine revelation' but a collection of often contradictory writings created by mortals.



No, but since when do the mentally ill count as the representative of a group?


If you've got one group that produces these type of 'mentally ill' people and another group that doesn't...and then the group that does tries to claim some kind of moral superiority over the one that doesn't

[Óttar]

It's not an interpretation, it's a fact. The current Pope has referred to Christianity, Catholicism more specifically I'd say as, the religion of the Logos. The logos is a bit of pre-Socratic Greek philosophy first writen of by Heraclitus of Ephesus about five centuries centuries before there were any Christians wandering about. The doctors of the church, as you call them, taught the doctrines of Aristotle, Plato, the Stoics and other Greek philosophers.

“The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion, which was already in existence, began to be called Christian”.

(St. Augustine, Redactiones)

:icon_ask:



And then, from whichever book you read, you have God saying the exact opposite. What does that suggest? That the religion is wrong and evil, or the people dedicated to following that particular religion were twisting their religion in order to justify a war?

That comes from the OT. The Jews were the first to use their God against the gods. It is inherently intolerant of other deities, beliefs.


Again, mistranslation and a twisting of a religion.
You can't deny that Muhammad began his prophesying with peace and tolerance of religions in mind. It's only as the Jews began betraying Muhammad did the onus become from killing the pagans who take up arms against Islam, to now any religion that takes up arms against Islam.

<Ahem> The smashing of the statues in the Kaaba was done early on, and it shows that the very founding of the religion of Islam was built on an act of religious intolerance.

The Arab pagans (and all other pagans for that matter) were perfectly happy worshipping their own personal and communal gods with song, feasting, and traditional rites. They did not need some Abrahamic lunatic to wipe out through violence their most ancient and noble traditions followed by every people on Earth for thousands of years.

We lost all that beautiful ancient tradition and we are the worse off for it. Notice how even though the organisers at the top try to wipe out the expression of the earlier traditions, people still find ways to get around it, carving statues, painting images, chanting incantations, witchcraft etc. because the ancient folk traditions are the original and true religion(s) of mankind. The world does not need asceticism, self-denial, austerity, or other such useless monkery.

[Cato]

“The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion, which was already in existence, began to be called Christian”.

(St. Augustine, Redactiones)

Augustine, who was a pagan before he began a Christian, defeats himself with this admission. For if the true religion already existed from in olden times, why then would the Almighty play such parlor tricks as virgin births and such? If the ancients knew the true religion, which is self-evident (Augustine seems to suggest to passively suggest this), then why the complicated dogmas of the Christian mythology? Augustine merely adds to, rather than clarifying, the doctrines of monotheism with his doctrinal ramblings (like other church fathers).

[Cato]

An addition to the above, my brief refutation of Augustine's position that the true religion only became known as the true religion when God, who said in the Jewish books that he was not a man and would never be a man, decided to become a man (being at once his own father and son).

The Jews only ever referred to God in acts of nature or the human heart; the miracles referred to in the books of the Jews were merely secondary or even tertiary or purely idiotic (such as when Balaam, the evil prophet, attempts to curse the wandering Israelites, backfires on his curse and blesses the Hebrew hordes instead). Miracles were of no importance because the existence of God was implied at all times (such as at the beginning of Genesis where no attempt is made to explain God's existence; Genesis merely says "In the beginning God...") only the power of God mattered, and miracles merely proved this fact.

Now the Christian approach is different, saying "Show us the miracles and then we'll believe." This is what the resurrection is, or a virgin birth, or feeding 5,000 hungry wretches and walking on water. Parlor tricks, and all in an attempt to make the credulous think that this Jewish rustic named Jesus is God. People want miracles, and then they'll believe in God; the teachings of Jesus seem to be important only in passing. No attempt is made to show God's existence via the orderly progression of nature, or the various moral doctrines of mankind or the highly-developed intellectual and spiritual abilities of mankind- I wonder if Augustine is referring to the pre-Christian religion, call it Christianity before Christ, as a religion in which magicians and miracles predominate (charlatanism), a religion of demons, devils and satans taking up as much place as a belief in God (cosmic duality), and a religion of complete disregard for moral responsibility (since only God is good and only God can forgive)?

More than likely, Augustine means the pre-historic religions of spirit appeasement and, for lack of a better term, voodoo. The spirits (or God) are angry and have to be appeased in some manner (with an offering/sacrifice); no attempt is made to act responsibly and all that has to be done is bribe the offended spirit (or God) with many bows and a tasty enough morsel (like a sinless demigod). Such a belief turns God into a bit of a cosmic indian-giver. God, who gives mankind freedom of choice and freedom of moral responsibility ("Let us make man in our image..."), suddenly changes the rules and says he has to have more than just contrition and a desire to repent on the part of mankind. Only his own death will suffice, but it's not really a death since God can't die (which makes God a doubly-guilty indian-giver or just plain stingy, since how can that which is immortal and full of omnipotence suffer?).

[Lenny]

Hopefully in about 20 years or so the CofE will disband and cease to exist.
Can dreary-eyed Atheism actually stand up against Islam?

[Electronic God-Man]

Can dreary-eyed Atheism actually stand up against Islam?

