ISAW wrote: » As an anti authoritarian I have no problems with that. Of course heathens and heretics would have to leave christianity f they say the trinity for example was not true. But i hope that does not open the door to moving off topic into sectarian discussions rather than the goods or ills of christianity in society as opposed to atheism in society.
PDN wrote: » I would see no reason (other than posters being sectarian) why that should happen.
Btw, the topic of this thread is not about "the goods or ills of christianity in society as opposed to atheism in society". It is for Atheist/Christian debates in general, including the existence of God.
Unfortunately the thread has been derailed for many pages into a blind alley that seems to hinge on posters talking past each other with wildly differing interpretations of surveys.
Zombrex wrote: » The statistics demonstrate otherwise. When asked Do you believe there is a god only 32% answered.
So Communism then.
A non-believing country by itself (eg Norway) will not start down a slippery slope, it is only when a doctrine like Communism that mandates enforced anti-theism, that you would be worried.
Well why did you say that at the start. I don't think anyone here thinks Communism is a good idea, and I think everyone would be worried about the path a country would be going down if it adopted Communism.
But why do you keep going on about atheism then when you really mean Communism?
marienbad wrote: » ISAW are you saying that if Pol Pot Stalin Mao Lenin et al believed in anything other than atheism, shamanism christianity, spirit-worship, whatever , that history would have been different ?
You agree that in the various Norway surveys only around the 30 % mark classified themselves as believing in a God - correct ?
How then can you classify that as christian ? Just because the constitution say so ?
Clould I have an answer on the child slapping also please ?
ISAW wrote: » In addition to mainstream religions There are polytheists pagans shamanists agnostics and other NONES Atheists are a tiny percentage. people in America who do not believe in God or gods are not the same as all people in the USA outside the group of "people who believe in god or gods" you try to classify all thse in Norway not answering YES to "Do you believe in a god" as atheist. they arent! Even then several other surveys contradict your 70% atheist clai,m fo Norway. Norway isnt 70% atheist! Japan - secular democracy with over 90% religious adherence But according to you this is all atheist? according to you Shinto and Buddhism = atheism? The word Shinto means "Way of the Gods" The Shink part Kami are defined in English as "spirits", "essences" or "deities".http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto Ther are several in the nineteenth and twentieth century spanning about 100 years between them about 5-10% of the time since christianity became established. If you call Bhuddism -not shinto-atheism then you can add in various Middle age and ancient chinese regimes. bringing the yeqrs spanned to several hundred years compared to say 1700 for christianity. It can be regarded as a valid and reliable correlation! gain it is a published report on American Nones by trinity college and found on the Us official site for such stats. you however have your personal opinion.http://commons.trincoll.edu/aris/files/2011/08/NONES_08.pdf pageii The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008 is a random digit dialed (RDD) survey of a nationally representative sample of 54,461 adults. Of those, 7,047 are Nones, or individuals who responded to the question: What is your religion, if any? with “none,” “atheist,” “agnostic,” “secular,” or “humanist.” The sampling error for the full ARIS 2008 is +/- 0.31%. For the No Religion sub-sample, the sampling error is +/- 2.38%. page 11 defines atheist under Figure 1.13 Regarding the existence of God, do you think…? There is no such thing = Atheist = 2% of US adults! No we are not! you are claiming Norway is 70% atheist and you are trying to hide that now! It isnt! And Japan is not atheistic. Im unclear if you regqrd shinto or Bhudism as atheism; do you ? you are back to shifting fro,m 70% atheist -untrue to secular pluralist -Norway is massive majority plus church linked constitutionally to the state As for atheism causing anyting you picked Norway as such a country not as secular or pluaralist but as 70% atheist . Norway probably had a pagan past and for 1000 years has been christian. Incidentally Norway can be regarded as uite insular and conservative and not the progressive modernist state you paint. i havent ignored it. it doesnt make Norway 70% atheist no more than a hundred atheists demanding t be excommunicated makes Ireland atheist. You just cant reclassify all Lutherans or even 20% of them as atheist! 70% are not atheist as you claimed! 32% Answering yes to "Do you believe in a God" does not mean 70% are atheist! Nice try to shift the burden but you claimed it is 70% atheist!
PDN wrote: Unfortunately the thread has been derailed for many pages into a blind alley that seems to hinge on posters talking past each other with wildly differing interpretations of surveys.
