NationStates Jolt Archive

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-08-faith-edit_x.htm) about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...

Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Roman Catholic Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)

Fifteen countries, "mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history," according to the U.N.'s World Population Prospects 2004 revision.

As children grow scarce and longevity increases in Europe, the continent is becoming one vast Leisure World. By 2050, the U.N. projects, more than 40% of the people in Italy will be 60 or older. By mid-century, populations in 25 European nations will be lower than they are now; Russia will lose 31 million people, Italy 7.2 million, Poland 6.6 million and Germany 3.9 million. So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse - the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America? ...

It again looks like Europe will be a mostly Muslim continent within three generations (my estimations, nothing to do with the opinion piece). Only 14% (or so) of Europe is now Muslim, but give it some time. The Islam followers are growing and keeping their collective religiosity segments intact (when compared to the rest of the Europeans anyway), whilst the rest of the continent, the culture we think of as Western, is about to commit collective suicide (if the UN predictions are correct about population decline by 2050 in Europe - see link below). That may not, in the end, be a bad thing. Perhaps this deserves no other attention from us other than for us to reminisce and then say a hearty, good riddance. And a big welcome to what will hopefully be a moderately secular Muslim society of the future.

World Population Prospects The 2004 Revision (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf) (.pdf warning)

Maybe Asia should send Christian missionaries to eastern Europe now instead of waiting? :p

Er...never heard of the moors? Islam already had a huge influence on "European Culture" (not that there actually is such a thing)

Er...never heard of the moors? Islam already had a huge influence on "European Culture" (not that there actually is such a thing)
Now don't you go destroying all his hopes and beliefs :p

European culture is, justifiably, the paragon of excellence for the world, and it is somewhat assinine to assume that populace will remain apathetic in the face of Muslim immigration. British politics is currently in a transient period towards the right, and it would be reasonable to therefore assume nationalist sentiment will be accordingly resurgent, and a consequential suppression of alien influences ought to occur.

Er...never heard of the moors? Islam already had a huge influence on "European Culture" (not that there actually is such a thing)

I think the point is that we are supposed to go "oh, noooes, Islam!" and "Christianity, which for some inexplicable reason would be better than Islam, somehow would cause the birthrates to go up again, it would!"

Meh.

The interesting thing about this demographic trend is that most 2nd generation Muslims adapt suffciently to the European culture to imitate the birth rate as shown by the indigenous population.... only the first generation of imigrants actually has that many children.

No culture can remain stagnant. And if that means that Europe's new religion will be Islam, well, it can't get much worse than it was under Chrisitanity at times.

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-08-faith-edit_x.htm) about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...

Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Roman Catholic Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)

Fifteen countries, "mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history," according to the U.N.'s World Population Prospects 2004 revision.

As children grow scarce and longevity increases in Europe, the continent is becoming one vast Leisure World. By 2050, the U.N. projects, more than 40% of the people in Italy will be 60 or older. By mid-century, populations in 25 European nations will be lower than they are now; Russia will lose 31 million people, Italy 7.2 million, Poland 6.6 million and Germany 3.9 million. So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse - the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America? ...

It again looks like Europe will be a mostly Muslim continent within three generations (my estimations, nothing to do with the opinion piece). Only 14% (or so) of Europe is now Muslim, but give it some time. The Islam followers are growing and keeping their collective religiosity segments intact (when compared to the rest of the Europeans anyway), whilst the rest of the continent, the culture we think of as Western, is about to commit collective suicide (if the UN predictions are correct about population decline by 2050 in Europe - see link below). That may not, in the end, be a bad thing. Perhaps this deserves no other attention from us other than for us to reminisce and then say a hearty, good riddance. And a big welcome to what will hopefully be a moderately secular Muslim society of the future.

World Population Prospects The 2004 Revision (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf)

Maybe Asia should send Christian missionaries to eastern Europe now instead of waiting? :p

In other words you mean that etnich europeans, or whites as we'r called are gonna die out. yeah I know, we are not making enough childred. And the imigrants from non european countryes are doing it like rabbits:p

Well, yeah...
If things go at this rate, well as I am an etnich white european, but not a chiristan one[guess where,*cough**balkans**cough*] i guess its kind of wiered that the continent i am from will not be inhabbited by people that don't look a bit like me...
Hope that didn't sound to racist, but hell, if we are not making enough children, thats our own foult not the non-whites foult..

If we wont to die out, fine, but its still kind of strange

Er...never heard of the moors? Islam already had a huge influence on "European Culture" (not that there actually is such a thing)


Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore :p


No, you miss the point. Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.

Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore :p
Who said anything about raising an army to defeat an intruder in Spain? :confused:

The interesting thing about this demographic trend is that most 2nd generation Muslims adapt suffciently to the European culture to imitate the birth rate as shown by the indigenous population.... only the first generation of imigrants actually has that many children.

No culture can remain stagnant. And if that means that Europe's new religion will be Islam, well, it can't get much worse than it was under Chrisitanity at times.

That's not entirely true. You may have some examples in your head, but the bulk of the unemployed Muslim generation in France now, for example, is already half way between the 2nd and 3rd generation.. And we all know how well 'integrated' they are there.

Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore :p

No, he's saying that the European culture already has Islamic influences.


No, you miss the point. Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.

There are as many drop-out from Islam as there is from Christianity, you know.

Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore :p


No, you miss the point. Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.

Why on earth do you assume that, once one religion is discarded as no longer relevant and outdated, another religion has to be taken on board?

If that were the case, you could at the moment witness huge amounts of people falling back into the arms of Christianity after having grown up in an atheist and this time really anti-religious society in Eastern Europe. Not happening, even though I can assure you that both Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons are falling over themselves to recruit. Or else they'd fall for any of the other religions on offer, become a Krishna, or try Transcendental Meditation? Not happening either.
Why do you assume that simply because it is obvioulsy a very important part of your own life, that other people cannot be perfectly happy and content without religion?

Who said anything about raising an army to defeat an intruder in Spain? :confused:

With the example of the Moors, and why Spain is not predominately Muslim already.

Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore :p


No, you miss the point. Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.

Why would we want to 'fight back'? Islam does not = teh eval... And even having said that, I can't see it having widespread converts - that's not really in the nature of islam, it's not a particularly evangelical religion.

We're moving, slowly, into post-religious thought in europe, not just post-christian. Given a hundred years or so, islam in europe'll have a crisis, with only older members attending mosques etc.

That's entirely true. You may have some examples in your head, but the bulk of the unemployed Muslim generation in France now, for example, is already half way between the 2nd and 3rd generation.. And we all know how well 'integrated' they are there.

Please read my post again. I never said they were "integrated".
Rather, they form an independent culture, no longer that of the country of their origin, but not that of their new country either. They adapt in some areas of life, but don't in others.
The number of children will decrease with each generation.

With the example of the Moors, and why Spain is not predominately Muslim already.
No, pillock, I was pointing out that if Islam takes on a bigger influence in Europe it won't be the first time, and there's no historical reason to suggest it would be a bad thing, either.

If that were the case, you could at the moment witness huge amounts of people falling back into the arms of Christianity after having grown up in an atheist and this time really anti-religious society in Eastern Europe. Not happening, even though I can assure you that both Jehova's Witnesses and Mormons are falling over themselves to recruit. Or else they'd fall for any of the other religions on offer, become a Krishna, or try Transcendental Meditation? Not happening either. Two words: teenage Wiccans.

Actually, the number of religious people in Britain at least (I don't do politics lessons for France or Germany) went up slightly between *looks embarassed* 1996 and 2000 - that's the only data I can think of right now. But only slightly.

It's very hard to tell what's going to happen in Europe. I don't think that the massive powerful influences will become Muslim anytime soon - society doesn't heave quickly that way.

Why on earth do you assume that, once one religion is discarded as no longer relevant and outdated, another religion has to be taken on board?
...

Too soon. You have to let these children grow up to raise their children. Generations without belief and looking for something better than the example of your parents and all that.

Too soon. You have to let these children grow up to raise their children. Generations without belief and looking for something better than the example of your parents and all that.

Funny you should mention... my parents went through more or less the same process as I did.
They were both Catholic, turned agnostic, and later slightly atheist.

I studied in Eastern Germany for 4 years, and one experience I made there was that organised religion to people who grew up in a completely non-religious environment (not just their parents, but the whole society) seems... well... ridiculous. Christianity in particular.
The essential ethical ideas are recognised and regarded as positive, but the whole saviour-storyline is regarded as a bad joke.
A friend of mine told me that one thing that left her speechless when she first came to the West was that people actually still believed in god/Christianity and went to church. She had grown up believeing that this was very much a thing of the past, and she pitied these people.

Two words: teenage Wiccans.

Actually, the number of religious people in Britain at least (I don't do politics lessons for France or Germany) went up slightly between *looks embarassed* 1996 and 2000 - that's the only data I can think of right now. But only slightly.

It's very hard to tell what's going to happen in Europe. I don't think that the massive powerful influences will become Muslim anytime soon - society doesn't heave quickly that way.

Fair enough, but I was referring to Eastern Europe in particular, as the churches there played hardly any role in social life at all for the last few decades.
And there's not that many Wiccans to be found there, sorry to disappoint you.

No, it won't end. It will change and transform, like it has always done, but it won't end.

The interesting thing about this demographic trend is that most 2nd generation Muslims adapt suffciently to the European culture to imitate the birth rate as shown by the indigenous population.... only the first generation of imigrants actually has that many children.

No culture can remain stagnant. And if that means that Europe's new religion will be Islam, well, it can't get much worse than it was under Chrisitanity at times.

But that is the great thing about Europe. Americans seem to have a very old view of Europe as if we are all still all white and all live in villages with a castle on top.

The fact is Europe is as much a melting pot of cultures than the USA, in fact sometimes evern more so. Islam is a growing religon but many of the second generation have become more secular.

One benift Europe has is that we don't seem to have this right wing ulta strong christianity...

As for the population issue, apart from the cost of supporting the old, I think few Europeans have anything to complain about, might mean a bit more space for us all.

Elgesh']Why would we want to 'fight back'? Islam does not = teh eval... And even having said that, I can't see it having widespread converts - that's not really in the nature of islam, it's not a particularly evangelical religion.

We're moving, slowly, into post-religious thought in europe, not just post-christian. Given a hundred years or so, islam in europe'll have a crisis, with only older members attending mosques etc.

Yep, let them come. Our apathy is contagious and will prevail.:)

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-08-faith-edit_x.htm) about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society.
What has secularism got to do with population growth (or lack of it?)

Birth rates among white Americans are not much different than among white Europeans. White people are going to be a minority (the largest minority, but still less than 50%) in 40 years in America.

I also don't believe that there are more Europeans who are alcoholics or that believe in UFOs than there are Christians who believe in God. I know many, many people who believe in God, but not many who believe UFOs or are alcoholics. Only right-wing Americans don't seem to accept them as "real Christians" because they don't like Bush, and they don't think Christianity is about hate and violence.

There also is not that much difference between the religiosity of Americans and Europeans. Even in the Bible Belt, weekly church attendance doesn't reach the 50% mark.

That may not, in the end, be a bad thing. Perhaps this deserves no other attention from us other than for us to reminisce and then say a hearty, good riddance. And a big welcome to what will hopefully be a moderately secular Muslim society of the future.
You would welcome Islamic society over secular society? You really are a right-wing religious freak. I think that the Muslim immigrants are way too religious. If anything, they should have to conform to secularism. We shouldn't have to live by their Koran.

No culture can remain stagnant. And if that means that Europe's new religion will be Islam, well, it can't get much worse than it was under Chrisitanity at times.
Wouldn't it be better if we accepted no religious politicking from Muslims? Wouldn't it be better if we were steadfast in our secular beliefs? Things got pretty bad at times in the past due the mixing of Christianity and politics. Let's not go there again with Islam.

Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore
I think it's better if chruches are not able to raise armies. That's the government's job.

No, you miss the point. Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.
Not being religious is not the same as lacking principles.

Elgesh']Why would we want to 'fight back'? Islam does not = teh eval...
It does when it's mixed with politics.

Elgesh']And even having said that, I can't see it having widespread converts - that's not really in the nature of islam, it's not a particularly evangelical religion.
But there is a fanatical minority of Muslims in Europe who would like to see widespread conversion, even at gunpoint.

Wouldn't it be better if we accepted no religious politicking from Muslims? Wouldn't it be better if we were steadfast in our secular beliefs? Things got pretty bad at times in the past due the mixing of Christianity and politics. Let's not go there again with Islam.


Definitely. And I seriously doubt that we will go there again with Islam. But who am I to predict the future? I don't know how things will develop, mass psychology is a tricky field.
But I honestly don't think that we will one day wake up and find ourselves in a Muslim society. The change will, if anything, be gradual.

But I honestly don't think that we will one day wake up and find ourselves in a Muslim society. The change will, if anything, be gradual.
I have about 60 years of life left. I want to make sure that we never find ourselves in a Muslim society, gradual or not.

I went for the CHristian revival option, but I have to admit, I really wasn't paying attention when I chose it lol. But yeh, uh, that's what's gonna happen :D

I have about 60 years of life left. I want to make sure that we never find ourselves in a Muslim society, gradual or not.

Or any society ruled by a religion.

I have about 60 years of life left. I want to make sure that we never find ourselves in a Muslim society, gradual or not.

See, I don't have that much left. ;)
I don't have a problem with a secular Muslim society. And I don't have a problem moving on, if things get to fanatic for my taste in one spot.

World Population Prospects The 2004 Revision (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf)

Maybe Asia should send Christian missionaries to eastern Europe now instead of waiting? :p
Can't you warn people about PDFs?
Hell no! There are more than enough Christians in the world already.

See, I don't have that much left. ;)

How do you people know this? Was there some form of "Logans run" law passed while I was asleep?

Can't you warn people about PDFs?

Seconded. PDFs break my computer more often than any other file.

How do you people know this? Was there some form of "Logans run" law passed while I was asleep?

I've no intention of living into my 90s, is all ;)

I'm a Discordian, I voted "Other" just for the Hell of it ! :p :confused: ;)

Can't you warn people about PDFs?
Hell no! There are more than enough Christians in the world already.

Seconded. PDFs break my computer more often than any other file.

I honestly apologize for that then, I had no idea that some people's systems weren't able to display .pdf files correctly and needed a warning.

I will go back and put a (.pdf warning) on the front post...



(For future reference to you though, you should look to see what kind of link you are clicking on before you click on them if you have problems like that, you know, if it's odd or something you don't want. If someone says "Looky Picture!" but the link says something like blahblahblah.html or yaddayaddayadda.exe etc., you shouldn't click on them)

I'm a Discordian, I voted "Other" just for the Hell of it ! :p :confused: ;)

D'oh! Teh eval!

:D

European culture is, justifiably, the paragon of excellence for the world, and it is somewhat assinine to assume that populace will remain apathetic in the face of Muslim immigration. British politics is currently in a transient period towards the right, and it would be reasonable to therefore assume nationalist sentiment will be accordingly resurgent, and a consequential suppression of alien influences ought to occur.
I agree and hope you are right.

about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...

Progress is a wonderful thing, isn't it? Actually theres often a mistake in that those who have some sort of spiritual belief are excluded but overall it is true that the old organised religons are very faded...a good thing overall.


It again looks like Europe will be a mostly Muslim continent within three generations (my estimations, nothing to do with the opinion piece). ...

O dear me.....what have you been smoking? I suppose next its how the anti-christ will emerge as the head of the EU and baby jesus will return and yada da yadda....

See, I don't have that much left. ;)
I don't have a problem with a secular Muslim society. And I don't have a problem moving on, if things get to fanatic for my taste in one spot.
You're only ten years older than me.

What, may I ask is a "secular muslim society"? Sounds like a contradiction.

For me, well I can get attached to certain places. I won't want to give up and leave just because a bunch of right-wing religious psychos are trying to take over.

How do you people know this? Was there some form of "Logans run" law passed while I was asleep?
I'm just assuming that I'll live until I am about 80. Though perhaps I should change that to 90 or 100 given life expectancy increases. Then again I also plan to commit suicide at the first sign of Alzheimer's, so make it 80 again.

Let me get this straight.

1) European nations have low birth rates.
2) European populations are mostly secular.
3) Because of 1 and 2, European culture will DIE?

Please explain all the steps in between 2 and 3 to me again, because maybe I'm slow, but if you're saying that europe's cultures will be DEAD because in the future they will be secular and with low birth rates - in other words, exactly the same as they are NOW - I'd have to say that's just alarmism accompanied by some irrelevant factoids.

