Bitcoin Forum

Got curious and was checking out China's position on religion.

Came across this article on State Atheism.  Rather interesting - rather like a State Church, like was common in Europe.  And, at least by definition, not the same as a secular state.

Examples of such were/are the communist states, Revolutionary France and Revolutionary Mexico.  The article goes into detail on each such country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice. In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. State atheism may refer to a government's anti-clericalism, which opposes religious institutional power and influence in all aspects of public and political life, including the involvement of religion in the everyday life of the citizen.

If I had to choose between a Theocracy or State atheism I would pick the latter every time.

Historically, what examples of a Theocracy are you referencing, out of curiosity?Kind of hard to compare and discuss your point, unless you have some specific examples in mind.

There are a few Atheist churches in the world. .  where people congregate for service. .

Although no matter what one believes about theology, including the origins of man, there are still difficult questions, atheism does not do a good job either recognizing the existence and nature of evil, or explaining its origin.

A theocracy is a theocracy is a theocracy. All the same and all bad. A government free of state religion but allowing people to worship their Gods is perfect. If only theists would be happy with such abundance.

Well, surprise surprise... Atheism in it's weak form is a good thing (in my opinion). But many atheists are not a single bit 'better' or open minded than the most religious nutjobs. If you are running around and tell people that their religion is wrong and they shouldn't force their believe on others, well go figure what you're doing yourself!

But the subject was state atheism, and you made a claim - and interestingly, you have not given any examples.

And mind you, not saying there is not any worse than the examples in the OP.  Not all theocracies are based on the same god, for example.

Just off hand, I myself cannot think of any.

Historically, what examples of a Theocracy are you referencing, out of curiosity?any of them.   No point in discussing.  All bad.  End of discussion.

Somalia, Sudan, Iran, the list goes on....try building a church in one of those places Tomas.  I help fund you to go there and see how much better they are than China when you go to promote christianity.

Actually, upon further though, I can think of examples that were better than those given for state atheism.But again, off hand, cannot think of any that were worse - if you think of any, please do post them here.

A theocracy may not be "worse" than a state atheism, but, the problem is, that in a theocracy the common people will suffer more at each other's hands than they do under state atheism. State atheism, once it has weeded out the clerical type, doesn't need to foment hatred. But a theocracy, in order to maintain power, must ALWAYS foment hatred against those who are different than the ruling religion, and moreover must push constant memes of intolerance and hatred to maintain the support of the populace.

Atheists generally don't go hating on religious. They may feel contempt for them, or pity, but not hatred. But religions hate each other, and killing in the name of a god justifies any behavior.

And I have not seen any benign examples of state atheism offered either.  Now, the comment about atheists don't go hating on religious - whether that is true of individuals, when given the power of the state as in the above examples, we see a different story.

It is really a shame you don't read what all goes on before posting.  Particularly with a short thread like this.  Do you really think I am questioning whether there are/were any theocracies as bad as the examples of state atheistic states? 

And if youre looking for a bad example of a chrisitan theocracy....they abounded in the past.  Luckily we got rid of them because they involved way too much lopping off of heads and torture in the name of God.  The Vatican is the last christian theocracy standing....and we dont allow them to have knights any more.

I think State Atheism as as bad as an idea as a State Religion. It's always about forcing people into believing something, or actively not believing something - in the case of Atheism. But what remains is that the state dictates what has to be believed. And I think that is a wrong thing to do!

By the way - bad as they are, not sure one can say they are much worse than some of the examples given for atheistic states.  And, not all Moslem theocracies have been as bad (maybe none today). 
Now, the Vatican - their history is at times nothing to write home to mother about and brag - but lets face it - they are certainly not currently as bad as any of the examples of the atheistic states.   But their power has been reduced a lot, politically.   Interestingly, a lot of their abuse comes from an interpretation of Matt 16 that is a bit off base (to say the least). 

zolace,you can only think of one or two "aetheistic" governments and you come up with N Korea and China.....and the only reason NK is aetheistic is because they are a total dictatorship.  A dictator can only have one god, himself.   So your point isnt even about aetheistic government versus nonaetheistic. It is dictatorship versus theistic.   If you want a fair representative of a nondictatorship where the country is areligious.....look at Norway, denmark, sweden....you know, the happiest places on earth with the highest quality of living.   I think we must conclude that aetheism is the best given these data...no?????     They have the lowest percentage of people on earth who believe in god and are routinely among the highest quality of living on the planet.

We have examples of bad theocracies - maybe they all were, but that was not shown.  And of course, not all theocracies are the same - they vary different in their theologies.  Or maybe for several, they have their bad times, and their good times.
Can't say any of the atheistic states, or the theocracies you listed, would be a good place to live   What about you?

I read it fine.  That you dont like my responses is not evidence that Im just not reading you well enough.   The examples given certainly were not worse places than theistic states.  When you are in spurious relationship land and religion is your agenda, there is just no stopping you.

I think it is interesting that discussions about religion always de-rail and result in heated discussions. I guess there's something about religion that gets people going... They feel personally insulted, I guess.

Admittedly, it is harder to discuss this with someone who (intentionally or not) does not read the OP well.

Several atheistic governments were mentioned in the OP article.  And, there is a difference between secular government and atheistic government.  At least per the link.

All states are states of mind. Go to the boundary between any two States in the United States. If there doesn't happen to be any natural divide, like a canyon, or a river, that mark the border between the two States, and if there doesn't happen to be a fence erected by the States, how will anyone know with certainty where the border between the two States lies?

Sometime in the past, a bunch of people got themselves all in a "tizziful" mental state, and decided where the border between the two States was going to exist. Then they measured it out with transits, and wrote the whole thing down in books, so that they would have the record when their memories began to become hazy... when senility or Alzheimer's set in. So, we have the record of their mental state and we call it the border between two States. As time goes by, meanings of words change, so that the clear written records don't quite have the same meanings when we of the present age re-read those written STATEments.

State atheism is simply some writings about what some people believe. Because they believe it, and can't prove it any more than other people might be able to prove some other things that these other people believe, State atheism is a religion, just like State Theocracy is a religion. In a way, anything that people believe, especially if they cannot prove it, is a religious state in the minds of the people who so believe. When the beliefs are written down, and the whole nation adheres to them, they become a State religion. It's all a state of mind.

:)

Like you don't have an agenda, LOL.

So, the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?
the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

My agenda is to look at people who are athieists fairly. My agenda is to be objective, unlike you. 

 Saying a dictatorship is based in atheism is dishonest.  Its based in power and not religion.  There are plenty of places with little or no religious belief (probably less than N. Korea) such as Norway, Denmark, etc.  These are countries that are full of nonbelievers and routinely the places on earth with the highest quality of life.

The conclusion you seek is not supported by the data.  Dictatorships prefer state atheism not because the people don't believe in God, but because the dictator needs to be god and he cant have the competition.   Google "spurious relationship" and you will see what you are about.

People that don't believe in God are often quite happy, healthy and gentle people.  Look anywhere in Scandanavia, the place with the lowest belief in God on earth. Look for the best places to live, highest quality of life, most satisfaction with life etc. and you will find those nations leading the polls. This does not support any premise that atheism leads to despotism. Dictatorships lead to despotism...the stance on religion of the state is a spurious relationship.

Well, all that seems a bit weak, but, regardless, did not address at all this question (that I asked to address something you had posted earlier):

the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

That's it...all that seems a bit weak?  That's all you've got?

North Korea didn't become North Korea because they decided to be atheists.  North Korea (the dictatorship) decided that they should worship the dictator more than god.  So the state atheism has no bearing on who they are as a country, its part of the symptom of who they are under a dictator not the cause.  Spurious relationship.  Not weak.  painfully obvious to most idiots but yourself.  Its even more obvious when you consider other data such as nations that are made up of atheist people (hard data exists....not weak) are generally happy and have a higher quality of life than even us. You can lamely call it weak without any rationale, or you can do some research on the rate of belief in god in scandanavia and their quality of life.  Clearly, state atheism isn't what causes a north Korean situation....it is a result.  A god-like dictator existed first....then religion had to go because it was in conflict with dictator-worship.  Atheism itself has nothing to do with Korea's status.

That's nice.  Of course, does not answer or address this simple question:the article linked in the OP differentiates between atheistic and secular states, correct?

zolace......why do you keep asking that question?  I assume you think it has relevance, but all it tells me is that you completely missed the point.  Do you think that by defining "state atheism" this means it cannot be a spurious relationship with poor behavior as I have described    You can define state atheism all you want.  In fact the definition in the OP is accurate.  A state that promotes atheism.  So the fuck what?  I know where you think you are going.  When you have atheism then you have bad stuff.  That is total bullshit.  I have proven that to you.   It is not because all the people don't believe in god, its because the dictator doesn't want them to worship anyone but himself.  Hence, it is not a state full of atheists that results in poor behaviors, it is the dictator. I have also shown that the regions on earth with the lowest belief in god have the highest quality of life, proving the spurious relationship N. Korea.

Google "spurious" zolace.

zolace believes that EVERYONE must have mindless devotion/"faith" in whatever is presented to him, or he will go to Hell, or be killed by a dictator.   Similar to the people of NORTH Korea....

zolace exists in the "North Korea" in his mind.

Actually,you have proved nothing.  The states noted in the OP link were atheistic states.

Now, do you have a link describing the nations you refer to as atheistic?  Not secular, but atheistic?  Having alot of atheists in a secular state is not the same as having an atheistic state.

Do you have any links to any nation-state claiming to be "atheist"?There are no nations/states on the planet Earth claiming "atheism" in any way shape or form !

zolace has yet again fallen under his own sword.....

zolace has confused "Anti-Religion" as "atheism"..

zolace doesn't know his ass from his elbow about "religion"; ergo, zolace wouldn't know his right nut from his left about "Atheism".

Float zolace in a deep pond with a rock zolace would not let go of the rock that is dragging him down.

Odd request, given the link in the OP.  Feel free to read it.

The OP link is the issue.

If I wanted to debate the person who posted the wiki link, I have no problem with it.

The more local problem is with the idiot who posted the wiki link in this forum.

  You post the words/beliefs of others and somehow believe YOU are intellectually sound.

You are not capable of original though. You are a brainwashed fool who believes repeating the beliefs of other people somehow makes you likable.

Can you honestly say that you are any different from someone living in North Korea who MUST ON PAIN OF DEATH, declare Kim Jong Un is "God"?

You spend a lot of bandwidth posting the words of other people,  but are you actually capable of HEARING what you are saying?

Wow - that was quite a dishonest response. Try that on the main board, and see how far you get with that.

You do realize that you descend to this type of behavior when you cannot defend your position.  That is your MO.

Would you like me to assist you?  Take up both sides of the Argument here?

