|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 07:13:29 [Permalink]
|
| Actually, not to make you look stupid Doc but...our murder rates are clearly linked to our acceptance of gay culture. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2008 : 07:27:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Zzzzzzz...
|
| Some of the 43% that choose the middle answer would be agnostics, and atheists that believe there something else (paranormal) out there. An atheist does not have to be strictly materialist. |
Ok. How many agnostics, atheists, free thinkers, skeptics etc... etc... etc.... out there "believe there is some sort of spirit or life force"?
Dave, start a poll.
|
Any such poll here on Skeptic Friends will not be representative of Scandinavian population. However, I will post the poll on one or two other Swedish forum I frequent. Hopefully, we'll collect enough answers.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 07:29:01 [Permalink]
|
I think that to, actually, be quite true...
Let me explain...
At first, we have an increase in the conditions of life. That generally coincide with democracy (not obvious relationship between the two that I can see, but it often tends to be true).
As the level of life increase, murders decrease and, among other things; the level of education increase (and maybe this can explain democracy).
People get more sophisticated and have more opportunities to succeed legally; additionally, they have more to loose by pursuing criminal activities. The government, being more democratic has less tendency to stir up ethnic or other sacrificial lambs to deflect the anger of the people. Also, the press being free, it would be more difficult for the government to do so. This also contribute to decrease the level of violence, particularly against the minorities like homosexual.
Also, the society being more highly developed economically is able to afford better health care; to invest in the protection of its environment of in education.
People being better educated tend to be less religious so, you can observe a raise in atheism (it is a fact that the rate of atheism tend to be higher among educated people).
The US are particular compared to other developed countries has the passage from a highly successful economy to one that afford 'luxuries' has been less complete than elsewhere (very limited public health care; little protection of the environment and lower part of the budget dedicated to education...). And hence, this shift away from religion has been limited.
Not really a direct causation between atheism and democracy and development but still an indirect correlation. |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Simon
SFN Regular
USA
1992 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 07:31:04 [Permalink]
|
't was an answer to Big Papa Smurf by the way. Darn Swede is too fast for me...  |
Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
Carl Sagan - 1996 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2008 : 08:34:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
You consider DC part of the US? |
Interesting: the No True US City fallacy.| And based on the amount of time you spend on this website I would say that you already have the easy life. |
Talk about speculating!| You would experience a dwindle because the vast amount of soup kitchens and missions are ran by religious organizations. Now you can speculate and say that non-religious people would fill in the gaps when the religious people disappear and no one is giving the homeless care, but that is just speculation. |
I'm not talking about religious people vanishing, especially since that would leave many, many fewer homeless people in the first place (problem almost solved!). Do you seriously think that if the people who run the shelters lost their religion, they'd just drop what they were doing to do something else?| And if they would step in then how come we don't see any atheist/agnostic soup kitchens today? Where is the Free Thought/Skeptics Homeless Shelter now? Right now the majority of homeless shelters and soup kitchens are ran by religious organizations. That is just a fact. |
How many atheists work iconn church-run shelters and kitchens, Bill? Plus, the religions generally have a ready stream of money as they shake down their parishoners. Atheists would rather petition the government for solutions to these sorts of nationwide problems.| It's then only logical that if all the religious people were to disappear this would no doubt cause a dwindle. |
Again: you got the hypothetical wrong.| Now you and I can speculate on what the non-religious would do in the absence of the religious in regards to the homeless, but it is just speculation |
A non-argument.| That is fine. I will just remind you as I did Leo that it is all your speculation with no working model to point as an example. That was/is/remains all that I am saying. |
There is only "no working model" if you demand that such a model be as large as a country. Smaller models exist.| I have never murdered anyone of a different religion or of no religion. Nor have I ever interpreted anything in the Word that told me to do so nor I have ever felt God was wanting me too. I would agree that there was a time when God instructed ancient Israel to kill many of her enemies, but as the creator and sustainer of all life who can challenge his authority to do so? |
