Pages: 1 2 3

 

2009-08-29 11:06:46
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I do, until you provide proof of a poor and orderly atheist nation.
Maintaining order while everyone is doing well is one thing. Stagnate and decline for 50 years, that is the test of social mettle.
There are poor people in Japan, just as there are in every other country on earth.There are approximately 4 milllion people without a job. They have been in a decline for twenty years now and the society is as cohesive and ordered as ever. You take his quote as gospel and are not content to explore the reality that exists around you because you WANT to believe what he says is true. Simple as that. I'm sorry but I don't believe his patronising nonsense that religion/mass stupidity is necessary for social stability. The same man whose little empire crashed and burned in spectacular fashion. Newsflash: despite religion there have been more revolutions and total social upheavals in the history of man than you can shake a stick at. Poor people eventually revolt - no matter what nonsense is written in a dusty old book.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

and a clearly disturbed sexual culture, and one that can't maintain its population. I think there is definitely an argument for Japan not being "orderly", so long as you take the word to define more than not rioting on the streets, but I don't feel the need to go into that.
Guess what FM - all western developed nations have declining populations and are propped up by immigration and religion has nothing to do with that. And as far as a disturbed sexual culture I think you need to take a look at your own backyard. The home of the fake tit and pornography to cater for any fetish under the sun. It's fairly Hitlerian of you to dictate what is acceptable sexual practice for people - afaik child porn is illegal in Japan and they even censor penises. Consenting adults can do whatever the fuck they want as long as they're not hurting anyone else.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-29 11:21:28)

2009-08-29 11:14:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Here's how I see it.  Until a society mostly follows secular humanism, religion is necessary.

Many First World nations have made this transition (like the Czech Republic and Sweden), but until it occurs, people need some sort of moral guidance.  The government should not be an arbiter of this morality except in very basic terms (like having social programs, laws against libel, and various other laws against violent and property crime).  Beyond that, morality should be a personal thing.

The best way to maintain some sense of personal morality among most countries is to let people believe in whatever faiths they choose.  For those who do not follow a faith, we have reason and secular humanism to use as guides.
Doesn't humanism demand relative social equality though?

How would strict humanism fair under national crisis, be it militaristic, political, or natural?
I suppose that depends on how strictly people follow it.  Dogma is not a very adaptable or practical thing to indulge in, whether it is religious or secular in nature.

I think a certain amount of pragmatism is present in people's mindsets.  During a crisis, most people do tend to adapt accordingly, so that is why things like martial law are sometimes tolerated by the majority -- as is war.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

So how exactly do you foresee a society without a supreme being or eternal judgment operating effectively in context of the quotes?
You presume Napoleon's quote is some cast iron fact of life, some law written in stone. I don't. Japan has a majority population of atheists and it is one of the most advanced, structured, orderly nations on earth. QED
I do, until you provide proof of a poor and orderly atheist nation.

Maintaining order while everyone is doing well is one thing. Stagnate and decline for 50 years, that is the test of social mettle.
While it is true that China is rising economically and socially, they are still very poor in the grand scheme of things.  They are heavily atheist as well.  However, a lot of their people follow traditional religions, Buddhism, and the Falun Gong philosophy.

I guess China probably isn't the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

The only side effect is an elevated rate of suicide.
and a clearly disturbed sexual culture, and one that can't maintain its population. I think there is definitely an argument for Japan not being "orderly", so long as you take the word to define more than not rioting on the streets, but I don't feel the need to go into that.
That's mostly a cultural thing for Japan.  The origins of their sexual idiosyncracies and suicidal tendencies can be traced back to times when religion was still prevalent there.

I suppose a side argument to what Poe is saying is that if you have certain cultural mores in place, you can have order without religion.  Culture isn't exactly the same thing as reason or pure secularism, but it is similar.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-08-29 11:15:08)

2009-08-29 11:16:41
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Turquoise wrote:

I guess China probably isn't the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment.
I've been to China and I can tell you that, without a shadow of a doubt, it is the most ordered nation I have ever visited.
2009-08-29 11:21:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I guess China probably isn't the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment.
I've been to China and I can tell you that, without a shadow of a doubt, it is the most ordered nation I have ever visited.
I wouldn't doubt it...  Still, I guess Flaming's defense here is that China is rising in an economic sense.  If they were declining, they probably would become more religious as a result.