My God do you mean if they stay secular, the Scots will no longer make Wiskey, the Germans will no longer make sausage and beer, the Irish will no longer make Guiness, the French will no longer make Wine?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

i don't see the connection between the title of this thread and the poll question that it asks. not even any a little bit.

the only way REAL european culture is going to die is if it goes to the hell of immitating america's worship of the automobile and corporatocracy.

american misperceptions about european culture may die though.

of course i'm not in europe and never have been, but i firmly believe i can state with complete confidence as fact that what that keeps europe having the charicter that attracts tourists and emmigrants from all over the world, even well, if not over, advantaged, nations like the u.s., is the kind of quasi-socialism that kept the trains running over there when the western hemisphere was throwing them out with the bathwater, and keeps mom and pop retailing and craftufacturing going strong, even with a mix of corportocracy thrown in at the same time.

and while a more rational and less fanatical form of christerism then the overthetop loonacy that claims to be christianity in the u.s., may well remain widely pervasive there, in and of itself, i don't see how any kinds of flavours of it have a damd thing to do with the thread title question.

=^^=
.../\...

Let me get this straight.

1) European nations have low birth rates.
2) European populations are mostly secular.
3) Because of 1 and 2, European culture will DIE?


No, according to the UN predictions, the European nations will have a 'declining' population, not just a low birth rate but a birth rate that doesn’t replace themselves in the community. Thus, becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the people in their current countries. European populations are mostly secular now but they won't be then, the secularist will be 'displaced' and on top of all of that, their children will likely be susceptible to those promising them answers to the meaning of life type of questions as they become a smaller and smaller segment of the communities they will also become converts AND then the countries AND then the entire continent of Europe will become non-secularist.

No, according to the UN predictions, the European nations will have a 'declining' population, not just a low birth rate but a birth rate that doesn’t replace themselves in the community. Thus, becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the people in their current countries.

So would it be fair to say that your concern is similar to that of white nationalists in the US who are afraid that Mexicans and blacks are growing populations within the nation while the traditional population - white people - are threatened cultural/racial extinction?

European populations are mostly secular now but they won't be then, the secularist will be 'displaced' and on top of all of that, their children will likely be susceptible to those promising them answers to the meaning of life type of questions as they become a smaller and smaller segment of the communities they will also become converts AND then the countries AND then the entire continent of Europe will become non-secularist.

And by 'non-secularist,' you mean 'Islamic terrorist?'

No, according to the UN predictions, the European nations will have a 'declining' population, not just a low birth rate but a birth rate that doesn’t replace themselves in the community. Thus, becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the people in their current countries. European populations are mostly secular now but they won't be then, the secularist will be 'displaced' and on top of all of that, their children will likely be susceptible to those promising them answers to the meaning of life type of questions as they become a smaller and smaller segment of the communities they will also become converts AND then the countries AND then the entire continent of Europe will become non-secularist.

You have _no_ idea what europe's really like, do you? :)

So would it be fair to say that your concern is similar to that of white nationalists in the US who are afraid that Mexicans and blacks are growing populations within the nation while the traditional population - white people - are threatened cultural/racial extinction?
That is more or less the truth though, isn't it? I don't see it happening in Europe, but its happening in the USA, and one day it will sweep Africa too. The USA was a melting pot from the get-go, but neither Africa nor Europe are. So its like comparing apples with oranges.

That is more or less the truth though, isn't it? I don't see it happening in Europe, but its happening in the USA, and one day it will sweep Africa too. The USA was a melting pot from the get-go, but neither Africa nor Europe are. So its like comparing apples with oranges.

No it ISNT the truth, it's a prediction based on several things.

1) Racialism and/or racism
2) Social Darwinism
3) Xenophobia
4) Penis insecurity.

With the statistics thrown in just to make it seem like the first four factors aren't.

No it ISNT the truth, it's a prediction based on several things.

1) Racialism and/or racism
2) Social Darwinism
3) Xenophobia
4) Penis insecurity.

With the statistics thrown in just to make it seem like the first four factors aren't.
So all cultures should just blend into one big mesh then?

And penis insecurity? :rolleyes: Please...I do not even see how that fits in.

So all cultures should just blend into one big mesh then?
YES!!!

YES!!!
I am happy I will never live long enough for that.

So all cultures should just blend into one big mesh then?

I really don't give a shit about anyone's "culture." In fact, whenever I hear someone whining about their "culture" I roll my bullshit window up so I don't get splattered. Call me crass, I know.

And penis insecurity? :rolleyes: Please...I do not even see how that fits in.

Well, because this all has to do with reproduction. Basically, insecurity caused by the awful concept that one day, people with white skin might not be as big a majority as they used to! And so, this creates a need (because this is a bad thing, remember: only people who look like me should breed) to reproduce MORE. To have sex more, to get them women to stop getting jobs or educations and become more like the woman the Bible commands them to be. Baby-factories to spread the good ole white seed about! Naturally, there's only so much reproduction one man can do. So such people live in a perpetual state of worry that secretly, their penis is just not up to the task of propping up the white race.

I really don't give a shit about anyone's "culture." In fact, whenever I hear someone whining about their "culture" I roll my bullshit window up so I don't get splattered. Call me crass, I know.
Culture is there whether or not you like it. It won't just disappear over night, and its one of the few things that distinguish us in this mass market world. Seeing it go is not something I wanna be around for.

Well, because this all has to do with reproduction. Basically, insecurity caused by the awful concept that one day, people with white skin might not be as big a majority as they used to! And so, this creates a need (because this is a bad thing, remember: only people who look like me should breed) to reproduce MORE. To have sex more, to get them women to stop getting jobs or educations and become more like the woman the Bible commands them to be. Baby-factories to spread the good ole white seed about! Naturally, there's only so much reproduction one man can do. So such people live in a perpetual state of worry that secretly, their penis is just not up to the task of propping up the white race.
Right, well this certainly is not something I care much about, being gay. The world is over-populated as it is. I believe we should maintain a steady birth rate. What should really happen is that countries with extremely high birth rates should lower them. The planet's resources are limited. Demand is infinite. Not a good mix.

Europe may very well be Islamic one day.

1. Their birth rates are very low.
2. Birthrates of Islamic countries are very high.
3. Muslims are migrating to Europe. (At a decent pace, from my understanding)
4. From what I understand, Muslims aren't intergrating. They still see themselves as a seperate, foreign people.

This is in contrast to the American situation. Not only is the American birthrate higher, but, from what I've heard, the hispanic populace tend to integrate better into society because the United States has a history of taking in and integrating imigrants and because there is no religion barrier like there is with the Muslims in Europe. Much of the Mexican populace is Catholic.

Culture is there whether or not you like it. It won't just disappear over night, and its one of the few things that distinguish us in this mass market world. Seeing it go is not something I wanna be around for.

Well, unless you can point me out to a culture that has lasted for an eternity, you're going to have to put up with the fact that culture doesn't last forever whether or not you like it.

And frankly none of this has to do with you claiming I think "all cultures should just blend into one big mesh." I'm not arguing "shoulds."


Right, well this certainly is not something I care much about, being gay. The world is over-populated as it is. I believe we should maintain a steady birth rate. What should really happen is that countries with extremely high birth rates should lower them. The planet's resources are limited. Demand is infinite. Not a good mix.

I don't believe populations should be regulated by the government based on what you believe "should" be. I'm one of those loony people who enjoys "liberty." Anyway, I didn't say YOU cared about all that; you didn't understand how penis insecurity featured into white nationalism, I explained.

Oh. My. God.

Did anyone actually bother to read that article? It's like watching the fucking 700 Club! I'm so mad, I don't even know where to start.

First off for everybody posting here: that "there's more alcoholics and UFO freaks than people who believe in God" refers strictly to the Czech Republic, not to Europe. OP stated that wrongly. Also, it's in no way a statistic of any sorts, just local Czech "common wisdom", as per the article.

Now, the article (all quotes are from the article):

First, he's busy comparing apples to oranges and asking dumb questions.
What is there not to understand about how the Czech Republic is a very secular country and at the same time millions of people flock to the pope's funeral? The two things are not related. One is a country where 19% of the people say they believe in God. The other is a mega-event where Catholics from all over the world streamed to Rome just to be part of it. Is he saying he's surprised that there are still more than a million Catholics on this planet? None of this pertains in any way to whatever he is trying to say about Europe being Doomed.


Western Europe, the cradle of modern Christianity, has become a "post-Christian society" in which the ruling class and cultural leaders are anti-religious or "Christophobic," writes George Weigel [...], he argues that religious differences help explain the policy tensions between Europe and the United States.
"It would be too simple to say that the reason Americans and Europeans see the world so differently is that the former go to church on Sundays and the latter don't," Weigel writes. "But it would also be a grave mistake to think that the dramatic differences in religious belief and practice in the United States and Europe don't have something important to do with those different perceptions of the world — and the different policies to which those perceptions eventually lead."

Oh, I couldn't agree more (except with the "anti-religious" and "Christophobic" parts) - just that I see the problem is not that Europeans see the world in a secular light, but that Americans see it in a ever more fundamentalist Christian light. I mean, honestly, Intelligent Design? A few years ago, I would not have thought it possible for a Western culture to fall back into this kind of thinking. Proved me wrong, I guess.


Former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing, who presided over the process, summed up the dominant view: "Europeans live in a purely secular political system, where religion does not play an important role."
Er, yes, indeed we do. And well we should - it's not called "political" system for no reason! No country everywhere should have a "religious political system". Quoting a Frenchie - always works. No matter he's referring solely to politics, not to society as such, when saying "religion does not play an important role"; people will totally misinterpret it anyway.



Now, this is the best:

Among the consequences of Europe's abandonment of its religious roots and the moral code that derives therefrom is a plunge in its birth rates to below the replacement level. Abortion, birth control, acceptance of gay marriage and casual sex are driving the trend.

WTF?? So, less religion = less morals? Uh-huh, it's a hell-hole over here, though I have to say the author seems to secretly like it quite a bit, if he can even find a newspaper article about the porn industry in Prague "titillating".

And, lo and behold, the low birth rates are also the result of secularity's loose morals! And wouldn't you know it - it's the Evil Trinity again: abortion, birth control, gay marriage! I'm not even including "casual sex", because he obviously didn't think that one through. So, basically the only valid point he has in any of this is that birth control does indeed keep birth rates low. That's what it's supposed to do, duh. I'm sure the women of the world (and yes, this does specifically include fundamentalist American Christian women too) will happily follow this wise man's words and flush the pill & the condoms down the toilet and get back to having 10 kids each or stop having sex.



So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse — the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America?
Again, why is "abandoning religion" even in that list? And oooooh, the Roman Empire - way to scare the American one.



conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan argues that a European-style "de-Christianization of America" is the goal of many liberals — and they are succeeding.

Court decisions that have banned school-sponsored prayer, removed many Nativity scenes from public squares, and legalized gay marriage are part of that pattern, as is the legal effort to erase "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency and "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Europe is showing us where this path leads. It is not the right path for America.

Quoting Pat Buchanan? Seriously? And yeah, the poor Christians are so persecuted in their own land, it's a shame. Really. Nobody from their own ranks with any influence these days. US getting more secular by the minute. Time some poor souls stood up and did something about it!





Stuff like this is what makes me despair over the world a bit more each day.
And I'm not kidding either.

YES!!!

Just one word: Why?

i don't see the connection between the title of this thread and the poll question that it asks. not even any a little bit.
Ya same. Culture, although religion can be a part of it, doesn't die with a surge in secularism

the only way REAL european culture is going to die is if it goes to the hell of immitating america's worship of the automobile and corporatocracy.

Have I been asleep for the last 30 years or has that already happened?

american misperceptions about european culture may die though.

Ya, I was sleeping

If some people think that muslim immigrants are somehow threatening european culture, I would encourage them to declare acrusade.

I would encourage them to declare acrusade.

Way ahead of ya, sister;)

sister?

o shaz my name has gal in it

didn't realize that

no im a boy

o well, GIRL POWER

First off for everybody posting here: that "there's more alcoholics and UFO freaks than people who believe in God" refers strictly to Czechoslovakia, not to Europe...
They revived Czechoslovakia, did they?

Just one word: Why?
Just one word: Globalisation.

Oh. My. God.

Did anyone actually bother to read that article?

Of course not. Nobody reads Greenlanders articles and links. After a while, you sort of figure out that they are exactly as you seem to have discovered here.

They revived Czechoslovakia, did they?


Just one word: Globalisation.

So the price for a globalized world is the murder of each rich cultural heritage for a splatterd collage of a new one?

They revived Czechoslovakia, did they?
Oh my God, I really wrote that. Repeatedly. I'm mortified. And off to edit. Not that it'll help...

So the price for a globalized world is the murder of each rich cultural heritage for a splatterd collage of a new one?
Yep.

Except that I wouldn't paint it in those colours. No one is murdering a cultural heritage...you probably couldn't even tell me what you exactly mean by a cultural heritage.
The monuments, the sayings, the stories, all that remains. But people wouldn't live by them anymore, instead living by a mixture of all the different ideas and cultures that have developed over the years, and a good bit of new stuff that modern times have invented.

Of course not. Nobody reads Greenlanders articles and links. After a while, you sort of figure out that they are exactly as you seem to have discovered here.
I would consider myself warned for the future if I had one. Alas, the end is nigh.

I would consider myself warned for the future if I had one. Alas, the end is nigh.

Oh? That's a bit melodramatic.

Oh? That's a bit melodramatic.
Yes, that's exactly what I thought, too.

Just one word: Globalisation.

Councur, and couple with "Why not?"

Yep.

Except that I wouldn't paint it in those colours. No one is murdering a cultural heritage...you probably couldn't even tell me what you exactly mean by a cultural heritage.
The monuments, the sayings, the stories, all that remains. But people wouldn't live by them anymore, instead living by a mixture of all the different ideas and cultures that have developed over the years, and a good bit of new stuff that modern times have invented.

Oh, you mean something like how everyone knows all about the Native Americans today because we kept their place names. :rolleyes: Hell, they are trying to save their how heritage from oblivion even as we speak (thankfully though, they are making some headway).

Who knows what year it was when the Europeans became 14% of the Human population of North America? And why now, the Native Americans are less than 2%?

Immigration, disease and culture socialization can wipe out an entire continent within the memory time span of a single person.

Comparing American Colonists to England, instead of estimating (guesstimating) Native American populations… We can see rapid growth in a short period of time. Today, with less children, but more that survive to adulthood, AND less immigration but much longer life spans, it is equally possible today.

There just can be no doubt that the white population was growing very
rapidly. Starting at zero in 1606, it reached 3.2 million at the first federal census in 1790. Beginning with a head start of 4.25 million more whites than the number resident in British North America, the estimated population of England increased only a bit more over the same period, attaining 7.65 million in 1790. Gemery’s calculations show that immigration drove population growth in the seventeenth century but that natural increase was the main motor of increase during the eighteenth century in all regions. Natural increase was rapid because, as Benjamin Franklin and later Thomas Robert Malthus argued and Gemery concurs, people married earlier than they did in Europe. Nuptiality responded to the favorable ratio of population to land, which made for the high wages (or cheap land) that facilitated early family formation. The British colonies differed demographically among themselves much more in the seventeenth century than in the eighteenth. The extremely high death rates in the early Chesapeake abated, and populations outside New England also exhibited high fertility and substantial rates of natural population increase. Least is known about the demography of the Middle Colonies beyond the suspicion that its characteristics were between those of New England and the South.
http://www.wm.edu/oieahc/wmq/Jul01/HainesSteckelJul2001.pdf#search='historical%20population%20of%20North%20America' (small 4 page .pdf file)

Europe should have a majority Muslim voting block in no time :p

Oi, I just love a good dose of fascism in the evening...

Threads like this seem highly unnecessary to me. Thinly-veiled attacks against a specific culture *cough*Muslims*cough* aren't very smart.

Immigration, disease and culture socialization can wipe out an entire continent within the memory time span of a single person.


Or maybe, just maybe, it was because the Native Americans didn't write shit down?

Or maybe, just maybe, it was because the Native Americans didn't write shit down?
Some did. Anyway, there was also the forced conversion, sending them to reservations, new diseases, and killing them en masse. That could also have something to do.

Oi, I just love a good dose of fascism in the evening...

Threads like this seem highly unnecessary to me. Thinly-veiled attacks against a specific culture *cough*Muslims*cough* aren't very smart.

Oh hell no, This thread is not a thinly veiled attack against Muslims, go read the first post again. I ended it with "Welcoming a hopefully tolerant Islamic culture."

This thread was NOT intended to be thinly veiled at all, it's an open and clear assailment against the dangers found in the asinine agnostic/atheism and humanist secularism, an attack on their self imposed population restrictions and culture deficiency in raising the next generation, this thread was meant to point out how their path leads to cultural death. I didn’t say anything, nor mean anything disrespectful of Muslims.

Europe should have a majority Muslim voting block in no time :p
You know, if there are more people like you in the States, I might just decide to vote for them too. Just to scare the shit out of you - because you seem pretty scared to me...

And Cabra West was right early in the thread: Second Generation Immigrants don't have more children than native people in Europe. They take on the same sort of culture for the most part. It's just a small percentage which actually rejects it, and those people generally don't have all that many children either, cuz it costs too much.

And from my own experience with Muslim families in Germany...no, the welfare state does not allow them to live comfortably with many children.