Those told to kill. What are the consequences of refusal?| If we had no freewill then God would never have to give the commandment to not murder. God wants us to choose to accept and love Christ based on what he has done for us. Without choice you can't have love and are nothing but a preprogrammed human robot. The flip side of this is we can also choose to reject Christ as well. But we must have that option if we are to have freewill. |
That's some juvenile theology there, Bill. The idea that without God-given free will you'd be a robot is absurd, especially since it means that Satan (who was never human and so never had free will) is God's robot, doing only what God commands.| Then why did Peter have a dream in Acts where he was told he could eat what was considered defiled and unclean food under the law? |
Are you kidding? Acts 10:9-16 read:On the morrow, as they went on their journey, and drew nigh unto the city, Peter went up upon the housetop to pray about the sixth hour: And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance, And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common. This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven. God tells Peter that He's made those unclean animals clean, and you think this means that God has lifted His Commandment that you must kill anyone who wears two different kinds of fiber in his clothes or to honor your parents?! Besides, in context, Peter's vision was metaphorical, and Peter understood it to mean that God was cleansing the Gentiles who had faith.| Because we were talking about how come some people were seemingly saved in disasters while others were not. I simply commented that they were not really saved but were just given more time as we all die in the end. The one who escaped the disaster was just given a little more time and was not really saved. Their fate remains the same. So whether it is 10 years we are given or 50 years, the bottom line is we are all going to meet that same fate. And then... |
A brilliant equivocation on the meaning of the word 'saved' I must say.| I wouldn't know the difference on a case by case basis. When 3000 people die undoubtedly some will be believers and some will not. |
"Undoubtedly?!" You're playing the odds with God's Will?!| Well first the Bible says that blessed are those who mourn... |
What chapter and verse?| ...and second, because of Christ on the cross, we all don't get what we deserve. |
Christ's death changed the fact of God's perfect justice?!?!| They will now reap what they have sowed. But you are correct about God being good and just. The hell bound sinner choose his destination by his own freewill |
Except, of course, those who've never heard of Jesus.| In the grand scheme of things, nothing. |
So mourning is all just an act in order to get blessed? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 07:32:57 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| And based on the amount of time you spend on this website I would say that you already have the easy life. |
Talk about speculating! |
Everyone else is speculating. Why can't I?
| You would experience a dwindle because the vast amount of soup kitchens and missions are ran by religious organizations. Now you can speculate and say that non-religious people would fill in the gaps when the religious people disappear and no one is giving the homeless care, but that is just speculation. |
I'm not talking about religious people vanishing, especially since that would leave many, many fewer homeless people in the first place (problem almost solved!). Do you seriously think that if the people who run the shelters lost their religion, they'd just drop what they were doing to do something else? |
So who said you get to dictate the hypothetical world and say the religios rather became non-religious then just disappeared? Anyway you can speculate that the new non-religious would run the soup kitchens but I would ask then why don't we see more non-religious soup kitchens now?
| And if they would step in then how come we don't see any atheist/agnostic soup kitchens today? Where is the Free Thought/Skeptics Homeless Shelter now? Right now the majority of homeless shelters and soup kitchens are ran by religious organizations. That is just a fact. |
How many atheists work iconn church-run shelters and kitchens, Bill? |
Why don't they have their own shelter/soup kitchen? Just leave it up to the religious folk to run the show? I thought they didn't like that. How about Free Thought of Virgina Soup Kitchen now open for busness.
| Plus, the religions generally have a ready stream of money as they shake down their parishoners. |
Yes thats right. The religious ran soup kitchen is funded mainly by religious people. No big surprise here.
| Atheists would rather petition the government for solutions to these sorts of nationwide problems. |
Any social endeavor by the government has wound up overblaoted in funding and underacheving in performance. Not to mention the red tape and misuse of funds that plauge them. Great! Just ask uncle sam to tax us and then take care of the problem himself. Brilliant!
| It's then only logical that if all the religious people were to disappear this would no doubt cause a dwindle. |
Again: you got the hypothetical wrong. |
Right. When you get to make the hyotheticl rules that is.
| That is fine. I will just remind you as I did Leo that it is all your speculation with no working model to point as an example. That was/is/remains all that I am saying. |
There is only "no working model" if you demand that such a model be as large as a country. Smaller models exist. |
Go ahead and share.
