Before and during the French Revolution, the intellectual mood of Europe had favored the elevation of “reason” over faith and tradition. Philosophers, scientists, and intellectuals in the salons were united in condemning what they saw as the excesses of Church power, along with its supposed promotion of obscurantist doctrines that prevented the “natural development” of the human condition.
But for every action, there is a reaction. The rationalists of the Enlightenment overstated their case; they had too great a belief in “reason” as a cure for all men’s ills, and forgot that reason itself can become a religion. Men adapt their logic and reasoning to suit their desires; and what may appear to be “rational” may only be our instincts in disguise. The Enlightenment went too far: it forgot that men cannot live on reason alone; he needs a sustaining faith in something bigger than himself to carry him through the inevitable trials of life. Myths, legends, and the pageantry of the Mass are psychological supports that have provided untold benefits to countless generations, and to denigrate this is self-defeating.
The bloody excesses and anti-religiosity of the French Revolution seemed to prove this point. The Romantic movement arose partially in response to the Enlightenment’s contempt for the imagination, myths, and legends that had been part of European culture for centuries. It was only a matter of time before some capable thinker explained just how religion served as a net benefit to the people. That man was author François-René de Chateaubriand, and his book was entitled Génie du christianisme (The Genius of Christianity). It appeared in 1802; the second issue, issued the next year, he prudently dedicated to Napoleon.
We should note here that the word génie does not have the meaning of the English word “genius.” It is more akin to the Latin word genius (from which it is derived), which means “spirit” or “essence.” Chateaubriand’s thesis was essentially that the Church, despite its flaws and occasional crimes, served as such a support to the moral order of society that it was an indispensable part of Western civilization. Where others saw an authoritarian religion crushing the “rational” human spirit, he saw a vital pillar of social order.
He began by summarizing the fundamental doctrines of Catholic Christianity, and expressing his belief in them. A belief in some form of God is necessary, he argued, simply to prevent life from becoming a merciless Darwinian struggle of all against all. Without some higher moral power, nothing at all matters, and anyone can do anything without fear of repercussion. By making the religious believer part of a community united by the common bonds of faith, the Church had brought immeasurable good to the lives of the average person for centuries. Far from liberating the human spirit, atheists had simply enslaved man to anxiety and despair: for if there is no higher power, then man is adrift in a meaningless universe, and his life has no significance.
Taking his cue from Pascal, Chateabriand frankly believed that it was better for a man to believe in some God than to take on faith the impersonal swerving atoms of Lucretius. For even if he is wrong, he will live a happier life than the materialist atheist. How can anyone, he thought, gaze on the glories of the natural world and not think that some divine purpose was behind it all?
But it was in the subject of morals and social order that he found the greatest need for the Church’s firm hand. People cannot be admonished to do good by words alone; there must be something more powerful behind the admonition. Man must both love and fear God; for fear serves just as indispensable a purpose in social order as does love. It would not be enough for Moses to write down some rules and hand them to his people: he had to claim that they were of divine origin, for otherwise people would not take them as seriously. The same applies to the divinely-revealed moral codes of Islam.
No one should see anything cynical or opportunistic in this, Chateaubriand warned his readers. Human passions (lust, greed, selfishness, etc.) are so strong that people will always find ways of justifying their passions with the garb of reason. The moral code (backed by religion) must have a supernatural (i.e., God) sanction if it is to be respected and believed from one generation to the next. This is simply the reality. The values of faith, hope, and charity are more socially cohesive than the individualistic values of lust, greed, and selfishness; so we must make a conscious decision to elevate one set of ethics over another.
Finally, he argues, we should remember that the pursuit of “truth” is not everything in life. Societies that abandon the religions that form the foundations of their civilizations tend to crumble and fall; once we kick out the structural support of religion, then selfishness and greed runs rampant, and society suffers as a consequence. Who can doubt that Chateaubriand here makes a valid point?
The reaction to the Genius of Christianity was generally positive. He argued more from emotion than from reason, but sometimes emotion is more important. Conservatives horrified at the excesses of rationalism and revolution were buoyed by the prospect of finding a philosophical justification for their own preferences; the Church was understandably pleased; and Napoleon, a man of order first and foremost, no doubt nodded his own head in approval at Chateaubriand’s eloquent chapters. His influence on the Romantic movement is undeniable, as is the fact that he helped stimulate the French Catholic revival.
Twenty years after the Revolution tried to purge religion from France, it was back and more powerful than ever. Resiliency is the best measure of worth.
Read More: A Dialogue With A Pious Monk
I’ll be the first to admit that for many atheists, atheism and stamping out religion BECOMES their deity. They be come contemptuous in their anti-god confirmation bias but without actually examining WHY they don’t believe. Worse still, many “spiritual” people become “atheists” when suffering a loss and are angry at god. They never stopped believing and are just lashing out.
Having said that, ANYONE in a position of great power without checks and balances can enforce their will and push all manner of wickedness on those under them. This person could be a Pope, a Mullah, Guru or Robespierre.
As someone who does not believe in god I have always been concerned about religion influencing my life in a negative way. I also bemoan the push for many non-believers to stamp out tradition (banning the town Christmas tree/nativity scene etc.). But with all that, sadly the rise of militant Islam overseas is cause for great concern, I guess if a theocracy were to rise I’d prefer it to be Christian. If need be I can fake it, no one will be any the wiser.
It’s about human nature really, using something as a vehicle for power.
Plus there’s the weird universalist impulse that if I defend one religion I have to defend them all.
I (as a Laveyan Satanist, technically an atheist) don’t believe in the Judei-Christian God Yahweh because there’s no sufficient tangible evidence outside the Bible.
And the Bible if full of rape, slavery, murder, genocide, and incest, most of which God allows.
I just can’t worship someone as immoral as that.
I can’t take your words, as a satanist, seriously.
Why not?
Do you refuse to read history texts that also describe rape, slavery, murder, genocide and incest without condoning them?
I don’t condone any of that.
People follow the Bible.
What are the historical texts. Please tell, and tell me if they were used as the basis of a religion.
“And the Bible if full of rape, slavery, murder, genocide, and incest, most of which God allows.”
The Bible did not advocate that, but was indicating what was. Besides all that still exists and is perpetrated by men. Or your inferring they have no freewill and are just impulsive mammals rooting in the mire and are better off without religious doctrine laying down a moral foundation?
Yes it does.
Citation?
Slavery: Exodus 21, Leviticus 25:44, Ephesians 6:5.
Genocide: The fucking flood.
I actually told you all this.
Rape: When God told Moses and his men to kill the Midianites, and then God allowed the men to rape the virgins.
Genocide: The Flood of Noah…….
Slavery: Exodus (21) Leviticus 25:44-45
Incest: Adam & Eve, Noah’s family, Lot & his daughters.