I am suspiscious but as I have stated i cant formally logically prove it . All i can say in the absence of showing a mechanism is history shows all atheistic regimes were atrocious and in the absence of a theory of microbes and disease John Snow could only say he believed cholera spread through water:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Snow_%28physician%29 . The germ theory of disease was not to be created until 1861[citation needed], so he was unaware of the mechanism by which the disease was transmitted, but evidence led him to believe that it was not due to breathing foul air. Really a 100% correlation is insignificant? I think yu might me the sample populmation of atheistic regimes is small. Ther are several in the nineteenth and twentieth century spanning about 100 years between them about 5-10% of the time since christianity became established. If you call Bhuddism -not shinto-atheism then you can add in various Middle age and ancient chinese regimes. bringing the yeqrs spanned to several hundred years compared to say 1700 for christianity. It can be regarded as a valid and reliable correlation!
AHA! But back to basic statistical principles§ NON totalitarian regimes also caused atrocities so totalitarianism was no common to these atrocities Also NOT ALL christian regimes caused atrocities but a few did indeed cause them However ALL atheistic regimes ALWAYS caused atrocities
Yes you did contradicting yourself! You claim to ignore it and immediately follow with a comment on it. Your words claiming to ignore it in bold Followed immediately by "Trying a different strategy?" i.e. a direct comment on religion in Japan and "The "Religious, theist fundamentalists attacked subways, which is proof that atheist Japan commits atrocities." line isn't looking so good? " another direct comment on religion in Japan as a straw man or incorrect statement. You just stated you were IGNORING something and then immediately following that drew attention to it! You remind me of the Austin Powers self contradictory photographer waving his hand above the camera and yelling at the model "ignore this"
Not by the atheists in such regimes however. And why did such regimes promote atheism and reject Christianity?
Leopold didnt do it in the name of promoting Christianity. Pol pot on the other hand specifically promoted atheism.
Maybe they d so to a lesser extent because they are closer to the truth and not atheist or not without some absolute guiding values?
And we should accept your orders or your opinions because?...
This would be the US that has the Patriot Act and Invaded Iraq for WMD that werent there to bring freedom to a million people by killing them and removing al Khyda camps that didnt exist? That bans assebblies nd spies on groups and taunts kooks like Branch davidians into reactionary violence?
Mind you whild i admire the US constitution they have a problem understanding how religious schools in Ireland are a constitutional right as do the french. Yoiu have to understannd the french history is one of atheistic terror and purges and the US constitution was a compromise of other State constitutions which did support religion but the US did not want sectarian wars of catholic and protestant. But whild some of he framing father s were atheist most werent and all drew on the natural law enshrined in 1500 years of christianity. sorry but the constitution protects my personal right to send my kids to an ethos school should i so wish. If you dont like that then tough! Of course if you can get 30 parents together and are prepared to put in some altruistic work yourself -atheists almost never are - the state will also support your children in an atheist school. None exist and I suspect if any atheist schools ever do they will be as sucessful as atheist countries.
unless you believe in atheism it is unlikely you will act in promoting it.
Atheism in the context of not promoting or not believing in atheism probably wont result in atrocities.
tommy2bad wrote: » And the fairy tales, I want to know about the censorship of fairy tails and how this particular American Christian trait has anything to do with the 'atheist agenda'
ISAW; Look up "liberal agenda" and read through the Labour Party conference motions.
ISAW wrote: » http://72point.com/coverage/fairytales-too-scary-for-children Sorry Liberal/anticatholic/pro abortion/leftie/maoist/non exhaustive list agenda groups which I would think correlae closer to atheists than to religious people. correlate means a tendency not a cause and effect 100% true proof.
The survey of 2000 adults was specially commissioned to mark the launch of the hit US drama GRIMM, which starts tonight at 9pm on Watch, and sees six gritty episodes based on traditional fairytales.
Morbert wrote: » My objection to ISAW's statements is a simple one. He is implying that, if you don't believe in God or gods, or if a population as a whole does not believe in God or gods, they will commit atrocities. Disbelief in God or gods causes atrocities, in other words. ...
He says Norway is not a predominantly atheist country because they are secular-pluralists who do not want to enshrine atheism as a way of life, compulsory or otherwise, and because they are not all materialists, and because they are not all gnostics/certain. Under such a definition, I am not an atheist.