...it's an open and clear assailment against the dangers found in the asinine agnostic/atheism and humanist secularism...
Ever been to Italy?

How about Europe as a whole?

Oh hell no, This thread is not a thinly veiled attack against Muslims, go read the first post again. I ended it with "Welcoming a hopefully tolerant Islamic culture."

This thread was NOT intended to be thinly veiled at all, it's an open and clear assailment against the dangers found in the asinine agnostic/atheism and humanist secularism, an attack on their self imposed population restrictions and culture deficiency in raising the next generation, this thread was meant to point out how their path leads to cultural death. I didn’t say anything, nor mean anything disrespectful of Muslims.

Maybe not in the opening post, but the one just above mine seemed disrespectful (and condescending) to me.

I don't even know where to begin to pick apart your "idealogy", if you can even call it that --- there are so many things that are just plain wrong about it.

You can say it's not fascist all you want, but you're just fooling yourself.

You can say it's not fascist all you want, but you're just fooling yourself.
I'd say he's a Christianist...or a Christo-Fascist. Whatever the Christian equivalent of Islamism and "Islamo-Fascism" is.

It's essentially a movement to make religion not only a political issue, but the central guideline for all political decisions, coupled with hatred of the establishment and "immorality" as well as a dose of...hmm...revolutionary conservatism.

He could be so happy in Iran - he just picked the wrong boat I guess.

I'd say he's a Christianist...or a Christo-Fascist. Whatever the Christian equivalent of Islamism and "Islamo-Fascism" is.

It's essentially a movement to make religion not only a political issue, but the central guideline for all political decisions, coupled with hatred of the establishment and "immorality" as well as a dose of...hmm...revolutionary conservatism.

He could be so happy in Iran - he just picked the wrong boat I guess.

He'd fit right in the small towns of Texas. Those places are hotbeds of this sort of thinking.

You know, if there are more people like you in the States, I might just decide to vote for them too. Just to scare the shit out of you - because you seem pretty scared to me... :p yeah, that must be it. LOL


And Cabra West was right early in the thread: Second Generation Immigrants don't have more children than native people in Europe. They take on the same sort of culture for the most part. It's just a small percentage which actually rejects it, and those people generally don't have all that many children either, cuz it costs too much.

You've got a nice little theory thingy going on there, got any proof of it?

And from my own experience with Muslim families in Germany...no, the welfare state does not allow them to live comfortably with many children.

Is the Muslim child birth rate in Germany more than the national average of 1.3 children per couple? Why yes, yes it is.

Also:
Population growth rate: 0% (2005 est.)
Birth rate: 8.33 births/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Death rate: 10.55 deaths/1,000 population (2005 est.)
Net migration rate: 2.18 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2005 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gm.html

Looks to me that there is proof that the Germans are dying off and being replaced by immigrants (I'm just arguing that the Immigrant cultures already in Europe are also adding to their numbers faster than the rest of the society around them)

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-08-faith-edit_x.htm) about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...

Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Roman Catholic Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)

Fifteen countries, "mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history," according to the U.N.'s World Population Prospects 2004 revision.

As children grow scarce and longevity increases in Europe, the continent is becoming one vast Leisure World. By 2050, the U.N. projects, more than 40% of the people in Italy will be 60 or older. By mid-century, populations in 25 European nations will be lower than they are now; Russia will lose 31 million people, Italy 7.2 million, Poland 6.6 million and Germany 3.9 million. So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse - the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America? ...

It again looks like Europe will be a mostly Muslim continent within three generations (my estimations, nothing to do with the opinion piece). Only 14% (or so) of Europe is now Muslim, but give it some time. The Islam followers are growing and keeping their collective religiosity segments intact (when compared to the rest of the Europeans anyway), whilst the rest of the continent, the culture we think of as Western, is about to commit collective suicide (if the UN predictions are correct about population decline by 2050 in Europe - see link below). That may not, in the end, be a bad thing. Perhaps this deserves no other attention from us other than for us to reminisce and then say a hearty, good riddance. And a big welcome to what will hopefully be a moderately secular Muslim society of the future.

World Population Prospects The 2004 Revision (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf) (.pdf warning)

Maybe Asia should send Christian missionaries to eastern Europe now instead of waiting? :p

Having low birth rates is actually a good thing: it gives more jobs, higher life expectancy, more education, and more wealth. I think that they will continue to be more atheist and agnostic, in today's society, religion just isn't as important.

Maybe not in the opening post, but the one just above mine seemed disrespectful (and condescending) to me.

I don't even know where to begin to pick apart your "idealogy", if you can even call it that --- there are so many things that are just plain wrong about it.

You can say it's not fascist all you want, but you're just fooling yourself.

You mean fascist as in the way you practice it? As in, deny the truth no matter how many different ways the numbers add up to show that the truth of what I'm saying? That Most of Europe as a zero growth rate, and UN predictions are a decline in actual population for most European countries over the next thirty to fifty years? As in how immigration and ethnic growth will eventually overtake the declining and aging majorities in those places?

Fascist my butt. The UN said it, I didn’t make it up, I’m just predicting the end result of what is already taking place.

Having low birth rates is actually a good thing: it gives more jobs, higher life expectancy, more education, and more wealth. I think that they will continue to be more atheist and agnostic, in today's society, religion just isn't as important.

Yeah? Really? Hmm, who's going to have any wealth when 50% of the population is retired and in need of health care and not getting ready to die for another thirty to forty years?

You mean fascist as in the way you practice it? As in, deny the truth no matter how many different ways the numbers add up to show that the truth of what I'm saying? That Most of Europe as a zero growth rate, and UN predictions are a decline in actual population for most European countries over the next thirty to fifty years? As in how immigration and ethnic growth will eventually overtake the declining and aging majorities in those places?

Fascist my butt. The UN said it, I didn’t make it up, I’m just predicting the end result of what is already taking place.
And so what? It's not like the European cultures have existed forever. It is normal that there comes a time of decline and then renewal, which may come in the form of Islam. Eventually, Islam will wither and die, and be replaced by something else.

No culture exists untouched forever. Not even China was able to resist time.

:p yeah, that must be it. LOL
Well, I really don't know what your problem is then.

You've got a nice little theory thingy going on there, got any proof of it?
No, none other than my personal experience.

Looks to me that there is proof that the Germans are dying off and being replaced by immigrants
That being a bad thing, you mean?
People who live in Germany are German, regardless of skin colour or religion. The majority of immigrants become basically the same as German in a few years. A few segregated communities exist, but not in any sort of way that makes greater demographic impacts. Remember that the Turkish community in Germany is little more than 2 million, in a country of more than 80.

(I'm just arguing that the Immigrant cultures already in Europe are also adding to their numbers faster than the rest of the society around them)
Fair enough...but in this case your assertion of a Muslim majority in a few years is ridiculous.

You might like this link here. It is unbiased, and it does talk about the problems faced by the Muslim Community in Germany.
http://www.flwi.ugent.be/cie/umanco/umanco3.htm
They are not the horde of the East taking over, they are immigrants who sometimes can have trouble integrating.

And now, I'd like to get to the point:

What is your point? What are you trying to do here? If I said: "Yes, Greenlander, everything thou says is true!", then what?

And so what? It's not like the European cultures have existed forever. It is normal that there comes a time of decline and then renewal, which may come in the form of Islam. Eventually, Islam will wither and die, and be replaced by something else.

No culture exists untouched forever. Not even China was able to resist time.

True enough that, and in addition, most cultures (not all) turn to secularism and or otherwise lose faith in their heritage just before they go under as well.

My point is merely a warning to all those that still have a choice on how they will live and prioritize their lifelong expectations.

Love your spouse, raise your children with an eye to respect and self-sacrifice.

You mean fascist as in the way you practice it? As in, deny the truth no matter how many different ways the numbers add up to show that the truth of what I'm saying? That Most of Europe as a zero growth rate, and UN predictions are a decline in actual population for most European countries over the next thirty to fifty years? As in how immigration and ethnic growth will eventually overtake the declining and aging majorities in those places?
Well one can see this trend in numerous post industrial countries. The question becomes well why is this a problem? Now you seem to argue that because Europe is traditionally more secluar then say America and because immigrant populations are surpassing the native populations that their cultures(and in the article their morals) are on the decline. I fail to see how this is a problem. Cultures change and die out all throught history. Even if Islam does begin to surpass Christian ideals and number wise I fail to see how that will lead to a period of decline in these countries especially if they continue to keep the secular style of government which you seem to be against.

Fascist my butt. The UN said it, I didn’t make it up, I’m just predicting the end result of what is already taking place.
But whats wrong with this trend? Are you angry that your ideals seem to be fading away because they aren't popular anymore? Do you feel threatened that your beliefs and morality are not espoused by others? I honestly don't see the big deal with the immigraition issue in Europe other then the fact that some nationalist parties could use it to get some seats in elections.

My point is merely a warning to all those that still have a choice on how they will live and prioritize their lifelong expectations.
Okay......

Here's the deal: You have absolutely zero, nada, zilch, nothing to offer in terms of evidence that being religiously fundamentalist will change birth rates (unless we all go Catholic maybe, but that's hardly what a good Puritan like you wants), slow down immigration from other countries (except it would turn the place into a moralistic shithole, so people wouldn't want to come anymore...I guess you've got a point) and especially not help integrate immigrant communities.

You might as well wear a "The Doom is Near!"-Sign (with nothing underneith) and run around in the streets trying to sell people the Bible.

Yeah? Really? Hmm, who's going to have any wealth when 50% of the population is retired and in need of health care and not getting ready to die for another thirty to forty years?

There are way and means around this. Saving money now. Raising the retirement age. Immigration.

It's not an end of world thing.

i think that the new faith will be thwe faith on science. allow another 100 years and i bet some scientific paradigms or "dogma" will also be replaced.

Okay......

Here's the deal: You have absolutely zero, nada, zilch, nothing to offer in terms of evidence that being religiously fundamentalist will change birth rates (unless we all go Catholic maybe, but that's hardly what a good Puritan like you wants), slow down immigration from other countries (except it would turn the place into a moralistic shithole, so people wouldn't want to come anymore...I guess you've got a point) and especially not help integrate immigrant communities.

You might as well wear a "The Doom is Near!"-Sign (with nothing underneith) and run around in the streets trying to sell people the Bible.


Oh I disagree. Immigration IS a good thing, in my book anyway. HOWEVER, the confirmation of being a religious fundamentalist over a secularist (using your terminology) is that religious people get married sooner in their lives and raise more children, they do it and there is proof (I’ve already shown how the Early colonist out grew the Europeans because they got married earlier even then, and it is well known that they have always been more religious on a daily basis.

If YOU had to stay celibate until marriage, from social pressure alone (for example) you'd get married sooner than otherwise as well ;) In addition, if you were educated in how to be a good spouse, in how to be a good partner, in how to give of yourself to your family… Your spouse would be happier, your children would be happier and because of that, YOU would be happier as well.

Can I 'prove' that to everyone that this is all true, no. Can I show evidence of it? Yes. Will some people be miserable SOB's all the same, even in the world as I design it? Yes, some of people will always be miserable SOBs.

But is my way statistically better? Yes, I think it is.

But is my way statistically better? Yes, I think it is.
Then here's an idea --- follow your own advice. Learn to be a good member of your family.
Learn to be a good member of your community, and of your society as well. And part of that is to let other people alone with the way they want to live their life. There is no god, there is no evidence, nor is there reason to believe in a god.
Just because the oppressive social structure that has at some point violently been forced upon people because of the belief in a god may be your personal ideal is not enough of a reason to start forcing people into that structure.

If it really is better, people will come by themselves. As it is, this is not the case, and therefore, I'm thinking we have reason to believe that your model is actually one that makes people unhappy, and that if given the choice between oppressive religion, and freedom and tolerance, they choose the latter.

...
But whats wrong with this trend? Are you angry that your ideals seem to be fading away because they aren't popular anymore? Do you feel threatened that your beliefs and morality are not espoused by others? I honestly don't see the big deal with the immigraition issue in Europe other then the fact that some nationalist parties could use it to get some seats in elections.

I'm not angry at all. I don't think my ideals seem to be fading away either though. I do not feel threatened that my beliefs and morality is not espoused by others.

What I do though is use these sorts of truths to show to even the non-religious people in the world that even if they DON'T believe in any kind of divine guidance, for example, they can still see that it doesn't take a religious theorem to show that a self harming life style (secularism a dying culture, is like an animal that goes extinct and is replaced by a better adapted creature), and with THAT information, perhaps they too should NOT be on the dying horse, perhaps they can decide to choose a lifestyle that even evolution must argue is better because it is more successful. Simple information for people that have a choice anyway, proof enough that perhaps the ancient documents like the Bible's teachings weren't so far fetched after all, they work.

Oh I disagree. Immigration IS a good thing, in my book anyway. HOWEVER, the confirmation of being a religious fundamentalist over a secularist (using your terminology) is that religious people get married sooner in their lives and raise more children, they do it and there is proof (I’ve already shown how the Early colonist out grew the Europeans because they got married earlier even then, and it is well known that they have always been more religious on a daily basis.
Actually its been shown that women who are given more rights tend to choose to have less children. In places such as Europe women do not need to or are not pressured to have kids in ways that occur in say India. So another explanation for the declining rate of birth in countries in Europe would be that women have more rights.

If YOU had to stay celibate until marriage, from social pressure alone (for example) you'd get married sooner than otherwise as well ;) In addition, if you were educated in how to be a good spouse, in how to be a good partner, in how to give of yourself to your family… Your spouse would be happier, your children would be happier and because of that, YOU would be happier as well.
Once again this plays into the women with more rights arguement. Women in Europe do not have a social pressure exerted from say religion or culturally on them because of the amount of rights and freedom they have. So then the problem is not that people who are less religious are having less children it becomes those pesky women can vote and aren't making babies any more. Also the fact of the matter is that plenty of non religious people stay celibate until marriage, are educated in how to be a good spouse(though this varies greatly from culture to culture so we can't really make a unified standard on this) and devote themselves to their family.

Can I 'prove' that to everyone that this is all true, no. Can I show evidence of it? Yes. Will some people be miserable SOB's all the same, even in the world as I design it? Yes, some of people will always be miserable SOBs.
You can show some form of correlation but thats not going to prove your point.

But is my way statistically better? Yes, I think it is.
Just because you think its better doesn't make it so.

I'm not angry at all. I don't think my ideals seem to be fading away either though. I do not feel threatened that my beliefs and morality is not espoused by others.
Well then thats great.

What I do though is use these sorts of truths to show to even the non-religious people in the world that even if they DON'T believe in any kind of divine guidance, for example, they can still see that it doesn't take a religious theorem to show that a self harming life style (secularism a dying culture, is like an animal that goes extinct and is replaced by a better adapted creature), and with THAT information, perhaps they too should NOT be on the dying horse, perhaps they can decide to choose a lifestyle that even evolution must argue is better because it is more successful. Simple information for people that have a choice anyway, proof enough that perhaps the ancient documents like the Bible's teachings weren't so far fetched after all, they work.
1. You have yet to show that secularism is a dying culture. The fact that Europes population is in a decline is from numerous reasons which are far removed from the places secular lifestyle.
2. What constitutes a self harming life style?
3. Evolution should really only be applied to animals because attempts at using it for class and other things always end up badly screwing people over. I also fail to see how one can argue that natural selection based on beneficial mutatations works with political theory and ideals.

Then here's an idea --- follow your own advice. Learn to be a good member of your family.
Learn to be a good member of your community, and of your society as well. And part of that is to let other people alone with the way they want to live their life. There is no god, there is no evidence, nor is there reason to believe in a god.
Just because the oppressive social structure that has at some point violently been forced upon people because of the belief in a god may be your personal ideal is not enough of a reason to start forcing people into that structure.

If it really is better, people will come by themselves. As it is, this is not the case, and therefore, I'm thinking we have reason to believe that your model is actually one that makes people unhappy, and that if given the choice between oppressive religion, and freedom and tolerance, they choose the latter.

I am not a good neighbor if I let my neighbors commit suicide by drinking shit and eating crap, even when they say they like eating crap and drinking shit. The least I can do it tell them that they don't have to eat crap and drink shit, I'll leave a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine out for them, doesn't mean they'll accept it, but I feel obliged to offer it all the same.

I'll leave a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine out for them, doesn't mean they'll accept it, but I feel obliged to offer it all the same.
Well, you did it. Plenty of times. On an Internet Forum.

We don't want it, so it's time to move on, don't you think?

I am not a good neighbor if I let my neighbors commit suicide by drinking shit and eating crap, even when they say they like eating crap and drinking shit. The least I can do it tell them that they don't have to eat crap and drink shit, I'll leave a loaf of bread and a bottle of wine out for them, doesn't mean they'll accept it, but I feel obliged to offer it all the same.