I actually agree with Flaming for the most part on his view of religion and society.  Religion serves well as a comforting factor for those unable to cope with the troubles of life.  It really is a necessary thing for populations that do not already have a strict cultural sense of order, prosperity, and a high level of education.
2009-08-29 11:23:58
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Turquoise wrote:

I wouldn't doubt it...  Still, I guess Flaming's defense here is that China is rising in an economic sense.  If they were declining, they probably would become more religious as a result.

I actually agree with Flaming for the most part on his view of religion and society.  Religion serves well as a comforting factor for those unable to cope with the troubles of life.  It really is a necessary thing for populations that do not already have a strict cultural sense of order, prosperity, and a high level of education.
Yes but my argument is that Napoleon's quote is null and void in the context of the fact that many nations, including my own and yours, already have a strict sense of order/civil conduct/etc. as you mentioned. We can dispense with the bullshit now, delusions are not strictly necessary but they are there for anyone too weak and feeble to cope with reality. Napoleon's comments are not borne out in reality either - both you and I know that God or no God people will rebel if they feel jipped (France 1789?).

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-29 11:26:14)

2009-08-29 11:28:49
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

There are poor people in Japan, just as there are in every other country on earth.
Duh, but the number is relatively small.

CameronPoe wrote:

They have been in a decline for twenty years now and the society is as cohesive and ordered as ever.
Source? Because I am apparently under a very wrong impression.

CameronPoe wrote:

You take his quote as gospel and are not content to explore the reality that exists around you because you WANT to believe what he says is true. Simple as that.
Why would I want to believe what he says is true?

From all the evidence that I see, it is true. It is a shitty situation.

CameronPoe wrote:

Guess what FM - all western developed nations have declining populations and are propped up by immigration and religion has nothing to do with that.
...no?

For all of these take the birth rate - death rate for a population growth rate minus immigration. Correct? These are just the first 6 I found, in the order I found them.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/us.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/ei.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/uk.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/gm.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/fr.html

and of course, for comparison

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/ja.html

Germany is the only other one than Japan that has a birth/death rate less than one.

CameronPoe wrote:

And as far as a disturbed sexual culture I think you need to take a look at your own backyard. The home of the fake tit and pornography to cater for any fetish under the sun. It's fairly Hitlerian of you to dictate what is acceptable sexual practice for people - afaik child porn is illegal in Japan and they even censor penises.
I mean in terms of not being able to maintain its population due to their marital disposition.
2009-08-29 11:30:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I wouldn't doubt it...  Still, I guess Flaming's defense here is that China is rising in an economic sense.  If they were declining, they probably would become more religious as a result.

I actually agree with Flaming for the most part on his view of religion and society.  Religion serves well as a comforting factor for those unable to cope with the troubles of life.  It really is a necessary thing for populations that do not already have a strict cultural sense of order, prosperity, and a high level of education.
Yes but my argument is that Napoleon's quote is null and void in the context of the fact that many nations, including my own and yours, already have a strict sense of order/civil conduct/etc. as you mentioned. We can dispense with the bullshit now, delusions are not strictly necessary but they are there for anyone too weak and feeble to cope with reality. Napoleon's comments are not borne out in reality either - both you and I know that God or no God people will rebel if they feel jipped (France 1789?).
I think what Napoleon said is true for poorer nations, but I would agree with you that wealthier nations should evolve past religion.
2009-08-29 11:32:53
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Turquoise wrote:

I think what Napoleon said is true for poorer nations, but I would agree with you that wealthier nations should evolve past religion.
That's probably true - you could probably plot a chart of religious devotion versus GDP that slopes downward linearly before plateauing at an asymptote.
2009-08-29 11:44:08
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Duh, but the number is relatively small.
Yeah, 4 MILLION in a nation of 66 million is a small number of unemployed people. Riiiight. Shouldn't they be tearing the place up right now according to Napoleon's prophecy? Basically Napoleon didn't account for something that probably didn't exist when he was around: socialised unemployment benefit payments. And let's look at staunchly Catholic South America - not exactly a paragon of social stability. God ain't telling them not to vote for hardliner lefties, not to engage in military coups and not to stage mass rallies and protests.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Source? Because I am apparently under a very wrong impression.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/30-second- … e_id=53611

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why would I want to believe what he says is true?
Because it panders to some predisposition you might have probably.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

From all the evidence that I see, it is true. It is a shitty situation.
Except the nation of Japan that you appear to be ignoring for some unknown reason.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

For all of these take the birth rate - death rate for a population growth rate minus immigration. Correct? These are just the first 6 I found, in the order I found them.

