Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

19192949697327

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    which is still NOT A i.e NOT atheist as defined and quoted in the research!
    when I refer to "atheist3 and when they do they are referring to the people who answered A.
    As long as we are clear on that you can call yourself anything you like.

    By the way F "none of the above" comes under "dont know" and is covered by the survey. It is still not A and therefore not atheist as objectively defined.
    Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says.
    I specifically explained which of your narrow definitions kinda sorta apply, you ignored that point.

    I've tried several times to describe my position, but you are not interested in listening, nor do you have a point. So trying to explain it again or more simply would just be a waste of time.

    But please, continue to tell me what I believe.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    koth wrote: »
    Atheist= belief there is no such thing
    agnostic = not sure/dont know
    deist= belief ther is a higher power
    theist= belief ther is a personal god

    A person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic refers to knowledge not belief.

    Atheist is defined in the survey as thinking "there is no such thing" as God the options of
    higher powers or spirits are also offered. It does not matter what you might think about it. That is what was measured. As defined.
    Morbert wrote: »
    There are crossed wires here. The speed of light postulate of special relativity is regarding the local speed of light. Spin around on the spot, for example, and you will see the stars rotate around you much faster than the speed of light.

    No you wont.
    So galaxies can recede at faster than the speed of light because the expansion of the universe is an expansion of spacetime itself,

    nothing to do with you spinning as you look out.
    Even in expanding space light or galaxies do not travel faster than c.


    King Mob wrote: »
    F. None of the above.

    not offered as an option and covered by "I dont know/ not sure
    "
    The closest you can get would be a combination of A and B with modification and better wording.
    The options you are offering do not properly cover what I and most atheist positions are, hence your definitions are useless.

    Those are what the survey measured. You have produced no evidence most NONES believe a combination of A and B.
    Morbert wrote: »
    I feel your pain

    You may feel the Moon is made of cheese or astrology works .
    i prefer to go by objective evidence.

    You seem confused: 'a disbelief in the existence of a deity' is not the same as 'a belief that no deity exists'.

    You seem to be confused. Atheist is defined in the NONES survey. go and read it!
    We have also been over the eurostat and various surveys with respect to Morberts clmai, of Norway being 70% atheist. it clearly isnt and this is supported by several published research sources. Even the one on which is 70% claim is based!
    Your attempt to twist the meaning of the word 'atheist' by replacing the word 'disbelief' with 'belief' is ironic really if you bear in mind your reaction to the suggestion that since only 32% of people polled classified themselves non-atheist, 68% can be said to have classified themselves as atheist.

    32 people stated belief in A God i.e they would be monotheist

    From memory that survey had 17% atheist Yup i checked
    http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf

    They had four options
    there is a god
    there is a spirit or lifeforce
    I dont believe there is a god/s spirits or lifeforce
    dont know


    Page 9- Norway =17%
    Disbelief requires no data; no mental processing; it takes up no space.
    disbelief in God spirits or supernatural in Norway = 17% not 70%
    Disbelief is used in the definition
    Atheists lack faith and therefore the mental framework that is required to 'house' the 'God effect'; the mechanism of 'belief' is missing from their mental 'toolkit'.

    An atheist is unable to believe in God (no comparative data for it) therefore the question of the non-existence of a God that is supposed not to exist is rendered meaningless.

    A non-belief in a positive is not always the same as a belief in a negative.

    And in the survey quoted they were 17% and NOT 70% as claimed.
    Oh, and for an example of Christians not being involved in wholesale slaughter just have a look at the Middle-East, and Africa.

    Where did i claim, Christians or christian government governments had NOT been involved in slaughter?

    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Oh dear - is that really the best you can do?

    Is that what passes for debate and discussion in this particular forum?

    But apparently posting LOL and links to cartoons of robots laughing does?
    Anyone who demonstrates that your pontifications on European history have no basis in historical fact is treated to some thinly veiled insults, a few slight digs followed by some bizarre claim that they have proven your point.

    Give,n you claim "basis in historical fact" care to produce the historical data which you claim is in error?
    Your needlessly highlighted passage are an attempt to link educated people to the church - I believe I mentioned the monopoly Christianity had on education in Europe so of course scholars were educated in church controlled universities. There weren't any other kind - the church forbade it.

    One cant argue an influence is non existent based on a "what if" history in which the influence didn't exist in the first place if the influence DID in fact exist in the first place! the church/ Christianity DID exist in history and DID have an influence on education and society. to argue it didn't is ridiculous.
    Would you also claim that all Irish people are Catholics - or just the 99% who attended national schools under the control of the Catholic Church?

