It's not a decline of religion (as the title suggests), but rather the middle ground or in-between people. Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity are both on the rise, as well as Atheism.

It means people are becoming more polarized.

I think I'll weigh in on this because I like philosophical arguments. After reading all of the responses so far, I've decided to answer your original question and ignore the correlaries you've proposed; feel free to ask followups here or in my profile if you want more answers. I have also decided to present my findings in list format to fit my fickle whims.

Why is life sacred to me?

1. I'm Roman Catholic. The fifth commandment is pretty clear: Thou shalt not kill.
2. Each person has their own viewpoint and experiences, and when they are dead all that is not recorded is lost.
3. Death is irreversible. If a conflict ends in death, then those killed have no recourse left in this world.

Why isn't life sacred to me?

1. Various religious, ethnic, and national groups have throughout history sanctioned the death of other humans. Although I note above that Roman Catholicism demands that one not take other lives, during the Crusades they not only sanctioned the death of Arabs, but stated that any faithful who fall in battle during a crusade are immediately absolved and borne up to heaven. Given the varying historical context, there's no reason to believe that our current viewpoints are any more correct.
2. The universe is a vast place, and humans are tiny specks in comparison to all of creation. Even if we make a large impression on the world now, it's almost certain that it will be gone in one million years. Given that scope, any life is worth surprisingly little.
3. Death is a part of nature. Animals kill each other for various reasons, humans kill each other for various reasons, and this has always been the case.

God doesn't agree. Or at least God decided to take him up to heaven early.

Anyone read this total bullsh-t challenge? What kind of coward makes these bold claims of reward to anyone who can answer the questions and then does this:

This is a rough draft. The Challenge will be formally available to everyone the same day i53 releases the first installment of its new reality series "The Great Commission."

Ok, so your contest will never be "official".. bravo.

1. To receive the $5,300, you must answer the question(s) without contradicting yourself.

define "contradict".

6. All responses cost $1.00. This cost is not to generate revenue but rather to curb excessive and superfluous responses.

Ok, nice challenge. Surely they will receive thousands of entries to their bullsh-t challenge. So they aren't even putting up their own money. BUt I agree it is helpful to limit entries especially if people have to read them.

11. Only one $5,300 prize will be allotted. This prize will go to the first individual who can answer the question(s) below without contradicting him or herself.

Ok, again is it first one submitted? First one submitted after the contest becomes "official". What lying cowards.

8. At the top of your response, please state your ultimate epistemological authority... You must be extremely specific when stating your ultimate epistemological authority. That is, you will need to explicitly tell us the one religious text or the one living person that you consider to be ultimately authoritative.

How is this a challenge to atheists or agnostics??? Also, the rules state:

If in your submission, you give ultimate authority to any other living person other than yourself, your submission will be automatically invalidated, and you will lose your $1.00.

So by definition of the contest you must state the ONE religious text you follow. What kind of morons are these? Note that the "Bible" is not in fact one religious text even.

Now the questions immediately invalidate the contest because you cannot answer them all by definition without contradiction. They only apply to different belief systems.

Question 1 & 2
These two questions are for the atheist, postmodernist, or any individual who thinks that man constructs his truth rather than discovers a transcendent truth outside of himself.

Question 3
This next question is for the agnostic, for anyone who does not hold to a formal system of thought, for anyone who holds himself to be ultimately authoritative, or for any non-Christian who believes that truth is discovered rather than constructed ... Please note that this question pertains to all individuals who believe in a god, but their belief stems from their own mind, rather than from some divinely revealed text.

Question 4
This question is for the Hindu, the Buddhist, or any adherent of an (eastern) religion that denies the existence of propositional truth on an ultimate level.

Question 5
This next question is for any adherent of Islam, Roman Catholicism, Judaism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, or any monotheistic religion which possesses an authoritative text (or revelation) that claims its (infinite) God has characteristics of justice and mercy.


