God is a requirement for a free world - You need Jesus.

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Violence is the supreme authority in to which all other authority is derived from. If you want to be free you need to be will to commit violence against those who would seek to enslave you be it Neo-liberal globalist or right wing christian fundamentals.

And that is why God is the ultimate authority, because if you don't follow God's plan for your salvation, he will send you to hell for all eternity. There is no greater violence than what God can inflict.

One is India. It's multicultural, but it's slowly but surely turning away from that. The majority is embracing the concept of Hindutva because they've become disillusioned with multiculturalism. Personally, I don't fault them for that because 1) it's their business, not ours and 2) it's a good example of how multiculturalism without any genuine civic nationalism can go awry. The majority found the melting pot distasteful. India never had civic nationalism nor a reason to embrace it. So now they're developing something to replace it.

Hindutva is still multicultural, it's just religious nationalism based on India as a Hindu state. Although its base of support is in the Hindi-speaking areas in northern India, there are still many members of RSS and other Hindutva groups in southern India. India at one point did have civic nationalism, but it was fatally injured by the split of India and Pakistan and has been dying a slow death ever since.

Next there's Brazil. I'm convinced that the United States will most like end up like Brazil rather than India or China. Why? Because Brazil is a more or less Westernized country that superficially identifies as a liberal democracy. It's only barely held together by corruption and decadence. There is no belief in Brazil. There is no clear majority so there can't be a Brazilian Hindutva. There is no Braziian equavilent to the CCP so no iron-fisted one party rule. Instead, it's a multicultural shithole held together by corrupt elites who keep the fractured populace in line with assorted distractions.

Racial nationalism would actually work easier in a place like Brazil (or the rest of Latin America) because the vast majority of the population is mixed-race, and joining this race is as easy as marrying one of them. This has been known for 200 years, that's why Paraguay's dictator Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia ordered all people to interracially marry. They are able to claim the heritage of both colonial Europe (Portugal/Spain) and their Native American heritage.

The United States does not have that because we separate the races and hold to ideas like the "one drop rule." We must rely strictly on civic nationalism which we did and which worked until the mid-20th century. Did it work solely because people were religious? Nah, but the decline of religious influence in society did cause the postmodern nihilism we see where "only you can create what matters" which leads to the overturning of society's morals and pure decadence. We see that in all modern societies, except ones which have grown more religious like the Islamic world or parts of Africa and Latin America (the parts where evangelical fundie churches are strongest/the local Catholics changed their outreach to something similar).

 

[Dom Cruise]

If morality is not literally the word of God, it will always fall prey to cries of "but I WANT to do this! Why can't I? Nothing matters anyway", sooner or later, that's the inevitable.

Enjoy your child drag queens, trans kids and eventually open child molestation if you want things to continue to be secular.

It's completely insane to me that anyone living in the year 2022 would still defend atheism over Religion, like, look the fuck around you lmao, the ugliness and stupidity of the human race has been fully revealed to us, the mask has slipped off, all pretentions are shattered, only God can keep us in line.

I WISH it wasn't this way, I wish human beings were better than that, but we're simply not.

 

[The Curmudgeon]

View attachment 3306162

The left picture is what I wish progress looked like. The right pic is the horrific nightmare we got instead.

The United States does not have that because we separate the races and hold to ideas like the "one drop rule." We must rely strictly on civic nationalism which we did and which worked until the mid-20th century. Did it work solely because people were religious? Nah, but the decline of religious influence in society did cause the postmodern nihilism we see where "only you can create what matters" which leads to the overturning of society's morals and pure decadence. We see that in all modern societies, except ones which have grown more religious like the Islamic world or parts of Africa and Latin America (the parts where evangelical fundie churches are strongest/the local Catholics changed their outreach to something similar).

I'll confess that I'm an atheist. However, in recent years I've started to become a wavering one. The postmodern nihilism you mention is one of those reasons. On one hand, I hate the idea of the United States being dominated by religious fundamentalism. On the other hand, I don't want the United States to end up like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Western Europe. I wish there was some moderate middle ground. Thanks to postmodernism, civic nationalism can't work anymore.

