Yes, my point exactly.
While most of England have no regard for spirituality in their day to day life(they are secular). When polled they usually exhibit a degree of fear(respect) of a god.
Atheism and the end of the world
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
Yes, my point exactly.
While most of England have no regard for spirituality in their day to day life(they are secular). When polled they usually exhibit a degree of fear(respect) of a god.
Since the heyday of atheism, Stalinist Russia and all, atheism has gone the way of the dodo bird, thankfully, most realize there is a creator of the creation.
British "preaching" is done in each local parish - not in some TV Evangelical way.
Why do you expect to hear of any?
What does a "great Christian preacher" do / sound like / act like in your opinion?
Just watch Charles Stanley or D. James Kennedy.
*sigh*This isn't about god existing, it's about the tie with atheism and population decreases, isn't it?
isn't there other threads for bu^^sh*t "god" discussion?
Was Russia officially atheist for 70 years, what is their population growth?
And are they, by any stretch of the imagination, from the Southern states of the US - believing in the inerrant word of God as written in the Bible?
Of course they believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, otherwise, they wouldn't be Christian preachers.
Some hypocrites, oh no, you mean self-professing Christians are not Jesus Himself, perish the thought!
A necessary illusion?samcdkey said:
Or not? Science (and Buddhism) reveals that life is practically immortal, the only reason people don't see it that way is due to our limited and inaccurate definition of self.
Semantics.
Even an atheist is immortal if he considers himself part of the circle of life.
What is the supposed "circle of life?"
It is a reference to the Disney animated film, "The Lion King", when Mufasa explains to his son, Simba, his philosophy of life, as concerning the hunting of other animals. Mufasa tells Simba that, as King, he cannot simply kill any and all the antelope he wishes. In essence, he explains, once he dies, he will "become" the grass, the antelope will eat him, and he will "become" the antelope.
It is symbolic immortality, which is why I say that immortality all boils down to semantics because it can be defined in several ways.
The "terror of mortality" is not a given, it is introduced through culture, so death is often associated with bad things like accident, disease and murder. Not every culture fears death, but it's understandable to fear dying. I could just as well postulate a "terror of immortality"; worse, because there is no end to it.
*************
M*W: When I was a christian, I feared death, but I believe that is contradictory to christian belief. One would think that being a christian would allay one's fear of death and dying.
Since I've been an atheist, I am more content with my own mortality. I don't have the fear I had as a christian. What I think that means is one's sub-conscious is telling oneself that christianity is a farce, because there is nothing in the hereafter. There is more self-content found in atheism. There's just simply no room for lies.
You then were not really a Christian, as the Bible says that once God "has your hand," even if you try to let go, He will not let you go.
Who gives a shit?
Europe's been surviving 'influxes' since time immemorial. Go to any major city on the continent (or near it
) and you'll find representatives of virtually every nation there. It's difficult to generalise about Europe as a whole because its constituent nations vary widely in immigration rates, attitudes to immigration, employment levels and other relevant factors - but most countries have an immigrant population of between 10% (Germany) to 20% (The Netherlands) and, for the most part, have absorbed them comfortably, with little evidence of the racial intolerance to which you allude. Remove a certain German madman from the equation and is the modern Europe really as intolerant as you imply? Far-right parties have had some notable successes in recent times but are still far from being accepted as part of the mainstream political landscape. Even wake-up calls like the following provide some grounds for optimism in their conclusions:We do seem to be reaching critical mass as far as immigration is concerned now though. I know this because the media tell me it is so, despite the fact that I rarely see a non-white face. Large immigrant populations in Britain are so far confined to the big cities - they've yet to impact on the towns and villages. But it should be interesting to see what happens in the future. It's possible that immigration will have to be curbed for a while if the growing pains - for that's exactly what they are - get too severe. I'm confident that Europe's administrators will handle things with the usual modicum of common sense.
So can we get back on topic now?
I've seen nothing so far to suggest that the correlation between birth rates and religious affiliation is anything other than coincidental - indeed, those anomalies I pointed out earlier (and it was by no means an exhaustive list) make me doubt that there's any noticeable correlation at all. I've said before, in an earlier thread on this subject, what's causing the low birth rates in certain countries but no-one paid much attention, so I'll say it again. It's nothing to do with religion. On the other hand it is closely related to literacy rates, as seems intuitive.
It is - are you all listening this time? - changing lifestyle choices. More and more women than ever before are going out to work or on to further education in high-literacy countries, and purposely delaying having children. And when they do have children they're having fewer than before. It's that simple really, without any need to invoke anything remotely supernatural. There are far more grounds for blaming feminism rather than atheism, if you're looking for an uncomplicated scapegoat. The trend will probably continue too, as literacy continues to improve. Immigration will rise as much as we allow it to in the short-term to fill the gaps but my guess is that, in the long-term, it's going to become a more sparsely-populated world. Surely this can only be a good thing in the long run?
A "great English preacher".
Yesterday.
OK, I'm lying.
He's Irish.
Last edited:
It doesn't make sense to equate fertility with survival. Too many people use up resources, leading to environmental devastation and extinction.