Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

It isnt me claiming Norway is an atheist country! It clearly isnt1 the church is linked to the state and atheists are ion single digit percentages.

Introducing your special definitions again? I am defining an atheist country as a country that mostly does not believe in God. Your definition seems to be a country that contrives some policy which bans religion. A silly definition.

Nope. Just as christianity does! The point is COMPARING atheism to christianity.Not comparing atheism or christianity to fourier series or superconductivity. except maybe in cartoons!

You have been saying atheism causes atrocities. And when I gave you the chance to clarify what you meant, you didn't. We can compare atheism and Christianity all we want, just as we can compare Guinness and Christianity all we want. I will be happy to. But first, you must drop your nonsensical assertion that atheism, even in the context of secular pluralism, causes atrocities.

so you cant compare atheism to theism. so much for the title of the thread eh?:)

I clearly said theism is just a metaphysical statement. But you have consistently refused to discuss theism and only insist on discussing Christianity. Theism, like atheism, has no moral principles. You can believe in a God of fairness and compassion, or you can believe in an islamofascist God of war and cruelty.

Only when they get into government. If they dont want to get into goivernment Im happy to say that they can bel;ieve as they wish.

That is a silly opinion to hold. Do you believe secular pluralist atheists, if they hold government positions, will cause atrocities? Do you believe Jens Stoltenberg, the atheist leader of Norway, will cause atrocities?

lmaopml wrote:

This current theme of the thread seems to be like a big train crash to be honest, what's new...lol... ISAW (imo) wouldn't like to see an Atheist totalitarian state because - quite rightly, they have always been 'bad' for human rights, freedom, and dignity of the person, whereas other states that have had the Christian God as part of their makeup, are what actually shaped our idea of what 'secular' and freedom of choice should mean in a democratic society.

He's quite correct to point that out.

Morbert seems indignant that he reads ISAW's posts as centering some kind of evil intent around the Atheist or Agnostic person - which he clearly pointed out he is not doing, he is moreso pointing out that if ( and it's a big 'if' ) the Government comprised soley of Atheists than he would be fearful of where exactly that would lead - which again leads to a totalitarian regime, which hopefully we have left behind us thanks in no small way to the foundations of the Christian generations gone by.

You're both saying the same thing, in a kind of butt headed way, tango around the dance floor way, you are just saying it differently.

We are not saying the same things at all. I have repeatedly asked ISAW if he believes a secular pluralist society, with a predominantly atheist population, will be predisposed to atrocities. His replies ranged from lunacy (Religious theist fanatics in Japan are proof that even secular pluralist atheists cause atrocities), to not answering at all.

He is not simply saying that totalitarian regimes that enforced atheism also caused atrocities (such a point on its own is inane and uncontroversial). He is using the point to argue that atheism itself, even in democratic pluralist societies, will cause atrocities.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

Introducing your special definitions again? I am defining an atheist country as a country that mostly does not believe in God. Your definition seems to be a country that contrives some policy which bans religion. A silly definition.

Such discussion is always going to be hypothetical, partly because it appears that no country actually meets your criteria of "a country that does not believe in God". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

I would be interested to know if any country has ever had 50% or more of its population being atheist - other than by coercion under a Communist dictatorship. I can't think of any examples.

Most Western countries today are predominantly secular and irreligious - but that is a very different thing from being atheist. Looking back over history, I certainly see a secular society as the best place to live and the one that gives me the greatest freedom in which to practise my faith.

FWIW, I thoroughly disagree with ISAW's position and implications in this thread. I don't think atheists are any more likely than theists to commit atrocities. Given a choice between a country governed by the tenets of any one religion (including my own) and a secular society, I would, everything else being equal, choose to emigrate to the secular society.

oldrnwisr

PDN wrote: »

Such discussion is always going to be hypothetical, partly because it appears that no country actually meets your criteria of "a country that does not believe in God". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

I would be interested to know if any country has ever had 50% or more of its population being atheist - other than by coercion under a Communist dictatorship. I can't think of any examples.

