atheism

[Si modo]

was that what caused the downfall of these great united states.

Downfall? Could you specify in what respect?

 

[Diuretic]

Ever read old Karl? It comes through loud and clear in the communist manifesto. No tactic is too dirty if it furthers the revolution.

Define ethics. and than look at the history of same and tell me that Christianity didn't improve drastically upon the situation it came into.

I don't think Christianity is an improvement on Judaism, if that's what you mean, quite the contrary. I think the Jews have a better set up, much better. Most of Christianity is begged, borrowed and stolen from Judaism anyway, with a few pagan twists in there to make it more salient.

If you are insinuating that Christianity improved on the Roman model of tolerance and assimilation of all the cultural religions, I would disagree there as well.

Christianity has a Hellenic heritage to go with its Judaic heritage. And there are probably quite a few other elements in there as well, given the influence of Constantine. I think he was the first Christian Empreror wasn't he? He made Christianity the state religion for the Byzantine Empire I think. He probably didn't tolerate religious opposition but that was probably more for secular reasons.

 

[garyd]

First one must differentiate early Christianity from Roman Catholicism which wahtever the roman catholics say does not really achieve any real support until nearly the 4th century AD.

2nd yes Christianity owes much to Judaism including a good bit of persecution in its earlier days. And probably more than a little bit of it's latter day legalistic approach to religion. The chief difference however is that in Christianity as it is supposed to be rather than as the RC Church would like it to be, God does salvation not man. IE there is nothing I can do that will make you a Christian unless God first changes your heart.

3rd Christianity improved the standing of women within the empire, ended the gladitorial games, did not in fact go to and real lengths to root out other religions in its early days it simply hadn't the power and by the time it had acheived the power the Roman Empire was little more than a useful fiction so it still held little real power in that regard.

 

[Douger]

was that what caused the downfall of these great united states.

I fully agree ! Now lets burn all these motherfucking witches and devil worshippers and faggots and rock star freakoids in the name of The Lord Jesus !
Gawd Blass Amurkastan.
On with the crusades !!!

Fucking dolt.
P.S. We should killed them Goddamn savages instead of giving them our land to lay around drunk on.

 

[garyd]

Idiot no one is asking for that out side of the Kansas lunatic Phelps.

 

[veritas]

First one must differentiate early Christianity from Roman Catholicism which wahtever the roman catholics say does not really achieve any real support until nearly the 4th century AD.

I was not referring to Roman Catholicism at all. I was referring to the polytheistic, Hellenic and assimilated religions, the traditions of the Romans and the Empire and their conquered territories. You are entirely off base.

 

[Diuretic]

First one must differentiate early Christianity from Roman Catholicism which wahtever the roman catholics say does not really achieve any real support until nearly the 4th century AD.

I was not referring to Roman Catholicism at all. I was referring to the polytheistic, Hellenic and assimilated religions, the traditions of the Roman and Empire and their conquered territories. You are entirely off base.

I think garyd was responding to my post and I did bring in Roman Catholicism and the Hellenic influence in Christianity, if that's the case then he is on base, at least on my post.

 

[veritas]

Much has been made of Constantine's consolidation of the Tetrarchy. Whether he was a Christian or not, in reality and/or for political expediency is not something we can know. He murdered his wife and his oldest son among other things, refused peace with the Persians and was later repudiated by his successors. He presents us with a lot of symbolism that can be spun to make whatever your case might happen to be.

 

[Diuretic]

I have to confess you have me at a disadvantage but I'm appreciative of the chance to learn more.

 

[chanel]

The atheists I know don't study history. ethics or philosophy. They raise their children with this moral code; if you do bad things at home - you may get tine out If you do bad things at school - we will talk to the teacher and make excuses for you. Or we will put you on medication. If you do bad things in the community - we will hire a lawyer.

That's why kids are killing each other. Perhaps that's what froggy meant.

 

[jillian]

I blame the radical atheists for the decline of morality in children. Kids don't know right from wrong anymore and believe that they are the center of the universe. Sad and scary.

and that comes from atheism?

hmmmmmmmmmm.... makes you wanna go back to the good ole days of buring "witches" at the stake and trial by fire, eh?

cause those things were so "moral", eh?

I think your cause and effect are unrelated. And I think your premise is false in the first palce.

But then again, the O/P is idiocy, too.

Interestingly, I find most of the problems in the word are caused by people's radical attachment to dogma.... when joined with nationalism, that type of radical religiousity is fanaticism...

and things go boom...

 

[Diuretic]

jillian! Hush your mouth child! You'd have "questioning" in a religion?

Didn't you get the memos?

