As Christianity wanes, immoral behavior increases

You said these are the consequences of not following your god's rules, though. In this case, unprotected pre/extra-marital sex leads to both the spread of STDs and children being born outside of marriage. Shouldn't they scale the same if the rules are being broken and the consequences are then evidence that your god's moral standard is right?

It's a crucial part of your assertion that atheists can't have at an objective moral standard for themselves, though. If your god is only informing us of a moral standard that exists outside of him/her, then it's something that we (humanity) can arrive at on our own. So doesn't that mean morality must have been created by your god?

 

I'm not aware of any Christian injunctions to obey human law. I thought you were only directed to obey your god's law. I'd honestly be interested to see any scripture or other evidence to the contrary.

Saying Stalinism was a religion is not the same as saying Stalin was not an atheist. Regardless, we can all agree that there are bad apples in every religion and non-religion. I'm not the one arguing that religion or lack there of somehow makes an individual moral, though.

 

Romans 13:1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. 3 For the authorities do not frighten people who are doing right, but they frighten those who do wrong. So do what they say, and you will get along well. 4 The authorities are sent by God to help you. But if you are doing something wrong, of course you should be afraid, for you will be punished. The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. 5 So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. 6 Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid so they can keep on doing the work God intended them to do. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and import duties, and give respect and honor to all to whom it is due.


The exception of course, is when government commands you to do what God forbids, or prevents you from doing what God commands. I've never been in that position, as much as I may disagree with the government on many issues, taxes included. If I lived in Iran and was forbidden to share my faith, I would hope I would disregard that law, and take the consequences. You would be in a difficult position in Iran also.

 

Don't you think that you might be overstating the case of Western Civilization collapsing just because some people don't buy into Christian dogma? Do you not think that Reason is a sound approach to morality?

 

If a person doesn't subscribe to the notion of your "Lord", then taking his name in vain is something that would only matter to you. Don't we see that kind of thing with Muslims that go crazy over any depiction of the prophet? The idea that those with a religious fever need to impose that fever on others is a bit repugnant.

 

You seem willing to admit that life in the 50's wasn't so great for minorities, or women...but that aside, if you were a white male...things were very cool. What you're recognizing is an authoritarian society that has been dismantled by a more progressive vision that you now call "authoritarian".

I grew up in the 50's. I was very aware of the privilege of being white. As an adult, I saw racism revealed over and over again. I found a common thread in political views running through every racist that I encountered. All of them held conservative views and all of those views were authoritarian. Conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order becoming self-conscious and reflective when other ways of life and thought appear on the scene, against which it is compelled to take up arms in an ideological struggle.

Situationally, conservatism is defined as the ideology arising out of a distinct but recurring type of historical situation in which a fundamental challenge is directed at established institutions and in which the supporters of those institutions employ the conservative ideology in their defense. Thus, conservatism is that system of ideas employed to justify any established social order, no matter where or when it exists, against any fundamental challenge to its nature or being, no matter from what quarter. Conservatism in this sense is possible in the United States today only if there is a basic challenge to existing American institutions which impels their defenders to articulate conservative values.

The Civil Rights movement was a direct challenge to the existing institutions of the time, and conservatism as an ideology is thus a reaction to a system under challenge, a defense of the status – quo in a period of intense ideological and social conflict.

The idea that a person that could have been your slave at one time, could today be your boss, or even President of the United States, is more than some people can deal with on an emotional level. White supremacy as an institution is renounced, discredited, and dismantled, and that is a major blow to an existing order, and conservatism is always a reaction to a challenge to an existing order. These are people that desperately need somebody to look down to in order to validate their own self-worth. “Sure, life is tough. But at least I’m White.” They can no longer rely on a policy that used to be institutionally enforceable. When that is removed by law, hostility is the result; hostility for those that have been emancipated by law and elevated to equal status, and hostility for the law itself including those that proposed it and passed it.

Thus, hatred for African-Americans and for the Liberal’s and liberal policies that endorse their equal status is fully embraced by the conservative.

Letting go of the past is difficult to do. An entire race of people becomes an easy scapegoat for one’s own failures. Hate is passed on from one generation to the next. Parents teach their children to hate.

The conservative mind embraces a narrow point of view. It doesn’t like being challenged. It resists new information. A liberal mind by definition is open to change, but change always threatens the existing order, so the liberal is not to be trusted. He is feared, and hated because he challenges the existing order.

