First communion - it's that time of year again in Poland!

Well, I 'll try to simlplify it for you.
There would be not western civilisation without Christianity, fact.
Morality cannot exist without religion, fact.
Civilization to survive needs faith in invisible things, which, invariably, involves God. Fact.
Simple enough, Barney?

This would be a perfect time to invoke the PF version of Godwin's law - a discussion is over as soon as the word "liberals" or variation is mentioned.

Its simple alright

Greece and Rome existed before Christianity
Why does civilisation need faith in invisible things?

Saying something is fact doesnt make it a fact

You are just making things up.

No, it doesn't. Anyone who has studied history to a secondary school level know that it mostly comes from the ancient Greeks, however, The Celts, Vikings, Romans, Byzantians, Picts, Greeks, Trojans etc were all around along time before the Christians came along.

The Aztec, The Inca etc

There's people had no morals in your opinion?
All of them?
Really?
Complete and utter nonsense Kon, I recommend you watch some documentaries. And indeed watch some on how Christianity stole most of its traditions from older religions. ie. the "virgin' birth, The Egyptian son-God, Mithra (whose feast day was...surprise, surprise December 25th)......later named Jesus,






Your religion is based on nonsense, learn this and be set free.
articles.exchristian.net/2003/04/is-christianity-based-on-pagan-roots.php


Nonsense, so every person that existed before organized religion was immoral? Ha, Bullsh¡t.


So you only follow God because you're afraid of him? A lot of Germans had a similar excuse following WWII. If you follow the teaching because you life in fear of a mythical being then what kind of life can you really have. You must be afraid of you own shadow.

And how it contradicts the fact that morality to exist needs a religion?
Any religion.


Be serious.When Dostoevsky coined his dictum "If God is not, everything is permitted.", what do you think he was referring to? Russia is one of the many fulcrums of 'moral relativism' which was a direct result of the abandonment of the fixed moral frame (arbitrary or not) offered by Christianity through the rejection of God.

Indeed, Crime and Punishment was written precisely to condemn some of the abhorrent excesses of his day, particular the more radical 'nihilists' which expressed the ideas (ideas later taken by many a great communist revolutionaries) that human nature lacked a spiritual dimension, and that human behavior was determinate solely by reason and self-interest, and that morality "could be reduced to the utilitarian and scientific principle of the greatest good of the greatest number". Indeed, the novel begins by tackling this issue full front. The main character is given the possibility to resolve his own financial woes (thus paving the way for doing something good with his life, albeit this was just a pretest for something a bit less noble, as evinced later in the novel) by the murdering and robbing the old woman. And why not? The stupid hag is old, full of avarice and is of despicable moral character. She doesn't care about anybody else but herself, and never uses her own wealth for anything useful to anybody, not even to her own. How can murder be wrong in a situation where the death of such a parasitic element of society could help so many people of great will and standing?

This type of thoughts is what lead to each and every of the greatest massacres of the 20th century.

BTW, have we forgotten that one of the greatest object of persecution in most of the communist regimes of Europe was Christianity itself? F*ck, i work with a guy (an Orthodox Albanian) who's family had to practice religion in secret under penal retribution, and this was less then 10 years ago. Rings a bell?

But by all means, let's blame Christianity for everything, in the end, it is religion and not human villainy that is at the root of all evil, right?


I was trying to make it simple for you. When I elaborate you are unable to comprehend it. You said so much yourself.

So you're argument is that reading Crime and Punishment will make you commit massacres?
It's not a great book I adint, but it's not that bad :P


That would be unfair, all religions should be blamed.

Complete and utter horsefeathers you typed babble that made no sense.

The only thing that is difficult to comprehend is exactly what is it that you are trying to say.

To make a moral judgement on something, anything requires a measuring stick, you say religion is the foundation of morality I ask what are you measuring it against.

What is morality and why shouldn't it exist with or without religion?
answer:
Who the fcuk are we to say?
True story.

Well, unfortunately metaphysics cannot be explained using cartoons, so i apologize if my arguments are beyond your comprehension.


No. You don't measure morality. It is typical moral relativism' thinking. The morality in an absolute. It stems directly from God.

