Christianity is on its way out. This is the first year that less people identified as Christian than the previous year. I'm glad for that, because it seems like it'll be the birth of a larger variety of religions.

Given that Christians are on the decline, I'm going to state what is becoming an unpopular opinion, in the spirit of this thread:

Beliefs like yours are a cancer upon humanity, and are going to lead to the collapse of civilization.

<Snipped quote by Rogue Colm>

Given that Christians are on the decline, I'm going to state what is becoming an unpopular opinion, in the spirit of this thread:

Beliefs like yours are a cancer upon humanity, and are going to lead to the collapse of civilization.

Probably end up more like "Meet the new Jesus, same as the old Jesus." Put the Wiccans in power and eventually even they'd become rigid and bureaucratic too. You might even get the traditional "God and Goddess" Wiccans purging the "I bought a spellbook at Barnes and Noble" Wiccans and the "I really like Magic: The Gathering" Wiccans. And really, is there any other religion you see regularly? I think I've seen Krishna's a total of once, Muslims are around but largely stay to themselves, and most Buddhists tend to just be pacifists with no other interest in the religion. But Wiccans? Shit, they are all over the place. I would even venture to say I know about as many Wiccans as I do practicing Catholics.

pepe isnt top kek

Let's start some shiiiit!

I don't believe in religion. I think it's poisonous and only starts conflicts. This is different from spirituality. You can be spiritual and believe in whatever God, Goddess, or multitude of them, as you'd like. I just think religion is the root of a variety of problems. Christians hate Muslims because of a fucking book.

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are all Abrahamic traditions. So basically their brothers. From what I understand the biggest difference is who the prophet is.

A prophet.

People fight and die and scream and yell over one person. Out of all religions and ways of life (other than Hindu and Buddhism cus I believe Buddhism developed from Hinduism so they're like daddy and son) these religions are suuuuuper similar. They even believe in only one God. (That's better than Hinduism which has a pantheon and Buddhism that has none)

If you believe in God or you don't I don't really care. I'm on the fence really. But if you believe in God is it really that big of a deal how you worship them? There are bigger problems but religion will have you believe that worshipping God in another way is the same as murdering a bucket of puppies.

Yeah, I think religion is poisonous and stupid. Believe in god that's fine and dandy but religion, meh causes a lot of issues just for a label.

P.S. It's also kind of selfish. The only reason anyone does anything is to guarantee their soul goes into heaven. Would practitioners really help others and be so selfless if this wasn't the case?

I think everything is conditional. Being 'nice' is not an existing thing.

If being nice doesn't offer you anything, you won't be nice.

For example, a 'nice' person probably feels good inside their body if they do something nice. Therefore, they are acting nice, because it makes them feel good. Conditional.

If it didn't make them feel nice, there'd be no stimuli that incentivize the act of being nice. Therefore, genuinely kind people do not exist, only people who feel good when they do nice/kind things.

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

Probably end up more like "Meet the new Jesus, same as the old Jesus." Put the Wiccans in power and eventually even they'd become rigid and bureaucratic too. You might even get the traditional "God and Goddess" Wiccans purging the "I bought a spellbook at Barnes and Noble" Wiccans and the "I really like Magic: The Gathering" Wiccans. And really, is there any other religion you see regularly? I think I've seen Krishna's a total of once, Muslims are around but largely stay to themselves, and most Buddhists tend to just be pacifists with no other interest in the religion. But Wiccans? Shit, they are all over the place. I would even venture to say I know about as many Wiccans as I do practicing Catholics.

Haha I think it must really depend on what part of the world you're in. There are no Wiccans in my area. The only Wiccans I've ever met were in America. Canada is full of Hindu's, Hare Krishna's, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Muslims. There's a giant gated Muslim compound in the middle of the city here, where they "educate" them from childhood, through high school, until adulthood.

That said, so long as this diversity-phile mental cancer, that has taken over the West, doesn't spread to the rest of the world, Christianity will continue to flourish. China, for example, is having a huge explosion of Christianity, completely unrecognized by government statistics.