    Try getting your facts correct first. 99% of Irish people do not attend Catholic schools.
    Some have left school.
    Some have emigrated.
    some have grown up abroad or are attending schols abroad.
    The RCC does not control 99% of Primary schools.
    etc.
    Your assertion was that Christianity was responsible for the technological advances in Europe - your 'proof' of this is that every intellectual in Europe was apparently a Christian. Considering that prior to the Reformation every Christian in Europe was also a Catholic (or risked a visit from the Inquisition) shall we also try and say that all advances prior to 1521 were Catholic advances?

    Catholic Church influenced yes just as they were hugely influenced by say science or economics. It is nonsense to suggest christianity was not a factor just as to assert for example science or economics or feudalism were not major factors.
    If that was the case - makes you wonder why Luther (and Hus and Wycliffe and Calvin, and the Cathars, and the Anabaptists, and the Lollards etc etc ) had such a problem with Rome - patron of the arts and sponsor of technological advances as you claim it was.

    so if the Klingon Empire had developed Warp technology and the federation found the Klingon Empire unjust then that means Warp technology doesnt exist or that the federation should have a problem with using it? Similar happened in china with gunpowder didnt it?
    You have, I noticed, completely missed the point that advances such as the Renaissance occurred after information suppressed by the Christian authorities became available again in Europe. Including the Reformation.

    And who developed the knowledge of these advances in the first place?
    Are you telling me that if the US developed the Atomic Bomb but surpressed the invention and then the USSR made their own bomb that the original US bomb would not have been invented by the US?
    That these rediscovered ideas led to scientific experimentation and new political theories which undermined the domination of Christianity as the only game in town is ignored as it doesn't conform to your pseudo-history.

    this has more to do with feudalism in the Middle ages but- if other non church organisations developed learning independently of the church or even if the Church stifled learning that would still NOT lean the church had not made a huge contribution to learning in history.
    Shall we ignore all other patronage apart from that of the Church?

    As you pointed out before the Renassaince the Catholiuc church was the only game in town - in Western Europe anyway

    The broader argument that scientific development is a particularly European thing rooted in the same greek rationality that the roman church is is already established.
    No Charles I and the Royal Societies? No mention of Sophia, Elector of Hanover, her daughter Sophia Charlotte Queen of Prussia and Caroline Queen of Britain as Von Libnitz's patrons? What about the de Medici? How about the role of the German princes in protecting Luther from Rome?

    As pointed out you can get around that by looking at per renaissance europe. It is historically incorrect in my opinion to call thazt period the "dark Ages"

    Luther by the way and Protestants were -CHRISTIANS which is what the original claim was i.e the influence of christianity on history.
    Shall we mention that Hitler was a Catholic - he was educated at a Catholic School in Lambach, Austria?

    Ther is a very long thread on this just like on the -book of the dead and other pre christian myths being the cause of / or adapted in to the Bible
    Himmler was a devout Catholic and the architect of the Holocaust.

    That Stalin was a member of the Orthodox Russian Church - he won a scholarship to a seminary in Georgia?
    Or do you want to cherry pick who you claim was a Christian and who wasn't?


    Yep i do!
    Hitler Himmler and Stalin were not! they rejected Christianity as is evident in their persecution and execution of Catholic clerics and the opposition of successive popes to naziism.


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says.
    I specifically explained which of your narrow definitions kinda sorta apply, you ignored that point.

    Nones are a tiny percentage of people and atheist as defined a tinier number. It is clear fro, the published research.
    I've tried several times to describe my position, but you are not interested in listening, nor do you have a point. So trying to explain it again or more simply would just be a waste of time.

    But please, continue to tell me what I believe.

    You can believe whatever you like.
    Yo can claim astrology works or that you can use psychic powers.
    But when you make a claim it is objectively true then you have to provide evidence.
    I have provided peer reviewed research to support my position.
    What evidence have you got?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »

    This is meant to be a counter argument.

    why dont you produce some actual figures and we can compare Christian regmes with atheist ones?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    This is meant to be a counter argument.

    why dont you produce some actual figures and we can compare Christian regmes with atheist ones?

    No, this is meant to be me laughing at your utterly ridiculous statement.

    You have been given plenty of figures already, such as Christian Europe being a constant state of war for most of its existence, or the African Christian militias killing their own people, you have simply ignored them because they don't fit your nonsense idea of reality.

    Eventually when it has become clear that you have no interest in actually engaging or responding to rebuttals, all one can do is laugh at your nonsense.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Yes, I have checked all of the footnotes - as I said, I have lectured on this for many, many years

    Great ! Im sure you know what "argument from authority" is then?
    Here are a few non-wikipedia articles and sources / in case anyone want to get pedantic about sources.

