|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 5, 2018 20:38:56 GMT
Sounds like a plan and half! Italy got the right idea. Hopefully the rest of Europe follow suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 5, 2018 21:10:36 GMT
"- Encourage population to have babies."
Why?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 5, 2018 21:20:30 GMT
"- Encourage population to have babies." Why? Why not?! |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 5, 2018 21:22:11 GMT
"- Encourage population to have babies." Why? Why not?! Human overpopulation is horrible for the environment and uses up too much resources. If you want the human race to continue, breeding must be kept under control. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 5, 2018 21:40:07 GMT
Human overpopulation is horrible for the environment and uses up too much resources. If you want the human race to continue, breeding must be kept under control. National population decline is also unhealthy. If a country wants it’s national identity to continue, it must steady it’s birth rate. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 5, 2018 21:47:31 GMT
Human overpopulation is horrible for the environment and uses up too much resources. If you want the human race to continue, breeding must be kept under control. National population decline is also unhealthy. If a country wants it’s national identity to continue, it must steady it’s birth rate. I don't think that's really an issue for a country that's overwhelmingly Catholic |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 5, 2018 21:52:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 5, 2018 21:55:10 GMT
That's fine if the birthrate is decreasing, as noted the country is overwhelmingly Catholic which probably means the birthrate was already rather high to begin with. That probably means religiosity is decreasing in Italy. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 5, 2018 22:02:23 GMT
That's fine if the birthrate is decreasing, as noted the country is overwhelmingly Catholic which probably means the birthrate was already rather high to begin with. That probably means religiosity is decreasing in Italy.  Good ol Lowtacks. Never stops trying. Unfortunately for you ‘religiosity decreasing’ is another issue on the agenda for the new government to put right. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 5, 2018 22:06:31 GMT
That's fine if the birthrate is decreasing, as noted the country is overwhelmingly Catholic which probably means the birthrate was already rather high to begin with. That probably means religiosity is decreasing in Italy. Good ol Lowtacks. Never stops trying. Unfortunately for you ‘religiosity decreasing’ is another issue on the agenda for the new government to put right. "Good ol Lowtacks. Never stops trying."
So no actual counterargument. Gotcha.
"Unfortunately for you ‘religiosity decreasing’ is another issue on the agenda for the new government to put right."
So religious propaganda and theocracy I'm assuming. I'm sure Iran would be proud.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Jun 5, 2018 22:16:54 GMT
I thought that the OP was exaggerating but quick googling indicates that new Italian Government actually is planning on doing something similar to what the OP is claiming. Though for life of me I cannot understand how a country that hasn't got its own legal tender can even talk about localisation ahead of globalisation. They should remember that they are a part of monetary union on which I don't think they exert any significant influence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 5, 2018 22:17:39 GMT
Good ol Lowtacks. Never stops trying. Unfortunately for you ‘religiosity decreasing’ is another issue on the agenda for the new government to put right. "Good ol Lowtacks. Never stops trying."
So no actual counterargument. Gotcha.
"Unfortunately for you ‘religiosity decreasing’ is another issue on the agenda for the new government to put right."
So religious propaganda and theocracy I'm assuming. I'm sure Iran would be proud.
Isn’t Italy already pretty much a theocracy? Besides Italy trying to persevere its Christian identity is a positive. You should see the damage secularism has done to British society. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 5, 2018 22:20:21 GMT
"Good ol Lowtacks. Never stops trying."
So no actual counterargument. Gotcha.
"Unfortunately for you ‘religiosity decreasing’ is another issue on the agenda for the new government to put right."
So religious propaganda and theocracy I'm assuming. I'm sure Iran would be proud.
Isn’t Italy already pretty much a theocracy? Besides Italy trying to persevere its Christian identity is a positive. You should see the damage secularism has done to British society. "Isn’t Italy already pretty much a theocracy?"
Probably, sounds like you want more than it already has though.
"You should see the damage secularism has done to British society."