Having alot of atheists in a secular state is not the same as having an atheistic state.  This is true because an atheist state has nothing to do with atheism.  Having a lot of atheists in a secular state speaks to the allegation that atheism leads to badness as is no doubt your point.  In these nations full of atheists hey must have no morals, high crime, etc etc.  Right ??   Isn't that your point here?  People that promote atheism are bad???

Your logic is flawed from the onset.  I have been trying to tell you this and yet you persist in trying to make a point that does not exist.

zolace is on a "mission" to somehow convince others that people who are not brainwashed supistitious belivers in his version of a "creator", are bad people.

I realize this is a sensitive area for you two, but do try reading the article itself, and to address the points there, rather than just assume as you both are doing.

Do you have a point to make about atheism? Youre 40 posts into this thing and you have yet to allude to your point.

Do keep in mind that Wiki (for whatever flaws) has a better track record than you.

Now, if you would like to provide a link, and an excerpt from that link, that supports your position, please do so.  In fact, I am sure it is doable - but, given your track record, we need more than you simply objecting to the article.

Or (heaven forbid) - you actually read the article linked to in the OP.

Do you have a point to make about atheism? You're 45 posts into this thing and no closer to alluding to any salient point. What is it that you believe you are getting at?

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government

There are no countries that activlty/OFFICIALLY promote atheism in leiu of any recognized religion.

The USA allows people to practice atheism. Is that an example of, "state atheism"?

Interesting revelation that begets some questions - but, putting that aside, in all seriousness, I would like to see you posting more on the main board.

Dictatorships have a bad track record, not atheism.  That there are only several among the many bad dictatorships that are atheist, clearly the reason dictatorships are bad is not because of the atheism.  The atheism is a sidebar to the dictator who only wants people to worship him.  The people still believe in their religion just as much as other places......except scandanavia where few people believe in god and they have wonderful quality of life.  So atheism is unrelated to the "track record" of human abuses or the quality of life in a nation.

If god is love (all, positivity, infinity, consciousness), and you don't believe in god, what do you believe in?

 Again, simply calling it spurious does not make it so.  Maybe it is - maybe calling a government a theocracy is done spuriously also (as is often the case with the left on the main board).

But, the link in the OP for now carries more authority than you making some proclamation.    Read again the definition in the OP.

Which is not the same as having a secular government that happens to have a higher than average atheist population.

Atheism is a religion. Why? The atheist doesn't know for a fact that there is not God. He has to believe it, just like the religious person has to believe that there is a God.

When you put the info of science all together, you can see that this universe is way too complicated to even think about coming together by something called random chance ("random" is something that scientists have to postulate all kinds of theories about just to imagine that it might exist). Somebody Who is an extremely complicated and powerful God must have made it.

Science has shown us - even though many scientists won't admit it - that there must be a God. The reason that the scientists don't express it out in the open is because of political science - a science where you keep saying something over and over until people start believing it. The politicians behind the scientists keep on spouting atheistic garbage, because it helps them to make money. Say that there is no God enough, and some people will start to believe it.

Look at the evidence around you for the truth.

:)

you have no clue what you are talking about. There is flaws in every idea you proposed. Atheist dont have to believe shit. Do you believe in Batman? If not, than that is your Religion, because you have to believe there is no Bruce wayne, right? You are Abatmanist.

God had to be more complicated than universe in first place. Everything around us contradicts concept of GOD. Literally. You have no clue about science and its methods. You just  blindly believe in fairytale, if you were born in IRAN you would be muslim. You are afraid to look in the eyes of truth, man.

our brains are not able to grasp concepts that regards period before existence of matter, or time or space. It is useless to made up stories to have answers for what we answers cant really have. It is stupid like primitive tribe believeng in mother nature and god of thunder.

You do have to believe in something, Im afraid.  Belief formulates your existence.  Believe you see something, you see it.  Believe in a thought, you have it.  Believe in a feeling, you feel it.  Believe in negativity, you manifest limitations.

You have freewill to believe in positivity, infinity and intelligence just as you have freewill to believe in negativity, fear and reaction.  Which ever you believe in, it's still a belief.

If you dont want to be bound to a religion, find spirituality.  Religion is the belief of other people's experiences and spirituality is having your own.  A wise man said that.

I have not "simply called it spurious" you fucking retarded asswipe, I have provided evidence that it is in fact spurious.
 

The evidence is clear:

1)  Most dictatorships with poor human rights records are not state sanctioned athiest governments.  Most throughout history are theistic monarchies....dictatorships with religion.
2)  Most nations with the highest number of athiests are peaceful places with the lowest crime and highest quality of life indices on the planet....see anywhere in Scandanavia.

I am not "saying so" you , I am presenting the factual data that makes it so.  Atheism does not lead to abuse....dictatorships lead to abuse. There is no evidence that athiesm leads to poor behavior. If you have any we are happy to look at it.....wait, let me guess, you will reference the OP. 

And around we go.........

Apparently a reading issue. Let me repost from the article (that which only wishful thinking has refuted).  Your #2 falls under the secular state.

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

In contrast, a secular state purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

In my opinion everyone should just believe what they want to, as long as they're not hurting anyone or impeding anyone else. A state should therefore never dictate what (religion) to believe. Atheism in this case is quite similar to a religion!

That's fine.....Scandinavian countries are secular and not atheist, they are just full of atheist people.  Which is evidence that your entire premise of atheism = bad is incorrect .

From everything that has been presented all anyone can conclude is that N. Korea is bad, but not because of atheism.  The fact that most dictatorships have not historically been atheist and still they are ALL BAD ought to have clued you in to your failed premise from the get-go.....but of course you are single-minded moron who  cannot see anything but your own version of religious insanity.

Well, of course, atheism is bad theology.  If Jesus is who He is, that would logically follow for those who take Him at this word.

But, premise in this thread?  No, simply that, there are no examples of the below (from the article) that anyone would want to emulate.  Not referring to secular societies and what mix and match they have (and what comes of that, in the short haul or long haul).

State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, sometimes combined with active suppression of religious freedom and practice.

..you said atheism it has a bad track record.   What has a bad track record is dictatorships and not atheism.  Your alleged relationship is spurious.

 Dictatorships have a bad track record, not just dictatorships that are athiest states, but ALL dictatorships.   It is not atheism that makes N. Korea bad....it is the dictator.  As I said many times and your pea-sized brain cannot comprehend...most dictatorships throughout history have NOT been atheist....and they were ALL bad.  So if one dictatorship promotes atheism, you concludes it must be the atheism that made them bad, and not the fact that all dictatorships throughout history have been bad, even when they ere fine with religion and full of religious people.    As further evidence you are a moron, nations full of atheists are routinely the best safest cleanest places to live on earth.

I have proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you are wrong.  As usual.

You can try and redefine things if it makes you feel better.

But, the premise is based on the article - in the context of this thread, atheism has a bad track record when promoted by governments.  But frankly, outside of government, not sure one can argue it has a good track record anyway.  But I was replying in light of the OP.

I didn't redefine anything .  I pointed out the spurious relationship that you are promoting and I proved it with evidence.  Your premise is that state atheism is bad.  The data clearly show that dictators are bad, whether they promote atheism or not.....so atheism has  to do with it.   My turtle could see this logic clearly.

Actually, you believe the data does that.  As we have seen before, you tend to twist things based on your personal convictions.  You have not shown that all dictators are bad, for example.  And then you try to prove your case using secular societies, which are not the same, as noted by the article.

Look ....with your indoctrinated mush of a brain, you are ALWAYS going to believe atheism is bad.  That's fine.  But when you dishonestly try to associate it with anything else bad you will be made a fool.......as always.   Atheism in and of itself does not result in bad behavior.  The evidence is clear.  The lowest crime rate of any nation on earth happens in a country with the most atheists.  Only 18% of people in Sweden believe there is a god.  This must clearly be a hellhole of a lawless nation ....no???   They have the lowest incarceration rate in the world and have the lowest assault rate in the world, five times lower than the US, a nation of good Christian believers.

Which, by the way - your disgreement is with the article itself - and your means of doing so is by disagreeing with their definition.  Nevertheless, every state that they list that has promoted atheism - none of them are anything to write home to Ma about.

I could, and probably should, be arguing that nations full of atheists are the safest and best places on earth.  Because the data say they are.  Norway, Sweden, Denmark........full of non-believers and the highest quality of life indices on the planet.

I am not arguing it is better because that would be pointless with an idiot like you.  I am only saying that you are full of shit and there is no relation between atheism and bad behavior.  I would think from the evidence that even a turtle could understand that atheism itself is not the cause of N. Korea's poor record.

Atheism is too extreme, man. I don't believe in a god either, but atheists are just buzzkills most of the time, man. They try to force their view on everyone else, this is just what religious people are doing all along! This ain't a good thing, man!

Atheism is a confounding variable.  The dependent variable is the dictatorship.  Atheism flowed from that, not the other way around.  The dictator merely wanted himself to the center of worship; hence, it is the dictator that is evil...not atheism.  This is called a spurious relationship.   Since you have never googled the word despite my many requests, it is a correlation that is not supported by causation. In other words, atheist nations are correlated with bad behavior. Is it the atheism that caused it?  Since the only nations that have ever been atheist are dictatorships, and ALL dictatorships are bad......we CANNOT conclude that atheism had ANYTHING to do with it....especially since other nations full of atheists have no such human rights issues.   Spurious relationship.

Apparently that article in the OP makes you uncomfortable.  You keep mixing up states that promote atheism with states that are secular.

So, lets ask this:

1.Do you think all dictators are evil?

2.Would you consider kings/queens types of dictators in any way?

3.Does atheism offer hope to people in any way?

You misunderstand almost completely.

This life is only for, maybe, a hundred years, but usually less. Following is eternity after the resurrection. Your proper belief in God in this life determines where you will spend eternity - a life of love and complete fulfillment with God in Heaven, or a life of continual dying in pain and agony in Hell.

One of the greatest reasons that atheists often have a good life is, the Devil has them already. He doesn't have to work at making their life miserable so that they turn away from God. Rather, he can spend his energies where they are needed, turning God fearing people away from God by making their life miserable.

The Devil is an enemy of God. He has lost the ages-old war with God. The mopping up is being done. His last stronghold is on earth. And he is using it to take down as many people of God as he can before the end finally comes, where he is tossed into the Lake of Fire, which is the dissolution of this whole universe into its component parts so that God can take His energy back, to use on things like the New Heavens and the New Earth.

People happen to be caught up in the middle of the final mopping up. And the reason science can't make heads or tails of what is happening is, they are unwilling to realize that there are such things as the Devil and God. They ignore most of the Reality Equation. The Devil wants it this way because, as the old saying goes, misery loves company. So, he pushes people every way that he can to make them deny God and become atheists, so they can't believe in God and be saved. It gives him more company.