    And your claim is that these sources support what position?

    As for my reference to Hitler, Himmler etc - this was again in direct response to PDN's linking of the work of Newton, Galileo (PDN was the first to mention them - not me) and Locke as derived from Christianity as they were educated by Christians - I simply pointed out that Hitler, Himmler and Stalin were also the product of Christian education but he seemed strangely disinclined to claim credit for their work.

    i have no problem in admitting anyone was educated by christians. Imparting knowledge is NOT creating evil. you cant blame the creators of the school system if one of the people they educated was evil. The choice to do evil isnt caused by christianity. the knowledge gained in All developments for good or ill was heavily influenced by the fact that christianity/the church was involved in education.
    ther is another factor however.The church held no responsibility in encouraging hitler. In fact it opposed him. On the other hand they did encourage the positiv developmen,ts. Christianity rarely encouraged the negative things that atheistic regimes did?
    Not once did I ever claim that positives did not emerge from European Christianity - I merely demonstrated that a particular statement made by a particular poster was demonstrably factually untrue.

    good for you! so the church were a huge factor in causing the positives in history and oppose all the negatives certainly opposede Hitler and if they made mistakes in any other negatives which unlike Atheistic regimes were a tiny percentage of their influences they admit these mistakes.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74015392&postcount=134
    Befiore the Book of the Dead is an early version of the Bible or Babylonia had the same stories arrives look at this earlier comment

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74005738&postcount=130

    If we are going into Christianity is really an amalgam of earlier philosophues I suggest an different thread on that.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »

    You have been given plenty of figures already, such as Christian Europe being a constant state of war for most of its existence,

    Not ordered by the church or in the name of christianbity. With the exception of the crusades or sending Missionaries into non christian lands or religious wars.
    the numbers of dad due to such church influences runs into millions but only just i.e maybe a million or two in 2000 years. Atheistic regimes over a century killed hundrds of millions - hundreds of times the church did over twenty timles the period.
    or the African Christian militias killing their own people,
    [/qutoe]

    Leopold of Belgium was NOT an African expansion on behalkf of Christianity!

    If i missed anything else please list it.
    you have simply ignored them because they don't fit your nonsense idea of reality.

    what are yu claiming i ignored? I didnt ignopre anything. You are lying if you say i did because i did not! Care to prove what you claim i ignored?
    Eventually when it has become clear that you have no interest in actually engaging or responding to rebuttals, all one can do is laugh at your nonsense.

    what rebuttals?
    Care to list them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not ordered by the church or in the name of christianbity.

    And? You claimed "Christian societies rarely killed people"

    Your claim wasn't "Christian societies rarely killed people under order of the Church"

    Atheist societies have never killed people under order of the Church, so I guess we are still the best society. :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    Leopold of Belgium was NOT an African expansion on behalkf of Christianity!

    They were Christians. They killed people.
    ISAW wrote: »
    what are yu claiming i ignored? I didnt ignopre anything. You are lying if you say i did because i did not! Care to prove what you claim i ignored?

    You are ignoring examples of Christian killing people. You are saying they are not relevant because they weren't killing people in the name of the Church or the name of Christianity or some other nonsense addition you add after your nonsense has been exposed and you are trying to save face.

    How many atheist societies have killed people in the name of the Church? I bet none. So clearly atheists are better than Christians, right?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    not offered as an option and covered by "I dont know/ not sure
    It's not offered as an option because the survey had narrow, stupid definitions.
    My stance is not covered by any of the options.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Those are what the survey measured. You have produced no evidence most NONES believe a combination of A and B.
    Because the survey had narrow, stupid definitions and didn't offer the option.

    And again, my stance is not covered accurately by the survey.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Nones are a tiny percentage of people and atheist as defined a tinier number. It is clear fro, the published research.
    This sentence has no connection to the sentence it quotes.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You can believe whatever you like.
    Yo can claim astrology works or that you can use psychic powers.
    But when you make a claim it is objectively true then you have to provide evidence.
    I have provided peer reviewed research to support my position.
    What evidence have you got?
    Lol. The ironing is delicious.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not offered as an option because the survey had narrow, stupid definitions.
    My stance is not covered by any of the options.

    it is. If you do not agree with any of the options then you are covered in dont know/not sure; Even assuming ALL these people we another category not covered by the existing answers even they only amount to 7%

    You may claim to represent all atheists or all agnoiostice but when pressed we have objective research and the objective research on a broad basis in various parts of the world is in agreement. Atheism is a small percentage in modern democracies.

    And again your opinion as to whether something is stupid does not mean their measurement as defined is valid and reliable. It is a research of a higher standard than a
    nything yu have produced. all we have from you is your opinion.
    And again, my stance is not covered accurately by the survey.