This is the biggest joke and exercise in mental masturbation. By the contest's own rules even the Christian author of the challenge has failed and cannot collect the money. I'm glad God decided to smote this charlatan

Yeah, I will definitely give you that Catholicism is far, far removed from what we commonly think of as Christianity these days. Even their use of the Bible is limited.

>> ^thepinky:
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^furrycloud:
If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.

This statement is a perfect example of what many in the US believe, and it always makes me giggle.
Catholicism is the descendant of the original christian church. A splinter group broke off, protesting some of the more absurd practices of the church, and are known as Protestants. The Protestants have broken into many sub-groups, like Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and such. But the two primary branches of christians are catholics and protestants.
So saying there is a difference between christianity and catholicism is like saying there is a difference between fish and trout.

To say that Catholicism is not Christianity is of course false, but Protestants these days think that they have the corner on Christianity. If you don't fit the mold, you are not a Christian. It is very annoying to me. You may believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but if you don't believe in certain doctrines, you aren't allowed to call yourself Christian and they get really pissed off at you. Can you tell that I'm bitter? Well, I wouldn't want to lump myself in with that lot, anyway.


While it's true that Catholicism and Protestantism have a lot in common, the doctrinal differences between the two are so significant that lumping them together under the generic term Christianity is to err. Especially for the sake of discussion. And yes Pinky, you do seem bitter.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^furrycloud:
If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.

This statement is a perfect example of what many in the US believe, and it always makes me giggle.
Catholicism is the descendant of the original christian church. A splinter group broke off, protesting some of the more absurd practices of the church, and are known as Protestants. The Protestants have broken into many sub-groups, like Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and such. But the two primary branches of christians are catholics and protestants.
So saying there is a difference between christianity and catholicism is like saying there is a difference between fish and trout.


To say that Catholicism is not Christianity is of course false, but Protestants these days think that they have the corner on Christianity. If you don't fit the mold, you are not a Christian. It is very annoying to me. You may believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, but if you don't believe in certain doctrines, you aren't allowed to call yourself Christian and they get really pissed off at you. Can you tell that I'm bitter? Well, I wouldn't want to lump myself in with that lot, anyway.

>> ^furrycloud:
If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.


This statement is a perfect example of what many in the US believe, and it always makes me giggle.

Catholicism is the descendant of the original christian church. A splinter group broke off, protesting some of the more absurd practices of the church, and are known as Protestants. The Protestants have broken into many sub-groups, like Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists, and such. But the two primary branches of christians are catholics and protestants.

So saying there is a difference between christianity and catholicism is like saying there is a difference between fish and trout.

>> ^JuliusP:
>> ^furrycloud:
Whether Hitchens is right about Christianity being imposed or not, it still hasn't reached the point where people are Executed (physically speaking) for not believing in it.

Like this?


If you will briefly read into the link that you posted, you will notice that when it refers to Christian Europe, it is actually referring to what is known as Catholicism. There is a difference between Christianity and Catholicism, and it's an important distinction to make.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420
He's a fake Catholic. So he has no moral basis from which to utter lies. Is that short and clear enough?


A fake Catholic? Even if the bible does say that homosexuality is an abomination, it doesn't say that heterosexuality is a pre-requisite to Christianity/Catholicism.

