I do not think Religion will die because human being naturally want to be attach to a higher power. All the religion give their follower assurance of protection,provision and so on.
What guarantees can you give to religion? Nothing what they say the religious leaders never come true. How then can they believe. Every year the adherents of different religions will become smaller, but religion for a very long time will try to stay in power. You should do less thinking and more reading on the subject you are trying to sound informed on. West is becoming less secular by the year, while the rest of the world never abandoned its traditions. Guess why? We live in age and place where having kids is a choice, not a neccesity while mortality went down throughout the developed world. So, who has the reproduction advantage? You or the person, whose entire value system is based around piety and family? Religious people have significantly bigger families, while atheists are not able to atleast sustain their own numbers. It doesnt matter, if you think there is a God. What matters is, that those who do will inherit the Earth.  |
|
|
|
https://asgardia.space/en/Just came across this. Asgardia is a new Nation, with plans to exist in space...somewhere in Earth's orbit. Their goal is Utopian in spirit, an opportunity to get away from the strife, politics, and war in our world. They're accepting applications for citizenship and I believe they'd be prime to adopt a currency that can exist without the need for a Central Bank, monetary policy, or political and economic wrangling that comes with managing a currency. It might even be cheap to mine in space - the heat generated could be used to warm living quarters and/or power systems. Shall we bring them Bitcoin? The term utopia was coined from Greek by Sir Thomas More for his 1516 book Utopia, describing a fictional island society in the south Atlantic Ocean off the coast of South America. The word comes from Greek: οὐ ("not") and τόπος ("place") and means "no-place", and strictly describes any non-existent society 'described in considerable detail'. However, in standard usage, the word's meaning has narrowed and now usually describes a non-existent society that is intended to be viewed as considerably better than contemporary society. Eutopia, derived from Greek εὖ ("good" or "well") and τόπος ("place"), means "good place", and is strictly speaking the correct term to describe a positive utopia. In English, eutopia and utopia are homophonous, which may have given rise to the change in meaning.  |
|
|
|
Religions made a lot of damage to human beings and our world in general. I'm not talking only about Islam, but every kind of religion, more or less, caused lots of problems.
I'm sure they will end. They won't last forever. But how will they end?
Which could the scenario that leads to their disappearance?
Like in every thing in life, there are good and there are bad things in it. It is same with religion. I can not say that religion is bad, because there are so much useful stuff in its teaching. But i do not deny bad things that were done in name of religion. I was speaking with friend about this theme, and we agree that approximately every religion live up to around 3000 years. So there you go, maybe religion will die at the end of 2999. year.  Religion does not die, but degenerates into another religion. Initially, there were teachings that were outdated and uninteresting to people. On their basis, other religions were created. They are all based on one principle: fear of God and submission to God Replace the word God with the Natural Order and... where is the problem then? Because various religions do in fact try to represent natural order within context of human existence. Refusal to accept the world the way it is and the way it works is not a sign of strength but rather of immaturity. Just my two cents. |
|
|
|
You paint a picture of the Apocalypse, but scientific confirmation of this. No one really knows how the radiation from the explosion. Maybe it's fake scientists to anybody in a head has not come to use nuclear weapons.
It has been scientifically proven. In addition to all those who died as a result of burn injuries in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many tens of thousands died later as a result of exposure to radiation. Also, there was a sharp increase in the incidence of cancer. No one disputes these effects, but they are very small even in Japan, not to mention the world. Who in the world have noticed the effects of nuclear testing at the nuclear test sites of the countries with nuclear weapons. So I don't really believe in nuclear winter. Actually yes, the person before you disputed those facts. Sithara rekted him. "Artifical" winter already happened in Earth history, it is just matter of volume. Meteor, that ended reign of dinosaurs also didnt kill them overnight (atleast not those in the vicinity of several hundreds of kilometres or near shores). Massive firestorms that swallowed up both fauna and flora in the days after the fall created enough debris to block out sun for many years. Even oceanic creatures then started to die enbloc. Much smaller Toba volcano explosion nearly exterminated humankind - likewise it happened in great distance from cradle of humanity but significant global cooling put a rift into enviromental stablity needed for development of species. |
|
|
|
|
n sociology, the iron cage is a term coined by Max Weber for the increased rationalization inherent in social life, particularly in Western capitalist societies. The "iron cage" thus traps individuals in systems based purely on teleological efficiency, rational calculation and control. Weber also described the bureaucratization of social order as "the polar night of icy darkness".
The original German term is stahlhartes Gehäuse; this was translated into "iron cage", an expression made familiar to English language speakers by Talcott Parsons in his 1930 translation of Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. This choice has been questioned recently by scholars who prefer the more direct translation: "shell as hard as steel".
