Topic: State Atheism - page 4. (Read 6801 times)

This is the part where you provide evidence to the counter and attempt to state your case which you have not yet done.  This is your thread no?   Do you have a point?

You have responded with....well........nothing but denial and continued requests for me to make a different case from one link about Norway apparently.  I don't have a different case Tomas.  You are wrong, I have showed you evidence.  Evidence that refutes your position.

This is really quite unbelievable.  I think you are absolutely in an alternate reality.   He can sit there and claim I have only shown one little link with a few words to make my case.  It is all he has been able to discuss for 6 pages.  What about that one link ...how does it make your case....THAT ONE LINK...HERE IT IS AGAIN....WHAT ABOUT THE ONE LINK?  I proceed to show him multiple sources of surveys indicating the well being of people in MANY more nations than just Norway.  I provided data regarding the religious views of Norway and other nations included in my case.  I provided data on their lower crime rates and the crime rates of other nations with less importance placed on religion.  I provided data on atheists in prison and their very very low rate of incarceration compared to religious people. I provided way more than a single data source about happiness in one country to make the case that atheism doesn't make people bad.  Atheism is not the reason for poor behavior.

No.  I presented multiple pieces of information on Norways happiness.  How they rate high in numerous surveys and every year...not just one study.  Also other pieces of information on similar countries with similar happiness like Sweden, Denmakr, Astralia, new Zealand.

I presented other pieces of evidence regarding no atheists in prison.

I presented other pieces of evidence of low crime in nations with low religious belief.

I presented the evidence of their lower religious belief.

I presented multiple lines of evidence.,

You are quite simply a liar.   You are trying to have an argument around a single link if that was the entirely of my case.

That is true - I have pointed that out before (though not in those words) when we have discussed the issue of origins.  I really wish you practiced what you preach.


I am not asking for conclusive evidence from the link below for your case - I am asking what pieces of information from that link leads to or contributes to your case.

And you have shown NOTHING really.  The link shows is that Norway is the happiest - but that is one piece of info.  From that same link, you conveniently ignore what else it says about Norway.  The other pieces of information - the other 'islands'.  And apparently intentionally, which is probably why you will not copy and paste such.

No one piece of information is an island unto itself.  You are playing the creationist game.  You would like to discuss one single bone with an unusual result when dated radiometrically instead of considering the mountains of the data surrounding it in every other field of science.

I don't care if that one link all by itself only makes part of my case.Its all the information I presented that makes my case you kinda idiot.

Will you ever have the balls to state your case and acknowledge my questions?

The answer to that is most certainly no.

If you aren't going to ever make a point as to what you are saying here or otherwise continue to refuse to address my position and the questions it raises.....please go

Ok, so that is your case, but you agree that the link I have been asking  you about does not support that case.  If it did you would quote from it.

Fine, we can move onto your next claim.


Btw - several of the points you note above are addressed in that thread below, througout the thread.  I do find how the debate on 'bleakness' going rather interesting.

http://forum2.aimoo.com/FSA/Political-Discussion/Thoughts-on-religion-for-a-Sunday-morning-Part-two-11-1257364.html

That is my case.

This is the part where you say how and why I am wrong.  You could start by finally telling us the point of this thread if not "atheism is bad and makes life bad for people".   I have shown atheists are not bad and atheism does not make life bad for people...and we all already know dictators, whether atheist or religious, are bad.

That is the brief summary of my case. What is yours? Got one?

From the link you are obsessed with, among all the other link and citation I provided, I have demonstrated the following that is counter to your position that atheism makes people bad:

1) Atheists are under-represented in the prison population by a factor of more than 10 relative to their numbers in society.  Apparently, being atheist doesn't make you commit crime at any greater rate than anyone else.

2)  Many nations place far less importance on religion than the US.  Germany actually ranked highest with 80% responding religion is unimportant.  Many societies with far greater percentages of atheists (statistically significant) including Norway with 3 times more atheists per capita than the US, has low crime and a far safer society.  Having more atheists has not made them worse as your point in this thread would have people believe, in fact, they are better off by many measures. So again, there is no evidence that being atheist makes people commit crime at a higher rate.   
         
3) Many societies with far greater percentages of atheists have perrenially been found to be happy, satisfied, and socially cohesive communities compared with other more religious places in the world.   Only 13% of people attend church once a month or more in Norway.   Having fewer religious people and more atheists has not made them worse in any way as your point in this thread would seem to indicate.  No evidence atheism makes people gloomy or hopeless.