hey asynchronice,
thanks for your input on this, its always interesting to hear more background on something especially on a subject such as this. I also noticed that the roundtable dicussion at the end was fairly biased as well but I figured I would let the video stand for it self and see if anyone had any input on it. I didnt mean for this to be flamebait in any way either, I find religion of all kinds very interesting... even if I want no part of it As for other videos I'm not sure, I actually just stumbled upon this while searching for a different video completely unrelated to religion. I checked the youtube account that this came from and the person seems to be fairly biased against mormons but it might be worth browsing through his movies.
As for the golden bathtub...well I think I'm gonna leave that one alone
>> ^asynchronice:
Being raised Mormon and having since realized how retarded ALL of them are and now comfortably atheist, I think I can speak fairly about this:
It's called Kolob, and the only reason I know is because it's in one of the super-freaky hymns that was in the back of the hymn book:
"If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye"
I would imagine 90% of Mormons have no idea what this is. It's mentioned only briefly in the Mormon scripture, and (like many Biblical passages), was only intended to be understood metaphorically. However I would fault the author (Mr. Smith) with coining a sci-fi sounding name which obscures the point. But beyond that, the video has some very interesting slightly subliminal techniques. The emphasis on multiple gods, the 'Mormon' Jesus; there is a very concerted effort to demarcate where the creators Christianity begins and Mormonism begins. The 'facts' presented here are all very obscure passages, painstakingly juxtapositioned together to create a very loose narrative that is just crazy enough to fit together, but not really make a lot of sense.
And this is clearly not a 'real' documentary as the interview session at the end is laughably biased.
This piece could be done to any Judeo-Christian faith (maybe Eastern as well, but that's out of my area), as it focuses on only the mystical and obscure facts and spends all of it's time elaborating on them. It would be like a documentary on Catholicism and spending all your time on Revelations. You couldn't deny it was true (or at least according to the Vatican), but you miss the point. Entertaining, maybe; educational, not so much.
This reminds me of an old friend of mine who went to a private Christian school, and one day in mandatory 'bible' class (lolz) they showed a video on Mormonism. Based on our conversation, I'm guessing this is what he saw. He laughed it off and said they had little videos on all the 'other' religions, that focus specifically on how to demean them, which most of them picked up on and ignored.
That said, I'd like to see those other videos too

Being raised Mormon and having since realized how retarded ALL of them are and now comfortably atheist, I think I can speak fairly about this:

It's called Kolob, and the only reason I know is because it's in one of the super-freaky hymns that was in the back of the hymn book:

"If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye"

I would imagine 90% of Mormons have no idea what this is. It's mentioned only briefly in the Mormon scripture, and (like many Biblical passages), was only intended to be understood metaphorically. However I would fault the author (Mr. Smith) with coining a sci-fi sounding name which obscures the point. But beyond that, the video has some very interesting slightly subliminal techniques. The emphasis on multiple gods, the 'Mormon' Jesus; there is a very concerted effort to demarcate where the creators Christianity begins and Mormonism begins. The 'facts' presented here are all very obscure passages, painstakingly juxtapositioned together to create a very loose narrative that is just crazy enough to fit together, but not really make a lot of sense.


And this is clearly not a 'real' documentary as the interview session at the end is laughably biased.

This piece could be done to any Judeo-Christian faith (maybe Eastern as well, but that's out of my area), as it focuses on only the mystical and obscure facts and spends all of it's time elaborating on them. It would be like a documentary on Catholicism and spending all your time on Revelations. You couldn't deny it was true (or at least according to the Vatican), but you miss the point. Entertaining, maybe; educational, not so much.

This reminds me of an old friend of mine who went to a private Christian school, and one day in mandatory 'bible' class (lolz) they showed a video on Mormonism. Based on our conversation, I'm guessing this is what he saw. He laughed it off and said they had little videos on all the 'other' religions, that focus specifically on how to demean them, which most of them picked up on and ignored.

That said, I'd like to see those other videos too

Oh really Evangelicals didn't support a current war against the Axis Of Evil? You never heard Jerry Fallow or Pat Robertson speaking out against striking against the Ayerabs? George Bush had God tell him to go to war, he was on a mission from Gawwwd.

Religious involvement in geopolitical events is all a matter of perspective.

With regards to religious extremism in Europe ha! That's less to do with religion then with anti-reactionary attitude against immigrants who are coming into the nation. Every anti western cleric has been deported from the UK. You know what else you got after 7/11 British Government encroachments on personal freedoms, go near any US airfield, you will be arrested, protest near parliament, you will be arrested. Don't worry about them they got a police state there, CCTV all over the cities that magically took only 3 photos of the 7/11 bombers. Muslims actually have cloaking technology.

