Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

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".

That is a fair point, though just on assumption I suspect Norway is not a country fully of polytheists.

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?

No, I'm not saying it's an atheist state. It's a question about a country that has an atheist as head of a pluralist state.

I haven't seen anyone supporting state enforced atheism on this thread. But people have asked what ISAW has to say with regards to a government that has a similar make up as Australia. And I thought it was relevant also due to the prime minister being an atheist.

I hope that clarifies my line of thought regarding the question I asked

ISAW

PDN wrote: »

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

Look PDN this is just silly! It just is NOT an atheist state!
cartoons claiming it is are about as authoritative as a source - well as comic books I guess.

Norway is not atheist.
I have been through the common statistical sources used by hardline atheists to make this type of claim. It is usually the same US academic source. It is not basked up by official EU or Norway's own official statistics or indeed by the law in Norway.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/norway/dok-bn.html


THE CONSTITUTION OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY

Article 2
All inhabitants of the Realm shall have the right to free exercise of their religion. The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State. The inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same

Article 4
The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion, and uphold and protect the same

A survey conducted by Gallup International in 65 countries in 2005 found that Norway was the least religious among the Western countries surveyed, with only 36% of the population considering themselves religious. However, only 9% explicitly stated that they were atheists, while the biggest group, 46%, were those that considered themselves neither religious nor atheists
http://www.klassekampen.no/31940/mod_article/item
in Church_of_Norway wikepidia entry 27

ISAW

koth wrote: »

what about Australia?

i dont know. what about it? It isnt atheist either!

18% of the population state they have no religion.

And your source for this claim is?

atheists make up about 10%, maybe more, of the elected officials

And maybe less? single digit percentages!

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

This is unrelated to anything I said. I never claimed Norway was "officially atheist", whatever that means.

Really?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76817865&postcount=2123

Only 30% believe in God. The rest are atheist.

those were you direct words in relation to Norway immediately following posting the cartoon
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76811495&postcount=2119

Which makes the claim 70% of the Norwegian population is atheist!

You were restating the claim in the cartoon.
you claimed Norway is 70% atheist.

It isnt!

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

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

In this discussion in this sub threqd yes. Im not going to get sidelines into other issues.
[/quote]
so basically you are suggesting i never claimed this before say three of four pages ago?
you do realise one one counter example is necessary to prove you wrong?
[/quote]

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.

Nonsense. Ill happily leave the "Buddhism is atheism" argument aside but if you wish you can include the Buddhists and their vanishingly small percentage of Norwegians as atheists.

I don't wish to get into a Catholic vs Protestant or a Islam versus Christianity discussion either.

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.

Morbert brought up the 70% atheist claim It just isnt true!
Norway isnt atheist!
It is just NOT a counter example of an atheist state as the cartoon claims!

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,

Fair enough. to which stats do you refer? the already debunked ones or have you something new to add?

or we can agree to dis-agree and move on and leave Norway to its theist-atheistic( insert as appropriate) bliss .

No we cant! Norway is not an atheist country nor is it run by atheist principles! Norway has a state linked to a christian church. It is not 70% atheist!

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.

rubbish! the militant atheists like to have a go at christians and them play the shell game of "all dairy workers in general and not just the cheesemakers"

Im nailing down specific claims and not the handwaving cartoon history!

Claims like Norway is 70 per cent atheist which are used to promote atheism as a better way to run a society. Irt is just rubbish. Norway isnt atheist ans isnt a great society based on atheism or on so many people being atheist!

Zombrex

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". That it is not the rejection of religion and the rejection of religious notions of God, but the actual use of the word "atheist" that is so damaging. Reject religion, but don't use the word atheist, and you will be fine.

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?

Or are you simply being argumentative for the point of it?

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

That is a fair point, though just on assumption I suspect Norway is not a country fully of polytheists.

Form a brief bit of research it looks like about 0.1% (and growing) of the population is Huindu. I don't know how other polytheistic beliefs fair.

marienbad

Morbert brought up the 70% atheist claim It just isnt true!
Norway isnt atheist!
It is just NOT a counter example of an atheist state as the cartoon claims!




This is all just diversionary stuff ISAW, if you choose to accept the equivalent of the baptismal rolls as evidence of Norway' religious make up - good luck to you. You have been given sufficient data that shows at best Christianity makes up around 30% of the population.

You know how inaccurate it is to take at birth statistics as a measure of religious affiliation. My partner and I are still getting Easter Dues envelopes in our parish and this despite years of visits letters - the lot- it seems once on it is impossible to get off.

