If you ruled...

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Awar

I don't really care. This is a hypothetical discussion, and the Jews would be treated with the same tolerance/severity of law as any other religious group ( in my perfect state ).

So, in your hypothetical perfect state, you would admit a religion like Judaism which is based on an ethnic group?

In my perfect state I wouldn't allow you any near the Ministry for Foreigners, nor the police secretary for customs and borders.

Unless you have told yet that you plan to get them into ghettoes, where they can practice even homosexuality to the point of extintion if they so wish.

It shouldn't take an official religion.

You said that Agnosticism would have an official status. Are you saying now that the people would not be influenced by the State, when there is an official stance?

There would be no need. The government needs to be as functional as possible, and that must include belief only in the proven, the logical and tried.

I insist in that you are most probably not thinking of a state with an official position on religious on agnosticism, but a laicist state. That would be much different since the state would, ideally, take no party nor would it try to influence.

But even then, only ideally since the evidence here in Spain is of a supposedly laicist state which is continuously attacking the beliefs of the majority of the people.

I know, there were some chicks waiting for me at the club, but
now I'm back

You missed your chance then. Hope they'll realize that you are not worth the waiting.

Well, it's a bit more complex than that. It always is.

Yes, it is. Which is why I told you that it was past 1:00am and I wasn't going to extend on it.

My ancestors resisted not Islam, but the Ottoman empire,
in an effort of Serbian feudal lords to protect their Empire and kingdoms
from the invader.

The people were religious, and it was hard to influence them to convert to Islam, especially for Ottomans who were ( for the time ) rather tolerant of other religions. Ottomans just took these teritories and cashed in on them, and milked them in many ways, but not too much more than that.

Had your ancestors trashed Christianism and embraced Islam, there would have been no reason to fight the Ottoman and instead to become a willing part of the Ottoman Empire. And today Serbia, together with Albania, would be the Western fringes of the Ottoman world. Or, worse, the Ottoman Empire would have expanded further West since they would have no opposition in the Balkans. And you know that well, Awar.

But all of a sudden you seem to come with a light kempian version of the racial wars.

Albanians were a mess before the Turks arrived, and they are a mess now.
Their national identity is just a few centuries old. We're speaking of a bunch of hillbilly tribes who were allowed to spread for doing favours for the Ottomans.

Interesting definition of Albanians. Wouldn't you be today the hillibillies if your ancestors had not stuck to their Christian faith, and then found out that it was more convenient for them to do favours to the Ottomans?

[Revolutionary]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

...how that would mean that being non theist = being atheist?

'Non theist' means being an atheist. Atheist does not mean "does not believe in God (as in 1)," but it means "does not believe in any god." Atheism is not a mirror image or consequence of any monotheistic faith, but also rejects polytheism/paganism.

If you worship no God or gods, you are in fact a 'non theist', in other words, an Atheist.

[Aeternitas]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Are you going to compare XIIth century Christians with XXth century Atheists?

Not necessarily. There are plenty of corrupt Christians nowadays.

I would be very surprised if I knew of one single case. Not just for stealing or killing. It is common knowledge here that brothels are packed with young Russian-Ukrainians and Romanians. And Albanians are known to bring their own women to prostitute them on the streets, and they are very vicious with their own women. I have never heard one case of a Polish young woman, and in fact I have heard people commenting right the opposite, how Polish women are not to be found in prostitution whereas the other nationalities that I just mentioned you can find them in their thousands.

Yes, there are many Romanian, Ukrainian and Russian prostitutes, yet all these countries have a considerable percentage of Christians, do they not? What is the point? In fact, this only proves that not all people from a Christian country go by ethics and morals. These women also prostitute themselves because of the miserable conditions they live in and because nowadays, in most societies, money talks. Is that not a materialistic attitude?

[Rusalka]

Originally Posted by Aeternitas

Yes, there are many Romanian, Ukrainian and Russian prostitutes, yet all these countries have a considerable percentage of Christians, do they not? What is the point?

I think the point (with which I don't agree with) was that the Poles are Catholic but the Romanians are Orthodox.

[Cristoforo]

Unless you believe that we are living marevelous days, all of the above figures (included and, especially, atheism) are part of the crisis which we are living.

So, you consider atheism as part of the problem/crises we are facing today?



Do you consider atheism as a symptom of liberalism?



And lastly, if you consider atheism as part of the problem, then how do you explain the fact that a lot of those who post here, who then are genuinely interested in solving this crises we are facing, are atheists or else holding non-traditional religions/philosophies?

(Ps. On the 30%, as I said in the other post, I was unable to find the source, so I found another source which has different figures)

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Awar

This can be said of any society in any era.

It is especially true in societies based on a materialistic ideology. Adding a materialistic religious phylosophy makes it much worse.