    If you were surveyed and you said ther is no such thing as god then you would be classed atheist.
    If you said you were not sure or do not believe you fit in any of the definitions then you would be classed "dont know /not sure"

    but we are not arguing about YOU!
    We are discussing atheism and i have offered objective research which gives definitions of atheist and agnostic and produces statistics on that. Whether or not you think atheist is something else does not change the validity or reliability of their results!
    Lol. The ironing is delicious.

    What objective evidence have you got?

    you offer only your unsupported opinion! where is there any empirical research to support your claims?

    Satire appeals to irony insult and cartoons will not make any convincing objective arguments.
    Nor will puerile behavior or cryptic comments.

    What evidence other than your unsupported personal opinion on atheism do you have to support any claims about atheism?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW Whatever about being majority atheist ,would you agree that in actuality Norway is no longer majority christian ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    it is. If you do not agree with any of the options then you are covered in dont know/not sure; Even assuming ALL these people we another category not covered by the existing answers even they only amount to 7%
    But my stance isn't that there is "no such thing as God", nor is it "I don't know or am not sure."
    They are not accurate representations of what I believe.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You may claim to represent all atheists or all agnoiostice but when pressed we have objective research and the objective research on a broad basis in various parts of the world is in agreement. Atheism is a small percentage in modern democracies.
    Still not sure how any of that actually relates to what I wrote. You seem to just want to have a rant rather than a discussion.

    And I'm not particularly arsed to dig up surveys and such to prove you wrong cause 1) I still don't understand what point you are arguing and 2) you clearly aren't interested in definitions that you don't like.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,186 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Whats the process at work? Thats one of the big questions. Some go for atonement, http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ
    Others go with Christus Victor http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-jesus/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/
    Some claim its universal, some particular. Some use legalism and others sacramental ism.

    Ive read thru both links but I still cant make sense of it. Here is a powerful counter-argument (see the 1st 3 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg

    ".. it abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend."


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says.

    I have produced several surveys not one. they fairly much form a consensus. Atheism is a tiny single digit percentage in modern democracies. Agnosticism is about one to two times the size of atheism. It isnt any particular survey to which i am attached. The NONES survey refers to the US. the Eurobarometer to europe . The Mori polls to UK and Scotland. I have even referred to Zuukerman who is the usual atheist quoted source and I believe was the influence for Morberts original 70% claim since in atheist discussions i have quoted scandanavian countries are referred to as atheist. I didnt intend to lmet this go unchallenged. i believe Fasgnadh has a similar exchange with respect toi denmark in alt.atheism
    i pointed this out when all this began
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76852661&postcount=2146
    Atheism = There is no god or gods
    Pagans, agnostics, pantheists, spiritualists, anamists, shamanists, voodoo spiritualists etc. are NOT atheist.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism
    32 % - Belief in God =NOT atheist
    47% belief in a spirit opr life force - NOT atheist
    17% there is no god/spirits - atheist!

    Thats 17% NOT 77 NOT 87!
    Certainly not 70
    got it?

    Here is an agnostic -one of your lot is he?:

    https://groups.google.com/group/talk.atheism/browse_thread/thread/0aa3cc54f6284005/59b2a1558c5e5ee7?show_docid=59b2a1558c5e5ee7&hl=en


    i have not ignored any of you points and i find it personamlly offensive that you suggest i have.

    Ill add to the sources
    In 2009 anther report came out

    In it ARIS add to the original options and ask about a personal god.
    A new belief question was introduced into ARIS in 2008. Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God less than 70 percent of Americans now believe in the traditional theological concept of a personal God. This question was not asked in 1990 and 2001.
    http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/
    Latest report listed in publications above quote from page 8
    they continue
    10 percent hold agnostic beliefs (5.7% a “softer” form and 4.3% a “harder form” of agnosticism).
    Just before that they State
    The rise of the Nones has been one of the most important trends on the American religious scene since 1990. The overall rate of growth of those expressing no religious preference slowed after 2001 but the numbers offering a specific self-identification as Agnostic or Atheist rose markedly from over a million in 1990 to about 2 million in 2001 to about 3.6 million today

    I,m not denying th rise in atheism. but they are tiny in comparison to others!

    The NONES survey points this out!
    The 1990s was the decade when the
    "secular boom" occurred - each year 1.3
    million more adult Americans joined the
    ranks of the Nones. Since 2001 the annual
    increase has halved to 660,000 a year.
    (Fig.3.1)

    compared to the 57 million Catholics and 117 million pother Christians which grew by 22 million since 1990 when NONES grew by about 20 million ( and dont forget of that 20atheist are about 1.5 million and agnostics 2 million)

    Yes they are in millions like the numbers killed in Christian crusades but ther percentage compared to the rest is lower single digits!