What matters it to me whether or not anyone believes in God and is saved? It doesn't hurt me at all! But if you ARE an atheist, and you don't turn and look at the reality of God and the Devil during this life, when the truth is finally revealed to you in the resurrection, it will be too late for you to believe in God and be saved. You will find yourself thrown into the Lake of Fire along with the Devil and his buddy-angels, to spend eternity being destroyed in pain and anguish.

For your own good, wake up and see that this life was never meant to have anything "bad" happen in it at all. We were never meant to die. Death was brought about by people (Adam and Eve first) following the Devil rather than God, when he (the Devil) was thrown to earth during/after the battle for dominance. The Devil lost. God won. Our life here is the final chance a loving God is giving us, to turn to Him, and believe in Him so that we can be saved from the fate that awaits the Devil.

You atheists are completely throwing it away for yourselves.

:)

The op doesn't make me uncomfortable at all.  You are just wrong.  There IS A solid argument that people who are atheists are better people.  Im not making that argument but the data from nations with majority atheists suggests its true.  Im not uncomfortable with anything you say.  Im just telling you that you are wrong.  I'm not debating with you.  Im telling you.   You on the other hand are also not debating...you are demonstrating your stupidity.

It does not make you uncomfortable?  Yet, the below questions were not answered.

Lets try again:


1.Do you think all dictators are evil?

2.Would you consider kings/queens types of dictators in any way?

3.Does atheism offer hope to people in any way?

Elimination of religious dogma that makes people beleve they are born "evil".

How totally fucked-up is it to teach children from DAY ONE that they are born "bad"?

Are you even capable of knowing how fucked-up your religion is?

Why argue on an issue that can never be measured in any way bcos both Atheist and the God fearing will never come to compromise its the basic truth.

You say you are not an atheist - so I ask you:

Why do you believe in things without any evidence for them?

If you say you are simply agnostic - many agnostics are just atheists under the cover.

I'm not agnostic,Zolace. When are you ever going to get that thru your thick skull.

I do not believe anything that has been proved wrong; ie, your religious beliefs.

You are saying you are not an atheist, nor agnostic.

Why don't you come right out and say what you believe?  Theist?  Pantheist?  What?

It doesn't matter what  YOU think I believe. You are the one who continues digging the hole. Your religious beliefs are wrong, and the evidence supports it.

The write up doesn't really hit me but its clean and clear that Atheists will never accept there's a supreme being called GOD Almighty.

My position has always been straight-forward and beyond doubt.You are a believer in superstitious nonsense.  Christianity is equal to belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.
All I need to is to present people like You,as witness...

You can't tell the difference except to claim it's a matter of opinion.

1. Most
2. Some
3. Yes

you though you had a point.  I have already proven beyond any doubt that atheism in an of itself does not lead to bad behavior.  Go to a prison .....interview the violent offenders.   Take a guess at how many are Christian and how many are atheist.


http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/why-atheists-make-85-percent-americas-scientists-and-07-percent-its-prison

Atheists make up 0.07 percent of the prison population....yet they make up 10% of the general population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#North_America

That is statistically significant and any researcher would conclude that atheists are statistically less likely to be arrested for a crime and imprisoned.

Now the proof is complete.  Atheists commit less crime...fact.  Countries with the most atheists have the highest quality of life indices....fact.   Dictatorships are almost always bad and have absolutely nothing to do with atheism....fact.

Now zolace run along and go start another thread about something equally as retarded as this one.

Atheism is a belief also.

There is ONE great area that throws both atheistic belief, and God directed belief, into turmoil. It is the ABSOLUTE fact that has been proven over and over by science, that neither scientists or non-scientists know anything beyond the basics around us. The proof lies in the fact that science has not been able to cause anyone to live more than 100 years or so. God-religion hasn't been able to do this, either.

And if you say, look at how our lifespans have lengthened from that of, say, only 100 years ago, you are misleading yourself. If you look, you will find various peoples around the world, peoples from any past age that we have record of, right up to the present, some who live to ages longer than we, and some who live shorter lives than we.

Science has done little to improve length of life. Why? Because the universe is so extremely complicated that scientific research has a long way to go to even really grasp how life works in detail. And if they finally understand, we don't even know for sure if they WILL be able to extend life. We simply aren't far enough along in knowledge to know for sure. This having been said, what is there to argue about? None of us knows on our own what is really going on in this universe.

The point is? The point is that since we are so limited in our understanding, and evidence seems to be that it will be a long time before enough scientific breakthroughs will be made so that we WILL have enough knowledge to understand anything, we need to look elsewhere for understanding about which religion is more accurate, atheism, State atheism, God, humanism, Emperor as god, whatever.

One thing is clear. People need/want religion. And anybody who thinks that atheism is not a religion, doesn't really realize that his ignorance is so great that he has deluded himself into believing that he knows way more about the operation of the universe and life than anybody actually knows.

Where can we go for more info, since science isn't providing it? Religious writings/books, the writers of which might have written as philosophy, or they might have written under revelation from God Himself. Since scientists don't know it, check out the other writings. The list of religions can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text.

Remember, science does NOT have factual evidence for ages beyond about 4,500 years ago. All scientific expression that talks about the age of the earth beyond 4,500 years ago is guesswork. Why? Because the evidences that might suggest how old something is beyond 4,500 years, can be interpreted in ways other than the generally accepted scientific understanding. For example, the idea that the earth is millions of years old is, at its base, based on entire guesswork, potentially flawed interpretations of the evidence, and the honest scientists even express it this way.

Since science hasn't provided a clearly factual knowledge of the age of the earth, we can tell that they aren't providing factual knowledge about anything beyond that which can be proven right here and now by simple demonstration.

Find the philosophy or religious book that fits the facts. The one that seems strongest to me is the Bible.

Life can be fun. Yet we all have fear of the unknown, at least a little. Examine the religions to find knowledge, because science doesn't really have it. Atheism is a religion because we don't have facts that say that God does NOT exist. Atheists simply base their thinking on belief. Atheism is a religion.

:)

To clarify the 'hope' - how would you 'sell' the idea?  Humans want both truth and hope - but usually hunger for hope more.

And since there is agreement that not all dictators are evil, do we have an example of a dictator promoting atheism that was not evil?

Josef Goebells was Adolph Hilter's closest associate and propaganda minister who said (paraphrased)....

"Keep repeating the lie... eventually the people will believe it's the truth..".

you are probably right.  Noth Korea was a wonderful place before the dictator promoted state atheism.  That was when they plummetted into the despair of human rights abuses. If Kim Jong only he let the people have their religion, then he wouldnt have abused them so much.  Makes perfect sense

The fact other majority atheist  nations have a population with low crime and happy people must be the spurious relationship.  The fact almost none of the 9% of american atheists are in prison can only mean Satan is helping them avoid capture by the godly police....because clearly they are all without morals and abusers of human rights.

Interesting - last question was not addressed.  Last two really.

Now, what you did post on, you are taking issue with the OP.  Not sure still you even understand their point.  But, lets ask this - of the examples the link gives, which ones were dictatorships, and which ones were not?

North Korea dosen't promote Atheism. Kim Ill sung is their God.
If you dont bow down to their dead God you get killed

All of them were essentially dictatorships during whatever brief period of promotion of state atheism.

I'm not sure what questions you refer to .  Atheism offers plenty of hope ......Hope to throw off the yoke of superstition ....hope to no longer be stupid.     In any event, it doesn't have to offer hope....it just is.   The reality is that your bible is a book of fairy tales and folk lure.  The reality is that there is nothing about atheism that makes people bad.  I have proven that.

Zolace,if atheism is bad....how do you explain the happiness of the people and the low crime of the nation with the highest percentage of atheists?

Ready go....start not answering the question now.

Well,  not much on the way of hope, was there.So, basically, neither of you see any evidence for anything beyond that physical realm, correct?

yup

And the only way you can determine what is lie and what is not is to examine the contents and compare them with what is going on around you. As soon as you see somebody censuring your examination, you can bet there are lies involved.

You can't tell what the truth is without making careful examination.

:)

Your people have had more than 2000 years/
You've had a good run, but today people as stupid as you are a dying breed.
Today, and in the future people understand  that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and Jesus are all the same.
Even today,  people know you are a lying sack of shit when you  say Jesus answers your prayers. You can't present anything that supports your beliefs.
Can you give us any good reason to believe that you are not just paranoid/delusional ?

If there are these atheists that are supposedly happy, how come the ones posting on the board here are not?

For all practical purposes,you are an atheist.  If a person talks like an atheist, thinks like an atheist, and poops like an atheist, well....

And no reasonable person would gather from his posts that rigon is happy - but, then, no reasonable person is making such a claim (rigon may not call himself an atheist either, but, see 2nd sentence above).

You all clearly have anger issues.

As I've stated in another post...You are "broken", and it really doesn't matter what labels YOU assign to us. I will not presume to speak for others.

Well, clearly you are blind even towards yourself.  If there is anyone here who  has had several folk point out his issues, it is you, guy.

When you can be honest about yourself, well, then we will see.

I am the happiest person you will ever meet. The life of every party.

Now that we have that cleared up...if atheism is bad....how do you explain the happiness of the people and the low crime of the nation with the highest percentage of atheists?

Ready go....start not answering the question now

Essentially, NOBODY can give anything that supports his/her beliefs, except for ONE vey basic thing. That thing is, EVERYBODY lives by faith. What I mean is, NOBODY knows for a fact what will happen, even in the next second.

We trust, from experience, that life will remain stable for us. But when we examine history and happenings, we see that very often such trust is misplaced.

When Hiroshima was destroyed by the atom bomb, Japanese people simply couldn't believe what had happened. It was beyond their experience. Their natural trust and faith that today would be similar to yesterday was proven faulty.

Now and again we hear about a jogger in his twenties or thirties, who for no apparent reason, simply falls over dead from a heart attack. We ALL live by faith and trust. NONE of us knows what will happen even in the next second (Hiroshim and Nagasaki). The reason that we feel like we know is because there is an inherent, basic stability in the Universe. It makes us FEEL like we know more than we really do.

Examine the Bible in detail. The history recorded therein contains a thread that runs right from the fall into sin, done by Adam and Eve, to the present. That thread is Jesus and the salvation He provides.

The history and philosophy in the Bible will prove to you that the Bible is truth. But you can't dig out the truth if you don't examine it in detail.

:)

PS.  I'm not an atheist.  An atheist strongly believes there is no higher power.  I believe there may be an unknown power involved in the Universe's origins, and we just have no clue what it is and the bible is a fable.

Atheism is a complete lie. The atheist has convinced himself that atheism exists. Yet, because the atheist has nothing that proves atheism is true, any more than any other religious person has anything that proves his religion is true, atheism is simply another religion.