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Haha I think it must really depend on what part of the world you're in. There are no Wiccans in my area. The only Wiccans I've ever met were in America. Canada is full of Hindu's, Hare Krishna's, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Muslims. There's a giant gated Muslim compound in the middle of the city here, where they "educate" them from childhood, through high school, until adulthood.

That said, so long as this diversity-phile mental cancer, that has taken over the West, doesn't spread to the rest of the world, Christianity will continue to flourish. China, for example, is having a huge explosion of Christianity, completely unrecognized by government statistics.

I suspect the interest in religious diversity is more a symptom of how Christianity in the west has gone rather rigid. It's not a new phenomena, ancient pagan states went through a similar process. Hell, the rigidity of the Roman religion was part of the reason Christianity came about. I think you can even put the out of place political moralism aside (though homophobia and creationism has done them no favors), the big thing is that most churches come off as social clubs for retirees. Though, I will say, I don't think this rigidity is completely true everywhere. You don't see it in Mormonism, or in black churches. Those seem very much alive.

Christianity in Asia isn't rigid. I've met a few who came from it (the Korean batch at least. My parents are Methodists and the Methodists are heavy into Korea). It's very revivalistic, but it's also picked up quite a bit of Asianness too. Essentially the thing is still alive there, moving with the current of the population rather than despite it like in the west. I think, personally, we could see a revivalist movement in the west sometime this century that revitalizes Christianity, but like all revivalist movements, the Christianity that comes from it reborn will be different then what came before.

But so long as so many churches remain places where old people tell other old people the story of Noah the two-thousand-umpteenth time right before having an egg casserole potluck, Christianity will lose ground in most of the western world. And let them. You only deserve as much attention as you earn.

...I do confess I am a diversity-phile myself, but I think I come by it honestly. It's not so much a liberal open-mindedness thing for me as it is a natural attraction to novelty. I like weird shit. I'm the type of dude that tries the alligator on a stick. So the idea of religious diversity sounds fun for no other reason but it might buy me a few weird conversations (You actually worship the Egyptian gods? Holy fuck, what's that like?)

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

I suspect the interest in religious diversity is more a symptom of how Christianity in the west has gone rather rigid. It's not a new phenomena, ancient pagan states went through a similar process. Hell, the rigidity of the Roman religion was part of the reason Christianity came about. I think you can even put the out of place political moralism aside (though homophobia and creationism has done them no favors), the big thing is that most churches come off as social clubs for retirees. Though, I will say, I don't think this rigidity is completely true everywhere. You don't see it in Mormonism, or in black churches. Those seem very much alive.

Christianity in Asia isn't rigid. I've met a few who came from it (the Korean batch at least. My parents are Methodists and the Methodists are heavy into Korea). It's very revivalistic, but it's also picked up quite a bit of Asianness too. Essentially the thing is still alive there, moving with the current of the population rather than despite it like in the west. I think, personally, we could see a revivalist movement in the west sometime this century that revitalizes Christianity, but like all revivalist movements, the Christianity that comes from it reborn will be different then what came before.

But so long as so many churches remain places where old people tell other old people the story of Noah the two-thousand-umpteenth time right before having an egg casserole potluck, Christianity will lose ground in most of the western world. And let them. You only deserve as much attention as you earn.

...I do confess I am a diversity-phile myself, but I think I come by it honestly. It's not so much a liberal open-mindedness thing for me as it is a natural attraction to novelty. I like weird shit. I'm the type of dude that tries the alligator on a stick. So the idea of religious diversity sounds fun for no other reason but it might buy me a few weird conversations (You actually worship the Egyptian gods? Holy fuck, what's that like?)

Yah it's just the older sects of Christianity that tend to be really dry. I come from a Pentecostal community, so Sunday morning is basically a free rock concert, with a power-sermon after. The crowds are actually very young, and youth ministries are flourishing among evangelicals. I'm not a fan of Catholics at all. They come from a time where they used to be unified with the government, and it shows. People go there out of obligation, more than anything.