    And the research just keeps adding to this picture.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    Ive read thru both links but I still cant make sense of it. Here is a powerful counter-argument (see the 1st 3 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg

    ".. it abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend."

    Good piece from Hitchens but what hes objecting is a misrepresentation of atonement, possibly Plenary substitutionary atonement and I and most Christians agree with him. PSA makes a monster of God.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    As I said, you're not interested in discussion, just random ranting at I point I did not make.

    And you still haven't been able to tackle the fact that you can't accurately define what I believe, the specifics of which form the basis of my arguments I posted.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    ISAW Whatever about being majority atheist ,would you agree that in actuality Norway is no longer majority christian ?

    I believe i already answered that Marien.

    Norway has the church linked constitutionally to the state.

    We can ask adults whether or not thy are still in the Lutheran church.
    Many have left but that dos not mean they have become atheist.
    Fringe and very different beliefs such as Islam fundamentalist christian or New Age groups (which i would not define as christian myself on dogma grounds but the stats define them as such) Buddhists etc. are growing at a greater amount than atheists.

    But the main change is probably Lutherans becoming lapsed or becoming Catholics or anglicans.

    The Eurobarometer poll suggests Norwegians are maybe becoming animist but certainly not atheist!

    One has to ask what other research there is which contradicts my view?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    As I said, you're not interested in discussion, just random ranting at I point I did not make.

    And you still haven't been able to tackle the fact that you can't accurately define what I believe, the specifics of which form the basis of my arguments I posted.

    you have lost the point entirely.

    what you believe or what i believe is not at issue!

    what proportion of population are atheists is what is at issue.
    The literature offers "there is no god/there is no way to know/im not sure/there is a personal god/there is higher power but no personal god/none of the above

    You try to use a different definition of atheist. Even if you include everything else the people who believe in god or spirits are over 80%!

    It does not matter what you or i believe. A properly conducted poll found over 80% believe in spirits gods or a God.

    http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
    see page 8 table 4

    Please stop suggesting i am ranting or trying to suggest i am avoiding the issue.

    Including all the agnostic PLUS atheists PLUS dont know PLUS not sure PLUS whatever you are having yourself fringe beliefs the percentage of believers in God(s) are over 80%

    Got it?

    and that is being as generous as i can. Remember nones are not atheist!

    http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/featured/dynamic-%E2%80%98nones%E2%80%99-hold-key-to-future-of-american-religion/
    A growing body of evidence reveals a complex portrait of Americans who do not identify with a particular religious group. What research is increasingly showing is that “nones” are a dynamic group whose members cannot be simply characterized as either atheists or in other popular categories such as “unchurched believers” or “spiritual but not religious.”

    There are people who appear to be consistently secular in their beliefs. However, the nones also include a large group of people who switch their preferences over time, and continue to attend a particular congregation and express belief in God.


    So is atheism growing into a majority?

    http://blogs.thearda.com/trend/religion/secular-dreams-confront-religious-realities/
    In projecting demographic trends to 2050, Eric Kaufmann, who directs the Masters Programme in Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict at Birkbeck, University of London, says the present rate of 14 percent to 16 percent of the population who are unaffiliated should flatten out at about 17 percent from 2030 to 2040.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    you have lost the point entirely.

    what you believe or what i believe is not at issue!
    Well you see I posted about how the subtle difference between and lack of a belief in something and a belief that something doesn't exist is quite important.
    You now are posting a rant about populations.

    You are ranting about a point I never made, and given your posting style and lack of ability to address what I actually type, a point I don't wish to discuss with you.
    The literature offers "there is no god/there is no way to know/im not sure/there is a personal god/there is higher power but no personal god/none of the above
    And what I believe, the position I made my point from, is not covered in those options as they are narrow and ultimately stupid.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    ISAW wrote: »
    I believe i already answered that Marien.

    Norway has the church linked constitutionally to the state.

    We can ask adults whether or not thy are still in the Lutheran church.
    Many have left but that dos not mean they have become atheist.
    Fringe and very different beliefs such as Islam fundamentalist christian or New Age groups (which i would not define as christian myself on dogma grounds but the stats define them as such) Buddhists etc. are growing at a greater amount than atheists.

    But the main change is probably Lutherans becoming lapsed or becoming Catholics or anglicans.

    The Eurobarometer poll suggests Norwegians are maybe becoming animist but certainly not atheist!

    One has to ask what other research there is which contradicts my view?

    You are not really answering though ISAW, this whole Lutheran Constitutional issue is a red herring- we are asking what are peoples beliefs not the position of the state.

