That's not true, I'm full on aggressive! But yes, I'm bored, bored of worthless and off the point critques like yours, not designed with any productive purpose in mind but the satisfaction of a disgruntled and pretentious jerk. Apathetic because of so much uncodemned foolishness in the world that goes on to reproduce ad infinitum. — Noblosh

Contrary to this projection of yours, I'm actually contributing to this thread by having reasonable conversation with Agustino, BC, and T Clark. If you'd like to join, by all means, come on in. My tongue has edge enough for you still!

Contrary to this projection of yours, I'm actually contributing to this thread by having reasonable conversation with Agustino, BC, and T Clark. If you'd like to join, by all means, come on in. My tongue has edge enough for you still! — Heister Eggcart

Why would I participate? This is not even a proper subject for a philosophical forum, maybe for a religious one. it's just people debating which denomination they should gamble their faith on.
I'm also not interested in your edginess, it's in bad taste.

Additionally, you're trying to paint me as a hypocrite for defending Christianity and not Islam, solely on the grounds of there being pedophilic priests. I contest this because the Church, and indeed 99.9% of all Christians, vehemently condemn the actions taken by those improper priests, which has resulted in their defrocking, being thrown out of the Church, and in many cases being charged criminally by secular law. — Heister Eggcart

I'm not asking you to defend Islam. I'm just saying your argument about Mohammad is a weak argument, a non sequitur, and a bit self-serving. I changed "disingenuous" to "self-serving" because I think saying "disingenuous" questions you honesty, which I don't mean to do. Fact - the highest levels of the Catholic Church hid and enabled pedophile priests for decades until the Boston Globe blew the lid off. They got the Pulitzer Prize for that. They deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Many (most?) of the priests never were held accountable either because they died before they were found out, they are still being protected, or no one ever came forward to report them.

Sigh? That's a cogent argument? Furthermore, I disagree. The behavior of priests is much more a measure of the health and value of a religion than what happened more than a thousand years ago. Beyond that, you are being disingenuous. Muhammad is your straw man. If you thought Islam was a religion that shared values and dogma with yours, you wouldn't have brought up Mohammad's behavior. You only bring it up for rhetorical purposes - to try to convince people when your other arguments can't.

It doesn't matter what Mohammad did 14 centuries ago. It matters what Islam does now. — T Clark

Amen, brother! (Y)

And further, for those others obsessed with such matters, there is significant doubt whether the girl in question was really pre-pubescent. She may have been 15 or 16. And those were different times and a different place. He had six wives for example, and was esteemed by most contemporaries. For whatever that is worth.

And before someone else tells me the obvious... Terrorism is wrong, and should be stopped and punished. There is no doubt the severity of our current situation. I honestly share the concern. Terrorists are murderers, NOT brave and dutiful soldiers. And they should be treated as criminals. No matter if they happen to be Muslim, Christian, atheist, or a government official.

Why would I participate? This is not even a proper subject for a philosophical forum, maybe for a religious one. it's just people debating which denomination they should gamble their faith on.
I'm also not interested in your edginess, it's in bad taste. — Noblosh

Yes, I'm sure you're one of those, "delete philosophy of religion" sorts of people. If this thread irks you so much, leave.

Why would I participate? This is not even a proper subject for a philosophical forum, maybe for a religious one. it's just people debating which denomination they should gamble their faith on.
I'm also not interested in your edginess, it's in bad taste. — Noblosh

Yes, I agree on the dubiousness, fundamentalism, and evangelism present in this thread. But maybe the moderators are choosing to be like NBA officials in the playoffs, and letting the players battle it out. If then, so be it. ;)

I'm not asking you to defend Islam. I'm just saying your argument about Mohammad is a weak argument, a non sequitur, and a bit self-serving. — T Clark

How so? You already said you have no opinion of Muhammad, but you're willing to refute the opinions of others who do critique him? :^/

Fact - the highest levels of the Catholic Church hid and enabled pedophile priests for decades until the Boston Globe blew the lid off. They got the Pulitzer Prize for that. They deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Many (most?) of the priests never were held accountable either because they died before they were found out, they are still being protected, or no one ever came forward to report them. — T Clark

To play devil's advocate here, I thought you said that the past doesn't matter? So who cares if some kids were raped 14 centuries ago, eh?

