Originally posted by Tassman
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Debunked: Socialism has never worked
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostPoor Adrift lives in denial of the plain facts.
Well, it's not a description of theism is it. 'Agnosticism' may be a better description in this instance...which I included in my reference to Finland.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostIn post #199 you called Finland "Atheistic". Are you changing your description of the nation?“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIn #199 I referred to Finland as “socialistic, atheistic Finland”. When queried on this I elaborated in #228 (and elsewhere) with: “According to Adherents.com Finland ranks seventh in people that are atheist, agnostic or non-believers in God”. In short non-theist, which was the underlying point.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSo are you or are you not changing your description of Finland?
It is NOT atheistic as you stated in post #199.
According to the newer, non-biased survey I offered
it is absolutely NOT atheistic.
It is actually predominately spiritual, with only 22% of those surveyed claiming that they do not believe in God, or in any spirits or life forces.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostChrawnrus is the only Finn on TWeb, he is Christian, therefore 100% of Finland is Christian.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostAlso, everything good that ever happened in Finland is because of Christianity. Anything bad that ever happened there, was not due to Christianity.
Originally posted by Starlight View PostFacts don't count Tass, you've been on this site long enough to know that by now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThe argument that non-theistic Finland ranks so high in the IHDI (it’s 10th) must be due to its previous Christian heritage doesn’t make sense given that the still active Christian USA (and richest country in the world) only ranks 19th.
Well, not only Christian, but specifically Lutheran. And the reason I'm bringing it up is because you have a tendency to bring up Finland, among numerous other countries, as an example of an atheistic/secular country with a higher living standards than the Christian () USA as if trying to make the point that a secular/atheistic country tends to flourish more than a Christian one. But the people here in Finland who worked to make this a country a place with such high standards of living were for the overwhelming part Christians who got the work ethic required to make this country into what it currently is due to, yes, their Christian upbringing and heritage.
Would it still have happened even without Finland being a predominantly Christian nation? Perhaps. But the fact is that in this reality, i.e not in your imaginary world where Christianity can never, and will never contribute anything good whatsoever to society, Finland's heritage of Lutheran Christianity was a significant factor as to why it is such a good place to live.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostAtheism isn't lack of a belief in a God (which is the most this would suggest), it's active disbelief.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostFacts don't count Tass, you've been on this site long enough to know that by now.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostMost modern atheists are intellectual cowards and refuse to take a positive stance in the debate. They laughably claim that atheism is the default view, and that 100% of the burden of proof rests on the theist. Which is to say you'll never get them to accept a sensible definition of atheism that requires them to defend their worldview.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAtheism is merely a “Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods”- Oxford Dictionary. What do you mean by “active disbelief?Last edited by Terraceth; 09-23-2017, 02:01 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostOf course not, it encompasses 28% - 60% of the population of Finland which is either “atheist, agnostic or non-believers in God”. As I said.
I elaborated on that...see above and stop ignoring the bits that don’t serve your biased argument.
So your survey is non-biased and mine is. Gotcha!
See above.
“Predominately spiritual” is NOT the same as theist. “Spiritual” can apply to belief in any paranormal activity, e.g. ghosts...or New Age woo. Or it could apply to Agnostics.
Comment
-
Whilst I do think the pants and undefined 'something spiritual out there maybe' wouldn't qualify you as an atheist as some posters on here would claim, I'd also define agnostics as atheists. 'I don't know' means you don't actively believe, therefore they are atheist by definition.
But then this is why we have the weak vs strong atheist positions- the agnostic is by definition a weak atheist, whilst the actively disbelieving in God (though obviously it includes all the other defined gods) would count as being a strong atheist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by EvoUK View PostWhilst I do think the pants and undefined 'something spiritual out there maybe' wouldn't qualify you as an atheist as some posters on here would claim, I'd also define agnostics as atheists. 'I don't know' means you don't actively believe, therefore they are atheist by definition.
But then this is why we have the weak vs strong atheist positions- the agnostic is by definition a weak atheist, whilst the actively disbelieving in God (though obviously it includes all the other defined gods) would count as being a strong atheist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWe seem to have this discussion on this forum regularly. Thomas Huxley, the coiner of the word "agnostic" was very opposed to lumping in "agnostic" with "atheist". So much so that he pointed out that in some ways he found atheism more distasteful than theism. His whole purpose for coining the word was to take a different approach on the question "is there, or is there not a god/s, spirits, the supernatural" that so many others seem to think they know the answer to. Other agnostics seem to agree that there is absolutely no reason to confuse the terms or make up distinctions like "weak" atheism" and "strong" atheism. All it does is add confusion.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
|
16 responses
137 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by One Bad Pig
Today, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
|
53 responses
356 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 11:32 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
|
25 responses
112 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 08:36 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
|
33 responses
197 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Roy
Today, 07:43 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
|
84 responses
363 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by JimL
Today, 11:08 AM
|
Comment