But this sidetrack started when you accepted retracted accepted retracted and then descended into utter confusion over the claims that-

Atheism is the non belief in the existance of god or gods

Neither atheism nor theism causes atrocities.

Do you accept those definitions or not ? Yes or no if you would please .

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Form a brief bit of research it looks like about 0.1% (and growing) of the population is Huindu. I don't know how other polytheistic beliefs fair.

Well I'm not ruling anything out since frankly I've done little research on this, but from an initial look at it I would imagine that most of the people who stated they didn't believe in God (or a god), believe in stead in various new agey spiritual notions, the sort of undefined nonsense someone like Depak Chopra likes to go on about. Reminds me of the old saying that once you stop believing in God you don't believe in nothing, you believe in everything! :P

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

once you stop believing in God you don't believe in nothing, you believe in everything! :P

Chesterton, I believe. Perhaps you'll be quoting scripture next and in the way it was intended.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Chesterton, I believe. Perhaps you'll be quoting scripture next and in the way it was intended.

Ha!, not likely .... wait a minute ....

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Really?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76817865&postcount=2123


those were you direct words in relation to Norway immediately following posting the cartoon
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76811495&postcount=2119

Which makes the claim 70% of the Norwegian population is atheist!

You were restating the claim in the cartoon.
you claimed Norway is 70% atheist.

It isnt!

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, atrocities will not automatically be committed? Do you accept that the leader of Norway, who does not believe in God, will not commit atrocities?

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Do you accept that the leader of Norway, who does not believe in God, will not commit atrocities?

I don't know, he does have a bit of a "look" to him.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

i dont know. what about it? It isnt atheist either!

Never said it was;)

And your source for this claim is?

It's the result of the 2006 Australian census. And if you were to include people who didn't state a religion, that figure rises to over 30%.

Link (page 48)

And maybe less? single digit percentages!

of course. I've only read a survey that asked 30 ministers of their religious grouping. 3 responded atheists. I currently can't locate a total number of elected officials in the Australian government, or a similar survey with a larger sample of the government.

Anyways, I brought up Australia to see where it fits with you "when atheists get into power in governments, lots of people end up dead" concept.

ISAW

koth wrote: »

Never said it was;)
ho ho ho

You never said it wasnt!
It isnt!
Admit that and move on!

It's the result of the 2006 Australian census. And if you were to include people who didn't state a religion, that figure rises to over 30%.

LOL! Morbert tried that one with Norway

they dont say they qre christian or believe in god therefore they are all atheist!

Nonsense. And you know it!

Furthermore NONES -i have referred to them before -are not atheist! Only a small proportion of them are.

of course. I've only read a survey that asked 30 ministers of their religious grouping. 3 responded atheists. I currently can't locate a total number of elected officials in the Australian government, or a similar survey with a larger sample of the government.

Anyways, I brought up Australia to see where it fits with you "when atheists get into power in governments, lots of people end up dead" concept.

Australia is not an atheist country and it has not got an atheistic system,government or rulers. I would apply the same to australia. If the governmen,t became 100% atheist I would be suspiscious of them trying to brinbg their personal beliefs to bear on the law or society. Just as I am suspicious of admitted atheists in the Irish Labour party attacking ethos schools.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

ho ho ho

You never said it wasnt!
It isnt!
Admit that and move on!

ok, I shall repeat myself for you, I never said Australia was an atheist state.

LOL! Morbert tried that one with Norway

they dont say they qre christian or believe in god therefore they are all atheist!

Nonsense. And you know it!

Furthermore NONES -i have referred to them before -are not atheist! Only a small proportion of them are.

Actually the census is more detailed than "Christian or not", and it's not unreasonable to say that because some ticked "no religion" that they're not Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc.

Australia is not an atheist country and it has not got an atheistic system,government or rulers. I would apply the same to australia. If the governmen,t became 100% atheist I would be suspiscious of them trying to brinbg their personal beliefs to bear on the law or society. Just as I am suspicious of admitted atheists in the Irish Labour party attacking ethos schools.

I didn't say Australia has an atheist government. I said that atheists are members of parliament and the PM is an atheist. And yet the country still functions.

So a country needs to have 100% atheist government to be classed as an atheist state? What about the population of the country? if a country is 80%+ Christian, can it be classed as an atheist state?

ISAW

koth wrote: »

ok, I shall repeat myself for you, I never said Australia was an atheist state.

You tried to be smart with your winking smiley
I repeat myself. IT ISNT
NB I am not hedging by saying "Im not saying it is or isnt atheist"
I saying it isnt atheist!
do you accept it isnt atheist?
Just like Norway isnt atheist?
If so we can leave that and move on.

If not what is the significance of what you are NOT saying?

