The tyranny of religion and the freed...

The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism

There are 177 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 15, 2014, titled The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

On occasion, the atheist podcast and radio show " Reasonable Doubts " will feature an interview with a high-profile atheist who was formerly a religious activist.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#122 Jan 26, 2014
Continued from the above:
So the response should be, if God is existence or existence is God how [QUOTE]

This has exactly the same meaning regardless if you swap the words Existence and GOD... Implications remain the same. And the context framed is if Existence is GOD.. So if Existence is GOD, everything of Existence is GOD.. You can not separate everything of Existence from Existence and come out coherent. This is what you are attempting to do.

[QUOTE]
ever you wish to state it as the question goes and you remove one from the other, what does that leave? It leaves nothing. God without existence is nothing. I said....
The only person talking about removing is you.(see the previous reply above). Hence the problem begins when you bring this into Q2 and 3 to which is incoherent because that is not what those 2 questions are dealing with... You can't even get that context you are implying from the frame in which those questions are asked. Hence you paid no attention to the actual words used and invented your own context. Then again theists are used to doing this sort of thing to which is essentially similar to quote mining.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#123 Jan 26, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful and successful were and are secular.
Ahhhhh, I'll call you on that and ask for proof. You should have several great ancient civilizations in mind that I can link to where religions and religious philosophy didn't exist as you claim?

secular (&#712;s&#603;kj&# 650;l&#601;)—adj: 1. of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things; temporal: 2. not concerned with or related to religion

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#125 Jan 26, 2014
"See also: History of the Internet
ARPANET
Arpanet logical map, march 1977.png
ARPANET logical map, March 1977
Commercial? No
Type of network data
Location United States
Protocols NCP, TCP/IP
Established 1969
Funding DARPA
The Program you noted only dealt with the first network of machines to use the developed TCIP Protocol.. They did not bring you the Internet, they brought you the protocol to Cern. And Cern brought you the Internet as the original server is located at Cern..:
http://home.web.cern.ch/topics/birth-web
Hence the claim isn't stating that Cern invented the packet switching protocol. The claim is that Cern brought you the Internet, and the world wide internet deals heavily with particle physics and fiber optics.
And nor was Apnet entirely comprised of "theists".. And they wouldn't even have a machine or an OS to write a protocol if it weren't for the Atheists.. The guy who wrote the instructions for how the cpu would operate was from a Gay atheist. And the OS's, whether that be Linux, Mac OS, or Windows, were all born from Atheists. Hence the very foundation to develop a protocol in the first place is by large thanks to Atheists. Windows alone changed to world.. The point I am of course making here is that it was Secular society in which brought you the modern civilization.. Binary code for example came from a Deist who didn't even believe in Jesus or miracles.. His name was Gottfried Willhelm Leibniz.. And then you had Claude Shannon who is the founding father of the digital computer and the digital circuit. He of all the others did the following, and I quote:
[QUOTE
Shannon proved that boolean algebra and binary arithmetic could be used to simplify the arrangement of the electromechanical relays that were used then in telephone call routing switches.[/QUOTE]
And what does TCP/IP protocol use? What is is based on sir?

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#126 Jan 26, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh, I'll call you on that and ask for proof. You should have several great ancient civilizations in mind that I can link to where religions and religious philosophy didn't exist as you claim?
secular (&#712;s&#603;kj&# 650;l&#601;)—adj: 1. of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things; temporal: 2. not concerned with or related to religion
Would you argue the bible Belt to which is also the Crime belt of America as the source to peace and success? They are also the poverty belt in America.. Most of the prison population is that of Christians.. And American is practically near becoming a Theocracy. Much of the south is Anti-secular.. Much of whom want dominion theology.. Now go someplace like Denmark for example, and there is a stark contrast to what we find in the bible Belt. And America was founded on secular principles and rose to be a super power. But ever since it started down that road to becoming a Theocracy in which it is now reaching for, we have the decline of our nation.. The religious right attack the education system and want to turn them into religious indoctrination systems. Funny, that happened in Afghanistan prior to its collapse into a 3rd world nation ruled by dominion theology. Places like Dafur, and Sudan are other prime examples.. In fact wherever we find the most peace and success in a society is where it is secular.. We know that atheist states don't work, we know that theocracies don't work... It doesn't take a genius to know the world is secular, and that when people aren't trying to oppress and rule one group over another, you get a far more stable state of civilization.