tommy2bad wrote: » ROTFLMAO God ISAW you make my day sometimes. :D:D:D Right back at ya.http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1033/1033_01.asp
She was against Nice then she was for Nice. She was against coalition now she's for coalition. She opposes the neoliberal aspects of the new Euro Constitution but she wont oppose it in a referendum. She's against the occupation of Iraq by the US but not if it has a UN figleaf. She doesnt like Blair but she won't have a problem working with her British Labour colleagues in the PES. She thinks the Provo's are to the right of Labout cos they accepted a donation from Coca Killa but she's forgotten Ethna Fitzgeralds corporate lunch with Ruairi Quinn. She concerned about 'ordinary people' but she had nothing to say about the Bin Tax struggle, even when 'ordinary people' were jailed. And so on and so on.... In fact the only issue that I can think of where Ivana has displayed principle and integrity has been that of abortion where she has unambigiouly advocated womens right to control their own bodies. not a left candidate but a liberal one, and the Labour Party tacitly acknowledge this when they target all her propaganda at a middle class audience i.e. the puke-inducing plug in saturdays Irish Times supplement. [/quote} Ran as Labour stayed in Labour and Ran as independent then took labout whip to get to be the Leader in the house. Opposed double jobbing teqchers promoted socialmism and the small guy and gets two salaries -one as a teacher- and probably the non taxable childrens allowance added on to them. Keeps the Barrister practice open too. so where are the values? Oh - did I mention ...atheist?
ISAW wrote: » I noticed "the survey" but didnt check who diud it or the source. If it was US based Im happy to admit that.
ISAW wrote: » In case i was not clear or you think i am being snide or hedging -if i presented a US survey as European I was wrong about that thank you for pointing out the correction.
Morbert wrote: » And I can show a common mechanism across those regimes: Anti-clericalism, couple with the oppression of human rights and callous experimentation with economies.
Show me these valid correlation calculations.
I am not making a statistical argument. The way totalitarianism causes atrocities is well understood. The problems with North Korea, for example, are easily identifiable, and completely unrelated to atheism.
I ignored your wrong statements about religion, and commented on your change of strategy. No contradiction on my part.
To control who the people worship.
And?
What?! Firstly, those regimes you keep mentioning are absolutist regimes. Secondly, belief in the supernatural, since it is closer to belief in God, somehow imbues them with a subconscious power to be a healthy human being? Really?!
That sentence makes no sense.
Yes, the US where secular pluralism is constantly under attack by right wing religious fundamentalists, where the great motto "Out of Many, One" was replaced by the inane "In God we Trust". the US with an ex-president that went into Iraq because God told him to.
People (including me) don't want atheist schools. We want multi-denominational schools, which the government is finally starting to initiate.
If you want to send your kids to Catholic school, fine, so long as that school is not sectarian, and so long as you don't expect the government to pay for any religious indoctrination.
I went to a Christian Brothers School, for example, and it in no way established Catholicism as the One True Faith(TM). One of my religion teachers was even an atheist. So I have no problem with "ethos" schools.
So?
Atheism in the context of promoting (through argument and prudent discussion) and believing in atheism also on't result in atrocities.
cake carrier wrote: » What do you all think... of this article... on the EXISTENCE OF GOD...http://www.jimmyfungus.com/2012/02/does-god-exist-mysteries-of-universe.html ( http://jimmyfungus.com/2012/02/does-god-exist-mysteries-of-universe.html ) I am... honestly... curious.
tommy2bad wrote: » First vid atheist dude; Fail, a soul cant exist without a body.Second vid Christian dude; Fail, I mean whats he on?Third vid cute guy; Fail, brain deadFourth vid stoner; Fail, stonerFifth vid evil guy; LOLSixth vid Cris Humphry; Win, he gets it.Last vid, surly kid; I duno but If I were his mom....??? Good to see your interested, keep asking and see where it goes
marienbad wrote: » Sorry ISAW - help me out here, particularly as you brought it up , I still don't see the child slapping issue in all of this this. Are you opposed to a ban on it or what, and what has it got to do with anything we are discussing ?
ISAW wrote: » 32% answered yes which means 68% in that survey didnt answer yes Which does NOT mean 68% are therefore ALL atheist!
ISAW wrote: » cuba is communist and not anti theist. china is communist and was atheistic and a totl mess but relaxed tis anti religion stance. It then began to prosper!
ISAW wrote: » Not all communists demand anti theism.
ISAW wrote: » The non atheistic communists can get along quite well and contribute to society. Only the atheistic ones make a mess of it. how come that?
ISAW wrote: » where does atheism supply such values?
ISAW wrote: » It dos not matter if it is Marxist capitalist Monarchist etc. if people are fair and just. Atheism does not supply justice. Christianity promotes a just society.
ISAW wrote: » I dont! Non communist atheistic communities - e.g. North Korea -are atrocious Communist countries which are not atheistic are not as bad as the atheistic genocidal ones.
ISAW wrote: » Communist groups can contribute to society.
ISAW wrote: » I was surprised that some atheist groups suggested by Morbert do occasionally do some good work but not in the name of or because of atheism
Ken bryan wrote: » Athesism Is based On current Scientific knowledge . Since It is constanly evolving . How can be used as evedence . For dismissing God . Does it not Then Become Guilty of the closed mindedness . That It accuses those whom belive in God of being !