Jesus tap dancing Christ.
Do you recall why the flood occured?
Well technically it didn’t.
So you admit the genocide you just proclaimed in your last post by flood did not technically happen?
According to reality it didn’t.
According to the Bible it did and god caused it. That is mass genocide.
Good luck.
Quintus, I’m re-reading Will Durant’s Lessons of History right now, and this article could not have been more timely. Time and time again, history has shown us that whenever a culture eliminates religion, it eliminates the same moral foundation which made its existence possible.
“We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns?” -Friedrich Nietzsche
That book is a good one. I have it on my shelf, too! Well done.
Religion was one of the few good things Napoleon did. When measured against his stupid economic policy, his wars of aggression against Europe (and the rest of the world), and his failed invasion of Russia where he left 600,000 French soldiers to die in the Russian winter while he took a carriage back to Paris, this is one good amidst a long list of crimes.
Without religion society degenerates. This is an objective fact wheter you think of yourself as beliver or not.
What evidence do you have if this?
Women need to be told what to do. And religion makes things very easy.
Why?
Religion is a moral code that, taught from a young age, stays on people during all their lives, with little enforcement necessary.
Religion isn’t a moral code.
Corrected. Religion HAS moral code.
Islam: Kill infidels, beat your wives, lie to infidels, throw gays off roofs. Rape women.
Judaism and Christianity: Own slaves & beat them, kill gays, kill people who eat shellfish, stone your unruly child to death, sell your daughters into servant hood, Kill your enemies.
And basically do anything and everything your god tells you to do including killing your own child(ren).
What a great moral code.
Yup. That’s why you know about them and you don’t know of matriarchal societes or Zoroastrianism.
So are we supposed to follow these immoral, evil moral codes?
You cannot say what is moral or inmoral, after all everything is relative and depends on how you feel and how it suits you at the moment…That’s the only moral you can have if you are coherent since you are an atheist…
Oh hi troll, haven’t seen you since the other religion article. How ya been?
Good. Just wondering if Nietzsche was the only coherent (and reasonable) atheist in a long time.
Where do you get your morality from?
Nah, you should follow the moral codes of the Soviet Union.
Works way better that way, body count wise.
Of a tyrannical dictator who killed people for no reason?
He had a very strong moral code actually. Communism was the replacement for religion, you see, only without the restraints on individual morality *for the leaders*. There were very sound reasons, to them, that they killed hundreds of millions of people. Yay relativity.
It’s the pro-Pinochet argument. To an outsider it seems random, but you can understand how the regime rationalized what it did.
Not supposed, I just said they were useful.
Neither Christianity nor Judaism commands the owning of slaves, nor selling of daughters into servanthood.
The commands about shellfish, disobedient children, and killing gays were limited to the theocracy of ancient Israel.
God NEVER commands anyone to sacrifice their own children, (Abraham and Isaac), but sacrificed his own son.
The only people commanded to be killed off were the Molech worshippers. The Romans did the same thing to the Molech worshippers at Carthage due to their depravity. And the Pizza Gate perpetrators are also Molech worshippers… so I don’t have a problem killing them off.
Slavery: Exodus 21 Leviticus 25:44, Ephesians 6:5
Unruly children: Doesn’t matter. Still in the book.
Sacrifice : The story of Jephthah and his daughter.
You’re completely wrong.
You do realise Jephthah never sacrificed his daughter literally like the other nations around Israel did? Why else is it written that every year the daughters of Jerusalem saluted her? If she had been killed by a human sacrifice that wasn’t possible. Btw, literal human sacrifices were strongly condemned by Mosaic law.
No, he sacrificed his daughter ‘spiritually’, i.e. she had to do service in and near the temple and had to remain virgin and childless all her life. That was the sacrifice for her and also for him. Because of the fact she was his only child, which means his bloodline would stop there.
And if you read more carefully (and completely), then slaves had almost the same rights as current employees in a company have. And if you want to use the argument that those employees didn’t sell their body for money, well think about the current football players who get bought and sold by football clubs (for which no one bats an eye)
Fron your post, most of your hostility against religion is stemming from your giant misconceptions and lack of understanding what is comprises.
The aethist relegion (socialism) has killed more people than all other wars put together. It places the insatiate appetite of the state over the individual which will always be asking for sacrifice and homage. I trust G-d over my fellow man as the latter will always demand more.
neo-marxist detected !!!!
Atheist has no religion.
Are you a leftist?
That’s bullshit.
She knew no man because she was sacrificed before she was married.
It was a custom for girls to be virgins until marriage or death.
yeah just figured that out too
yeah because it was custom that girls didn’t interact in any way with men and were shielded from all external factors
I just gave you a argument to prove she wasn’t sacrified literally so stop smoking weed and read my damn post
“Atheist has no religion.”
Yes they do. And they can be quite militant about it.
No they don’t. Atheism is the rejection of religion and theism.
Socialism is a political and economic ideology. It has nothing to do with religion.
You’re still wrong.
culture is more of a moral code that you are taught at a young age: religion creates and sustains that code.
You’re splicing hairs. Socialism, or humanism if you will, fills the void once you personally reject religion. You worship not G-d, but the power of the state or men (mostly probably claiming “science” as your standard bearer).
The fact you find the need to mock those who hold faith, on a topic that is defending religion, indicates your not secure in your own “faith.”
@disqus_3CVORJJ1Cu:disqus
Islam: correct
Judaism and Christianity: You are lying because you like to hate.
secular humanism is what morality without religion.
Cognitive dissonance at work everyone.
These religions say the same things except mine is better because it’s mine.
Mocking a faith that is ridiculous is not splicing hairs.
God probably created female first and realized he messed up bad, so he created man to fix the whole thing.
Dude quit watching CNN. How many muslims do you know personally who throw gays from towers ?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6e5fec09d10b48176381935a3147a15d12b60481b12a56bddae6231309fb3e98.png
something they share with jooz, SJWs and vegans.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/worldviews/wp/2016/06/13/here-are-the-10-countries-where-homosexuality-may-be-punished-by-death-2/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2016/03/video-the-islamic-state-hurls-accused-gays-off-rooftops-to-screams-of-allahu-akbar
you didn’t answer man. You’re just trolling obviously.
Humanism always goes despotic without the moral restraints of faith. History is littered with examples… ghangis khan, pol pot, stalin, mao, etc….
Deny the stench of the corpses you arthiests pile up all you want.
I find yours to be absurd as well, but I don’t find it neccessary to troll aethiest topics here or other sites. Your intoletance is noted, but thats your problem.
Atheism doesn’t a faith in the sense religion does.
I know 0.
But what does that have to do with the fact that their holy book tells them to kill gays and some of them are actually doing it?
False. In fact you have preaching it all day, but lack the self awareness to discern it.