So how does this relate to the subject of the thread? The title of this thread is " As Christianity wanes, immoral behavior increases". Every religion is authoritarian by its very nature. It's totally founded upon belief. Beliefs must be justified by an appeal to an authority of some kind (usually the source of the belief in question) and this justification by an appropriate authority makes the belief either rational, or if not rational, at least valid for the person who holds it.”

Belief in the conservative ideology is no different than belief in any other thing. It invests that belief in some authority that justifies the belief. A progressive vision always questions beliefs and the authority that is used to justify the belief. So why would you suggest that we've become more authoritarian than we were in the 50's; an era that I grew up in, and find volumes of direct evidence that contradicts that idea?

 

What people? You mean White people? Oh sure, they were rocking. But if you were black...not so good. Do you think that Jim Crow laws made people happier? If it did, what people were happy?

Are you black?? If not, how on earth can you speak for them and their happiness? This is great. A white guy talking about the happiness of blacks during Jim Crow as compared to today. They had no civil rights, no voting rights. But, despite that, they were just a bunch of happy critters, singin' and dancin' for your entertainment. Wow! Life was great at the back of the bus. So you actually think you can speak about their happiness? Life sure was great back then. They all knew their place and life was great. Do you know how irresponsible your claim is? Never speak for people that you have no direct knowledge of . Unless you've walked in their shoes, you'd do well to avoid commenting on things you can't possibly have any knowledge of. A White guy commenting on the happiness of a black guy that has a family history that likely involves slavery has no authority on the subject.

 

Obviously you didn't live during the 50's so your grasp of history has a gaping hole in it large enough to drive a battleship through. It wasn't Democrats that were persecuting them. It was Southern Dixiecrats. Conservatives. There wasn't a unified Democratic persecution of blacks. The very fact that the Democrats were split on civil rights proves that point. The DixieCrats all left the party because the liberal faction of the party took control. So where else does a racist Dixiecrat go?? To the Republican Party that said come on in. Bring your guns and your bibles and by all means...your hatred for blacks and liberals. We're the place for you. And fast forward to today, and you see the Southernization of the Republican Party. A party that embraces secessionists like Rick Perry who ran for President. Imagine that. A Republican in favor of secession. Just the kind of Republican that Linclon, the first Republican President would approve of.

 

Are abortions done with regard to race? Blacks were lynched because they were black. Are abortions done because of the race of the woman?

 

Blacks who were lynched by the KKK were lynched because they were black. Are you suggesting that abortions are based on race? What does race have to do with who gets an abortion?

 

Your citing Fox as a source?

Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously

“Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling.”
Here’s the rundown: On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she charged she was pressured by Fox News management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

The real information: she found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.

Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the company’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment.

In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”

So, Fox and the other gladiatorical cable news channels were given the okay to legally lie right around the time of the Iraq War’s birth – when media lies coincidentally hit a peak in both frequency and severity.

Fox won the court case that enabled them to lie with impunity. They won their case, but lost any hope of credibility.

 

I've noticed that.

 

I think the first rule of any debate is that, "you have to keep it real". Ignoring or deliberately avoiding facts and logic and appealing to one logical fallacy after another is nothing but abject ignorance. I think the ego gets in the way of a lot of posters. They can't accept the flaws in their own argument. They don't apply any critical thinking to their own ideas. I've seen this as a common issue among conservative ideologues. The Conservative knows that he's right. The liberal knows he could be wrong. Which one is closer to the truth? Assuming that we are all fallible human beings, why on earth would anybody assume that an ideology created by a fallible human would itself be infallible? How does one create an infallible idea from a fallible source?

 

I'm sorry but you're wrong about that. Here's a little history for you. I graduated Proviso East High School in 1966 and the next year something happened that was bound to happen sooner or later. Proviso East was pretty famous for an illustrious alumni that included, NBA Basketball stars Jim Brewer, Doc Rivers (coach of the Boston Celtics) NBA All Star Michael Finley, NFL Hall of Famer Ray Nitschke, actor Dennis Franz, business woman Sheila Crump Johnson, Grammy winning folk singer John Prine, and US astronaut Eugene Cernan…the last human to walk on the moon.

Proviso West was small change compared to East. In 1967, more than that rioted at Proviso East High School. Proviso East was caught up in a great deal of the racial turmoil that was prevalent in the country in the late 1960s. The 1967-68 school year saw local tensions become violent.