Weber (in Parsons' translation) wrote:
In Baxter’s view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the 'saint like a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment.' But fate decreed that the cloak should become an iron cage.
Weber states, “the course of development involves… the bringing in of calculation into the traditional brotherhood, displacing the old religious relationship.”
Thus collective efficiency kills personal freedoms.
|
|
|
|
The African footballers mostly have stout stature and tough physique and they are very good tacklers and ball jugglers. Most African countries have won junior world tournaments with Nigeria and Ghana leading the way but this success is yet to be replicated at the top most level, The FIFA world cup. This is a major discussion in Most African countries, whiles some think an African country will win the cup someday others argue the african players are not good enough but are able to win the under age tournaments because of age cheating. Just this week, barely a year to the FIFA world cup in Russia another African story broke in the media, this time around it was the death of another African footballer, Chiek Tiote at his club in the second tier of Chinese league. Initial reports suggest he suffered a heart failure. Immediately the story broke out an old rumor started taking shape again since this adds up to a number of about ten (10) professionals footballers from the Western and Central African origin suffering Heart Attack and dying in the process. it widely believed in Africa that most of this players get injected by their clubs to play and some also leave unhealthy lifestyles that leads to complications. But the numbers are alarming considering most of this occurrences are identified in players with Western-Central Africa origin. Mark Vivian Foe, Kanu, Nkeng, Tiote and many more. My question is; is this deaths related to genetic diversity in this west-central African players or is it just hard luck. Please every soccer fan here should make their voices heard
I don't play soccer but that is sad. This seem to be an issue in every sport now. IMHO anyone caught doping should be immediately banned and have any medal stripped off. What's the point of all the training if you're just gonna cheat your way to winning? Most (not all) of these cases happen to soccer players from central-west Africa for simple reason. They are overrepresented in the higher echelons of this sport. Way overrepresented, if you look at the rest of the world population. Otherwise, soccer, perhaps more so than many other sports is dependant on stamina, boosting long term endurance through steroid abuse is terrible idea as it further burdening organ by far most taxed by it - heart. Even small deformity or small genetic defect can then kill you with conjuction with physical stress and drugs. |
|
|
|
Religion will die when parents cease from the very childhood to impose their religion on their children.
I don't think so. Many people find religion and God by themselves, while searching for purpose of life.Others received revelations or inspirations from spiritual world. People are spiritual beings, not just physical. So, they will always need spiritual guidance in their lives. We are trying to find something absolute in our life, unchanging and clear, our origin and purpose. Only God can give it to us, not society or science. So, when will Religions die? Only if people cease to exist. Or discover that all the religious dogma they were born into is, well, bullshit. There is no God, only people trying to make money and gain power over other people. It is all about submission and domination of other, more gullible schmucks. I don't care which religion it is. They are all pretty much the same in terms of the objectives. But what if the people who freely give money to a church stopped doing that and instead used it to smoke heroin and do drugs? There are a lot of stupid people in the world, I prefer they spend their money this way then another way. KoningSilk, friend, there are nihilists, who do as you say. And you know what? Darwin takes them out of gene pool, unlike the pious people. We are witnessing slow process of desecularization around the world. Not through war, but the fact, that heroin smokers and existencialists fail to produce offspring in any noticable manner. You could call it both evolution or Gods justice, depending on your personal bias. Similarly in the West, the only churches and madrasas that are growing through both natality and conversion are those, that stayed stauchly conservative, refusing any fashionable trends.  |
|
|
|
One can certainly answer the question why one country is rich, and the other is a poor comma only if one analyzes who is in power and how the country's economy develops. For some reason in developing countries and poor countries, very strong And a large level of corruption along with people's poverty. While officials are very rich.