I wouldn't say it's entirely hypothetical PDN.

Firstly, a more in-depth look at the wiki page you provided will direct you to this one:

Religion in Japan

where you'll find:

About 70 percent of Japanese profess no religious membership, according to Johnstone (1993:323), 84% of the Japanese claim no personal religion. In census questionnaires, less than 15 percent reported any formal religious affiliation by 2000. And according to Demerath (2001:138), 64% do not believe in God, and 55% do not believe in Buddha.

A quick review of the source for the last figures also reveals this:

Greeley (2003) found that 41% of Norwegians, 48% of the French, and 54% of Czechs claimed to not believe in God

Now I will admit that while the Czech figure was not the result of direct "coercion under a Communist dictatorship" as per your criteria, the communist era probably had a large influence on that figure.

So overall, I would say that there are at least 1 1/2 examples of a majority atheist country and from where I'm sitting a society like Japan with no emphasis on religion or superstition is no bad thing.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Such discussion is always going to be hypothetical, partly because it appears that no country actually meets your criteria of "a country that does not believe in God". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

I would be interested to know if any country has ever had 50% or more of its population being atheist - other than by coercion under a Communist dictatorship. I can't think of any examples.

Most Western countries today are predominantly secular and irreligious - but that is a very different thing from being atheist. Looking back over history, I certainly see a secular society as the best place to live and the one that gives me the greatest freedom in which to practise my faith.

FWIW, I thoroughly disagree with ISAW's position and implications in this thread. I don't think atheists are any more likely than theists to commit atrocities. Given a choice between a country governed by the tenets of any one religion (including my own) and a secular society, I would, everything else being equal, choose to emigrate to the secular society.

Does that mean that you believe that you would have more to fear from other religions in power than a secular power, or am i reading too much into it ?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Does that mean that you believe that you would have more to fear from other religions in power than a secular power, or am i reading too much into it ?

I would have more to fear from my own religion in power, let alone other religions. I would equally fear atheism in power.

A secular power is one I would consider neutral, favouring no one religious (or antireligious) view, and where religious organisations are treated the same as non-religious organisations, no special privileges and no special restrictions. Ireland is not there yet, but I think we're getting there.

Morbert

PDN wrote: »

Such discussion is always going to be hypothetical, partly because it appears that no country actually meets your criteria of "a country that does not believe in God". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

I would be interested to know if any country has ever had 50% or more of its population being atheist - other than by coercion under a Communist dictatorship. I can't think of any examples.

The link you provide lists only 30% of Norwegians as believing in God. This would satisfy my criteria of "a country that mostly does not believe in God". It is, of course, a secular pluralist society, which I have pointed out to ISAW many times.

PDN

Morbert wrote: »

The link you provide lists only 30% of Norwegians as believing in God. This would satisfy my criteria of "a country that mostly does not believe in God". It is, of course, a secular pluralist society, which I have pointed out to ISAW many times.

Fair enough, if you atheists want to call your god a 'spirit' or 'lifeforce' then that's up to you.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

Fair enough, if you atheists want to call your god a 'spirit' or 'lifeforce' then that's up to you.

Believe it or not many who conceder themselves atheist believe in a great spirit or life-force, it a form of deism but they assume that being anti organized religion is atheist. What they don't believe in is a God that makes demands on them.
Their are of course atheist who don't believe in anything at all, they have usually thought about it, unfortunately indifference is the position of most people even some who declare themselves Christian.

Morbert

tommy2bad wrote: »

Believe it or not many who conceder themselves atheist believe in a great spirit or life-force, it a form of deism but they assume that being anti organized religion is atheist. What they don't believe in is a God that makes demands on them.
Their are of course atheist who don't believe in anything at all, they have usually thought about it, unfortunately indifference is the position of most people even some who declare themselves Christian.

Deism would be closer to theism than atheism, but lots of atheists believe in strange things like "life energy" and "Chakra". Things that are not gods, but wishy washy spiritual forces.

tommy2bad

Things that are not gods, but wishy washy spiritual forces.