Actually the census is more detailed than "Christian or not", and it's not unreasonable to say that because some ticked "no religion" that they're not Christian, Jewish, Muslim etc.

so what?

According your own words you are not in any way using this census to claim Austrailia
is atheist. so accept it isnt stop trying to pretend it is and move on!

I didn't say Australia has an atheist government. I said that atheists are members of parliament and the PM is an atheist. And yet the country still functions.

So what . It does not have an athiest government. Like Ireland or Norway it has an atheist who is a government Minister. While i am suspicious I trust the constitution to keep atheistic tendencies at bay. Just like in NON atheist Norway where Christianity is constitutionally part of the State.

Ireland the UK Norway Australia all NON atheist states built on christian values and all functioning democracies. NOT like atheistic backwaters or economic failures whice were slaughter regimes that destroyed society.

So a country needs to have 100% atheist government to be classed as an atheist state? What about the population of the country? if a country is 80%+ Christian, can it be classed as an atheist state?

NO! A country would probably need 100 percent atheist government to push fr changes to the constitution allowing for Christianity to be curtailed. Hitler did it however with less than half the vote by making about 10 per cent of the parliament illegal and getting his major opposition to abstain on the basis that if they didnt he would tqke over anyway and persecution would be worse. The German constitution like the current British one allowed the Parliament to change the constitution. the Irish one does not. Except maybe for some of the EU stuff that was passed.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

NB I am not hedging by saying "Im not saying it is or isnt atheist"
I saying it isnt atheist!
do you accept it isnt atheist?

Yes. just like I said in two previous posts.

Just like Norway isnt atheist?

No. I haven't decided one way or the other on that subject as I'm currently following yourself and Morbert's discussion on that subject.

According your own words you are not in any way using this census to claim Austrailia
is atheist. so accept it isnt stop trying to pretend it is and move on!

Would you kindly stop distorting what I've posted. I've done no such thing.
I'm posted it as a country to discuss with you so as I might better understand where you're coming from with your anti-atheist in government stance.

So what . It does not have an athiest government. Like Ireland or Norway it has an atheist who is a government Minister. While i am suspicious I trust the constitution to keep atheistic tendencies at bay. Just like in NON atheist Norway where Christianity is constitutionally part of the State.

Atheistic tendecies? would you like to expand on that?

Ireland the UK Norway Australia all NON atheist states built on christian values and all functioning democracies. NOT like atheistic backwaters or economic failures whice were slaughter regimes that destroyed society.

So if Ireland's population of atheists were to increase and at some point had a government comprised of nearly all atheists, the government would just start slaughtering the citizens?

NO! A country would probably need 100 percent atheist government to push fr changes to the constitution allowing for Christianity to be curtailed. Hitler did it however with less than half the vote by making about 10 per cent of the parliament illegal and getting his major opposition to abstain on the basis that if they didnt he would tqke over anyway and persecution would be worse. The German constitution like the current British one allowed the Parliament to change the constitution. the Irish one does not. Except maybe for some of the EU stuff that was passed.

But then is it not anti-theist stance that Hitler had? Banning a religion/persecuting it's believers, for example, would be anti-theist not atheist.

ISAW

koth wrote: »

No. I haven't decided one way or the other on that subject as I'm currently following yourself and Morbert's discussion on that subject.


Would you kindly stop distorting what I've posted. I've done no such thing.
I'm posted it as a country to discuss with you so as I might better understand where you're coming from with your anti-atheist in government stance.

dont be silly! It is either atheist or it isnt. It inst a vague case of "half atheist"
and clerrly the whole discussion if you have as you say been following it went along the lines of Morberts belief that society would be better if it was 100% atheist. I pointed out any society which supported atheism resulted in persecuting religion and that atheism builds nothing. He posted the Russels Teapot cartoon makint the claim, Norway was a grand country but that it was atheist. It isnt. Nor is your recent addition of australia. Japan and China may be or have been but whenever they pressed the principle they made a mess of the country.

Atheistic tendecies? would you like to expand on that?

I thought you were following the discussion? I explained that atheistic relates to promoting atheism. You know the militant type that want religion gone and clai, christian belief is silly and constantly have a go at creationism as if creationism was a central Christian issue?

So if Ireland's population of atheists were to increase and at some point had a government comprised of nearly all atheists, the government would just start slaughtering the citizens?

Well it might start by getting the church out of educqtion
Or getting the Jews out of business
Ofr censorship like section 31 promoted by the Stickies
The slaughter might take longer
Every long March begins with a single step. - guess who said that ? And guess which people who qre currently senators and TD followed his teachings?