The thing about atheism that is comforting to the atheist is, he knows by his religion that there is no hope. Most of the other religions offer some form of hope. Hope not experienced can leave one wondering about the exact form that the hope will present itself in. Because of this, the people of many of the other religions have turmoil about their future hope.

The atheist feels peaceful, because he knows that when it is all done, that's the end for him. You poor, hopelessly deluded atheists!

:)

My actions only indicate that I think your bible is a fairy tale.  They do not indicate I don't believe in some sort of power in the universe that you or I don't understand.   

Now that we have that cleared up...if atheism is bad....how do you explain the happiness of the people and the low crime of the nation with the highest percentage of atheists?

Ready go....you may start continue not answering the question.

A copy of the Bible book of Isaiah was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Outside of minor changes in the forms of the letters, the "old" Isaiah was virtually the same as the one that is used by the Jews today.

Now what kind of deluded people would copy by hand so accurately, something that was simply a fable? When you copy kids' stories by hand over dozens of generations, they change. Something happened way back at the time of Moses that was so earth-shattering that the people of Israel carry the tradition in their minds and hearts, right down to today.

If the Bible were a fable, it would not exist.

:)

You are not being honest with yourself, guy.  If it was just the Bible you were rejecting, sure.  But, you go way beyond that.

Still have not seen any of these happy atheists you speak of.  Be they living in a secular state, or one that promotes atheism.  I am sure there are some that are happy (they just never come to this board?).  However, more likely to find such happiness in a secular state that one that promotes atheism, apparently.


But the bigger question is - are there any joyful atheists?  Happiness is more externally affected.

Every atheist I have ever met has been joyful.  As an agnostic, I am about as happy a person you will ever meet.  My wife says I make her sick how I sing in the shower every morning no matter what.  You have no evidence atheists are not happy.

The country with the most atheists also has the happiest people.  I already have proven that to you. Norway has ranked 1rst the past five years in a row.   http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

The sad part about most Christians is that you are more or less right. A Christian usually holds some form of false beliefs about Who Jesus is, what He looks like, what He meant by the things He said as recorded in the Bible, and about God, His Father. You, at least, don't hold any false ideas about God, because you acknowledge that you don't know Him.

:)

So, its just here that you are unhappy.  Well, that begets some interesting questions.


Ok, went looking through the link, scanning.  Could find nothing about atheists, let alone happy atheists.

So, with Norway being at the top of the list, and (I assume you are correct on this) them having a larger than usual percentage of atheists in the population, you have assumed that some conclusion can be made from atheists on that, yes?

Did you notice what factors were noted in the article that it said were factors in that rating?

I am not unhappy here.  I love calling you an asshole and a moron.  I am having a blast.  You have some nerve thinking you are capable of telling me how I feel.  I guess I should assume you are very unhappy in here since you are always getting your ass kicked ...no??

In zolace world, the only way to be "happy" is to deliberately make yourself ignorant, suspend all reason and mindlessy believe fairy tales.

You make a good point, in that, zolace is not only unable to prove atheism is "bad", zolace can't provide any reasonable argument that his brand of beliefs are "good".

You can't provide even one shred of proof your "creator" exists.  You just as "atheist" as anyone else, zolace.

True that.  He can look at a thousand surveys saying they are all happy.  I can tell him Im the happiest person alive....but he KNOWS that no one can be truly happy unless they are a braindead indoctrinated fairy tale believer like himself.    There is no communicating with someone whose mind has turned off and tuned out.

Um, just to clarify - no where did I make the premise that atheists are unhappy. Sure, there seem to be none in these forums, but, these forums are hardly indicative of the population at large for any group.

But, I suppose discussing the happiness factor (which is more due to external factors than internal factors) avoids the point the OP makes.

Anyway, seeing no response, let me rephrase what got ignored:


1.Nothing in the link about atheists, let alone happy atheists.  I see no disagreement on that.

2.Norway is listed at the top of the list in the link as far as rated happiness.  No disagreement has been noted on that.

3.Having no religion is not the same as being an atheist - is that the claim?

4.rigon notes that Norway has a higher than average percentage of atheists.  Not sure if he is including non religious with atheists. 

5.Norway does not, as a State, promote atheism.  The OP makes claims about state promoted atheism.   


The unanswered question - what did the article note were factors in Norway achieving that rating?

norway has the highest percenage of atheists ANDS people with no religion and are extremelyt happy.  You have no argument with that.  Therefore,......what the fuck point do you think you ar emaking about atheism promoted by North Korea.  Just state is succintly and clearly.  WQhat is your point about N Korea and their abolishment of the people's religion???

Can you EVER fucking answer a question?

The unanswered question - what did the article note were factors in Norway achieving that rating?  Just paste it below, please.

Do please answer the above - I think I know why you may be hesitating to do so.


But, while on the subject, happen to come across another article where a different nation is ranked #1 - and the ones that follow are also in South America. Happiness is probably hard to quantify.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/worlds-happiest-country-would-you-believe-paraguay-n110981

Paraguay is the happiest country in the world, with 87 percent of residents scoring high on an index of positive emotions, according to the latest Gallup poll on well-being.

Not surprisingly, Syria, suffering through a civil war, is the unhappiest and people there are so badly off they’ve hit a new low, the survey finds.

The ten happiest countries in the world and why were not one of them

http://www.planetizen.com/node/65088
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110125110022AAUPy6Q

Norway tops the list
What's the most prosperous country in the world? Norway. What's it got that the rest of the world doesn't? The biggest bump comes from having the world's highest per capita GDP of $53,000 a year. Norwegians have the second-highest level of satisfaction with their standards of living: 95 percent say they are satisfied with the freedom to choose the direction of their lives; an unparalleled 74 percent say other people can be trusted.

Cynics (particularly those leaving comments on Legatum's excellent website) say Norway's ranking is a fluke, that it's a boring, godless (just 13 percent go to church) homogeneous place to live with a massive welfare state bankrolled by high taxes. Without massive offshore reserves of oil and gas that it exports to the world through state-controlled Statoil, Norway's GDP would be far smaller.

And yet joining Norway in the top 10 prosperous countries are its Scandinavian sisters Denmark, Finland and Sweden, with equally small and civilized Switzerland and the Netherlands also in the club. None of these countries are blessed with great hoards of oil and gas.

So what gives? What do these prosperous European nations have in common that can somehow explain their prosperity? Being an electoral democracy is almost a given — of the top 25 most prosperous countries, only Singapore and Hong Kong aren't.

Being small helps too. Big countries have so many disparate groups (ethnic, geographic, civic) vying against each other that it's hard for true social cohesion and trust to emerge, and harder to maintain high levels of safety. Among countries with populations of more than 150 million, the United States ranks highest, at No. 10.

Ok this is getting rather pathetic.

In the  link below that you posted supporting your premise:

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


Again, what what did the article YOU posted note were factors in Norway achieving that rating?

Just paste it below, please.  BTW - you also might want to re-read the article you just posted also - but, if you need help there also, we can get to that as soon as we finish with your link above.

What else? They are all borderline socialist states, with generous welfare benefits and lots of redistribution of wealth. Yet they don't let that socialism cross the line into autocracy. Civil liberties are abundant (consider decriminalized drugs and prostitution in the Netherlands). There are few restrictions on the flow of capital or of labor. Legatum's scholars point out that Denmark, for example, has little job protection, but generous unemployment benefits. So business owners can keep the right number of workers, while workers can have a safety net while they muck around looking for that fulfilling job.

You are quite pathetic.  Apparantly you are unable to cut and paste anything yourself.  Must have lost all his fingers but the one that type stupid shit.  I just C&P a whole bunch of reasons in the previous post.  How pathetic are you?  Read it.  C&P whatever you like if you think you have a point .

No, you made the claim from article - you copy what they say.  Granted, I think we both know why you hesitate to do that.

LOL  I already posted dozens of reasons why they are happy.  No hesitation.  An eglaitarian society desired after WWII was the secret.  Egalitarian - equality and equal rights for all peoples.   No religious bigotry apparantly.

again "freedom to choose the direction of their lives" came out of one of many of my links.   They apparantly chose (in majority) no religion....and yet they are among the happiest peoples on the planet.

Still cant explain that can you?

Ok this is getting even more pathetic.

In the link below that you posted supporting your premise:

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

What what did the article YOU posted note were factors in Norway achieving that rating?   Granted - you may realize actually posting what the article said will be a problem for you.  Of course, not posting it does also now.  So, fear not, and go with posting the excerpt from the article above.

+1

again "freedom to choose the direction of their lives" came out of one of many of my links.   I already posted this .     "Legatum scores the world’s countries on entrepreneurship, personal freedom, health, economy, social capital, education, safety & security, and governance." And that was just one of my many links about those countries.  They apparantly chose (in majority) no religion....and yet they are among the happiest peoples on the planet. They have personal freedom and equality, no religigious bigotry.

Still cant explain that can you.

I've made my point .   The nations with the least religion are the perennial winners in the happiness studies.   You cannot explain it.....it is making your brain smoke.   If you think you have a point, feel free to make it.

Scandinavia prosperity had a lot to do with being a trade conduit between NATO and the USSR in the Cold War.  25% of Finland's exports were to the USSR and the percentages were similarly high to the rest of the WP.  Finland had a monopoly on the production and distribution of certain imported goods in the USSR.

The Fernsehturm in East Berlin, for instance, was built by Swedes.  The Scandinavians received all sorts of preferential trade agreements and contracts by both sides of the Cold War in order to win their favour or to keep them neutral, and this benefited their economies a great deal.


Nowadays the Scandinavians are saying their economies are in a stagnation and their welfare state is disappearing.  Not surprised since it was a bubble based on the assumption that a transfer of wealth from the United States and the Soviet Union into Scandinavia would last forever.

Reality is that former Scandinavian exports and contracts have since gone to China and Germany.

You may have missed the part in the link that said the most unhappy places were places with religious oppression.LOL zolace cant find a hole deep enough to dig himself into.

They're not happy. They just think that they are.

:)

+1

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

http://media.prosperity.com/2013/pdf/publications/PI2013Brochure_WEB.pdf

Norway ranks high in economy(#1), personal freedom (#2), and safety(#6) and social capital (#1).  They are #1 in social capital.  That is to say, community, family cohesiveness.   I wonder how they rate so high as family cohevisiveness, community and safety seeing that they are the most likely people to have no religion at all?  How could a nation full of people who just dont see religion as important be happy, into community and cohesiveness, safe, and enjoy personal freedom???   All without religion?   How could that be?

And again, on the subject of happiness - eye of the beholder?

Frankly, I would not have picked Paraguay - but I have not kept up on its current events for quite some time either, etc.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/worlds-happiest-country-would-you-believe-paraguay-n110981

Paraguay is the happiest country in the world, with 87 percent of residents scoring high on an index of positive emotions, according to the latest Gallup poll on well-being.