No, it doesn't


logical-critical-thinking.com/human-thoughts/what-is-morality-and-where-does-morality-come-from

It was garbage dressed for dinner.


Nonsense, to make a moral judgment you must be measuring that something against your moral code.

There is more than one moral code and not all stem from God. Any code that claims to come directly from God must do so either via religion which is man made or directly to the individual. If directly to the individual that individual must measure the "God given code" against the old "God given code" (if morality comes from God as you insist)

Other cultures have civilisation without that particular religion - indeed as a Westerner, your concept of what civilisation should or should not be like is filtered by your culture.I'd go so far as to say that if you could travel back in time to a more religious age in the West, before the secular enlightenment, you probably would not like it at all.


Mythologies like religion tend to derive from existing morality and adapt themselves to changes in the perception of morality in a running dialectic rather than the other way round.


Which one? There are so many to choose from.

That's what our intelligence is for. When i claim that Beethoven is a genius it has nothing to do with reason but it is something that i have grasped with my intellect, and the inherent certainty doesn't need any type of discursive proof to be sustained. Its an either you get it, or you don't deal, proof is entirely besides the point. Same when i claim that Beethoven has better music then 50 cent or Bieber. You can't prove either claim with reason, thus, as a rationalist you are bound to declare that the mind is impotent to understand truth of any kind, which is basically relativism plain and simple, except relativism is a paradox since it leads to its own negation (if there is no truth then the claim that there is no truth cannot also be true). Basically, rationalism has led to an intellectual cul-de-sac and western "thinkers" have done nothing but wallow in their own stupidity ever since, and it is from the point of view of sheer idiocy that condescending fools actually think they can ridicule "religion" as a stupid superstition. After all, its easy to ridicule anyone who claims to possess any type of truth if you have rejected that there is such a thing as truth a priori, but see, what makes atheist hypocrites is that they think they can only apply "reason" to religion, while all of a sudden their reason suddenly disappears when confronted with things that they know they cannot deny without demonstrating what a bunch of idiots they are, things like morality, or genius in art.

In short, your game is up. Deal with it. To be intelligence means of being capable of grasping objective realities. To be a rationalist means negating any objective reality and reduce everything to relative contingencies and accidents. The first leads to absolute truth. The second leads to paradox and its own negation. Guess why the ancients chose the first alternative.

Interesting, especially since all evidence points to the most intelligent cultures not having much to do with the religion most often practised in Europe and the U.S.

Precisely. What i'm saying is that all religions are divinely inspired and as such they all contain absolute truth. But each religion represents a singular perspective of the truth and is mutually exclusive with other perspectives, precisely because it is unique. The same way the genius of a given artist is mutually exclusive with the genius of another great artist, without that contradicting the definition of genius as an absolute manifestation of individual expression.

Reductionism coupled with extreme arrogance leads to minimalist thought.

Morality, moral codes, existed long before Christianity. And even before a lot of other religions, beliefs.
Our brain is capable of discerning what is right or wrong, good or bad, most of the time, without any help from gods.

We are sensitive, social beings, which means our acts have effects on how we feel and behave, as individuals, and as indivudals inside a group of other people.

Also, it's a survival instinct to preserve yourself, and the group you live in.

Guilt and empathy are two important points when it comes to our 'morality'.
And you know what? Some animals actually have some of these moral codes too. And no, they are not Catholic chimpanzees.

I'd like to give you some interesting quotations:


Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian: And Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects.

Sweden and Denmark, which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world, enjoy among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world.

Phil Zuckerman, Society Without God.


Dalai Lama (2012).

Morality in religions, and specifically in Christianity, since this is the one we're talking about here, can often be discussed.
We can 'study' some parts of the Old and New Testaments if you wish.

This mock book cover is pure genius and says so much about morality

Which suggest there is a divinity.

Your deistic views have some parallels with mine, however to claim a conscious creator is to assume the unprovable.