And Ancient civilizations fought over religion, and used religion for power, wealth, and control over the masses. I am curious to what your definition of a "Great Civilization" is.. Civilized being a key word here.
Lets See Your Space Age

Gridley, CA

#127 Jan 27, 2014
You're just wrong. The internet was around a long time before the world wide web, I was on it.

There was no WWW and there were no browsers. We went in manually: universities had connections on the internet.

There were lists of phone numbers to enter into our modems and the pages those universities had up on the internet appeared on our screens.
--------
http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/ivh/chap... for a Few Basics
-------
"Time for a Few Basics

Here we have the first true computer network.
Since it is all still fairly basic, it is worth considering the underlying principles have basically remained the same (even if they, mercifully, operate far faster and look much prettier). We start off with a passive terminal and an active host, a keyboard and a computer. They are linked together by a cable. By typing in commands recognised by a computer, you can use the programs stored in its computer, access its files (and modify them and print them out as desired). Most people can envisage this arrangement within a single building, or complex of buildings.

In order to access another computer, at a completely different facility, we have first to reach it.
This was usually done in these times over a (high speed) telephone line (or lines).

Once you arrive at the new 'host' you have to convince it to treat you in the same way as someone behind a terminal within its own system.

Hence the need of an interface message processor (IMP) and for the same IMP to be installed in both computers! Now you can access its files. Of course, order to preserve confidentiality, all computers differentiated between 'open' files and those that were password protected.

If you wanted to transfer a file or program to your own computer, the host computer uses a program to break it down into 'packages' attaching to each the address and its original position. It then sends them to your 'home' computer where a mirror program reassembles the message in the original order. In future, you could then access them from your home base. When dealing with a 'simple' network like ARPANET it is difficult to see what the real advantage of this process was. But this would soon change...
*******
From ARPANET to Internet
*******

In October 1972 ARPANET went 'public'.

At the First International Conference on Computers and Communication, held in Washington DC,

ARPA scientists demonstrated the system in operation, linking computers together from 40 different locations.
*******
This stimulated further research in scientific community throughout the Western World. Soon other networks would appear. The Washington conference also set up an Internetworking Working Group (IWG) to coordinate the research taking place. Meanwhile ARPA scientists worked on refining the system and expanding its capabilities:

In 1972, they successfully employed a new program to allow the sending of messages over the net, allowing direct person-to-person communication that we now refer to as e-mail. This development we will deal with at length in the next section."

Whatever your other claims, which are trivial and exist only to prove Atheists all developed in the womb and lap of thiest created civilization,

the main one you've made's simply a fantasy.

The Egyptian civilization wasn''t atheist
The Greek civilization wasn't atheist.
The Roman civilization wasn't atheist.
The Assyrian civilization wasn't atheist.

There has never been a "great atheist provided freedom" in this world that was not preceded by a theist showing that atheist the way.

As a matter of fact your claims about Operating Systems being courtesy of atheists is wrong.

"The first operating system used for real work was GM-NAA I/O, produced in 1956 by General Motors' Research division[1] for its IBM 704."

Gates and whomoever weren't even born.
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
The internet was invented by Cern.
Lets See Your Space Age

Gridley, CA

#128 Jan 27, 2014
You having an alphabet, writing to go with it, clothes, food, security, medicine: that is civilization.

No atheist civilization has ever existed that even had written records.

Or we'd all be watching you link to them.

Claim The United States wasn't invented by Theists is pure fabrication.

You're simply lying. Period. I don't care whether you mean to or not, you don't care enough to make your word worthy of cross checking.

The United States was started by Theists who set up a government where their leaders put their hands on Bibles.

The United States has a constitution saying religion - not atheism - is to be protected.

When you come online you need for people to be able to check what you say without laughing in your face and you're just not making it.

Again: let's see your Great Atheist Society.

You don't have one.

Even your claim of Operating Systems being invented by atheists and agnostics is easily checked,.

"The first operating system used for real work was GM-NAA I/O, produced in 1956 by General Motors' Research division for its IBM 704. Most other early operating systems for IBM mainframes were also produced by customers."
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
I am curious to what your definition of a "Great Civilization" is.. Civilized being a key word here.
"
Amused

Lowell, MA

#129 Jan 27, 2014
Lets See Your Space Age wrote:
...
Even your claim of Operating Systems being invented by atheists and agnostics is easily checked,.
"The first operating system used for real work was GM-NAA I/O, produced in 1956 by General Motors' Research division for its IBM 704. Most other early operating systems for IBM mainframes were also produced by customers."
<quoted text>"
And your proof that the developers were theists is ...