Not surprisingly, Syria, suffering through a civil war, is the unhappiest and people there are so badly off they’ve hit a new low, the survey finds.

Only the living. The dead would have a different opinion if they could be polled.

:)

From Legatum: "We see, for example, that despite the tumultuous events of the last [five] years, global prosperity is actually still on the rise." Takes a long time to kill off faith in God.

:)

It has been prophesied that religion would be attacked, somewhere in revelations.

Even though freedom of religion is a basic human right.

having a church (led by man) governing a country, or having a large influence at least, is not the same as a true theocracy.

A true theocracy has god as leader, without man in between, which has never happened in the history of well, forever. (If we exclude adam and eve).

However, god has promised us that theocracy will come, after armageddon, and i would surely prefer theocracy over anything else.

Man are not made to rule over other man.


Theocracy, a nation governed by god.

Muslim countries are not run by god, but by muslims, which are people.

Some of them truly believe in a god, Allah, but Allah does not directly, or even indirectly, govern any of these countries. Therefore, it is not truly a theocracy.


that's the problem, since your 'versions' of theocracy assume a human leader who invents a religion, and anything that conflicts with their religion, be it a different religion, or science, or whatever, anything that conflicts with the ideas of a madman in charge is forbidden.

However, god is not a madman and his worths are no myths, god is not afraid of science, in fact god encourages science, contrary to popular belief (people, the catholic church =/= god, the CATHOLIC church was opposed to science, god is NOT opposed to science), also, the bible has NOT been disputed by ANY scientific revelations so far and is unlikely to EVER be contradicted by science. In fact, so far science has only supported the bible, which is odd because the bible is an ancient book. This, in my opinion only proves the validity of it.

The most dangerous forms of government is a government where the leaders claim to follow god, but do not in fact follow god, which is what we saw during the medieval time period in europe, and nowadays in many muslim countries.

However, a true theocracy where god directly governs the world, would be heaven on earth, literally. Luckily, this will happen, and it may even happen during our lifetime.


by the way, i'm religious, and i do not hate anyone, i do pity many, and feel sorry that they are so close-minded and oftentime sad and/or without hope, but i don't hate them, i just hope one day they will stop and think.

In the link below that you posted supporting your premise:

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


What what did the article you posted note were factors in Norway achieving that rating?

Or, perhaps there is something the article mentions that you are rather hesitant to C&P? Rather telling for someone who is rather fond of C&P here.

I posted the links and the factors many times .  There is one study that says Paraguay is happy and 15 that say Norway and other Scandinavian countries are happiest.....Scandinavian countries ALWAYS rank very high on any scale of happiness, including the one that put Paraguay at the top.  I repeat, I posted studies and factors considered many times already.

Clearly, you post things without reading thoughtfully, at least some times.

In the link below that you posted supporting your premise:

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


What what did the article you posted note were factors in Norway achieving that rating?  Or, do you hesitate to do so, because the link you provided actually undermines your case??

If you think have a point, make it.  You do realize that Norway was not included in the survey above and both Sweden and Denmark finished higher than the US???  I repeat, if you think you have a point, chime in at any time.

religion covers many things about world view and is arguably the most important topic ever, as it decides much of how you perceive the world, and how you live your life. However, many people do not dare to openly speak about it, and many do not even bother to think about it at all. Like, really think about it for more than 10 minutes.

Many people feel in their heart that the universe is far too complex to have been randomly poofed into existence, yet to accept that there must be a god also means that one has to take responsibility for their own actions, which might be difficult if you're used to living a life without responsibilities. What's more, many people can not believe there's a god, because of all the hatred, violence, injustice, etc. in the world, so if there was a god, why all this trouble? why doesn't he do something about it? However, they do not study the subject, and just assume there is no god, while if they would take 10 minutes to study they would know the answer. If i made you wonder, why not read up on the subject yourself? Try starting here for example (http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/good-news-from-god/why-god-allows-evil-and-suffering/).

Same is true for the C&P in your post.  That undermined your case also.  No wonder you wish to move on.

Now, again, as far as happiness - my argument is not that atheists cannot be happy.  You know the old saying - ignorance is bliss.....

But seriously, from the above link you first provided - go back and see why the article says that atheists (or any Norwegian) are happy, and paste it here.

The nations that are perennially happy with themselves and their government are filled with people with the least religion.  I've post a variety of reasons for this from every single link I provided.  Prosperity and freedoms are usually at the center.

I ask again....if you think you have a point......please make it.

So, your running away from that link you posted means you no longer have confidence that it supports your position.  Got it.

And your running away from what you C&P in your post - Ditto.  No wonder you did not fare well in that liberal thread in the other forum.  You really need to read your sources a bit more carefully.

Who ran away from it?  It supports my position.  You and no one else can explain why socialist liberal nations with the least religion are so happy.

You are still free to make a point if you have one.  ready go.

So, as rigon has been unwilling to defend two of his sources (knowing as he does those sources failed to support his position), and given they were a tangent from the OP itself - state directed atheism, promotion of atheism by the state - then the conclusion that state promotion of atheism has never been a good thing stands.


To date, no one has been able to give an example of such a state that is worth embracing.

Since you believe in heaven and hell, as a follower of christ to, what i assume a fellow christian, i ask you this:

Why do you think god created man, and what makes you think we will go to heaven after we die?

The original plan for god was to have man on earth, and fill the earth, and make a paradise out of earth.

Wouldn't it make more sense to create the earth anew, and have people populate the earth, as the earth originally was, in a paradise state, after the devil and all evil has been removed from it (after armageddon)?

Maleachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

Seems to indicate Gods original plans did not change, why would he?

....because I demonstrated that atheism and an atheist state are two different things and you have is a spurious relationship in the term "atheist state" itself.....it implies the state was established because of atheism, when it is the other way around. Atheism was established because of a ruthless dictator who didn't want competition.  The nation isn't a horrible place because of atheism, it is a horrible place because of the ruthless dictator.   Spurious relationship.  

No one was claiming they weren't different - pay attention.  The rest you are assuming.

Now, 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/

Ok, Atheism is not bad, or at least, not worse than so called 'theist' countries, for whatever that's worth.

However, god promised us a time where he will rule the earth, and he will raise the death, cure the ill, cure anything like blindness, deaf, mutes, crippled, etc. No more famine, war, poverty, evil of any kind.

No matter how good your favorite country is, and how hard your favorite politician tries, theist or atheist alike, he can NEVER hope to pull this off.

Only god himself can.

i can't answer why God created man.....after you die you go in heaven or hell...depends on your sins and what good you did .
i don\t know if you heard of this "God doesn't think like humans do"........

Now, if you think it still supports your position on Norway - copy and paste the part that does here.  If you don't, you are admitting that this link does not support your position, and we can then move to the next claim you used.

The entire topic is drivel meant to imply something about atheism when it says absolutely nothing about it as I have demonstrated repeatedly.  Maybe this is why you have gotten no comments whatsoever other than to tell you what a dumb you are.  Don't you ever wonder why that is?

the universe, what more proof do you need?

or do you believe the universe itself just randomly popped into existence some millions of years ago?

Now, if not for god, what caused this to happen?

Wouldn't it be MORE LOGICAL to assume some powerful spirit caused this to happen, possibly from outside our concept of space and time, or at least our limited perception of the 4 (possibly more) dimensions? Not necessarily almighty even (although in the bible he claims to be, and i personally believe that claim), but mighty and wise enough to create a perfect universe with perfect laws of nature , than it is to assume the universe just 'suddenly appeared' in all it's perfection?

Now THAT is a story I personally find too ridiculous for words. I'm amazed so many people actually believe that shit.

I already did copy and paste the part that supports my position (the whole article does).  I already demonstrated my point.  Because your brainwashed mind doesn't agree is utterly and completely irrelevant.

If you have a point to make about atheism, are you considering making it or not?

I wasn't going to do this, but...

Religion suggests that people are not in control of their lives, that they have a higher power to answer to. Often religions suggest or say that there will be punishment for not obeying the higher power. Along with this suggestion goes the impossibility of obeying the dictates of the higher power.

On the other hand, if you have convinced yourself that there is no higher power, you don't have to worry about obeying some impossible-to-obey rules. As long as the higher power does not clearly make itself evident through the things that happen in life, you can live life thinking that the happenings are coincidences that happen to everyone, and you are happy because you don't have the fear involved with the higher power.

The point shouldn't be all about the way people feel. The point should be about REALITY. And the reality is that simple nature around us all points to the fact that a higher power exists. In addition, modern science has proven overwhelmingly that a higher power must have made the universe, simply because there is no other way. The idea of random chance existence flies so strongly in the face of the evidence that, atheism has to be a religion.

This is the one thing that atheists are way ahead of people of other religions in. They have way more faith than people of other religions. Why? Because the existence of a higher power makes way more sense than atheism. So, it takes way more faith to be an atheism believer.

:)

you may have misinterpret my question/statement.

Let me try to be more clear.

First, as you know, god created Adam and Eve and, as you know, he gave them the instructions to go and populate the earth, and put it into submission. Or something along those lines.

Since Adam and Eve were not meant to die, the earth was their home, for like, forever. At least that was the plan.

Since we are offspring of Adam and Eve, the earth is our inheritance. Matthew 5:5 even supports this: "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." and Psalm 37:29 "The righteous will possess the earth,
And they will live forever on it."

Nothing about heaven here, just the earth.

Why does it make sense to you that god has plans for us in heaven, while the earth is our birthright?

Why would god even need to get rid of evil on earth in armageddon, if he doesn't use the earth for anything else?

I believe the bible sends a strong message, that armageddon is meant to clean the earth and prepare it as our living place for eternity.

'heaven' as you know it, will be on earth, not in actual heaven (where the angels life). True heaven will govern over us (along with 144.000 humans who do in fact go to heaven as kings) with Jesus as supreme king. Finally a true theocracy, i'm looking forward to it. This is what Jesus meant with the kingdom of god.

The bible hints to this all over the place, from genesis to revelations and everywhere in between.

Did you know, pretty much everyone on earth, no matter what tribe or nation or whatever they come from, no matter what language they speak, no matter how remote and far from modern civilization they are, know of at least one version of the flood story?

This only makes sense because the flood is a large event that happened right before the attempt to build the tower of babel, which caused the nations to become divided because of the curse of tongues (god introduced different languages for the first time in history).

While people lost contact with each other over the years, due to long distance and language barriers, stories of the flood (largest event in human history, ever) passed on through generations. It became a story, a legend, a myth even. But people always passed it on. Some versions changed over time, lost details, added wrong details, but all in all, they have a story about the flood and most stories match with each other.

Is this not at least a tiny bit weird, if the flood was not true?

Just as important, the only clear dating of ancient pottery and such, only extends back to about 4,500 years ago. Carbon dating can't be accurate beyond then, because the nature of the earth was different prior to the Flood. So, scientific values that suggest the earth is millions of years old is completely based in nonsense.