Germany is the only other one than Japan that has a birth/death rate less than one.
I am incorrect but the trend is that the more prosperous a nation becomes the less children they tend to have, and they tend to have them later in life. It has nothing to do with religion. Italy is one of the mostly religious nations on earth and it has a population growth rate of -0.05%. Incidentally none of the developed nations of the world fall in the Top 100 population growth rates.


Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I mean in terms of not being able to maintain its population due to their marital disposition.
I'm an atheist and I plan on getting married someday. You think atheists don't want to raise families or something????

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-29 13:01:42)

2009-08-29 12:11:20
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6733|The Land of Scott Walker

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I guess China probably isn't the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment.
I've been to China and I can tell you that, without a shadow of a doubt, it is the most ordered nation I have ever visited.
Ah yes ordered ... along with the violent suppression of religion. 
2009-08-29 12:12:11
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I guess China probably isn't the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment.
I've been to China and I can tell you that, without a shadow of a doubt, it is the most ordered nation I have ever visited.
Ah yes ordered ... along with the violent suppression of religion. 
True...  what the Chinese government has done to the Falun Gong is especially despicable.
2009-08-29 12:12:51
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Stingray24 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I guess China probably isn't the best example, but it's all I can think of at the moment.
I've been to China and I can tell you that, without a shadow of a doubt, it is the most ordered nation I have ever visited.
Ah yes ordered ... along with the violent suppression of religion. 
Suppression of Falun Gong yes, suppression of buddhism, christianity, islam no. There's a huge Christian Cathedral just a couple of blocks from the Forbidden City which struck me as surprising when I visited. Didn't expect to see one.

http://www.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8& … h&z=19

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-29 12:18:02)

2009-08-29 13:39:59
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6869|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares "God wills it thus." Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." -Napoleon Bonaparte

“Only man is not content to leave things as they are but must always be changing them, and when he has done so, is seldom satisfied with the result.” - Elspeth Huxley

A couple solutions to the first question are simple - you don't let anyone starve or you maintain a state religion. How can you reconcile the first quote with the second?

Obviously having a state religion is one option, but there are too many atheists here for this not to be a lot of fun.

I realize there can be religion without a theocracy, it is just a title.
Good quotes, though in much of the world Napoleon's is quite outdated. Once a society reaches a certain level of development religion becomes inconsequential in terms of maintaining order.

A very solid example to the contrary would be Japan, not the prosperous Japan of today, but Japan in the 50's. A well ordered, well run, destitute state with little to no dependence on religion.

The same example could be given for much of Europe in the 50's. Crippled by war, economies in ruin, religion in massive decline.

Taking that into account I think there should be a 3rd option of having a strong government. Because it is clear there have been instances where religion was not a big factor, where states were on the brink of economic ruin and yet continued to run in a well ordered manner and once again rose up to number amongst the most powerful economies in the world - Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy and France are all solid examples of this (Japan and Germany in particular).

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...no?

For all of these take the birth rate - death rate for a population growth rate minus immigration. Correct? These are just the first 6 I found, in the order I found them.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/us.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/ei.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/uk.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/gm.html

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/fr.html

and of course, for comparison

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication … os/ja.html

Germany is the only other one than Japan that has a birth/death rate less than one.
And; Italy, Spain, Belguim, Austria, Sweden....

the list goes on and on. You need to look at bigger sample groups.
2009-08-29 14:49:08
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Duh, but the number is relatively small.
Yeah, 4 MILLION in a nation of 66 million is a small number of unemployed people. Riiiight. Shouldn't they be tearing the place up right now according to Napoleon's prophecy? Basically Napoleon didn't account for something that probably didn't exist when he was around: socialised unemployment benefit payments. And let's look at staunchly Catholic South America - not exactly a paragon of social stability. God ain't telling them not to vote for hardliner lefties, not to engage in military coups and not to stage mass rallies and protests.
...yeah, it is. People whine and complain about any sort of downturn or misfortune, but in the bigger sense of things that is small peanuts.

Unemployment benefits soften everything, because it is essentially a way to force the man that is eating to give the man that is starving a share. That doesn't mean when everyone runs out of food things are dandy.

South America is along those lines - if things are really shit, no religion can keep people in line, but it is an extremely effective tool up to that point. How you can deny that, I don't understand. It is as if your personal beliefs prohibit you from seeing any benefit whatsoever in the public sense.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Source? Because I am apparently under a very wrong impression.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/30-second- … e_id=53611
You have got to be kidding me.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Why would I want to believe what he says is true?
Because it panders to some predisposition you might have probably.
So why would I want to believe that people are shit?

