(February 14, 2018 at 3:29 pm)Joods Wrote: Yes! I'd love to go out on a boat. What kind do you own?

We don't anymore. We have canoes and stuff, though. My uncle, who is on the same lake, has a huge pontoon boat.

(February 14, 2018 at 4:12 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(February 14, 2018 at 3:29 pm)Joods Wrote: Yes! I'd love to go out on a boat. What kind do you own?

We don't anymore. We have canoes and stuff, though. My uncle, who is on the same lake, has a huge pontoon boat.

Ohh okay. Pontoon boats are fun. There seems to be this myth that they are unsinkable. 

I can tell you with a ton of certainty that they are indeed sinkable.

But we shouldn't try that with your uncle's boat.

Oh, they are. Get a bunch of people on one side and you're down.

Fingers crossed we have a warm March or it won't be in the water.

(February 10, 2018 at 7:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(February 7, 2018 at 4:11 pm)Hammy Wrote: but but but but but............... DENMARK!

What is this in reference to? There was quite a heated debate in a certain thread about whether or not Denmark had a secular government, which it clearly does not seeing how it has a state sanctioned church \ religion, you think those facts mattered any?

To top it of that whole thread gets posted here in the hall of shame (which i'll post below, the discussion pretty much starts at page 13) as if i'm being somehow unreasonable in taking the position that the government of Denmark isn't secular.

Having looked back on that thread, it appears the debate in question started with this post. In this post, you link to studies that show that the country of Denmark is one of the happiest in the world, and attempt to make some point about secularism not being linked to happiness in these top countries. Pandemonium in responding to your post about the happiest countries, specifically Panama and Denmark, stated, "I reiterate - countries that have secular institutions and secular structures of government not only tend to be happier, they tend also to be much more productive economically and more cohesive socially." It's not clear that he is here specifically claiming that Denmark in particular has a secular government, rather than that he was simply speaking in general about the lists you presented. Several pages later, you introduce the dubious claim that a state (meaning country) is not secular if its government is not secular. I went through the pages rather rapidly, but from what I could see, you kept pressuring people on the question of whether Denmark had a secular government or not, and your interlocutors continually refused to answer that question directly, generally inclining toward trying to direct the conversation back to the question of whether Denmark was a secular state (meaning country) or not. I didn't find any examples of anybody claiming that Denmark had a secular government, but my examination was rather cursory, so if you have an example of such, please provide it.

So, if my perusal of that thread is accurate, the claim under dispute was whether or not Denmark was a secular country or not. (You yourself say as much at several points in the discussion.) Whether you were or were not right on that point is debatable. Claiming victory on the main point of that discussion would then be completely improper. Instead, you are claiming that you won a victory based upon a question which you yourself independently introduced, and which, to the best that I can see, was never argued contrary-wise by any atheist. How you see that as some kind of a victory for you, and a shameful defeat for the participating atheists, is something of a mystery to me. The evidence appears to be that the "Denmark issue" is simply a case where your vanity led you to claim a victory based on your self appraisal of the matter, an appraisal which appears to be in contradiction to the actual facts of the matter. But, as I said, my examination of that thread was not completely thorough, so I'm open to being shown wrong. Simply provide a link to where one of the atheist debaters in that thread claimed that Denmark had a secular government, and I'll concede the point.

Turning back to the general matter at hand, you've just posted two examples where you think you personally provoked a shameful response from an atheist (Khemikal, I believe). Not only in both do you assume that your point of view is the right and proper one to have, but you are essentially tooting your own horn in the process of posting them. The Hall of Shame and Hall of Epic/Wit threads have traditionally been for people to post examples good and bad of other people's work. Your posting examples where you feel you were so right, and your interlocutor so wrong, as to deserve shame, simply makes you look like a self-aggrandizing twat. Perhaps that's why you don't garnish kudos for such posts, rather than some rather global atheist hypocrisy. I think there are probably substantive reasons why atheists don't kudos the posts of theists, but it's a fact that the reverse is also true, theists tend to exclusively kudos posts of other theists as well. Regardless, you seem to be promoting the theory that the atheists are failing to kudos your posts in equal measure to that of atheists because they stubbornly refuse to admit they are wrong about anything. I simply point out that there are other possible explanations for your failing to garnish as many kudos as an atheist than the one you seem focused exclusively upon (another I've drawn attention to is the possibility that social deficits on your part may be implicated in the responses you get). I've seen you make good arguments and I've seen you make bad arguments. And I've seen you claim victory/correctness where your claim appears to be nothing more than the product of your imagination. I think the current thread is yet another example where the things you believe you are seeing are largely a product of your imagination, and nothing else.