What a load of bull... Have you even tried to read this nonsense before copy-pasting?
Today, we still have slavery, in the form of third world exploitation, or in the support of policies which allows for mass immigration, with the specific purpose of using those people for cheap labor. Lefists think they can substitute morality with empathy, and then complain that nobody gives a sh!t about the "suffering" of others. Why should people care? And do you see lefists relinquishing their own material comfort which is based on said exploitation of others? F*ck no. It is enough to feel for the suffering of others, but to rise up and fight for what is right, who's gonna do that in a society which believes right and wrong to be relative? The entire west is caught in a consumerist feeding frenzy that knows no apparent bounds, and we think we are so morally superior to our grandfathers just because we grew up in an age where slavery has been outlawed, even thought we had no hand in the abolition of this institution. A bunch of disgusting looking pachyderms, lumbering on like a pack of flaccid truck-sized amoebas, speaking of the injustice inflicted upon the African race as they sip on a frappuccino while sitting comfortably under an umbrella outside their local Starbucks, and they have the temerity to condemn the people who build their damn country.

Liberals clinically mad, concludes top psychiatrist
Eminent doctor makes case leftist ideology is a mental disorder

WASHINGTON – Just when liberals thought it was safe to start identifying themselves as such, an acclaimed, veteran psychiatrist is making the case that the ideology motivating them is actually a mental disorder.

"Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded," says Dr. Lyle Rossiter, author of the new book, "The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness." "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave."

While political activists on the other side of the spectrum have made similar observations, Rossiter boasts professional credentials and a life virtually free of activism and links to "the vast right-wing conspiracy."

For more than 35 years he has diagnosed and treated more than 1,500 patients as a board-certified clinical psychiatrist and examined more than 2,700 civil and criminal cases as a board-certified forensic psychiatrist. He received his medical and psychiatric training at the University of Chicago.

Rossiter says the kind of liberalism being displayed by both Barack Obama and his Democratic primary opponent Hillary Clinton can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

"A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do," he says. "A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and over-taxes the nation's citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do."

Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:
* creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
* satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
* augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
* rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.
"The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind," he says. "When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious."

It's irrelevant whether I agree with Polson or not, what you posted is total rubbish. You can try and pass it off as some great metaphysical cannon or high brow critique but its self serving bollox completely devoid of merit.


I haven't encountered anyone as deranged as you since that mental case this morning

First time i ever saw anybody argue for some sort of theological nihilism, or theistic atheism. The fact you cannot see the paradox in your own reasoning is amusing. It reminds me of the knight in The Seventh Seal (a vastly overrated film, btw, as anything by Bergman), where he stubbornly kept asking for "evidence" of God, refusing to accept blind faith as an option. The absurdity here is to believe that knowledge of a thing can only come from tangible evidence, that is to say, that nothing exists outside the scope of what we can surmise by reason alone. This is what i mean when i argue that the modern world wallows in sheer stupidity, because the acquisition of knowledge has nothing to do whatsoever with reason, and no knowledge of any kind can be "proven" in such a way, ever. To argue that we cannot comprehend anything of a transcendent nature is to argue that knowledge itself, which is also transcendent, does not actually exist in the first place. And once again we enter the realm of relativism. Was The Seventh Seal a masterpiece? Well, the question is utterly redundant, since there cannot possibly be any tangible evidence for or against such a statement. Thus argues the modern relativist. Funny how some random old fart like Elder George (somebody will remember him) could figure out the nature of knowledge perfectly well, as shown here for instance:

blip.tv/commando-11-digital-montion-pictures/vagina-vocational-centers-114780

But the grand majority of the so called "intellectuals" that populate our academic institutions are just too f*cking stupid to grasp something so simple and obvious. Explain that to me, if you can.

Oh I did. You seem to disagree. How many million dead in the name of God? Whatever gods actually. How many million dead in the name of some divine undisputable Truth, 'Morality'?

Dogmas debase people. They force them to believe without thinking. This goes against our deep nature.
Slavery still exists, as it existed a few centuries ago, when Christianism was much more powerful. It seems Christian morality wasn't strong enough back then (either).

I'm not sure I got your point. If today's world is as bad as you say, when in history was it better? Honestly. If we lost our morality, then when in the past were we more...moral?

When did the Church or any other major religion succeeded in forcing people not to act immorally?

What about the rest of my post? Anything else interesting? You just quoted a part of a quotation, that was too easy.