 

[Si modo]

I blame the radical atheists for the decline of morality in children. Kids don't know right from wrong anymore and believe that they are the center of the universe. Sad and scary.

and that comes from atheism?

hmmmmmmmmmm.... makes you wanna go back to the good ole days of buring "witches" at the stake and trial by fire, eh?

cause those things were so "moral", eh?

I think your cause and effect are unrelated. And I think your premise is false in the first palce.

But then again, the O/P is idiocy, too.

Interestingly, I find most of the problems in the word are caused by people's radical attachment to dogma.... when joined with nationalism, that type of radical religiousity is fanaticism...

and things go boom...

I agree that radical attachment to dogma can be dangerous. However, there are several who have faith (thus not atheists) yet follow no dogma and conflating the two is not always accurate. One is just a subset of a larger set.

 

[chanel]

Questioning is good for the soul. Having nothing to question leads to a meaningless existence in my opinion.

 

[Diuretic]

Dogma, whether it be religious or secular, is anathema to progress. Yes, I know, a nice little slogan. But I do hold it in my own mind. The reactionaries in the Catholic Church that forced Galileo ito undergo house arrest held us back simply because they were dogmatic reactionaries. I don't expect any society to be in a constant state of excited flux when it comes to understanding of things but I do expect all assumptions to be tentative, in secular and religious matters.

 

[jillian]

I blame the radical atheists for the decline of morality in children. Kids don't know right from wrong anymore and believe that they are the center of the universe. Sad and scary.

and that comes from atheism?

hmmmmmmmmmm.... makes you wanna go back to the good ole days of buring "witches" at the stake and trial by fire, eh?

cause those things were so "moral", eh?

I think your cause and effect are unrelated. And I think your premise is false in the first palce.

But then again, the O/P is idiocy, too.

Interestingly, I find most of the problems in the word are caused by people's radical attachment to dogma.... when joined with nationalism, that type of radical religiousity is fanaticism...

and things go boom...

I agree that radical attachment to dogma can be dangerous. However, there are several who have faith (thus not atheists) yet follow no dogma and conflating the two is not always accurate. One is just a subset of a larger set.

I agree that conflating the two is not always accurate.

My issue with the baseless generalizations of the prior posters is that I don't think there is necessarily a corrolation between morality and faith. Some of the least moral people I've seen claim to be religious. Some of the most moral I've known are atheists.

And the darkest segments of history are those where religious leaders and government were one and the same.

 

[The T]

Religion is the easy part. What matters is where one places their faith.

 

[jillian]

jillian! Hush your mouth child! You'd have "questioning" in a religion?

Didn't you get the memos?

I'm sorry, Dee... I must have been out of the office that day.

my bad.

 

[Si modo]

and that comes from atheism?

hmmmmmmmmmm.... makes you wanna go back to the good ole days of buring "witches" at the stake and trial by fire, eh?

cause those things were so "moral", eh?

I think your cause and effect are unrelated. And I think your premise is false in the first palce.

But then again, the O/P is idiocy, too.

Interestingly, I find most of the problems in the word are caused by people's radical attachment to dogma.... when joined with nationalism, that type of radical religiousity is fanaticism...

and things go boom...

I agree that radical attachment to dogma can be dangerous. However, there are several who have faith (thus not atheists) yet follow no dogma and conflating the two is not always accurate. One is just a subset of a larger set.

I agree that conflating the two is not always accurate.

My issue with the baseless generalizations of the prior posters is that I don't think there is necessarily a corrolation between morality and faith. Some of the least moral people I've seen claim to be religious. Some of the most moral I've known are atheists.

And the darkest segments of history are those where religious leaders and government were one and the same.

Yes, you have an excellent point. My personal experience is there is just as much possibility that one who is not moral in my opinion, is atheist as there is for them to be religious. You have a stronger anecdotal correlation than I do, but even if one had an opposite anecdotal correlation, any conclusion based on that, such as the OP's and others', is without proper foundation.

Yes, secular governments are the best for intellectual advancement, historically; and there is little reason to think that sort of culture promoting growth would change in the future.

 

[jillian]

Yes, you have an excellent point. My personal experience is there is just as much possibility that one who is not moral in my opinion, is atheist as there is for them to be religious. You have a stronger anecdotal correlation than I do, but even if one had an opposite anecdotal correlation, any conclusion based on that, such as the OP's and others', is without proper foundation.

Yes, secular governments are the best for intellectual advancement, historically; and there is little reason to think that sort of culture promoting growth would change in the future.

I agree with you entirely. There IS just as much possibility that one who is moral is religious as there is that he or she is atheist. And that is exactly my objection to the simplistic statements made in the O/P.

Even Jesus said give unto Caesar what is Caesar's......