I blame George Lucas

lmaopml

LOL, don't blame George Lucas, at the very least his stuff is worth watching and it always has some kind of central notion.

It's true though, that Atheism covers a vast range of belief systems that totally differ to each other - but are not always 'scientific' in their criticism - or at least very far from it. There are hard and soft Atheists etc. just like butter...The main objection that makes one (atheist) imo, is not so much a lack of belief in spiritual forces of many kinds, or in, for example the law of attraction in the universe etc. which very many believe. It's a disbelief in the Christian God, or indeed that of the Jews or Muslims - I think this is how they define themselves moreso, but it can encapture a vast array of beliefs, anything from an atheist wiccan to an atheist naturalist. It's very broad.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Introducing your special definitions again? I am defining an atheist country as a country that mostly does not believe in God.

No your not! You are defining it as "a country which has not declared itself majority Christian"

Atheism= belief in no god or gods

How you get from a state where about 90% are members of the Lutheran church an almost all of the rest are other christians and Muslims and growing at a rate higher than atheists to "majority atheist" I don.t know.

Please do tell us

By the way i note when atheists represent single digit percentages they want secularism and equality but as soon as they reach a majority it isnt such a necessity anymore because then they are an "atheist country"

Your definition seems to be a country that contrives some policy which bans religion. A silly definition.

My definition of atheism hasnt changed. Norway isnt an atheist country and isnt even majority atheist. YOUR definition of "majority atheist" flies in the face of Norways very own official statistics whild list 90% as being Lutheran. Of course YOUR personal pride and arrogant atheism prompts you to REDEFINE the actual official stats by declaring Lutherans are almost all atheist! *I suppose the "better world" master race atheists are more adept at telling the rest of the human race what they have been reclassified as?

You have been saying atheism causes atrocities. And when I gave you the chance to clarify what you meant, you didn't.

Rubbish! I stated every government regi,e or authority in history declaring itself officially atheist was atrocious _except maybe your declaring Norway as officially atheist. I dont go along with your one exception for one of two options either
1 Norway is an officially atheist country like your cartoon history (which is wrong about other aspects of economics) suggsts
OR
2. you are totally wrong and Norway is not atheist and so does not exempt itselmf from the appaling total failure of atheist countries.

Guess which version I think is correct?

We can compare atheism and Christianity all we want, just as we can compare Guinness and Christianity all we want. I will be happy to.

No doubt you would because it would wander from the topic of comparing the historical record of Christianity running countries compared to atheism doing it.

But first, you must drop your nonsensical assertion that atheism, even in the context of secular pluralism, causes atrocities.

Go onj then tell me what percentage of atheistic countries were not atrocious?

If it is higher than Zero I will be surprised.

I clearly said theism is just a metaphysical statement. But you have consistently refused to discuss theism and only insist on discussing Christianity.

Yep . Because this is the christianity forum. Im not going to discuss Buddhism, Islam, Spritualism, shamanism,paganism of flying spaghetti monsterism. I will however discuss the comparison with atheism because that is germane to the topic.

Theism, like atheism, has no moral principles. You can believe in a God of fairness and compassion, or you can believe in an islamofascist God of war and cruelty.

And you can believe in any off topic straw man you want. Im not discussing Islam . take that to the Islam forum. This is christianity here. As opposed to atheism -of which Norway is not an example.

That is a silly opinion to hold. Do you believe secular pluralist atheists, if they hold government positions, will cause atrocities? Do you believe Jens Stoltenberg, the atheist leader of Norway, will cause atrocities?

LOL You picked a fine example there. Considering he was in court to answer for his own party inflating their membership figures _ a bit like your "Norway is atheist" claim!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Youth_League_membership_scandal#Stoltenberg.27s_involvement

He is not simply saying that totalitarian regimes that enforced atheism also caused atrocities (such a point on its own is inane and uncontroversial). He is using the point to argue that atheism itself, even in democratic pluralist societies, will cause atrocities.

where did i say that is formally proved?
I said I was suspicious of atheism relativists or nihilists like you who disregard natural law.
I have also stated natural law can be secular.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Believe it or not many who conceder themselves atheist believe in a great spirit or life-force, it a form of deism but they assume that being anti organized religion is atheist.