Zombrex wrote: » This reminds me of the old joke about the mother who tells her daughter "I don't mind you not believing in God, but no daughter of mine is going to be an atheist"
Ken bryan wrote: » Atheists Like Dawkins . Like to point to Modren Science .To Vaildate their Claims . But It this same Mentality . That Caused The Titanic To sink . They Belived it to be Unsinkable ! But we Like It Designer . Are being led to beleve the infalibality of Man . Through science . If So are we to .Going to drown in the sea from dissmining the evedence . Just Because we only see the top of it and Dismiss the rest rest based on what evedence we are will to accept as proof.!
ISAW wrote: » 32% answered yes which means 68% in that survey didnt answer yes Which does NOT mean 68% are therefore ALL atheist! And the % of atheist near single digits is supported by other surveys! cuba is communist and not anti theist. china is communist and was atheistic and a totl mess but relaxed tis anti religion stance. It then began to prosper! Communist groups can contribute to society. I was surprised that some atheist groups suggested by Morbert do occasionally do some good work but not in the name of or because of atheism -unlike christian groups who did it because of Christianity. whenever groups do things because of atheism or to assist atheism only bad things seem to happen.
ISAW wrote: » Effects are not causes. the Holocaust was not a cause it was te effect of naziism. Oppression of human rights is not a cause it is an effect. Anti clericalism and anti religion measures are caused by being against religion. It is unlikely a religion would be anti religion although it does hazppen in rare circumstances. anti religious groups are atheist . they are anti religious because they are atheist and not the other way around. Tell you what i dont make such a claim anymore. It is unsupported by statistics. My idea that all atheistic regimes committed atrocities and that there is not 1% didnt but 100% of those "there is no god" regimes committed atrocities with no exceptions whatsoever in the whole of history is just totally unsupported in spite on no one showing even one "ther is no god" regime that did not commit atrocities. I might be true I might not be and pigs might fly. that makes two of us. Im not making one about the liberal agenda either. We can forge it exists. it remains an unproven concept. I cant be bothered to restate how yu stated something whichg was contradictory by the statement referring to your refusal to refer to something such as ... and then going to do just that! And YES I am aware of the contradiction i just made in the last statement. In my case it is intentional and is called "irony". In atheistic societies they dont always worship a non god real person. And even non atheistic societies who worship non god real people can sometimes actually build things. Atheistic= in the name of atheism Christian = in the name or along the lines of Christ Leopold was not a christian controlled/authority/rules regime or in any way along the lines of "this is how we expredd belief in christ" Atheistic regimes ARE alon,g the lines of "this is how society is better because of atheism which we promote as a core value" Leopold didnt promote christianity or represent it. first not all absolutist regimes are total failures. the Aztecs, celts, had bad things but good things also. the atheistic regimes didnt have anything positive. Second christian theology is clear on the idea that non christians have varying degrees of being "closer to god". You are aware of the concept since you just used it above. i agree The fact that i question the acceptance of the concept that we should in your opinion accept your orders because you have told us all that a belief is speculative and unreasonable based on your opinions that it is speculative and unreasonable probably does not make any sense to you. Et Pluribus unum replaced earlier US constitutionshttp://jcs.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/4/753.extract religion was supported by tax money in nine of the thirteen original colonies Church-state Issues in America Today: Religion and government By Ann W. Duncan, Steven L. Jones footnote 91 page The important point was religion could not be used as an excuse to violate civil law or to pose a threat to the community or others. the government will initiate it because the itrish constitution protects the rights of families to have Catholic Or islamic or even atheist schools should they so wish. the church is also happy to help communities -yes even atheist communities! "There is no god" societies however spend their time attacking religion. the constitutional protection of religion or the wish to be a dissenter is established. It dates from before the US cobnstitution and indeed it was such values assisted in framing all modern constitutions. I also went to christian Brothers and if their management wanted not to employ an atheist I think they have every right to. I also respect that a Muslim woman having a baby can refuse a male doctor or a male midwife. People are entitled to make such choices. So where is the long list of non atheists promoting atheism? If "X is a better way of life." is needed then the belief that "x is a better way" must already exist. now given x=atheism it is unlikely a non atheist would believe in x isnt it? Ill agree to some extent and grant you a personal exception -a dispensation if you will? Your argument however that 70% of Norway is certainly atheist IS atrocious I think this has now been done to death -no pun intended- so Ill leave it for now.
Morbert wrote: » There is nothing in this post that I have not answered several times before. I am confident that the absurdity of "atheism causes atrocities" and your narrow definition of atheism, is clear to anyone who might have read the exchange, along with the recent posts by Zombrex et al.