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#130 Jan 27, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
REJECTING is a decision.
Listening isn't a decision even if one is listening about theism or atheism and how well and good each is from the person trying to convert the listener.
After hearing and listening comes the time when one makes a decision concerning what they have heard and whether they will or won't apply said info to their life.
No one on this earth has ever been proved to have been born a believer in a god or a disbeliever in a god.
The word 'theist' as one calls oneself means they have made a decision at some point in their life to be one.
The word atheist as one calls oneself means they have made a decision at some point in their life to be one.
Thus. If you call yourself an atheist, that means you have chosen/decided to be an atheist. You call yourself a patriot. That means you have decided to be a patriot. Understand?
No Surprise wrote: REJECTING is a decision.
Reason Personified wrote: Yes it is, and rejecting theism, makes one a nonbeliever.

No Surprise wrote: Listening isn't a decision even if one is listening about theism or atheism and how well and good each is from the person trying to convert the listener.
Reason Personified wrote: I don't remember anyone saying it was.

No Surprise wrote: After hearing and listening comes the time when one makes a decision concerning what they have heard and whether they will or won't apply said info to their life.
Reason Personified wrote: Or they may not make a decision at all, but it doesn't apply in this discussion.

No Surprise wrote: No one on this earth has ever been proved to have been born a believer in a god or a disbeliever in a god.
Reason Personified wrote: But whether you like it or understand it, until they become a theist, they are atheist*.

No Surprise wrote: The word 'theist' as one calls oneself means they have made a decision at some point in their life to be one.
Reason Personified wrote: The word theist means that the person has been indoctrinated into some theism or other(Voodoo, Christain, etc.) Children who have not chosen, are routinely indoctrinated and become theist.

No Surprise wrote: The word atheist as one calls oneself means they have made a decision at some point in their life to be one.
Reason Personified wrote: The word atheist means not theist. As in not indoctrinated, not buying a prayer rug, not sucking down no Jewsus blood, not chowing down on the savior, just NOT THEIST.

No Surprise wrote: Thus. If you call yourself an atheist, that means you have chosen/decided to be an atheist.
Reason Personified wrote: Thus if you call yourself an atheist, it means that you are calling yourself an atheist. If you are an atheist, it means you are not theist. Everyone is atheist (without theism) until indoctrinated. THE "A" MEANS NOT!

No Surprise wrote: You call yourself a patriot. That means you have decided to be a patriot. Understand?
Reason Personified wrote: And until I chose to be a patriot, I was an apatriot. It doesn't mean that I had rejected patriotism, nor that I had even considered it, I was simply not a patriot. Understand?
The "a", doesn't work in this instance, but if it did, I would also be an apixieist, an aleprechaunist, an abansheeist, an aunicornist. The "a" means not.

* Not theist. The "a" means not.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#131 Jan 27, 2014
Here we have the first true computer network.
Since it is all still fairly basic, it is worth considering the underlying principles have basically remained the same (even if they, mercifully, operate far faster and look much prettier). We start off with a passive terminal and an active host, a keyboard and a computer. They are linked together by a cable. By typing in commands recognised by a computer, you can use the programs stored in its computer, access its files (and modify them and print them out as desired). Most people can envisage this arrangement within a single building, or complex of buildings.
I am well aware of this, and it has nothing to do with my statement.. The internet as you know it as the world wide web was brought to you by the folks as Cern.. It was not an argument that they had created all the technology.. Please learn the difference...
Whatever your other claims, which are trivial and exist only to prove Atheists all developed in the womb and lap of thiest created civilization,
This is laughable... Theists did not create civilization.. And again without the CPU thanks to a gay atheist, you would never have the digital modern computer, or even an Apnet program to which you can't even show was all funded or produced by "Christians/theists" .. You're intellectual dishonesty here is on an olympic level.. And TCP/IP depends entirely on the principles of binary code and circuit switching related to electric relays and routing.. News flash kiddo, Apnet didn't invent this technology, or even the computer..They came up with a packet switching protocol to network computers based on the binary code, and how the computer functions in principle.. The operating systems such as Dos made this possible, all of which were developed by Atheists.. And if you think that is trivial, demonstrate for us how you plan to connect to the internet without the CPU, integrated circuit, or operating system.. Running Windows, Linux, or Mac OS? Those were all created and started by Atheists. How many computers in the economic system of the world market are using the CPU, and one of these 3 operating systems? Yeah, your argument is a laughable joke..