The year before, 1966, the school for the first time in its history which spans more than 100 years, had two African American girls on the Homecoming Queens Court. The school had about 35% African Americans so the girls made it because a large number of White kids voted for them. One of the girls was Sheila Crump (Johnson), a classical violinist and Cheerleader who would later become the co-founder of BET Network and the first African American Female Billionaire ahead of Oprah. She is part owner of the Washington Wizards NBA team and the Capitals Hockey team and lives on a huge estate in Middleberg Virginia.

In September 1967, a large fight, started in the school cafeteria when five Caucasian girls were selected by school officials as finalists for the school’s Homecoming Queen, escalated as students were dismissed. Property damage, some caused by the use of gasoline bombs, and fighting caused more than 100 state troopers to be called in, and a strict curfew to be enforced. Principal Hubert Pitt announced that he would appoint a racially balanced group of students to select a new slate of candidates. Apparently after selecting two African-American girls just the year before, the school administration had decided not to let something like that happen again. God forbid one of them be elected Queen.

Three days later, the situation had not improved, and officials were forced to ask parents to come in and patrol the halls in an attempt to quell the violence. Another fight broke out in the cafeteria. One of the suspected perpetrators was later found out not to be a student at the school leading some to suspect the fight was planned. 31 students were arrested after they later attempted to run from the school. Later, nineteen students were arrested on the street for carrying tire irons. This all came 24 hours after approximately one-half of the school refused to attend classes.

The local chapter of the NAACP by this time had urged a boycott of the schools, and drew up a list of 28 demands for school officials. Some students, both African-American and Caucasian, defied the boycott, but only about one-third of students showed up for classes. The boycott was lifted on 1 October, after officials of the school district and the local NAACP reached a compromise.

Later that month, another series of fights at the school required the help of state and county police in addition to police from the City of Chicago and surrounding suburbs. The fights stemmed from the suspension of an African-American student who was fighting with a Caucasian student. The next day, over 300 police officers were called in to handle new disturbances that caused classes to be cancelled. Several students in the street were arrested for criminal damage and theft. Teachers threatened to strike if discipline was not restored. Later that day, an arson threat was called in against the school, forcing police to ring the school, and begin keeping outsiders away from the area. The superintendent threatened to assign uniformed officers to each classroom, if necessary. Two days later, classes resumed with 55 off duty police officers inside the school, and expulsion notices were sent out to students seen as "persistent trouble makers. This led to the expulsion of 35 students.

There was another incident in March involving 300 students. The following day, school officials closed Proviso East for two days. While the school was closed, school officials met to review discipline procedures and plan enforcement, which they said would include the use of chemical mace to quell disturbances. The 300 students involved in the most recent fighting were permitted to return, provided they signed a nonviolence pledge, a move that was challenged by the NAACP. The school board then voted to defer the requirement or students to sign the pledges.

The 1968—69 school year saw more racial problems.

In mid-September, after a day that saw 15 students hurt during fights in the school, a group of 200 students began throwing rocks and other projectiles at passing cars. Seven were arrested. The incidents resulted in six expulsions and three more students withdrawing.

All of this was taking place with the backdrop of the Civil Rights movement and the killing of MLK. In 1964 when three Civil Rights workers in Mississippi were murdered, the events that were taking place there and in Alabama were having an effect in what was previously a peaceful environment where everyone interacted as a model of cooperation. The seeds of mistrust were sown and the turbulence of the 60's hit home.

 

First of all...demographically we might be a Christian nation..but in spirit and worldview we are anything but Christian. Daniel 1:3-8

This reminds me of the book of Daniel particularly this verse Dan 1:3-8

This has been what has happened in the United States. We have conformists and separatists...and how many Davids exist today? How many will stand up to the King?

Peter Berger a sociologist said this..."If India is the most religious country in the world and Sweden the least religious, than America is a nation of Indians ruled by the Swedes." This might have been true at one time...today however we are a nation of Christians in name only. We are led by Swedes by conformers...people unlike David who refused to defile himself. He refused to give in to fleshly appetites. This is a process that has been going on for years...it has been slow and gradual.

Psalm 11:3 says, "If the foundations be destroyed what can the righteous do?"

I believe our foundations are destroyed totally...How? Social conditioning....4 ways.

1. By isolation Look at Daniel 1:3

"3 Then the king ordered Ashpenaz, chief of his court officials, to bring into the king’s service some of the Israelites from the royal family and the nobility"

Bring in the opposition and brainwash. This is how cults do it...by luring people into the web of lies.