All these wrongs resulted from the "secularization" of Europe, rather then doctrinal errors. This is the great fallacy of liberalism, to put the blame on Europe's greatest crimes to anything and everything but themselves. They were the ones to draw Europeans into a "dark age" of the spirit, starting with the rationalism and materialism of the Renaissance. So, when Europeans begun to act accordingly to the precepts of the Renaissance and then Enlightenment (as per human nature, in a lower sense), all of a sudden the same librals started to bi!ch about the evils of "civilized" man. They've been repeating the same tune over and over ever since. Take racism for instance, which was a perfectly natural and "rational" consequence of Darwinism, as was slavery. Every single evil action committed by Europeans has its origin in liberalism. And i mean every single one, no exception. This includes all the evils committed by the Church.

"great" argument. but typical of lefties such as you who appear to have real low iqs.


thats nothing new. as the above article implied, most libtards are just spoiled angry kids who havent grown up, they demand more and more from the mommy and daddy (i.e the government).

kondzior you talk absolute bollox, throwing a few words together in a pathetic attempt to impress does not make for a coherent post.


That means nothing it's just a self pleasuring piece of nonsense. Do you want to make any type of argument to support your ridiculous claim? That crap is followed by this garbage.


You may be able to understand what you type but I'll be fuked if anyone else has the slightest idea of what you are trying to say.

Its incoherent rubbish

Edit


You really want me to start discussing the lunatic you quoted?

Discuss about the points made not about the posters. Insults won't be accepted.

How can racism be the consequence of Darwinism? How the fact of saying we're all the same species, no matter the colour or origin, and share the same ancestries can lead to racism?

You may be a creationist, and -of course- disagree with evolutionism, but try to stay objective.
As Barney said, you can't just throw stuff like that and not expect any clarification.


And of course now Church is perfection and 100% innocent.
They are openly against contraception, which make them responsible for a lot of deaths. And that's also liberals' fault I presume.

Kondzi, explain us how your perfect moral world would be like, please. It could be interesting. Apart from spitting your venom, I don't see anything we could use to build a better world.

I disagree totally....

What was before neanderthal..? apes? do we really want to live in chimp society? That we know now is pretty unfair and violent?
Were hominids any earlier than that anything more than animals?

Recent research has proven neanderthals were much , much more. It is found that they interbred with new humans , especially in Europe more than we thought. Most Europeans have 4% unique DNA inherited from Neanderthals. 80 sequences.

These mysterious non religious societies without a higher sense of self and the thought of an afterlife that is reward, what would make an parent endorse any system at all in their children instead of letting them be the dangerous, quirky , murderous narcissists they would develop into without restrictions. Why bother accepting a law?

If it was the proper way to go why didn't this mysterious non-religious peoples survive from antiquity into modern day? before you claim they were all murdered by this or that religions..say who they were..how long they lasted?

Just because you are obviously anti-Christian, you and others that are of your faction rushed to post things do discredit belief and religion...
to start by entering a thread that the topic was not to be a debate on religion but a discussion of a practice within one and its sad commercialization. But you can find there has been cold hard research about humanity and beliefs.

Belief is belief. If no one ever is there to answer in the dark of death..it still doesn't change that belief in an afterlife was a major catalyst for behaving in the physical life. Mazdah, Krishna, Jehova, Christ...Santa Claus. All have affected human behavior asn more often for better -not worst . Everyone wants their littlle version of no rules but anarchy is NO rules..including murder-racism-infanticide-property seizure and the powerful enslaving or simply removing the weak/unwanted.

And before any organized religion and definitely before a schizm of a religion between tribes or zones; two humans of different types that could breed need same space. One always lost; regardless of proof of direct confrontation. There has been war/genocide/ regional ethnic cleansing of the not so advanced loser species for some time. And they were not likely done for "Great Dinoskull" or "The direcatgod!" .

cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-6068619.html
Most hominids went extinct usually in a short historical span within time of a more evolved version becoming prevalent in the area. But very old species fossils are hard to reconstruct in society or possible death. The theory that Australopithecus afarensis may actually also been killed off and assimilated by its inheritor is becoming more popular. Research is starting to point to foul play by other hominids being cause of the mass death of Lucy and her clan. One lucky ancient sub species actually almost made it to modern times unchanged... only because it was safe on an island. But inbreeding and resources finished it off instead.