Decline of Christianity and Religion

[DNB]

That may depend on what you see as moral.
But if your point is that Christians following Christian moral precepts are more moral judged by Christian standards than non-Christians, then that's basically a truism. Still, whatever helps you sleep.

Refraining from eating late at night helps me sleep better.
But, as far as moral standards are concerned, there is no concept of morality without a morally sound and holy God, who endowed all humans with this notion. Consequently, the standards of the world do not conform to, nor recognize the spiritual dimension in man, but consider him to be solely an animal. Nor do they perceive or acknowledge the spiritual realms that are conducting a warfare on all humankind. How can they resist evil when they don't believe that an enemy exists?
Christians have the truth in regard to morality, secularists do not.

 

[DNB]

If that is the attitude your God has to us humans he is deserving of being blasphemed.

I certainly haven't spat in any god's face and if your God is going to slander me as a pretext to gratuitously torment me your God can go jump in a lake.

In my opinion.

You are sinless, Daniel? You believe that you're not part of the problem of all the troubles and dissention in the world. Do you love your neighbour as yourself? Are you not a hypocrite, and employing a double-standard by not doing so? Have you not ever used somebody, been ungrateful or entitled, selfishly not assisted someone, squandered money or food, abused your body or the planet, put someone at risk, made an inappropriate or offensive remark to someone, treated with contempt a person who didn't deserve it, ....?

I don't believe that you're being honest with yourself, or you have a very low esteem or comprehension of the meaning of righteousness and guiltlessness.

 

[danieldemol]

You are sinless, Daniel? You believe that you're not part of the problem of all the troubles and dissention in the world. Do you love your neighbour as yourself? Are you not a hypocrite, and employing a double-standard by not doing so? Have you not ever used somebody, been ungrateful or entitled, selfishly not assisted someone, squandered money or food, abused your body or the planet, put someone at risk, made an inappropriate or offensive remark to someone, treated with contempt a person who didn't deserve it, ....?

I don't believe that you're being honest with yourself, or you have a very low esteem or comprehension of the meaning of righteousness and guiltlessness.

I never claimed to be without fault, but if God is creator of the physical realms then my faults were created by God, and thus if having faults amounts to spitting in God's face (which i do not agree with), then God has spit in God's own face by making me faulty in the first place.

If a car was assembled wrongly blame is with the assembler, there is no reasonable way to get around the fact that God is ultimately responsible for my faults because God could have made me without them.

In my opinion.

 

[Clara Tea]

Several reasons, here are a couple.

The methods of education have improved and people are now more willing to investigate and ask questions.
Also the internet which allows such inquisitiveness world wide.

Millionaires, like the Koch brothers, have convinced voters to vote away their own rights:

1. Don't allow lawsuits of HMOs, so take away the unalienable (unalienable means that you can't take it away) right to sue (called redress of grievances, and it is guaranteed by the Constitution. The idea is that medical costs will drop for everyone if we eliminate court battles.....but why did medical costs sharply rise???

2. Cancel culture prevents free assembly, free press, and free speech, all of which are vital to freedom of religion.

So, though the internet allows more discourse, taking away America's rights and freedoms (and making it more like Communist Russia or Communist China) prevents the free exchange of ideas.

So, far, you might be right, that those who are still allowed to speak freely can share ideas, and religion might decrease as a result. They debunk the scoundrels who are false faith-healers (like televangelist Peter Poppoff who was arrested and taken off the air).

For the first time in millenia, boy-raping priests are brought to justice from the public outcry to have them prosecuted like the criminals that they are. I doubt that the victims will be compensated, since the Catholic church is declaring bankruptcy to defend its mammon. Yet, wider outcries are possible with wider communication from the internet.

Largely, however, the actions of theists have damaged their own reputations (they did it, we didn't). Knowledge of this has diminshed the ranks of the theists.

 

[Clara Tea]

You are sinless, Daniel? You believe that you're not part of the problem of all the troubles and dissention in the world. Do you love your neighbour as yourself? Are you not a hypocrite, and employing a double-standard by not doing so? Have you not ever used somebody, been ungrateful or entitled, selfishly not assisted someone, squandered money or food, abused your body or the planet, put someone at risk, made an inappropriate or offensive remark to someone, treated with contempt a person who didn't deserve it, ....?