As Christianity needs to reinvent itself, it does. Look at Joel Olsteen. His new motivation brand of Christianity has exploded so much, that he's now a mainstream figure. And then there's the Ann Coulter Christians, where faith and politics go hand-in-hand, and really help keep it from getting stale.

And don't get me wrong. I've been to China and France, and love both countries deeply. I love different cultures (especially East Asian ones), in all their aspects, but an individual civilization only functions when its citizenry shares certain principles and unifying factors, and this trend of cultural self-hatred on the Progressive Left is extremely destructive. There's a reason Black Lives Matter is burning cities and shutting down airports (even in the UK, where blacks are actually treated BETTER than whites, by the police), while Muslim gangs kill gays and Jews in the streets of London, while Chinese nationalists kill Falun Gong followers and assault Japanese immigrants, while rogue USSR restorationists have taken over entire cities in the Ukraine, while there are entire communities in Canada where they don't speak a word of English, while the Turks and Syrians continue their genocide of Kurds in their own countries, and so on. Multiculturalism, without forced cultural integration, just leads to conflict, and stokes the fires of racism. The Left's refusal to promote their own culture, in their own country, is only going to lead to more destruction, more poverty, more racism, and more death.

On that note: unpopular opinion: Time for some nationalistic profiling!!!:

Cultures who, from what I know of them, successfully integrated into the English-speaking world, and have benefitted the civilization as a result:
-Italians
-Irish
-Jews
-Scots
-Germans
-Dutch
-Danes
-Finns
-Norwegians
-Swedes
-Russians/Slavs
-Egyptians
-European Spanish
-French
-Japanese
-South Africans
-Cubans
-Koreans
-Greeks
-Some Pols
-Turks

Cultures who generally haven't:
-Mandarin Chinese
-Some Cantonese Chinese
-Mexicans
-Indians
-Arabs
-Sub-Saharan Africans, excluding South Africa
-North Africans, excluding Egypt
-Some Pols
-Native Americans
-Jamaicans
-Hutterites

<Snipped quote by Vilageidiotx>

Yah it's just the older sects of Christianity that tend to be really dry. I come from a Pentecostal community, so Sunday morning is basically a free rock concert, with a power-sermon after. The crowds are actually very young, and youth ministries are flourishing among evangelicals. I'm not a fan of Catholics at all. They come from a time where they used to be unified with the government, and it shows. People go there out of obligation, more than anything.

As Christianity needs to reinvent itself, it does. Look at Joel Olsteen. His new motivation brand of Christianity has exploded so much, that he's now a mainstream figure. And then there's the Ann Coulter Christians, where faith and politics go hand-in-hand, and really help keep it from getting stale.

And don't get me wrong. I've been to China and France, and love both countries deeply. I love different cultures (especially East Asian ones), in all their aspects, but an individual civilization only functions when its citizenry shares certain principles and unifying factors, and this trend of cultural self-hatred on the Progressive Left is extremely destructive. There's a reason Black Lives Matter is burning cities and shutting down airports (even in the UK, where blacks are actually treated BETTER than whites, by the police), while Muslim gangs kill gays and Jews in the streets of London, while Chinese nationalists kill Falun Gong followers and assault Japanese immigrants, while rogue USSR restorationists have taken over entire cities in the Ukraine, while there are entire communities in Canada where they don't speak a word of English, while the Turks and Syrians continue their genocide of Kurds in their own countries, and so on. Multiculturalism, without forced cultural integration, just leads to conflict, and stokes the fires of racism. The Left's refusal to promote their own culture, in their own country, is only going to lead to more destruction, more poverty, more racism, and more death.

I think a lot of this is misinterpreted for political reasons. The amount of leftists who actually hate their own culture is, I'd suspect, negligible at best. My interpretation of the movement you are catching onto isn't that of self-hatred as it is typically misrepresented to be, but rather a deep distrust of traditional conservatism.