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

From all the evidence that I see, it is true. It is a shitty situation.
Except the nation of Japan that you appear to be ignoring for some unknown reason.
...

If I stop responding to a point, fine. You ignoring my valid response in order to say I'm ignoring you...wow.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

For all of these take the birth rate - death rate for a population growth rate minus immigration. Correct? These are just the first 6 I found, in the order I found them.

Germany is the only other one than Japan that has a birth/death rate less than one.
I am incorrect but the trend is that the more prosperous a nation becomes the less children they tend to have, and they tend to have them later in life. It has nothing to do with religion. Italy is one of the mostly religious nations on earth and it has a population growth rate of -0.05%. Incidentally none of the developed nations of the world fall in the Top 100 population growth rates.
I didn't say it did have to do with religion. The point is a society that cannot maintain its population and culture cannot be considered stable - Japan fails the former test. I am looking for how one could create a content nation that passes these tests without religion.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I mean in terms of not being able to maintain its population due to their marital disposition.
I'm an atheist and I plan on getting married someday. You think atheists don't want to raise families or something????
No, but their low birth rate even compared to other modernized nations is largely due to their sexual culture. The idea that a man can have sex with whomever he wants so long as he loves only one woman fucks up domestic population growth, and is causing pretty serious problems in their society.  It is not "wrong", it just creates a different problem set that can be just as difficult to deal with as other religion related issues.
2009-08-29 14:56:06
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

Bertster7 wrote:

Good quotes, though in much of the world Napoleon's is quite outdated. Once a society reaches a certain level of development religion becomes inconsequential in terms of maintaining order.
Does it? Don't people grow soft as they take for granted all the conveniences of modern society, raising expectations in line with improvements?

How do you feel about the example of the U.S. political parties I talked about above?

Bertster7 wrote:

A very solid example to the contrary would be Japan, not the prosperous Japan of today, but Japan in the 50's. A well ordered, well run, destitute state with little to no dependence on religion.

The same example could be given for much of Europe in the 50's. Crippled by war, economies in ruin, religion in massive decline.
Those are both societies experiencing some intense growth after being war-torn. I think the slope of the line for standard of living over time is much more important than the actual level of standard of living as far as population happiness.

Berster7 wrote:

Taking that into account I think there should be a 3rd option of having a strong government. Because it is clear there have been instances where religion was not a big factor, where states were on the brink of economic ruin and yet continued to run in a well ordered manner and once again rose up to number amongst the most powerful economies in the world - Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy and France are all solid examples of this (Japan and Germany in particular).
How influential do you think the government itself was in those instances?

Berster7 wrote:

And; Italy, Spain, Belguim, Austria, Sweden....

the list goes on and on. You need to look at bigger sample groups.
I do realize I didn't look at very many, but I tried to look at some of the biggest/most pertinent nations. Apart from that I talked more about how that is not necessarily the point in my reply to CP.
2009-08-29 16:03:28
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...yeah, it is. People whine and complain about any sort of downturn or misfortune, but in the bigger sense of things that is small peanuts.

Unemployment benefits soften everything, because it is essentially a way to force the man that is eating to give the man that is starving a share. That doesn't mean when everyone runs out of food things are dandy.

South America is along those lines - if things are really shit, no religion can keep people in line, but it is an extremely effective tool up to that point. How you can deny that, I don't understand. It is as if your personal beliefs prohibit you from seeing any benefit whatsoever in the public sense.
You just keep moving the goalposts then. Japan trumps your argument and any logical reasonable person will recognise that. Since WWII that nation has rebuilt and become an international powerhouse and paragon of stability. 'If things are really shit, no religion can keep people in line' - so essentially Napoleon was full of shit by your own admission. I recognise that religion grew up around a need to temper peoples individual desires in the interests of creating a society. I also recognise that it does dumb down the masses as Napoleon suggests. Strictly speaking Napoleon is blatantly incorrect when he speaks of nations not functioning without religion, as witnessed in the likes of ex-communist nations, Japan and a Europe that is fast ditching religion en masse. If any nation fails it will have little or nothing to do with bullshit fairytales.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have got to be kidding me.
Erm. No. Try reading anything to do with the Japanese economy. Or stick your head in the sand, whichever.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...
If I stop responding to a point, fine. You ignoring my valid response in order to say I'm ignoring you...wow.
Valid response? 'Japanese people have strange sexual tastes ergo Napoleons comment about nations not functioning without religion holds'. What a laugh.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say it did have to do with religion. The point is a society that cannot maintain its population and culture cannot be considered stable - Japan fails the former test. I am looking for how one could create a content nation that passes these tests without religion.
Ludicrous. When Japan 'fails' then send me an email on it. Plenty of content people that don't need an emotional crutch. If Japan as a nation fails it won't have a single thing to do with religion. There is little or no correlation between religion and birthrate, as I pointed out with Italy. Sweden has 4% attendance at church - you gonna tell me they are unstable too? Take a reality check.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, but their low birth rate even compared to other modernized nations is largely due to their sexual culture. The idea that a man can have sex with whomever he wants so long as he loves only one woman fucks up domestic population growth, and is causing pretty serious problems in their society.  It is not "wrong", it just creates a different problem set that can be just as difficult to deal with as other religion related issues.
What are you a sex therapist or something? How do you begin to make such an extrapolation? Do you know any Japanese people? Are you telling me Japan is polygamous or something, because one of my buddies would be intrigued to hear about that given the fact he has a Japanese gf? What is your source/though process in coming to the logical conclusion that their sexual culture is stunting population growth?