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#132 Jan 27, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you argue the bible Belt to which is also the Crime belt of America as the source to peace and success? They are also the poverty belt in America.. Most of the prison population is that of Christians.. And American is practically near becoming a Theocracy. Much of the south is Anti-secular.. Much of whom want dominion theology.. Now go someplace like Denmark for example, and there is a stark contrast to what we find in the bible Belt. And America was founded on secular principles and rose to be a super power. But ever since it started down that road to becoming a Theocracy in which it is now reaching for, we have the decline of our nation.. The religious right attack the education system and want to turn them into religious indoctrination systems. Funny, that happened in Afghanistan prior to its collapse into a 3rd world nation ruled by dominion theology. Places like Dafur, and Sudan are other prime examples.. In fact wherever we find the most peace and success in a society is where it is secular.. We know that atheist states don't work, we know that theocracies don't work... It doesn't take a genius to know the world is secular, and that when people aren't trying to oppress and rule one group over another, you get a far more stable state of civilization.
And Ancient civilizations fought over religion, and used religion for power, wealth, and control over the masses. I am curious to what your definition of a "Great Civilization" is.. Civilized being a key word here.
Ummm, America's been rooted in theocracy since the founding of the first colony. We were a nation ruled by theocratic under tones from politics to laws. We have religious images and quotes and remarks emblazoned on many many buildings in just our nations capitol city. The weakening of that underlying theocracy influence has been happening for the last 30 years strong. We are lesser of a theocratic influenced nation now than we have ever been compared to what we use to be like in the past.
Next, I said nothing of crime.
Next, you said.... "Actually the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful and successful were and are secular."
I said in reply with a description of the word secular included....
"Ahhhhh, I'll call you on that and ask for proof. You should have several great ancient civilizations in mind that I can link to where religions and religious philosophy didn't exist as you claim?
secular —adj: 1. of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things; temporal: 2. not concerned with or related to religion
2. not concerned with or related to religion. That is what you stated of "...the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful were and are secular."
You dodged the question I asked. I asked for the names of some of these "greatest civilizations" (your words) as I referred to them as great as you did the same calling them the "greatest".
So back to the question. Give me the names of some of these civilizations that were secular, meaning non-religious civilizations and when they existed. I have never heard of any and I like history :)

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#133 Jan 27, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
And your proof that the developers were theists is ...
He's trying to assert that even everyone in the APNET program were all theists while I am telling him that the modern computer age was a secular effort.. He's intellectually dishonest of course, and takes my posts out of intended context and tries to suggest I am claiming Atheists created civilization.. He's commits to various formal and informal logical fallacies like most fundamentalists who have no intellectual integrity. Worse still, IMB took from the Manchester Mark 1, especially in concerns to index registers to which became incorporated into the IBM 701 and 702.. And considering the Mark 1, you might want to know who Alan Turing was. Another Gay Atheist persecuted by religious fanatics / homophobics .:
http://www.digital60.org/about/biographies/al...
And I quote:
Turing made contributions to the extra orders added in the Ferranti Mark 1, notably the random number generator. It is also likely that he and Newman influenced the comprehensive set of instructions provided on the Manchester Mark 1 in connection with the double length accumulator, since they required multi-length arithmetic for their Mersenne Primes work.(In practice there was little subsequent usage of the Mark 1s for anything longer than double-length arithmetic).
However, the main formal contribution Turing made to the Mark 1 project was that he worked on providing the early software requirements for the Manchester Mark 1, with the full time help of Cicely Popplewell, and wrote the first programming manual for the Ferranti Mark 1.
I also can not find any information of the religious views of Gene Amdahl who was the chief architect of the system/360. However there was at least one theist working on this system.. And I would love to see him show with academic citation that the modern computer ages arose from Theists alone. Theists love to take and steal credit for things they did not do. Christians in the US think they own marriage for example while knowing literally nothing about the history of marriage and why that is a laughable joke in itself..

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#134 Jan 27, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>
I had to erase some of your post to make room for mine.