Of course equating a secluar society and its declining birthrate/difference in morals/values is hardly the same as eating crap and drinking shit. You may equate their ideas to that but that does not make them such. Also whats not to say that your ideals are the aforementioned shit and crap its just that you've been eating it and saying it tastes good this whole time? Cultures and the ideals that govern them vary. To sit here and say well my way is better and yours is so arrogant that even I'm flabergasted.

Of course equating a secluar society and its declining birthrate/difference in morals/values is hardly the same as eating crap and drinking shit. You may equate their ideas to that but that does not make them such. Also whats not to say that your ideals are the aforementioned shit and crap its just that you've been eating it and saying it tastes good this whole time? Cultures and the ideals that govern them vary. To sit here and say well my way is better and yours is so arrogant that even I'm flabergasted.

If systems were plants of the vine ... One system prospers and grows healthy and strong, one systems withers and dies even as it refused to eat it weakens itself and shrivels.

I don’t think there’s any ‘arrogance’ whatsoever in being able to discern between the two selections and choosing which vine you want to be a part of. One is not arrogant just because they picked the growing and healthy one.

If systems were plants of the vine ... One system prospers and grows healthy and strong, one systems withers and dies even as it refused to eat it weakens itself and shrivels.
But systems aren't plants on a vine. Your comparison is trying to equate schools of thoughts with a natural process. Its apples to oranges here man.

I don’t think there’s any ‘arrogance’ whatsoever in being able to discern between the two selections and choosing which vine you want to be a part of. One is not arrogant just because they picked the growing and healthy one.
Except you've already said in this thread

But is my way statistically better? Yes, I think it is.

There is a big difference between choosing an idea and sitting around saying I think my idea is better then yours.

But systems aren't plants on a vine. Your comparison is trying to equate schools of thoughts with a natural process. Its apples to oranges here man.

My comparisons are measuring the results of choices and the natural processes of those choices. Measuring the results of those schools of thought, that's what I'm doing.



There is a big difference between choosing an idea and sitting around saying I think my idea is better then yours.

Like I said above, about the neighbor stuff, showing a mirror and a telescope, so that people can see the results of their choices, some ideas ARE better than others.

Like I said above, about the neighbor stuff, showing a mirror and a telescope, so that people can see the results of their choices, some ideas ARE better than others.
Example being Iran?

To bad the US wont go into post religion thought anytime soon...


Perfect Utopia: No RELIGION... Ever, not even the concept of... Just like it never existed...

Perfect Utopia: No RELIGION... Ever, not even the concept of... Just like it never existed...

But Utopia is boring. Which, arguably, would be even more detrimental to the human race.

In the future Europe will be devoid of any Europeans since their population count is severely decreasing,because Europeans just dont want to have big families anymore. As a result Europe will be populated by Africans, Muslims, Asians,and the continent will have a significant amount of Jewish people as well.


European culture and race will indeed vanish....unfortunately.

Example being Iran?

And what's you best example of a secular society by law? The old Soviet Union? :rolleyes:

Neither of those is a very good argument now is it? Try thinking of a actual debate position before posting next time eh?

As a result Europe will be populated by Africans, Muslims, Asians,and the continent will have a significant amount of Jewish people as well.
Yaaaaaayy! I miss the Jews. They used to be central to German culture. Then someone decided that people needed to live wholesome lives, and that "European culture" and "race" was threatened...

European culture and race will indeed vanish....unfortunately.
I don't mind. And I'm the first person that should.
Various Anglo-Saxons really shouldn't be giving a shit.

And what's you best example of a secular society by law? The old Soviet Union? :rolleyes:
Well, it's obvious people don't want to live according to the church's rules. So the only alternative is to force them, right?

Neither of those is a very good argument now is it? Try thinking of a actual debate position before posting next time eh?
It is my position. You said before that you are against homosexual marriage and gay rights, you want to protect the family, you are against teaching evolution as fact, it's better if everyone was religious and that individual freedom is no more than an excuse by people to behave in bad ways.

The Iranian system is a 1:1 copy of that, except that they aren't Christian, they're Shi'ite Muslim.

The USSR however has nothing to do with my case, because I never said religion should be outlawed. I just said individuals should have the choice and not be told how to behave...something the USSR certainly didn't stand for.

You're only ten years older than me.

What, may I ask is a "secular muslim society"? Sounds like a contradiction.

For me, well I can get attached to certain places. I won't want to give up and leave just because a bunch of right-wing religious psychos are trying to take over.



Have you ever visited Turkey? That's a pretty good example... overall Muslim society, secular government and institutions. The same would go for places like Monte Negro.
Not every country with a predominantly Muslim population automatically is a fanatical theocracy.

I tend not to get attached to places so much as to a general atmosphere of a place. If that changes, I'll look for the same somewhere else.

In the future Europe will be devoid of any Europeans since their population count is severely decreasing,because Europeans just dont want to have big families anymore. As a result Europe will be populated by Africans, Muslims, Asians,and the continent will have a significant amount of Jewish people as well.


European culture and race will indeed vanish....unfortunately.

And who cares?
I'm European, and truth be told, I don't give a shit. I don't like kids, I won't have kids, and if others decide to do the same that's their right.
A little less population would do Europe a world of good, it's an incredibly overpopulated place. The only place I know of with an even worse population density is Japan.
A decline in population growth doesn't mean that a whole continent is going to die out. Otherwise China would be dead by now...

This thread was NOT intended to be thinly veiled at all, it's an open and clear assailment against the dangers found in the asinine agnostic/atheism and humanist secularism, an attack on their self imposed population restrictions and culture deficiency in raising the next generation, this thread was meant to point out how their path leads to cultural death. I didn’t say anything, nor mean anything disrespectful of Muslims.

Yes, perhaps we in Europe should embrace the "culture of life" of America, with wars, the death penalty, no universal healthcare, and teach creationism to our children.....hang on...didn't we have all that before and progress past it?

Well, to me it seems obvious that Greenlander hasn't got a clue, because first of all: there is no European culture!
Compare Italy and Denmark - their cultures vary enormously. Also, what is Europe? Is Switzerland part of it? Is Estonia part of it? Is Croatia part of it? You can't properly define Europe, so you can't talk about "one" European culture.

And a thought as well: A secular society (i.e. religion and state are seperate) does not equal a non religious population. After all, the founders of the US wanted a secular state precisly because Europe at the time wasn't secular and religious persecution was a big issue there.

What's American culture? Can we define it? Its just as bumbled and jumbled as a "European" culture all thrown together, which doesn't exist. Of course, we could try but its never going to work. I could list a number of differences between the various regions in the States, the only thing is, we almost all can speak in addition to any other languages, a relatively inteligible Enlgish dialect.

And America's stagnation would be just as stagnant as Europe's population, in respect to birth rates, as immigration has been the number one factor in population growth in the US of A for a long time going now.

And faith! Don't get me started on FAITH! Just because the Americans, when polled in some random Gallop Poll, answer, "Yes, I go to church on a regular basis!" Doesn't mean that European's are any less SPIRITUAL. Many European's I've met are theists, but reject the pointless, outdated traditions of the various churches they can attend. Besides, how can you go to church if you have to work on Sunday to pay the rent, feed the kids, and generally keep enjoying life?

And, in my narrow experience, Americans are more inclined to be alcholic. Its the whole idea of keeping booze legally away until people are 21! The only thing is, in America, being yourself, atheist or alcholic, is taboo, and so, we cover it up, and lie.

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-08-faith-edit_x.htm) about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...And that's where it proves you have no idea what you're talking about. "Secularists" and the religious get along fine in Europe, as shocking as this may sound to you.

No, it won't die. It will likely change, taking on some aspects of the culture of its immigrants.

Lots of people tend to think that when two cultures come together one 'wins' and removes the other. While that may happen if there's some sort of genocidal conquest (like the small pox/conquistador conquests of the Americas), it doesn't usually happen when groups of people settle amongst other people.

Take England as an example. You had the Britons, then the Romans turned up, and you got a Roman-Briton culture. Then the Saxons turned up and you got a Saxon-Roman-Briton culture. Then the Vikings and the Normans turned up... You can still see elements of all the cultures in England today, not just one. A similar thing will happen (and has happened) to Europe.

Edit: Of course, there's not just one European culture as other people have said, but what I said still holds for many cultures that are seeing immigration. The sets of cultures will change.

Latin America, also, is a very good example.

But I think India is the best example of cultural blending.

Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Roman Catholic Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)


:confused: I know I'm among the more aged here, but... has everyone forgotten about the much hyped overpopulation scare of the 70's and early 80's?
During that time, experts galore were suggesting ways to decrease population growth. There were endless examples of what an Exponential is and how exponential population growth would spell the downfall of humankind.
If memory serves, it was this precise concern that led to China's rather draconian "Two Child" law.
Political decisions, as we're all well aware, have unintended ramifications leading (in at least one case) to Chinese classrooms vacant with the exception of a single child. What I believe is termed "population inversion" has occured. The elderly outnumber the young... thereby straining the economies as well as the traditional social structures of aflicted countries.
I believe that countries such as China essentially over-corrected (sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing its own population inversion not entirely by choice... due to AIDS). Our answer should have been, as in so many other things, moderation -- a gradual tapering off of population growth.
But we didn't. And here we are. We knocked the bottom out from under the wave before it hit and now a brand new wave is following.
It seems to me, we ought to be happy we won't face the doomsday predicted in the 70's and then redirect ourselves toward solving the problem of supporting our preceeding generation.
Soon enough, they'll be gone. And the world will be a much roomier (and more plentiful) place.

If memory serves, it was this precise concern that led to China's rather draconian "Two Child" law."One Child Policy"

What the hell is this European culture?? if its language even muslim emigrants learn English, French, Dutch, German, etc, etc..if its literature and the arts i think we will be safe in the knowledge thats there is plenty of that to hand down, if its number of people then perhaps an integrated 'european' culture based on the Germanic and Latin peoples is what is needed, perhaps if we don't want our descendents bowing to Mecca then our 'cultures' will have to be sacrificed.

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-08-faith-edit_x.htm) about how there are more Europeans that are alcoholics and people that believe in UFO's than there are Europeans that believe in God. Population growth, or the lack thereof, with the anti-religious secular society...

Not a single Western European country has a fertility rate sufficient to replace the current population, which demographers say requires 2.1 children per family. Germany, Russia, Spain, Poland and Italy all have rates of about 1.3 children, according to the U.N. The Czech Republic's is less than 1.2, and even Roman Catholic Ireland is at 1.9 children. (The U.S. rate, which has remained stable, is slightly more than 2 children per woman.)

Fifteen countries, "mostly located in Southern and Eastern Europe, have reached levels of fertility unprecedented in human history," according to the U.N.'s World Population Prospects 2004 revision.

As children grow scarce and longevity increases in Europe, the continent is becoming one vast Leisure World. By 2050, the U.N. projects, more than 40% of the people in Italy will be 60 or older. By mid-century, populations in 25 European nations will be lower than they are now; Russia will lose 31 million people, Italy 7.2 million, Poland 6.6 million and Germany 3.9 million. So Europe is abandoning religion, growing older, shrinking and slowly killing itself. These are signs of a society in eclipse - the Roman Empire writ large. Is this any model for America? ...

It again looks like Europe will be a mostly Muslim continent within three generations (my estimations, nothing to do with the opinion piece). Only 14% (or so) of Europe is now Muslim, but give it some time. The Islam followers are growing and keeping their collective religiosity segments intact (when compared to the rest of the Europeans anyway), whilst the rest of the continent, the culture we think of as Western, is about to commit collective suicide (if the UN predictions are correct about population decline by 2050 in Europe - see link below). That may not, in the end, be a bad thing. Perhaps this deserves no other attention from us other than for us to reminisce and then say a hearty, good riddance. And a big welcome to what will hopefully be a moderately secular Muslim society of the future.

World Population Prospects The 2004 Revision (http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/WPP2004/2004Highlights_finalrevised.pdf) (.pdf warning)

Maybe Asia should send Christian missionaries to eastern Europe now instead of waiting? :p

The incoming Christian population and non-muslim populations from Africa, India, South America, white commonwealth nations and the US far out pace the the incoming muslim populations in Britain. The difference is that these groups tend to be absorded in to European society with relative ease while the isolationist attitudes of the muslim populations creates ghettohs and then promotes the image of a beligerant invading force. The US constitutes the single largest source of illigal imagrants to the UK and the largest source of legal imigration to France. In the British case the US outstrips my homeland Zimbabwe (roughly 15% of Zimbabwe's population lives in exile in Britain or Europe), Iraq Sudan and Pakistan put together. I think a far greater risk to Europe's culture lies in the absorbsion of radical (and ill conceived) American and African "churches". There is a general shift to the right throughout Europe that aims to keep non-white people out of Europe and while hurting Christian African it will almost certainly curb imigration from muslim countries.

The glea that British, Australian and American right wing comentators get from the apparent religiously inspired riots in France is misplaced. Remebering Paris's history and culture, riots from the economically disenfranchised are inevitable and compared to the British Riots of 2001 or the LA race Riots they were particularly benign and bloodless. They do indicate the general failure of north African muslims to be absorded into the Republican ideology unlike their Italian, Vietnamese, West African or German counterparts during the 20th centuary and a malaise in civic planning and ecconomic planning, but they do not indicate a failure of the principal of the French Republic.

it is possible that, as economic strains begin to grow (as the will inevitably) that there will be a xenophobic backlash throughout Europe, which will predominatly aim at muslims but any notion that Islam is drawing converts in their millions or that secular Europe lacks the capasity to fend off such a threat would be misplaced. What I feel is a more pressing threat, Christian Radicals from Africa and the Americas, will be fended off by the particularly European brand of Enlightenment and (oddly enough) the resergance of a evangelising Catholic Church in the predominantly protestant parts of Europe.

While I can certainly see this There is a general shift to the right throughout Europe that aims to keep non-white people out of Europe and while hurting Christian African it will almost certainly curb imigration from muslim countries. and this it is possible that, as economic strains begin to grow (as the will inevitably) that there will be a xenophobic backlash throughout Europe, which will predominatly aim at muslims happening, I don't know where you get the impression that "Christian Radicals from Africa and the Americas" and their radical churches are consituting a threat here.
Now, I know nothing about African churches, neither as they exist in Africa nor as they do in Europe, so I can't really make an informed comment here. But I've never heard of African churches making any impact here either.
As for the American fundamentalists: as much as I despise them, them ever getting a foothold in Europe (at least in "Old Europe", that is) is something that is just not going to happen. This kind of religion is diametrically opposed to how religion is seen/practiced here, and obviuosly doesn't have any place in a rather secular society to begin with. Nobody would find it either appealing or believable, morbid curiosity and ridicule is the best these churches could hope for.

I don't know where you get the impression that "Christian Radicals from Africa and the Americas" and their radical churches are consituting a threat here.


Sorry, I should have been more clear on that point. North and East London in particular has a bewildering aray of recently formed "African" Churches, basically business interests for Nigerian, Kenyan and Southern African "ma'postories" (Apostles) which originally fed off of African's living in Britain, but have radically absorbed disenfranchised poor. Like in Africa they make millions of pounds a year that disappears into shadey bank accounts or fast cars, loose women and flashy houses. Their growth and the political clout that they garner is spectacular and I have no doubt that they will imitate their African counterparts who sway public opinion through out Christian Africa and are only really opposed by the older churches and muslims.

The recent political noises made by American backed evangelical churches (see attempted banning of Jerry Springer the Musical) is aimed a predominantly rural parts of Britain where the Catholic and Anglican Churches are struggling to maintain a presance because of their shrinking pool pasters/preists prepared in Europe (which contradicts their burgoning strength in Africa and the rest of the third world). I feel however that the Catholic Church (at least) has reasoned that it must fight fire with fire, gence the increase in African born preists comming to Europe to have their missions.

in all these things I can only asume that Britain is at least reflective of Europe at large.

The interesting thing about this demographic trend is that most 2nd generation Muslims adapt suffciently to the European culture to imitate the birth rate as shown by the indigenous population.... only the first generation of imigrants actually has that many children.

No culture can remain stagnant. And if that means that Europe's new religion will be Islam, well, it can't get much worse than it was under Chrisitanity at times.





so what we iz saying like iz that we should be wearing the tea towels innit?
they put the berk in burkha narwhaimean

Latin America, also, is a very good example.

But I think India is the best example of cultural blending.




blending... like tea? do you know what the caste system is?

Sorry, I should have been more clear on that point. North and East London in particular has a bewildering aray of recently formed "African" Churches, basically business interests for Nigerian, Kenyan and Southern African "ma'postories" (Apostles) which originally fed off of African's living in Britain, but have radically absorbed disenfranchised poor. Like in Africa they make millions of pounds a year that disappears into shadey bank accounts or fast cars, loose women and flashy houses. Their growth and the political clout that they garner is spectacular and I have no doubt that they will imitate their African counterparts who sway public opinion through out Christian Africa and are only really opposed by the older churches and muslims.