Another aspect is territory. There are some countries that are obviously sitting on literal gold mines, oil reserves, exportable this and that, all manor of resources. This don't explain resource-rich countries that are still poor though, it seems even that some countries grow poorer after discovering resources like oil and diamonds. There's also those countries with no resources to exploit that get rich. Venice in the past grew so rich and powerful they were able to go head-to-head against empires, even to the point of gaining colonies, despite the city sitting on nothing but mud and brine. Singapore seem to be the modern counterpart (minus the colonialism). In addition it depends to the president or leader of that country. If the leader is pure and has no corruption in mind, then the country will prosper. A country can be rich if all the people living there are educated, or maybe people there are smart, then if they have resources, and if the leader is not corrupt. Hi, I'm the one who posted the original query. So basically what I'm taking from these now is that there are several factors required for a country to prosper, right? So basically, enough resources to exploit but not so much that it can make a dictatorship rich. Enough people that are smart and well educated. And low corruption. That last one seem to stump everyone in the developing world. It almost seem that it is ingrained in their institutions. I wonder if this is only a matter of circumstance (setup by colonialists and was not replaced, a dictatorship in the past that set the country backwards, etc...) or if there is a cultural aspect to. You can certainly pay attention to what countries were colonies of other countries, in past years. But the fact is that in poverty depends not only on the historical facts of the past, but also on how corrupt the government is. Sigh, in the modern age it boils down then to corruption? I wonder how you can limit it. I mean, are certain cultures more prone to this problem? What I'm getting from some of the answers here was there was already a predisposition to do things "under the table" that were magnified by the institutions that were set up during foreign rule. Its only corruption, if you are poor  it is "lobbying", when you are rich. You are missing something, though. Even before modern era, some people were rich and some were poor. Some people had work ethics and some did not. Some cultures were heavily regimented while others were plagued by perpetual clan warfare. East Asia was able to develop quickly after the last war since fundamentals for its rise were already in place. |
|
|
|
I don't like cold steel. I am more used to firearms. For me, it's an anachronism.
And I love cold steel very much. I have a few knives in the collection. These are not combat knives, they are not officially considered a cold steel. I know the history of making these knives. They are unique and each has its own character. I really like Damascus steel machetes Damascus steel is nothing more than a name brand. Now technology is such that you can make edged weapons from composite materials is much better than Damascus steel. It's more tribute to tradition than a tribute to the quality. Damascus or pattern welding is still used for aesthetics, though. It can be functional, if properly heat treated. Crucible spring steel, that is today considered standard for industrial applications was first developed in northern Europe about 1200 years ago.  Absolute bottom could be considered stainless steel (both brittle and hard), followed by wrought iron. |
|
|
|
Using a gun is much easier to kill someone than a sword , more practical and safe as you eliminate your opponent from distance.Moreover is less psychologically painless as you defeat your opponent fast with some bullets and not with a face to face fight where you have to beat him continuously and see the blood.
Couple of points, because I see others doing the same logical mistakes aswell. 1. Swords were not primary battlefield weapons of your ancestors. Bows and, halberds and pikes were. Your ancestors were not stupid and knew, that having distance from opponent is advantageous. Swords were equivalent of tactical knives and/or handguns today. Back up tools for personal protection. This is battlefield weapon:  2. No. If you are willingly taking someones life it is stressful regardless, if you are clicking buttons on your computer or smashing hammer on their skull. Guns are truly making men equal, it doesnt matter, that you are facing 80 years old woman with Parkinsons, as long as she can point a gun at you, you are a toast. For the better? I dont know. Anciet warrior cultures used to have code of honor, that is all but extinct today. 3. You can also notice, that thanks to firearms, walls and bastions become redundant. Before, cities and towns were closed off from outside world. Swords are very beautiful and effective in battle, but this is the last century. Now with a sword you do not intimidate the person who owns the gun.
Interesting question. How many people do own guns for personal protection outside of United States? Here in Europe, guns are almost never used for petty criminal acts. Knives and clubs are. |
|
|
|
If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water. This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuild after a few years and hundreds of thousands of people are living there now. It seems like the radiation lasted only a few months, or years. And in Chernobyl, the blast radius was quite small. I really doubt whether it was greater than 100 meters. But the radiation was more spread-out. It even caused a spike in cancer incidence in the Scandinavia. Hiroshima and Nagasaki could be rebuild, because all the rubble - which was radioactive, was removed. Those devastating atoms bind themselves to any sort of matter, so while you are right - air is poisonous for a few months, buildings and environment will stay so for many years. Even after one month in shelter, single day of exposure would sterilize you. And make you lose your body hair. Nuclear winter is also not a science-fiction. Large volcano eruptions are able to force regional climate cooling, enough nukes would block out sun for years globally - killing fauna a flora even in the areas unscathed by explosions and dropping temperature by as much as 15 degrees celsius. |
|
|
|
Just face it. Black people are hated globally, are the most different from all other races, are the only race incapable of generally succeeding in any society have never built or maintained modern civilization,band the only race that Chinese girls don't like.
With China and Asia rising and wealth bring freely transferred now, negros are the not even in the game, and are completely unwanted and useless.
Good job for trolling all the local gullible autists  I am sure their hypocritical responses to your opening post just eradicated malaria in Africa and made it economic superpower.  On a side note, though, we should start to talk about race again. This taboo is directly responsible for the usurpation of "truth" by extremists on all sides. World is getting more globalized, so people are more than ever interested in their personal roots and identity. Smart people will address it in due time. |
|
|
|
Right now, swordmanship is preferrable to become a hobby and sport like in Japan though they don't actually use real swords but a wooden sword also known as bokken. But I like swordmanship than any other else.
