The collapse of empires

a reply to: xuenchen

I feel like newer generations, which I am apart of, have felt prodded by preset standards and morals that they will do anything to bring about a change. And once we do it the next generation below me will do the same. Like some sort of moral decay. I saw a video on Netflix the other day that seemed to be sympathizing with pedophiles. It talked as if pedophelia has always been acceptable in the past, and since we're all "animals" or "apes" it okay to do what we are naturally inclined to want. It gave the rationalization that men have always had little boy toys since ancient times in Asia and Rome and Greece and all that. It seemed weird. And now, people are constantly trying to defend new groups and bring about change all the time. E.g. Gay marriage and stuff like that. Which is whatever, I don't care but before people would've thought that was bizarre 100 years ago. Will humans become so nihilistic and removed that in 30 years 40 year old dudes can just start banging little boys and taking them to the movies like its no big deal? This is just a speculative thought and I wanted to see how people felt about it. Don't get focused on any of the fill in info I added just the main point. Before Rome collapsed. Elitists were stump pumping little boys like it was no big deal and homosexuality was rampant(which again I don't care if you are pro gay or not it's just an observation). Also, people were obsessed with violent entertainment, drinking(clubbing in our times), and overeating. People became so selfish pursing their desires that they almost reached this height of,"ok, where do we go next?" Then it this led out and society moved in a new direction from square one again. Anyone following me?

Also sorry if you felt I was doing a post and go! I work EMS so my hours are long sometimes before I can get back on!!:/

a reply to: TheCretinHop

I'm really curious about your example of Greece. The only Greek empire I can think of was the one started by Alexander the Great, but it collapsed pretty much right after he died. Before that, Greece was composed of city states that were all autonomous. Of course they collapsed because they were conquered by Macedonia (Alex the Great).

since we're all "animals" or "apes" it okay to do what we are naturally inclined to want

I see this attitude as the most basic problem with scientific enlightenment. I'm not trying to be anti-science or anti-evolution, but if you release people from any moral obligation by discrediting religious values and defending scientific enlightenment, then you open the door wide to a "do what thou will" or "it's all good" philosophy.

This, IMO, can only lead to a break down of civilization and a turnover to savage and barbaric practices justified by lowering the standards of our humanity. Nature has no bounds in relation to a human based morality, but it really means the difference in what being a human is compared to just being another animal.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Except that Humans, like all apes, are social animals. Social animals NATURALLY gravitate towards helping each other. It's instinctual.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Except that Humans, like all apes, are social animals. Social animals NATURALLY gravitate towards helping each other. It's instinctual.

Wouldn't you say that human intelligence and knowledge are the over riding factors with concern to our instincts?

Also, not all (individual) social animals are inclined to help others in their species and evolution may select this as being more desirable from a survival perspective. If we create an environment that supports less instinct and less need for helping each other, wouldn't evolution reflect this? Just because a social instinct is present, doesn't make it strong enough to be supported by the environment we have created for ourselves.

ETA: How many people would endanger their own lives to get involved in a street crime? The social fabric is tempered by self preservation, humans have both instincts and survival over rides most of the others.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not so much the political sphere. But the social sphere. I mean that's why we don't still live Grecian lifestyles. Like what makes it collapse.? They just get to a point to where they've done everything beneath a the sun and people start moving on or what?

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Well put!

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
Wouldn't you say that human intelligence and knowledge are the over riding factors with concern to our instincts?

Yes I would, but even then we still follow certain base instincts. Our societies are literally designed to maximize the social instinct for instance.

Also, not all (individual) social animals are inclined to help others in their species and evolution may select this as being more desirable from a survival perspective. If we create an environment that supports less instinct and less need for helping each other, wouldn't evolution reflect this? Just because a social instinct is present, doesn't make it strong enough to be supported by the environment we have created for ourselves.

Possibly, but evolution would have to evolve a grandslam trait in order to overcome the benefits that mutual cohesion provide. As it stands right now, mutual cohesion has been a VERY beneficial trait to help humans survive. We continue to use it to improve on society as well.