Modern science and skeptical thinking? I can see why you would hate that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 5, 2018 22:31:03 GMT
lowtacks86 I don’t see why you would think that seeing as Christianity led to the rise of modern science. Science in general owes much to Christianity. I’m also one of the most skeptical people there is. For example I believe nearly all religions are bs. You see I’m even very skeptical about whether professed atheist people like you actually genuinely disbelieve in God.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 5, 2018 23:42:35 GMT
Blink and you might miss it!
Italy has had 19 Prime Ministers and new governments since Gasperi after WW2.
Some only lasted a few weeks or months.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 6, 2018 1:32:07 GMT
lowtacks86 I don’t see why you would think that seeing as Christianity led to the rise of modern science. Science in general owes much to Christianity. I’m also one of the most skeptical people there is. For example I believe nearly all religions are bs. You see I’m even very skeptical about whether professed atheist people like you actually genuinely disbelieve in God. "I don’t see why you would think that seeing as Christianity led to the rise of modern science. Science in general owes much to Christianity."
I'm assuming you're referring to Christian scribes who practiced science. That's only because much of the population was illiterate at the time, so the scribes by default became the scientific community, not because they had some in depth scientific thinking.Today most scientists are atheist/irreligious. And it's not like even back then religion has always been kind to science (Galileo for instance). Besides I'm sure you reject a lot of science founded by religious types (Big Bang Theory, for instance), so I'm not even sure why you bothered bringing that up.
"I’m also one of the most skeptical people there is."
You're "skeptical" in the same way a Flat Earther is skeptical of a round Earth.
"For example I believe nearly all religions are bs."
And the one you happen to believe in I'm guessing you were raised/indoctrined into. I'm sure that plays absolutely no correlation.
"You see I’m even very skeptical about whether professed atheist people like you actually genuinely disbelieve in God."
Just replace "God" with "Allah" and you'll hopefully at least vaguely understand the absurdity of your statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 6, 2018 2:21:45 GMT
-Ensure the trains always run on time.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
 
|
Post by Lugh on Jun 6, 2018 6:37:39 GMT
There's a lot like about their programme but also a lot to hate. If I was Italian I wluld give the Five Star Movement a vote to disturb the stability of the European Union.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jun 6, 2018 7:11:11 GMT
lowtacks86 I don’t see why you would think that seeing as Christianity led to the rise of modern science. Science in general owes much to Christianity. I’m also one of the most skeptical people there is. For example I believe nearly all religions are bs. You see I’m even very skeptical about whether professed atheist people like you actually genuinely disbelieve in God. "I don’t see why you would think that seeing as Christianity led to the rise of modern science. Science in general owes much to Christianity."
I'm assuming you're referring to Christian scribes who practiced science. That's only because much of the population was illiterate at the time, so the scribes by default became the scientific community, not because they had some in depth scientific thinking.Today most scientists are atheist/irreligious. And it's not like even back then religion has always been kind to science (Galileo for instance). Besides I'm sure you reject a lot of science founded by religious types (Big Bang Theory, for instance), so I'm not even sure why you bothered bringing that up.
"I’m also one of the most skeptical people there is."
You're "skeptical" in the same way a Flat Earther is skeptical of a round Earth.
"For example I believe nearly all religions are bs."
And the one you happen to believe in I'm guessing you were raised/indoctrined into. I'm sure that plays absolutely no correlation.
"You see I’m even very skeptical about whether professed atheist people like you actually genuinely disbelieve in God."
Just replace "God" with "Allah" and you'll hopefully at least vaguely understand the absurdity of your statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jun 6, 2018 8:11:40 GMT
Science in general owes much to Christianity. I’m also one of the most skeptical people there is. For example I believe nearly all religions are bs. You see I’m even very skeptical about whether professed atheist people like you actually genuinely disbelieve in God. The same could be said about Islam. Muslim mathematicians contributed significantly to algebra and arithmetics in the Middle Ages, and modern science doesn't work without maths. I guess it's not the religions per se that contributed to science; but in the past, religious places were often the only ones where you could get a higher education. This is true for Christianity and Islam. But, IMO, since the Enlightenment, religion is not really needed for scientific advancement. |
|