I don't believe that you're being honest with yourself, or you have a very low esteem or comprehension of the meaning of righteousness and guiltlessness.

Not everyone is a sinner.

When we do a lot, there are those who ask..."why don't you do more?" This is what Oskar Shindler said (movie: Shindler's List). Why couldn't he sell his ring and save more Jews from Nazi killers?

Perhaps doing some is enough?

When we look at all of the hypocrisy of theist pastors, we could conclude that they expect forgiveness, so they do heinous acts throughout their lives.

Atheists, on the other hand, don't expect forgiveness from a God that they believe doesn't exist. So, they are more prone to goodness without a reward and without forgiveness if they sin.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If a car was assembled wrongly blame is with the assembler, there is no reasonable way to get around the fact that God is ultimately responsible for my faults because God could have made me without them.

G-d is responsible for everything.
However, does that mean that you have no responsibility at all?
This is the difference between mankind and other creatures.
They have been given the responsibility to choose between righteousness and evil.
They also have the responsibility for their own affairs on planet earth.
This all comes at a price. There are consequences for our actions.

NB A car is an inanimate object. It has no soul.

 

[DNB]

I never claimed to be without fault, but if God is creator of the physical realms then my faults were created by God, and thus if having faults amounts to spitting in God's face (which i do not agree with), then God has spit in God's own face by making me faulty in the first place.

If a car was assembled wrongly blame is with the assembler, there is no reasonable way to get around the fact that God is ultimately responsible for my faults because God could have made me without them.

In my opinion.

So, you are of the position that you don't have free-will? What makes you and I different - choices that we make, based on our understanding of the dynamics of the life and the world. You see what you want to see, and equally, I see what my abilities allow me to perceive. For example, you do not believe that there is a God, and I believe that there is.
Who are you going to blame? You won't take responsibility for your actions when you get accused of something, but you assert yourself quite unequivocally when it's in your favour.

God has created all things, and endowed within man the cognizance of right and wrong, and has done nothing more than asked us all to be good.
My expression 'spat in His face' is in regard to our disregard to obey His precepts, respect His planet and ourselves, and show Him His due reverence and gratitude.
We all deserve to die.

 

[DNB]

Not everyone is a sinner.

When we do a lot, there are those who ask..."why don't you do more?" This is what Oskar Shindler said (movie: Shindler's List). Why couldn't he sell his ring and save more Jews from Nazi killers?

Perhaps doing some is enough?

When we look at all of the hypocrisy of theist pastors, we could conclude that they expect forgiveness, so they do heinous acts throughout their lives.

Atheists, on the other hand, don't expect forgiveness from a God that they believe doesn't exist. So, they are more prone to goodness without a reward and without forgiveness if they sin.

Everyone is a sinner - we don't not love each other as we love ourselves, we're all hypocrites, selfish, arrogant, and feel entitled.

The argument works both ways: atheists have no fear of consequence, or respect virtue for the sake of it. Thus, it can be argued that they are more prone to sin rather than one who's conscience keeps him in check.
Theist pastors who sin egregiously, we do not consider devout or sincere, they are probably charlatans. Bad example.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I certainly haven't spat in any god's face and if your God is going to slander me as a pretext to gratuitously torment me your God can go jump in a lake.

Your god can go jump in a lake of fire. There, fixed it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Refraining from eating late at night helps me sleep better.
But, as far as moral standards are concerned, there is no concept of morality without a morally sound and holy God, who endowed all humans with this notion. Consequently, the standards of the world do not conform to, nor recognize the spiritual dimension in man, but consider him to be solely an animal. Nor do they perceive or acknowledge the spiritual realms that are conducting a warfare on all humankind. How can they resist evil when they don't believe that an enemy exists?

One might suggest that 'petty' evils are commonly overlooked when one is focused on cosmic evils. Church history is littered with examples of this. Regardless though, it somewhat assumes too much (I'll extrapolate further below);

Christians have the truth in regard to morality, secularists do not.

My point was that Christians will judge morality along Christian paradigms, and would therefore see adherent Christians as 'moral'. Something you're demonstrating here, incidentally.