And let us not ignore that religion is supposed, by its definition and nature, to provide for spiritual guidance. Atheism substitutes that spiritualism with materialism. The consequence is, as seen, the destruction of human nature and the reversing to the beast.

...well...

Well what? Are you or are you not refering to a laicist state and not a state officially based on a religious belief?
Want to apply a mentality of pragmatism to the officials in the Government? Fair enough.

No matter, I said that MOST of the people are poorly educated ( and there's no real need for them to be better educated ).

Agreed in that most of the people are poorly educated. And yet they seem to be entitled to an opinion.

I don't agree, however, in that there's no real need for the to be better educated. With that you leave them at the expenses of being easily manipulated by anyone. Unless you are planning a Reich of One Thousand Years which will protect them with an iron fist in your ideal State.Der Serbisch Reich.

It's upon the elite to rule and decide, not upon general consensus.
When deciding, the government must take into consideration only the opinions of the best of the best, not the vast majority.

I agree with an ideal state based on a political aristocracy, in conjunction with a system of meritocracy.

Still it is not a reason for keeping people in blissed ignorance.

What official position? Laicism?

No, Agnosticism. But if you meant Laicism, then the entire discussion changes and it's been a waste of time.

I fail to see what good to anyone is a Europe where 100% of the people would officially be catholic ( for example )

Did I say that? Spain is just one piece more in Europe. Orthodoxy in the East is fine with me.

when still, only a small minority would truly adhere, and the rest would just go with the flow.

Not a problem.

Whatever set of moral rules are imposed upon people, they will still reseve the right to break them in the course of their lives, in privacy, or in public.

That's always been my belief, that rules are there to be interpreted and, at times, trespassed. But rules must be there.

Originally Posted by Awar

Far from it, but there's no sign of a coming apocalypse based on how things look now.

Things can look pretty catastrophic for a regular guy,
but then, a regular guy lives only a few decades.

50 years down the line, if things follow these trends, we will be an endangered species. North African Muslims are already a much considerable force in Europe, and while we keep shrinking in numbers, they keep growing in number and in power. A friend of mine who lives in some country of South America, everytime he comes to visit tells that he doesn't see as many American Indians in there as he sees here. They too are on the rise and our hospitals are becoming their private cocoons. Africans are arriving to our coasts on a daily basis, and the laws not only allow them to stay, but they grant them the right to residence. Which means that in short they will be able to get the nationality and bring their families here to keep procreating.

I look at my nephews and I want to cry. It is not fair the inheritance that we are going to leave to them. What are we supposed to tell them? Hello sweet children, we will be departing and will leave you all this misery only for you. Don't ask us about who your ancestors were, don't ask about the nation to which you belong, don't learn the traditions and don't mind about the millenia of evolution. It is a wast of time. Better yet, look at the favelas of São Paulo and the kashbah of Marrakech as there you will find the answers to your future.

I bet that to a Roman citizen, the year 476. looked like the world is going to explode, but it didn't.
Lives went on, and things reached new highs, and new lows.

Rome did explode. However the tide then was one of European origins. At worst, other European homogenous people added themselves to limited numbers over and adstratum of other European homogenous people. While less developed in terms of Civilization, the new comers brought with themselves a culture which in many cases was already influenced by the culture of the host populations.

This is, I'm afraid, nothing like that was.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Revolutionary

'Non theist' means being an atheist. Atheist does not mean "does not believe in God (as in 1)," but it means "does not believe in any god." Atheism is not a mirror image or consequence of any monotheistic faith, but also rejects polytheism/paganism.

If you worship no God or gods, you are in fact a 'non theist', in other words, an Atheist.

From the same site that is being quoted:

Meanings and definitions of specific words or categories seldom translate cross-culturally. Signifiers such as “religious,” “secular,” or even “God” have dramatically different meanings and connotations in different cultures (Beyer, 2003). They are laden with historical, political, social, and theological implications that are unique to every given country and the subcultures there within. Thus, making cross-national comparisons of beliefs between markedly different societies is tenuous, at best

[...]

Below is a presentation of the findings of the most recently available surveys concerning rates of atheism, agnosticism, and non-belief in God in various countries worldwide


And then the table for non theist, i.e. those who do not subscribe to any given theist religion, again defines the group with Atheist / Agnostic / Non-believer in God.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

So, you consider atheism as part of the problem/crises we are facing today?

I consider materialist ideologies/doctrines/mentalities the cause of the problem that we are facing today, yes. Don't you?

Do you consider atheism as a symptom of liberalism?

What kind of question is that?

And lastly, if you consider atheism as part of the problem, then how do you explain the fact that a lot of those who post here, who then are genuinely interested in solving this crises we are facing, are atheists

Out of the 15 who have voted for Atheism (who have voted too for other religions and philosopies), how many of them are Atheist so that you claim them to be a lot?

Since when genuinely interested equals in the right path?