| I have never murdered anyone of a different religion or of no religion. Nor have I ever interpreted anything in the Word that told me to do so nor I have ever felt God was wanting me too. I would agree that there was a time when God instructed ancient Israel to kill many of her enemies, but as the creator and sustainer of all life who can challenge his authority to do so? |
Those told to kill. What are the consequences of refusal? |
Are you referring to the ancient Israelites here?
| If we had no freewill then God would never have to give the commandment to not murder. God wants us to choose to accept and love Christ based on what he has done for us. Without choice you can't have love and are nothing but a preprogrammed human robot. The flip side of this is we can also choose to reject Christ as well. But we must have that option if we are to have freewill. |
That's some juvenile theology there, Bill. The idea that without God-given free will you'd be a robot is absurd, |
Well "robot" is just an analogy and without freewill you have no choice.
| Then why did Peter have a dream in Acts where he was told he could eat what was considered defiled and unclean food under the law? |
Are you kidding? Acts 10:9-16 read:
God tells Peter that He's made those unclean animals clean, and you think this means that God has lifted His Commandment that you must kill anyone who wears two different kinds of fiber in his clothes or to honor your parents?! Besides, in context, Peter's vision was metaphorical, and Peter understood it to mean that God was cleansing the Gentiles who had faith. |
You right, bad example. I must have been thinking of something else. Anyway here is what I should have quoted:
Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Galatians 3
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Ephesians 2
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross
| Because we were talking about how come some people were seemingly saved in disasters while others were not. I simply commented that they were not really saved but were just given more time as we all die in the end. The one who escaped the disaster was just given a little more time and was not really saved. Their fate remains the same. So whether it is 10 years we are given or 50 years, the bottom line is we are all going to meet that same fate. And then... |
A brilliant equivocation on the meaning of the word 'saved' I must say. |
Brilliant, really? Well thanks.
| I wouldn't know the difference on a case by case basis. When 3000 people die undoubtedly some will be believers and some will not. |
"Undoubtedly?!" You're playing the odds with God's Will?! |
Based on the odds I was speculating that of the 3000 who died some would be Christians and some would not, by I would mourn the deaths of all.
| Well first the Bible says that blessed are those who mourn... |
What chapter and verse? |
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted." -Matthew 5:4
| ...and second, because of Christ on the cross, we all don't get what we deserve. |
Christ's death changed the fact of God's perfect justice?!?! |
It didn't change God's justice. It paid the price that God's justice demanded.
| They will now reap what they have sowed. But you are correct about God being good and just. The hell bound sinner choose his destination by his own freewill |
Except, of course, those who've never heard of Jesus. |
They will be without excuse.
| So mourning is all just an act in order to get blessed? |
No. It's a process that, in time, will bring us comfort.
"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted."
Matthew 5:4 |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 05/14/2008 07:58:22 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2008 : 16:23:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
So who said you get to dictate the hypothetical world and say the religios rather became non-religious then just disappeared? |
If all the religious people vanished, most of the homeless and hungry people would vanish, also. The need for shelters and soup kitchens would "dwindle." Have it your way.| Anyway you can speculate that the new non-religious would run the soup kitchens... |
The only reason for speculation there would be if you believe that religion makes people more charitable. I won't grant that premise.| ...but I would ask then why don't we see more non-religious soup kitchens now? |
Funny, but I can find mention of only two "soup kitchens" in my county, both of which operate only one day per month. Looking at DC's food programs, it looks like about 10% of them are non-religious, just as one would expect from the population.| Why don't they have their own shelter/soup kitchen? |
Why would there be an explicitly atheist soup kitchen or homeless shelter. You think they'd turn away 90% of the people they seek to help?| Just leave it up to the religious folk to run the show? I thought they didn't like that. How about Free Thought of Virgina Soup Kitchen now open for busness. |
How about "Meals on Wheels," or "Goodwill," or "UNICEF?"| Yes thats right. The religious ran soup kitchen is funded mainly by religious people. No big surprise here. |
Atheists don't have a god proclaiming that they must pony up 10% of their gross income.| Atheists would rather petition the government for solutions to these sorts of nationwide problems. |
Any social endeavor by the government has wound up overblaoted in funding and underacheving in performance. Not to mention the red tape and misuse of funds that plauge them. Great! Just ask uncle sam to tax us and then take care of the problem himself. Brilliant! |
Completely irrelevant to the question at hand. Local government are already involved.| Again: you got the hypothetical wrong. |
Right. When you get to make the hyotheticl rules that is. |
As above, if we follow the hypothetical as you suggest it, then 90% of America's population vanishes, leaving plenty of empty homes and available jobs for the down-trodden unbelievers who remain (even though all those jobs would be in reconstruction of the governments and infrastructure).| There is only "no working model" if you demand that such a model be as large as a country. Smaller models exist. |
Go ahead and share. |
Check out any organization that doesn't include faith as a prerequisite for membership.| Are you referring to the ancient Israelites here? |
Sure. If they had refused God's orders to kill, what would have happened to them?| Well "robot" is just an analogy and without freewill you have no choice. |
Yes, you have no choice as to whether to accept God. "No free will" doesn't mean that you don't get to choose to have your coffee black or with cream. Satan had no free will in that Satan could not deny God's existence. Satan's lack of free will doesn't mean that He does only God's bidding. Or does it?You right, bad example. I must have been thinking of something else. Anyway here is what I should have quoted:
Romans 10
4Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.