I wasn't arguing about Christian morality per se, but merely that this is a truism. Meaningless. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is not a matter of Christianity vs secularism.

I would assume you see Christian morals (of a certain type) superior to Islamic morals? Jewish? Christian of a different denomination? Buddhist? Hindu? Satanic?

The point is, a Christian believer in objective morality will see Christian morals as objectively true, and others as at best coincidentally correct at times.

Judge adherent Christians from the perspective of the dogma they follow, they'll look pretty good. Judge them by a different perspective, not so much. And it's the same with every other person on earth.

 

[DNB]

One might suggest that 'petty' evils are commonly overlooked when one is focused on cosmic evils. Church history is littered with examples of this. Regardless though, it somewhat assumes too much (I'll extrapolate further below);



My point was that Christians will judge morality along Christian paradigms, and would therefore see adherent Christians as 'moral'. Something you're demonstrating here, incidentally.

I wasn't arguing about Christian morality per se, but merely that this is a truism. Meaningless. A self-fulfilling prophecy.

This is not a matter of Christianity vs secularism.

I would assume you see Christian morals (of a certain type) superior to Islamic morals? Jewish? Christian of a different denomination? Buddhist? Hindu? Satanic?

The point is, a Christian believer in objective morality will see Christian morals as objectively true, and others as at best coincidentally correct at times.

Judge adherent Christians from the perspective of the dogma they follow, they'll look pretty good. Judge them by a different perspective, not so much. And it's the same with every other person on earth.

There is only one God, the Father of Abraham, Jacob, David and Jesus. It is He who made us human mammals capable of comprehending the principle of morals, integrity and righteousness. No other creature on earth has this the ability. Thus, those who adhere to the dogmas of the one Divine Being in the universe, namely God the Father, are those who are more morally sound and comprehensive in their actions, than those who abide by their own understanding of right from wrong.

 

[danieldemol]

G-d is responsible for everything.
However, does that mean that you have no responsibility at all?

It is an interesting question, and one which depends on whether we are biological automatons or capable of acting contrary to our brain chemistry/wiring or not.

I admit I am undecided as to whether we are truly capable of unconstrained choice or not, as well as being unsure of what a truly free choice means exactly from a scientific perspective.

This is the difference between mankind and other creatures.
They have been given the responsibility to choose between righteousness and evil.
They also have the responsibility for their own affairs on planet earth.

A book tells you that and you trust the book, I have looked into free choice from a more independent scientific perspective and to me it seems unclear that we are acting independently from the sum of our brain chemistry/structure/environmental influences etc.

This all comes at a price. There are consequences for our actions.

NB A car is an inanimate object. It has no soul.

There are physical consequences for our actions, but whether there are spiritual consequences would logically depend on whether our choices are unconstrained.

In my opinion.

 

[danieldemol]

So, you are of the position that you don't have free-will? What makes you and I different - choices that we make, based on our understanding of the dynamics of the life and the world. You see what you want to see, and equally, I see what my abilities allow me to perceive. For example, you do not believe that there is a God, and I believe that there is.
Who are you going to blame? You won't take responsibility for your actions when you get accused of something, but you assert yourself quite unequivocally when it's in your favour.

God has created all things, and endowed within man the cognizance of right and wrong, and has done nothing more than asked us all to be good.
My expression 'spat in His face' is in regard to our disregard to obey His precepts, respect His planet and ourselves, and show Him His due reverence and gratitude.
We all deserve to die.

I'm of the opinion that I dont know if we have free will in the material realm at least.

What could possibly be the difference between you and me is a different brain structure/chemistry and different environmental influences.

For you to scientifically demonstrate that we are capable of acting against the sum of our brain chemistry/structure and environmental influences would be a tall order i think.

I believe in a God, just not in one which punishes us in the material realm at all, and which possibly does not punish us for things which were possibly God's fault to begin with (or would be if i believed in a creator God of the physical realms - which i dont).

My God is the influencer of the spirit realms, that is all.

In my opinion.

 

[DNB]

I'm of the opinion that I dont know if we have free will in the material realm at least.

What could possibly be the difference between you and me is a different brain structure/chemistry and different environmental influences.

For you to scientifically demonstrate that we are capable of acting against the sum of our brain chemistry/structure and environmental influences would be a tall order i think.

