ISAW wrote: » which is still NOT A i.e NOT atheist as defined and quoted in the research! when I refer to "atheist3 and when they do they are referring to the people who answered A. As long as we are clear on that you can call yourself anything you like. By the way F "none of the above" comes under "dont know" and is covered by the survey. It is still not A and therefore not atheist as objectively defined.
koth wrote: » Atheist= belief there is no such thing agnostic = not sure/dont know deist= belief ther is a higher power theist= belief ther is a personal god A person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Agnostic refers to knowledge not belief.
Morbert wrote: » There are crossed wires here. The speed of light postulate of special relativity is regarding the local speed of light. Spin around on the spot, for example, and you will see the stars rotate around you much faster than the speed of light.
So galaxies can recede at faster than the speed of light because the expansion of the universe is an expansion of spacetime itself,
King Mob wrote: » F. None of the above.
" The closest you can get would be a combination of A and B with modification and better wording. The options you are offering do not properly cover what I and most atheist positions are, hence your definitions are useless.
Morbert wrote: » I feel your pain
himnextdoor wrote: » You seem confused: 'a disbelief in the existence of a deity' is not the same as 'a belief that no deity exists'.
Your attempt to twist the meaning of the word 'atheist' by replacing the word 'disbelief' with 'belief' is ironic really if you bear in mind your reaction to the suggestion that since only 32% of people polled classified themselves non-atheist, 68% can be said to have classified themselves as atheist.
Disbelief requires no data; no mental processing; it takes up no space.
Atheists lack faith and therefore the mental framework that is required to 'house' the 'God effect'; the mechanism of 'belief' is missing from their mental 'toolkit'. An atheist is unable to believe in God (no comparative data for it) therefore the question of the non-existence of a God that is supposed not to exist is rendered meaningless. A non-belief in a positive is not always the same as a belief in a negative.
Oh, and for an example of Christians not being involved in wholesale slaughter just have a look at the Middle-East, and Africa.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh dear - is that really the best you can do? Is that what passes for debate and discussion in this particular forum?
Anyone who demonstrates that your pontifications on European history have no basis in historical fact is treated to some thinly veiled insults, a few slight digs followed by some bizarre claim that they have proven your point.
Your needlessly highlighted passage are an attempt to link educated people to the church - I believe I mentioned the monopoly Christianity had on education in Europe so of course scholars were educated in church controlled universities. There weren't any other kind - the church forbade it.
Would you also claim that all Irish people are Catholics - or just the 99% who attended national schools under the control of the Catholic Church?
Your assertion was that Christianity was responsible for the technological advances in Europe - your 'proof' of this is that every intellectual in Europe was apparently a Christian. Considering that prior to the Reformation every Christian in Europe was also a Catholic (or risked a visit from the Inquisition) shall we also try and say that all advances prior to 1521 were Catholic advances?
If that was the case - makes you wonder why Luther (and Hus and Wycliffe and Calvin, and the Cathars, and the Anabaptists, and the Lollards etc etc ) had such a problem with Rome - patron of the arts and sponsor of technological advances as you claim it was.
You have, I noticed, completely missed the point that advances such as the Renaissance occurred after information suppressed by the Christian authorities became available again in Europe. Including the Reformation.
That these rediscovered ideas led to scientific experimentation and new political theories which undermined the domination of Christianity as the only game in town is ignored as it doesn't conform to your pseudo-history.
Shall we ignore all other patronage apart from that of the Church?
No Charles I and the Royal Societies? No mention of Sophia, Elector of Hanover, her daughter Sophia Charlotte Queen of Prussia and Caroline Queen of Britain as Von Libnitz's patrons? What about the de Medici? How about the role of the German princes in protecting Luther from Rome?
Shall we mention that Hitler was a Catholic - he was educated at a Catholic School in Lambach, Austria?
Or do you want to cherry pick who you claim was a Christian and who wasn't?
King Mob wrote: » Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says. I specifically explained which of your narrow definitions kinda sorta apply, you ignored that point.