The recent political noises made by American backed evangelical churches (see attempted banning of Jerry Springer the Musical) is aimed a predominantly rural parts of Britain where the Catholic and Anglican Churches are struggling to maintain a presance because of their shrinking pool pasters/preists prepared in Europe (which contradicts their burgoning strength in Africa and the rest of the third world). I feel however that the Catholic Church (at least) has reasoned that it must fight fire with fire, gence the increase in African born preists comming to Europe to have their missions.

in all these things I can only asume that Britain is at least reflective of Europe at large.

That all sounds quite scary (as anything involving fundamentalist religions and/or religious scams is wont to do). I'm just glad nothing of this is going on where I live (Germany). I think the only kind of "religious awakening" we've been having lately is that of the "Jesus Freaks" variety. Still disturbs me quite a bit, but as long as they don't really gain any influence I'll still say whatever, they're teenagers, they'll grow out of it in no time.

As for the American fundamentalists: as much as I despise them, them ever getting a foothold in Europe (at least in "Old Europe", that is) is something that is just not going to happen. This kind of religion is diametrically opposed to how religion is seen/practiced here, and obviuosly doesn't have any place in a rather secular society to begin with. Nobody would find it either appealing or believable, morbid curiosity and ridicule is the best these churches could hope for.
I agree to a point. I don't believe that American evangelist type churches will become a great influence in "Europe" (however you will define it), but they are already present and will grow to a certain level. I doubt that they will ever be huge over here, though, as they are indeed diametrically opposed to a secular society, especially as most Christians in Europe like living in secular societies. A secular society means that they can practice whatever faith they choose without state interference, as long as they don't clash with the law (human sacrifice would not be acceptable ;) ). It also means that politicians can't tell you what you should or shouldn't believe.
That is, what the founding fathers of the US also had in mind. Seems they failed, though. Shame really!

so what we iz saying like iz that we should be wearing the tea towels innit?
they put the berk in burkha narwhaimean

Could this be the new Jesussaves?;)

Could this be the new Jesussaves?;)

Now with added mockney :confused:

I think that some of you need to consider what Europe is nowadays. A lot of persons have become christian since the fall of the soviet union. The Ukraine, Belorussia, Russia among others have all become christian nations. But hopefully the number of ateists will rise again.

European Culture? Does that exist?

what does religion have to do with major cultural change? (and the Mediterranean is allot different to northern European in culture)

I predict no real change percentage wise though there will be a larger proportion of "other minorities" (mostly African) but Immigration the way it is now won't continue as are unskilled job sectors shrink and the world as a whole becomes more stable and developed (maybe are aid will bite us in the arse a few years down the line)

only on the net do the atheists have a higher percentage

Among the consequences of Europe's abandonment of its religious roots and the moral code that derives therefrom is a plunge in its birth rates to below the replacement level. Abortion, birth control, acceptance of gay marriage and casual sex are driving the trend. Europe is "committing demographic suicide, systematically depopulating itself," according to Weigel.
I wonder if this man knows that the #1 factor in reducing the birth rate is female literacy?

so what we iz saying like iz that we should be wearing the tea towels innit?
they put the berk in burkha narwhaimean

Not more ridiculous than Dirndl and Lederhosen, in my opinion... :rolleyes:

Do you know what the caste system is?
Firstly, the caste system is culture. We're not talking about socio-economic mobility here.

Secondly, open a history book.

Thirdly, read.

Tack så mycket!

Have you ever visited Turkey? That's a pretty good example... overall Muslim society, secular government and institutions. The same would go for places like Monte Negro.
Not every country with a predominantly Muslim population automatically is a fanatical theocracy.
Turkey is insufficiently secular for me.

I tend not to get attached to places so much as to a general atmosphere of a place. If that changes, I'll look for the same somewhere else.
I still disagree. I don't want to spend my life running away from creeping religious fanaticism. (and you know how that sort of thing spreads)

Well... I doubt the native European population will ever convert to Islam... most secularites who dislike Christianity like Islam less. However, with the vast waves of Islamic immigration we are seeing... they will probably have a majority by the end of the century. I don't expect the "tolerance" shown to Muslims by the secular governments of Europe to be repaid once there is a Muslim majority in Europe. I'm doing my bit for the cause, and planning to die childless.

Turkey is insufficiently secular for me.


I still disagree. I don't want to spend my life running away from creeping religious fanaticism. (and you know how that sort of thing spreads)

Turkey's well on its way. And Europe is a far cry indeed from a theocracy.

Already knowing it, I was reminded again from an opinion piece in the USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-01-08-faith-edit_x.htm) about ...


Yes,.. but not as you think it will.

Europe will decend into racial warfare.

And the result will be an institutionalized "racism" which will "purify" (their
words not mine) most of europe and result in massive "walls" around the "pure
lands".

These walls will be resented by those trying to occupy the "new holy land"
(european land claimed by the "easterners and southerners") due to the
ourtrageous population pressure differential between the east (dense) and
walled-europe (less dense).

The wall will fall, and the border areas will be "cleansed" by tactical nuclear
weapons.

The "east" will not retaliate because they will already have been obliterated
by the combined "alliance" of Walled-Europe, America, and China.

The "south" (africa) will be threatened will similar treatment if they continue
to "act up".

They won't.

The Wall will be rebuilt.

The non-radiated (or more accurately LESS radiated) areas of Walled Europe
will be repopulated by europeans.

The east will be left to wallow for some decades in their misery, but the
important resources of the east will have already been put under Euro-
Americo-Chinese control as "Resourstates" with a special quasi-national
status.

(( The east will eventually give up the cult of Mohamed in favor of eating. ))

America will continue pretty much as it has,.. as the only super-power, but
looking over it's shoulder at China, and plotting the best time to evicerate it's
only real competition via precise nuclear strikes on the non-power, non-
resource population centers to decapitate China's ability to lead itself to the
nearest cafe for lunch.

All those who don't "understand" that religiously non-racial republicanism is
the only hope for America (and implicitly the World) will be arrested and sent
to work in whichever Resourstate needs manpower. They will be paid well
though, with access to the infinite variety of "entertainment products"
available, but will never be "free" to interact with real society. And not
allowed to breed.

This leads to the formation of the Main Continent Federation (a US
subsidiary) with most of the "naturally attractive" parts of Eurasia being
transformed into eco-tourism parks and mega-wealthy-owner real estate (for
trade on the new Pan Global MLS).

Europe will become a "park", for the cultural entertainment of wealthy
Americans and "High-bred" Europeans. The former "caste system" of
european "nobility" will be re-instituted to control "the rabble", as they
consider the leaders of europe that allowed the "wog menace" to have been.
Most europeans will work in the tourist and travel industry and wonder why
their ancestors would EVER want the burdens of leading themselves when
they could entertain for such high wages and benefits.

The non-High-bred population will rapidly adopt the state "religion" of America
(religious non-racial republicanism) and be renamed by them as "Secularism".
This will allow them to visit the US, and form business and personal bonds
with Americans.

The High-bred europeans will be having lots of fun spending their wealth
flagrantly and thinking they're in charge of their european underlings. Their
American financiers will leave them to their fools paradise,.. until they drop,
one by one, into destitution and either make something of themselves
commercially or perish entirely.

Africa will decline (how far can they go?) and then advance when the new
cult of laisse-faire capitalism takes firm hold of the population, and they
spontaneously develop into a federation of "Corponations" that the rest of
the world actually WANTS to trade with.

That's what they tell me, anyway...


-Iakeo

Who's "they"?

In the future Europe will be devoid of any Europeans since their population count is severely decreasing,because Europeans just dont want to have big families anymore. As a result Europe will be populated by Africans, Muslims, Asians,and the continent will have a significant amount of Jewish people as well.


European culture and race will indeed vanish....unfortunately.

Ha! and here I was, all this time thinking that Jews are Europeans (the ones that live in Europe)....SILLY ME!:rolleyes:

Who's "they"?

Those who know, of course. It would be silly of me to quote people who don't know, now wouldn't it..?

By the way, Dublin, and "most" of the British Isles are spared the really nasty parts of this weirdness.

-Iakeo

Those who know, of course. It would be silly of me to quote people who don't know, now wouldn't it..?

By the way, Dublin, and "most" of the British Isles are spared the really nasty parts of this weirdness.

-Iakeo

Hmm... I grew up in Germany. I noticed no particular weirdness. Apart from the obvious :p

i thnk the europe i love since i can remember will/must die

i thnk the europe i love since i can remember will/must die

Europe? Really? I always thought you were more localised in your patriotism :p ;)

Turkey is insufficiently secular for me.

Like we can really talk! You glanced at the the preamble to our Constitution? Sheesh, wouldn't want to a non- Catholic! 92% of our primary schools are STILL controlled/run by the Church.... now there is the case for the waining influence of the Church I grant you- but indeed, this state is insufficiently secular for me too.


I don't want to spend my life running away from creeping religious fanaticism. (and you know how that sort of thing spreads)

Like the Bishop whapping you with a great big stick because you forgot a word while reciting the Angelus is Latin?

Or the kids of a Protestant father and Catholic mother being taken from him and given to her family after she died, purely because the Constitution forbade a POSSIBLE non Catholic unbringing? That was only removed in the late 70's!
We've just come away from religious fanaticism- of all cultures we shouldn't be so quick to judge other religious beliefs without forgetting our own.

Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore :p


No, you miss the point. Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.


You assume that people without religion are like a blank slate waiting to be indoctrinated one way or the other.

You assume that people without religion are like a blank slate waiting to be indoctrinated one way or the other.

Nope, I simply recognize that the grandchildren of the people without religion are like a blank slate waiting to be indoctrinated, one way or the other.

Nope, I simply recognize that the grandchildren of the people without religion are like a blank slate waiting to be indoctrinated, one way or the other.

You 'assert' the grandchildren etc etc, you 'assert' it. That is what we call your 'opinion'. It is not an objective, measurable piece of data, it is what you posit.

Nope, I simply recognize that the grandchildren of the people without religion are like a blank slate waiting to be indoctrinated, one way or the other.

Erm... no, they aren't.
You seem to assume that human beings can't exist without religion/doctrine, but they can. The fact that somebody does not have a religion doesn't mean that he would need one to be a complete and happy person.

Erm... no, they aren't.
You seem to assume that human beings can't exist without religion/doctrine, but they can. The fact that somebody does not have a religion doesn't mean that he would need one to be a complete and happy person.

Yeah, people can thrive and form great civilizations without any organized religion.....:rolleyes: See: Black Africa

There are places there where they still eat the losers of an inter tribal skirmish.....but the vast majority of black Africa is way ahead of that time....they have already figured out that canibalism is a no no. Meanwhile, going on to form an awe inspiring black African civilization, or, wait,....are they?:rolleyes:

Erm... no, they aren't.
You seem to assume that human beings can't exist without religion/doctrine, but they can. The fact that somebody does not have a religion doesn't mean that he would need one to be a complete and happy person.

Let’s discuss this. For individual people, and maybe even a majority of an isolated individual generation of a community here and there, there can be found a majority of a society to have been non-religious atheist/agnostics, humanist etc... You may be right about that, but that is NOT what I said, about the issue and the grandchildren of those people.

Prove to us that there has ever been, at any time in the history civilization, anywhere in the world three consecutive generations in any society/community/age anywhere in the world, three generations that prospered and existed and maintained its very existence WITHOUT a general societal regard for the divine or religion in some aspect, fashion or another.

I submit that YOUR assumption is wrong, that my posit that the third generation of non-religious secularist are susceptible to conversions is correct by the example of human history it has always been so.

Yeah, people can thrive and form great civilizations without any organized religion.....:rolleyes: See: Black Africa

There are places there where they still eat the losers of an inter tribal skirmish.....but the vast majority of black Africa is way ahead of that time....they have already figured out that canibalism is a no no. Meanwhile, going on to form an awe inspiring black African civilization, or, wait,....are they?:rolleyes:

Niiice stereotyping.

And Cabra never said anything about "thrive" and forming "great civilisations". She merely said "survive".

With which I completely agree. Man does not NEED religion to achieve things- anymore than a man needs an appendix.

Haha, that's so funny. As IF the Church could raise an army to defeat an intruder in Spain today? They can't even influence the Spanish government to take their side in a debate anymore :p


No, you miss the point. Will the secularist children of the future, raised by non-religious parents with a near total lack of religious beliefs and understanding of doctrine of their own, be able to stop their siblings and contemporaries being converted? I'm saying no, they will not have the ability to fight back, as they are, essentially, unarmed.

Amusing. You know Muslims believe in God, no? So are the number of people who believe in God increasing or decreasing? Or did you mean the number of people who believe in your specific incarnation of God?

Also, it should be pointed out that there something of the order of 35% Catholics (that's just Catholics) in Europe and Franc,e most commonly held to be the most secular country in Europe, has a dramatic Christian majority.

http://www.prb.org/Template.cfm?Section=PRB&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=13183

http://www.geoplace.com/hottopics/CIAwfb/factbook/geos/fr.html

As far as European culture dying, I don't see how a drop in population of a few hundred million people is going to change the fact that European culture has become a part of the culture in nearly every other country in the world (mostly because about a hundred years ago they considered all of those countries territories of one European nation or another). If we are going to worry about cultures immigrating into Europe shouldn't we also count Europeans emmigrating to other countries in their population as well?

As far as religion, many religions are only predicting small declines of their followers in Europe. The Catholic Church predicts that more than a third of Europe will still be Catholic in 2050. One third of the continent belonging to just one religion? That's secular? That's not even counting all the other religions.

The predictions of this article are ridiculous as is the 'evidence' it's based on.

Niiice stereotyping.

And Cabra never said anything about "thrive" and forming "great civilisations". She merely said "survive".

With which I completely agree. Man does not NEED religion to achieve things- anymore than a man needs an appendix.

Show me a great civilization/empire/state that has done any good which has had no religion it it....

Yeah, people can thrive and form great civilizations without any organized religion.....:rolleyes: See: Black Africa

There are places there where they still eat the losers of an inter tribal skirmish.....but the vast majority of black Africa is way ahead of that time....they have already figured out that canibalism is a no no. Meanwhile, going on to form an awe inspiring black African civilization, or, wait,....are they?:rolleyes:

Holy fuck, where do you get off posting shit like this?

There is NO place on the whole fucking planet where cannibalsim is still practiced, not ONE. Except, of course, the nice and cushy homes of deranged Western serial killers.

And there's what - no "organized religion" in sub-saharan Africa??? You must be fucking kidding. The major religions have been there for hundreds of years - where do you think most of today's new converts to thoses religions come from? Plus, do you even have any idea about how strictly organized, regulated, and steeped in ritualized tradition any kind of older indigenous (i.e. what you obviously wouldn't deem to qualify as "organized") religions are?

And just when has "organized religion" become a prerequisite for civilization, eh?

Show me a great civilization/empire/state that has done any good which has had no religion it it....

I can't, but then I can't show you a great civilization/empire/state that has done any good, which has had no crime in it either. Is that an argument that mankind needs crime?

Holy fuck, where do you get off posting shit like this?

There is NO place on the whole fucking planet where cannibalsim is still practiced, not ONE. Except, of course, the nice and cushy homes of deranged Western serial killers.

And there's what - no "organized religion" in sub-saharan Africa??? You must be fucking kidding. The major religions have been there for hundreds of years - where do you think most of today's new converts to thoses religions come from? Plus, do you even have any idea about how strictly organized, regulated, and steeped in ritualized tradition any kind of older indigenous (i.e. what you obviously wouldn't deem to qualify as "organized") religions are?

And just when has "organized religion" become a prerequisite for civilization, eh?

Ok, show me civilization that has had no religion that has thrived...in fact, just show me one at all.

Show me a great civilization/empire/state that has done any good which has had no religion it it....

Hmmm did the Mongals have a religion? :p

I can't, but then I can't show you a great civilization/empire/state that has done any good, which has had no crime in it either. Is that an argument that mankind needs crime?

No, maybe it does mean that maybe crime is a nessisary part of humanity and will always be that....?....

Hmmm did the Mongals have a religion? :p

Yes, shamanism.

Hmmm did the Mongals have a religion? :p

First of all, I have no idea if they had a religion but im sure someone can look it up. Second of all they were exactly a stable country, but more of a migrating horde....but then again i still think they had a religion come to think of it.

I can't, but then I can't show you a great civilization/empire/state that has done any good, which has had no crime in it either. Is that an argument that mankind needs crime?


Also, can you name a great civilization/empire/state that didn't do anythign bad?

Hmmmmm what did Europe do to Africa?

What about the "Christian" USA to the Natives?

;)

No, maybe it does mean that maybe crime is a nessisary part of humanity and will always be that....?....

No, it shows that crime has always been a part of major civilizations. It doesn't suggest anything that it's a necessary part of humanity in general. I mean come on, what if it was more specific. Like, baby raping. Baby raping has been in every civilization... does that mean it's necessary for humanity? I should fucking hope not!

Similarly, religion is not necessary for mankind just because it happens to have occurred in major civilizations.

Prevalence=/=necessity.

How about a few other countries that are in danger of losing their religion?