Are they afraid of getting cut if they use a real sword? The Japanese society has changed a lot since the American occupation which began more than 7 decades ago. What is the point in using a wooden sword? A sword made out of wood is not a real sword. It is more like a wooden sail or a toy. You can in cave in skull with bokken, it is not a toy, but finely balanced club, Sithara thats why Kendo and HEMA practicioners wear protective gear aswell. The point is sparring, getting better at fighting in these full contact sports without killing your training partner. In HEMA blunt steel swords are used instead. Besides, keeping history alive... You are getting more fit. You learn about self defense, that has nothing to do with firearms. You are socializing. This is what I mean by full contact sport. Thai box is child play next to it, thats why those men wear proper plate armor in events. They have to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK4sU9ysphc Swords are very beautiful and effective in battle, but this is the last century. Now with a sword you do not intimidate the person who owns the gun.
Mastering the sword is an art. And this is philosophy. Now the interest in forgotten culture is reviving. I have seen many young people who are ready to learn martial arts with the use of the sword I completely agree. |
|
|
|
Also: holyshit how comes the scadinavian rape for all nations are actually packed with guns. The finns even have as much guns as the swiss luls Something isnt right  Probably because of hunting. There is a lot of wildlife in those countries. The funny thing is that when you look at this list of 10 best countries for gun owners: http://www.gunsandammo.com/network-topics/culture-politics-network/best-countries-gun-owners/ you will see Finland at nr. 9, Sweden nr. 7 and Norway at nr. 5. Two different things, guys. Scandinavians indeed have long (very long) history of hunting wild life. Teenage girls, who go to night clubs dont pack hunting rifles and muslims are packed around the coastal cities, not in rural areas. You would see massive drop of criminality outside of places like Stockholm. Why are nations with gun abundance mostly 3rd world and civil war countries? The USA is polite? Does a polite nation go to (senseless) wars 224 out of 241 years of existence? They have one of the highest gun deaths per year per 100.000 people. Edit Why do swiss have so much weapons any1 know and can explain?  Swiss fought major powers, that tried to take control of strategic alpine region (their home) for generations. As result most men have mandatory military training. Then, they are allowed to keep their issued combat rifles in their homes, should need to call them arise. You cant really compare that to gang bangers from Detroit, those men learn how to handle and treat firearms as part of their militia training, in service of their country. |
|
|
|
Religion will die when parents cease from the very childhood to impose their religion on their children.
Why only parents? It seems to me that a large part of the responsibility for education carries the state. Religion is promoted everywhere and the government is interested in it. He and his Church shared tasks and therefore they can't live without each other. Why didnt religion cease to exist in Soviet Union or old Roman empire? And yes, many people do in fact convert in their adulthood (among baptists it is actually mandatory), how the hell do you geniuses think it got so widespread in the first place?  State terror did not end religion and neither did science, that grew out of its shadow. You are fighting your own shadows. |
|
|
|
Now against Trump will be a trial about the existence of the businesses with foreign investments. Perhaps this is contrary to the law on the fight against corruption. Also, Trump will have to provide to the court his tax return, and will surely give rise to other proceedings.
You haters are doing Trump the kind of advertisement, he could never afford to buy Honestly, hundreds of millions of dollars worth of time. You should be proud of yourself. It is pretty much irrelevant, if you hate him. You already made him into demi-god.  Cant wait where that is leading in that circus of yours. |
|
|
|
They wont ever die.
Religions are based on phenomena that people cannot explain.
By justifying the impossible by an omnipotent being, comfort ensues.