You don't see the governments complaining, I wonder why it is? Oh surely they have been brainwashed by Wizards of Islam. The reason they don't interfere is because Europe is a declining population growth, they need labor to do the jobs Europeans don't want to do, just like in the States. Welcome to capitalism and labor mobility.

I love how you want to say that world events are somehow driven by people's wishes, beliefs and feelings. No, its all about money. Labor mobility is a big plus for old Europe. That's why you don't see these states implement massive immigration restrictions, which they would do overnight. Instead we are seeing the implementation of the European Blue Card.

You fail to see the complexity of world events and choose just a narrow view of clearly these people are out to kill everyone. Also don't you happen people are pissed? Western world has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, both nations are still worse off. Both invasions has pushed massive refugees into other states. Palestinians are still getting killed as are civilians in both conflict zones. You know that US Forces up until the Battle of Haditha looked at civilian casualties as normal events in a time of war?

ElJardinero, wow, really Islams chop people hands off in all Islamic states? I should really tell people in Turkey, Indonesia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt. That's Saudi Arabia my friend, you know the nation that is supported by the Democratic states of UK and USA, the bestests of friends of the Western Worldz! You know they wanted to lash a woman for getting raped? Who kept mum on that? The US government whose own human rights charter KSA has been breaking year on year.

Religion as I say again is a apparatus of control in both Iran and Saudi Arabia, designed to keep an elite in power through religious terrorism. Islam has nothing to do with it, its simply a tool of power in the same way Catholicism, Protestant and many other faiths are used to justify killing human beings. The Ireland conflict and the war in Bosnia was based around religion, you people seem to forget that. Its just history repeating.

But go ahead. I live in Kuwait and we make alot of money feeding and supplying the US armed forces. I feel fucking sorry for the young men getting killed there fighting a war that has no aim.

>> ^Raigen:
^

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll have to look it up.

Great. Now I want to defend Catholicism from drive-by comments like the one you just made about the Pope. Come on. I know you're smart enough to know why that was a stupid things to say about Catholics.

Yes, you have a point about creationists not knowing what created God, but you're right, atheists have the very same problem. The only three options are (uncaused) infinity, (uncaused) cosmos springing from nothing, or an unmoved mover. Science cannot explain the cosmos. It tries, but it can't. Why not believe in a supernatural cause, because I truly believe that science cannot possibly explain the origins of the cosmos any more rationally than creationists.

So, I respect your agnosticism. Neither side can be proven, can it? It comes down to picking a side, not picking a side, or basing your beliefs on something other than the things that have failed us so far: That is, the cold, hard, unhelpful facts.

I hope political power does to this guy what political power did to the pope and catholicism.

>> ^quantumushroom:
hehehehe...I love your thick ignorance. <---No need to get gay, comrade.
Atheists worldwide have murdered over 100 million people. Since you're going to lump all religious folks together, don't y'all deserve to be thrown in with other atheists?


Such an old, tired, disproven argument. Name one -- just one -- violent act committed in the name of atheism.

*crickets*

Now try to think of a few that were committed in the name of some deity -- you'd probably already come up with a dozen examples before you even finished reading the question. Sorry to invoke Godwin's Law, but here goes . . . Hitler may have committed a terrible genocide, but it wasn't in the name of Roman Catholicism (his religion). He just happened to be a Roman Catholic, just like Stalin happened to be an atheist. If anything, Stalin had created the Soviet Communist Party as a new religion and committed atrocities in the name of his pseudoreligion, Communism. However, hundreds if not thousands of dictators throughout history have committed countless atrocities in the name of their respective religions.

And, by the way, this country was founded largely by those who considered themselves skeptical of religion. Show me one Judeo-Christian reference in the Constitution. One.

*crickets*