    For example In our own history during those dark days when the Church of Ireland was the official religion recognised by the state did that make the population any less catholic ?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And? You claimed "Christian societies rarely killed people"

    Correct
    Your claim wasn't "Christian societies rarely killed people under order of the Church"

    What is a christian society?

    Is it a society with majority christians?
    No it isnt in my definition since clearly such a thing could be secular.
    By christian i mean run by them or the church having influence on the state.

    in fact Norway is christian under this definition. :)

    why did I come up with such a definition?

    Because atheists kept discussing a "secular" society.

    a secular society could in theory be a majority christian or even a majority atheist society.

    I am not aware of majrioy atheist modern democracies.
    i would be suspicious of any but i dont thin atheism will grow into a majority anyway.
    A minority can however take over a country.
    In the UK for example 30% of the vote can get a parliamentary majority. Hitler did it in Germany when the roman catholics didnt vote for him.

    Christianity has no rule saying "you must politically rule society" no more than atheism has

    So we are comparing atheism as a belief/lack of belief used in running society compared to Christianity used in society.

    the Byzantine Society for example was inextricably linked to the church.
    the Papal states were and any European king claiming to be christian was.

    Now if there was a majority atheist country with an atheist leader who went to war i would not consider that leader acting based on his atheism unless the State or ruler had "there is no god" as a central political belief.

    Guess what -ALL atheistic regimes are just that - ones that have atheism as a central tenet of their political philosophy.
    Atheist societies have never killed people under order of the Church, so I guess we are still the best society. :rolleyes:

    ALL "there is no god" societies were murder regimes! Stalin Pol Pot Mao etc. killed in the hundreds of millions. in the nineteenth century and Middle Ages and Ancient times atheist regimes existed as did christian o,nes. The deaths caused by christian regimes (of which there many ) are tiny compared to the atheistic deaths.
    They were Christians. They killed people.

    Don,t you love the shell games the atheists play :)

    If atheists kill people it isnt because of atheism- they just happen to be atheist.
    It isnt because of atheism.
    But if so called Christians do it Christianity is to blame.
    You are ignoring examples of Christian killing people. You are saying they are not relevant because they weren't killing people in the name of the Church or the name of Christianity or some other nonsense addition you add after your nonsense has been exposed and you are trying to save face.

    Not at all

    Crusades -about a million dead with the specific purpose of spreading Christianity
    Spanish Inquisition -about 15 thousand dead over 450 years
    Afro/American slavery - In the short church approved time (30 years) millions of dead. church/ several pôpes later opposed it.

    thirty years War - does Christians against Christians count?
    Witchhunts _ five thousand? Not usually in roman catholic countries.

    It runs into millions over 2000 years

    Here are estimate of christian atheist and non christian regimes.

    17th to 19 century

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.1A.GIF

    1820 back to 1200

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB2.2.GIF
    30BC to 20AD

    somewhere between 300 million and 1.3 billion!

    you can hardly blame the Pope for those?

    How could non christian deaths be so high whrn the world population was about 200 million
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP2.HTM
    If from the rule of the first of the Roman Emperors (Augustus Octavian) in 27 B.C to the last (Romulus Augustulus) who ruled until 476 A.D., only 100 galley slaves died annually from overwork and mistreatment, then this alone would add up to a democide of 50,300 people. Now say that on the average for the whole empire the Romans killed a not unreasonable annual total of 10,000 infants, slaves, prisoners, Christians, inhabitants of defeated tribes and nations, and dissidents and opponents. Then for the reign of Roman emperors this would add up to a democide of over 5,000,000 people--just for this one empire. Therefore, the 89,158,000 to 260,424,000 range of total people killed I get in table 2.1B (line 747) for all pre-20th Century democide of all civilizations, empires, nations, and tribes, should be viewed as but a small part of the real total.

    But how small? To get some sense for this, see table 2.2. Based on the range of 20th century democide determined in table 16A.1 and the estimated world population for each century since the 30th century B.C. (near in time to the development of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the unification of Egypt under Menes), I calculated the hypothetical democide for each century. Alternatively, I started the democide calculations for the century having the earliest estimates of mass murder in Tables 2.1A and 2.1B, which is the 5th century B.C. (the time of Socrates, Pericles, and the Peloponnesian Wars).

    The results of adding up these century-by-century calculations are shown in table 2.2 (lines 50 and 51). For both alternative calculations the high is over a billion people killed; the lows are near a third of a billion people; and the mid-values near two-thirds or a half of a billion.

    you got any figures for numbers killed by The Church to spread Christianity comparable to the spread atheism regimes of Mao or Stalin?

