[ISAW]

Originally Posted by muppeteer

Apologies if I appear "lofty", it is not my intention.

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.

[King Mob]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by koth

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.

Originally Posted by Morbert

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.

Originally Posted by King Mob

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.

Originally Posted by Morbert

I feel your pain

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

Originally Posted by himnextdoor

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/a..._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?

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe

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.

Originally Posted by King Mob

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?

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

This is meant to be a counter argument.

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

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Bannasidhe

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.

[ISAW]

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showp...&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/showp...&postcount=130

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

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

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.

[quote]
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?

[Zombrex]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

Originally Posted by ISAW

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

They were Christians. They killed people.

Originally Posted by ISAW

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?

[King Mob]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by King Mob

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?

[marienbad]

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

[King Mob]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

[Andrewf20]

Originally Posted by tommy2bad

Whats the process at work? Thats one of the big questions. Some go for atonement, http://carm.org/christianity/christi...t-jesus-christ
Others go with Christus Victor http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essay...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."

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by King Mob

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/showp...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...8c5e5ee7&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.