But then is it not anti-theist stance that Hitler had? Banning a religion/persecuting it's believers, for example, would be anti-theist not atheist.

Indeed. But I was not suggesting Hitler was atheist. I was using him as an example of how a dictator can take over even iof he has a minority and does not have to have 100% followers - which was ther very point raised that I was addressing donty you rememlber?

So if Ireland's population of atheists were to increase and at some point had a government comprised of nearly all atheists, the government would just start slaughtering the citizens?

"Nearly all" isnt required.

tommy2bad

ISAW wrote: »

dont be silly! It is either atheist or it isnt. It inst a vague case of "half atheist"
and clerrly the whole discussion if you have as you say been following it went along the lines of Morberts belief that society would be better if it was 100% atheist. I pointed out any society which supported atheism resulted in persecuting religion and that atheism builds nothing. He posted the Russels Teapot cartoon makint the claim, Norway was a grand country but that it was atheist. It isnt. Nor is your recent addition of australia. Japan and China may be or have been but whenever they pressed the principle they made a mess of the country.



I thought you were following the discussion? I explained that atheistic relates to promoting atheism. You know the militant type that want religion gone and clai, christian belief is silly and constantly have a go at creationism as if creationism was a central Christian issue?

Well it might start by getting the church out of educqtion
Or getting the Jews out of business
Ofr censorship like section 31 promoted by the Stickies
The slaughter might take longer
Every long March begins with a single step. - guess who said that ? And guess which people who qre currently senators and TD followed his teachings?



Indeed. But I was not suggesting Hitler was atheist. I was using him as an example of how a dictator can take over even iof he has a minority and does not have to have 100% followers - which was ther very point raised that I was addressing donty you rememlber?



"Nearly all" isn't required.

Theirs a kind of logic to your thinking ISAW but their also a kind of madness.
So it's anti theistic totalitarian regimes you fear and by extension any step from a theistic state is a step in that direction and so must be opposed?
Except that most states fluctuate around some form secularism. And do so without ever showing any sign of extremism. Yet you persist in claiming some fantasy that atheists are trying to usurp religion and establish totalitarian regimes.

Pwpane

ISAW wrote: »

If the governmen,t became 100% atheist I would be suspiscious of them trying to brinbg their personal beliefs to bear on the law or society.

Well said, ISAW, that's the problem that non-believers have with Irish governments heretofore. They brought their personal beliefs to bear on the law and society, sometimes to the detriment of society. Religious people ever thought they knew better than anyone else.

Some will say, 'what else could they do, that's what they believe?', Others will say 'but they oppressed me while making me conform to wrong beliefs'.

I'm glad you support the position that government should rise above personal beliefs and govern the country to support the people in it.

ISAW

tommy2bad wrote: »

Theirs a kind of logic to your thinking ISAW but their also a kind of madness.

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"

So it's anti theistic totalitarian regimes you fear

Yes . Well oppose not feqr.

and by extension any step from a theistic state is a step in that direction and so must be opposed?

Nope! I dont support authoritarian theistic regimes either the few in history that slaughtered people I also oppose. Ireland isnt a theistic regime. It is a christian country.

Except that most states fluctuate around some form secularism. And do so without ever showing any sign of extremism. Yet you persist in claiming some fantasy that atheists are trying to usurp religion and establish totalitarian regimes.

Aha! the old plague on all their houses ploy!

This one was tried already. It is just a restatement of Morberts "but they were bad because they were totalist" gimmick. If that is true then how co,e not all christian regimes were slaughter regimes but all atheistic ones were?

Is it better to be half decent than just be decent?

Based on every atheistic regimes ever I dont trust atheists who make an issue about opposing church control.

Delirium

ISAW wrote: »

dont be silly! It is either atheist or it isnt. It inst a vague case of "half atheist"

Yourself and Morbert are still discussing the topic, what's wrong with me examining what the two of you say before giving my opinion on the matter?

and clerrly the whole discussion if you have as you say been following it went along the lines of Morberts belief that society would be better if it was 100% atheist.

I haven't seen Morbert make such a statement. Morbert seems to be in favour of a pluralist society from what I've read.

I pointed out any society which supported atheism resulted in persecuting religion and that atheism builds nothing. He posted the Russels Teapot cartoon makint the claim, Norway was a grand country but that it was atheist. It isnt. Nor is your recent addition of australia. Japan and China may be or have been but whenever they pressed the principle they made a mess of the country.

Again, I never said that Australia was an atheist country. I inserted Australia into the discussion in the hope of getting a better understanding of where you were coming from with regards to what an atheist state is.

And you've said yourself that even if Norway had 90% atheist population, that unless the government was 100% atheist, it wouldn't meet your definition of an atheist state.