England
http://www.geoplace.com/hottopics/CIAwfb/factbook/geos/uk.html
Oh, dear God, they are only 2/3 Christian and less than 2% Muslim. Run, the Muslims are taking over.

The Netherlands - Now certainly this must be an example of a Godless country - they smoke the *makes quote motions with his fingers* pot -
http://www.geoplace.com/hottopics/CIAwfb/factbook/geos/nl.html#People
My goodness, we're down to a little over half Christian as compared to a little over 4% Muslim. Soon the Christians might not be in the majority.

Frankly, I would like to an examples of all these secular nations, because by my numbers the entire continent is only about 25% non-religious (their word not mine, includes athiests, agnostics, humanists, etc.).

Also, can you name a great civilization/empire/state that didn't do anythign bad?

Hmmmmm what did Europe do to Africa?

What about the "Christian" USA to the Natives?

;)

No....but we are not talking about that....that is totally irrelevant. Also, I'm pretty sure Canada has a pretty clean slate, as does the bahamas....

Europe colonized Africa and took slaves, so did the arabs...whats your point.

The Americans killed indians and took over their land......show me one great empire that has not killed for land to expand their empire.

Hell, name a great empire/civilization/state that had no religion... *waits*

Hell, name a great empire/civilization/state that had no religion... *waits*
The USSR? Worshiping Stalin may well have been its "religion," but not in the traditional context.

No....but we are not talking about that....that is totally irrelevant. Also, I'm pretty sure Canada has a pretty clean slate, as does the bahamas....

Europe colonized Africa and took slaves, so did the arabs...whats your point.

The Americans killed indians and took over their land......show me one great empire that has not killed for land to expand their empire.

Canadians did the same thing Americans did, brutalized and decimated the natives. And the Bahamas? Seriously?

And his point is what you're going to consider great and not great is a matter of perspective. Their were many 'great' civilizations that were brutal violators of human rights and also very religious, many of them were even Christian. Religion is not a deciding factor on whether your civilization will be great or evil. It's pretty much a part of every society, everywhere, in some way, and those societies thrive or perish on their merits, not based on how religious they are.

Hell, name a great empire/civilization/state that had no religion... *waits*

Who are you arguing with? Cabra West? She's the one that said we survive without religion just fine....

And your two country links (United Kingdom and Netherlands) both have LESS than one percent population growth. 0.29 for UK and 0.54 for N. What were you trying to prove anyways? Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread huh?

Ok, show me civilization that has had no religion that has thrived...in fact, just show me one at all.

An Atheist Civilisation?
As in one that does not believe in a God/Gods?

The Kara Khitai. They were a strong Buddhist kingdom in Central Asia in the 10/11th C. Buddhists don't follow a God or Gods. They are Atheists. They lasted until the Mongols eventually took them over.

On general prinicple, i would have to say the Mongols. They never adopted an offical religion, some still worshipped according to Shamanism, some Islam, others still Nestorian Chrisitanity- but as an entity, the Mongol Empire did not endose any official religion.

What has religion got to do with a particular 'civilisation' being 'great' anyway?

The USSR? Worshiping Stalin may well have been its "religion," but not in the traditional context.

The people still had religion...they were very religious in orthodox christianity.

An Atheist Civilisation?
As in one that does not believe in a God/Gods?

The Kara Khitai. They were a strong Buddhist kingdom in Central Asia in the 10/11th C. Buddhists don't follow a God or Gods. They are Atheists. They lasted until the Mongols eventually took them over.

On general prinicple, i would have to say the Mongols. They never adopted an offical religion, some still worshipped according to Shamanism, some Islam, others still Nestorian Chrisitanity- but as an entity, the Mongol Empire did not endose any official religion.

What has religion got to do with a particular 'civilisation' being 'great' anyway?
Religion is not necessarily belief in a deity...its an organised belief system. Thus Buddhism is still a religion. As is shamanism.

Ok, show me civilization that has had no religion that has thrived...in fact, just show me one at all.
There is no such thing. Humans have always desperately been trying to make sense of the world around them by constructing their own respective explanatory world view, i.e. religion.

Now, you were talking about "organized" religion, which you don't think can be found in Africa. Since the Mongols seem to have preferred Shamanism, you promptly demoted them to not really that civilized after all.
So the question really is what consitutes "civilization" for you? Indigenous societies are unbelievably socially complex, with tons of rules we can't even imagine. That good enough for you? Doesn't seem so. So, do there need to be big temples and roads and armies? What about the Incas? Very organized fellas. Ooh, I forgot, they ate people. Damn.

And just because up to this place in time most humans have been living with religion, doesn't mean that religion is a prerequisite for them living together in a society.
Like Santa Barbara said above:No, it shows that crime has always been a part of major civilizations. It doesn't suggest anything that it's a necessary part of humanity in general. I mean come on, what if it was more specific. Like, baby raping. Baby raping has been in every civilization... does that mean it's necessary for humanity? I should fucking hope not!

Similarly, religion is not necessary for mankind just because it happens to have occurred in major civilizations.

Prevalence=/=necessity.

Since you're so concerned about non-religious Europeans (after all, this is what started this thread) I have to ask you: see us disintegrating yet?

Religion is not necessarily belief in a deity...its an organised belief system. Thus Buddhism is still a religion. As is shamanism.

/signed

...

Since you're so concerned about non-religious Europeans (after all, this is what started this thread) I have to ask you: see us disintegrating yet?

Yes, the UN predicts a declining population for you. As has been pointed out already, several times.

The USSR? Worshiping Stalin may well have been its "religion," but not in the traditional context.

You don't really believe the majority of the people in the USSR were not religious, do you? At best, one might claim half of the people during it's height were non-religious, but considering the way the country was with prohibiting religion and all and the difficulty collecting such numbers, it's really hard to tell. We still don't really have any idea of the number of religious and non-religious in Russia, the heart of the USSR. If you consider USSR to not have religion then we should probably consider Prohibition Era US to not have alcohol... chhhhh... pffft... sspppssss... See, now I can't even say that with a straight face.

Also, I would hardly call a Union that lasted around fifty years great. Shouldn't an empire or civilization be a little more dominant and last a bit longer?

Religion is not necessarily belief in a deity...its an organised belief system. Thus Buddhism is still a religion. As is shamanism.

Europa Maxima=1

Mongooses=0

Also, I would hardly call a Union that lasted around fifty years great. Shouldn't an empire or civilization be a little more dominant and last a bit longer?
They call Alexander's conquests the Alexandrian Empire, and it lasted not more than 10 years if I recall correctly. 50 years nowadays is a long enough period IMO.

Yes, the UN predicts a declining population for you. As has been pointed out already, several times.
A declining population does not mean the end of a society! And, as has also been pointed out several times already, the decline in population has nothing to do with a decline in religious belief, no matter how twisted the logic of the article that started this thread.

You don't really believe the majority of the people in the USSR were not religious, do you? At best, one might claim half of the people during it's height were non-religious, but considering the way the country was with prohibiting religion and all and the difficulty collecting such numbers, it's really hard to tell. We still don't really have any idea of the number of religious and non-religious in Russia, the heart of the USSR. If you consider USSR to not have religion then we should probably consider Prohibition Era US to not have alcohol... chhhhh... pffft... sspppssss... See, now I can't even say that with a straight face.

Also, I would hardly call a Union that lasted around fifty years great. Shouldn't an empire or civilization be a little more dominant and last a bit longer?

And not slaughtering 40 million people in that time span while building concentration camps in sibera all the while starving the masses.

And not slaughtering 40 million people in that time span while building concentration camps in sibera all the while starving the masses.

Hmmm didn't you just say my examples of this nature was not relevant?

Hmmm didn't you just say my examples of this nature was not relevant?

I did, and this is not relevant to to conversation at all, just adding it :p

Who are you arguing with? Cabra West? She's the one that said we survive without religion just fine....

And your two country links (United Kingdom and Netherlands) both have LESS than one percent population growth. 0.29 for UK and 0.54 for N. What were you trying to prove anyways? Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread huh?

So what? You're suggesting it's the fault of the lack of religion or the article you're endorsing is. You're claiming that Europe won't be able to defend itself from the Muslims because they won't know anything about religion (you suggested they'd be unarmed).

There population growth has slowed... YAY. Europe is already over-populated. At some point, wouldn't responsible citizens WANT to slow the growth of some of these nations?

I was responding to someone's point. You saw that point made, no? Did you miss it? Shall I quote it?

The links I posted show that your claims that Europe is or will be primarily secular is bullocks and completely unsupported.

Hell, if Christianity would increase the population, you should be ecstatic. All those evil, abortion-loving, lunatic, secularists are dying out and the only ones who'll be having babies with be the Christians. You won't have to worry about converting people. The non-Christians will just die out.

Religion is not necessarily belief in a deity...its an organised belief system. Thus Buddhism is still a religion. As is shamanism.

I said an Atheist Civilisation- I said
They are Atheists

Which is true- they are non-deist... they do not belive in a God/ or a pantheon of Gods.

Buddhists are not Deists- I never brought the 'religion' into it at all.

That last line was a question not linked to the previous paragraph.

So is no one going to argue that raping babies is necessary to humanity? ;)

If not, then I think it's safe to conclude that similarly, religion is not necessary to humanity, at least for the reason given (it is prevalent).

And not slaughtering 40 million people in that time span while building concentration camps in sibera all the while starving the masses.

Shall we begin naming the evils of the papacy? How about the empire of Great Britain? The post-Christian Roman Empire?

Meanwhile, you didn't address that you can't name a single empire or civilization ever that was non-religious, so the fact that the great ones were religious evidences... what? That they were filled with people?

religion is not necessary to humanity

I think thats all Cabra meant- and it was what I meant also.

Shall we begin naming the evils of the papacy? How about the empire of Great Britain? The post-Christian Roman Empire?

Meanwhile, you didn't address that you can't name a single empire or civilization ever that was non-religious, so the fact that the great ones were religious evidences... what? That they were filled with people?

What are some of the evils of the British Empire?

They call Alexander's conquests the Alexandrian Empire, and it lasted not more than 10 years if I recall correctly. 50 years nowadays is a long enough period IMO.

Meh. It covered a tiny portion of the map for a very short period of time. I wouldn't call his 'empire' great either.

What are some of the evils of the British Empire?

The treatment of the peoples of (for the majority):
India
Native NZ
Native Australia
Ireland
A good chunk of Africa
A good chunk of Middle/Far East

What are some of the evils of the British Empire?

Hmmm... let's see. Enslaving and murdering of thousands of indiginous peoples. Need more?

Hmmm... let's see. Enslaving and murdering of thousands of indiginous peoples. Need more?

like I said before..this is how life is....empires expand and take over the weaker cultures/civilizations....all great empires have taken over other places to expand. Its just survival of the fittest applied to countries/empires/civilizations.

Good old Darwin.

Quick note on civilisations that thrive without organised religion...most since the Enlightenment period.

Europeans are not anti-religious. It's only their governments that do not incorporate religion in decision making and the laws. As you have seen in a few glimpses of statistics, I'd wager that most Europeans identify themselves as religious in some form or other.
Particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe Catholicism is still very important to the people, as is Orthodox Christianity in the South East. Hell, people even fight wars over it in the Balkans.

But official state religions, endorsement of religions from the State and using religion as justification for worldly rule has been out of the question in Western Europe since the French Revolution. Which, might I add, is a good example of a thriving civilisation which was pretty much atheist.

like I said before..this is how life is....empires expand and take over the weaker cultures/civilizations....all great empires have taken over other places to expand. Its just survival of the fittest applied to countries/empires/civilizations.

Good old Darwin.

*sigh*

You asked for some of the evils of the British Empire. You got it.

Now you're saying it's not evil to kill people, that it's "just survival of the fittest." You know, last I heard, Darwinism isn't a theory of morality. Darwin never approved of mass murder.

You say it's "this is how life is." Yeah, you're right. It's also evil. Or do you think that when a 40 year old man rapes a 2 year old girl, it's ALSO survival of the fittest? I mean hey, the 40 year old man is obviously more fit than a 2 year old girl, right? So it's alright, morally speaking, right? Right? Right?

NO.

It's evil. Humans are not bacteria. We have this thing called morality, and another thing called sentience. This means that you can't justify something morally by saying "that's just how it is." Baby rape is "just how it is," that in NO way excuses baby rapists. Get it yet? Do I have to draw a fucking picture, or would you ignore that too?

*sigh*

You asked for some of the evils of the British Empire. You got it.

Now you're saying it's not evil to kill people, that it's "just survival of the fittest." You know, last I heard, Darwinism isn't a theory of morality. Darwin never approved of mass murder.

You say it's "this is how life is." Yeah, you're right. It's also evil. Or do you think that when a 40 year old man rapes a 2 year old girl, it's ALSO survival of the fittest? I mean hey, the 40 year old man is obviously more fit than a 2 year old girl, right? So it's alright, morally speaking, right? Right? Right?

NO.

It's evil. Humans are not bacteria. We have this thing called morality, and another thing called sentience. This means that you can't justify something morally by saying "that's just how it is." Baby rape is "just how it is," that in NO way excuses baby rapists. Get it yet? Do I have to draw a fucking picture, or would you ignore that too?

Probably ignore it, because you just jumped from civilizations expanding (which they ALWAYS do) to baby rape which in sane person agrees with....I'm failing to see the logic...

like I said before..this is how life is....empires expand and take over the weaker cultures/civilizations....all great empires have taken over other places to expand. Its just survival of the fittest applied to countries/empires/civilizations.

Good old Darwin.

Slavery has nothing to do with Darwin. Slavery wasn't required to survive. Slavery was required so we could sit around and do nothing. Human beings did the things mentioned not because we were trying to survive or merely prosper, but because we uniquely have this idea of history and amassing things, so we're not happy with having enough to thrive comfortably, but instead we aim for enough to make us a legacy, to set us aside in history, to make as a force in and of ourselves. This has nothing to do with survival.

The actions of these countries were evils, regardless of whether they can be explained away. If you claim those actions aren't evil, then evil does not exist. I can go to my neighbors' while the adults are away peel the skin of their children and steal all of there food and it's not evil, right? I'm just posting a warning to other neighbors to run the other way when I'm coming because I"m looking to peel the skin off their children.

You listed the evils of the 'non-religious' Soviet Empire, and I suggested that religious empires are guilty of those evils and greater. Your challenge made out as if what I said was untrue. If that was not your intent, then you should learn to communicate more clearly.

Quick note on civilisations that thrive without organised religion...most since the Enlightenment period.

Europeans are not anti-religious. It's only their governments that do not incorporate religion in decision making and the laws. As you have seen in a few glimpses of statistics, I'd wager that most Europeans identify themselves as religious in some form or other.
Particularly in Southern and Eastern Europe Catholicism is still very important to the people, as is Orthodox Christianity in the South East. Hell, people even fight wars over it in the Balkans.

But official state religions, endorsement of religions from the State and using religion as justification for worldly rule has been out of the question in Western Europe since the French Revolution. Which, might I add, is a good example of a thriving civilisation which was pretty much atheist.

Ah, Neu Leonstein, the much needed voice of reason (says one who is guilty of unreasonable-ness herself). It's like a breath of fresh air in this thread today. Seriously.

failing to see the logic...

And I fear that's exactly the problem.

Probably ignore it, because you just jumped from civilizations expanding (which they ALWAYS do) to baby rape which in sane person agrees with....I'm failing to see the logic...

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Should I even bother pointing out that it's not talking about merely "civilizations expanding" but actually, murdering lots of people?

Murder is a crime, and it's wrong.

Baby rape is a crime, and it's wrong.

You say, religion is necessary to humanity because it's found in any civilization.

So why not baby rape and murder necessary to humanity because they're found in any civilization?

You excused a crime (slaughtering innocent people) in the name of a "civilization" because it ALWAYS has happened?

Logically, why can't I excuse a crime (raping babies) because that ALWAYS has happened?

Because the 'logic' you're using in both cases is flawed. Just because something ALWAYS has happened does not in any way excuse it. Just because something ALWAYS exists in big name civilizations doesn't mean it's NECESSARY.

Christ. Is the actual problem here that you're a sociopath, and that the very concept of right and wrong is itself completely alien to you? I mean, if so, that would explain why these concepts are so hard for you to grasp.

"1 death is a tragedy, a million a statistic" That pretty much encompasses empire building and is, I think, what Atlantian Isles means :)

"1 death is a tragedy, a million a statistic" That pretty much encompasses empire building and is, I think, what Atlantian Isles means :)

S/he assigned the concept of good to a civilization. It follows that the concept of evil is also assigned. Now if a civilization is capable of being good/evil and doing good/evil, then what qualifies as evil if not genocide and slavery? What's the true evil? Eating meat?

S/he assigned the concept of good to a civilization. It follows that the concept of evil is also assigned. Now if a civilization is capable of being good/evil and doing good/evil, then what qualifies as evil if not genocide and slavery? What's the true evil? Eating meat?
He. :p A rather big mistake, since good and evil are relative moral statements. Beneficial might have been a better qualification for civilisation.