Cop out! You yourself just stated it is a form of deism.

[/quote]
What they don't believe in is a God that makes demands on them.
[/quote]

Sorry we are not falling for that one! Or for other agnostic beliefs or Or for flying sphagetti monsterism. What we are discussing here is atheism versus existqnce of god. Specifically a christian God and the implications of one or the other for society.

Their are of course atheist who don't believe in anything at all, .

which is atheism as defined in this discussion.

It isnt the cop out "like god" or l-god atheism

Google groups Message-ID: <yCpVq.2367$v14.2291@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
just go to the groups search
https://groups.google.com/advanced_search?hl=en&q=&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&safe=off&
and put it in the box at the bottom of the page marked "Message ID"

Nappisan and the other atheists tried to pretend that their
lack of rebuttal of ANY of my arguments is.. get this,
they claim there haven't BEEN ANY !!! BWAHAHAAHAHAHA

So I mocked the gutless liars mercilessly and reprised one,
for them to rebut..

Note, none of my arguments are ABOUT GOD, I'm an agnostic,
they are all about Atheism, and in particular, why has every
atheist state in history been a totalitarian tyranny!?

...but they can't answer, and have RUN AWAY, thereby
admitting that the fault is THEIR INABILITY TO REFUTE
THE HISTORICAL TRUTH, not any lack of said historical truth...

..and then YOU bumble along, and demonstrate that atheists
can't even GRASP THE CHALLENGE, let alone meet it!
...

Ex- Atheist, now Prophet, Richard Dawkins claims a "superpowerful
intelligent and moral energy" entity, "like God", is plausible and
could have 'evolved' somewhere in the Universe "by an explicable
scientific progression of incremental evolution", (which no
atheist can explain).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/20/science/20dawkins.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Doesn’t that description sound an awful lot like God?

“Certainly,” Professor Dawkins replies. “It’s highly plausible that in the universe there are God-like creatures.”

Delirium

what about Australia?

18% of the population state they have no religion. atheists make up about 10%, maybe more, of the elected officials and the prime minister is atheist.

PDN

koth wrote: »

what about Australia?

18% of the population state they have no religion. atheists make up about 10%, maybe more, of the elected officials and the prime minister is atheist.

So, based on your figures, about 82% of the population are not atheist, and 90% of the elected officials are not atheist.

Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you are saying about Australia. You're not suggesting that it is in any way an atheist nation, are you?

Zorbas

lmaopml wrote: »

LOL, don't blame George Lucas, at the very least his stuff is worth watching and it always has some kind of central notion.

It's true though, that Atheism covers a vast range of belief systems that totally differ to each other - but are not always 'scientific' in their criticism - or at least very far from it. There are hard and soft Atheists etc. just like butter...The main objection that makes one (atheist) imo, is not so much a lack of belief in spiritual forces of many kinds, or in, for example the law of attraction in the universe etc. which very many believe. It's a disbelief in the Christian God, or indeed that of the Jews or Muslims - I think this is how they define themselves moreso, but it can encapture a vast array of beliefs, anything from an atheist wiccan to an atheist naturalist. It's very broad.

Absolutely agree and its the open mind which is so rewarding when the dogmatic belief system is abandoned. Too bad that so many athiests feel they have to match the combative language of those who claim to have "the one true faith" mentality.

Delirium

PDN wrote: »

So, based on your figures, about 82% of the population are not atheist, and 90% of the elected officials are not atheist.

Sorry, I'm not quite clear what you are saying about Australia. You're not suggesting that it is in any way an atheist nation, are you?

an atheist is at the head of the government and other atheists are part of the government but there isn't the bloodbath that you say comes about when atheists get into places of power.


edit: note to self, pay attention to who you're responding to or you end up looking like a wally.

once again, apologies to PDN.

PDN

koth wrote: »

an atheist is at the head of the government and other atheists are part of the government but there isn't the bloodbath that you say comes about when atheists get into places of power.

Where on earth did I say that about bloodbaths?

Delirium

PDN wrote: »

Where on earth did I say that about bloodbaths?

apologies PDN misread the post and thought I was responding to ISAW:o

marienbad

ISAW you are chopping and changing your arguments as it suits , one minute you are saying it is only Christianity v atheism that you are discussing and then telling people to go the the Islam forum etc. This is a distinction only you are making and only particularly so in the last few pages, yet when it suits you amalgamate all of all believers to minimize the number of atheists. You are actually correct in making that amalgamation as the discussion is belief in the existence of god or gods as opposed to non-belief in the existence of god or gods.

The whole Norway argument is just another red herring at this stage - you are choosing to accept a national norm in a similar way the to the baptismal rolls were used here in Ireland. But there are reputable statistics that show otherwise. Now you can ignore those stats and continue to use the line you are using or you can engage with those stats and show us why they are wrong, or we can agree to dis-agree and move on and leave Norway to its theist-atheistic( insert as appropriate) bliss .

You are still trying to make this a discussion of atheism v christianity depite having been shown time and time again this is an incorrect comparision. Your unwillingness to accept this basic fact means that we can never get on to discussings these great christian governments you keep on about.

Atheism is the belief in the no existance of God or Gods, end of.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Atheism is the belief in the no existance of God or Gods, end of.

Except, apparently, if you choose to call a god a 'life-force' or a 'spirit'.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Except, apparently, if you choose to call a god a 'life-force' or a 'spirit'.

An interesting question - the Oxford Dictionary gives us the following - ( I think at this stage I will go with option 4 and just observe the fun)

noun

• 1 [without article] (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

• 2 (god) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity: a moon god an incarnation of the god Vishnu
• an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.
• used as a conventional personification of fate: he dialed the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once

• 3 (god) an adored, admired, or influential person: he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god
• a thing accorded the supreme importance appropriate to a god: don’t make money your god

• 4 (the gods) informal the gallery in a theater.

tommy2bad

( I think at this stage I will go with option 4 and just observe the fun)

So then atheists = critics?

lmaopml

Zorbas wrote: »

Absolutely agree and its the open mind which is so rewarding when the dogmatic belief system is abandoned. Too bad that so many athiests feel they have to match the combative language of those who claim to have "the one true faith" mentality.

Well, I believe you can be open minded about many things and still be a Christian. In fact, as a Christian I've never felt more free in my life - everybody has their experiences I guess. If I give a testimony of mine, I'm simply testifying not trying to be combative I hope.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

No your not! You are defining it as "a country which has not declared itself majority Christian"

Atheism= belief in no god or gods

How you get from a state where about 90% are members of the Lutheran church an almost all of the rest are other christians and Muslims and growing at a rate higher than atheists to "majority atheist" I don.t know.

Please do tell us

By the way i note when atheists represent single digit percentages they want secularism and equality but as soon as they reach a majority it isnt such a necessity anymore because then they are an "atheist country"

My definition of atheism hasnt changed. Norway isnt an atheist country and isnt even majority atheist. YOUR definition of "majority atheist" flies in the face of Norways very own official statistics whild list 90% as being Lutheran. Of course YOUR personal pride and arrogant atheism prompts you to REDEFINE the actual official stats by declaring Lutherans are almost all atheist! *I suppose the "better world" master race atheists are more adept at telling the rest of the human race what they have been reclassified as?

I have told you before. People are automatically registered as Lutheran. It is like calling me a Congregationalist because, even though that is what I was baptised as, I never officially de-registered. How can 90% be Lutheran if only 30% believe in God?

Rubbish! I stated every government regi,e or authority in history declaring itself officially atheist was atrocious _except maybe your declaring Norway as officially atheist. I dont go along with your one exception for one of two options either
1 Norway is an officially atheist country like your cartoon history (which is wrong about other aspects of economics) suggsts
OR
2. you are totally wrong and Norway is not atheist and so does not exempt itselmf from the appaling total failure of atheist countries.