How so? You already said you have no opinion of Muhammad, but you're willing to refute the opinions of others who do critique him? :^/ — Heister Eggcart

I'm not refuting your opinions, I am denying they are relevant to an examination of present-day Islam.

To play devil's advocate here, I thought you said that the past doesn't matter? So who cares if some kids were raped 14 centuries ago, eh? — Heister Eggcart

Are you joking? If my memory is correct, the Boston Globe started it's stories in the early 2000s. Many of the priests and abused children are still alive. Although I'm not a Christian, I'm not trying to undermine the validity of the Christian church. I'm only trying to undermine the validity of your Mohammad argument.

She may have been 15 or 16. — 0 thru 9

Fucking wow. This is still child molestation, you creep.

Indeed, fervor is the key. I see atheists as spiritual beings of a sort. Atheists are profound thinkers. They have looked deeply at the universe and come to an understanding – a knowing. This knowing has logic, but more importantly it is a feeling of what is right. After all the logic and reasoning is done they arrive at a conclusion – an evaluation. The conclusion is almost superfluous to their sense of being settled. What we seek is to be settled – we want to know – something. This knowing is a spiritual journey – no matter what you think. The journey is special and it is worthy. Atheism is a religion of one. It doesn’t matter if they think they are God or there is no God. They have come to a knowing. What we see in an atheist intellect is courage – this is noble.

Is it right? Who cares – it is a conclusion of significance. The significance is that they have a feeling – a knowing. We live our entire life moving from one feeling to another. We play leap frog in our minds from one moment to the next. The feelings are what makes our journey unique and it is a spiritual quest to find ourselves. To know thyself is a holy quest and it is unending. I applaud the man or woman of courage who seeks their own destiny and knowing. Those people who line up to be told what to think – do not show much courage. — Thinker

For at least this post, i agree, fwiw. And commend you on the attempt to see the big picture, to see both sides of the spinning coin. (Y)

Either you are interpreting the charts wrong or I don't understand what you are trying to say. The first two charts show that the US's share of worldwide GNP has been decreasing fairly steadily between 1950 and 2008. That is relevant to my statement about the changing world. Agreed - the data does not show the past 10 years. — T Clark

First, you are shamelessly dishonest. What did I say here?

Well since 2008-2009 was the period of the financial crisis, those years marked a decrease for US/Western world. After that, if we use IMF statistics for 2016, the US is back at 25% of the world's GDP. US -> 18.5 trillion, World -> 75 trillion. — Agustino

Now, look at those graphs, and tell me, is it a continuous decrease if in 2016 the GDP is 25% of the world's GDP? No. It's virtually the same.

The third chart shows that the absolute value of per capita income in the US has been increasing faster than other countries. That is something completely different and is not relevant to what we were discussing. — T Clark

No, that graph does not show per capita INCOME. It shows GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT per capita. The two are absolutely not the same. Really this is my last response to you on this topic, as it seems you don't even understand basic economics. And it is absolutely relevant to the discussion, since you're trying to say that the poor countries are catching up and the relative share of the wealth is more evenly spread - and that's not true. The US and the rich countries are getting further ahead relative to their populations compared to the poor countries.

Something that by the way even you recognise in the underlined bit. So thanks for admitting to your ignorance. Next time please stay in the areas you're comfortable with.

The fact is, this world does not belong to them. It never has. — T Clark

Well, that remains to be seen.

Yes, I agree on the dubiousness, fundamentalism, and evangelism present in this thread. But maybe the moderators are choosing to be like NBA officials in the playoffs, and letting the players battle it out. If then, so be it. ;) — 0 thru 9

First of all, this is posted in the philosophy of religion section. Seems appropriate to me. And while Agustino and Heister Eggcart are a bit pugnacious and smug, I don't see much in the way of fundamentalism and evangelism.