I doubt it. What most of "us" seem to lack is a belief in anything. Even beyond religion, most are just here to get our kicks in life. Past, present, and future can all be damned.

[SwordoftheVistula]

Can dreary-eyed Atheism actually stand up against Islam?

Atheist China has managed to contain the Islamic movement in the Uighur region of western China.

[Phlegethon]

"Atheist China" has the fastest-growing Catholic congregation in the world, even though they are quasi-illegal.

[Cato]

Atheist China has managed to contain the Islamic movement in the Uighur region of western China.

This is because the middle kingdom isn't afraid to use the most obvious answer in regards to dealing with the Islamists: force.

[Osweo]

Can dreary-eyed Atheism actually stand up against Islam?

Gleamy-eyed atheism can, easily.

Dreary-eyed Christianity is one of Islam's greatest collaborators.

But you're responding to something about the Church of England. You probably have litttle experience of that institution, but it's NO viable option in a struggle against ANYTHING! It's a bunch of oddballs and sinecure-seekers who run our African charity effort and act as caretakers for the historical museums that are our parish churches.

The CofE even has a few professed atheists in its clergy. The Christians in it love nothing better than to organise 'Multi Faith Events' where they kiss the arse of local mullahs and voodoo doctors and whatever. Clergymen write public letters to newspapers urging us to not vote for Evil Nazi anti-immigration political parties. Older people attend services from inertia. Younger people attend in the weeks before they wish to get married in a particular church, to rub the vicar up the right way. Disenchantment with the institution was already serious in the Nineteenth Century, showing itself in Non-Conformism. The Church is healthier in the countryside, where it is still used as a social centre, but in the towns, where most of us live, after all, the often enormous buildings stand embarrassingly empty.

And yet how is atheism the only alternative to the C of E? Richard Dawkins Atheofanatism is very rare. Most people profess some sort of spirituality, but it's more deism or animism than Christianity.

Turn The Other Cheek is the most disgusting idea I ever heard, as is Call No Man Your Father. Baffling and dangerous things like this put thinking people off. Many are just scornful of the reported miracles. But most people probably put it down to the Loving God thing who allows evil things to occur at a shocking rate every single second, and who has a Hell in his basement.

[Groenewolf]

Of course God exists. God has shown himself to me in an individual and personal way completely different to the next person,

Indeed, I have faith in the Gods because I know they exist. But can I proof their existence in an emperical way to an atheist? The answer is no. Just like I can not proof to someone who was born deaf that sound exists. For him it would be a matter of faith.

[Lenny]

Oswiu, Your points are well taken, tho I can't say I've ever heard of "Atheofanatism". I do understand that the Church of England is in bad shape, along with the rest of society.



Can dreary-eyed Atheism actually stand up against Islam?
Gleamy-eyed atheism can, easily.I don't think that postmodern Western atheism - no matter the state of the eyes - can stand up to an existential challenge from Islam. If Europeans are to win, we must believe..in something. Nihilists do not fight. Never.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I don't think that postmodern Western atheism - no matter the state of the eyes - can stand up to an existential challenge from Islam.

'postmodern Western' anything can't stand up to Islam, since it upholds the concept of 'rule by one person-one vote' while encouraging immigration from groups which have a higher birthrate and defending '[racial] minority rights', as well as a whole host of societal institutions which lead to the low birthright. Some Christian churches offer a bit of support in some peripheral areas, but for the most part are as bad or worse than secular society in most of them, especially when it comes to immigration/race issues.

[Cato]

Only equal force can hold Islamism in check and only greater force can defeat it. That's kind of cut-and-dry, but Islam represents something vastly different than modern politically correct liberalism.

[Osweo]

Oswiu, Your points are well taken,
:thumb001:

tho I can't say I've ever heard of "Atheofanatism".
Hehe, that's because it's an Oswianism that I've heretofere not deigned to unleash on society! :D

I do understand that the Church of England is in bad shape, along with the rest of society.
This applies to every Christian Church. Only a new made-up church could get round it, but to do so they'd have to ignore Scripture in a fundamental way. The struggle for Europe may well prove the final death knell for Protestant Christianity. Catholicism may wing it, and Orthodoxy, but the North West? :confused:

I don't think that postmodern Western atheism - no matter the state of the eyes - can stand up to an existential challenge from Islam.
Anti Intellectualism among the masses may help here. PMism hasn't made deep inroads into the popular conscience, just into a tiny crust of academics who are dependent on the current system.

If Europeans are to win, we must believe..in something. Nihilists do not fight. Never.
I tend to look to the rebirth of Folkist spirituality, but wonder how organised and monolithic this might have to make itself in order to win.

What was I thinking with the 'gleaming eyes'? Communism and Hitlerism came to mind. I don't think either had much longevity in it, however, so we may see a similar 'temporary regime' some time in the future that has the same 'umph' about it, drawing on nationalist sentiment, but after that, who knows. Europe needs to shrug off these absurd modern problems and get back to its real mission of expanding human knowledge and exploration. People need to think they're involved in a big Story again. We may end up with another bundle of fantasies, but at least it moves us onwards.