State Atheism

[BADecker]

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.

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.

[zimmah]

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 .

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)?

i don\t know if you heard of this "God doesn't think like humans do"........

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.

[zimmah]

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.

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.

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?

[BADecker]

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.

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.

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.

[zimmah]

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.

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?

[zolace]

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.

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?

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.

[zolace]

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 .

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)?

i don\t know if you heard of this "God doesn't think like humans do"........

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.

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" ?

[Rigon]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[Rigon]

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?

[Rigon]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Rigon]

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.

[Rigon]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.

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?

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.

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.

[zimmah]

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 .

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)?

i don\t know if you heard of this "God doesn't think like humans do"........

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.

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 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.

[Rigon]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Rigon]

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?   

[Rigon]

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.

[umair127]

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....?

[Rigon]

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.