Topic: State Atheism - page 5. (Read 6801 times)

You've made your point many time over.

Everyone knows zolace will never accept facts or "obvious conclusions" that prove him wrong. zolace has never been correct in anything he posts, and proving him wrong has never stopped him for posting garbage in a lame attempt to avoid the fact that he is wrong.
he is way beyond foolish pride, or stubborn, out-right pig-headedness.  He's just plain stupid.

I'm seeing to what lengths zolace will go to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion that people don't need religion whatsoever to have good morals, be happy, love their families, lead productive lives, love, etc etc etc. 

That article, and everything else I have posted, absolutly support my position that religion is not a requirement for morality or happiness or social cohesion or anything.  I have explained it to you in great detail how the article and all the information I have posted supports my position.  The survey conducted as part of that article, as well as many many others, shows us these countries are happy safe places with a lot of social values, cohesiveness, low crime and good morals.  Other surveys show us they are the places on the planet with the fewest believers, fewest churchgoers, and highest population who have no use for religion in their lives.

208 posts and for the first time....you make a conclusive statement.  This is the first time you say my link does not support my position.  You actually made a conclusive statement.  WOW I'm surprised.  You didn't defend your statement of course, that would mean you would have to answer my questions.  You just made a statement in the complete absence of any defense.  So perhaps I should not get too excited.

You only have to do that one time to make a point. Anything more is just redundant.
 zolace is morally reprehensible; has no intellectual or moral credibility. He is basically dishonest to the point of telling out-right lies on behalf of other liars to support his views. zolace makes himself willfully blind/refuses to acknowledge facts/data that do not fit his paranoid/delusional state of mind.


I do hold both you and zolace guilty of wasting bandwidth space.

None of the links actually support your position regarding the relationship of Norway and happiness with atheism - and we can review each and then altogether - but right now, we are dealing with the first link.

So, the questions you have, etc - are based on assumptions you have made that have not been validated. Now, what I am hoping here is all this is not due to dishonesty on your part, but just plain sloppiness.

But lets verify - this link by itself does not support your position, correct?  That atheism is a factor in the happiness found among Norwegians?

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

Have I or have I not at least acknowledged that you are asking me a question (repeatedly) and I have repeatedly attempted to answer it even if not to your satisfaction?

How about acknowledging my questions or even....crazy thought.....answering them?  Pretending they aren't there will not make them go away.

Im going to press you on this as long as you have the balls to come back here and pretend I have not answered you while ignoring me altogether.

umair is correct in everything you have thus far provided thus far.....which is absolutely nothing.   However, I dont view my actions as enabling you, I view them as continually exposing you.

Clearly, when you posted that link, that was the only link you posted in defense of your position.  So, clearly at that time (post 125) you posted that link as if THAT LINK supported your position.

And it clearly does not. If in fact you were to c&p from that link any info it has from Norway, would it prove your position?  Or show otherwise?

If you have a point to make about state atheism , what is it?  Is your point that state atheism makes the state a bad place?  Or that atheists are bad?  What is your point?

Secondly, if your point is that atheists are "bad"  or in some ways are "lesser" or "amoral" or whatever, then why are they not so in the countries I've mentioned and how can those countries be so successful, happy, safe, productive and socially cohesive places in the absence of religion? Is it your position that people can be moral, happy, socially cohesive and decent without religion and for other reasons? Or is it your position they are not happy, cohesive, free, safe, moral etc as the data indicate?

What is so difficult in these questions for you to not even acknowledge that Ive asked them?
 

Still waiting.  Particularly that it is has been now settled that you have NOT posted anything from that link supporting your position that Norway and happiness and atheism are related somehow.  Just a big leap of faith on your part.

Now, mind you, other links may - but so far, this link does not.  Once you agree with that (or c&p from that link showing otherwise), we can move on.

I will leave it at that - apparently you have your hands full right now over in the political forum.

I copied specific things about Norway that I needed to support my position many times and I have asked you the questions that naturally arise from the data I posted.  Questions you have thus far refused to answer.  If you think the article says something else you are free to say it and defend it.

Now, for the umpteenth time.

If you have a point to make about state atheism , what is it?  Is your point that state atheism makes the state a bad place?  Or that atheists are bad?  What is your point?

Secondly, if your point is that atheists are "bad"  or in some ways or are "lesser" or "amoral" or whatever, then why are they not so in the countries I've mentioned and how can those countries be so successful, happy, safe, productive and socially cohesive places in the absence of religion? Is it your position that people can be moral, happy, socially cohesive and decent without religion and for other reasons? Or is it your position they are not happy, cohesive, free, safe, moral etc as the data indicate?

What is so difficult in these questions for you to not even acknowledge that Ive asked them?
 
Have I or have I not at least acknowledged that you are asking me a question (repeatedly) and I have repeatedly attempted to answer it even if not to your satisfaction?

How about acknowledging my questions or even....crazy thought.....answering them?  Pretending they aren't there will not make them go away.

