[tommy2bad]

Originally Posted by Andrewf20

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.

[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.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by marienbad

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?

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by 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.

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/fil...eport_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/featu...ican-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/relig...ous-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.

[King Mob]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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.

[marienbad]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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 ?

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by Zombrex

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.

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.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by marienbad

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.

[ISAW]

Originally Posted by King Mob

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.

[King Mob]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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

Originally Posted by ISAW

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....

[Plowman]

Just to remind everyone of the OP:

Originally Posted by PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

The Norway discussion stopped being interesting pages ago. At this stage people are flogging a dead horse, so it's time to drop that subject. The Christians/atheists killed so-and-so and tyrant X was a such-and-such is also irrelevant.

The thread is for arguing for or against the existence of God as its title very helpfully suggests. Any further digressions will get actioned.

[muppeteer]

Originally Posted by ISAW

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

[himnextdoor]

Originally Posted by Plowman

The thread is for arguing for or against the existence of God as its title very helpfully suggests. Any further digressions will get actioned.

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'.

[Plowman]

Originally Posted by himnextdoor

But the atheist position is surely part of that debate?

Of course.

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

I never mentioned the word 'confused' (or 'atheist position') in my post above. If you're trying to restart an argument regarding Norway or Eurobarometer reports, kindly desist.

[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.?