2. Indoctrination

Look at Daniel 4. " young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king’s palace. He was to teach them the language and literature of the Babylonians."

So these guys had they taken the SAT's of their day would have scored big. Lets re-educate so that these guys would fit right in....teach them about Babylon..how wonderful it is.

3. Incentives of the flesh

Look at verse 5. "The king assigned them a daily amount of food and wine from the king’s table. They were to be trained for three years, and after that they were to enter the king’s service." Shower them with gifts...and the best money can buy....so that they would love it so much...conforming would not so hard. The university professor that says..forget everything you learned outside my classroom, you now will learn the truth. Schools used to teach kids how to think...now they teach them what to think...

And the last one.....4. Identity reformation. Look at verse 7.

"The chief official gave them new names: to Daniel, the name Belteshazzar; to Hananiah, Shadrach; to Mishael, Meshach; and to Azariah, Abednego."

How many Czars does Obama have? What name did he give each one?

Today if any conservative Christian student would share opinion on something in the class relating to their faith or social opinion on an issue...it would be met with great opposition...by teachers and students. Kids are taught the truth if it exists its subjective..right and wrong are relative and subjective. And if you meet the goals of the university and conform..your considered well educated and if you buck the system you are stupid and backward and most the time called a racist, a homophobe or anti-choice if your against abortion.

Daniel drew the line. Today the masses are not doing that...they conform to earthly gods and idols. Most Christians who confess the faith...don't read the scriptures and use them as a guide for their life. They try to change scriptures to make the sin they are committing ok in their own minds. Christians today do not stand on the Word and live it.

Daniel drew the line...he decided before the temptation. The temptation...today is everything. Are we more immoral?

We have killed over 58 million unborn children since 1973. The traditional family we are told is passe....not important. Who cares if you have a mother or a father. Unwed mothers....deadbeat fathers......crime rates?......cities collapsing because of greed and mismanagement, child abuse cases have risen...

How many people take responsibility for their own actions? We saw Clinton lie under oath...look at our crooked politicians. How many people are mooching off the country that could work?

http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics/

Are we less moral? I think so...but then today I am told my morals are old fashioned and unimportant. Today if it feels good and you don't kill someone it must be good.

Great program on tonight...Stossel. Are we becoming Rome?

 

as usual, xtians restrict their view of morality to the genitals. you people are absurd.

 

I did not...I mentioned a whole list of immoral things....did you read or just see the word Christian and pounce?

 

TROLOLOLOLOL.

Pot, meet kettle.

Pot, meet kettle.

Have you ever actually been to a college science department? There's generally a big emphasis on critical thinking. Just because critical thinking tends to make Christianity look absurd is not the fault of critical thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar_(U.S._political_term)

It's a standard use of presidential advisors since WWI.

[uote]Today if any conservative Christian student would share opinion on something in the class relating to their faith or social opinion on an issue...it would be met with great opposition...by teachers and students.[/quote]

Not really. Here in the Dirty South, prayer in schools is the norm and is lauded. But, hey, keep on promulgating lies. I'm sure YHWH loves the violation against the Mosaic Laws against lies and the Golden Commandment about treating your neighbors as you would yourself.

You just said that they are taught certain facts are truth and are taught "what to think" not "how to think". Teaching them moral relativity is a method of thinking, not a series of rote information to be digested and kept for all time.

You're not being very consistent.

I mean, yeah, why should you be called a racist if you advocate measures that are demonstrably unfavorable to one race, or homophobic if you hate gay people, or anti-choice if you want to prevent abortions but refuse to provide contraception or otherwise allow for women to control their own reproductive life? It's a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) mystery.

Daniel murdered a man to sleep with that man's wife. Not exactly what I want my son to do when he grows up.

Daniel murdered a man to sleep with that man's wife. That's a lot more immoral than casual sex by any reasonable standard.

Considering YHWH kills 2/3rds of all conceptions before they reach term anyway, I'm not sure how one can really say that YHWH loves fetuses so much that abortion must be outlawed. YHWH obviously doesn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about them, otherwise, why allow a fertilized egg to attach to the uterine wall if its just going to be naturally miscarried in 3 weeks before the woman even noticed she was pregnant anyway?