Im going to press you on this as long as you have the balls to come back here and pretend I have not answered you while ignoring me altogether.

umair is correct in everything you have thus far provided thus far.....which is absolutely nothing.   However, I dont view my actions as enabling you, I view them as continually exposing you.

Boy, was thinking I might have to apologize after all.

Then I did some checking of your quotes.

Now, this is what I have been asking, in light of your claim about Norway and happiness and atheism:

First link you used to in your defense was as follows:

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


Now, if you think this link still supports your position on Norway - copy and paste the part that does here from that link. If you have done that before in this thread, you should be able to point to it - especially given you say you have done so 'many times'. Then I will gladly apologize.

What did you give me in post 192?

No problem Ill do it for the 60th time.

"countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity"

"Legatum scores the world’s countries on entrepreneurship, personal freedom, health, economy, social capital, education, safety & security"

"History of social cohesion"

Three quotes. All from the link, yes. Now, when you first posted the link from Forbes, it was post 125. I do not see it prior. I went checking yesterday, since you were not bothering, to see if there were any quotes from THAT link referencing Norway.

So, three quotes above in post 192. Only one of them has been posted before - the 2nd post referencing Legatum above. Posts 146 and 149. The other two quotes were not posted before from what I can see. If you can find them, let us know.

Either way, the 'many times' bit was somewhat of an exaggeration from you, eh? But even more - it does NOT answer my question. Not even close. What does the article specifically say, IN THAT LINK from FORBES you provided, are the reasons for why NORWAY is on the list. Top of the list, in fact. Why are you dragging your feet on this? Copy and paste that from the FORBES link, to show how that LINK supports your position on Norway, atheism and happiness.

Not a commentary - well, you are welcome to include that after. But, copy from the link and paste here - what the article says about Norway specifically. I will even help you with a hint - it could have more than one reference in the article

What is so difficult in these questions for you to not even acknowledge that Ive asked them. Have I or have I not at least acknowledged that you are asking me a question (repeatedly) and I have repeatedly attempted to answer it even if not to your satisfaction.

How about acknowledging my questions or even....crazy thought.....answering it?  Pretending they aren't there will not make them go away.

Actually maybe I should back up.   If you have a point to make about state atheism , what is it?  Is your point that state atheism makes the state a bad place?  Or that atheists are bad?  What is your point?

Secondly, if your point is that atheists are "bad"  or in some ways or are "lesser" or "amoral" or whatever, then why are they not so in the countries I've mentioned and how can those countries be so successful, happy, safe, productive in the absence of religion?

come on zolace....grow some balls and try to respond.

How can a largely areligious and atheistic society have such high morals and do so well working together in social cohesion for the benefit of all in a safe crime-free society with happy people?   How can you explain that?

No problem Ill do it for the 60th time.

"countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity"

"Legatum scores the world’s countries on entrepreneurship, personal freedom, health, economy, social capital, education, safety & security"

"History of social cohesion"


Now pay close attention .  Their peace, their opportunity, their personal freedom, their social capital and social cohesion, their safe crime-free society.......DID NOT COME ABOUT WITH ANY RELATION TO RELIGION BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST ARELIGIOUS PLACE ON THE PLANET AND ALMOST NO ONE GOES TO CHURCH.

Clearly, the lack of religion does not have the effect that you assume.  They are the happiest place around even with no religion.  The lack of religion in a place like North Korea and their horrendous condition is NOT related to religion or a lack thereof.  It is a spurious relationship.

How do you reconcile your insinuated thread premise that an atheistic society is bad and the fact that the most atheistic societies in the world are among the best?

Mark 16:17+     It's sometimes referred to as, The Great Commission, zolace.

All who are baptist/saved the signs will follow you.

You are baptist and 'saved", aren't you, ?  

So please explain why those "signs" don't follow you, or any other Christian?


Before your your single working brain cell  goes into melt-down and  you get your panties in a twist, it's a rhetorical question.

Those signs   have never followed any honest person, much less a Christian.

the classic logical fallacy of "if there is a god and if god cares, then why is there so much trouble in the world?".

It seems the logical thing to ask, but complaining about it will not get you anywhere, why don't you study for answers with an open mind?

Let's see what gods motives are, before we judge him, shall we?

Note: In case English is not your native language, the source i mentioned also provides translations in 100's of languages.

Here are some tings that may interest you, and answer the question you seem to be bothered by. I encourage you to study them with an open mind, as you seem to feel that there could be a god, but you don't seem to believe a loving god could allow all this suffering and injustice in the world. I can guarantee you though, god has a reason, and it's perfectly valid in my eyes.

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/why-god-allows-evil-and-suffering/
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/why-does-god-allow-suffering/
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201107/does-god-care/
http://www.jw.org/en/video-why-study-the-bible/

As I await rigon to back up his claim here, I await you, umair, to back up yours.Am I sure both of you will continue to make excuses.

believing in god does not make you immune to natural disasters, that's not how it works, that's not how any of this works.