I've tried several times to describe my position, but you are not interested in listening, nor do you have a point. So trying to explain it again or more simply would just be a waste of time. But please, continue to tell me what I believe.
Zombrex wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5E7feJHw0
ISAW wrote: » This is meant to be a counter argument. why dont you produce some actual figures and we can compare Christian regmes with atheist ones?
Bannasidhe wrote: » Yes, I have checked all of the footnotes - as I said, I have lectured on this for many, many years
Here are a few non-wikipedia articles and sources / in case anyone want to get pedantic about sources.
As for my reference to Hitler, Himmler etc - this was again in direct response to PDN's linking of the work of Newton, Galileo (PDN was the first to mention them - not me) and Locke as derived from Christianity as they were educated by Christians - I simply pointed out that Hitler, Himmler and Stalin were also the product of Christian education but he seemed strangely disinclined to claim credit for their work.
Not once did I ever claim that positives did not emerge from European Christianity - I merely demonstrated that a particular statement made by a particular poster was demonstrably factually untrue.
Zombrex wrote: » You have been given plenty of figures already, such as Christian Europe being a constant state of war for most of its existence,
or the African Christian militias killing their own people, [/qutoe] Leopold of Belgium was NOT an African expansion on behalkf of Christianity! If i missed anything else please list it. you have simply ignored them because they don't fit your nonsense idea of reality. what are yu claiming i ignored? I didnt ignopre anything. You are lying if you say i did because i did not! Care to prove what you claim i ignored? Eventually when it has become clear that you have no interest in actually engaging or responding to rebuttals, all one can do is laugh at your nonsense. what rebuttals? Care to list them?
you have simply ignored them because they don't fit your nonsense idea of reality.
Eventually when it has become clear that you have no interest in actually engaging or responding to rebuttals, all one can do is laugh at your nonsense.
ISAW wrote: » Not ordered by the church or in the name of christianbity.
ISAW wrote: » Leopold of Belgium was NOT an African expansion on behalkf of Christianity!
ISAW wrote: » what are yu claiming i ignored? I didnt ignopre anything. You are lying if you say i did because i did not! Care to prove what you claim i ignored?
ISAW wrote: » not offered as an option and covered by "I dont know/ not sure
ISAW wrote: » Those are what the survey measured. You have produced no evidence most NONES believe a combination of A and B.
ISAW wrote: » Nones are a tiny percentage of people and atheist as defined a tinier number. It is clear fro, the published research.
ISAW wrote: » You can believe whatever you like. Yo can claim astrology works or that you can use psychic powers. But when you make a claim it is objectively true then you have to provide evidence. I have provided peer reviewed research to support my position. What evidence have you got?
King Mob wrote: » It's not offered as an option because the survey had narrow, stupid definitions. My stance is not covered by any of the options.
And again, my stance is not covered accurately by the survey.
Lol. The ironing is delicious.
ISAW wrote: » it is. If you do not agree with any of the options then you are covered in dont know/not sure; Even assuming ALL these people we another category not covered by the existing answers even they only amount to 7%
ISAW wrote: » You may claim to represent all atheists or all agnoiostice but when pressed we have objective research and the objective research on a broad basis in various parts of the world is in agreement. Atheism is a small percentage in modern democracies.
tommy2bad wrote: » Whats the process at work? Thats one of the big questions. Some go for atonement, http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/substitutionary-atonement-jesus-christ Others go with Christus Victor http://www.gregboyd.org/essays/essays-jesus/the-christus-victor-view-of-the-atonement/ Some claim its universal, some particular. Some use legalism and others sacramental ism.
King Mob wrote: » Lol. Not only do you have no idea what I believe, you don't even seem to know what this survey you are so attached to actually says.
A new belief question was introduced into ARIS in 2008. Table 4 shows that when asked about the existence of God less than 70 percent of Americans now believe in the traditional theological concept of a personal God. This question was not asked in 1990 and 2001.
10 percent hold agnostic beliefs (5.7% a “softer” form and 4.3% a “harder form” of agnosticism).