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-08-29 16:30:18)

2009-08-29 21:13:56
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...yeah, it is. People whine and complain about any sort of downturn or misfortune, but in the bigger sense of things that is small peanuts.

Unemployment benefits soften everything, because it is essentially a way to force the man that is eating to give the man that is starving a share. That doesn't mean when everyone runs out of food things are dandy.

South America is along those lines - if things are really shit, no religion can keep people in line, but it is an extremely effective tool up to that point. How you can deny that, I don't understand. It is as if your personal beliefs prohibit you from seeing any benefit whatsoever in the public sense.
You just keep moving the goalposts then. Japan trumps your argument and any logical reasonable person will recognise that. Since WWII that nation has rebuilt and become an international powerhouse and paragon of stability.
The goalpost is a stable nation. Not a nation that does well for 50 years, a nation that survives for 500 years.

You spill some blood, you make a few good speeches, you have a nation that stands for 100 years. It is pointless to be arguing about such short terms. I am trying to talk about a nation that can stand for hundreds of years, because at its core the culture is built to last.

CameronPoe wrote:

'If things are really shit, no religion can keep people in line' - so essentially Napoleon was full of shit by your own admission.
Religion cannot stave off anarchy, it is ridiculous to assume it can. There is an awful lot between stable society and anarchy where religion plays quite the role.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have got to be kidding me.
Erm. No. Try reading anything to do with the Japanese economy. Or stick your head in the sand, whichever.
Your source has headings that are aimed at a 12 year old, is half a page long, and start with "The Daily Mail City team explains Japan's deflation problem, where prices are falling." I am pretty damn sure I have seen you bashing the Daily Mail here before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

From the wiki article and the citations it looks to me like there was the "lost decade" we have been hearing so much about lately, and then recently things haven't been going so well because of the global economy. They seem to have one of the strongest economies in the world. I don't really understand where you're coming from.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...
If I stop responding to a point, fine. You ignoring my valid response in order to say I'm ignoring you...wow.
Valid response? 'Japanese people have strange sexual tastes ergo Napoleons comment about nations not functioning without religion holds'. What a laugh.
Japan is not a stable nation, ergo Napoleon's comment about nations not being orderly without religion holds.

Japan is not a stable nation because of its aging population. Either their baby-making culture must change to accommodate this, or they must introduce immigrants and their culture to the state.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say it did have to do with religion. The point is a society that cannot maintain its population and culture cannot be considered stable - Japan fails the former test. I am looking for how one could create a content nation that passes these tests without religion.
Ludicrous. When Japan 'fails' then send me an email on it. Plenty of content people that don't need an emotional crutch. If Japan as a nation fails it won't have a single thing to do with religion. There is little or no correlation between religion and birthrate, as I pointed out with Italy. Sweden has 4% attendance at church - you gonna tell me they are unstable too? Take a reality check.
It fails a test, I did not say the nation would fail. I don't understand how you could have possibly misread that.