No Surprise wrote: The word atheist as one calls oneself means they have made a decision at some point in their life to be one.
Reason Personified wrote: The word atheist means not theist. As in not indoctrinated, not buying a prayer rug, not sucking down no Jewsus blood, not chowing down on the savior, just NOT THEIST.
No Surprise wrote: Thus. If you call yourself an atheist, that means you have chosen/decided to be an atheist.
Reason Personified wrote: Thus if you call yourself an atheist, it means that you are calling yourself an atheist. If you are an atheist, it means you are not theist. Everyone is atheist (without theism) until indoctrinated. THE "A" MEANS NOT!
No Surprise wrote: You call yourself a patriot. That means you have decided to be a patriot. Understand?
Reason Personified wrote: And until I chose to be a patriot, I was an apatriot. It doesn't mean that I had rejected patriotism, nor that I had even considered it, I was simply not a patriot. Understand?
The "a", doesn't work in this instance, but if it did, I would also be an apixieist, an aleprechaunist, an abansheeist, an aunicornist. The "a" means not.
* Not theist. The "a" means not.
My bad. Now I understand your confusion. You're trying to make the same meaning out of 'atheist' to be 'not-theist' and to have said same meaning without any decision making. That's your error. Need examples? The word atheist as defined in dictionaries is always written to mean someone that has made a decision to not believe in a god(s). The word is NEVER usually defined as someone that has no belief established.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...

a·the·ist[áythee ist ]
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities
..........
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
..........
Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief.
..........
Definition of ATHEISM. 1. archaic: ungodliness, wickedness. 2. a: a disbelief in the existence of deity . b: the doctrine that there is no deity .
..........
a·the·ist (&#257;&#8242;th&# 275;-&#301;st) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. atheist
..........
And than we have a link to how I deciphered those without any belief (called atheists inn this link) and atheists who are because of decision.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php...
I will state for the record that a person who has never come to a decision process of accepting or rejecting theism can be called an atheist by the simplicity of the definition. But that is not how most use the word atheist. The below proves it that most believe in the below that an atheist, like a theist, comes to be called and defined such by decision.
Atheist
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':

1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.

2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.

Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#135 Jan 27, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
My bad. Now I understand your confusion. You're trying to make the same meaning out of 'atheist' to be 'not-theist'
Right, that is what it actually is. The letter "A" means not.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#136 Jan 28, 2014
Ummm, America's been rooted in theocracy since the founding of the first colony. We were a nation ruled by theocratic under tones from politics to laws. We have religious images and quotes and remarks emblazoned on many many buildings in just our nations capitol city. The weakening of that underlying theocracy influence has been happening for the last 30 years strong. We are lesser of a theocratic influenced nation now than we have ever been compared to what we use to be like in the past.
This is laughably incorrect. The laws were founded on secular ideals, and so was the nation.. And you don't just have religious images ect on government buildings. Any moron with an internet connection can look that up and find out it's actually quite secular.. America had started the push to become a theocracy in the last 50-60 years more than any other time in our history..
Next, I said nothing of crime.
Next, you said.... "Actually the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful and successful were and are secular."
Me and you clearly have a different definition of what makes a civilization "Great"..
I said in reply with a description of the word secular included....
"Ahhhhh, I'll call you on that and ask for proof.
I gave you proof.. I gave you by example.. Just comparing us to Denmark is more than enough of an example.
You should have several great ancient civilizations in mind that I can link to where religions and religious philosophy didn't exist as you claim?
Where have I claimed there wasn't? Can you show us a civilization that didn't have atheists? No? Well of course not.. And back in the dark ages, there was nothing civilized about religious rule.
secular —adj: 1. of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things; temporal: 2. not concerned with or related to religion
2. not concerned with or related to religion. That is what you stated of "...the greatest civilizations, or most peaceful were and are secular."
You dodged the question I asked. I asked for the names of some of these "greatest civilizations" (your words) as I referred to them as great as you did the same calling them the "greatest".[QUOTE]
My statement dealt with Secular Government, and common law.. All secular means is that civilization is not governed by religion. As in religion is not the focus of government and law. This is not implying that a Civilization doesn't have religious views. You demonstrate for me a government in which is a theocracy to which doesn't actively persecute and oppress other religious and non-religious views. When a society follows secular governance and law, you find far more peace and success.. You can feel free to take a trip to Sudan and Afghanistan if you need help understanding this.
[QUOTE]
So back to the question. Give me the names of some of these civilizations that were secular, meaning non-religious civilizations and when they existed. I have never heard of any and I like history :)
Denmark, New Zealand, Ice Land, Austria are examples, and those who rank higher than the USA to which is ranked around 80 among the developed nations. They are also not drowning in religious dominion theology and extremism as the USA is, or those nations deep in religious fundamentalism. They have religious populations, but they are secular in their governance. And there is a correlation between high religiosity and poverty and violence in the world. The Nations with the highest religiosity are also the most violent. It is true in the bible belt as it is in Yemen, Dafur, Sudan, or the Middle East.. All not equal, but the correlation is there. And much because the 3 major religions are dominion theologies at their very core.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/death-lov...
When religion or even non-religion is used to try and dominate over others, it of course is never pretty..