Religions will eventually die. In the Western nations, the number of people who identify with a major religion is declining with every new census. On average, less than 10% of the population in the European Union attend religious services regularly. WhatsApp and FaceBook are having more followers than Christianity and Islam right now. You are not checking your data. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/shall-the-religious-inherit-the-earth-by-eric-kaufmann-1939316.htmlMuslims and evangelicals are both resilient towards secularization and both have significantly larger families, than atheists and agnostics. In France alone number of evangelicals rose tenfold in the past three decades, number of muslims is also significantly growing. Not because conversion mind you, they are just better at making babies and retaining them. Also people, who become atheist ofter repent later in life. The world is becoming less secular, not more.  |
|
|
|
Very interesting question regarding the third world war. The fact is that if you look at all the military conflicts that are happening now and then Who is involved in them, clearly one can come to the conclusion that all these wars will not end so quickly yet. If you pay attention to Syria and even to North Korea, you can definitely say which countries will be the culprits of the 3rd World War
North Korea is not going to attack anyone. Their's is just empty talk. Let's focus our attention on Syria. It is true that most of the world powers are involved in Syria. But their involvement is limited to air-strikes and training. So the Syrian conflict also is not going to escalate in to a world war. This is incorrect. Syria is already a world war. The price of oil is low and likely to decline further. Russia is not interested in a stable situation in Syria. This can significantly reduce the volume of sales of Russian hydrocarbons to Europe. So they will do everything so that the world did not come in Syria. Sithara is referring to world war as in all encompassing global conflict - in response to the OP world had not seen such war since 1945. In this matter Syria is just another battleground where powers - both global and regional, settle their differences. I am glad, that North Korea ended up to be what I guessed in the first place, foreign policy recon. If a single country used nukes at the start of a great war, everyone who has access to nukes would follow suit. Though i don't think england would be the first one to do this and hopefully no country would be stupid enough to initiate a nuclear attack. A nuclear warfare would mean almost extinction level disaster for everyone.
I guess the most powerful nuclear weapons have a blast radius of less than 100km. So a nuclear warfare doesn't automatically mean the end of all forms of life on this planet, at least for the short term. But in the long term, survival will be difficult, provided how quickly the radiation spreads through air and water. This is only a theory. The Japanese survived after the nuclear bombings, and Chernobyl disaster. There are many people who never left the area of infection and safely live there still. Animals are also great feeling in there. The effect of radiation is still too poorly understood to speak of the destruction on the planet. It is not theory. Nuclear fallout is well documented. Bombs dropped on Japan were very inefficient by modern standarts, yet both managed to wipe in excess of 70 000 people on impact, killing about as many in fallout and related diseases. That was well before "dirt" bombs were developed. Majority of fallout diminishes within first six months, but you are forgetting, that its particles stay in objects such as trees, buildings, even ground - in essense making the are infertile. Enough bombs would cause nuclear winter. Small amount would still kill majority of population as infrastructure, agriculture and health care would collapse. |
|
|
|
You are mistaking a few million vahhabies and salafies which are mercenaries, hire to kill for girls and money, or simply out of fear for their
Families, they are being brainwashed for 2 years before releasing them in to the field for action. when you say Muslims you don't know who
Are Muslims, only the ones following the prophet and his grandchildren are true Muslims and the rest are the remaining generations of Omar
And other so called Caliphates, Omar was the one who killed Prophet's daughter and her husband "Ali" buried her in the dark in an unknown place
So they would never find her grave, imagine such people who would have dared to disrespect their own prophet's daughter's grave after death
They are the same people killing and terrorizing.
Not that I would disagree with your premise - majority of muslims are decent people, but few million of violent mercs is a lot for world to digest. A lot We all know, that wahabism is exported by Saudi Arabia (where it is also state ideology), which also takes care about Mecca, yet we do not see billion of muslims marching on heretics of Saudi Arabia for disgracing the prophet like that. There's no doubt that there are other factors other than Islam. For example the large proportion of adolescent males in Muslim countries definitely means more people to recruit and higher younger population in the past has been associated with wars. The oppressive societies they live in also factors as well.
But religion also play a large part of this. Madrasas are funded by Islamist groups associated with ruling families in the Arabian Peninsula and many of these have been found to inculcate disrespect for kuffars in children. The religion itself is easy to bend to their purpose because of the way it is structured. And different from Christianity where the Bible is considered the utmost authority, the Koran have to be supplemented with other writings like the hadiths, which further complicate things.
I agree with pretty much everything, that you have said. |
|
|
|
Latest news I read, there were a total of 9 countries already severing ties with Qatar. Lead by Saudi Arabia. I find this very disturbing to say the least, why is Middle East doing this to their neighbors? Does Saudi have proof that Qatar government of backing radical Islamist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS? Does President Trump has a hand on this?
I know that this will really affect the citizens of Qatar and event though they are one of the richest countries, it still relies heavily on its neighbors for trade and The nation imports most of its food through its land border with Saudi, which is now closed. Even my country, the Philippines has already placed a travel ban on Qatar. This incident will have a global impact, specially to migrant workers.
Qatar (along Saudi Arabia) funds ISIS since the beginning. Perhaps Saudis sold out Qataris, when Trump demanded somebody be held responsible? Who knows. But your country will benefit immensely from it, Kemarit. Less money for jihadists in Phillipines and harder travel for them to get around. This is from 2013: http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/amnesty-admits-links-to-activist-accused-of-funding-al-qaedaThis is from battle of Aleppo: http://en.alalam.ir/news/1903147 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
