State Atheism

[Rigon]

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.

[zolace]

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

[Rigon]

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.

[zolace]

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.

[Rigon]

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?
 

[zolace]

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?

[Rigon]

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.

[zolace]

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/

[umair127]

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.

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.

[Rigon]

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/

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.

[Rigon]

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.

[Rigon]

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. 

[sana8410]

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.

[Rigon]

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.

[sana8410]

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.

[Rigon]

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.

[zolace]

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. 

[zolace]

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/

[zolace]

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.

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.

[zolace]

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.