The World's Fastest Growing Religion is No Religion

[ADigitalArtist]

Sorry, but this is just junk. I have never been required to pay a cent to enter a church. Churches will often have a donation collection during services though, because maintaining a building isn't free.


Seriously? You're blaming the mainline churches for televangelists? If anything they're a product of industrialised consumerism, not traditional Christianity.


Sex isn't a morally neutral toy with no consequences. Reckless sex has complicated if not ruined many lives. And I'm not even getting into the massive societal damage that has occurred by severing sex from its traditional societal context.

Regardless, whilst I'm sure you feel like you've made a real point, I remain unmoved.


Didn't say that. Could you trouble yourself to re-read my post.

I have many complaints when it comes to the direction of my church. The liturgical watering down, sappy music, the embrace of ugly, ugly modern architecture and art styles, complicit clergy... And all of it is itself a symptom that the Church has embraced the very cultural forces that seek to undo it.

The fact is that western culture has developed in ways that are hostile to religiosity. I'm saying far from being the cause, the churches to a large extent as much a victim (often wilful) to these forces as everything else is. It's for that which they hold much responsibility. Some more than others.

And we've seen this before historically, the moral and philosophical decadence we see now is a symptom of a declining culture. It's scary how similar the current state of affairs is to that of the declining Western Empire two millennia ago.

I agree with most of your post. That churches taking money to maintain a building is not unethical, that televangelism has much more to do with industrialized consumerism (which also creates the terribleness that is Dr. Oz and his ilk), and that the loss of appreciations of the arts is concerning (and not just within church walls, and also as a part of consumerism and gentrification.)

But what is sex's "traditional societal context"? I can think of a lot of damage traditional sexual outlook has done. From gender roles to sex as a business transaction between families (i.e. sex was the marriage, arranged by families for mutual profiting), to exclusion and active suppression of same-sex relationships, etc.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

It's not an insult, it's just reality.

Then you will be able to prove that we're delusional idiots, I am sure.

 

[Augustus]

Then you will be able to prove that we're delusional idiots, I am sure.

There's nothing a Rationalist is more certain of than their own rationality.

There are few things more irrational than believing in your own rationality.

It gives them a nice, warm emotional buzz though at least...

 

[Cephus]

Then you will be able to prove that we're delusional idiots, I am sure.

You believe in things for which there is no evidence. The definition of delusional is "characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

There you go.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You believe in things for which there is no evidence.

How do you know?

 

[Cephus]

How do you know?

Let us know when you have evidence, won't you?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I mean how do you know what I believe, or how I came to believe it?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I am taking it by the lack of response that you do not know what I believe or how I came to believe it.

 

[Cephus]

I am taking it by the lack of response that you do not know what I believe or how I came to believe it.

How about I don't care what you believe. I care what you can prove. You haven't proven anything, hence your continued belief in unsupported nonsense is irrelevant.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

How about I don't care what you believe.

Oh, but you do. Rather, you must, if you've the gall to flat-out state that we're all delusional idiots. To make such a claim, you must surely know exactly what we believe, how and why we believe it, and how we go about our day-to-day with such belief.

But, as you can't point to this knowledge, reasons suggests that you don't know. Ergo your stance is that of asinine ignorance, inherently irrational, and purely for the sake of offending. You can dress it up as "relentless rationality" or whatever helps justify it to yourself, but that's what it remains. An accusation based on assumption.

 

[Cephus]

Oh, but you do. Rather, you must, if you've the gall to flat-out state that we're all delusional idiots. To make such a claim, you must surely know exactly what we believe, how and why we believe it, and how we go about our day-to-day with such belief.

But, as you can't point to this knowledge, reasons suggests that you don't know. Ergo your stance is that of asinine ignorance, inherently irrational, and purely for the sake of offending. You can dress it up as "relentless rationality" or whatever helps justify it to yourself, but that's what it remains. An accusation based on assumption.

No, I frankly don't give a damn about the particulars of what you believe. I only care if you can produce objective evidence to support it. Because you can't, and I'm just assuming that you can't because you haven't, your beliefs are irrational.

So you can either admit that your beliefs cannot be rationally supported, or you can actually produce objective evidence to support them, or you can, as I suspect you will do, make a lot of excuses for why you won't take either intellectual option.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Because you can't, and I'm just assuming that you can't because you haven't, your beliefs are irrational.

That's nice. A statement of fact, backed up by an assumption, concluding with a statement of fact. The weakest link being, of course, the assumption, making your whole line of rationale - if it can be called that - fall apart.

See here's the thing; you're the one making the claims here. Specifically, the claim that we are "delusional idiots." So it's your burden to prove. None of this crap dodging the responsibility because you've got the supposed "logical high ground" - especially since you've practically admitted to not knowing a single thing about specific beliefs; you made the insult, back it up.

Though given your vitriolic tone, would you really even listen to evidence supporting belief? My experience with people like you is that no, no you wouldn't. I wager you'd hide behind language, terminology, or some tired cookie-cutter stereotype that supports your narrow and biased world view.

But enough supposition; on with you proving that we're all delusional and idiots.

 

[Glaurung]

But what is sex's "traditional societal context"?

By that, I mean committed monogamy.

I see the family unit as the foundation of a stable civilised society. When sex is freed from any need to commit, then that major component which motivated the formation of stable families is undermined. Stable family situations are essential for the well-adjustment of children, and when an ever increasing percentage of children in each generation don't have that, then of course it is going to hurt society in the long run. The welfare state can only offset the consequences of our societal irresponsibly for so many generations.

This is not to mention the rising tide of venereal disease, especially among homosexuals.

I can think of a lot of damage traditional sexual outlook has done.

I'm certainly not advocating a return to a Victorian era morality. I'm really not the prude you may think me to be, but I do advocate that as a society we start to take the consequences of sexual liberation more seriously. Sex is something ought to be far more serious than something to be attained by a phone app. And the entertainment and commercial industries should stop treating it as a gratuitous commodity.

Of course people will always sleep around (they always have) but doesn't mean such choices ought to be encouraged.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

By that, I mean committed monogamy.

I see the family unit as the foundation of a stable civilised society. When sex is freed from any need to commit, then that major component which motivated the formation of stable families is undermined. Stable family situations are essential for the well-adjustment of children, when an ever increasing percentage of children each generation don't have that, it is of course going to hurt society in the long run. The welfare state can only offset the consequences of sour societal irresponsibly for so many generations.

This is not to mention the rising tide of venereal disease. Especially among homosexuals.


I'm certainly not advocating a return to a Victorian era morality. I'm really not the prude you may think me to be, but I do advocate that as a society we start to take the consequences of sexual liberation more seriously. Sex is something ought to be far more serious than something to be attained by a phone app. And the entertainment and commercial industries should stop treating it as a gratuitous commodity.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't agree with all of that, but I see where you're coming from.