He. :p A rather big mistake, since good and evil are relative moral statements. Beneficial might have been a better qualification for civilisation.

Depends on what you believe. I think a civilization can be moral or immoral. But those are definitely not going to be objective, admittedly. However, if one is going to assign immoral, what qualifies if not genocide and slavery?

Depends on what you believe. I think a civilization can be moral or immoral. But those are definitely not going to be objective, admittedly. However, if one is going to assign immoral, what qualifies if not genocide and slavery?
That depends completely on the morals of a particular civilisation. A civilisation may, for instance, say that denying your obligation to be a slave is morally incorrect. So its all relative.

Wait, guys, I need to clear something up.

When I was talking about survival of the fittest and the best culture/civilization besting the others....somehow slavery got lumped up in there. I in no way advocate slavery and I think it is terrible....it got fused into the conversation and I totally missed it.....I just need to make that clear.

On the other hand...for nation building....war is different than murder. For instance....our soldiers kill people all the time...but they are not tried for murder. Now of course warring in the name of expansion is not acceptable and frowned upon in todays world, but back in the day, being expansionist or imperialist was the mark of a good civilization. It is an outdated concept and has no place in the world we live in today...but back than its a different story.

Same with slavery....back then, it was the acceptable norm, now we are more englightend people and realize that it was a terrible thing, but thats just it, we look back and say that....from the present time. traditions and actions become unacceptable and outdated as time passes. Just like sacrificing a goat for God....who the hell does that anymore....its wasted animals.....but make then it was the norm.

"1 death is a tragedy, a million a statistic" That pretty much encompasses empire building and is, I think, what Atlantian Isles means :)

Stalin, right?

Stalin, right?

Indeed.

... *snip*...

traditions and actions become unacceptable and outdated as time passes. Just like sacrificing a goat for God....who the hell does that anymore....its wasted animals.....but make then it was the norm.

That's Soooo funny that you should mention that today, of all days. Tabaski (Eid Ul Adha) being just passed this last couple of days. Our Muslim friends sacrificed sheep, goats, cows and camels to celebrate in remembrance Abraham's taking his son up the mountain. :) Honestly, go ask some of your co-workers or friends, whoever. Many of them made family or personal sacrifices. One of my co-workers took the day off and sacrificed a sheep that cost him $75 bucks, and when he got back I reminded him how happy I was to be a Christian today because Christ himself is my sacrifice...

Needless to say, we have quite the history together, he's great, good debates, good times :D :p

EDIT: P.S., animal sacrifices aren't really wasted usually, A sacrificed animal is divided up three ways. One third is kept, one third is shared with family and friends and the final third is shared with the poor, or something like that, depending on where it's being done and what is being sacrificed. Burning the entire thing is pretty much a misconception from old movies or something, I don't know what.

That's Soooo funny that you should mention that today, of all days. Tabaski (Eid Ul Adha) being just passed this last couple of days. Our Muslim friends sacrificed sheep, goats, cows and camels to celebrate in remembrance Abraham's taking his son up the mountain. :) Honestly, go ask some of your co-workers or friends, whoever. Many of them made family or personal sacrifices. One of my co-workers took the day off and sacrificed a sheep that cost him $75 bucks, and when he got back I reminded him how happy I was to be a Christian today because Christ himself is my sacrifice...

Needless to say, we have quite the history together, he's great, good debates, good times :D :p

Omg....I honestly didnt know that people still do that.

I wonder if it seems like an out dated concept to them...or just the rest of the world...

Maybe they didnt get the memo, lol.

Omg....I honestly didnt know that people still do that.

I wonder if it seems like an out dated concept to them...or just the rest of the world...

Maybe they didnt get the memo, lol.


I hear ya, and agreed for a long time. However, after the first few years of getting used to it, I don't think twice about it now though and can’t blame them at all.

I'm under the impression that some Orthodox Jewish communities still do it too, but for the life of me they seem to keep it extremely secret and I can't figure out how often or which animals and what they do with them afterwards.

Maybe someone else on this forum will know and tell us?

There is no good or evil. There is only the strong and the weak. Whoever is strong will dictate what is right(good) and what is wrong(evil), and the weak have no choice but to accept those set values.

However true good and evil exists only in fairy tales.

There is no good or evil. There is only the strong and the weak. Whoever is strong will dictate what is right(good) and what is wrong(evil), and the weak have no choice but to accept those set values.

Oh, there's always a choice.

I hear ya, and agreed for a long time. However, after the first few years of getting used to it, I don't think twice about it now though and can’t blame them at all.

I'm under the impression that some Orthodox Jewish communities still do it too, but for the life of me they seem to keep it extremely secret and I can't figure out how often or which animals and what they do with them afterwards.

Maybe someone else on this forum will know and tell us?

Well I'm Jewish and I've never heard of Jews sacrificing animals at this day in time, although, admittingly, I'm not Orthodox....

Wait, guys, I need to clear something up.

When I was talking about survival of the fittest and the best culture/civilization besting the others....somehow slavery got lumped up in there. I in no way advocate slavery and I think it is terrible....it got fused into the conversation and I totally missed it.....I just need to make that clear.

On the other hand...for nation building....war is different than murder. For instance....our soldiers kill people all the time...but they are not tried for murder. Now of course warring in the name of expansion is not acceptable and frowned upon in todays world, but back in the day, being expansionist or imperialist was the mark of a good civilization. It is an outdated concept and has no place in the world we live in today...but back than its a different story.

Same with slavery....back then, it was the acceptable norm, now we are more englightend people and realize that it was a terrible thing, but thats just it, we look back and say that....from the present time. traditions and actions become unacceptable and outdated as time passes. Just like sacrificing a goat for God....who the hell does that anymore....its wasted animals.....but make then it was the norm.

So let me see if I've got this straight... if something is normal, it's okay for a civilization to do it? Wouldn't the fact that the civilization is doing it, make it normal? When slavery was going on some people knew it was wrong. All people were capable of knowing it was wrong, but most didn't care. They weren't unenlightened, they were just willing to turn a blind eye to something they knew was wrong. Human rights abuses are human rights abuses. It's not complicated.

Now, of course, some people here are glad you're defending human rights abuses, because there are some they would like to continue.

By the way, I brought up that Europe is predominately Christian and there is no religion that is even close to the numbers of Christians in nearly every coutnry in Europe and was told it has nothing to do with the thread, so why is there a poll asking what will be the predominant religion. It doesn't require a revival for Chritianity to remain the major religion of Europe, there simply has to be no change.

Now considering it seems Europe will still be about a third Catholic in 2050, it seems highly unlikely that any othre religion will surpass Christianity. But really this is just another attempt to talk about Christianity is in danger and under attack by those crazy people who believe in freedom of religion.

The young world and the old
Higher fertility rates and immigration produce not only a larger population but a society that is younger, more mixed ethnically and, on balance, more dynamic. The simplest expression of this is median age (by definition, half of the population is older than the median age, and half younger). According to Bill Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan, the median age in America in 2050 will be 36.2. In Europe it will be 52.7. That is a stunning difference, accounted for almost entirely by the dramatic ageing of the European population. At the moment, the median age is 35.5 in America and 37.7 in Europe. In other words, the difference in the median age is likely to rise from two to 17 years by 2050.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056

Europe is dying of old age and neglect, I submit that they will not disappear but be replaced by non-traditional western Europeans, and with that in mind, I evaluate that the Muslim community in Europe will continue to grow while the rest of it ages and decreases in actual numbers, not just percentage of the population.

Three generations is my guess, as stated over and over again, this thread is not about stopping the Muslims, it's about discussing why the Europeans are dying off, and I'm blaming it on the general lack of community health that developed from too much Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.

THAT's the topic, not that there are more Christians now or not, but what will be there when they grow old and haven't replaced themselves.

BTW: where did you get the 30% Catholics in 2050 from?

...it's about discussing why the Europeans are dying off, and I'm blaming it on the general lack of community health that developed from too much Atheism, Secularism and Humanism...
a) What in hell's name could possibly be wrong with Humanism?

b) I thought the question was answered? The richer people are, the less kids they have. The more educated people are, the less kids they have. The less Catholic people are, the less kids they have.
Or so says statistical analysis. But if you are looking for the reasons beyond that, I'd say that families are simply no longer in fashion. That's not a religious thing, that's a thing of trends and perception.

The young world and the old
Higher fertility rates and immigration produce not only a larger population but a society that is younger, more mixed ethnically and, on balance, more dynamic. The simplest expression of this is median age (by definition, half of the population is older than the median age, and half younger). According to Bill Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan, the median age in America in 2050 will be 36.2. In Europe it will be 52.7. That is a stunning difference, accounted for almost entirely by the dramatic ageing of the European population. At the moment, the median age is 35.5 in America and 37.7 in Europe. In other words, the difference in the median age is likely to rise from two to 17 years by 2050.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1291056

Europe is dying of old age and neglect, I submit that they will not disappear but be replaced by non-traditional western Europeans, and with that in mind, I evaluate that the Muslim community in Europe will continue to grow while the rest of it ages and decreases in actual numbers, not just percentage of the population.

Three generations is my guess, as stated over and over again, this thread is not about stopping the Muslims, it's about discussing why the Europeans are dying off, and I'm blaming it on the general lack of community health that developed from too much Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.

THAT's the topic, not that there are more Christians now or not, but what will be there when they grow old and haven't replaced themselves.

BTW: where did you get the 30% Catholics in 2050 from?

Did you get tired of us always showing up your sources so you decided to start doing it yourself? Your own source has the most conservative projection putting Europe over 550 Million. How do you justify 360M? How about a non-editorial source that list it's sources? At least the UN source posts the actual information instead of a bunch of ridiculous assumptions.

Here's your source from the first page, placing the population between 550M and 760M. You know when you post two sources that disagree so dramatically one of them must be wrong.

I am personally of the opinion that a reduction in population by anything other than War, Famine, The Plague, or some ailment of the populous is a good thing. It shows that unlike any other species of animal, we don't reproduce and eat until there is nothing left to eat. It shows to me some rationality in that soceity that though it might not be good for the current economy, it's much better for the continued existence of society altogether.

Though believing in UFO's is worse than believing in God.. I actually lose respect for most people I find who believe in that crap.

Though believing in UFO's is worse than believing in God.

Why? There are many flying objects that are never identified.

I am personally of the opinion that a reduction in population by anything other than War, Famine, The Plague, or some ailment of the populous is a good thing. It shows that unlike any other species of animal, we don't reproduce and eat until there is nothing left to eat. It shows to me some rationality in that soceity that though it might not be good for the current economy, it's much better for the continued existence of society altogether.

Here, here. I'm not sure why a slow in population growth would be a bad thing.

Greenlander, your facts are somewhat off. As you said, you're talking about western Europe only, as far as fertility rates go. You mention that the southern and eastern parts of Europe have much higher birth rates, but still seem to believe that Europe will die. Basically, if I get your point right, its not European if its not in Paris, London, or Rome, right?

You also said Europe had a Muslim population of about 14%, give or take. I wonder where you got those numbers?!? France (home to the world's happiest Muslims, so happy they set whole cities on fire!) has about 1% Muslim [http://sg.travel.yahoo.com/guide/europe/france/] The UK has 1.5 million Muslims and a population of about 60 million, which makes it somewhere around 2.5% [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0108078.html] The only numbers I could find for Spain identified 94% Catholic and the rest of the population 6%. Even if the Muslims are half of that 6%, which I think might be a bit high, thats only 3%. [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107987.html] Italy apparently has 84% Catholics and 6% Jewish, Muslim, and Protestant. The rest apparently fall into that agnostic, "I don't care" group. Again, because I don't have specific numbers, give the Muslims half of that 6%, which seems high, and they have 3%. [http://www.intersites.co.uk/305/] Germany has 3.7% of its population Muslim [http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107568.html]

Whew, that is the lion's share of Western Europe. I would wager pretty good money that the Eastern countries like Poland, Romania, the former USSR, and so on don't have as many Muslims as the west as that people don't like to immigrate to places that don't have jobs and Eastern Europe hasn't been an economic powerhouse since the end of the cold war. The only way you could even approach a Europe with 14% Muslims is with Turkey added into Europe which would be incorrect. You might as well add Newfoundland and Sri Lanka into Europe if you're going to add Turkey

As far as the Europeans moving away from religion, they're finally getting smart! All we get from these religious nuts in the US is a bunch of stupid, restrictive laws, ignorant people trying to force teachers to teach students that some guy on a cloud made the world in 72 hours, oh and blood drenched Crusades to the Holy Land. America could learn something from them.

Three generations is my guess, as stated over and over again, this thread is not about stopping the Muslims, it's about discussing why the Europeans are dying off, and I'm blaming it on the general lack of community health that developed from too much Atheism, Secularism and Humanism.

THAT's the topic, not that there are more Christians now or not, but what will be there when they grow old and haven't replaced themselves.

First of all, you still think that secularism=atheism (and apparently =humansim). This equation doesn't work, it just shows your ignorance concerning these concepts and your complete lack of understanding concerning the situation in Europe.

Ask people in Ireland (which is now a fairly secular place, despite still deeply routed in Catholicism) if they want to revert back to the situation 15 years ago, when the curch wielded a huge influence there. I have several catholic friends from Northern Ireland who always said that on the whole they preferred to live in the more secular north rather than in the Republic. Take Bavaria, which is a very catholic state in Germany, where even now the Catholic church is more than just a body organizing mass, but integrated into the lives of the majority of people. Still it is a completely secular state - the priests even stopped giving recommendations on whom to vote for at elections.

Secularism is the only way forward, because it not only means that a church has undue influence on the state, but also because only within a secular state religious tolerance is truely possible. In a non-secular state there is always one faith (or one splinter group from a faith) that is predominately in charge, which directly leads to intolerance against other faiths/churches. This can be seen in the arab world with different braches of Islam, but even in Europe, as England is not a completely secular state by nature, therefore it is still impossible for a Catholic to become Prime Minister. One of the reasons is that the PM has (theoretically) the last word in appointing Anglican Bishops.

So, once again, Europe is far from being an atheist place, but in most European countries secularism works well for all - Christians, Muslims and atheists.

Turkey's well on its way.
I hope so.

And Europe is a far cry indeed from a theocracy.
Yet you don't want to lift a finger to keep it that way?

Like we can really talk! You glanced at the the preamble to our Constitution? Sheesh, wouldn't want to a non- Catholic! 92% of our primary schools are STILL controlled/run by the Church.... now there is the case for the waining influence of the Church I grant you- but indeed, this state is insufficiently secular for me too.

Ireland is insufficiently secular for me! But the preference for Catholicism was removed by referendum in 1977 (I think that's the year).

Like the Bishop whapping you with a great big stick because you forgot a word while reciting the Angelus is Latin?

Or the kids of a Protestant father and Catholic mother being taken from him and given to her family after she died, purely because the Constitution forbade a POSSIBLE non Catholic unbringing? That was only removed in the late 70's!
We've just come away from religious fanaticism- of all cultures we shouldn't be so quick to judge other religious beliefs without forgetting our own.
I wasn't even born in the late 70s. I'll judge all I want.

Let’s discuss this. For individual people, and maybe even a majority of an isolated individual generation of a community here and there, there can be found a majority of a society to have been non-religious atheist/agnostics, humanist etc... You may be right about that, but that is NOT what I said, about the issue and the grandchildren of those people.

Prove to us that there has ever been, at any time in the history civilization, anywhere in the world three consecutive generations in any society/community/age anywhere in the world, three generations that prospered and existed and maintained its very existence WITHOUT a general societal regard for the divine or religion in some aspect, fashion or another.

Neither of you have any more proof than the other.

Perhaps I, raised as an atheist, can shed light on this. I have no interest in religion. End of story. Why atheists two generations down the line will feel any different is beyond me.

Who are you arguing with? Cabra West? She's the one that said we survive without religion just fine....

And your two country links (United Kingdom and Netherlands) both have LESS than one percent population growth. 0.29 for UK and 0.54 for N. What were you trying to prove anyways? Maybe you should go back and re-read the thread huh?
What is it about religion that causes people to breed like rabbits in your view?

Did you get tired of us always showing up your sources so you decided to start doing it yourself? Your own source has the most conservative projection putting Europe over 550 Million. How do you justify 360M? How about a non-editorial source that list it's sources? At least the UN source posts the actual information instead of a bunch of ridiculous assumptions.

Here's your source from the first page, placing the population between 550M and 760M. You know when you post two sources that disagree so dramatically one of them must be wrong.

Tired of showing up my sources? You mean the UN estimates and the individual country census estimates and the Economist estimates and all the other population estimates that say the same thing are somehow flawed because I posted a link to them here? What a dumbass :rolleyes:

The population estimates are different because they are PREDICTIONS made by different people and different groups. For fucks sake man, get a clue. Disagree with MY fucking post, not the UN's predictions, I didn't have anything to do with their population DECLINING estimates. My post was about taking their analyses to the extreme.