Look at: http://www.albatrus.org/english/theology/creation/biblical_age_earth.htm.

:)

to bad scandinavia is basically on the north pole, because i would not mind living there otherwise.

not as much as i would enjoy living in the future, under gods rule, but for human standards, their government is quite good, i agree.

but i don't know if atheism has anything to do with it, it's just the things you state, like education, healthcare, few restrictions, etc. That is what makes people happy.

Many countries, even 'free' countries have oppressive laws and taxes, and the 'state benefits' are not worth the excessive taxes. In fact, lately taxes increased and 'state benefits' got cut, pretty much everywhere.

*with state benefits i mean like state paying or supporting healthcare, or providing food/shelter/money to jobless, etc.


On a different note, why does everyone call animals and such 'creatures', if they believe they spontaneously evolved by abiogenesis first and followed by evolution? Why not call them miracles?

No you did not - certainly not in this thread.  Nothing there in that link to support that atheism has anything to do with the happiness found in Norway.

But surely, if there is, C&P it here - of all people, you are hardly C&P shy.

yes,your right,sorry,my mistake.......yes the earth was a piece of heaven,but we humans, with our decisions,slowly we destroy it .
One thing i don't agree with is hell,in my view God can't send to eternal sufferance the bad people....how do you see the hell,and what do you think will happens to "the bad people" ?

They have high levels of personal freedom and social capital.  There is no negative connotation to having no religion.  Whether or not atheism is responsible for their happiness is almost irrelevant.  The fact remains that they are atheists and happy.  You could attempt to argue why the information I showed you is not related to atheism instead of pretending I showed you nothing.  But dishonesty is your forte.

Copy and paste from that link you provided that shows support for your position connecting the happiness of Norwegians with atheism, or even lack of religion.

Then you can elaborate on it - till then, your first link provided is a failure that you are trying to hide.

And BTW, there is nothing in any of your arguments that indicate atheism has anything to do with the poor conditions in N Korea or China or anyplace else.  I have also demonstrated that is a spurious relationship....which begs the question  ... what is your point in this thread?

I showed you that atheists are less likely to be criminals and the places with the most atheists have happy people and less crime.

You showed me....nothing.  Do you have a point about atheism that you wish to make? We are over 160 posts into this thread.  One would think you would have made your point by now.

I already did post it zolace many times.   Lets put two and two together. ....freedom to choose, social cohesion.  Read the article....freedom to choose and social cohesion are listed factors in Norway...as ONE example of the numerous countries I listed.   These are factors that make them happy as the surveys indicate.

Other surveys indicate a clear majority of Norwegians have no religion or are atheist.  A mere 13% ever go to church.  I posted these facts in links as well.

Now lets put one together with the other and make two.  These are people with social cohesion and freedom as a factor in happiness, and they by and large choose to be atheist, to not be religious and/or not go to church (by a great majority).

So atheism certainly is not a factor in their sadness is it ?   

How can a society be happy if they freely chose to not worship or be religious?  How can a society score so highly in social cohesion if there is no church or religion? 

This is where you again do not answer my questions and obfuscate by claiming I didn't post something to your satisfaction.

I wonder if you are that foolish enough to think you have.

But, what does it cost you to do so here "again".

So, 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 it still supports your position on Norway - copy and paste the part that does here.  If you don't, you are admitting that this link does not support your position, and we can then move to the next claim you used.

they simply stop to exist, when they are dead, they won't be resurrected, this will mean the second death, death from which no resurrection is possible, it's what the bible says. It will be like eternal sleep, they will not even know they are dead, they just become dust again. Because dust we were made from and to dust we will return, at least if we don't get granted eternal life.

Hell is a myth introduced by the catholic church, surely a god of love can not be that cruel.

I have.  I have pasted it many times. I have explained it many times.

zolace being braindead is not the same as me not having made my case.  I made it.  The fact you are too stupid or willfully ignorant to recognize it is not my problem.

They have strong social cohesion as at least one factor.  That's right there in the article.  I pasted it now at least a dozen times.

Perhaps you can tell me how a people can be happy and socially cohesive without religion?

Again, this is where you avoid the question for the 25th time.

These are people with social cohesion and freedom as a factor in happiness (from the article), and they by and large choose to be atheist, to not be religious and/or not go to church (by a great majority). 

So atheism certainly is not a factor in their sadness is it zolace?   

How can a society be happy if they freely chose to not worship or be religious?  How can a society score so highly in social cohesion if there is no church or religion? 

This is where you again do not answer my questions and obfuscate by claiming I didn't post something to your satisfaction.

zolace is just being zolace. The majority of people living in Haiti are Christian.
Since the 2010 earthquake, I wonder how many of them are "happy" today? Not that Hatians don't have their fair share of pagans, but.....


If the Christian God cared....?

We've learned two things. NO matter how many times I answer zolace' question, I cannot answer it the way he desires.....and he will never answer my questions.  I am doing a study to see how many times he will keep asking the same answered question in order to avoid my questions. Thus far the conclusion is infinity.

Well, we will have to say that this is dishonest, if you cannot point to at least one place where you have pasted such:

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 glady apologize.

I already did post it  many times.  I posted that they have freedom to choose and social cohesion...right out of the article.  Do you need me to help you find those words in the link to the article that you keep reposting ad-infinitum?  That's pretty sad.

 Read the  article THAT YOU KEEP POSTING OVER AND OVER AND OVER....freedom to choose and social cohesion are listed factors of happiness in Norway...as ONE example of the numerous countries I listed.   These are factors that make them happy as the surveys indicate.

Other surveys show us that a clear majority of Norwegians have no religion or are atheist.  A mere 13% ever go to church.  I posted these facts in links as well.

Now lets put one together with the other and make two.  These are people with social cohesion and freedom as a factor in their happiness, and they by and large choose to be atheist, to not be religious and/or not go to church (by a great majority).  SO HOW IS THEY CAN BE SO HAPPY WITHOUT YOUR RELIGION ?

How can a society be happy if they freely chose to not worship or be religious?  How can a society score so highly in social cohesion if there is no church or religion? 

This is where you again do not answer my questions and obfuscate by again posting the article you claim I didn't cite that I again cited for the 50th time.

Starving people with no hope of a better life,; endless poverty until death.....?If this is "gods mysterious ways"  Perhaps "god" should just leave it alone.

I think the point being is that religion does not boost happiness. Likewise, the lack of religion does not bring about despair.

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/104/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10902-007-9045-6.pdf?auth66=1402614722_85f2838cc147c241238cbecfeeb91e82&ext=.pdf

Religiousness and happiness in three nations: a research note

Jesus Christ rigon!!!

Why do you keep entertaining him??
zolace and others of his ilk are irrelevant. Nothing  he says matters.  Not like he is going to post something that changes the future.

Apparently neither can you.  This thread is only 10 pages, and I only asked for one example. Sorry, but if you had c&p from that link, you would have pointed it out. Gleefully.

sorry.  I gave you too many examples.  I should have stuck to just one instead of the many.

If you can forgive me for cutting and pasting many examples instead of one, maybe you can for once in your  life answer my question.

These are people with social cohesion and freedom as a factor in their happiness (cut and paste from the link you keep harping about), and they by and large choose to be atheist, to not be religious and/or not go to church (by a great majority....also cut and paste from a number of links).  SO HOW IS IT THEY CAN BE SO HAPPY WITHOUT YOUR RELIGION ?

How can a society be happy if they freely chose to not worship or be religious?  How can a society score so highly in social cohesion if there is no church or religion?

I'm sorry  I'm doing a scientific study on displacement behavior.  zolace is a unique opportunity to study avoidance and obfuscation. He's a lab rat who keeps himself in his own cage. ....all meanings apply.

How is that working out for you?
You are aware that Einstein said the definition of insanity is reapeating the same experiment over and over again expecting a different result.
How many times have you repeated this experiment?

Come on zolace...you can do it.  Ive made my case and you know my position well.  These Scandinavian countries (and New Zealand) are ranked as happy places because they score highly on social cohesion and personal freedom as the article you cite clearly says.  The data also show that they choose to be religious at a very low rate (with only 13% attending church and over 60% having no religion at all or atheist).  These are the most non-religious places on the planet.  These areas are also full of the most decent law abiding people on the planet as evidenced by the lowest crime rates.  I also posted these data.

How is it they have happiness and social cohesion, have high moral standards and don't commit crime, and no religion???   How can people who lack religion be so morally sound, law abiding and happy?   That is counter to the premise of your thread .

You have avoided any response for over 180 posts now. I respond to your every request. The fact you don't like my responses is another matter. I may not like your response to the questions above, but it would be nice if you had the balls to respond.

None from the first link that you provided, however.   So, then, you agree that the first link you provided does not support your case regarding atheism, Norway and happiness?


Not sure if it is reading issues with you, or a problem with honesty, or what, so I will again ask for your sake:

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.

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.

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/

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?
 

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?

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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/

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.

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. 

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" 

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.  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.

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.

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 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?

Actually, it is very believable.     he must continue to pretend I have made no case and that it is all about one link about Norway and none of the other points because.......he has no response, he has no case.  He cant answer my questions. 

He can never enter the realm of making a case for his position as long as he has none.  He must continue to make it about  my case, and he must ignore 80% of the points I've made and pretend they don't exist if he has any hope of hanging in there in this one-sided discussion with nothing other than "no it isn't" from him.  He cant even state his point in the thread other than "atheism is bad" which can only be inferred.

Ok, this was quite dishonest, so it blows off the rest of what you said.  I have clearly not said that.

I am pointing out that the link below, based so far on what you c&p from it, does not contribute to your case IN ANY WAY.  Now, once you agree, we can discard it and move on to the other links.

Or, if you disagree, c&p what does contribute to your case.    But, good luck with that - we both know the link below does not contribute to connecting Norwegians happiness with atheism (perhaps even the opposite) IN ANY WAY.

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

Do you think anyone reading this  thinks you are actually "hanging in there"?  Perhaps "hanging yourself", "hanging in the wind", "hanging out to dry"......but not remotely "hanging in there". 

Address all the points in my case, make your case, or shut the fuck up and go home.  

I tell you what, lets pretend that single survey from Norway doesn't exist. I no longer have it in my arsenal to make my case.   There are plenty of other studies on well being and happiness in Norway and other similar nations...dozens of them.  The data on prisons stands alone.  The data on crime stands alone. 

Are you two trying to see how long the moderator lets you keep your nonsense up?

:)

The above post stands - but maybe the below can make it simpler for you (I truly think you are also battling anger and ego issues here):


For the case of connecting Norwegian happiness with atheism (or even lack of religion):

In seeking to make you case, you have provided several links, including the one below - if we were to gather together the links that actually do contribute to your case, we can agree, that the one below should not be included, yes?