    Japan -hardly christian?
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
    From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000

    Cambodias atheistic Kyher rouge:
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP4.HTM

    In proportion to its population, Cambodia underwent a human catastrophe unparalleled in this century. Out of a 1970 population of probably near 7,100,0001 Cambodia probably lost slightly less than 4,000,000 people to war, rebellion, man-made famine, genocide, politicide, and mass murder. The vast majority, almost 3,300,000 men, women, and children (including 35,000 foreigners), were murdered within the years 1970 to 1980 by successive governments and guerrilla groups.

    his estimate on atheist North Korea from 1948-1987
    Perhaps from 710,000 to slightly over 3,500,000 people have been murdered, with a mid-estimate of almost 1,600,000

    i have already mentioned Stalin and Mao who rate in the tens of millions each as well as atheistic Mexico and France during its atheistic terror where they murdered about a half million catholics and starved the population ot the Vendee to death.

    Here is an interesting list of your "secular " 20 century non christian non church caused deaths
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.TAB16A.1.GIF
    How many atheist societies have killed people in the name of the Church? I bet none. So clearly atheists are better than Christians, right?

    Atheist societies and even secular ones have killed people by the newtime. when you claim the church is responsible for so much death you have to put it in perspective. It is similar to the point about the less than one percent of abusers who are priests.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    marienbad wrote: »
    You are not really answering though ISAW, this whole Lutheran Constitutional issue is a red herring- we are asking what are peoples beliefs not the position of the state.
    in Norway officially about 95% are Lutherans. If you are asking bout the other five percent i would think most of them are not atheist.

    Maybe as much as 17% of adults are atheist i.e ther is no god but i do not think so. i think maybe 17% are atheist or agnostic or humanist.

    As regards whether in reality most are believers in a personal or not i think about 32% say they are in the 2005 eurobaroimeter poll another 47% believe in some supernatural force. whether that mans they are christian or not Im not sure -but they are NOt atheist!

    the claim was 70ù are atheist. that is what i was addressing.
    It was wrong! Morbert cant admit that!
    Just like your claim about god in the the Bible telling people to rape women and children.
    It is in error and you havent admitted that!
    Making up new claims i have not made and am not sure about isnt addressing the errors of your own claims.

    i have been honest and forthright. i resent people suggesting i am dishonest or avoiding or ignoring anything.
    For example In our own history during those dark days when the Church of Ireland was the official religion recognised by the state did that make the population any less catholic ?

    Matter of fact it did.
    At one time they were 100% pagan
    then Christianity made it maybe over 99% Catholic
    Then Protestant rule made it less Roman catholic (i use the term as Cof I people may also claim to be Catholic.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well you see I posted about how the subtle difference between and lack of a belief in something and a belief that something doesn't exist is quite important.
    You now are posting a rant about populations.

    You are ranting about a point I never made, and given your posting style and lack of ability to address what I actually type, a point I don't wish to discuss with you.

    run away if you wish. Morberts claim about Norway being 70% atheist is wrong and atheism isnt a large figure in any modern democracy secular r otherwise being usually in the log single digit percentages. if you add in agnoistics humanists the "no religion" e as well it still barely gets into double digits. but the "there is no god" people remin at low single digit percentages.
    And what I believe, the position I made my point from, is not covered in those options as they are narrow and ultimately stupid.

    What you believe ort what i believe is not at issue; Atheism is a tiny number . agnoistics are about twice ther percentage. together they are still single digit percentages. and that is multiplmying atheists by three.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ISAW wrote: »
    run away if you wish. Morberts claim about Norway being 70% atheist is wrong and atheism isnt a large figure in any modern democracy secular r otherwise being usually in the log single digit percentages. if you add in agnoistics humanists the "no religion" e as well it still barely gets into double digits. but the "there is no god" people remin at low single digit percentages.
    Yes... I'm running away from a point I never made or has anything to do with any of the points I did make :rolleyes:
    ISAW wrote: »
    What you believe ort what i believe is not at issue;
    Unless of course I was making a point out the difference between a lack of a belief and a belief in non-existence or something....


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 445 ✭✭muppeteer


    ISAW wrote: »
    I disagree. i believe it is you intention not to appear so and you believe you are not so but perhaps you are so and are not aware of your own mindset.
    coming from someone who stated "I have to say I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that." You come across as having an elitist mindset. you may believe you dont have such a mindset but Ill hold my judgment on that until you admit you are no better than anyone else and have much to learn or are ignorant of much. when you are humbled then you might become exalted but when you exalt yourself you had better prepare to be humbled.
    You hold judgment over somebody on the internet and seek to tell them they do not know their own mindset. Charming.