I believe in a God, just not in one which punishes us in the material realm at all, and which possibly does not punish us for things which were possibly God's fault to begin with (or would be if i believed in a creator God of the physical realms - which i dont).

My God is the indluencer of the spirit realms, that is all.

In my opinion.

So, you wouldn't rebuke someone who was harming another, feeling that he's unable to act outside of his intrinsic and immutable character?
You've never corrected yourself on your behaviour or bad habits?
If you had children and they disobeyed you, you'd refrain from either punishing or correcting them because it's beyond their ability to conform to someone else's standards, whether or not the standard is superior or inferior?

I doubt that any of the above is affirmative. Thus, you therefore believe that we are all autonomous beings, and have control over all our emotions and behaviour. We are corrigible.

 

[danieldemol]

So, you wouldn't rebuke someone who was harming another, feeling that he's unable to act outside of his intrinsic and immutable character?

I would rebuke because it forms part of his environmental inputs, and I said already that man is possibly just the same total of his brain structure/chemistry and environmental influence, however I do also see that due to brain damage, or other chemical imbalance or structural deficiency in the brain rebuke will not always be sufficient to correct his course of action.

You've never corrected yourself on your behaviour or bad habits?

"I" have, but the question is, is that "I" an illusion arising from the total sum of my brain structure/chemistry and or environmental influences or is it possible that I act against the sum of these three?

If you had children and they disobeyed you, you'd refrain from either punishing or correcting them because it's beyond their ability to conform to someone else's standards, whether or not the standard is superior or inferior?

See above comments on rebuking.

I doubt that any of the above is affirmative.

Correct with respect to the comments made in reply.

Thus, you therefore believe that we are all autonomous beings, and have control over all our emotions and behaviour. We are corrigible.

Non-sequiter as it is possible that our material actions are simply the product of our material circumstances which include brain structure/chemistry and environmental influences.

In my opinion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is only one God, the Father of Abraham, Jacob, David and Jesus. It is He who made us human mammals capable of comprehending the principle of morals, integrity and righteousness. No other creature on earth has this the ability. Thus, those who adhere to the dogmas of the one Divine Being in the universe, namely God the Father, are those who are more morally sound and comprehensive in their actions, than those who abide by their own understanding of right from wrong.

Muslims?

 

[DNB]

I would rebuke because it forms part of his environmental inputs, and I said already that man is possibly just the same total of his brain structure/chemistry and environmental influence, however I do also see that due to brain damage, or other chemical imbalance or structural deficiency in the brain rebuke will not always be sufficient to correct his course of action.

"I" have, but the question is, is that "I" an illusion arising from the total sum of my brain structure/chemistry and or environmental influences or is it possible that I act against the sum of these three?

See above comments on rebuking.

Correct with respect to the comments made in reply.

Non-sequiter as it is possible that our material actions are simply the product of our material circumstances which include brain structure/chemistry and environmental influences.

In my opinion.

What are you, a flippin' robot? Chemistry, neurological synapses, environmental influences, physiology, etc...? What about the heart and compassion of the person, what about the greed and selfishness, the racism and bigotries, or the altruism and charities. You've equated all mankind with every single other creature on the planet, asserting that all we are is simply what our material or physical make-up dictates.

Have you ever met a racist dog, a greedy cat, an pedantic eagle, or a charitable fish? Our constitution is unlike any other living being on earth, man is struggling with his demons, fighting against his vices, struggling with the the temptations of good versus evil. Whereas, he makes decisions every minute based on his conscience and not his intrinsic wiring. A cat may kill indiscriminately and never lose any sleep over it, how many humans do you know that can do the same?

You've reduced man's emotions and desires to quantifiable and predictable outcomes, based on what both his internal and external environment necessitates, leaving no room for personality or character. You put the cart before the horse - man's heart can change his constitution, for better or for worse.

 

[DNB]

Muslims?

Muslims and Jews more than atheists, yes.

 

[rational experiences]

In the beginning created creation existed. A theist men standing on earth as dawn approached said let there be light because it already existed.

Is the reason why.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Muslims and Jews more than atheists, yes.

And Hindus sit between Muslims and atheists on the scale?