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

I am just trying to make a point,but if it bothers you,i am sorry!

You cant get your single brain cell away from one single post and one single link?????   My case is not made from pieces of information from that one link in that one post.  My case is made up of far more data that I posted in many other places....with more links and citations.

Go back and read any of the seven times I summarized all 4 or 5 parts of the case and associated citations.

You are a surreal human being .  The lengths you will go to avoid answering questions or recognizing what is right in front of your face is astounding.  It's idiocy of biblical proportions.....probably the closest you'll ever get to your god.

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 evidence of low crime in nations with low religious belief.

I presented the evidence of lack of religious belief.

Conclusion....I presented multiple lines of evidence that suggests atheists are happy, safe, peaceful,  don't commit crime, etc.  This is counter to your position of atheism being bad and immoral.

Have you no answer?

Doesn't bother me at all. Just kinda humorous, that's all. Usually the logic in something like this is way more evident.

:)

I was thinking this thread would be about atheists who treat government as their new religion.  Ah well.

Yes, it's true that nations which have fewer religious people--not necessarily atheists, but any non-religious, i.e. at least semi-rational--live happier, more peaceful and productive lives.  Not because religion isn't present, it's because people who choose non-religion typically have more powerful reasoning skills, which is perfectly ideal for the market environment: ability to negotiate and foresee implications, rather than resorting to violence (whether criminally or politically) and advocating equality-of-outcome.

Isn't an atheist a believer that God doesn't exist?

Isn't religion essentially what a person believes and confirms by his actions, though it may not be organized religion?

Hasn't science proven that nature has developed untold numbers of things that are way beyond what man understands, at least presently?

Doesn't the definition of "God" include someone or something that is way beyond man, or that has developed things that are way beyond man?

Isn't it about time that we re-evaluate how much of the scientifically expressed "opinions" are simply political propaganda, and how many are scientific truths?

We are being misled by political propaganda about how random the universe is and about how great man is. It's being done so that we fall prey to "delusions of grandeur," and the politicians can control us because of the weakness of our pride.

It's time that we wake up and see that, if humans are making great advancements in knowledge and technology, we are on the bottom of the pile of the kinds of creatures that have the abilities to do such.

:)

For the sake of discussion....Lets say that one link doesn't exist.  This will send your pathetic mind into convulsions since you have been using that one link as an excuse to avoid addressing the actual issue.  Forget that link.  Drop it.  It never existed.  Lets talk about all the others.

You made the claim from that thread, and have refused to back it up since.   No 'for the sake of discussion'.  Either you can show why the link supports your case, or you cannot.   Take a position - and if you think it supports your case, post what it says about Norway that does that.

I'm willing to bet a million dollars that zolace does not in fact come back and address the point and will remain fixated on a line of questioning about one statement from one link in a desperate attempt to avoid looking at anything other than the  dark corners of his closed mind.

Meanwhile, based on this link below, that you provided, it is clear that Norwegian's happiness would even be greater than it is now, if not for so many embracing atheism.  In fact, it refutes all your other links also.
And, as you have done with this link, all I need to support my statement above is to reference the same link you did. 
http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2013/10/29/the-worlds-happiest-and-saddest-countries-2013/

How does the link on Norways happiness refute the fact there are almost no atheists in American prisons?

How does that link refute the fact the nonreligious nations have low crime?


You cant refute my claims, which are supported by all my links.  Atheists dont commit crime, places where atheists live are safe, and atheists are happy.  These are all facts supported by the studies I posted.  You made claims you have not supported.... you could do something you have never once attempted to do......support them.

He now claims the one link on happiness in Norway says that Norwegians would be happier if they were religious (there is nothing whatsoever in the link that says anything remotely similar to this).  He claims this one study on happiness in Norway disproves all my other links......i.e., the link on the happiness of Norway somehow disproves low crime statistics of other non-religious nations, it disproves the fact almost no atheists are in American prisons and are under -represented in prison by two orders of magnitude.

This one link on happiness and quality of life in one country apparently disproves data on crime and prison and atheism throughout the world. Tomas, in his delusional mind, believes he has read this in the link on Norway's happiness.

I cant wait to hear zolace' defense of this position.   Oh wait....that's not his style....to actually defend anything he ever says with evidence.....why would he do so now?   He will come back and do what he has done from the beginning....say nothing about anything and simply keep repeating what he hopes to be true in the face of zero evidence.

Yes, how does it?  Well, I would have to post some excerpts from it to try and demonstrate that.  The VERY thing I have been trying to get you to do with this link.

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


 

Yet you keep making excuses for not doing so.  So, now you get upset because I play your game here?  Ah the irony.

...why are you so dishonest?   Doesn't your god disapprove of dishonesty?

 You know the link about a single study of Norway's happiness in no way disproves any of the other links.   Norwegian people's happiness is not related to the fact almost no atheists are in American prisons.   You know Norwegian happiness does not disprove low crime in other nonreligious places.  You also know there is nothing in that link or any other link that says Norwegians would be happier if they were more religious.   They used to be more religious and they werent happier.  If anything to that effect was in that link or anywhere else would have posted it by now. 

Why cant you just be happy believing what you do?  Why must you lie about other people in order to feel better about yourself?  It goes without saying that you are a pathetic human being. If god wants lying assholes like you in heaven, all the more reason for me to not want anything to do with that shit.

It is up to you if you ever want to talk like an adult and respond to my position with any reasoned logic or explanation of why you feel the way you do.  That is up to you ......not me.    I am not going to make the case of an idiot when I cant even see your case or what your mentally deranged mind is thinking.   Only the mentally deranged person himself (you) can tell me what you think you see in that link that disproves my entire case.

Ready go!

You spend 13 pages asking me over and over about one link, that alone makes no case other than Norwegians are happy and socially cohesive.

Good grief, as noted in the other thread, you have not even shown that from the link below.

So, again, playing your game, the link below actually shows that Norwegians happiness is high despite the atheism.  I need not reference anything from the thread to support that, per you.

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

Here are the exact  words from this one link again that demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that this link and the study therein have concluded Norwegians and happy and socially cohesive.....more so than most all other nations.  There are a number of reasons, including social cohesion and a social safety net and personal freedoms to believe what they like.

Cut and paste directly from the link you have been obsessing over.

"So who’s the happiest? As has been the case the past five years, that distinction goes to countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity: Norway, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand.

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

"Norway has ranked first on Legatum’s list in each of the past five years".  a country with "a history of social cohesion"

 

This is one of many links I supplied.  Along with the other links that showed they aren't very religious...only about a tenth of the people go to church.  the majority view religion as unimportant.  Yet, there is no crime, they are safe, they have social cohesion, they are happy.  How can a nation have a happy people who are safe and have high moral standards yet not care about religion?  Why are so few atheists in prison in the US if you believe they have no moral compass?

Why are you so afraid to answer this?

interesting that this was ALL you quote from that link on Norway. Kind of telling, I think.  But putting that aside for now:
So, we agree that, based on what you are posting, that first link you supplied does not support your contention that Norway's happiness is connected with atheism. 

You are lucky I answer you every time.  I have been asking you questions for 9 pages that you wont answer.

You are also a remarkable liar. You claim I just posted the wordsfrom that link when I have done so many times. I posted the entire article about Legatum in from another source.  I posed links on scientists who are atheists, links on low numbers of atheists in prison, links on countries such as New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany.   Links on low crime in nations with low belief.  Links on happiness in multiple nations with no belief.

Just that Norwegians are happy - and that if we had this link below alone, one would never assume atheism has anything to do with it (which is why you need the other links).  Yes?  Just want an honest answer here.

I have told you a thousand times the case on atheism is not made from one link.You continue to try to make the entire case about one piece of  information from one link.  It has never been thus.  A  few posts ago you said I never showed that the link proves they are happy ( a lie).  Now you say it does, but the link doesnt say it is atheism.  I never said it did you fucking moron.  Was I ever saying that atheists are happier than religious people?  No.  I was countering the premise of YOUR THREAD that atheism is bad .  The data show that atheists are not bad....they are happy,socially cohesive, crime free, safe and smart.    Atheists are not in prisons, communities with few believers are safe  and full of happy people who don't commit crime.    A high percentage of scientists and really smart people who do a lot for society are atheists. I posted many many links that disproved your thread premise that atheism is bad.

You have never offered any comment on any link save this one......since you are obsessed that atheism shouldnt make people happy....  What I am saying is that all the data on the planet says atheists are not immoral evil killing machines as you suppose. The data say they are happy, safe, smart, and socially close-knit. 

What say you on all the other links I posted?

Do you disagree that atheists dont commit crime? tell me why...show me data.
Do you disagree that the majority of scientists who do a lot fo society are atheists
Do you disagree that religious belief is low in any of themany countries I listed in my links.


Can you enter a discussion or will you remain a liar?

Lets be clear about a few things  so we can all see what a dishonest liar zolace has been:

1.  My position is that your thread premise that atheism is evil is not demonstrated....not that atheism is better than religion or atheists are happier than religious people.

2).  A sole link on happiness in Norway has never been the sole argument in my case that atheism is not evil.  It is but a very small part of the weight of the evidence that atheists are not evil.

3) I posted links on Norway and many other countries that have low religion and high percentages of atheists.

4) I posted links on low crime  and comparative safety in areas with low religious belief.

5)  I posted links on disproportionately low prison convictions among atheists in the US

6) and yes, I posted a link that says these countries rate higher on happiness, and not just Norway with lots of resources, but many other nations with low religious belief. The people have social cohesion and are happy.

7) I posted links that say the majority of US scientists and other very smart productive and decent people are atheists.

Taken together, the conclusion that atheists are immoral and atheism is bad doesnot hold any water whatsoever.

Can you get over your obsession with one link and speak to the cumulative breadth of the evidence above?

Again, I have not commented on the other links (except to note they also do not support your  position), as I have been hoping to get an honest reply from you on the first link.  Weave and bob as you may.


But, you have chosen to ignore other information from the link about Norway.  VERY TELLING.

More importantly, the first link BY ITSELF does not support your contention.  You admit that all it does is indicate that Norway is the happiest, and that Legatum uses several factors in scoring - HOWEVER, not noting how each of those factors weighs in for Norway.  Which may be why you do not note the other info on Norway from the link.


So, to sum: the first link by itself does not make your case.  You admit that you are using it only to introduce the fact that Legatum has ranked Norway as #1. 

You are right ...the first link alone doesn't make the case.  I already agreed with that.  All my links make my case.   You have not commented with any rationale to refute the case in its entirety.  You are afraid to even discuss the other facts because your thread has been exposed as pure unadulterated bullshit like everything else that enters your pea-sized brain.