JSG. Enough. What or where do you place your faoth? Who or what? This might save us both time.
If you mean faith in the sense religion does, I have no faith.
I believe in no Gods because I don’t want to believe in something without a valid reason, hence faith.
I do believe in a lot of things in the real world, if that’s what you mean.
Judges 11:30-40King James Version (KJV)
30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.
33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.
36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.
37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.
38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.
39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,
40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.
Vows to sacrifice first thing to come out of house as burnt offering. -Daughter is the first thing to come out of house. -Daughter is sacrificed according to vow.
Such as?
yes, like I said, it’s not a literal burnt offering. And again read my argument why it is not to be taken literally
Here are different translations of the verb:
“That the daughters of Israel went yearly to
lament (KJV)
laud (New World Translation)
give commendation to (New World Translation – 2013)
the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.”
The specific Hebrew word is “Tanah” (literally: to tell, to narrate), which indicates the daughters of Israel talked with her and that she couldn’t be dead.
Nah – he created man first but couldn’t stand watching him jerk off all day….
You’re trolling.
“Vows to sacrifice first thing to come out of his house,
Doesn’t fulfill the vow even though the verse said he did. ” Your logic.
That if I jump off a cliff I’ll die or be severely injured.
That if I stick my hand in a fire I will feel pain.
That if I shoot myself with a gun in the head I’ll die.
That if I look at the sun long enough I’ll go blind.
That if I eat food I’ll poop it out later.
Do you finally get it?
What’s wrong with child sacrifice if there’s no God? Why do YOU, specifically, think human sacrifice is such a bad thing? I mean….who cares, really? If you can get away with it and you can get off on it, why not do it?
Wow, just wow.
Human sacrifice goes against a person’s health and well being, as well as the person’s wishes and best interests.
Unless they volunteer, it’s wrong.
I’m sorry I have empathy and not a magical sky daddy telling me what to do.
Would you want to be sacrificed, or your (future) children be sacrificed?
You say human sacrifice goes against a person’s health and well being. So what? Why should this factor in to my equations, if I decide I want to do it, I have the power to do it, and I can get away with it?
Do you have empathy? Do you actually care about other people?
Do you feel bad for people who accidentally break their leg, for instance.
You are missing my point. Answer my question first, and I’ll answer yours. If I can benefit from the misfortune of others, why should I care about damage I cause them?
I did.
Do you have empathy?
No, you did not.
I have read some of your comments, you seem to be driven by hatred and anger. I wonder what happened to you in the past to make you like this.
I answered your questions “What’s wrong with child sacrifice if there’s no God? Why do YOU, specifically, think human sacrifice is such a bad thing?”
Now answer my question. Do you have empathy?
…..OK….I can see you’re just messing around. I’ve got other things to do today. Bye
So you have no response because you either have no valid answer or you just don’t want to face that you’re a sociopathic piece of shit who thinks its ok to sacrifice children against their will just because a magical sky daddy doesn’t tell you to, and now you’re running away.
You’re either just that stupid and sociopathic, or just a troll. Either way, good riddance.
plan B was goats.
hahaha
Where did you get all that ignorance you just spewed out about my history?
What religion are you talking about?
I don’t follow a religion! I follow the laws that the Heavenly Father gave my forefathers. Religion is something Edomites/Whites created to discredit our laws, statutes, and commandments.
You are an idiot.
How so?
race creates culture, culture creates religion, religion creates culture, culture creates race.
Better: Race gives birth culture, culture enforces race, culture gives birth to religion, Religion enforces culture, so it sustains race.
Without these three societies fail.
Race is who we are, biologically. So without it we cannot recognize our neighbor, our kinsman, our parents or our brethren.
Culture is our tradition it is what WE have been doing in a span of years and without it there is nothing but our faces to differentiate us from the other.
Religion Is WHY we were doing what we are doing. Without it we develop without boundaries and create irreparable contradictions.
Race is capability
Culture is ability
Religion is control
Without these three we cannot see the enemy, the one within and the from out. Without these three we cannot say who we are. Without these three we cannot defend ourselves, ’cause without them we got nothing to defend.
Race? Bwahahahaa… There are more whites killing whites and hating whites then other Races.
you are just mad in the head.
Now this is some funny shit. Sister Fister.
Science and understanding gives us absolutely everything in our lives with the exception of purpose … a reason to live!
That’s why leftwing atheists are often token intelligent to a certain point. But miserable, depressed … suicidal.
My own opinion is that leftists occupy the bulk middle in terms of human intelligence and wisdom. Probably from 40% up to 90%’ Rightwing people occupy the lowest say 39%, and the top 10%.
Rightwingers have the monopoly on people who’d accidentally impregnate their own sister, no doubt. But we also have the monopoly on truly wise and purposeful people. The cream.
The left dominate the average and above average classes. People who can consume and retain information, but for no real purpose. They’re usually a part of a class of people I’d apply the old saying “a little knowledge can be dangerous”. And they have a little knowledge about an awful lot
I am an agnostic, NOT an atheist. What is your take on that? Not me personally, but those who are agnostic?
I’m speaking in very broad strokes here. I’d count myself as agnostic too, btw
Why do you assume that the only way to fill a “purpose” is through god? What is wrong with just living to better mankind a little?
I never said it was
Cool. Glad you don’t. I made an assumption because I have seen that argument made many times before. I have no trouble filling my life with purpose without religion.
Thank you Someone gets it.
Yeah, what if it turns out that god never gave human life any purpose?
The purpose of my life is happiness–maintaining it and increasing it.
To what purpose?
If we are to believe there is no god your emotions like happiness are essentially just bio chemical trickery evolved as mechanisms for survival.
Well, yeah, the reward centers in my brain light up more and more often the more I achieve my rational values. That’s plenty sublime for me.
So you’re content leading a life of purpose much like a junky looking for your next bio chemical high.
Sure. Except I use achievements instead of drugs.
Because Nietzsche tried and utterly failed.
Modern man destroys more when he builds than when he destroys. God is a nuisance for modern man. Many love humanity only in order to forget God with a clear conscience.
God is hated because He says to the puny man that he is indeed puny and highly limited without much control of his environment. Today the Humanistic belief systems, that put man in the centre of all, need to throw God out of the window to sustain the delusion of man’s greatest blasphemy: his own all-powerment (honestly I do not know a better way to translate pantodynamia)
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eaabf92a7f9e9fd92e487595632e4e0c2c35c544307da11ec553ee6b973faeb5.jpg
He-He, Maybe I should have used different wording.
Weren’t the Christians the first SJWs?
No. Shit.
I kid, but seriously if putting the brakes on raping your slaves and sacrificing children isn’t something you can get behind I don’t know what to tell you.
No.
No, ancient mother-goddess deities. Seriously.