I love the Idea of Progress. I support science, technological advancement, and modernity. However, the postmodernists ruin it by pushing their nihilistic bullshit and destroying civil society. So I feel like that puts me in a bind. It's like the picture @Pissmaster posted. We could have had an amazing future, but it's hard to have that when you have postmodernist scum pushing twisted shit like transgenderism. The future should have been something to look forward to, not something we should dread.

 

[Ultrapenguin]

Because I need to get this out of my system, I have another thing I'd like to add to this topic.

Spoiler: Another personal diatribe.

Again personally, I feel like a secular society can work if there's still some form of belief holding everyone together. In the United States, we had the unique opportunity of doing this with civic nationalism and civic virtue. We could believe in America. It was supposed to bind everyone together regardless of what they are or where they're from. According to certain people, it is no longer politically correct to believe in your country. Without that, people devolve into shameless, belligerent tribalism. Granted, civic nationalism isn't perfect and is liable to suffer from the same problems as any other belief system. I'm simply using it as a possible viable alternative to ethnic and/or religious nationalism. I would like to believe that believing in your country, your nation, would be a worthwhile belief that can bring people together. We could be Americans together.

There are several real world examples of what America could become:

One is India. It's multicultural, but it's slowly but surely turning away from that. The majority is embracing the concept of Hindutva because they've become disillusioned with multiculturalism. Personally, I don't fault them for that because 1) it's their business, not ours and 2) it's a good example of how multiculturalism without any genuine civic nationalism can go awry. The majority found the melting pot distasteful. India never had civic nationalism nor a reason to embrace it. So now they're developing something to replace it.

Then there is China. They're multicultural, but they have Communism as a unifier. Granted, it unifies at gun point. They have substituted civic nationalism with the CCP. You're loyal not because you want to believe in it, but because you have to or else. It's a totalitarian one party state and not something our country should aspire to be. This is scary alternative to civic nationalism that would be nice to avoid at all costs.

Next there's Brazil. I'm convinced that the United States will most like end up like Brazil rather than India or China. Why? Because Brazil is a more or less Westernized country that superficially identifies as a liberal democracy. It's only barely held together by corruption and decadence. There is no belief in Brazil. There is no clear majority so there can't be a Brazilian Hindutva. There is no Braziian equavilent to the CCP so no iron-fisted one party rule. Instead, it's a multicultural shithole held together by corrupt elites who keep the fractured populace in line with assorted distractions.

Sorry for the long spiel. I'm sure I'm wrong in different ways, but that's how I feel about it. It's possible to have a civil society without a proper religion, but it would require something with the same pith as religion. That's easier said than done. Believing in America was a beautiful alternative in my opinion.

There is nothing special about whatever arbitrary idea of "god" there is, that's why there has been so many different versions and types, there just need to be something greater for people to pursue to bring them together.

Kind of like how people always recognize that if a bunch of aliens invaded and humanity itself was under threat that national borders would pretty much cease to matter, you have to figure the opposite is true; if there is nothing greater to believe in and fight for, people will continue to break themselves apart for more and more petty reasons until they find something to fight.

That's just how things work; individualism is stronger in the face of greater external threats, since it provides a much stronger incentive for more powerful entities to unify, and in the absence of external threats collectivism thrives, since it becomes about maintaining and jockeying for power within the system. Being strong in a time of social/systemic unity is bad, that just creates power struggles that destabilize things. There needs to be an elite class, and a servant class.

Of course both extremes will weaken humanity. The first removes the practical need for advancement, and the latter removes the means of advancement.

Nah, but the decline of religious influence in society did cause the postmodern nihilism we see where "only you can create what matters" which leads to the overturning of society's morals and pure decadence. We see that in all modern societies, except ones which have grown more religious like the Islamic world or parts of Africa and Latin America (the parts where evangelical fundie churches are strongest/the local Catholics changed their outreach to something similar).

It didn't cause shit you stupid trad-larping anime avatar faggot, it was the very factors that led to postmodern nihilism that also caused the decline of religion.

If physical community doesn't exist, then religion doesn't exist, and advancements in technology have destroyed local community. Now that the system is faltering people are locally coming together more, and that's why there seems to be a recent dip in postmodern nihilism (at least that's the case around here), because stuff like the covid garbage, rising gas prices, and corporate overreach online have shaken people's trust in the system and caused them to focus more on local issues and states rights.