Then you come in posting all this yappy shit about how none of it is true, Europe’s all Christians yadda yadda yadda, and somehow I just make this stuff up and lie that Europe's populations isn't really declining at all and the links are suspect :rolleyes:

You should put a sign in front of your nincompoop posts, here, you can use this one.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/Troll_Xing.jpg

Yet you don't want to lift a finger to keep it that way?

Lifting a finger? I what way? Do you expect me to follow Greenlanders advice and pop out 10 babies in the next 7 years???

Ideologically, I can assure you that I'm spreading agnosticism anywhere I go, be that amongst Muslims or Mormons, to ensure that European culture remains secular...

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/Troll_Xing.jpg
Thanks for putting that in your post, so I didn't have to read it!

Tired of showing up my sources? You mean the UN estimates and the individual country census estimates and the Economist estimates and all the other population estimates that say the same thing are somehow flawed because I posted a link to them here? What a dumbass :rolleyes:

Actually, I said they weren't flawed. I said you knew source that TOTALLY contradicts the UN source is wrong. I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. I suppose talking about the UN source and mentioning that it was a reasonable source wasn't setting off any "Oh, I see" bells, huH?

The population estimates are different because they are PREDICTIONS made by different people and different groups. For fucks sake man, get a clue. Disagree with MY fucking post, not the UN's predictions, I didn't have anything to do with their population DECLINING estimates. My post was about taking their analyses to the extreme.

I didn't disagree with the UN's predictions. I disagree with an opinion article that presented RIDICULOUS numbers as evidence that something is happening in Europe that IS NOT happening. You keep suggesting that Europe by being secular is somehow atheist, but the real numbers, even in your own sources, dispute that assertion heavily. Europe is primarily Christian by a large margin and western Europe even more so.

Then you come in posting all this yappy shit about how none of it is true, Europe’s all Christians yadda yadda yadda, and somehow I just make this stuff up and lie that Europe's populations isn't really declining at all and the links are suspect :rolleyes:

I posted how none of your conclusions or the conclusions of the article are true because they defy real evidence that Christians are prospering in Europe while the countries become increasingly secular.

You should put a sign in front of your nincompoop posts, here, you can use this one.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c17/Greenlander3/Troll_Xing.jpg

A very convincing argument. What was it you said "Disagree with MY fucking post" rather using ad hominems. Your ire and your silly response to my pointing out that extremely rather biased source COMPLETELY disagrees with the far less biased source YOU posted. Post sources that make ridiculous predictions all you want, but all it shows is that you'll do anything to try support the fantasy that Europe is an atheist continent that is destroying itself.

And if you think I'm trolling, report me. Otherwise, quit with your silly accusations. JPG's and smilies don't help your credibility.

So let me see if I've got this straight... if something is normal, it's okay for a civilization to do it? Wouldn't the fact that the civilization is doing it, make it normal? When slavery was going on some people knew it was wrong. All people were capable of knowing it was wrong, but most didn't care. They weren't unenlightened, they were just willing to turn a blind eye to something they knew was wrong. Human rights abuses are human rights abuses. It's not complicated.

Now, of course, some people here are glad you're defending human rights abuses, because there are some they would like to continue.

No, because they did not beleive that blacks were humans on the level that white were. You dont understand, these people never saw blacks before, except as slaves...that was how they same them. You were born on a plantation where a black was your slave you grew up like that, you had children like that, you died like that.....thats how life was. I dont understand what you dont get, and for you to assume you know what they were thinking as evidence for your case, well unless you were there and you have very very old nasty skin, you have no way of knowing.

No, because they did not beleive that blacks were humans on the level that white were. You dont understand, these people never saw blacks before, except as slaves...that was how they same them. You were born on a plantation where a black was your slave you grew up like that, you had children like that, you died like that.....thats how life was. I dont understand what you dont get, and for you to assume you know what they were thinking as evidence for your case, well unless you were there and you have very very old nasty skin, you have no way of knowing.

Only, how do you think slavery was stopped? People knew it was wrong and eventually enough of those people stood up that it became an issue of contention. That's how every change comes about. You argue that simply being common in a society takes away it's badness. I'd argue that being common in a society compounds it. Rape occurs in our society and I consider those rapists evil. Our society does not condone it. Would I consider us to have a worse society that was patently more evil were rape to widespread and widely condone? HELL YEAH I WOULD! You act as if I'm judging the individuals. I'm not, not exactly. I'm judging the society itself. There were societies that didn't engage in slavery, so it's not as if they didn't know it was possible. There were socieities that didn't engage in burning people at the stake, so it's not like they had no basis for comparison. The society that engages in gross abuse of human rights deserves condemnation. The more widespread that abuse, the more they should be condemned. It's not as if people in this country weren't aware of human rights. They just as a mass did not care. That's why the Irish were treated as they were, the asians, the africans, natives, all of it. They knew indentured servants were people. They knew the poor were people. They knew the immigrants were people. But there was still wide-spread and gross abuse of them. And if a society is capable of good and a society is capable of evil, genocide and slavery certainly land very near to the end of the scale of good and evil.

I am hoping the white man does not die out. White folks, especially northern Europeans, can be a lot more attractive, physically, than a lot of other races including Middle Easterners. In terms of complexion, facial structure, etc. That is not to say the Middle Easterners have no right to reproduce and live where they want.

I am hoping the white man does not die out. White folks, especially northern Europeans, can be a lot more attractive, physically, than a lot of other races including Middle Easterners. In terms of complexion, facial structure, etc. That is not to say the Middle Easterners have no right to reproduce and live where they want.

Oh my f#####' God.

So the price for a globalized world is the murder of each rich cultural heritage for a splatterd collage of a new one?

Well if it's as you say, we build our european cultural heritage on the ruins of the roman culture, mixed with many other influencies like islamic one (I'm spanish). Cultures are dinamics or dead.;)

Actually, I said they weren't flawed. I said you knew source that TOTALLY contradicts the UN source is wrong.

Which source? The economist source?

I'm sorry that wasn't clear to you. I suppose talking about the UN source and mentioning that it was a reasonable source wasn't setting off any "Oh, I see" bells, huH?

No, because you are saying the UN numbers are ridiculous in the same sentence as saying that you agree with them… See below.

I didn't disagree with the UN's predictions. I disagree with an opinion article that presented RIDICULOUS numbers …

The numbers used in the opinion piece ARE FROM the UN source (that’s why I linked to them in the original post, so anyone that disputed the opinion piece paragraph that I quoted could look it up for themselves) … Make up your mind, do you agree with the UN numbers or not?

… as evidence that something is happening in Europe that IS NOT happening. You keep suggesting that Europe by being secular is somehow atheist, but the real numbers, even in your own sources, dispute that assertion heavily. Europe is primarily Christian by a large margin and western Europe even more so. Apparently 60% of the people taking this pole above disagree with your. The Christian option is the lowest returning ratio there now isn’t it. Are you suggesting that the Europeans that read this thread and voted in this pole don’t know what they are and their predictions for what will be are bogus because YOU say they are one way over the other and they can’t pick Atheist/Agnostic nor Secular?

So merely by popular opinion of this forum, you seem to be in err now don’t you.

I posted how none of your conclusions or the conclusions of the article are true because they defy real evidence that Christians are prospering in Europe while the countries become increasingly secular.

(Ah, Ha! Finally, a real position, a post of debate, you finally put forward a position about the topic on hand. It must be like shitting nails for you or something, but alas, it’s here!)

As pointed out previously in this very post, most of the voters in this poll seem to disagree with your complaint. But if you have ‘real’ evidence, as you put it, to show how we are incorrect in our overall assessment of the European situation and view of themselves, as supported by the Europeans in this very thread, put forth your evidence here. Evidence that Europeans believe the Christian religion is ‘prospering’ there.

Calling yourself a ‘Christian or a Catholic etc.,’ in the type of way YOU seem to be measuring it, from census surveys etc., is like someone responding as ‘Hispanic’ in an America survey, it means nothing unless three or four more questions are answered. They may simply be answering an ethnic type question as far as they are concerned, not stating their religious beliefs.

But if you have ‘real’ evidence, as you put it, to show how we are incorrect in our overall assessment of the European situation and view of themselves, as supported by the Europeans in this very thread,
Hmm, if you had really read all the posts in your own thread then you should have noticed that the majority of Europeans posting contest your view of Europe as a mainly atheist place.

Once again secular=/=atheist!

Apparently 60% of the people taking this pole above disagree with your. The Christian option is the lowest returning ratio there now isn’t it. Are you suggesting that the Europeans that read this thread and voted in this pole don’t know what they are and their predictions for what will be are bogus because YOU say they are one way over the other and they can’t pick Atheist/Agnostic nor Secular?

So merely by popular opinion of this forum, you seem to be in err now don’t you.

And in what way is the usual european poster on Nationstates General representative of the typical european citizen? :rolleyes:
Your sampling method results in a completely unbalanced representation. And if you knew this, why use it as an argument?

All i know is that i aint afraid of waking up in muslim-land in the next years, considering how much impact the religion loses in second-generation immigrants and even more with each additional generation.

1) European culture has outgrown Christianity, and is now something more. Atheist and secularist influences will not kill European culture.

2) A smaller birthrate does not mean that it will keep declining, it means that the population will shrink until it reaches stability. As the population shrinks, the relative birthrate tends to rise. Right now, Europe has grown to pretty much capacity, and a decline in population is in order.

3)Population decline had nothing to do with the fall of Rome, that was caused by overtaxing the outer provinces and corruption in the administration which weakened the Army and begat its collapse, thus assuring the fall. If anything, European culture is now thriving, and is not declining with the declining population.

Hmm, if you had really read all the posts in your own thread then you should have noticed that the majority of Europeans posting contest your view of Europe as a mainly atheist place.

Once again secular=/=atheist!

Since we are guesstimating future events, since we are predicting the future, not arguing over the past nor the condition today, the poll is valid for arguing what direction people think the European community is moving.

Whether they agree with me or not is irrelevant.

And in what way is the usual european poster on Nationstates General representative of the typical european citizen? :rolleyes:
Your sampling method results in a completely unbalanced representation. And if you knew this, why use it as an argument?

...

My sampling method is a sampling of opinion. The declining population estimates from the UN report are already linked to on the first post.

And Greenlander, something else - the United States are, in fact, a good example for a secular state! Although some would like it differently, state and religion are seperated in the US and you all profit from it.

And why do you profit from it? Because only a secular state allows freedom of religion and that means freedom to practice any religion you like. Because don't think that your denomination would be the one saying what is the right Christian faith, if the US turned into a theist state. Unless you're catholic, of course! Because although protestants outnumber catholics by 2:1, the catholic church is the largest denominational family in the US, with 24% of Americans being catholic. The nearest protestant denominational family are the baptists with 16%.*

See, secularism works for you, too!

Source:
Largest denominational families in U.S., 2001 (http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#families)

Secularism in politics and political viewpoints /= secularist community/society.

They are not the same thing.

Secularism in politics and political viewpoints /= secularist community/society.

They are not the same thing.
I give up!

You win, us Europeans will lose our culture to the muslim hordes unless saved by those of true faith. Please send evangelical missionary immediately (believe in creationsim/ID a must)!

I give up!

You win, us Europeans will lose our culture to the muslim hordes unless saved by those of true faith. Please send evangelical missionary immediately (believe in creationsim/ID a must)!

You won't be killed, you'll just become a large minority group. :p We'll send missionaries.

Apparently 60% of the people taking this pole above disagree with your. The Christian option is the lowest returning ratio there now isn’t it. Are you suggesting that the Europeans that read this thread and voted in this pole don’t know what they are and their predictions for what will be are bogus because YOU say they are one way over the other and they can’t pick Atheist/Agnostic nor Secular?

Yeah, so 60% of all voters on your poll clicked the first option. Now what exaclty does this prove? That 60% of all voters clicked on the first option perhaps?

How do you know that this poll is in any way representative? How did you make that this poll was limited for Europeans only? Or you sure that no one else voted? Do you think your 3 options are all there is? Does it include an option that says that Christianity will remain on the same level for example without using biased terms like "Revival"? Does it include an option that Muslims will imigrate WITHOUT converting every "secularist" child that they can find? Have you corrected the numbers so that they reflect the unusual high number of Atheists on this board?

Are you honestly using this poll to PROVE something?

Yeah, so 60% of all voters on your poll clicked the first option. Now what exaclty does this prove? That 60% of all voters clicked on the first option perhaps?

How do you know that this poll is in any way representative? How did you make that this poll was limited for Europeans only? Or you sure that no one else voted? Do you think your 3 options are all there is? Does it include an option that says that Christianity will remain on the same level for example without using biased terms like "Revival"? Does it include an option that Muslims will imigrate WITHOUT converting every "secularist" child that they can find? Have you corrected the numbers so that they reflect the unusual high number of Atheists on this board?

Are you honestly using this poll to PROVE something?


Haha... it certainly proves opinion of the readers of this thread.

Secularism in politics and political viewpoints /= secularist community/society.

They are not the same thing.

You're correct. And while Europe is a mainly secular continent, the people of Europe are primarily religious and majoritively Christian, as your UN source states. The people of Europe by every source that does actually statistical analysis (rather stating an opinion) are projected to remain primarily religious with Catholics still representing about a third of the population and other Christians while now outnumbering Catholics tipping the scales on a continent where Christians remain in the majority. Oddly, you claim that not being Christian is causing the decline of Europe but since the majority of people in Europe are still Christian, it seems like they must be the reason for the decline. And if they are not, then how can they not be increasing in number?

Haha... it certainly proves opinion of the readers of this thread.

And? You're treating like that should override the sources that state that your conclusions are wrong and completely disagree with the economist opinion piece and its ridiculous projections.

… as evidence that something is happening in Europe that IS NOT happening. You keep suggesting that Europe by being secular is somehow atheist, but the real numbers, even in your own sources, dispute that assertion heavily. Europe is primarily Christian by a large margin and western Europe even more so.
Apparently 60% of the people taking this pole above disagree with your. The Christian option is the lowest returning ratio there now isn’t it. Are you suggesting that the Europeans that read this thread and voted in this pole don’t know what they are and their predictions for what will be are bogus because YOU say they are one way over the other and they can’t pick Atheist/Agnostic nor Secular?(Bold mine)


Hello? What has one even to do with the other?

Is the poll option "Europe is predominantly Christian"? No, it's not. It is "Europe will remain predominantly Christian via a Revival".
First of all, that sentence is a contradiction in itself; "remain" means the current status quo stays the same, thus obviously not necessating any sort of "revival".
Second, only very few people will believe there'll be any large-scale Christian "Revival" in Europe, hence only very few people will pick that option.

Nothing in your poll options allows any conclusions whatsoever as to the current state of affairs. You wrote them, so you should know.

Btw, as for that poll: I didn't vote at all, not even for "other", because I think that whole poll, coupled with the article quoted in the OP, is really only a badly thought-out polemic.

Haha... it certainly proves opinion of the readers of this thread.

By giving 3 very limited, biased options?

And you said:

Apparently 60% of the people taking this pole above disagree with your. The Christian option is the lowest returning ratio there now isn’t it. Are you suggesting that the Europeans that read this thread and voted in this pole don’t know what they are and their predictions for what will be are bogus because YOU say they are one way over the other and they can’t pick Atheist/Agnostic nor Secular?

You try to support your argument, by claiming that you can somehow read the opinions of Europeans from this poll. How do you do that? Did you record the IPs from the voters?

Btw, as for that poll: I didn't vote at all, not even for "other", because I think that whole poll, coupled with the article quoted in the OP, is really only a badly thought-out polemic.

Same here.

You would welcome Islamic society over secular society? You really are a right-wing religious freak. I think that the Muslim immigrants are way too religious. If anything, they should have to conform to secularism. We shouldn't have to live by their Koran.


who said you have to? even if the islam should become a european reiligion comparable in its position to former christian "glory", who says you have to live by the Koran?


Wouldn't it be better if we accepted no religious politicking from Muslims? Wouldn't it be better if we were steadfast in our secular beliefs? Things got pretty bad at times in the past due the mixing of Christianity and politics. Let's not go there again with Islam.


What are "our secular beliefs"? Who is us? Read the answer to the first quote


I think it's better if chruches are not able to raise armies. That's the government's job.


eh...i rather think it's nobodys job to do that


Not being religious is not the same as lacking principles.


VETO...I think that i have very much principles, morales and beliefs that i hold dear and that i live with. Some are even adopted from religious beliefs, some are not. But still....I am not religious at all, but I do have pricinples.



But there is a fanatical minority of Muslims in Europe who would like to see widespread conversion, even at gunpoint.

I think there are enough right wing christians would love nothing more then to do the same with their religion...

Same here.

Ditto. The choices don't reflect the projections of the source and all of the choices require on to buy into the claims of GL that Christianity is going to be the minority. That's why the choice that says anything about Christianity says that it requires a 'revival' in order to be in the majority (which would require it to at some point be in the majority).