There are no atheists in prisons.   Communities with low religious belief are among the safest places on earth.   Atheists are happy and value social cohesion.  Atheists have morals because morals don't come from religion  All my links disprove the premise that atheism makes people bad.  It doesn't.....and you are "happy".

If anyone was to read this link alone, they would never get the impression that atheism had any connection with Norwegians happiness.

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

Sorry - a true statement.  You yourself have been unable to show from that thread alone that atheism has any connection to Norwegians happiness - in fact, you agreed it does not:
 the first link alone doesn't make the case.
and now you are backtracking?

And, further, again, as noted, you steadfastly refused to note what the link below did say about Norwegians happiness.  Again, very telling.  You just cherry picked.

Remember - no fact is an island to itself.  You might want to practice that with the facts from this link.

I would suppose something like the Anglican church, which was basically created by the King of England once upon a time because he couldn't get along with the Vatican. It became basically the official religion of England and what ended up happening was that there were a lot of fights between the Anglicans and all other Christians and a lot of people including the Puritans came to America to get away from that.

thank you for your concession.  You re right no point is an island, which is why my case that you cannot address is made up of many pieces of information.  Its not like you really lost ...you just never began .........you never were able to comment on why atheists are crime free happy people, or if you believe they aren't, present any evidence to the contrary

You cant answer why atheists are happy, socially cohesive, crime free, not in prison.  IF as you presume that atheism is bad, why isnt there crime and unhappiness in regions with no religion?   You just have no answers whatsoever.  It goes against your beliefs of atheism and you have nothing to say but.....but ...that one link about happiness doesnt directly say atheism is the cause...."but that one link"...."but that one link".

If you ever grow some balls and care to enter a debate with grown ups, Id love to hear your explanation as to why non-religious places have happy people who don't commit crime.....why are there no athesists in prison. 

I do concede that you cherry picked pieces of info from this link below, no disagreement with you there. 

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

I also agree with you below that if anyone was to read this link alone, they would never get the impression that atheism had any connection with Norwegians happiness.

- the first link alone doesn't make the case.

Now, we can start considering the other links (and perhaps find you cherry picked there also), except you seem to want to back track on what you said before on the first link. 

Norwegians are happy, and they aren't religious.   Same for new Zealanders, Germans, other Scandanavian places.  Religion is not required for people to be crime free, happy, safe, cohesive. 


True or false..........Honest answers zolace.  It would be nice if once in your life you answered a single question I ask.

These places have much lower value on religion than the US and many more atheists? T or F
These places have lower crime rates than the US?   T or F
Very few people attend church in places like Norway (see my links).  T or F
These places (not just Norway) rate high on quality of life and happiness surveys.  T or F
In anonymous surveys of over 4000 prison inmates in the US, only 0.07% reported they were atheist. T or F

...you posit atheism is bad, there are no morals, atheist places are bad.  How can you explain the answers above?
How can that be ?
 
Run away...change the subject.   Stick to your talking points...."but that one link"  Don't enter the discussion.

I do concede that you cherry picked pieces of info from this link below, no disagreement with you there.     You clearly do not disagree with that.

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


I also agree with you below that if anyone was to read this link alone, they would never get the impression that atheism had any connection with Norwegians happiness.

rigon: the first link alone doesn't make the case.



So, again, with you NOT disagreeing with the above, we can start considering the other links (and perhaps find you cherry picked there also) - which other link that you provided should we begin with next?

I considered them a long long time ago. I have been asking you to consider them all from the very beginning . 

 No one but you ever considers one piece of information alone in a vacuum when making an argument.  I understand that approach for you, the same one you take with evolution, is a requirement for you to hold onto lies and excuses.  If you had to consider all the evidence, your game would end.

I repeat for the 50th time.

My argument is that atheists are happy.  The one link above does show that.   They have social cohesion......more than in the US......the one link and others also mentions that.   There are many other sources of evidence in the US and abroad. In fact, in the US, a larger percentage of religious people think that life has no purpose compared to atheists.....albeit not huge.      The evidence on crime suggests atheists and non-religious people live in crime free communities. There are few atheists in prison.   Atheists are clearly not lacking morals.

Taken together....your premise that atheism is bad and leads to no control on morals, etc.  is not supported by any of the evidences and you have yet to enter the discussion and provide any rebuttal whatsoever.

Darn...and here I thought zolace had grown balls and might for the first time answer my charge Ive been asking for ten pages...but he cant and wont.  Too dangerous for his beliefs.  He lied instead and said I go back and forth on atheists being happy.  Never have I done so. 

I guess you prefer lying to debating . 

Look, given that you are cherry picking, and given that you keep dancing around the first link, I suppose I should not be surprised to find you responding like that, instead of simply clarifying your position.


The first link, by itself, does not support your case.  You had agreed to that.  But, frankly, it sounds like you are now backtracking.  I think you know if  you were to honestly stop cherry picking, you would lose your case here.

Pick a position on the first link - and stick with it please.  Either it does not, by itself, support that Norwegians happiness has anything to do with atheism.

Or it does - in which case, show from the first link as to why (something you have not done).

We are done with the first link.  It shows Norwegians are and have been happier and have more social cohesion than we do  (and everyone else) in nearly every survey.  Other links show they are nonreligious.  Other links show atheists don't go to prison.  Other links show places with low value on religion also have low crime and are safe places with happy people.

All you can do is dance around the one link without ever even explaining what you think is wrong with it.  If you think the atheists among the Norwegians actually aren't happy or crime free, then explain yourself.  If you think that atheists have no morals, explain why crime is low in nonreligious places.....explain why there are no atheists in prison.

You have a ton of unanswered questions in here and you run from them like the plague by dancing around the one link about Norwegians happiness for weeks on end.

I told you many times.  Forget that one link exists.  Pretend I don't have it in my arsenal.  Lets stick to the links about happiness of the danes, dutch, germans.  Lets stick to the low crime in other nonreligious places.  Lets stick to the lack of atheists in prison. Forget the first link exists, how do you explain all this if atheists have no morals?

Answer:  You cant.  It makes your head smoke and does not compute so you dance and avoid.  

Come back with dialogue  zolace.   You haven't even ever said what you disagree with even in that one link.  You have never entered the discussion.   Do so, or please shut up.

We will get to that.  But, we see how you have cherry picked from the first link, so that has yet to be established that the other links connect atheism to any benefits in any causal way.

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

Ok, so I can quote you on agreeing that the first link (above here), by itself, in no way shows that Norwegians happiness has anything to do with atheism.

We can then move on to the other links - unless you voice your disagreement with that.  Else, as noted, I can quote you.

No you cannot quote me with your misinterpretations.  No piece of information alone makes the case.....but that study is part of it all.  I don't need it to make my case if it will shut you up and get you to enter the debate.  In your obsession to avoid the question, all you can do is continue to circle back to the exact same argument of the previous 300 posts.  You are waaaaaaaay beyond disturbed zolace.


It is part of the body of evidence I presented that suggests atheists are law abiding happy people,  to which you cannot respond.

C'mon ...do you agree or disagree with the data hat suggests places with low value on religion and fewer religious people are saf, have low crime and have generally happy people according to surveys?  What is your explanation?  If atheism takes away people's morals, how are these places so safe and happy?  Why are so few atheists in prison?  You may disagree with the data.  If you do, it would be nice if you were capable of explaining why at some point in the discussion.

Look, the first link, by itself, does not even offer a hint that atheism is connected with Norwegians happiness.  And lets face it, you cherry picked from the first link.  There are a few references to Norway that you refuse to even touch.  True?  In fact, from that link, of the four references to Norway, I don't think you quoted any of them here.  None of these below quotes mentions Norway.  Why would you avoid quoting actual sections from the article that actually reference Norway?  Hmm.

So, if the purpose for you with the first link is establish that Norwegians are rated very high in happiness, as I said before, we are good on that .    If all you wanted was to establish that, and then via the other links try and connect that happiness with atheism, that is fine.  Of course, you did not even establish with any of your quotes above from the first link that Norwegians are even mentioned, let alone happy, which is ironic, but since I read the whole article, and did not cherry pick it, I can concur..

But that you cannot commit to that being your only purpose in giving the first link, even that is very telling.

Whenever you are ready to answer the charge that atheists don't commit crime, non-religious places in numerous countries are safer than the US, the people are often happier than in the US.    There aren't many atheists in prison.

Whenever you are ready to explain why these data are wrong, or why the data suggest atheists have good morals, I am waiting.

Actually, what we are seeing is that you have done a poor job of connecting the links you have posted, with the claims you have made.

Clearly, the first link helps you not at all. In fact, it may actually argue your case - which may be why you have avoided noting any references from the first link that actually mention Norway.

As to the other links you provided - I think over 280 post sums up where we can find such links going forward.  You do not disagree with that, so, I will start with one of them next.

Lets start with just one technical issue to keep it simple for you and see if you are capable of your very first rebuttal with an actual point.

Atheism and crime.

The blind study that was anonymous and surveyed over 4000 US prisoners found 0.7% atheists in prison, and nearly 9% of atheists in the general population.  Is there something wrong with the study?  Are atheists bad and have no morals.... but the police just don't catch them and send them to prison?  Are the prisoners lying even though the survey is completely anonymous?  What is your argument that these data don't make a case that atheists appear to be law abiding and morally intact? Present data or evidence to substantiate your argument that this study is wrong.

Do the data on crime in nonreligious communities, which indicate much lower rates of crime than in the US, corroborate that atheists appear to have morals and do not commit crime?  Or are they committing crime and being immoral and not getting caught?    If you believe this, present some data to counter it.

I have presented data and studies.  You have presented......nothing.     Wouldn't you like to try to have your first debate zolace?

The bigger challenge is not explaining why - it getting your eyes open to see it.  You are prone to superficial connections - confusing even causality with correlation.

And also part of the problem is that you keep getting confused over what is being discussed.

For example - the issue is not whether an atheist can or cannot be happy.  But, if he is happy, whether it is due to his atheism.

As far as moral - again, no one is argueing whether an atheist can have morals.  But its another thing to argue that atheism promotes morals.

If you ever decide to answer my questions, which are derived from solid data and provide sound evidence to my conclusions.  I am here.  As long as you obfuscate, you have lost by never engaging in the discussion. You look only like an idiot who continues to dodge and avoid.

It must suck to have no answers and not be capable of defending a position.   I wish you luck.

You have yet to provide one piece of data supporting any connection between atheism and happiness.  Not one.

Not data supporting that you can find happy atheists - that there is a connection between atheism and happiness.  If anything (and you cannot deny this) - we have seen you cherry pick from the first link.  That right there puts your case into question.

Hey, on the prison survey - for the prisoners taking the survey, was data included for how long they were in prison?  What were their beliefs prior to reaching prison?  Etc? 
People find 'religion' in hardship times such as jail.  Atheism is the type of thing people are more likely to embrace when things are going well - not for when they are looking for hope.