"herp, if only I use certain words it'll be different than when they use other words. Instead of worrying about being 'on the right side of history' or calling people 'problematic' I'll say I'm following god's word and that they're sinners instead. That's the ticket, anything that doesn't require me actually producing anything or being a leader. If only all the guys getting their chests hollowed out during WWII knew that if they said certain things reality would restructure itself and everyone would behave different! I'm a hero and a spiritual inspiration for moving around labels!"

If the system falls apart, religion will arise out of the wreckage naturally. Religion is nothing but a human social mechanism that manifests as a result of certain environmental factors.

 

[Passing Through Town]

The trannies should be free to associate with each other in a community of fellow freaks, but they should not be able to impose their insanity on other actual sane communities.

This isn't entirely thread relevant, but I wanted to point out that allowing trannies (and other freaks) to associate with one another and thereby organize is exactly what leads to them imposing their insanity on others. If you're unwilling to enforce your worldview then someone is inevitably going to enforce theirs on you.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

If morality is not literally the word of God, it will always fall prey to cries of "but I WANT to do this! Why can't I? Nothing matters anyway", sooner or later, that's the inevitable.

Enjoy your child drag queens, trans kids and eventually open child molestation if you want things to continue to be secular.

It's completely insane to me that anyone living in the year 2022 would still defend atheism over Religion, like, look the fuck around you lmao, the ugliness and stupidity of the human race has been fully revealed to us, the mask has slipped off, all pretentions are shattered, only God can keep us in line.

I WISH it wasn't this way, I wish human beings were better than that, but we're simply not.

Morality doesn't need to be based on the words of any god. Even the left knows this, that's why they want to put people in jail for shitposting on Kiwifarms despite that theoretically being just as harmless to others as a drag queen story hour. It should be possible to discern absolute, concrete moral tenets for society independent of religious beliefs. I know for a fact I don't need the ramblings of long-dead Jews to be moral and know that child drag queens and trooning out kids is bad.

I'll confess that I'm an atheist. However, in recent years I've started to become a wavering one. The postmodern nihilism you mention is one of those reasons. On one hand, I hate the idea of the United States being dominated by religious fundamentalism. On the other hand, I don't want the United States to end up like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or Western Europe. I wish there was some moderate middle ground. Thanks to postmodernism, civic nationalism can't work anymore.

There's a reason why until the 20th century atheism was disliked by pretty much everyone outside the most hardcore French revolutionaries (some of whom were executed for being subversive). It's just an empty, vacant worldview and leads itself to the science worship of Richard Dawkins (although Dawkins is more consistent than the vast majority of atheists). That's why most non-religious people were historically deists, pantheists, and agnostics.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

I don't think it's necessary to destroy the separation of church and state.

However, if we want to preserve morality and religion, we'll have to stop sending children to public schools, because government schools, by their very design, have to remain neutral and secular. Which has been proven to be impossible, since they're tilting towards Baal and Molech worship. Instead, education should be handled by parents (homeschooling) or by the private sector.

Even private charities can provide schooling to children whose parents can't afford it or have too much on their plate.

 

[The Curmudgeon]

Of course both extremes will weaken humanity. The first removes the practical need for advancement, and the latter removes the means of advancement.

Yep. It's awful with either extreme. I wish there was a moderate way to deal with this.

There's a reason why until the 20th century atheism was disliked by pretty much everyone outside the most hardcore French revolutionaries (some of whom were executed for being subversive). It's just an empty, vacant worldview and leads itself to the science worship of Richard Dawkins (although Dawkins is more consistent than the vast majority of atheists). That's why most non-religious people were historically deists, pantheists, and agnostics.

The Reign of Terror and Communism didn't do atheism any favors. Nowadays postmodernism just makes it worse.

Honestly, I'd love to save modernity and progress from the clutches of postmodernism. I wish we could have modernity, progress, and civil society without resorting to any religious and/or political extremism.