The rise of the Nones has been one of the most important trends on the American religious scene since 1990. The overall rate of growth of those expressing no religious preference slowed after 2001 but the numbers offering a specific self-identification as Agnostic or Atheist rose markedly from over a million in 1990 to about 2 million in 2001 to about 3.6 million today
Andrewf20 wrote: » Ive read thru both links but I still cant make sense of it. Here is a powerful counter-argument (see the 1st 3 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo82sgrSAYg ".. it abolishes the concept of personal responsibility on which all ethics and morality must depend."
marienbad wrote: » ISAW Whatever about being majority atheist ,would you agree that in actuality Norway is no longer majority christian ?
King Mob wrote: » 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.
A growing body of evidence reveals a complex portrait of Americans who do not identify with a particular religious group. What research is increasingly showing is that “nones” are a dynamic group whose members cannot be simply characterized as either atheists or in other popular categories such as “unchurched believers” or “spiritual but not religious.” There are people who appear to be consistently secular in their beliefs. However, the nones also include a large group of people who switch their preferences over time, and continue to attend a particular congregation and express belief in God.
ISAW wrote: » you have lost the point entirely. what you believe or what i believe is not 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
ISAW wrote: » 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?
Zombrex wrote: » And? You claimed "Christian societies rarely killed people"
Your claim wasn't "Christian societies rarely killed people under order of the Church"
Atheist societies have never killed people under order of the Church, so I guess we are still the best society. :rolleyes:
They were Christians. They killed people.
You are ignoring examples of Christian killing people. You are saying they are not relevant because they weren't killing people in the name of the Church or the name of Christianity or some other nonsense addition you add after your nonsense has been exposed and you are trying to save face.
If from the rule of the first of the Roman Emperors (Augustus Octavian) in 27 B.C to the last (Romulus Augustulus) who ruled until 476 A.D., only 100 galley slaves died annually from overwork and mistreatment, then this alone would add up to a democide of 50,300 people. Now say that on the average for the whole empire the Romans killed a not unreasonable annual total of 10,000 infants, slaves, prisoners, Christians, inhabitants of defeated tribes and nations, and dissidents and opponents. Then for the reign of Roman emperors this would add up to a democide of over 5,000,000 people--just for this one empire. Therefore, the 89,158,000 to 260,424,000 range of total people killed I get in table 2.1B (line 747) for all pre-20th Century democide of all civilizations, empires, nations, and tribes, should be viewed as but a small part of the real total. But how small? To get some sense for this, see table 2.2. Based on the range of 20th century democide determined in table 16A.1 and the estimated world population for each century since the 30th century B.C. (near in time to the development of Egyptian hieroglyphics and the unification of Egypt under Menes), I calculated the hypothetical democide for each century. Alternatively, I started the democide calculations for the century having the earliest estimates of mass murder in Tables 2.1A and 2.1B, which is the 5th century B.C. (the time of Socrates, Pericles, and the Peloponnesian Wars). The results of adding up these century-by-century calculations are shown in table 2.2 (lines 50 and 51). For both alternative calculations the high is over a billion people killed; the lows are near a third of a billion people; and the mid-values near two-thirds or a half of a billion.
How many atheist societies have killed people in the name of the Church? I bet none. So clearly atheists are better than Christians, right?
marienbad wrote: » 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 ?
King Mob wrote: » 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.
ISAW wrote: » 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.
ISAW wrote: » What you believe ort what i believe is not at issue;
ISAW wrote: » I disagree. i believe it is you intention not to appear so and you believe you are not so but perhaps you are so and are not aware of your own mindset. coming from someone who stated "I have to say I don't think of all Christians as lacking ability. I wouldn't even bother talking to you if I believed that." You come across as having an elitist mindset. you may believe you dont have such a mindset but Ill hold my judgment on that until you admit you are no better than anyone else and have much to learn or are ignorant of much. when you are humbled then you might become exalted but when you exalt yourself you had better prepare to be humbled.
Plowman wrote: » This post has been deleted.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