Can someone please explain to me why people think we can’t have morals without God or religion? Like we’d all just be raping an killing each other.
Why isn’t the Golden Rule enough? It’s so fucking simple a 4-year-old can understand it.
I think the average IQ is 100. Although I must say that among the worst people I have ever met were high IQ leftards. Thus, IQ may not matter for this purpose.
IQ is simply an aptitude measurement. Very limited usage as a whole.
I agree. It was just an on-the-fly thought that lead to nowhere.
Freedom would not exist… It was a christian belief that created the constitution, declaration of independence and so forth. Not govt..(is freedom moral?) ///. Also, you can’t have morals without religion because your belief is based on something like the 10 commandments etc. If you had no “base” how would you know what even partially morally is real? RE would killing matter if it was socially acceptable? Like abortion.. The only difference between a mobile fetus and a human is one is attached to a cord. That is it yet the morality is completely different the day you escape. No, a 4 year old can’t understand it because I could tell a 4 year old to strap a bomb on and they would take out a crowd without even thinking its a problem. Thats why you have religion and society.
“Also, you can’t have morals without religion because your belief is based on something like the 10 commandments”
Are you so stupid you don’t understand the Golden Rule?
Do you? How are rules enforced?
Law. Like how you need to pay your taxes.
How are laws and tax regulations enforced?
I already explained it in the article. It’s isn’t enough just to tell someone what to do. For the lesson to sink in, the person has to really believe he or she is going to hell if they fuck up.
That may be bullshit to you, but most of humanity needs this.
Well then most people are gullible children who can’t think for themselves.
But this is ROK, so I think most of us knew that.
Indoctrination, works like a charm doesn’t it?
Well, religion says I am destined to go to Hell, so why bother?
We’re trying to help you AVOID Hell. That’s why we bother.
Thanks for admitting that religion is based on fear. The proper long term motivation is–as the Spartans and Ayn Rand realized–love. That is, love of oneself and whomever else DESERVES love.
What is love to an atheist.
A strange chemical reaction in the brain evolved for some genetic advantage/success.
Why then do atheists romanticize such an emotion when their belief system merely reduces it to a survival function.
This argument is, in essence, the same as looking at a supercomputer and saying, “That’s just a collection of wires and silicon.” Bull. It’s the apex of 100,000 years of human ingenuity and achievement.
Similarly, our emotions are results of all of our values and decision making processes coming into contact with outside reality. Yes, they are biochemical reactions but that doesn’t make them any less aublime or real.
In fact, we can use supercomputers to measure them on am ever more granular level. In 50,000 years of religious history not one shred of physical evidence has ever been produced to validate the existence of any of the 10s of thousands of gods men have pushed. Which one, then, is real and important and which one is fraud
Religion has many motivations, like most of life. Am I afraid of God, as I am afraid of the police who would arrest me if I murdered someone? Yes.
Do I also accept that God is good based on reason? Do I love God for his justice in punishing the wicked? Does God also love me? Yes.
In atheist terms you could view the human brain like a computer in regards to values and feelings of love.
You cant have your cake and eat it. Love cant be some mystical higher sense of being when like a computer, you’re just a soulless collection of parts designed to carry out a certain function.
Love is respect and admiration for another’s virtues.
“Do I also accept that God is good based on reason?”
Neither you now anyone else has any proof of the existence of any god.
Quintus: thank you for posting this article. Religion (be it Christianity, Islam, et cetera) is the science of Waking Up to a manifestation bigger than ourselves.
I respect the ongoing advances of material science & cold rationalism. Despite such gains, they are forever constrained by what cannot be seen nor understood.
Trying to convince someone they are going to Hell when there is no evidence Hell exists? That sounds like “fake news”. Does the world really need more fake news?
I agree 100%. I believe Christianity is true, which is why I warn people about Hell. If I did not believe this, it would be wrong to lie to them about Hell.
Hell is being next to bitter aethisists who wank on about their issues.
PS- Your mouthing the “fake news” meme. Good boy. The push for suppression of “unapproved news” isn’t that far away then.
I couldn’t agree more. Race is far more an indicator of ‘social good’ than religion will ever entail.
As much as we rip on Scandinavia a lot here, the mostly non-religious white Germanics who live there have very low crime rates and almost pathological altruism (which is oddly enough what is bringing on their downfall from the actually religious and ungrateful Muslim immigrants they are bringing in).
Non-religious Japan (people identify as Shinto mainly for cultural purposes) also comes to mind. Insanely low crime and purpose-driven society.
Then there’s the United States and Brazil, the two most populous Christian nations on Earth which have very high crime rates. Throw a lot of Non-Asian Browns and Black people into the mix (like in US and Brazil) and it’s a social disaster waiting.
Thanks you.
If you have statistics or evidence on these claims I’d like to see them.
You can find them yourself. FBI crime statistics, Japan homicide rate, etc.
The one bugaboo. Japan suffers ridiculously high suicide rates from social pressure, and general alienation, as well as lack of overall purpose.
The Northeast Asian societies, despite very high IQ, value conformity too much and don’t put much emphasis on allowing individual talents to thrive. Hence the paradox that Japan hasn’t had a huge number of revolutionary discoveries and inventions (whether pre Matthew Perry or post Matthew Perry).
They are masters at being Copycats though. 🙂
Indeed. Very hive-minded folks. Used to be a time that every single car was grey or white. No one dared to break the mold and get a bright red car. America is quite unique in its individualism. Makes for great heights- and massive lows.
The fact that you put as a “shining example” a group of countries that are dying culturally and demographically (Scandinavia and Japan) and compare them with countries whose religious status is dubious to say the least (U.S. hasn’t been a Christian society for a long time, Brazil a country where at least half the population practices Makumba and other African religions) shows the fallacy that lies behind your premise.
Race is a factor, however culture is just as important if not more.
Where did I ever say they were “shining examples”? Congratulations on your strawman.
Errrrr…. Nope. Brazil is an overwhelmingly Catholic nation of about 200 million, while at least half of the U.S is Christian with a population of 330 million+. They are the two most populous Christian nations on Earth, followed By Russia and Philippines (which oddly enough also have vastly higher crime rates than many of their neighbor countries).
Sorry Bruh, your argument fails
I didn’t use any strawman. You were the one who compared those nations to the U.S. and Brazil in an attempt to bolster your argument that religion< than race despite the fact that religion has left an imprint in the societies you just mentioned.
With reference to your second point It’s obvious you haven’´t been down there as I have for work reasons. In Brazil (as well as many countries in the Caribbean or Africa) there is a phenomenon called religious syncretism. What it means is that many of those “Catholics” attend the mass in the mourning and offer chickens and other things in sacrifice at night and believe in sorts of wacky and weird things. They are not really Christians, they still practice the religion of their ancestors, Inquisition didn’t last long enough to stamp out paganism.