I have never said there is a correlation between religion and birthrate. The point is a country cannot be judged until it has a stable birthrate, no matter how the culture that gets it there is formed. There are plenty of natalist dictators.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, but their low birth rate even compared to other modernized nations is largely due to their sexual culture. The idea that a man can have sex with whomever he wants so long as he loves only one woman fucks up domestic population growth, and is causing pretty serious problems in their society.  It is not "wrong", it just creates a different problem set that can be just as difficult to deal with as other religion related issues.
What are you a sex therapist or something? How do you begin to make such an extrapolation? Do you know any Japanese people? Are you telling me Japan is polygamous or something, because one of my buddies would be intrigued to hear about that given the fact he has a Japanese gf? What is your source/though process in coming to the logical conclusion that their sexual culture is stunting population growth?
I watched a show on it on the Discovery Channel. It was pretty interesting, it was talking about why there is so much porn/prostitution coming out of Japan, "love hotels" that are used by even married men, how marriage is viewed in that culture, etc. It seems to make sense to me, considering the stereotype, the extensive pornography, and the birth rate.
2009-08-30 00:00:20
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7002|US
FM, are you referring to religion as solely a social tool to be used by conservative tyrants?
It seems that way.  I'm not saying it hasn't been used that way, but that's like looking at the stock market and saying it is only a tool for stock traders to make a living--it doesn't cover the whole story (or even come anywhere close).
2009-08-30 04:32:47
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6869|SE London

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Good quotes, though in much of the world Napoleon's is quite outdated. Once a society reaches a certain level of development religion becomes inconsequential in terms of maintaining order.
Does it? Don't people grow soft as they take for granted all the conveniences of modern society, raising expectations in line with improvements?

How do you feel about the example of the U.S. political parties I talked about above?
People do grow soft as they take this stuff for granted, religion plays no part in that.

Can't say I really care about isolated incidents in the US, which tends to be quite anomalous anyway.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

A very solid example to the contrary would be Japan, not the prosperous Japan of today, but Japan in the 50's. A well ordered, well run, destitute state with little to no dependence on religion.

The same example could be given for much of Europe in the 50's. Crippled by war, economies in ruin, religion in massive decline.
Those are both societies experiencing some intense growth after being war-torn. I think the slope of the line for standard of living over time is much more important than the actual level of standard of living as far as population happiness.
So how many years does it take someone to become unhappy and revolt? How can the population tell what is around the corner? Japans economic recovery is usually called miraculous, it would not have been predictable early on. All of these countries had extremely restrictive levels of rationing in place.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Taking that into account I think there should be a 3rd option of having a strong government. Because it is clear there have been instances where religion was not a big factor, where states were on the brink of economic ruin and yet continued to run in a well ordered manner and once again rose up to number amongst the most powerful economies in the world - Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy and France are all solid examples of this (Japan and Germany in particular).
How influential do you think the government itself was in those instances?
Extremely. Taking Britain as an example, massive rationing was put in place. About 3 quarters of the navy was scrapped to save costs, all other military spending was slashed (from pre-war levels, obviously it was slashed compared to wartime spending). Massive nationalisation of everything solved all sorts of problems. Atlee's government was probably the most effective and influential in British history.

Germany, Italy and France were much the same (and Spain under Franco was in a right mess) and Japan (though you could argue, quite reasonably, that order in Japan was maintained through US occupation).

In modern society strong government takes the reins from religion.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

And; Italy, Spain, Belguim, Austria, Sweden....

the list goes on and on. You need to look at bigger sample groups.
I do realize I didn't look at very many, but I tried to look at some of the biggest/most pertinent nations. Apart from that I talked more about how that is not necessarily the point in my reply to CP.
But you didn't really look at the biggest and most pertinent nations. Taking France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the UK as examples (the big players in the EU) France and the UK have birth/death rates that are essentially flat and the others are all in decline - as well as Japan.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You presume Napoleon's quote is some cast iron fact of life, some law written in stone. I don't.
I do, until you provide proof of a poor and orderly atheist nation.
Where is your proof of poor and orderly religious nations?

Especially since you don't consider Japan (one of the most orderly nations in the world) to be orderly. Holding to that standard, what is a poor, orderly, religious nation?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-08-30 04:38:10)

2009-08-30 05:01:36
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6843

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...yeah, it is. People whine and complain about any sort of downturn or misfortune, but in the bigger sense of things that is small peanuts.

Unemployment benefits soften everything, because it is essentially a way to force the man that is eating to give the man that is starving a share. That doesn't mean when everyone runs out of food things are dandy.

South America is along those lines - if things are really shit, no religion can keep people in line, but it is an extremely effective tool up to that point. How you can deny that, I don't understand. It is as if your personal beliefs prohibit you from seeing any benefit whatsoever in the public sense.
You just keep moving the goalposts then. Japan trumps your argument and any logical reasonable person will recognise that. Since WWII that nation has rebuilt and become an international powerhouse and paragon of stability.
The goalpost is a stable nation. Not a nation that does well for 50 years, a nation that survives for 500 years.