 

[Hypnomouse]

As I understood, the essence of the argument is that the USA originally was christian and became free, therefore god implies freedom. Any other possible philosophical source of freedom can't be possible because the USA worked as it did. Theist or atheist.

This empiricism would be flawed. Firstly, because for such a statment - that god is necessary for freedom - there should be at least a coherant purely rational reasoning from start to finish, for it is a universal statment, which can not be proved by any number of observations.

Going foward, it is always important to show examples on any argument, but one comparision on one age is too little for this argument. How could we know there wasn't some other freer society with other god or even no entity? So many ages, so many peoples, so many societies have populated this world. To use only the USA as basis for such a strong argument is naive. How could we know that what really made america freer was not something else, like separation of state from church? Giving one example doesn't exclude enough variables. In fact, the nature of the statment is such that it only takes one counter example to disprove it. Even if you present a thousand free christian societies.

-----------------------------------------

By law and virtue of nature, you are able to do anything your body and mind allows for and by that simple fact alone we can recognize that humans are fundamentally free.

You are literaly saying that the only reason we are free is because of nature and law. No need for a god on this very statment of yours. We humans make the laws and the nature of every human being is the same wheter christian, muslim or atheist.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

@Osmosis Jones Once again it's not letting me quote your post, so I'm having to do this again. Anyway. . . .

How is this not an argument to my credit? No country in the world is completely free by any means or standards. Five Eyes, PRISM, NSA, black projects, etc. only took off as the technological era accelerated surveillance technology. By that point we were already too far separated from piety. Then you go on to say that the US has an enviable document that all countries should have. I agree with you, so I don't know what your point is.

My point was simply that America is not a free country and never truly was, and that building a national mythology around the one or two good credentials it has doesn't in any way change the facts of the matter. I think like many Americans, your view of the United States and it's history is largely informed by propaganda, and my intention was to help you to see your country in the way that an outsider is able to see it.

In fact, it doesn't even necessarily need to be an outsider: how about ask a Native American reservationist, an inner-city black person, or a homeless veteran what they think about the American Dream?

My argument is founded on the semantics of Christianity and its foundations in society as well as how it brought upon enviable American freedoms. If you want to deny outright that the American founding documents based on Christian values provide freedoms that are good for everyone, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't naively assume a power hungry leader of a nation will literally fear God. On the contrary, I expect him to defy God and religion and use it to his advantage. The key lies in a faithful, practising, fundamentalist society not allowing someone who defies God to stay in power. This is less about placating masses and more about adding true value to freedom, because without God there is no purpose for freedom.

Except this is empirically false, because while a good number of the people who comprised the colonies were devout Christians, the people responsible for America's founding documents and statecraft were much more heavily informed by the ideals of the Enlightenment, and often had an apprehensive attitude towards Christianity at best.

Once again, you're making the same mistaken assumption that people often make about the citizens of the 13 colonies: that having a devout populace will motivate them to stand up against anyone who tries to take away their freedom. Unfortunately, we have much more evidence of such people using their piety as an excuse to take away the freedoms of others, and this is just as true today as it was then. Spend any amount of time with American fundamentalist Christians, and you'll quickly find out that they have absolutely no love for freedom, certainly not for anyone they disapprove of.

Is there a difference between "not having authority figures tell them what to do" and having the freedom to choose? The observation about the hunter is correct but he is still free to do as he pleases. It is also wildly simplified for a hypothetical. If there is a man, he likely has a family and a community he resides in. To assume his options are hunt or die is horribly narrow because in reality, there are far more factors at play.

There is a difference, because the choices we have available to us are often beyond the control of the individual, and by working together as a society we can expand the choices we have available to all of us; thus making us more free to do what we want.

The generally accepted American definition of freedom is the one that was held by thinkers such as Thomas Paine and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which generally holds that man is inherently free, and that it is only through society working to take away these freedoms (often termed "natural rights") that man becomes less free.

I am generally of the opposite view: I think that in a state of nature, man is generally not free, and that by working together to empower one another, we can become more free, because in the end, freedom is power, and from my perspective, America is not a country which is very good at empowering it's people.