Regarding US, let´s just say that if that were true, we wouldn’t have this conversation. U.S. is not a christian country and hasn’t been in a long time, is a secular one where most of its young people don’t believe in anything approaching traditional Christianity. Notice that I said most. Source: I studied a masters there and worked for a company of your country.
African-Americans are by all accounts one of the most religious sub-groups of any western society, and have very high rates of crime. Christianity by all accounts, isn’t so much a stymie on their very high crime rates as much as the impulsive behavior and lack of criminal foresight which comes with having a much lower than average IQ as well as their higher testosterone.
I don’t know about the blacks of US but if their “pastors” are any indication, those guys wouldn’t recognize Christianity if it fell from heaven and kicked them in the face.
African-Americans are due to what I’ve mentioned before (lower average IQ) are more easily swayed by emotionally-driven rhetoric and narratives at the expense of logic and reason.
It’s (literally Hitler) amazing how many of them actually believe the insane narrative that they are under attack by white police and that is their number one urban issue. The easily emotionally swayed can also be suckered into religion quite obviously.
And yes the black pastors keep perpetuating the victimhood and leftist narratives, and because some guy on a podium is saying it than it must be true.
That’s quite true.
Indeed. And their is far too much crabs-in-a-bucket behavior in the Black community. Anyone who tries to escape the victim narratives and find the facts for themselves is either pulled right back in or at least called an “Uncle Tom” and shunned.
Quite so.
I’m swayed by religion via logos. I’m a big fan of Aristotle (easily the most boring human being to have ever lived). An unusual stance to be certain. Your point about the American black community, unfortunately, is spot on.
That was to be expected since they haven’t experienced the pressures Europe had to undergo (plagues, constant wars that decimated its population, death penalty to purge the undesirables, etc).
However what distinguished Christendom from other religions is that is a rational religion that believes in a Universe ruled by laws that can be studied, hence why Science came to be in the West, not even in Asia where reportedly, that higher average IQs are to be found. Such a religion would’ve been an asset to the black peoples. Of course what I mean by Christianity is the traditional one, not the bastardized version practiced by them…
Fourteen months ago,after leaving my office job , i’ve been blessed to stumble upon following superb job opportunity on internet which literally saved me… They offer online jobs for people to freelance from their house. Last paycheck after working with them for 4 months was $10000… Best thing about this job is that the only requirement for the job is simple typing and reliable internet… https://www.facebook.com/Internet-Jobs-for-US-UK-Australia-Canada-and-New-Zealand-1585996635048445/app/190322544333196/
Basically most of brazil is African that’s why. Africans for the vast majority (~90%) are unable to grab Christianity’s higher morals and more acute theological position their culture continues to further their barbarism that is why at the moment Africans make a community they go south, fast and ugly. Even when not practicing Makumba overtly they might be doing it inertly, they simply say “christ” instead of “Maboto”.
Most Brazilians are Africans. You should read: Pritchard Hesketh’s Where black rules white: a Journey through and about Haiti. He said there albeit 115 years ago that on paper most people are Catholics but in reality Voodoo is far more commonly practiced and Churches are left de-funded The thing is that in Haiti and much of Brazil there is no law and so there is only action. On that part there is a scene in Citada de Deus a Brazilian film in which the villain Zique meets in a church with a witch doctor to fix his destiny… Very Christian of him the thing most of those people practice their original religions overtly or inertly, the second case was also demonstrated on a documentary about blacks in America: they gave Christian names to their own gods and so they preserved their culture.
europeans also had to face rougher climatic conditions, forcing them to plan many things and think ahead. Probably contributed a great deal to their inventiveness.
Weather might be a factor but not of great importance. Otherwise we should be purchasing our Eskimo manufactured hover cars our siberian designed PCs…
Weather and landscape. Hard to build anything of importance on snow…
Good points. I can’t argue with it…
Blacks are the most religious ethnic group in the US. Also most violent and degenerate.
I actually mention black religiosity a bit further down.
However, I would say west coast Portland white libtards with cotton candy blue hair, ugly tats, and piercings who are practicing polyamory are the most degenerate in the nation.
Religion proves only the will to life of a people, the race their whole capabilities and the culture their abilities. Religion is the sustainer or all.
For example think that Japanese and Scandinavians are imploding to self-afflicted extinction the one more ridiculous than the other and the high need for degenerate of both peoples: both countries are highly socialistic and these is the core of their troubles: too many people want ot live parasitically on others, the Japanese at least allow that only for other Japanese.
Also for non-Asiatic blacks and browns you should think that they might just be exteriorly Christian, only for the needs of community, but deeply still influenced from THEIR pagan deities, for example it was noted that the Christian Church of Ethiopia mostly transliterated Christianity of their religion, so they remain continue doing what they did but today it is on the name of Christ instead of their deity the same for the Catholic Houtous once they slaughtered in the name of (let’s say) Ubuntu today for the sake of Christ. They only changed the name.
Still all these examples simply show a greater will to life. Also you should study on the Dionysian festivities in ancient Greece Christianity did influence Europeans enough for them to adopt a higher morality, they fact that they adopted instead of middle easterns who succumbed to Islam (little known fact Islam becomes quite liberal after the sun sets….) has to do with their race, in here their innate capabilities. Today we see remnants of that higher morality, unconnected to whole broken and miserable used be materialistic “nihilistic” people’s that want to brag on their achievements, the ones that are killing them.
In the Western we have criminals and psychopaths wearing nice suits, yet they would sell their grandmas for a few bucks. The race argument is utter bullshit. Have you been to any third world country ? most people you will meet are very nice and decent, they will invite you for dinner even if they’re much poorer. It’s time people stop believing the crap they read and start travelling. That’s the danger of internet.
That’s a modern excuse. In the old days, God was an extension of the power structure into the supernatural. Namely “you can escape the king’s law but you can’t escape God as a way of keeping people” in line.
And today you have government and class warfare to lay your blame for your failures on.
Gil, seriously, go find someplace else to haunt. BB works for you. Go there, troll.
There’s no special class warfare that didn’t exist throughout history. Any peasant who didn’t show the proper respect to a noble could be executed on the spot.
Spare me your Marxist theory, socialist.
Maybe in a former life you were a nobleman who didn’t have to deal with the peasantry.
It was also a limit on the king’s power. Lex Rex, the law is king.
So indoctrination through fear. Got it.
The issue is having objective morals without a creator. Being a moral realist is extremely difficult without some tether to an absolute authority.
Actually it’s not extremely difficult. In fact, it’s very easy. I don’t kill people, I don’t steal, and I don’t have the hots for my neighbor’s wife. I don’t covet what someone else has, and I am repulsed by non-traditional relationships. I find the whole cultural marxism movement, feminism, SJWs, and all the supposedly “progressive” parasites to be less than garbage. I hold conservative values and believe strongly in personal responsibility, ethics, and generally doing the right thing.