You spill some blood, you make a few good speeches, you have a nation that stands for 100 years. It is pointless to be arguing about such short terms. I am trying to talk about a nation that can stand for hundreds of years, because at its core the culture is built to last.

CameronPoe wrote:

'If things are really shit, no religion can keep people in line' - so essentially Napoleon was full of shit by your own admission.
Religion cannot stave off anarchy, it is ridiculous to assume it can. There is an awful lot between stable society and anarchy where religion plays quite the role.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You have got to be kidding me.
Erm. No. Try reading anything to do with the Japanese economy. Or stick your head in the sand, whichever.
Your source has headings that are aimed at a 12 year old, is half a page long, and start with "The Daily Mail City team explains Japan's deflation problem, where prices are falling." I am pretty damn sure I have seen you bashing the Daily Mail here before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Japan

From the wiki article and the citations it looks to me like there was the "lost decade" we have been hearing so much about lately, and then recently things haven't been going so well because of the global economy. They seem to have one of the strongest economies in the world. I don't really understand where you're coming from.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

...
If I stop responding to a point, fine. You ignoring my valid response in order to say I'm ignoring you...wow.
Valid response? 'Japanese people have strange sexual tastes ergo Napoleons comment about nations not functioning without religion holds'. What a laugh.
Japan is not a stable nation, ergo Napoleon's comment about nations not being orderly without religion holds.

Japan is not a stable nation because of its aging population. Either their baby-making culture must change to accommodate this, or they must introduce immigrants and their culture to the state.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say it did have to do with religion. The point is a society that cannot maintain its population and culture cannot be considered stable - Japan fails the former test. I am looking for how one could create a content nation that passes these tests without religion.
Ludicrous. When Japan 'fails' then send me an email on it. Plenty of content people that don't need an emotional crutch. If Japan as a nation fails it won't have a single thing to do with religion. There is little or no correlation between religion and birthrate, as I pointed out with Italy. Sweden has 4% attendance at church - you gonna tell me they are unstable too? Take a reality check.
It fails a test, I did not say the nation would fail. I don't understand how you could have possibly misread that.

I have never said there is a correlation between religion and birthrate. The point is a country cannot be judged until it has a stable birthrate, no matter how the culture that gets it there is formed. There are plenty of natalist dictators.

CameronPoe wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No, but their low birth rate even compared to other modernized nations is largely due to their sexual culture. The idea that a man can have sex with whomever he wants so long as he loves only one woman fucks up domestic population growth, and is causing pretty serious problems in their society.  It is not "wrong", it just creates a different problem set that can be just as difficult to deal with as other religion related issues.
What are you a sex therapist or something? How do you begin to make such an extrapolation? Do you know any Japanese people? Are you telling me Japan is polygamous or something, because one of my buddies would be intrigued to hear about that given the fact he has a Japanese gf? What is your source/though process in coming to the logical conclusion that their sexual culture is stunting population growth?
I watched a show on it on the Discovery Channel. It was pretty interesting, it was talking about why there is so much porn/prostitution coming out of Japan, "love hotels" that are used by even married men, how marriage is viewed in that culture, etc. It seems to make sense to me, considering the stereotype, the extensive pornography, and the birth rate.
FM - there really is not point debating with someone who thinks that Japan is not a stable nation. Your head is in the clouds. Good day.
2009-08-30 06:33:39
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX
Multiple countries have order without religion, and many religions don't assume god-given destiny is unchangeable.
So I don't agree with the first statment at all.

The problem really is states will tend to evolve towards religious states.
Its very hard for a disorganised mass of people to react against a religious group who are organised and believe they have a god-given right to take over a country, and neighbouring countries, and dictate to everyone else what they should do.

Once they religious nutballs are in its next to impossible to shift them out.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-08-30 06:35:06)

Fuck Israel
2009-08-30 11:06:21
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6994|67.222.138.85

RAIMIUS wrote:

FM, are you referring to religion as solely a social tool to be used by conservative tyrants?
It seems that way.  I'm not saying it hasn't been used that way, but that's like looking at the stock market and saying it is only a tool for stock traders to make a living--it doesn't cover the whole story (or even come anywhere close).
I am referring to religion as a social tool to be used by anyone for the purposes of this thread.

Bertster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Good quotes, though in much of the world Napoleon's is quite outdated. Once a society reaches a certain level of development religion becomes inconsequential in terms of maintaining order.
Does it? Don't people grow soft as they take for granted all the conveniences of modern society, raising expectations in line with improvements?

