/polpol/ - Politically Incorrect Discussion

>>8205
>Basing a country's government on Christianity would eliminate the concept of civil liberties and possibly rights as well

Good.

>>8727

>a slave religion the Jews created to keep Europe in their pocket

Holy fuck

>>8964
Found the subjectivist retard.

Do you honestly think that humanity has changed enough in the past two thousand years for ancient teachings to no longer apply? I hate this mindset — it's one of the most retarded things I come across. The liberals are particularly prone to it, as if they think they've transcended the humanity of the past and are above it all.

The philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans is still very much applicable to modern life, and in many cases is even older than Christian teachings. Throwing something out because it's "old" or "archaic" is a retarded practice.

Moving on from that, are you one of those enlightened militant leftist atheists who truly believe that everyone is rational enough to come up with a good moral or life philosophy for themselves? If you really do think that, I recommend spending some time in your local ghetto. Yes, most people are too stupid to do anything but follow a smarter man's orders and teachings, and you're a fool for expecting otherwise.

Next on the list, why the fuck would you want everyone creating their own moral and life philosophies? Why the fuck would you want everyone playing by their own rules? That sounds like a great way to have civilization crumble on top of your head. The point of everyone basing their actions on the same "archaic text" is that everyone is playing by the same rules, which is vital for civilization.

More to the point, left to themselves most people will give themselves stupid or downright dangerous values by which to live, simply because it "feels good" or is "easy." I don't understand why you would want such a thing.

>Religious indoctrination has absolutely no vital part in instilling any sort of increased chances of success in life or values

Saying that seems to imply that all philosophies are equally valid, which is both retarded and wrong. Some actions have more success than others, meaning that there are objectively better actions. Actions are driven by practices; practices are driven by philosophy. Therefore there is objectively better philosophy. Are you honestly trying to say that traditions evolved over thousands of years for success have absolutely no bearing in an individual's success personally?

Even if that were true, it is quite clear that religion — by and large — promotes practices that are, if not good (nor bad) for the individual, good for society. Or are you going to say that encouraging your population to have and raise children well is irrelevant in the success of a civilization?

>Morals are learned from societal acceptance of certain actions

Is this some sort of moral equivalent of Marxist historical materialism? A circular chain of reasoning that makes no sense?

Why do people accept certain actions? > Because of their morals. > Where do people learn these morals? > From social acceptance of certain actions.

That's completely useless. Have you ever considered that certain actions are accepted and encouraged because they are good for the individual or good for society? And that, therefore, morals are not relative or subjective? Hence why there has never been a successful civilization built on butt-fucking or gluttony.

>>I'm not a Christian, but Christianity is useful for social reasons
That's me.

>This mindset bothers me for the simple reason that it reduces the transcendent and historical truths of Christianity to a vulgar toll in a ethnocentric toolbox.
I guess you can argue for "transcendent" truths in that Christian texts have good morals and contain "eternal truths" i.e. life lessons or something. Historical truths, though? I mean, Jesus was probably a real person and Judea was a Roman province and all that, but that Jesus LITERALLY rose from a LITERAL death? That God LITERALLY gave stone tablets to sand merchants? That the eucharist LITERALLY turns into his body when you eat it? For most of the claims, there's no evidence either way, so atheists or agnostics will tend to apply the same logic they use for any other claim (Vishnu or Santa or whatever) and tentatively (barring any evidence) conclude that there probably is no God. Religious people tend to take this as an article of faith and thus really and truly believe in these things (of course, it often happens that religious/ideologically minded people will ignore evidence which disproves a believed claim). The whole point of faith is that it's unconditional, no matter the proof and no matter what. If Christianity were proven (somehow) it wouldn't be a faith.

>I also find it the mindset of those who understand that there is a problem with modernism and Jewry, but are unwilling to give consideration to the truth of Christianity itself.
By which you of course mean "come to the same conclusion as me". I'd imagine most atheists on /pol/ are converted, i.e. they decided for whatever reason to become atheists, probably converting from Christianity. In that sense they have considered it.

The whole point, I guess, is that any given religion/ideology (if you're triggered by this add "except Christianity" at the end of every sentence) generally contains spiritual/emotional as well as legal elements which together allow for greater societal cohesion and arguably emotional well-being. This happens because any long-surviving movement/ideology must inevitably adapt to become sustainable and productive, at least for that level of society. Just look at Protestantism for an example.

>I also find it the mindset of those who understand that there is a problem with modernism and Jewry, but are unwilling to give consideration to the truth of Christianity itself.

Just because a religion is useful doesn't mean its true. The mindset you are describing is "I'm not a [religion], but [religion] is useful for social reasons."
Christianity is not unique to this mindset - every religion has its practical applications, its only that Christianity is the dominant faith in all Anglo-European countries, which is where 99% of all people from /pol/ are from. You obviously work with what you have, therefor when Christianity is the dominant religion in your area, you work with that. I imagine there are Islamic libertarians here and there that say "I'm not a Muslim, but Islam is useful for social reasons". But that doesn't make Islam the one true faith now does it?