Actually, crime rates in the US have fallen rather dramatically in the past 20 years. Probably because of widespread, legal access to abortion, among other things, as it prevented 58 million children being born who would have been born predominantly to impoverished women who would have not had access to better education or funds to provide the child with the sort of life that prevents crime. Since, you know, poverty tends to increase the likelihood of one becoming involved in criminal activities.

Also, teen motherhood is at the lowest rate its been since we've been keeping records. Even lower than in the 1940s.

But, hey, why look at facts when the lies we tell ourselves confirm everything we believe, right?

Wealthy CEOs, primarily. The majority of people on welfare are the working poor, the elderly, the disabled, or children. The remainder are generally the homeless, you know, the sort of people that Jesus told us to take care of without regard for how much it costs us or asking them if they're just going to use it for drugs. "If a man asks for your cloak, give him your shirt as well".

But, hey, why listen to Jesus and not be a judgmental prick when it is so much more fun to ignore him and act like a sanctimonious (*)(*)(*)(*)?

Spousal rape is now illegal, explicit racism is now morally reprehensible (implicit racism isn't yet, but I didn't say we're perfectly moral, just more moral than we were 50 years ago), women are far more equal than they used to be, and freedom of speech is actually more of a reality than something given lip service to. Again, we're far from perfect, but a damn sight better than ages ago.

Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary using actual ethical arguments that aren't "Jesus tells me"?

No, and it's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ridiculous for Americans to even try to compare the USA to the Roman Republic or the Roman Empire, as it's pretty damn presumptuous on the part of the USA to assume it has anywhere near the impact on the world in terms of culture, power, or influence that the Imperium Romanum had.

 

If only Christianity truly would wane. It would be nice if so many people in this country weren't so far gone as to reject evolution and embrace creationism as to rank this country among Muslim countries rather than European (i.e. civilised) ones by comparison.

 

I reject your premise. Please provide citation that immoral behavior is on the increase.

 

So show me a news source that has never made an error. Hint: leave out the New York Times and CBS.

It is interesting in this discussion that the New Atheists (whose arguments are recycled from old atheists such as Nietzche, Freud, Marx, and Bertrand Russell) differ from the Old Atheists who mourned the death of God because they realized it undermined the foundations of Western culture. Existentialist Albert Camus admitted that the death of God meant the loss of purpose, joy, and everything that makes life worth living. The New Atheists celebrate the loss of God in our society. Prof. John Haught of Georgetown University said, "The new soft-core atheists assume that, by dint of Darwinism, we can just drop God like Santa Claus without having to witness the complete collapse of Western culture - including our sense of what is rational and moral. At least the hard-core atheists understood that if we are truly sincere in our atheism the whole web of meanings and values that has clustered around the idea of God in Western culture has to go down the drain along with its organizing center."

My position is that while Christians have certainly done some bad things, the legacy of Christianity has been overwhelmingly positive. Christians built the first hospitals, started the Red Cross, led the movement to end slavery, invented the university, and pioneered modern science. The Gospel has been at the heart of the movements that have led to the most profound liberation of humanity. Can that be said of atheistic communism?

It is illogical to say 25 deaths at the Salem Witch trials, for instance, cancel out the above good.

 

Let's assume your argument holds water (I have some problems with it, but we'll set them aside for now).
What does that tell us about its truth?
Nothing.
At best you describe a useful delusion.

 

Prof. John Haught talks some amount of crap at times, obviously. Much of Western culture is indeed built on the back of Christianity. No point trying to pretend otherwise. But to make the leap to claim that removing Christianity would necessarily destroy it all is nothing short of farcical.

No, you're quite right. Although I wouldn't say the 25 dead from the Salem Witch Trials are anything even close to the full extent of evils perpetrated by Christians, I would agree that in the past it has been a net positive to our culture. That doesn't mean they're right about God, as has already been pointed out, and neither does it mean that we can't continue to progress culture without religion.

 

I'm not sure I agree.
Much of religions abuses go essentially unnoticed in the history books.
Columbus isn't a lovely story of discovery, but rather a tale of greed and genocide done in the name of God.
Religious rhetoric covered the genocide of the Native Americans and the subjugation of the slaves and of the women in colonial times.
This list could go on and on, leading us all the way to the "Axis of Evil" rhetoric.
Religion often is used to provide the justification for all kinds of atrocities.

 

All the same, there have been remarkably few atheistic cultures in our past, and the Christian world is one that imho has grown into one of the most fair and reasonable societies as a whole. Maybe we would have done even better as Buddhists or Jainists or something, but you march with the army you've got.