How do you feel about the example of the U.S. political parties I talked about above?
People do grow soft as they take this stuff for granted, religion plays no part in that.

Can't say I really care about isolated incidents in the US, which tends to be quite anomalous anyway.
I am not saying it does, but religion can help deal with the ramifications of such, that is the idea of the thread.

The Bible Belt is an isolated incident?

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

A very solid example to the contrary would be Japan, not the prosperous Japan of today, but Japan in the 50's. A well ordered, well run, destitute state with little to no dependence on religion.

The same example could be given for much of Europe in the 50's. Crippled by war, economies in ruin, religion in massive decline.
Those are both societies experiencing some intense growth after being war-torn. I think the slope of the line for standard of living over time is much more important than the actual level of standard of living as far as population happiness.
So how many years does it take someone to become unhappy and revolt? How can the population tell what is around the corner? Japans economic recovery is usually called miraculous, it would not have been predictable early on. All of these countries had extremely restrictive levels of rationing in place.
The period of time was absolutely tiny. As I told CameronPoe, 500 years not 50 years.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

Taking that into account I think there should be a 3rd option of having a strong government. Because it is clear there have been instances where religion was not a big factor, where states were on the brink of economic ruin and yet continued to run in a well ordered manner and once again rose up to number amongst the most powerful economies in the world - Japan, Germany, Britain, Italy and France are all solid examples of this (Japan and Germany in particular).
How influential do you think the government itself was in those instances?
Extremely. Taking Britain as an example, massive rationing was put in place. About 3 quarters of the navy was scrapped to save costs, all other military spending was slashed (from pre-war levels, obviously it was slashed compared to wartime spending). Massive nationalisation of everything solved all sorts of problems. Atlee's government was probably the most effective and influential in British history.

Germany, Italy and France were much the same (and Spain under Franco was in a right mess) and Japan (though you could argue, quite reasonably, that order in Japan was maintained through US occupation).

In modern society strong government takes the reins from religion.
Rationing does the opposite of maintaining order though...the government may have had other, effective strategies to hold order in a time of crisis, but rationing is nothing but a demoralizing necessary evil.

Nationalism? Propaganda?

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Berster7 wrote:

And; Italy, Spain, Belguim, Austria, Sweden....

the list goes on and on. You need to look at bigger sample groups.
I do realize I didn't look at very many, but I tried to look at some of the biggest/most pertinent nations. Apart from that I talked more about how that is not necessarily the point in my reply to CP.
But you didn't really look at the biggest and most pertinent nations. Taking France, Germany, Spain, Italy and the UK as examples (the big players in the EU) France and the UK have birth/death rates that are essentially flat and the others are all in decline - as well as Japan.
The important players in the EU were not the most important from my perspective. I tried to pick the first economic powerhouses I could think of, and Ireland for CP's sake. If anything I would pick the G8, and looking at that it is split down the middle.

By the way, France isn't even close. I think GB is close largely because they have a similar space problem as Japan. Silly people living on an island.

Berster7 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

You presume Napoleon's quote is some cast iron fact of life, some law written in stone. I don't.
I do, until you provide proof of a poor and orderly atheist nation.
Where is your proof of poor and orderly religious nations?
Aztecs.

You can pick a lot more on your own now that I think you have a different mindset.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The problem really is states will tend to evolve towards religious states.
Its very hard for a disorganised mass of people to react against a religious group who are organised and believe they have a god-given right to take over a country, and neighbouring countries, and dictate to everyone else what they should do.
Really? What about the overall increasing number of atheists?

If there is a stable atheist nation, should they actively work against theistic immigrants?
2009-08-30 12:29:44
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If there is a stable atheist nation, should they actively work against theistic immigrants?
Limiting immigration because of cultural concerns isn't such a bad idea, IMHO.
2009-08-30 12:56:10
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|7063|Moscow, Russia

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If there is a stable atheist nation, should they actively work against theistic immigrants?
Limiting immigration because of cultural concerns isn't such a bad idea, IMHO.
yeah, it's actual implementation of that idea that's gonna give ya trouble.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2009-08-30 13:00:20
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6692|North Carolina

Shahter wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

If there is a stable atheist nation, should they actively work against theistic immigrants?
Limiting immigration because of cultural concerns isn't such a bad idea, IMHO.
yeah, it's actual implementation of that idea that's gonna give ya trouble.
True.  You usually get labeled as a racist, and sometimes there are uprisings.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard