ISAW; I dont trust atheists who make an issue about opposing church control.
Apparently you think Ireland Poland and Norway and the UK are not christian at all.
ISAW; Mad as in you think Im insane or mad as in "mad as hell at the bEUrocrats and those elitists who award themselves and their buddies fat pensions for telling the rest of us how to think and not going to take it any more"
tommy2bad wrote: » I think post Christian is a better description of Ireland and the UK duno about Poland or Norway but I assume like the rest of Europe post Christian is an apt description.
ISAW wrote: » Nothing wrong at all So given you already admitted Australia which you brought up by means of comparison is NOT atheist... Is Norway in your opinion an atheist country?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76873344&postcount=2158 Question ...It is the idea that there is no God. Do you think the would would be more preferable if people believed that? Answer ...Yes, but only insofar as I consider atheism to be true.
[..] Norway are not atheistic nor are they 70 per cent atheist except in cartoons.
correct atheist = a belief in no god atheistic = adopting atheism as a principle for society
Hitler adopted naziism with a little over 30 % of the vote support and the roman church opposing him. could you list the anti theist states which did not have atheistic slogans like " ther is no god" as central and then list the ones which were Christian and we can compare the lists?
An element of the atheist community do because they think Christianity is US fundamentalism. They are such an easy target.
You must be because i dont recall stating secularism is the beginnings of anti-theism.
PDN wrote: » I think "post-Christendom" is much more accurate. Christianity is still very healthy in most of Europe, but what has changed is that churches are no longer able to dominate culture and ram their views and standards down everyone else's throats.
Morbert wrote: » From post #2234, which you never responded to: Norway is "officially" secular pluralist.
Have you dropped your silly claim about atheism now?
Do you accept that, in a secular pluralist society, even if the majority of people don't believe in God [as is the case in Norway],
atrocities will not automatically be committed? Do you accept that the leader of Norway, who does not believe in God, will not commit atrocities?
Do you accept that Japan is a perfectly healthy society?
This has nothing to do with what I said. Your tactic has been to consistently misrepresent my position, presumably hoping to hide the utterly vapid claim you made: That atheism causes atrocities.
I note how you take up a belief and turn it into a claim I have been quite clear while I am suspicious of atheists in power but I do not claim all atheists are bent on atrocity. I don't claim it because I can't logically formally prove it. I don't distrust Christians in power as much. However I am suspicious of anyone in power. I have frequently stated I am anti authoritarian. But the point is that state enforced atheism resulted in HUGH genocide on a scale that State enforced Christianity NEVER approached!
(I actually claimed it was 70%, which is true). It is Euro-barometer statistics I am using.
Not only have you refused to show why it is the "atheism" in Totalitarian regimes that caused the atrocities, but you have also completely refused to address atheism existing in secular pluralist societies which show no hint of causing atrocities.
Norway, a country where only 30% believe in God, according to reputable Eurobarometer statistics, with a leader who does not believe in God, is perfectly healthy.
The majority of people in Japan, similarly, do not believe in God. And not only do you have no evidence for your claim, you do not even have any sensible speculation as to why atheism might cause atrocities.
I have answered this at least 3 times so far. When I used an example you chose (Pol Pot), to illustrate why the atrocities are not due to atheism, you ran away.
And when I pointed out the fact that atrocities committed by theists are up there with the best of them, you dismissed it as irrelevant, completely forgetting that you were the one who made the statement about atheism over theism in the first place.
koth wrote: » At the moment, I would be leaning towards yes. That's not correct. Morbert has provided data to back up the claim that you're dismissing.
where are you getting that definition for atheistic? I've never seen that definition before.
Not being smart, but is it possible to be anti-theist and be Christian?
Much like some Christians use totalitarianism for their arguments against atheism.
You include implementing a secular school system in a list with anti-Jewish policies. Excuse me for presuming that you were stating that either of those can be the start of anti-theism.
ISAW wrote: » Go back and read the several independent surveys i offered. And hw Morbetr presents 30% believe in god in page 9 ofhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf into 70% atheist I mean europe -*the EU 25- s 52% belief in god overall in that survey. Given a 3% error and your reasoning you could declare europe atheist!
i have been quite clear what mean by atheist and atheistic i have posted it hundreds of ti,es in this discussion so it is clear what i man by atheistic. As for atheist and agnostic i go by the NONES survey that i also posted.
interesting. I would think yes. One might believe in God and reject God. But the point is atheistic regimes specifically promoted atheism.
Not really. Unless you believe atheists are misguided totalitarians just as fundamentalists are misguided christians?
The point is that anti church and anti christian policies are being touted as implementing secularism as if it is a righteous democratic thing. It isnt ! People dont want it! blaming the church is a big thing in todays society. REad the clerical abuse thread for examples. Just as scapegoating Jews blacks the Irish or whatever. Orwells 1984 showed how it can be done to whip up fear. More recently it was Arabs and Muslims and WMD. having God is a bad idea for such societies.
ISAW wrote: » Time and again I have quoted the Norwegian constitution to you which links the Monarch and the State to the Lutheran church. This is not about any claim by ME that Norway is pluralist or not. It is about your silly cartoon claim that Norway is 70% atheist. It is not 70% atheist as you claimed! It is not officially atheist ! It is not officially 70% atheist! It is not atheist at all officially or not but certainly NOT 70% atheist as you claimed! This is not about MY clai,! It is about YOUR claim posted in YOUR cartoon post and later restated by you that Norway is 70% atheist! It isnt! You can try to slip and slide and make all sorts of suggestions about me but you will not get off the hook for all that. You claimed Norway was 70% atheist and you clearly cant back that up because Norway is not atheist except in your cartoon argument! Nice try to get off the hook again. You are trying to CHANGE it from, 70% atheist to "majority dont believe in God" Are we to assume you now admit your 70% atheist claim is wrong? eurobarometer did NOT state Norway is 70% atheist! You are clearly twisting what they state. The 2005 Eurobarometer Pollhttp://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf asked whether the person believed "there is a God", believed "there is some sort of spirit of life force", "didn't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". dont forget this is a survey of adults but nevertheless the Norway sample responded 32% "there is a God" 47% "there is some sort of spirit of life force" 17% "didn't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". 4% said dont know page 9 in the survey but you no doubt redefine these qgnostics as atheist -another 8% shift in your fiddling! thats 17% atheist! You then twist this to say if 32% believe in god then about 70% are atheist. It just does not say this! You juyst cant take the 17% and say that 17 is 70! I believe you qre trying to shoehorn Norway into your cartoon and you have already been shown the shoe does not fit! The stats from you cartoon are simply wrong and you are wrong but you just cant accept that and admit it. Instead you try to switch to suggesting the clai, about Norway was mine and not yours. Any claim by me was a cunter claim. the original claim and mention of Norway was yourshttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76811495&postcount=2119 Thats post 2119 which trumps your 2234
But in any case where is the evidence that the majority of people in Norway are atheist? By atheist I mean no supernatural entities forces God or gods.
It is secular not atheistic. It is certainly a religious country for thousands of years. Buddhism may be atheist but shinto is a larger religion in Japan. Christianity in Japan although a tiny single digit percentage have had huge cultural influences which i would not like atheism even if single digit percentage to have anywhere . Japan is a massive religious majority country about 95% Shinto and Buddhist that is a secular democracy. It isnt an atheist country or an atheist state unless yo redefine both Buddhism and Shinto as atheist. Even then it isnt atheistic."there is no god" is not a central tenet of the Japanese constitution. But even then I would have some criticisms of cultural values built on atheistic religions. However I am trying to stay with the Christianity vs atheism discussion and not get into one religion versus another.
I have addressed both of these issues . I pointed out about philosophies being followd for example by the nazis. I dont want to get into a debate about the Philosophy of the Middle ages and the Problem of unoiversals but the point was about following naziism and not individual nazis similarly about following christianity or atheism. these were dealt wtih in the five pqges or so prior to your cartoon posting about Norway. In fact he reason Norway came up was because of my pointing out several atheistic countries such as Stalinist russia Maoist China and Pol Pots Cambodia who did what they did specifically referring to destroying religion andf promoting atheism. Your counter example of Leopold of Belgiu, was not an example of someone either acting on behalf of the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury or doing what he did in Africa in the name of Christianity. I also pointed out that congo also had a godless atheist Marxist group adding to the non christian created atrocities there.
There you go again trying to twist 30% belief in God into 70% atheism! you are just wrong about that!
It may well be that page 30 same survey the 13% of people in Norway who think men make better political leaders voted for him and happen to be atheist as well
Let us take the example of the Jews who are central to the WWII Holocaust. But you are then saying it isn't meglomania of Hitler because he would have killed anyone ( and maybe he would have eventually if given the chance so i would thin dont give him the chance to go any further based on what he did in the past) but his particular anti-Jew policy as outlined in the Nazi philosophy which led to Jews being singled out. You don't have to go looking for other reasons. "our superiour way is better than the Jews" was enough to lead to the persecution of Jews. The philosophy of their way being better and the promotion of that philosophy. A bit like promoting "there is no God" ? In 2063 you brought up Pol pot i replied in 2067 four messages later Why do you believe the Nazis or their philosophy didn't kill people - just their gas did? And after a long list of Pol Pots regime atrocities: So it isnt their gas now it is the policy behind the gas and the principle and beliefs behind that? But of course you say "this can only be applied to believers in God or some anti-Christian forms of theosophy and never applied to atheism" How come that?
No I didnt . I pointed out 1. such atrocities were minor by comparision to atheistic regimes 2. The frequency in Christian countries was rare but in atheistic countries was 100% atrocious record 3. some examples such as Leopold of belgium were not done to spread christiainty or at the behest of a christian leader whereas ALL atheistic regimes did it saying "there is no god"
koth wrote: » That backs up Morberts argument. Only 32% expressed a belief in a God. Atheism to me is a lack of belief in a god(s).
Sorry, ISAW, I guess I wasn't clear. I've never seen anyone else ever use atheistic to mean promoting atheism.
Anti-theist isn't rejecting god(s), to me at least, it's about attacking people who do believe in a god(s). To use your ant-theist definintion makes every atheist in the world an anti-theist, which obviously isn't true.
Can you give an example of the anti-church/christian policies that the government are alledgedly implementing?
Zombrex wrote: » ISAW, you might have missed my post so if you don't mind I'll ask you again to explain your position.
Can you explain why a population not believing in a god or following an organized religion would not lead to atrocities (ie Norway), but a country not believing in god nor following an organized religion and identifying themselves as atheists, would.
koth wrote: » No, I don't agree with that premise.
ISAW; They want slapping kids to be made illegal and fairy tales to be censored.
ISAW wrote: » then your comparison isnt apt.
ISAW wrote: » And now you are doing the same thing. you take 32% expressed belief in a god to mand 68% are atheist!
ther is no way 68% said "there is certainly no god" in the atheist sense
It is not sup^ported by other evidence which all support the idea of supernatural and spiritual forces fi not ony the monotheistic god of Christianity Islam and Judaism.
That is quite alright. I use it to distinguish between believing in something but doing nothing about it and promoting a belief or changing a society or the law to adhere to or suit that belief.
Only all atheists promoting or spreading atheism. If they dont do anything about their beliefs then they dont manifest as a threat.
Not just the government. They have claimed that the church or religious ethos should be at about 50% of schools.
They have claimed sexual abuse of children is rampant and endemic to the church.
there qre suggestions to remove the idea of father and family from passports.
They want slapping kids to be made illegal
and fairy tales to be censored.
Men who are alone with anyone under eighteen are treated with suspicion.
They closed the Vatican embassy. They alleged the Vatican covered up child abuse.
they snubbed the Pope by not inviting him to ireland during the eucharistic congress.
But i dont think they are atheistic just influenced by the tiny single digit numbers of the atheistic element.
ISAW wrote: » And now you are doing the same thing. you take 32% expressed belief in a god to mand 68% are atheist! ther is no way 68% said "there is certainly no god" in the atheist sense It is not sup^ported by other evidence which all support the idea of supernatural and spiritual forces fi not ony the monotheistic god of Christianity Islam and Judaism. That is quite alright. I use it to distinguish between believing in something but doing nothing about it and promoting a belief or changing a society or the law to adhere to or suit that belief. Only all atheists promoting or spreading atheism. If they dont do anything about their beliefs then they dont manifest as a threat. Not just the government. They have claimed that the church or religious ethos should be at about 50% of schools. They have claimed sexual abuse of children is rampant and endemic to the church. there qre suggestions to remove the idea of father and family from passports. They want slapping kids to be made illegal and fairy tales to be censored. Men who are alone with anyone under eighteen are treated with suspicion. They closed the Vatican embassy. They alleged the Vatican covered up child abuse. they snubbed the Pope by not inviting him to ireland during the eucharistic congress. But i dont think they are atheistic just influenced by the tiny single digit numbers of the atheistic element.
Morbert wrote: » Only 30% of people in Norway say "There is a God" is closest to their beliefs. The rest are either materialists, or simply believe in spiritual forces. Simple as that. So unless you redefine atheists as materialists, atheism in Norway is obvious.
That is not a definition of atheism. That is a definition of materialism. Are you changing your claim to "Materialists cause atrocities"? I have asked you before, what is it about believing in the supernatural that would steer people away from atrocities?
Ignoring your straw man and incorrect statements about religion in Japan: Trying a different strategy?
The "Religious, theist fundamentalists attacked subways, which is proof that atheist Japan commits atrocities." line isn't looking so good?
Now it's the tiny percentage of Christians that are responsible for Japan's healthy society? Keeping those atheists at bay? How noble.
I clearly pointed out the problem with equating atheism with moral and political philosophies.
And I clearly said Leopold of Belgium shows that the source of atrocities does not stem from atheism.
What's tragic is these are all straw men you have wheeled out before.
What's wrong with that? A-theos: without God/gods. If 70% of people are without God/gods, they are atheist.
So do you believe the atheist leader of Norway will commit atrocities, or even attempt to predispose Norway to committing atrocities? I have asked you this a number of times.
As I said before (and before and before and before). Atheism, unlike Nazism or fundamentalist agrarian socialism, or anti-clericalism, says nothing about a way of life, or racial superiority, or social "enemies within". It is a metaphysical statement about the existence of God. That is all.
And as an aside, I think exercising regularly is a better way of life. Does this mean I am going to start massacring overweight people?
And I pointed out that this was all irrelevant to your claim about atheism, as opposed to totalitarian, anti-clerical regimes causing atrocities.
koth wrote: » It is actually. The problem with me was the phrasing of your post. Fundamentalist Christians/ Creationists are a subset of Christians. Atheists are not a subset of totalitarians, i.e. not every atheist supports totalitarianism. Nor are all totalitarianists atheists.
Quote: Much like some Christians use totalitarianism for their arguments against atheism. Not really. Unless you believe atheists are misguided totalitarians just as fundamentalists are misguided christians? Here we are discussing P :the subset of atheistic regimes promoting atheism as a sub set of Well yes. Atheism is exactly that. If you don't believe in god(s) (the Christian one included in that), then you're an atheist. I'm an atheist, and I've never said that. And nearly every atheist writer/speaker I'm aware of has never said that either. Sorry, ISAW, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Do you mean if someone believes in ghosts for example they can't be an atheist? OK. but I have to say that until you explained that, it was extremely confused to understand the distinction. But then that makes Jewish and Muslims anti-Christian if they express their beliefs. The only way an atheist wouldn't be anti-thiest by reasoning is to be silent about the subject, and to never express their opinion on religious matters for their atheist perspective. That's secularism, not anti-church/Christian. And it's only with regards to public schools. the most vocal person in the government and most heard around the world to say this was Enda Kenny. A practising Roman Catholic. How is that anti-church? And it was my understanding this was so that same sex parents can have parent1 and parent2 (or some other title) on the passport instead of the incorrect titles (at least for same sex parents) of mother and father. that's not anti-church. that's anti physically beating a child. and it's something that people in all religious groups support. I'm calling crap on that until I see some links. Not an anti-religion thing. This is because of so many stories of children being abused by men. The problem is that the focus is mainly on "stranger danger" when it's more often than not a person know to the child. Yes, they closed the embassy, but does that mean that the government are also anti-Iran? but it's an event the RCC has organised. Not being a member of the RCC, I don't understand why the pope needs to be invited to go an RCC event in Ireland. That's just daft. The Christians in the government are powerless before the will of an atheist? Sounds like the Christians shouldn't be in government if they are so easily led, not that I accept the possibility of that scenario being a reality.
Quote: Much like some Christians use totalitarianism for their arguments against atheism. Not really. Unless you believe atheists are misguided totalitarians just as fundamentalists are misguided christians? Here we are discussing P :the subset of atheistic totalitarian regimes promoting atheism as a sub set of all atheists Q: the subset of fundamentalist christian totalitarian regimes promoting christianity as a sub set of all christians the salient point made by you are the words much like so the very pint you made yourself is what i pointed out to you you czant say one is MUCH LIKE the other since you yourself admit one is not comparing like with like since one is not comparing Q to the complement of P i.e the set of all atheists LESS P but comparing Q to P so it isnt MUCH LIKE art all as you claimed! YOUR phraseology not mine.
koth wrote: » You don't have to be an atheist to think that creationism is silly (it is) or that it's a central Christian issue (I don't think that it is).
ISAW wrote: » An element of the atheist community do because they think Christianity is US fundamentalism. They are such an easy target.
koth wrote: » Much like some Christians use totalitarianism for their arguments against atheism.
ISAW wrote: » Not really. Unless you believe atheists are misguided totalitarians just as fundamentalists are misguided christians?
ISAW wrote: » there you go again! 32 isnt 30 but nevertheless 30% expressing belief does not mean 70% atheisthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States The majority of Americans (60% to 76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively.[4] Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc.), collectively make up about 3.9% to 5.5% of the adult population.[4][5][6] Another 15% of the adult population identifies as having no religious belief or no religious affiliation about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply Based on your reasoning the US is 36% atheist!
Here is a list of countries without majority religionhttp://www.adherents.com/adh_predom.html Burkina Faso Cameroon Chad China Congo, Republic of the Cote d'Ivoire Eritrea Ethiopia Fiji Guyana Hong Kong Kazakstan Korea, South Lebanon Macau Madagascar Mozambique Nigeria Papua New Guinea Sierra Leone Singapore Suriname Taiwan Tanzania Zimbabwe Note any correlation with economic progress?
And it isnt necessary to show a mechanism in order to accept a correlation! A statistical correlation between disease and sewer water was discovered before microbiology was.
I have given the Nones survey definition of atheism.
LOL contradicting yourself! You claim to ignore it and immediately follow with a comment on it.
Aum Shira were kooks who knew more about computer hacking than about valid theological knowledge or philosophy. Japan has a kismet/karma/luck and other principles similar to predestination with which I dont necessarily think is an acceptable philosophy. Nevertheless Ill stand by it isnt atheistic and is a secular democracy. while it isnt majority christian and christianity is in fact a single digit percentage like atheism in the West, christianity has had more influence than atheism has had in the West. Yes unlike the damage caused by genocidal atheistic regimes in the West christianity had no such damage in Japan
which is a cop out since I clearly pointed out we are comparing societies with christianity as a core value compared to those with atheism as a core value.
Indeed and i clearly showed 1. Leopold was not acting for or at the behest of or because of christianity 2. while some non atheistic regimes e.g the nazis were not atheistic and indeed even some christian regimes committed atrocitiesfew christian regimes committed atrocities and c.f 1 Leopolds congo was not one of them anyway unlike the atheistic Marxist regime in the congo whereas all atheistic regimes were atrocious what is tragic is you dont seem to get 1 and 2 Leopold isnt a christian genocide regime Few christian governments were genocidal ALL atheistic ones were! Atheism = "there is no God" Atheistic regimes have atheism " There is no god" as a central tenet Christian governments ( few are regimes) have "Christ is God live like Christ," as a central tenet.
So...how come the atheistic ones are all murder regimes and the christian ones aren't?
Norway isnt atheist! Eurostat does NOT say it is! the Norwegian CENSUS does not claim norway is 70atheistthis as you claimed in 2119 It is completely insane to reclassify the 3.8 million church of Norway members as "atheist"!
Also non church of Norway christians are growing at almost three times the rate of humanists and they outnumber them by almost three to one! There are also more Muslims than humanists/atheists It just isn't an atheist country! Approximately 9-10% are probably not members of any religious or philosophical communities, while 8.6 % of the population are members of other religious or philosophical communities outside the Church of Norway.http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/07/02/10/trosamf_en/ Norways own statistics Religious and life stance communities, 1 January 2011http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/0...-06-01-en.html Members1 of religious and life stance communities outside the Church of Norway, by religion/life stance. Per 1 January. 2005-2011. Numbers and per cent As of 1 January 2011, 484 500 persons in Norway were members of religious and life stance communities; an increase of 37 700 compared with the previous year. More than half of the members, 266 800, were members of Christian communities. The non Lutheran believer communities are growing in Norway. This represents an increase of about 8 per cent compared to the previous year. The Christian communities had the largest increase. There is no Indication of atheism taking over as a belief. In 2005, a survey conducted by Gallup International in sixty-five countries indicated that Norway was the least religious country in Western Europe, with 29% counting themselves as believing in a church or deity, 26% as being atheists, and 45% not being entirely certain. That's about a quarter atheist not a majority and not 70% and it is the most atheist country in Europe. 1.7% are Humanist 13% are nones. A number of independent surveys dont show Norway as even majority atheist INCLUDING NORWAYS OWN OFFICIAL STATISTICS FROM 2011!