4) Atheist people are not the factor that makes the nations you list "bad" places.  They are bad places run by dictators who don't want their people to worship anyone but themselves.  Dictators, whether religious or atheist, are bad. Atheism is a side show to the real cause, crazy power hungry dictators.

I made my case.

You didn't like my case.

This is the part where you say why my case is wrong, not continue to ask me to make my case again simply because you didn't like it.  Any fool reading this can see I made my case whether they agree with it or not.  Any fool reading this can see you are dodging the logical questions that arise as PART OF MY CASE THAT I ALREADY MADE.

You are claiming that state atheism is bad...we assume.  We can also only assume you feel atheism is what makes the people bad since you will not actually state your point, although asked repeatedly for 8 pages now.  This is your thread and you wont even state your point.  LOL

In any event, assuming that you think atheism makes people bad, my case was quite thorough.

No, you have not made your case.  Not at all.  And clearly, you do not wish to be questioned on it.

You can't even admit that the link below does provide any backing for you - you have posted nothing from it that even mentions Norway.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

How much sillier can that get?

Look, you are embracing emotion over logic on this - and frankly, we are in an impasse as long as you continue that.

My claim is substantiated by the preponderance of the evidence I presented .  Atheists are not bad.  They don't need religion to be happy healthy prosperous and decent people.  Atheism doesn't make people bad.    I presented plenty of data.  Atheists are underrepresented in prisons.  Places where there are many of them have low crime and happiness and lots of social cohesion.

I have substantiated my claims.  You haven't even made a claim.  One of my questions is:  What is your claim?  Is it that atheism is bad?   Your only answer in over 200 posts was "it doesn't have a good track record".    Well, according to my data I presented in the CLAIM I substantiated, it does.  These are the questions you wont answer.

Look at the mental gymnastics you go through to avoid them?

I have a case .  I made my case.  You may disagree with it.  You clearly have no intention to respond to the case I made.   But I made a case.  Everyone can see I made a case whether they agree with it or not.

In a debate with grown-ups, this is the part where it is your turn to tell me what is wrong with the case I already made.  Not to simply say "try again until you provide an answer that satisfies me" 

In other words, you want to argue over how best to put up the roof, when you refuse to see that you have mislaid the foundation, and refuse to even consider that you have mislaid it. 

You have no choice, because you have no case, you know this, and you are not honest enough to admit it.  Lets face it - how hard would it be for someone who makes a claim about a link, to provide an except from that link to support that claim?  Or at least admit he was mistaken?

But to then to demand answers to questions about that claim, assuming that the claim is true, without willing to have that claim examined to begin with?  Unsupported claims you have been making since page 1.  Substantiate them first, and then it is logical to follow up with any questions you have based on those claims.   Or, you can continue to eschew logic.

Now - till you actually show what from those links you 'think' supports your contention, rigon, what is there to respond to?  So far, nothing from that first link supports your position.   Your questions are based on your thinking those links support your case - yet they do not.  This is where your confusion lies.  There is no point dealing with questions that are based on falsehoods, on false assumptions on your part.

So, if you want to see why this is so, well, you need to paste what sections of those links you think do support it.  So far, what you have pasted from this link below does not support your position - in fact, nothing you posted from this link even mentions Norway, ironically enough.  Admit that, or paste something to support your case, and we can move on to your next piece of 'evidence'.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

Again, the bottom line is (and has been) - you have not demonstrated any connection between the happiness of Norwegians, and atheism.  If anything, Norwegians may have scored higher if there was less atheism.
In fact, a very good point was brought up on the 'Thoughts on Religion....' thread - that probably underlines that point.  But if you did not get it there, you may not get it here. 

Ill make a deal with you zolace.   I promise that I will continue to ignore your posts entirely as I have been doing until you respond with answers to my questions you have avoided from Page 1.  I also promise I will not keep asking questions that you have answered simply because I don't agree with your answers.

Perhaps what you don't see that you are making a fool of yourself in the process by continuing to enable him. Almost like making cruel fun of the mentally/intellectually challenged.
It's beneath you.

You are correct of course.  He is maddeningly ignorant and willfully chooses his ignorance. It is simply amazing how long he persists in pretending my statements and questions don't exist.