Not a distrust born simply out of politics either. I think most liberals are, deep down, simply moderates who are petrified, completely scared, that if they let the conservative elements in their country off their leash, the conservatives will go full fledged pogrom. Hence all the corny integrationalist stuff. It's not a hatred of their culture, it is a fear of an overzealous corner of their culture that has committed mass-murder in the name of the culture in the past, and that they assume is just itching to do so in the future. I have never personally met a leftist of any stripe who doesn't hate ISIS or Muslim terror, but they don't jump up and down about it because they are deathly afraid the conservative elements of their culture would use the opportunity to go full on Rwanda. Kill them all, burn their mosques, rape their dogs, the full monty. That's the thing. In the mind of a full-fledged liberal, every conservative is a secret SS Nazi just burning for the opportunity to get the ol' killing squad back together. And this also explains why liberals rarely ever push for meaningful reform, and by and large keep losing the working class to the right; they don't want to change things that much, they just want to keep back a murderous element they perceive on the right.

On that note: unpopular opinion: Time for some nationalistic profiling!!!:

Cultures who, from what I know of them, successfully integrated into the English-speaking world, and have benefitted the civilization as a result:
-Italians
-Irish
-Jews
-Scots
-Germans
-Dutch
-Danes
-Finns
-Norwegians
-Swedes
-Russians/Slavs
-Egyptians
-European Spanish
-French
-Japanese
-South Africans
-Cubans
-Koreans
-Greeks
-Some Pols
-Turks

Cultures who generally haven't:
-Mandarin Chinese
-Some Cantonese Chinese
-Mexicans
-Indians
-Arabs
-Sub-Saharan Africans, excluding South Africa
-North Africans, excluding Egypt
-Some Pols
-Native Americans
-Jamaicans
-Hutterites

I just have to say, this is a bizarre list. The Turks and Russians have integrated into the Anglo-Saxon world, but the Mexicans and Native Americans haven't? Wat? I feel like you rolled dice to put this one together.

@Jotunn Draugr

Since America is part of the English speaking world you really can't exclude parts of Africa since American culture is like 80% African culture. Gospel dirived from hymns slaves sang. We created blues, jazz, tap, hiphop, flat irons. (And a lot more that I can't remember at the moment)

Mexico reached far up into America so when it was stolen from them their culture seaped, once again, into an English speaking culture.

Native Americans had to teach early European immigrants how to farm the land in order to survive (your welcome land stealers)

Since America is part of the English speaking world you really can't exclude parts of Africa since American culture is like 80% African culture.

Can't say I agree with that entirely, considering the differences between African attitudes towards philosophy, culture, superstitions, and storytelling and the Western equivalent. They still believe in witches over there.

naturalhistorymag.com/picks-from-the-p..

Here's a woman trying to explain Hamlet to an African tribe in the late 60's. Their cultural understanding is so vastly different that they actually can't comprehend the story without adding in things (they literally tell her that she is wrong while she's explaining Hamlet and correct her on the story, which is considered something you do while someone is telling a story). Music is absolutely derived from jazz and thus American African culture, but I wouldn't say that the number of culture is probably more around 10% actually African derived. Maybe another 10% for urban youth. (I'm saying this without doing any real attempt at math or knowing the exact amount of large cultural influences, I just know storytelling and how people talk to eachother doesn't seem to be one of them).

Native Americans had to teach early European immigrants how to farm the land in order to survive (your welcome land stealers)

You know, I understand being upset that tribal land was conquered, but it's not like this stuff hasn't happened through history, instead of the word "Steal" "conquered" is usually used. Here's a great example of America learning stuff from the Indians, the story of the youtube.com/watch?v=79RApCgwZFw Hiawatha tribe, who you can actually see a symbol of on the American dollar (a bundle of arrows). The idea of a unified Union partly came from them, though we always seem to credit the Romans and just the Romans.