    I prostrate myself to your judgment and offer a quote that I find helps guide my most humble assessments on the rational ability of myself and the kindly Christians who offer me debate as equals.
    "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
    Bertrand Russell"



    Loftyness added for effect:p


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Plowman wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    But the atheist position is surely part of that debate?

    How can the debate be balanced if the atheist position is 'confused'?

    The words 'belief' and 'disbelief' are not interchangable otherwise it would logically follow that someone who is not guilty of committing murder is guilty of not committing murder: Can a man who is not guilty of a crime be considered guilty at all?

    Atheists 'disbelieve'; they are 'not guilty'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Plowman


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Now that the atheist position has been clarified it will be obvious that someone who believes in say a Christian God implicity dis-believes any belief system that contradicts that position. It should be noted though, that even of those who express a particular belief in that particular God, many may ultimately be panentheists.

    So, someone who says 'I believe there is but one God' is equally saying 'I do not believe (disbelief) in the Norse Gods', etc.

    The same cannot be said of the atheist; if an athiest does not believe in the Norse Gods (which he wouldn't) then that does not mean that he believes in some alternative God.

    The reason is 'rationality'; combining experience and knowledge with the senses allows one to create a reasonably accurate picture of reality in our mind - ones views in almost all areas of ones life are based on affirmative evidence of some kind.

    It may even be that the term 'atheist' is synonymous with 'rationalist'.

    In order for an atheist to support a hypothesis, he needs evidence to support it. And there are two types of evidence, broadly speaking; positive and negative. Evidence that supports a hypothesis is positive evidence while evidence that contradicts the hypothesis is negative evidence.

    A problem with this discussion arises from the fact that faith removes the requirement for evidence and so believers start from a position where they have faith and evidence at their disposal while an atheist doesn't possess the faculty of faith and therefore has only the evidence from which to form a view.

    Faith has the consequence of allowing believers to 'cherry-pick' evidence and apply a logic, that makes a huge number of assumptions, that 'converts' negative evidence into positive evidence while still relying on what might possibly be considered positive evidence.

    For example, a believer might say that an antelope escaping from a lion and getting safely back to its mother is positive evidence of God while an atheist might argue that the lion's family starving is negative evidence of God; or a believer might say that someone survived an 'incurable' disease because there were prayers sent to God whereas an atheist would say that all religions can make the same claim - sometimes a Hindu will survive an 'incurable' disease. In my view, it is not sensible to consider these things as positive evidence at all but if both sides can say that the jury is somewhat still out on those things, they can be set aside.

    And an atheist might say that evil and murder and the state of the modern world constitute negative evidence regarding the existence of God but a believer might say that free-will was given to mankind by God and since men commit evil and not God, the existence of free-will is positive evidence of God; evil could not flourish without free-will but God didn't design us to be evil, we somehow re-designed ourselves by being born. Therefore, to a believer, the existence of evil is evidence that God exists and they rejoice. (Which suggests that a world without evil would be nothing to rejoice about.

    Or an atheist might say, 'How come the only instrument in the Universe that can detect God is the human imagination?'

    A believer would counter with, 'God wants us to believe in Him without evidence, that is why we have faith and therefore it would disallow the opportunity for people to have faith if there was irrefutable proof of the existence of God if God allowed Himself to be detected by any instrument other than the imagination, wouldn't He? And of course, free-will would be undermined too, further proof of God.'

    And as if by the will of God, negative evidence becomes positive.

    However, a good atheist would not be arrogant enough to state that there is no God. One might say that God is not an old man sitting on the clouds and claim to be an atheist; he might say that Norse, Greek, Roman, Egyptian Gods are simply fairytales but to claim there is no God one must have a definition for God. To say that God is 'x..y..z' requires a belief that God is 'x..y..z' regardless of whether one denies the existence of 'x..y..z' or not. You can't believe that God is 'x''y''z' and still be an atheist.

    According to Christians, Revelations is as far as God got with His message and it doesn't seem to me to be a happy ending at any level for anyone. But God loves His creation, no? He is merciful and kind; He sacrificed His only begotten son to cleanse mankind; He created all of existence in six days. God can do as He pleases and have done what He pleases.

    So, question: Does Revelations constitute positive evidence or negative evidence that the God of the Christians is an evil and cruel God who takes delight in the suffering of mankind whether they be Palestinian, African, Chinese, European, etc.?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,042 ✭✭✭himnextdoor


    Plowman wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Well I'm not and nor am I crediting you in particular with being confused; I was challenging a weak position that is strongly held by ISAW. He's the one always harping on about the importance of definitions. I was merely trying to get ISAW to practice what he/she preaches.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement