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.
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.
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 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.
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%
and that is being as generous as i can. Remember nones are not atheist!
So is atheism growing into a majority?
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.
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.
And what I believe, the position I made my point from, is not covered in those options as they are narrow and ultimately stupid.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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
1820 back to 1200
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
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?
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes... I'm running away from a point I never made or has anything to do with any of the points I did make
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....
Just to remind everyone of the OP:
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.
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.
Loftyness added for effect
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'.
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.
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.?