I do all of this without believing in some angry parental figure wagging his finger at me from thousands of years ago and promising me an eternity in a lake of fire for not living up to a set of rules codified by the very beings he seeks to punish.
It is possible and very easy to be good without a god. One simply has to make the choice to behave that way.
Were you raised by wolves, or in a completely atheist godless society.
Well then whether you like to admit it or not your morality has been influenced by religious values.
Simply because some part of a given religion correlates with morality does not mean religion is the cause of that morality. You know, the whole “correlation does not imply causation” thing. If you wish to believe otherwise and insist that morality can only come from believing in some magical sky god, then have fun with that. I believe it is possible to be moral for no other reason than it’s the right thing to do. For me, a belief system that involves a petulant, jealous, egotistical deity doesn’t even remotely enter into the equation. Simply put, there has been a multitude of gods before yours. There will be a multitude of gods long after yours is resigned to the annals of mythology.
You grew up in a religiously influenced society where its moral code developed. You cannot say with certainty with your anecdotal example that your values would have been the same from a completely godless/atheist environment.
Why the fuck should I obey that stupid rule if I have more Money/Power than all of you weaklings…
Without God, life is just a race for power and than you try to bend/ create rules in your favor…
That is exactly what is happening with the Western Elite today.
Becuase the Golden Rule cannot account for self-interest. It only works as long as the individual doesn’t realize that he can get away with breaking it. A far simpler rule is that everyone should do what they want to who they want, because that will at least be a stable equilibrium. That being said, the next best thing is to introduce some sort of arational fear of doing evil.
“A far simpler rule is that everyone should do what they want to who they want, because that will at least be a stable equilibrium.”
– So basically just do whatever the fuck you want right? So basically Social Darwinism.
“That being said, the next best thing is to introduce some sort of arational fear of doing evil.”
– So religious dogma is just irrational fear? Got it.
Don’t do whatever the fuck you want, just do whatever the fuck you think works for you. If you feel like robbing someone, but you find the consequences to be excessive, then don’t take that risk. Otherwise, what basis do I have to deter you? If you met my criteria, then there is clearly nothing I can do to sway you, so we’ll just have to fight it out.
And no, religious dogma has plenty of irrational emotional components besides fear.
So you’re just a sociopath? Got it.
I am merely a pragmatist. What solution do you have to problems like gang violence? Can you reason with them? Educate them? Convince them that exploiting other people is just a bad thing?
If people can follow the golden rule, fine. There are no moral problems that need to be solved. But you’re not going to convince someone who benefits from theft that theft is bad.
As to religion, yes it is irrational. That just means that reason is not how religion is developed. Religion comes from emotion, and other psychological phenomena that are unrelated to reason.
You sound like a nice enough guy, but it seems that you have absolutely no working political philosophy. So please abstain from political conversation until you develop one, and that includes shutting up about religion.
My philosophy is secular humanism and that crimes deserved punishment for the people who commit them.
I don’t need a philosophy to know that another one is bullshit.
It doesn’t matter if someone ‘deserves’ to get punished, only if they actually do get punished.
The State is made up of people, and should be a system of people, not laws. To enforce such an arbitrary constraint will only result in corruption, politically speaking.
“why people think we can’t have morals without God or religion?” No one’s saying you can’t be moral without God or religion, it’s more about the individual’s adherence to his or her own conscience that’s the issue. A Christian is far more likely to closely adhere to his own moral conscience than someone how isn’t. A Christian is less likely to side-step his own conscience when presented with an opportunity to do wrong, even if it’s advantageous to him and he could get away with it. They are also far more likely to go above and beyond what is expected of them by others. Also, we’ve never really lived in an irreligious society, therefore it’s safe to say that atheists tend to adapt to the Christian culture and worldview, even if they deny the God.
Because people just make up religion, however, it lacks “quality control.” Christianity allows for all kinds of nonsensical interpretations, and in a regime of religious freedom, no one can intervene to stop the really dumb ones unless their adherents start to inflict harm on minors or third parties, by, say, withholding health care from children because of superstition about “faith healing.” A few generations back this harm included murdering people who held religious beliefs contrary to the local sovereign’s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuius_regio,_eius_religio
And you can’t just say that the wrong-headed Christians have misunderstood the religion’s teachings; respectable theology differs from the laughable versions as a matter of degree, not of kind.
For example, after the Christian tract writer Jack Chick died, some Christians criticized him for the way he presented the gospel in his comic books.
But did Chick get it that wrong? Many evangelicals think highly of C.S. Lewis as an apologist, but if you took Lewis’s writings on sin, hell, demons, salvation and so forth and portrayed them in comic books, you would wind up with basically more literate Chick tracts.
“Men adapt their logic and reasoning to suit their desires; and what may appear to be “rational” may only be our instincts in disguise.”
Well then that isn’t really rational, is it? The fact people don’t always use reason perfectly does not in any way invalidate it.
This is a straw man argument. Do better.
I find it interesting that there is a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.
Studies brought to you by the same scientists that stated children raised by gays end up better or the ones that say human impact in climate is greater than the Sun and cosmic radiation?
Read this….http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/08/new-meta-analysis-checks-the-correlation-between-intelligence-and-faith/?comments=1
I read the study a long time ago, however the statement doesn’t match historical or cultural evidence. Otherwise the Soviet Union would have achieved Utopia long ago. Moreover the use of meta-analysis, a controversial technique doesn’t speak very well of it. The burden of proof is on the authors to prove their pet theory if they can.
Arstechnica!? That idiot site is still a thing? I quit reading that ridiculousness all the way back during my bachelors. When they couldn’t get a single solitary article even remotely right about astronomy! 😀
And still pushing pseudo science too I see! Well that was their recent headlines. As for this…..
They openly state the results aren’t exactly conclusive. Especially considering they only questioned Americans, Canadians and the UK. 3 countries known for being comprised of mostly abject morons.
😀 😀 😀
Which nation do you call home?
US of course.
😀
These were based on data gathered by scientists, not authors.
I was referring to the authors of the study.
I believe there is a correlation, but not a causation.
Actually… I can agree with that oddly enough.
It’s also been my experience the less intelligent you are, the happier.
Oh to be dumber and happy! 😀
Because religion is about brainwashing people and stopping them from discovering the real world. It’s about keeping you in the dark, stupid and dependent.
Christianity is a Semitic religion. The Romans called it a Jewish cult and it was banned within the Empire. Europeans are actually giant cucks, so they copied this foreign and alien religion and forced it upon their own people, who were also giant cucks, so they just accepted it. From this time on the religion became corrupted with tree worshipping pagan influences and eventually became Christianity as we know it today, with 1000+ different versions.