I thought you were following the discussion? I explained that atheistic relates to promoting atheism. You know the militant type that want religion gone and clai,

That's anti-theism, not atheism.

christian belief is silly and constantly have a go at creationism as if creationism was a central Christian issue?

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).

Well it might start by getting the church out of educqtion
Or getting the Jews out of business
Ofr censorship like section 31 promoted by the Stickies
The slaughter might take longer
Every long March begins with a single step. - guess who said that ? And guess which people who qre currently senators and TD followed his teachings?

So secularism is the beginnings of anti-theism?

Indeed. But I was not suggesting Hitler was atheist. I was using him as an example of how a dictator can take over even iof he has a minority and does not have to have 100% followers - which was ther very point raised that I was addressing donty you rememlber?

Well I think most people would agree that dictatorships aren't a good idea.

"Nearly all" isnt required.

Thanks for the clarification.

Morbert

Yourself and Morbert are still discussing the topic, what's wrong with me examining what the two of you say before giving my opinion on the matter?

Actually, ISAW has stopped responding to me. It became a typical game of whack-a-mole, where ISAW would say something ridiculously silly, I would address it, then ISAW would say the exact same silly thing, and I would address it again.

ISAW

koth wrote: »

Yourself and Morbert are still discussing the topic, what's wrong with me examining what the two of you say before giving my opinion on the matter?

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?

I haven't seen Morbert make such a statement. Morbert seems to be in favour of a pluralist society from what I've read.

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.

Again, I never said that Australia was an atheist country. I inserted Australia into the discussion in the hope of getting a better understanding of where you were coming from with regards to what an atheist state is.

Australia or Norway are not atheistic nor are they 70 per cent atheist except in cartoons.

And you've said yourself that even if Norway had 90% atheist population, that unless the government was 100% atheist, it wouldn't meet your definition of an atheist state.

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.

That's anti-theism, not atheism.

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?

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).

An element of the atheist community do because they think Christianity is US fundamentalism. They are such an easy target.

So secularism is the beginnings of anti-theism?

You must be because i dont recall stating secularism is the beginnings of anti-theism.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

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.

"Yes, but only insofar as I consider atheism to be true. It is certainly not an ethical or socio-economic foundation. I wouldn't expect it to be. Furthermore, if we lived in a secular pluralist society consisting of 90% Christians (the non nut-job variety), I would be perfectly happy, and be content to only promote atheism through rational discourse."

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Actually, ISAW has stopped responding to me. It became a typical game of whack-a-mole, where ISAW would say something ridiculously silly, I would address it, then ISAW would say the exact same silly thing, and I would address it again.

Norway is not an atheist country as you claimed.
It is not 70% atheist except in your cartoon based imagination.
You went to one of the standard atheist argumen,ts about "atheist" countries and you were hammered for it.
You are still in denial.
Norway is not a atheist country. Is it a democracy linked to the christian church and developed on christian values for the last 1000 years.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

"Yes, but only insofar as I consider atheism to be true. It is certainly not an ethical or socio-economic foundation. I wouldn't expect it to be. Furthermore, if we lived in a secular pluralist society consisting of 90% Christians (the non nut-job variety), I would be perfectly happy, and be content to only promote atheism through rational discourse."

As the people of Poland and Ireland are happy to do. Apparently you think Ireland Poland and Norway and the UK are not christian at all. so if you were in the UK or Norway you would not campaign to remove the church from the Monarchy? and you would prefer if they were not there as head of church and state but you would do nothing about it except talk about it.
If so we have nothing to fear from all talk no action atheists but sadly this isnt the record of atheistic regimes or those who considered godlessness as a better way.

And Ill say it again. How come nut job atheist ie ALL of them regimes were so much worse than the rare few nut job christian ones?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Norway is not an atheist country as you claimed.
It is not 70% atheist except in your cartoon based imagination.
You went to one of the standard atheist argumen,ts about "atheist" countries and you were hammered for it.
You are still in denial.
Norway is not a atheist country. Is it a democracy linked to the christian church and developed on christian values for the last 1000 years.

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?

As the people of Poland and Ireland are happy to do. Apparently you think Ireland Poland and Norway and the UK are not christian at all. so if you were in the UK or Norway you would not campaign to remove the church from the Monarchy? and you would prefer if they were not there as head of church and state but you would do nothing about it except talk about it.
If so we have nothing to fear from all talk no action atheists but sadly this isnt the record of atheistic regimes or those who considered godlessness as a better way.

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. 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.

And Ill say it again. How come nut job atheist ie ALL of them regimes were so much worse than the rare few nut job christian ones?

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.