To me, all indicators are pointing that society as it progresses is going to get MORE cohesive instead of less cohesive regardless of religious beliefs. Looking politically, many atheists and agnostics are on the left politically or are moderates but lean slightly left. Well the left is also the party of socialism and enhanced social cohesion. So going by that rationale, atheists AREN'T going to lead towards less morality, but actually restore morality that isn't practiced by the religious but say they need to.

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not so much the political sphere. But the social sphere. I mean that's why we don't still live Grecian lifestyles. Like what makes it collapse.? They just get to a point to where they've done everything beneath a the sun and people start moving on or what?

The Hellenistic culture that was exposed to the world by Alexander the Great existed until the Roman Empire conquered all the lands that were Hellenistic. It really had little to do with Hellenistic lifestyles.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here you are bub. I know its a simple link look up and only wiki but it's got references. I'm rushing this morning out the door!
en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If have to disagree with you. As comes with any political victory, the introduction of any victors society naturally diffuses into affected lands. Like westernization of middle eastern countries because of U.S. political influence. You can't say for example,"U.S. had affected Saudi Arabia merely in a political fashion." The youth there and other places crave the 'live free' 'go fast' 'be what you wanna be' attitude of westerners. They want to enjoy life free of oppression and are influenced by westerners a lot. Also look at Japan. After the A-bomb they became obsessed with western lifestyle(music, film, decoration, cars, mentality, etc...)

Maybe you are right in the sense that yeah, the 'lifestyle' didn't bring the pivotal change, it was Alexanders sword, but Hellenistic lifestyle was patiently waiting behind to flood into the broken down walls of the regions he overtook.

And yes Roman politics brought a change to that empire but the influence of Hellenistic into roman lifestyle still existed naturally and became an evolved roman version I'm sure. Then it kept decaying. Thats my point. These societies decayed overtime, are we doing the same right now?

a reply to: TheCretinHop

I should clear something up first before we continue talking. The word Hellenistic means "Greek like". So when I use the word Hellenistic it means that I am discussing Greek culture.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, evolution supports mutual social cohesion, but the question remains, "what society"? There is "honor among thieves" and snitches are selected out of such societies. What type of society will prevail? What type of "morality" will develop from the atheist perspective? Undoubtedly it will spring from the "enlightened" scientific point of view that puts humans on par with the rest of the natural world, one without human moral values.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

See that is just applying a slippery slope fallacy to the idea that atheists don't have to be told to be moral. For one, there have been countless studies and confirmation done that show that YES atheists do have morality and compassion. For two, the whole idea of an atheist society falling into a pit of decadence and immorality is a trap. There are atheist countries on this planet RIGHT NOW and none of them have become immoral. In FACT, the more atheist the country, the more moral they tend to be, while the more religious a country tends to be, the more immoral it is.

Misinformation and facts about secularism and religion

Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Zuckerman cites a 1999 Barna study that finds that atheists and agnostics actually have lower divorce rates than religious Americans.

He also cites another study, in Canada, that found conservative Christian women experienced higher rates of domestic violence than non-affiliated women.

The article goes on with more points of "morality".

Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies

Consider, for instance, the latest special report just put out by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (and recently summarized on the website 24/7wallstreet.com), which lists the ten states with the worst/best quality of life. According to this multivariate analysis which takes into account a plethora of indicators of societal well-being, those states in America with the worst quality of life tend to be among the most God-loving/most religious (such as Mississippi and Alabama), while those states with the best quality of life tend to among the least God-loving/least religious (such as Vermont and New Hampshire).

See. Science backs all this up.

originally posted by: TheCretinHop
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here you are bub. I know its a simple link look up and only wiki but it's got references. I'm rushing this morning out the door!
en.m.wikipedia.org...