Know your history, because it’s happening all over again, but now with Islam. A new Semitic cult that wants to conquer the world.
Yeah, the Vikings were real pansies.
At least they didn’t wear skirts….
😀
Actually….they did. Leather ones. That the Scots looked at and said “‘ey noow, we kin make those skiirts inta kilts, we can, and we’ll be usin’ wool we weel!”
That’s why Scots wear kilts and the Irish, whom the Scots came from, do not.
HAHA! Well I’ll buy that one! 😀
Only…. I’m pretty sure there’s an Irish kilt…. but then I’m basing that on the movie The Quiet Man so I don’t have much to stand on! 😀 😀 😀
The Irish “kilt” is a new thing, like 20-ish years old. It’s borne from the “Celtic Identity” movement of the last few decades.
Is it really? What an odd thing fixate on. Those Irish! 😉
They had to pick something I guess. Us Scots are the power play of Celts I suppose.
When you need to copy something, you go with the best! 😀
“Celtic Identity”
Brought to you buy the Irish Tourist Board. It’s a marketing scheme.
I thought it was a left-over from the Scots-Irish Plantation era of the 17th century?
Indeed.
So very English…..subjugate an indigenous people, make their language, culture and religion illegal, and then years later find the trappings to be just the height of fashion!
I take it you are a fenian bastard…. i mean of irish stock?
Now why would you ask?
In fact, yes, the dominant dose of my forbears came to the US from the Emerald Isle and some who stayed behind did their “bit for the Cause”.
Same here. Erin go bragh.
We are Legion.
I’m third generation NY born so I have no real connection to the culture besides the research I’ve done. Wasn’t even raised Catholic.
I thought all you ‘Sturdy Sons of Ohio’ were of German or English Stock?
Mother’s family is German stock, father Irish. I am only catholic due to my mothers family, but I carry an Irish last name so all the paddies think I’m “one of the lads.”
ah.
Yup, we’re American!
My father who’s half Sicilian/half Irish has the most comically Irish name you can imagine yet looks like a straight-up dago.
Heh. We’re muts. Both families were hear before the Civil war. Some cherokee blood in there somewhere.
Like all religion, its entirely man made. If you can’t tell the difference between right and wrong you lack empathy not religion.
All philosophy is man made as well. So is everything you experience, do, or want to do. End of the day, y’all are as clueless as the devout, you just don’t know it or can’t admit it.
John Locke and Voltaire have done more for human progress than any Bible chump has done or ever will, let’s put it that way.
I’ll let Mr. Newton know that.
Thanks for showing us your ignorance. You are shining beacon of folly.
He’s a good man, we simply have a disagreement.
I get what you are saying but stating that Volaire did more for humanity than say Leibnitz, Kepler, Oresme, or Newton…If that is not ignorance and bad will I don’t know what it is…
Thanks. I know I can always argue with Ghost and it doesn’t have to resort to mud slinging
We were comparing philosophy with religion, but now you are bringing up inventors like Kepler and Newton. Congratulations on your strawman.
Minor quibble. Kepler and Newton were not mere inventors and were classified as philosophers.
Inventors are quite a bit down the totem pole. Like.. Edison. 😉 (Who turned out to be a bit of a nut but that’s another thing.)
If you want philosophy, and I perhaps missed that initially, then we have St. Thomas Aquinas.
Kepler made significant developments in Astronomy and Newton with Gravity, Optics, and other fields. They were inventors and discoverers foremost and what they will be most remembered for.
Locke and Voltaire for their writings, words, wit, and the lasting impact of those things. They were chiefly philosophers.
Yes and those developments, in their day was under philosophy. 😉
These days they get the title physicist, but that wasn’t so in their era. Also it does carry into modern day with a PhD. Doctor of Philosophy. 🙂
Yep, physics major. 😀
Natural Sciences. That was philosophy and physics both, combined. The recent separation was a mistake, IMHO. Even now you’ll find most into Quantum physics going full bore philosophical.
Tell me about it. I had to sit through a year of it. 😀
Nothing stirs the imagination like… a monotoned voice talking about bra’s and ket’s…. 😀
Leibniz was a Philosopher as well as were Oresme and Newton to a lesser extent. Moreover Voltaire is not even among the giants of philosophy, but that’s another story.
Honestly I find quantum physics fascinating from a philosophical perspectives (no boring rap, I promise). The idea of a universe (sorry, I refuse to use multiverse due to may love of language) will with endless iterations fascinates me.
I don’t believe in the concept of multi-verses. It’s not possible with what we understand regarding physics.
Uni means, in a nutshell, all. Multi makes no sense in the context of a “uni”verse. If there are multiple dimensions, then they still all belong to the one.
What I thought was interesting, after you get past all the endless math and tests, were all the people that went nuts over it. 😀
There was one problem, I’ve since forgotten what (likely it’s google-able) where the first guy committed suicide because he couldn’t solve it. Then his student committed suicide. Then HIS student committed suicide over it.
It did finally end though I think the last guy is still living. 😀
I’m semi-worried that I kind of get it. Actually being serious here.
Well, as long as you don’t try to solve whatever problem that was, you should be fine! 🙂
Yeah, what have Christians ever done, besides build most of the universities and hospitals in the West.
What a bunch of dicks!
Voltaire? Could you pound out that progress he contributed?
Can’t argue with that! lol
Indeed, if you need a book to avoid killing or robbing people as you wish then something is wrong.
Modern liberalism by its very chaotic anarchist nature I believe feels it has no use for Forces of Stability such as real families and religion which is why liberals seek to undermine, discredit and destroy them doing its best to undermine the very principles of Right and Wrong as well as to replace God with government and real families with all kinds of perversions of nature making government the only force of stability.
That’s interesting. Do you believe that Donald Trump is an agent of Stability for family values and religious virtue, an admirable example of the ‘very principles of Right and Wrong’?
He’s a far better pick for President than Shillary and the people he is appointing to his cabinet certainly fit the bill of strength, virtue, strong family values.
The silver-spoon Luciferian sociopath isn’t even a good pick for local dogcatcher. Aaaaaah, but there you go again. “Strength” being the only thing that you respect. Ignorance, bigotry— but “strength” above all.
I voted for a Marine who served in Reagan’s Cabinet & who was awarded the Navy Cross. You voted for an entitled billionaire playboy sociopathic Luciferian REALITY TV SHOW HOST who made a career out of screwing blue-blooded small business contractors when he displayed the “strength” to be willing to crush them through litigation rather than pay them for work done–– a craven b7tch whose boastful need to be seen as the earthly incarnation of Wealth, Success, and Luxury easily make him Putin’s Padawan, strung like a puppet, played like a fool. You brought THAT duped walking talking gasbag of Narcissism–– and the rabid wombat on top of his head–– to be the avatar and representative of American power. A pathetic 3rd grade playground bully and armchair internet troll who don’t know a DAMNED thing about what he just got himself into. But he does have hats. Red hats. “Strong” red hats that show he thinks America sucks–– but only he can serve as the earthly vessel to bestow greatness upon it from his tiny tiny hands. Cult of personality for your Citric Sociopathic Savior much?