Lets see how many people this triggers.

In the argument of Freedom vs Order, Order always wins. You don't build civilization on freedom, you do it on order. Freedom is overrated in that regard, you could easily get rid of a few and no one would notice a difference in that regard minus the inital out burst.

Lets see how many people this triggers.

In the argument of Freedom vs Order, Order always wins. You don't build civilization on freedom, you do it on order. Freedom is overrated in that regard, you could easily get rid of a few and no one would notice a difference in that regard minus the inital out burst.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. "

Orders almost always applied in the sense of "if we destroy this SPECIFIC GROUPS freedoms, then this groups, then this groups, then put everyone under the same cultural banner and ruleset, then everything will be great." Except for the people you would have to kill or destroy the happiness of to make it work.

Though I guess order vs chaos is really just "how, exactly, do you think people should die" when you come down to it. Should they see the man that has them killed, or have their death ordered?

The internet is one of the greatest sources of disorder in the world at the moment.

@Chrononaut In my eyes, the two extremes of Freedom vs Order are Anarchy and Authoritarianism.

With extreme freedom and no rules, no one has any real restrictions on them and thus only have morals to guild them and morals aren't always the most solid of walls to fall on, they tend to be quite flexible.

With extreme Order, you get Authoritarianism. Everyone is given a role and knows the limits of their society and assuming they do nothing to provoke the anger of the state, they have no reason to really go after the state.

Do I realize that there are some impossibilities with Order? Yes but I for one would still like to live under a society of extreme order than that of one with extreme freedom.

If you couldn't tell, I'm one of those people with a very pessimistic outlook on human nature.

@ClocktowerEchos Oh I'm not judgemental about that, I'm just some kind of, I think, realistic optimist. I believe in the (actual graphic novel) V for Vendetta view of the world, where society always strives towards Order and inevitably reaches a boiling point where Anarchy rises, then after the initial Anarchy it folds back into a society that slowly becomes more Orderly. Basically, that time is so infinite that every possibility will happen and that permanence is a fancy. Societies rise, they fall, they commit vast cruelties, vast goods, but in the end it all ends up more or less fine as its ever been.

Though I do agree that the world becoming more orderly has reduced worldly violent deaths by far.

@Chrononaut idk how explaining Hamlet to an African tribe means anything. I'm sorry. I just don't understand how that's evidence to anything. But large parts of American culture is black culture which is sort of a hodgepodge of African cultures. You can't say this part came from this part of Africa or blues came from here because slaves were taken from their homeland and stripped of their name, their language, and their customs. So no it's not strictly African culture (which btw Africa is a continent with many many countries and cultures). Just like American culture doesn't resemble English culture even though our country originated from mostly British and French and I believe Portugese settlers. Cultures won't mimic and translate just because they've been influenced.

And history is written by the victor which is why conquered is used instead of stolen. It's a pneumonic device to sound less harmful. They stole and lied and killed and slaughtered all over the globe to "conquer" aka steal people's homes for their gold and jewels and natural resources in a name of a crown.

@Chrononaut

And history is written by the victor which is why conquered is used instead of stolen. It's a pneumonic device to sound less harmful. They stole and lied and killed and slaughtered all over the globe to "conquer" aka steal people's homes for their gold and jewels and natural resources in a name of a crown.

Small Gods probably has something good about this.

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

I think a lot of this is misinterpreted for political reasons. The amount of leftists who actually hate their own culture is, I'd suspect, negligible at best. My interpretation of the movement you are catching onto isn't that of self-hatred as it is typically misrepresented to be, but rather a deep distrust of traditional conservatism.