And i have answered you. If atheism is allowed to become a central tenet of society and christianity is curtailed I believe atrocities will follow as they always did in the past!
And as i have said that is a cop out but as long as you keep saying you want no change and are allowing Norway to remain christian and dont want the constitution changed in Ireland or Norway to favour atheism then I have no problems with you keeping to yourself about your personal beliefs and not trying to insist others accommodate them.
so the Christians are fat people now are they? If and when you start bringing in laws against freedom to drink and smoke Ill have nothing to say about that.
no it isnt! there are totalist regimes. Atheistic regimes -totalist all- have atheism " There is no god" as a central tenet Christian governments ( few are regimes but some are totalist ) have "Christ is God live like Christ," as a central tenet. So...how come the atheistic ones are all murder regimes and the christian ones including totalist christian ones aren't all murdering genocidal regimes ?
Zombrex wrote: » ISAW wasn't your argument that societies that turn their back on organized religion and turn their back on a notion of a deity or divine being who provides moral clarity, that these societies will inevitably lead to civil and physical rights abuses, creeping ever closer to totalitarianism, while the countries scientific, philosophical and artistic output will grind to a halt?
You now seem to be saying that this will only happen if a country specifically declares itself "atheist", that it won't happen if they reject religion but don't formally declare themselves "atheist".
For example, by all statistics the population of Norway has clearly turned its back on traditional notions of organized religion, on notions of divine revelation and divinely guided morality.
They haven't as yet officially declared themselves to be an atheist country,
and I suspect they never will since they are not Communist and thus I imagine see no reason to.
They also seem to have a large amount of new age spirituality in the country.
You seem to think that the rejection of religion is not relevant to the slide to totalitarism, yet if they actually officially declared themselves to be atheists that would have huge effect.
Can you explain the logic you think that formally declaring one-selves "atheist" would cause totalitarianism, where as rejecting religion but not formally declaring the country to be atheist wouldn't. What is it about the word atheist that causes totalitarianism?
koth wrote: » I think you missed what I was trying to say. I was making the point that choosing an easy target such as creationism to argue against Christianity is just almost as disingenuous as using totalitarianism to argue against atheism. that's what the much like comment was about. It wasn't saying that totalitarism is a subset of atheism.
ISAW wrote: » Sorry if I miss this earlier Not necessarily an overarching natural law secular or god given -not relativism like yuou or nihilism like Morbert. And not based on atheism. No. Based on history it is not impossible for a christian country to be oppressive. It is unlikely it will be a genocidal regime. However all atheoist countries which replaced the church with atheism were genocidal. Im happy to admit genocide isnt exclusive to atheistic regimes but all atheistic regimes were genocidal and few christian ones were. this would include Norways own official stats from 2011 which show it over 95% religious? Oh so your "all statistics" actually means "all cartoon and cherry picked stats suggesting Norway is atheist but even then actually saying it isnt"? North Korea isnt communist either and is atheistic I reckon. Cuba is communist and isnt anti catholic. Which also isnt atheism! By "large " I suppose you mean "low single digiit percentqges but still growing slower than Catholicism oir Islam"? sorta like atheism in terms of percentages only? Yep. Just like the non constitutional persecution of the church and Jews was not really relevant to the rise of Naziism except in attracting members but the declaration of the nazi dictatorship was since they were not afraid then to attack religion. All states declaring themselves atheist were genocidal. ALL of them. NOT all totalitarian states were genocidal NOT all communist states were NOT all christian ones were. Only ALL atheist ones were. Why do you think that might be? Why do you think totalitarian regimes repress religion but promote atheism if it is such a good thing to promote? It is quite simple if atheists dont want atheism spread and promoted especially not at the expense of believers or by believers losing anything then believers will have no problems with atheists until they start promoting atheism as a better way and a good thing.
marienbad wrote: » I am sorry ISAW but this is just conspiracy theory stuff, and as an aside , what is Christian about slapping kids and why would you object to it being made illegal ?
ISAW wrote: » But creationism CANT be used as an argument against Christianity unless creationists are regarded as christian! i;e they are a subset Therefore attacking the silliness of creationsçm becomes an attack against christianity. If ther were any Biblical creationists who werre not regarded as Christian this argument would not hold up.
Likewise to be the same one would argue against atheism based on the fact that all totalitarian regimes are atheist! totalitarians are thus regarded as atheist and attacking the evil of totalism becomes an attack on atheism. It wouls not hld up if there were totalists who are not atheist. i could argue christian regimes are Authoritarian not totalitarian but that is a different issue.
i didnt maintain that; what i suggested was all atheist regimes were totalitarian not the other way around.
Do you understand?
In such a way you could say creationists promote Christianity or totalists promote atheism but you could not logically conclude christianity promotes creationism or atheism promotes totalitarianism.
But Ill ask you. Why is the totalitarianism regimes promote atheism and yet oppose Christianity?
Would you not conclude Christianity is maybe incompatible with totalism but atheism is compatible with it?
Morbert wrote: » No. Based on my reasoning, the % of atheists in America is the % of people in America who do not believe in God or gods.
"No majority religion" means no single dominant religion. There is still plenty of religion in those countries.
Firstly, I interpret this as an admission that you, in fact, have no inherent reason to suspect atheism is to blame.
Secondly, there is no statistical correlation, as evidenced by Japan, Norway, and other countries where atheism (definition:Not believing in God) is a dominant philosophical position.
If you want to change you statement to "State-enforced atheism causes atrocities", you would still be wrong, as your "statistical correlation" is too small to be significant,
never-mind the fact that we could still look at each individual case and identify the true causes. If you want to change your statement to "Totalitarianism causes atrocities.", then you would be correct.
That is an incorrect definition.
I did not do this.
Ignoring [:b]your straw man and incorrect statements about religion in Japan:
So changing your strategy? You claimed it was Japan's atheism that was to blame for theist atrocities.
We are discussing whether secular pluralist states, with majority populations that don't believe in God, will commit atrocities.
We are talking about whether atheism in secular pluralist countries will predispose such countries to atrocities.
Because of their murderous principles, principles that are rejected by atheists outside such regimes.
Not because of their atheism. There is no reason to believe that, if Pol Pot had been Christian, he would have been less brutal, as evidenced by King Leopold, a Christian who incidentally committed genocide.
As I have said before, people in Norway are automatically registered. It is like calling me a member of the Congregationalist church. I have made this point frequently and you consistently ignore it.
Much of this is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is how atheism is defined in such surveys. Reading over those links, I would not be an atheist under such definition. None of the above, however contradicts the fact that 70% of Norwegians do not believe in God, follow no religion, and are secular pluralists.
If you do not want to define atheism as not believing in God, then you put yourself in the problematic position of defending your arbitrary demarcation.
People who don't believe in God, but believe in the supernatural, won't commit atrocities? Why?
And I have told you that such a belief is speculative and unreasonable.
Norway isn't Christian.
I want the constitution changed to favour secularism, in a manner similar to the 1st amendment in the United States: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Similarly, I have no problem with you keeping to yourself about your personal beliefs and not trying to insist others accommodate them. I also have no problem with you arguing that your beliefs are true, and have no problem with myself and others telling you your beliefs are false.
You are not making any sense. You said all that was needed was the claim that "X is a better way of life.". Now you are claiming that you actually need oppression, which was my point all along.
How does this show that atheism, in the context of a secular pluralist society, will result in atrocities?
ISAW wrote: » No i cant because Norway is a State constitutionally rooted in Christianity so the first half of your question is in error. Norway does follow religion and believe in God.
ISAW wrote: » I never claimed a country not believing in god would automatically commit atrocities. I believe they would start down a slippery slope and eventually when the atheism is promoted nationally and if "there is no god" becomes socially/legally/constitutionally enshrined -pun intended- then they would start on the atrocity route.