“STRONG FAMILY VALUES”?!?!?! He was parading around his mistress in NY while his WIFE sat at home. He cheated on all 3 wives, sexually attacking a married woman while his pregnant woman sat at home.
Bannon, the alt-right guy who took his wife’s phone & smashed it as she was calling 911 on him.
YEAH, guy. Real “virtue, strength, & family values”.
The only thing this Cabinet displays is an absolute kowtowing capitulation to the Russian petrooligarchic brutal fascist dictator. But then again… “strength” is all you ignorami respond to. You’ll follow any old ignorant fool umpteen miles in the wrong direction off a cliff, if only he’s a shameless braggart who makes “strong” mouth noises.
Socrates made the same argument.
No sale. The only reason for religion is that you believe there is at least one super-powerful entity that has the right to dictate what people should or shouldn’t do. To suppose people need something to believe in to be good would instead amount to moral philosophy such as Confucianism.
Gil, man, how do you feel about me disobeying a socialist government when it tells me to give up my firearms? Pray tell, old man, old bean, old Leftist fraud?
Irrelevant to the discussion.
You didn’t answer my question. Answer it. Your religion is government, I want your response.
Can you bring yourself to do it, thrall?
It’s as irrelevant as asking if you would you turn in your guns if God asked you to.
You ignored the request. You’re a dogmatic religionist, and your religion is government. Your “god” dictates that you believe in one super powerful entity that has the right to dictate what people should or shouldn’t do.
That you evade the question is telling. You’re weak.
You’re simply arguing for the tired “when people don’t worship God they worship government” canard.
Because you do, you fraud.
Go shove your head in a pig, socialist. You’re not welcome here.
Ignored from this point forward.
Your projections are showing.
Your asking to much from those of the socialist cult. If they honeslty answered questions, they would expose what they really want is control over you.
The thing about religion is the fact that it changes, once people decide to use it as a social tool they have to change it consciously, thus eliminating the sacred value and turning it into a commodity that people can use and profit from, i have seen no post in this site with a reasonable countermeasure for that and there lies the main problem if you guys are really willing to push religion as a main aspect or ROK
I appreciate that reference to Chateaubriand and the Romantic movement on the whole.
Recently I saw an article in this blog which gave a misleading interpretation of the romantic movement describing it as an early example of social justice. This is simply not true. Perhaps the romantics were a bit naive and cut from the reality (well, distancing themselves from the reality was a part of their aesthetics) but that had nothing to do with the banality of today’s SJWs.
Romanticism was initially and principally about the renaissance of the values, including several aspects of religion ignored by dogmatic rationalists. Romantics emphasised the humane aspect of Christianity. For them God was not a rigid authority figure but an embodiment of greatness and spiritual beauty.
Great article, Quintus
Your contributions to ROK helped me break free from the atheist/ Materialistic narrative. I can´t thank you enough.
Your problem has two roots.
1. You think that “rationality” is something that an human can define or recognize in all aspects of the life automatically. You ignore that people aren’t rational, that irrational things like “she betrayed me” have an inpact in human thinking and the way they think and feel the world is right or wrong.
2. You look at Christianity as an special bunch of doctrines and ideologic thoughts you need to learn. Thats just partially correct. (Of course you need to learn something, you need to know the story, the POINT of Christianity. The point is, that Jesus Christ payed the price for our sinfullness and we can be thankfully. The meaning of life is beeing thankful for that.)
Christianity is not an ideology. It is the way to interact with God who is an living creature. He is acting in our live, he has the absolute power, the absolute energy and he can’t loose it. He is the absolute anarchist, the absolute wise person in the whole universe. This is very complicated to understand, especcialy if you are hungry, angry or you want to fuck.
God is not outside of the world, he is here and you can communicate with him and he communicates with you. First you need to learn HOW he communicates to you – mostly by the “internal voice” (or how your english guys name this). Children and very old People can listen to this voice very clearly, older people are biased by themself(!) and so you nearn by looking at christians (who are real one, no beeing gay is not ok), reading in the scripture, learning from history (who is named holy and why) how he talks and what he does not want from you.
Almost all the problems of our modern age stem from the desertion of our Christian heritage.
Indeed!
And the desertion of our Christian heritage is the result of pre-planned subversion, devised by (((non-Christian))) elements in Western society.
The older I get, the more I feel an inner need to return to my roots, to return to the religion of my ancestors: Christianity.
Exactly, everyone should be culturally Christian at the very least, even if they are atheists. Without Christianity you leave a void ready to be filled by the latest trend, which turns out to be the age old lie.
You realize Christianity is literally Magic Jew worship, right?
I disagree. Some say Jesus was not even Jewish. Be that as it may, they killed him. I can not imagine a more serious statement from them claiming: “He is not one of us!”
Jesus was a Semite. If that’s not magic Jew worship, I don’t know what is.
They gave him up, but it was the Romans who did the crucifying.
Be that as it may, for me it is not really important.
What is important to me though, is that Christianity was the religion of my ancestors for over a 1000 years. And it is with my ancestors that I want to connect. If all my ancestors believed in a pink hippopotamus being the Messiah, that that would be the faith I would return to today.
You mean “Middle-Eastern imported heritage” instead?
“a merciless Darwinian struggle of all against all.”
this is where the globalist scumbags want to lead us. This is the trap we need to avoid.
look, it’s dead simple. The NWO morons want to destroy religions, there must be something nagging about it. Anything the degenerate globalists will tell me to think, I’ll do the exact opposite. Gotta love the simplicity of it, no need for trivium.
Any good Christian or Muslim would want to other religions to disappear since they are paganism to them.
That’s a moronic comment. Islam recognizes christianity and judaism. Time for some education maybe ?
Excellent article. Why have the underpinnings of society been kicked out:
Jewish Influence in Christian Reform Movements
http://www.lulu.com/shop/louis-newman/jewish-influence-in-christian-reform-movements/paperback/product-22718260.html
The Plot Against the Church
http://www.lulu.com/shop/maurice-pinay/the-plot-against-the-church/paperback/product-22731399.html
A couple things: it was empricists like Hume who was against faith. Rationalists such as Descartes were devout Catholics.
Also the truth is, the core of Christianity has always been confirmed in science. You can ask: Lord Kelvin, Millikan, Kant, George r. Price, John Lennox, Ben Carson (maga), and many more.
Don’t buy into the elite brainwash bullsht I.e. Bill nye (the you know who) and Neil degrasse Tyson