 

[MadStan]

The author of the thread reminds me of myself some time ago on the subject of religion and its importance and the consequences of not adhering to it. Because religion is based on irrationality (and there are many things we do based on non-rational things which doesn't make it automatically bad) , there is no way to debate the subject of religion or it's implications unless rationality is used as a baseline.

But this is akin to asking a person to rationally explain why they find a Volvo better than an GMC - we aren't really able to use rationality on personal choices.

The author simply believes in an idea that is likely to find acceptance (surprisingly) by those who believe the same thing; but won't be able to forward a rational argument.

For me there is a little pleasure in watching a person flounder with their comments on the subject of pushing a particular religion; while at the same time a twang of dread, knowing that these beliefs are often the seed that breeds extreme violence in the name of God.

 

[gang weeder]

This isn't entirely thread relevant, but I wanted to point out that allowing trannies (and other freaks) to associate with one another and thereby organize is exactly what leads to them imposing their insanity on others. If you're unwilling to enforce your worldview then someone is inevitably going to enforce theirs on you.

That's a valid argument.

 

[Osmosis Jones]

The author of the thread reminds me of myself some time ago on the subject of religion and its importance and the consequences of not adhering to it. Because religion is based on irrationality (and there are many things we do based on non-rational things which doesn't make it automatically bad) , there is no way to debate the subject of religion or it's implications unless rationality is used as a baseline.

We don't need to discuss the rationality of a sky daddy to debate the morality of believing in something higher, and its implications for a freer society compared to what exists now.

But this is akin to asking a person to rationally explain why they find a Volvo better than an GMC - we aren't really able to use rationality on personal choices.

You can't rationally explain your preferences? If you're trying to say that you can't explain why you have preferences in the first place, we're broaching on a subject much more complex than the morality of Christianity and God. Rationality tells us that life is eat-fuck-die. There's no purpose to relationships, a better self, empowering others or anything else because it's all ephemeral and you can't explain why you do it. Everything is just because.

The author simply believes in an idea that is likely to find acceptance (surprisingly) by those who believe the same thing; but won't be able to forward a rational argument.

For me there is a little pleasure in watching a person flounder with their comments on the subject of pushing a particular religion; while at the same time a twang of dread, knowing that these beliefs are often the seed that breeds extreme violence in the name of God.

Your post is filled with assumptions and projections lol. You are correct that it is an idea likely to find acceptance but so far responses have gone pretty evenly in both directions, and I'm not doing it to find acceptance on the Autistic Thunderdome of the so-called Right Wing Hate Website.

 

[MadStan]

We don't need to discuss the rationality of a sky daddy to debate the morality of believing in something higher, and its implications for a freer society compared to what exists now.

You can't rationally explain your preferences? If you're trying to say that you can't explain why you have preferences in the first place, we're broaching on a subject much more complex than the morality of Christianity and God. Rationality tells us that life is eat-fuck-die. There's no purpose to relationships, a better self, empowering others or anything else because it's all ephemeral and you can't explain why you do it. Everything is just because.

Your post is filled with assumptions and projections lol. You are correct that it is an idea likely to find acceptance but so far responses have gone pretty evenly in both directions, and I'm not doing it to find acceptance on the Autistic Thunderdome of the so-called Right Wing Hate Website.

The subject is...subjective. We are not in discussion of facts, i.e. we aren't debating a calculation, equation, physical property of something, we are instead discussing a subject as abstract and personal as anything that can be.

A Volvo or GMC might be preferred based on tastes and interpretation, but this wouldn't have anything to do with facts.

The amazing premise of the author is that morality is tied to religion, whereas they are entirely mutually exclusive. Religion attempts to tie morality to it's teachings because it suits purposes.

It has long been debated that there must be a higher purpose to life, but this is only a concept an intelligent being is capable of conceptualizing. It is nice to think there is some higher purpose to life, but really this is a luxury of those animals with higher intelligence and the freedom to ponder such things. For the best part of life on Earth, the attainment of food, shelter and procreation gave us little if no time for anything else.

The reality is the purpose of life is the one that you give it; but few people are comfortable with being presented an open-ended option that gives them freedom of choice. And regardless of the purpose you give yourself in life, that is no guarantee the environment, circumstances or your own traits and opportunities will suffice to see you accomplish that.