(Ps. On the 30%, as I said in the other post, I was unable to find the source, so I found another source which has different figures)

By making reference to atheism, and giving a [speculative] figure of 30% of theists, you were allowing the belief that the other 70% left were actually atheists. Which is a fallacy.


Going back to your first question, this problem exists since there has been a complete breakdown in European values, and social nationalist politics have been substituted by materialistic liberalism and capitalism, and Christianism by atheism and other materialistic "disbeliefs".

And that is a fact.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

So, in your hypothetical perfect state, you would admit a religion like Judaism which is based on an ethnic group?

Why not? As long as they don't break any laws.

In my perfect state I wouldn't allow you any near the Ministry for Foreigners, nor the police secretary for customs and borders.
Unless you have told yet that you plan to get them into ghettoes, where they can practice even homosexuality to the point of extintion if they so wish.

I think that's a thing of personal preference. Nothing to be persecuted, but also nothing to be advertized.

You said that Agnosticism would have an official status. Are you saying now that the people would not be influenced by the State, when there is an official stance?

I insist in that you are most probably not thinking of a state with an official position on religious on agnosticism, but a laicist state. That would be much different since the state would, ideally, take no party nor would it try to influence.

My preferred stance would be that 'through no humanly way is it possible for us to know for certain that deities exist. So, there will be no speculation'

But even then, only ideally since the evidence here in Spain is of a supposedly laicist state which is continuously attacking the beliefs of the majority of the people.

Well, the problem with religions is that they have their own laws,
while the laws of the government must be above the religious laws.
Basically, anything which is based in logic and fact must be above
things based in irratio and blind belief.

You missed your chance then. Hope they'll realize that you are not worth the waiting.

Yeah, I told 'em: "Chicks, I'm sorry, I can't discuss religion with you tonight, we'll just have to act like atheist animals we are"

Had your ancestors trashed Christianism and embraced Islam, there would have been no reason to fight the Ottoman and instead to become a willing part of the Ottoman Empire.

Well, muslims kicked each other's asses just as much as there was christian vs. muslim ass-whooping, and then even the Mongols came and whooped some both Christian and Muslim ass, and when they converted to Islam, they whooped some more Muslim ass during Tamerlane.

In fact, right after the battle of Kosovo, Bayezid, the Turkish sultan
got his ass handed to him by Tamerlane at the battle of Angora.

And today Serbia, together with Albania, would be the Western fringes of the Ottoman world. Or, worse, the Ottoman Empire would have expanded further West since they would have no opposition in the Balkans. And you know that well, Awar.

Only partially true, and you know that well, Mynydd

But all of a sudden you seem to come with a light kempian version of the racial wars.

LoL, actually, my idea is the exact opposite. I think everything can be explained by socio-political-economical factors.

Interesting definition of Albanians. Wouldn't you be today the hillibillies if your ancestors had not stuck to their Christian faith, and then found out that it was more convenient for them to do favours to the Ottomans?

My ancestors were hillbillies who used to have a powerful empire, and lost it to the Ottomans,
and that heritage kept them afloat.

See the reconquista in Spain. It wouldn't have happened if the nobility wasn't eager to conquer and reconquer land. The people wouldn't have just risen up and fought a religious war if there wasn't for the elite who had economic reasons for the wars.

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Rusalka

I think the point (with which I don't agree with) was that the Poles are Catholic but the Romanians are Orthodox.

No, I'm not.

The point is that it was in those Communist countries which, as part of their materialistic vision of the world they spread a materialistic substitution for spirituality (namely atheism), where generations were educated in those ways. In Poland, despite the Communist regime, people kept their Christian, Catholic, spirituality. And that shows. Had it been another country with a Christian, Orthodox, spirituality, and had it been kept in the hearts of the people, the result I'm sure it would have been the same as in Poland, or at least similar.

And that answers too to the first part of Mädchen's post.

Originally Posted by Mädchen

These women also prostitute themselves because of the miserable conditions they live in and because nowadays, in most societies, money talks.

Spain went through long years of a misery and hardships after a devastating civil war and an infamous and long-lasting international blockade (all while most of Europe were getting the dollars from the Plan Marshall) and Spanish women and men worked hard and honestly. Ask the Germans of that time if the trade of Spanish women for escaping misery was prostitution, or hard work.

Incidentally, those men and women belonged to a Nation with strong Catholic beliefs, not Atheistic as in the other cases. But then maybe it is just sheer chance that this occured with Spain, Portugal and Poland.

Is that not a materialistic attitude?

Is anyone arguing that one materialism is better than another?

[Aeternitas]

Originally Posted by Rusalka

I think the point (with which I don't agree with) was that the Poles are Catholic but the Romanians are Orthodox.

Then I would not see how raising such a point would be relevant. I thought we were discussing Atheism and morality. And Orthodoxy is Christianity.