You are going to have to do better than that. If you want to support the claims in your op, you are going to have to show how pederasty led to the fall of Greek culture. Just because the Greeks happened to practice something we consider immoral, doesn't mean that it lead to their downfall.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps such atheist morals are left over echos from an older society in decline. There is a shift in morality going on, there is little doubt about that. Personally I'd like to see a side by side comparison with atheistic and religious morals and I'd bet there are closely aligned at the moment.

Now, citing such studies and references about how people apply or don't apply morals says nothing about the value or origin of said morals. What morals are actually being talked about? Also, I don't see statistics as being science or fact.

Morality would be highly subjective and outside the bounds of pure science in my opinion. If you could scientifically define a universally accepted morality and apply the scientific method to prove it's value to all societies, it may be possible to apply a theory and prove it's validity, unfortunately societies differ and so do social morals. Morals aren't like proving the temperature of the boiling point of water at sea level.

ETA: "Quality of life" indicators, what qualities are they talking about? Living a moral life doesn't mean you have a higher quality of life if that means having a certain living standard, like a flush toilet and electricity.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Perhaps such atheist morals are left over echos from an older society in decline. There is a shift in morality going on, there is little doubt about that. Personally I'd like to see a side by side comparison with atheistic and religious morals and I'd bet there are closely aligned at the moment.

Most of the shift in morals that the religious disparage are things like drugs, sex before marriage, cussing, listening to explicit music, dressing indecently, etc. All those morals are useless and stupid. Not to mention WAY too busybody. They can be discarded. HOWEVER the ones that matter (the ones that require us to be nice to each other) are being reinforced by the atheist societies and EVEN starting to be enforced because the religious weren't bothering to be even handed in their application of morality to all peoples.

Now, citing such studies and references about how people apply or don't apply morals says nothing about the value or origin of said morals. What morals are actually being talked about? Also, I don't see statistics as being science or fact.

Why do the origin of the morals matter? Only that they continue to exist. The important ones that is. Statistics might not be definitive fact, but you'd be intellectually dishonest to ignore those findings and try to paint an opposite picture to what they are saying.

Morality would be highly subjective and outside the bounds of pure science in my opinion. If you could scientifically define a universally accepted morality and apply the scientific method to prove it's value to all societies, it may be possible to apply a theory and prove it's validity, unfortunately societies differ and so do social morals. Morals aren't like proving the temperature of the boiling point of water at sea level.

The only morality that matters is the morality that helps a society grow as a cohesive unit. This can be distilled down as the "Golden Rule", but even atheists inherently recognize the value of that. Probably because they understand the necessity of social animals to work cohesively for the benefit of all of them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I suppose that you are the final say on what moral standards are the best for social cohesion? You seem to be pretty certain what morals matter, that seems pretty subjective and unscientific to me. Also, "the ones that matter (the ones that require us to be nice to each other)" sure sounds a lot like a Christian moral code taught by that horrible teacher called by the name of Jesus.

Again, what society are you talking about? Also, the origin of morals are extremely important. It makes a difference if they come from the natural world or from mankind, or via science. IMO you place far too much value on society over the individual, yet your opinion on what morals matter reign supreme.

originally posted by: MichiganSwampBuck
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And I suppose that you are the final say on what moral standards are the best for social cohesion? You seem to be pretty certain what morals matter, that seems pretty subjective and unscientific to me. Also, "the ones that matter (the ones that require us to be nice to each other)" sure sounds a lot like a Christian moral code taught by that horrible teacher called by the name of Jesus.

Well the other morals inhibit social cohesion by unfairly restricting the activities of people for arbitrary reasons. What's really the point of those morals anyways? As for the be nice to each other morals, for one they predate Christianity and for two they don't rely on religion to have them.

Again, what society are you talking about? Also, the origin of morals are extremely important. It makes a difference if they come from the natural world or from mankind, or via science. IMO you place far too much value on society over the individual, yet your opinion on what morals matter reign supreme.

The origin of morals is only important for historic reasons. All that matters is the morals that are the most effective at maintaining social cohesion.