From Wikipedia:

The age of consent in Canada is 16. All U.S. states set their limits between 16 and 18. The age of consent in Mexico is complex. Typically, Mexican states have a "primary" age of consent (which may be as low as 12), and sexual conduct with persons below that age is always illegal.
Ages of consent in North America - Wikipedia

And this was over a thousand years ago. Please take the time to get the facts at least somewhat straight. And chuck you, Farley! (L) X-) (L)

Why is an examination of Islam's founding and most important prophet, Muhammad, not relevant to a discussion that critiques Islam on the grounds of its moral integrity? If Jesus was a child molesting, violent cretin, I would be condemning him equally as harshly. And if Christianity's ethics was based upon a child molesting, violent cretin, as Islam's is, then I would subsequently doubt the rightness of such a religion's claims. But, seeing as Christianity's most central figure is not any of those things, in fact being the complete opposite, I think there's ground to stand on for Christians and others who are critical of a religion like Islam that doesn't seem to have a consistent moral message.

What may or may not be lawful does not make it right or wrong. If you have sex with a child, you are a pedophile, a rapist, and a creep. And if you're someone who defends such actions, you can fuck right off, okay?

At the very least I don't think it's prudent for the Catholic church to water down its liturgy — Heister Eggcart

Did I say anything about watering down? The problem at the moment is that they're not forcefully representing their REAL position.

Is Orthodoxy watering itself down, though? And if it isn't, is it also dying? — Heister Eggcart

No, it's not watering itself down, but the dumb people call themselves Orthodox, even though in reality they're following local traditions more than the teachings of the Church. Is it also dying? Not in Eastern Europe and Russia it isn't, but neither is it growing very fast - although there are some young people who show keen interest in religion.

Also, I'd say there needs to be more of a shift in society in general toward the arts, philosophy, etc., which would create an environment where thinking is appreciated and religion isn't just some afterlife bet or community dispenser. The "fixes", say, that the Catholic Church need in order to preserve Western Civ can't only come from itself. A whole more needs to fall into line in order for there to be generations of thoughtful Christians. — Heister Eggcart

Well part of the problem is that the Church isn't emphasising its position in a coherent way. It is afraid not to upset the gay community, or not to upset other religions, etc. etc. It's so politically correct, that it is in reality in a straight jacket, even though it has all the power that it needs, if it wanted to do something.

Also, a lot of the Church's arguments for religion, while valid, are antiquated, and don't speak well to people today. These arguments need to be reframed and recast in a way that speaks to modern people.

And further, for those others obsessed with such matters, there is significant doubt whether the girl in question was really pre-pubescent. She may have been 15 or 16. And those were different times and a different place. He had six wives for example, and was esteemed by most contemporaries. For whatever that is worth. — 0 thru 9

Yes, he had 6 wives, while other men were only allowed a maximum of four. But Muhammad was special, God let him have more.

And the fact that someone is ESTEEMED for having multiple wives is no different than someone being esteemed for being rich, or for being powerful, or for having an army of slaves. I'm not quite sure if that esteem is worth having in the first place. Sounds to me like pandering after social approval.

Yes, I agree on the dubiousness, fundamentalism, and evangelism present in this thread. But maybe the moderators are choosing to be like NBA officials in the playoffs, and letting the players battle it out. If then, so be it. ;) — 0 thru 9

This thread is in the philosophy of religion section. If you can't even discuss religion there, where can you discuss it then? We're discussing the evolution and relationship amongst religions, including, yes, deciding and talking about which religion is best. You have an issue with that? Has it hit your "politically incorrect" button?

What may or may not be lawful does not make it right or wrong — Heister Eggcart

Good one. Well... the law of the land (whatever land it is) is definitely NOT perfect. And religious wisdom guides us hopefully. And in that spirit, would you mind terribly stopping the uncalled-for insults, dear chap? Thanks.

Did I say anything about watering down? The problem at the moment is that they're not forcefully representing their REAL position. — Agustino

Explain. I don't see what you're getting at here.

No, it's not watering itself down, but the dumb people call themselves Orthodox, even though in reality they're following local traditions more than the teachings of the Church. Is it also dying? Not in Eastern Europe and Russia it isn't, but neither is it growing very fast - although there are some young people who show keen interest in religion. — Agustino

I mean, what's this thread about, then? Are we wanting to save true believers in Christianity, or just the facade of people going to church? If it's the former, I don't think we can get every Christian to be true believers. Do you?