Galatians 3
23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Ephesians 2
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross |
Paul, Paul, Paul... I'd say that Jesus' own words trump Paul's on the subject of whether the law applies or not. Do you think the Ten Commandments apply to you, Bill?
Besides, if Jesus did away with the Law, why don't you feel free to rape, kill, pillage and burn?| It didn't change God's justice. It paid the price that God's justice demanded. |
Then people still get whatever it is they deserve. Otherwise, you're implying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough.| They will now reap what they have sowed. But you are correct about God being good and just. The hell bound sinner choose his destination by his own freewill |
Except, of course, those who've never heard of Jesus. |
They will be without excuse. |
Yeah, I think it's great of you guys to not give a person a break. Children who die during childbirth? Going to Hell.| So mourning is all just an act in order to get blessed? |
No. It's a process that, in time, will bring us comfort. |
Ah, so it's selfishness then. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 07:01:23 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
Originally posted by Bill scott
So who said you get to dictate the hypothetical world and say the religios rather became non-religious then just disappeared? |
If all the religious people vanished, most of the homeless and hungry people would vanish, also. The need for shelters and soup kitchens would "dwindle." Have it your way. |
And you would be left with atheists to deal with homeless atheists. A small group left to deal with a small group.
| Anyway you can speculate that the new non-religious would run the soup kitchens... |
The only reason for speculation there would be if you believe that religion makes people more charitable. I won't grant that premise. |
I never said any such thing. Leo said that once religious folks were gone the USA would be a better place, in particular with the poor. So he/you are the one who needs to show that atheists are more charitable then religious folks to demonstrate any evidence for the hypothesis. I merely need to show that religious folks are as charitable as atheists to provide evidence against his hypothesis.
| ...but I would ask then why don't we see more non-religious soup kitchens now? |
Funny, but I can find mention of only two "soup kitchens" in my county, both of which operate only one day per month. Looking at DC's food programs, it looks like about 10% of them are non-religious, just as one would expect from the population. |
Which would show that atheists are no more charitable then religious folks. This would be evidence against the notion that the USA would become a better place for the poor if religious folks were gone.
| Why don't they have their own shelter/soup kitchen? |
Why would there be an explicitly atheist soup kitchen or homeless shelter. You think they'd turn away 90% of the people they seek to help? |
I never said explicitly. I said a soup kitchen organized and mainly funded by an atheist's organization, say the Free Thinkers of Virginia Soup Kitchen for example.
| Yes thats right. The religious ran soup kitchen is funded mainly by religious people. No big surprise here. |
Atheists don't have a god proclaiming that they must pony up 10% of their gross income. |
So then atheists don't give as much per personal income, whatever the reason, is that what you are saying?