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#137 Jan 28, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
This is laughably incorrect. The laws were founded on secular ideals, and so was the nation..
That is so sad. I can only argue against ignorance for so long before logic says stop.
PS..as a last question maybe you can teach me of all this secularism that the initial laws of the 13 colonies were based upon that weren't rooted in theism. You did fail so far to illuminate to me in a list with links the greatest civilizations that rose without the influence of religion.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#138 Jan 28, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
I gave you proof.. I gave you by example.. Just comparing us to Denmark is more than enough of an example.
Do you even research what you claim? Denmark is an example to you of a secular civilization? Maybe you should read before you make a claim, just saying.

http://www.denmark.net/denmark-guide/religion...
The official religion in the country of Denmark is Evangelical Lutheran, as stated in Paragraph 4 of the Danish Constitution. There are also other religions recognized by the constitution. About 85 percent of the Danish population belongs to the Evangelical Lutheran religion, while 3 percent are Roman Catholics, and less than 2 percent are Muslim.

Here is some basic information on the Evangelical Lutheran doctrine and practices. Lutheranism, as it is also known, was founded by Martin Luther, who was a priest in the 16th century. Among the central beliefs in Lutheranism involve good works, grace, and faith as a means of salvation. According to surveys, about 5 percent of the Evangelical Lutheran population in Denmark is able to attend the weekly religious services. In the capital city of Copenhagen, about 66 percent of residents are included in the Lutheran membership.

Aside from its adherence to Christian practices, the country is abundant with churches that serve as popular tourist attractions, primarily because of the beautiful architecture and religious significance of the buildings with the history of the Danish. One of the oldest churches is the Cathedral Church in the city of Arhus, which was completed in the 13th century. The original building features Romanesque designs, but was later on restored in Gothic style after it burned in the 1400’s. The Arhus Cathedral is dedicated to St. Clemens, who is also the patron of sailors. Another notable church that is visited by tourists is the Roskilde Cathedral, with Gothic and French inspired architecture. This building was completed in the late 1200’s, and became a mausoleum for the Danish royal family. Many other notable churches still stand today in various cities in Denmark.

There is a small percentage of the population in Denmark who still adhere to the Old Norse religion, much like other nations in Scandinavia like Greenland, Norway, Sweden, and Iceland. The Norse religion was established in the middle ages by the Vikings. Some of the supernatural beings that belong in the myths of the Norse are Thor, Odin, Loki, Tyr, and Freyja.

Denmark is well-known for its many celebrations that hold religious and cultural importance. There are religious events that are celebrated in Denmark, but not because of their holiness or significance to the doctrines, but because of their special cultural meaning. An example of this is the most important holiday of the year for the Danish, which is Christmas. Every year, tons of tourists flock to Danish destinations to celebrate the Yuletide season.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#139 Jan 28, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Right, that is what it actually is. The letter "A" means not.
We'll agree to disagree on the finer points :)
Amused

Lowell, MA

#140 Jan 28, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That is so sad. I can only argue against ignorance for so long before logic says stop.
PS..as a last question maybe you can teach me of all this secularism that the initial laws of the 13 colonies were based upon that weren't rooted in theism. You did fail so far to illuminate to me in a list with links the greatest civilizations that rose without the influence of religion.
The Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This was ratified unanimously by the US Senators present for the vote. Before the vote, the treaty was read aloud in the Senate Chamber in its entirety, and copies had been printed for each Senator to review in advance of the vote. Many of the Senators voting on this were among those we now think of as "founding fathers". John Adams, who was President and who signed the treaty after its ratification was most certainly a founding father. There was no discussion, debate or objection to the language denying that the United States was in any sense founded on christianity.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#141 Jan 28, 2014
Do you even research what you claim? Denmark is an example to you of a secular civilization? Maybe you should read before you make a claim, just saying.
http://www.denmark.net/denmark-guide/religion...
You should look up the term State Religion.. Recognized religion as the state religion does not mean that Denmark governs by said religion in the form of dominion theology. And Denmark has been evolving away from this sort of idealism.. It is a pretty secular in it's government despite having a state religion., and the people have secular attitudes to which is noted in their own constitution:

And I quote the following sources:
According to the SKYE most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[2] 28% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", 47% responded that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". Another poll, carried out in 2008, found that 25% of Danes believe Jesus is the son of God, and 18% believe he is the saviour of the world.[3] While a vast majority of Danes are technically agnostic or atheist, few choose to identify as such. It is speculated that this is because religion is such a non-issue, that not believing in it, does not require a specific label. "At the same time, they were “often disinclined or hesitant to talk with me about religion,” Mr. Zuckerman reported,“and even once they agreed to do so, they usually had very little to say on the matter.”"[4]

^ "Special Eurobarometer, biotechnology, page 204" (PDF). Fieldwork: Jan-Feb 2010.
Jump up ^ Poll performed in December 2009 among 1114 Danes between ages 18 and 74, Hver fjerde dansker tror på Jesus (One in four Danes believe in Jesus), Kristeligt Dagblad, 23 December 2009 (Danish)
Jump up ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/us/28belief...
And:
The Constitution of Denmark contains a number of sections related to religion.
§4 establishes the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark as the state church of Denmark.
§6 requires the Danish monarch (currently Margrethe II of Denmark) to be a member of the state church.
§67 grants freedom of worship.
§68 states that no one is required to personally contribute to any form of religion other than his own. As state subsidies are not considered personal contributions[33] the Church of Denmark receives subsidies - according to §4 - beyond the church tax paid by the members of the church. The Church of Denmark is the only religious group to receive direct financial support from the state. Other religious groups can receive indirect support through tax deductions on contributions.[34]
§70 grants freedom of religion by ensuring civil and political rights can not be revoked due to race or religious beliefs. It further states race and religious beliefs can not be used to be exempt from civil duties.
§71 ensures no one can be imprisoned due to religious beliefs.
The questionable part of Denmark's constitution is the right to hold office..But what is clear is that Denmark's rising agnostic and Atheist population without persecution or oppression is interesting when you compare that to the united states where we are actively being marginalized along with other religions the Christian fundamentalists do not like. Now if religion was Denmark's main concern of governance, they wouldn't be tolerant of other religions or non-religions. They would be like America where the far right want dominion theology. Even the Ministry in Denmark is moving to appose the blasphemy law to which is against their constitution.
The overall point here is that places in the world in which don't have dominion theology and religious extremists in control and making laws, this include atheist extremists, you have a peaceful and functioning society by far when comparing to the latter.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#142 Jan 28, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
The Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This was ratified unanimously by the US Senators present for the vote. Before the vote, the treaty was read aloud in the Senate Chamber in its entirety, and copies had been printed for each Senator to review in advance of the vote. Many of the Senators voting on this were among those we now think of as "founding fathers". John Adams, who was President and who signed the treaty after its ratification was most certainly a founding father. There was no discussion, debate or objection to the language denying that the United States was in any sense founded on christianity.
Correct!.. And just reading Jefferson's letter tells you that they intended to create a secular government.. And on the supreme court buildings there are examples of law givers and even the tortoise and the hare.

http://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/wp-content/upl...
http://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/wp-content/upl...

Even Muhammad is displayed on our government buildings:

http://www.wnd.com/images2/muhammadcourt.jpg

And what the Christians like to claim is the ten commandments is actually the bill of rights.. And any mention of Moses only sites what can be regarded as common law in which is not religious dependent.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 4 hr Subduction Zone 85,568
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 11 hr 15th Dalai Lama 4,905
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Jan 17 ChristineM 4,026
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Jan 16 Into The Night 5,146
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) Jan 15 Dogen 33,127
How To Get To Heaven When You Die (Jan '17) Jan 15 superwilly 111
News Egypt's parliament takes serious actions to com... Jan 14 emperorjohn 1
More from around the web