This is unrelated to anything I said. I never claimed Norway was "officially atheist", whatever that means. I use the country's population as a simple and clear counterpoint to your claim that atheism itself causes atrocities.

Go onj then tell me what percentage of atheistic countries were not atrocious?

If it is higher than Zero I will be surprised.

Yep . Because this is the christianity forum. Im not going to discuss Buddhism, Islam, Spritualism, shamanism,paganism of flying spaghetti monsterism. I will however discuss the comparison with atheism because that is germane to the topic.

All of this is off topic nonsense. You asserted atheism causes atrocities. If you had said "Christian moral principles are superior to those adopted by Atheist, Totalitarian regimes", you would be right. But you didn't. You said atheism causes atrocities. I.e. Even if the majority of people in a secular pluralist country don't believe in God, they will still commit atrocities.

And you can believe in any off topic straw man you want. Im not discussing Islam . take that to the Islam forum. This is christianity here. As opposed to atheism -of which Norway is not an example.

In your last post you were arguing that a theism/atheism comparison was in the very title of the thread. You are so incoherent, so void of any remotely significant contention to make, that you are even arguing against your own tangents!

LOL You picked a fine example there. Considering he was in court to answer for his own party inflating their membership figures _ a bit like your "Norway is atheist" claim!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers%27_Youth_League_membership_scandal#Stoltenberg.27s_involvement

LOLOL, you think including youth members in a membership tally is an atrocity worthy of Mao or Stalin? If no: Do you believe secular pluralist atheists, if they hold government positions, will cause atrocities? Do you believe Jens Stoltenberg, the atheist leader of Norway, will cause atrocities?

If yes: You are a crazy person.

where did i say that is formally proved?
I said I was suspicious of atheism relativists or nihilists like you who disregard natural law.
I have also stated natural law can be secular.

I told you numerous times that I never said you claimed such a thing. I specifically said it was your inductive inference that was pure nonsense.

I, likewise, am highly suspicious of any theist or absolutist who believes their morality is "natural".

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

I, likewise, am highly suspicious of any theist or absolutist who believes their morality is "natural".

Amen.

marienbad

tommy2bad wrote: »

So then atheists = critics?

yeah like those old guys in the muppets , can't remember their names

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

yeah like those old guys in the muppets , can't remember their names

Statler and Waldorf!

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Except, apparently, if you choose to call a god a 'life-force' or a 'spirit'.

The original report is here

Unfortunately it is some what unclear as to what the heck they are talking about by life force, though by directly contrasting it with the question about God I think it is safe to assume the person being interviewed was not expected to correlate that this life force referred to a deity.

It seems some what of an accommodation to new age spiritualism, which in my experience is pretty undefined and flakey to being with. Perhaps the question was deliberately vague.

From the point of view of debunking ISAW's some what sensationalist notion that without a moral system derived from a religious deity humans will inevitably lead to totalitarian attrocities, I think the statistic is pretty relevant, though I guess there is still time for Norway to become a Communist dictatorship

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

The original report is here

Unfortunately it is some what unclear as to what the heck they are talking about by life force, though by directly contrasting it with the question about God I think it is safe to assume the person being interviewed was not expected to correlate that this life force referred to a deity.

It seems some what of an accommodation to new age spiritualism, which in my experience is pretty undefined and flakey to being with. Perhaps the question was deliberately vague.

From the point of view of debunking ISAW's some what sensationalist notion that without a moral system derived from a religious deity humans will inevitably lead to totalitarian attrocities, I think the statistic is pretty relevant, though I guess there is still time for Norway to become a Communist dictatorship

The question appears to whether they agree with the statement "I believe in a God". I don't speak Norwegian, so I'm not sure how that was translated.

In English "a God" (capitalised) would appear to me to refer to one supreme being. I would expect deists, pantheists and polytheists to answer 'No' to such a question.

I don't think such a question can be taken as indicative of atheism unless it said something along the lines of "I believe in no god or gods whatsoever".