| Atheists would rather petition the government for solutions to these sorts of nationwide problems. |
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 13:02:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
And you would be left with atheists to deal with homeless atheists. A small group left to deal with a small group. |
There would be no homeless atheists. Nine out of every ten homes would be vacant, waiting for people to just move on in.| The only reason for speculation there would be if you believe that religion makes people more charitable. I won't grant that premise. |
I never said any such thing. |
I never said that you said it.| Leo said that once religious folks were gone the USA would be a better place, in particular with the poor. So he/you are the one who needs to show that atheists are more charitable then religious folks to demonstrate any evidence for the hypothesis. I merely need to show that religious folks are as charitable as atheists to provide evidence against his hypothesis. |
Can you do so?| Which would show that atheists are no more charitable then religious folks. |
It's a poor measure, one of the things I've been trying to get across to you.| This would be evidence against the notion that the USA would become a better place for the poor if religious folks were gone. |
Except that other plausible solutions exist. It would be evidence only if the only way to help the poor is through homeless shelters and soup kitchens. It is not.| I never said explicitly. I said a soup kitchen organized and mainly funded by an atheist's organization, say the Free Thinkers of Virginia Soup Kitchen for example. |
But why? Atheism isn't a philanthropy, explicitly atheist organizations tend to be narrowly focused in their mission(s), and nobody ever claimed that atheists are good at making soup. Meals on Wheels, on the other hand, is a secular charity to which some local atheist organizations actively volunteer time and money. MoW already has the expertise, so the atheists aren't duplicating effort or re-inventing the wheel (or the meal-on-wheel), and there's no need for the wasteful overhead of a separate charity.| So then atheists don't give as much per personal income, whatever the reason, is that what you are saying? |
Of course not. I was saying that churches are a con, and only a percentage of the 10% goes towards church-run charities. Giving directly is more efficient.| HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! As if local governments are not bloated and inefficient themselves… Sometimes they are even worse then the feds. |
Still completely irrelevant.| But I could point to many religious organizations that do require a creed before membership and say the same thing. |
So what? I never claimed that there was "no working model" of religious governance. You claimed "no working model" of atheist governance.| Your right. I have no free will whether to accept that the USA exists. That has nothing to with the fact that I do |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2008 : 23:19:02 [Permalink]
|
Dave....
I am truly astounded at your perseverance and patience in responding to the biblical babblings of this incredible autodidactical automaton. He's like an answering machine from Hell, programmed by Satan to confound the caller into a state of insanity!
Kudos for suffering fools endlessly, if not gladly; and with more patience than Job could muster in an eternity of aggravation! |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2008 : 13:04:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
You can't honestly say that someone answering "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" could be Christian, can you? Or Muslim? Or Hindu? And right there, you've covered more than 90% of all religious sects in Sweden. |
No. I wouldn't. But I wasn't trying too. I was simply pointing out that because some countries only have 41-23% who claim to believe in God does not mean that atheists are in the majority. |
That is exactly what I'm saying, atheists are in majority, or at least the most dominant minority. "Atheism, as an explicit position, either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] "
Directly quoted from Wikipedia on atheism (emphasis mine).
The point of it being, all these people who believe in a spiritual world or "life-force" (who voted the middle way) don't live under the threat of Hell Fire(tm) to behave good. They do not believe in God, obviously since they didn't answer the question with "I believe in God", thus making them atheists in a broader sense. However, since an atheist may in fact believe in a spiritual world or "something else out there" atheists aren't restricted to only belonging to the last, strictly materialistic viewpoint. As presented in the Eurobarometer.
Agnostics aren't compelled to do good because any belief in God, or because any religious scripture say so. If they did, they would be religious and believe in God. An in Sweden, they would belong to the 23% who answered "I believe in God".
That is what we have been looking for from the beginning of this thread. A country with an majority who reject a belief in God and/or the after life and is a "better place" then the USA.
|
So just because someone believe the soul lives on after death, that person would feel a need to "do good deeds"? That's a load of BS.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2008 : 21:47:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
I am truly astounded at your perseverance and patience in responding to... |
Well, Bill hasn't reached the point where he invalidates all argument of any sort, so the discussion is still interesting. At least I am still interested. Perhaps Bill will come up with a Bible verse that explains why Paul should trump Jesus. Maybe he'll finally widen the discussion of the "better" world past the poor (I'd really like to see where that might go!), or realize why I find Christian grief so bizarre. Or, he might sink the deal with an epistemological depth-charge of solipsism, which while entertaining really makes it impossible to continue. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
God is Great?