Well part of the problem is that the Church isn't emphasising its position in a coherent way. It is afraid not to upset the gay community, or not to upset other religions, etc. etc. It's so politically correct, that it is in reality in a straight jacket, even though it has all the power that it needs, if it wanted to do something.

Also, a lot of the Church's arguments for religion, while valid, are antiquated, and don't speak well to people today. These arguments need to be reframed and recast in a way that speaks to modern people. — Agustino

I don't think the Church is going to budge much, to be honest...

would you mind terribly stopping the uncalled-for insults, dear chap? Thanks. — 0 thru 9

You're a creep. Why would I not call a spade a spade?

f you have sex with a child, you are a pedophile, a rapist, and a creep. — Heister Eggcart

Incidentally I know a few people who have done this in real life (not that I'm friends with them, but I do know them). It's hard to prevent it when others hold social power and use it - even if it's just local power, say being the mayor of a village. It's not an infrequent affair in Eastern European countries, unfortunately.

Explain. I don't see what you're getting at here. — Heister Eggcart

They don't articulate their position frequently on the media. For example, they don't speak against promiscuity loudly and openly. Instead those in favor of promiscuity get all the screen time. What's the Church doing, are they embarrassed of their position?!

I mean, what's this thread about, then? — Heister Eggcart

Multiple things. First it's about discussing the future of religions. Second, it's about discussing the role of Christianity in the future, including what actions are likely to be favourable/unfavourable for it. And thirdly, there's a lot of side discussions going on which are addressing issues on the side of these main topics of discussion, which is exactly what should be happening in my honest opinion (for example, me discussing economics with Mr. Clark).

If it's the former, I don't think we can get every Christian to be true believers. Do you? — Heister Eggcart

No that is indeed impossible. But that's not really the point. The point is that Christianity's influence on culture has sharply decreased, to the point that, especially in the West, as evidenced by some responses in this thread, it is viewed with ridicule, as a museum artefact (to quote Mongrel). That's something that has to change.

I don't think the Church is going to budge much, to be honest... — Heister Eggcart

Why not?

This thread is in the philosophy of religion section. If you can't even discuss religion there, where can you discuss it then? We're discussing the evolution and relationship amongst religions, including, yes, deciding and talking about which religion is best. You have an issue with that? Has it hit your "politically incorrect" button? — Agustino

Alright... i may have exaggerated. But in my opinion, not by very much. This is more like "the politics of Religion". But I'm splitting hairs. It is what is. If I didn't think it was worthy of discussion, I would ignore it. Carry on! (Y)

Wait... did you just say which religion is best? What is this, the Super Bowl? X-)

Here's what I said in my original post on this subject - "Economic factors will have a much bigger impact on how things go in the future than religion. It's happening now. As poor countries become wealthier, Western countries' share of the wealth goes down, even if their standard of living does not. Formerly poor countries will take on a greater power role in the world. We will have less of a say in how things go. In terms of overall humanity, it's a good thing."

Note - I said "Western Countries," not "United States."

From Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The table on the bottom is the relevant one.

You're a creep. Why would I not call a spade a spade? — Heister Eggcart

Ad hominem. Care to take it back?

You're a creep. Why would I not call a spade a spade? — Heister Eggcart

It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you write things like this.

They don't articulate their position frequently on the media. For example, they don't speak against promiscuity loudly and openly. Instead those in favor of promiscuity get all the screen time. What's the Church doing, are they embarrassed of their position?! — Agustino

Okay, I see what you mean, now.

No that is indeed impossible. But that's not really the point. The point is that Christianity's influence on culture has sharply decreased, to the point that, especially in the West, as evidenced by some responses in this thread, it is viewed with ridicule, as a museum artefact (to quote Mongrel). That's something that has to change. — Agustino

Won't change for the better if the Christian standard is evangelical Protestantism.

Why not? — Agustino

The Catholic Church has already made a lot of concessions. I just don't see them making a bunch more.

Ad hominem. Care to take it back? — 0 thru 9

You don't find it wrong that an older man has sex with a 12 year old, or a 15 year old, or a 16 year old. This makes you a creep. So, no, I'm not going to take it back because it is the truth.

It's hard to take your arguments seriously when you write things like this. — T Clark

It's hard for me to even find your argument. Why won't you substantively reply to my last post to you? What's wrong?