Not a distrust born simply out of politics either. I think most liberals are, deep down, simply moderates who are petrified, completely scared, that if they let the conservative elements in their country off their leash, the conservatives will go full fledged pogrom. Hence all the corny integrationalist stuff. It's not a hatred of their culture, it is a fear of an overzealous corner of their culture that has committed mass-murder in the name of the culture in the past, and that they assume is just itching to do so in the future. I have never personally met a leftist of any stripe who doesn't hate ISIS or Muslim terror, but they don't jump up and down about it because they are deathly afraid the conservative elements of their culture would use the opportunity to go full on Rwanda. Kill them all, burn their mosques, rape their dogs, the full monty. That's the thing. In the mind of a full-fledged liberal, every conservative is a secret SS Nazi just burning for the opportunity to get the ol' killing squad back together. And this also explains why liberals rarely ever push for meaningful reform, and by and large keep losing the working class to the right; they don't want to change things that much, they just want to keep back a murderous element they perceive on the right.

Which is interesting, since the right largely just wants to stop the left from changing things either. All around, it seems like most people are just happy with the middle, and yet the great American propaganda machine has everyone convinced the world will end if either side wins.

To be clear, I don't identify as Right-wing, nor do I think the Left will cause any kind of Communist uprising or some batshit nonsense like that. All I'm saying is that society functions better when its citizens are roughly homogeneous, so that you don't get violent, racist in-group/out-group divides inside your own damn country. And, unfortunately, the Left (for whatever fearful reason) is now in open opposition to the notion of limiting immigration, and forcing immigrants to integrate, which is only going to cause the country more harm down the line.

Can I get an "amen" for that, or what?

<Snipped quote by Jotunn Draugr>

I just have to say, this is a bizarre list. The Turks and Russians have integrated into the Anglo-Saxon world, but the Mexicans and Native Americans haven't? Wat? I feel like you rolled dice to put this one together.

Are you telling me Turks and Russians aren't largely integrated into Anglophonic society? I don't know what part of the world your from, but in my experience, you don't tend to have a problem with segregated Russian ghettos forming, where people only speak Russian, businesses only hire Russians, the signs are in Russian, and they lash out with violence at non-Russians. Likewise with Turks. I could be wrong, but these aren't things I've seen.

Meanwhile, there are larger sections of America (mainly California and New Mexico), where you can't so much as get a job if you can't speak Spanish, where there are entire cities and districts forming around Mexican culture, populated only by Mexicans, where non-Mexicans suffer violence and theft when attempting to pass through.

When was the last time you turned on Russiavision, an America-based TV station that broadcasts only in Russian, by Russians, for Russians, or went to Russiatown, to get some Russian food at the Russian market?

And Native Americans have largely chosen to segregate themselves from Western civilization, remaining on reserves. They intentionally attempt to avoid integration, and yet unevenly consume elements of Western production and culture, like alcohol, leading to severe self-harm and social problems. Others, that integrate into society, often remain resentful of most Americans/Canadians, for perceived historical injustices, and attempt to flaunt their different culture when able. Not all, of course, but you can't deny that the trend exists.

@Jotunn Draugr

Since America is part of the English speaking world you really can't exclude parts of Africa since American culture is like 80% African culture. Gospel dirived from hymns slaves sang. We created blues, jazz, tap, hiphop, flat irons. (And a lot more that I can't remember at the moment)

Mexico reached far up into America so when it was stolen from them their culture seaped, once again, into an English speaking culture.

Native Americans had to teach early European immigrants how to farm the land in order to survive (your welcome land stealers)

1. Excuse me? Citation needed on that one... "we created"... OHHH!!! So are you one of those black imperialist/anti-cultural-appropriation types?... Jeez, where do I begin? I disagree with the initial premise, that "black culture" composes any more than 13% of American culture (equivalent to the portion that happens to be black), but even granting that, people in the Congo aren't listening to Fats Waller, Billy Holiday, and Louis Prima! Wherever its inspirations came from, jazz is not African. It's Western.

2. Culture isn't some substance that soaks into the ground. If you purge an area of people and buildings, you purge it of culture. The culture came back due to lax immigration policies, not some magical notion of culture-juice, seeping through the cracks.

3. Okay, so what? How does attitude this help us improve today?