In a society without language one would therefore have to assume (incorrectly) that humans are incapable of morality if the author keeps pushing the point of christian values being required for morality. But even in primitive species globally, there clearly is acceptable and unacceptable behavior to group survival and I do not see them handing out books to teach fellow Lions what is Ok and what is not. A vast number of animals require group cooperation and communication for survival and clearly rules are in place and even punishment by excommunication in some species exist.

Morality is exclusive of religion and the ultimate corruption of it is by association with religion.

 

[Latvophile]

It usually means you're thinking in a simplified or one sided way, or are thinking in a way removed from social norms. This poster is trying to say this thread is filled with autistic theoreticals and weird solutions.

The best way to understand autism as used on the forum is to read and see if it means "You need to go outside", "You're crazy", "You're a massive moron for your insane ramblings," or "This is a load of things no one but the most dedicated of thunkers would thunk about". Sometimes it is a complement, like being autistically detailed or driven, but that's usually what they mean. This post is autistic since I just sat down and explained a social norm to someone else.

I was just about to fill in the part at the end and you beat me to it, lol

 

[Moths]

Rationality tells us that life is eat-fuck-die. There's no purpose to relationships, a better self, empowering others or anything else because it's all ephemeral and you can't explain why you do it. Everything is just because.

Actually thats Instinct. Instict to reproduce, survive and to socially interact with one another is the reason why humanity will always form groups and communities because not only does it make your own survival more likely but your also more likely to meet a mate and reproduce. Just to add a point

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Without God you're left to the whims of others. Odds are murder will usually be unanimously deemed bad at minimum, but certainly not always, and it won't necessarily mean equal protection. See racism and abortion.

A truly, purely Atheistic society would at best begin nobly if for no other reason than to prove they're perfectly capable of not being barbarians just because they reject God. Of course, over time, with no unifying higher authority the inevitable rot of the human condition will set in.

A strict Christian theocracy focused entirely on Christ's teachings would yield the best results whether people like it or not. Even if I was an Atheist I'd want to live there, it's objectively good. The only people who would dislike it are the kinds of degenerates which such a theocracy would be established to protect the citizenry from.

 

[AMHOLIO]

A strict Christian theocracy focused entirely on Christ's teachings would yield the best results whether people like it or not. Even if I was an Atheist I'd want to live there, it's objectively good. The only people who would dislike it are the kinds of degenerates which such a theocracy would be established to protect the citizenry from.

I'd be worried about the interpretation problems. Scholars argue about what X or Y means for centuries, followed by the commonfolk.

 

[veri]

Without a god the entire moral system we have collapses. That's the biggest problem with atheism, if we are all soulless meat puppets then why should immorality matter? We should be greedy fuckers who fuck everything and everyone as long as we don't get caught.

so in order to respect other people and things you need some old book to do so? why are there devout christians who do the things you mentioned above?

morality is learned through life experience. for example i used to be against abortion until hearing thw stories of women who have had them and their reasons why. i changed my view cause i empathized with others and their situations instead of looking at the issue through my own situation.

maybe that’s why christians are so judgemental and unaccepting of other lifestyles. they’re raised with a rigid and by the books view of morality. why do you need to hear from daddy jeebus that violence is wrong? do you think humans are so animalistic that society would devolve into chaos without this book that some people deemed to be the absolute truth?

i fimd it fucking impossible to try to have any deep conversation with a hardcore christian. everything is because of god/a lack of god. if you had some life experience and took risks then you wouldn’t be stuck in a mindset that will never have any depth to it.

you learn lessons by fucking up and you pass those lessons down to your children. you’re going to hurt people in life and people are going to hurt you, you can learn from it and be a good person or you can end up being a lesson to someone else. i’ve been told not to do stupid shit but did it anyways, and learned from it. that’s life.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I'd be worried about the interpretation problems. Scholars argue about what X or Y means for centuries, followed by the commonfolk.

Even the worst interpretations can only be taken so far within reason. There's no real way to go "oh yeah jeduz saids to killeauh duh afeiststs and also rape wimin". Jesus is even considered a good man by people who merely view him as a historical figure, or lesser religious figure.

So, I think that's the least of the issues with a Christian theocracy.