(February 14, 2018 at 5:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(February 10, 2018 at 7:19 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: What is this in reference to? There was quite a heated debate in a certain thread about whether or not Denmark had a secular government, which it clearly does not seeing how it has a state sanctioned church \ religion, you think those facts mattered any?

To top it of that whole thread gets posted here in the hall of shame (which i'll post below, the discussion pretty much starts at page 13) as if i'm being somehow unreasonable in taking the position that the government of Denmark isn't secular.

Having looked back on that thread, it appears the debate in question started with this post.  In this post, you link to studies that show that the country of Denmark is one of the happiest in the world, and attempt to make some point about secularism not being linked to happiness in these top countries.  Pandemonium in responding to your post about the happiest countries, specifically Panama and Denmark, stated, "I reiterate - countries that have secular institutions and secular structures of government not only tend to be happier, they tend also to be much more productive economically and more cohesive socially."  It's not clear that he is here specifically claiming that Denmark in particular has a secular government, rather than that he was simply speaking in general about the lists you presented.  Several pages later, you introduce the dubious claim that a state (meaning country) is not secular if its government is not secular.  I went through the pages rather rapidly, but from what I could see, you kept pressuring people on the question of whether Denmark had a secular government or not, and your interlocutors continually refused to answer that question directly, generally inclining toward trying to direct the conversation back to the question of whether Denmark was a secular state (meaning country) or not.  I didn't find any examples of anybody claiming that Denmark had a secular government, but my examination was rather cursory, so if you have an example of such, please provide it.


So, if my perusal of that thread is accurate, the claim under dispute was whether or not Denmark was a secular country or not. (You yourself say as much at several points in the discussion.) Whether you were or were not right on that point is debatable. Claiming victory on the main point of that discussion would then be completely improper. Instead, you are claiming that you won a victory based upon a question which you yourself independently introduced, and which, to the best that I can see, was never argued contrary-wise by any atheist. How you see that as some kind of a victory for you, and a shameful defeat for the participating atheists, is something of a mystery to me. The evidence appears to be that the "Denmark issue" is simply a case where your vanity led you to claim a victory based on your self appraisal of the matter, an appraisal which appears to be in contradiction to the actual facts of the matter. But, as I said, my examination of that thread was not completely thorough, so I'm open to being shown wrong. Simply provide a link to where one of the atheist debaters in that thread claimed that Denmark had a secular government, and I'll concede the point.

Here you go.


Pandæmonium clearly said that the top 10 STATES in that list were secular... a State is a government.

The top 10 nations in that list.

1. Denmark  = not secular
2. Norway = ambiguous
3. Switzerland = ambiguous
4. Netherlands = secular
5. Sweden = secular
6. Canada = secular
7. Finland = ambiguous
8. Austria = secular
9. Iceland = not secular
10. Australia = secular

I used this site to determine which countries are which because some countries aren't clear, like Norway for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Norway

Quote:A constitutional amendment of May 21, 2012 designates the church as "Norway's people's church" (Norges Folkekirke), with a new provision that is almost a verbatim copy of the provision for the Danish state church (folkekirken) in the Constitution of Denmark; the Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske stressed that the reform meant that "the state church is retained." On 27 May 2016, Stortinget approved a new act to establish the Church of Norway as an independent legal entity rather than a branch of the civil service, and the law took effect on 1 January 2017. The church remains state funded.

Denmark just happened to be first on the list that was clearly not secular, therefore making Pandæmonium's claim of the top 10 States in that list being secular patently false.

All he had to do was correct his mistake, but he chose to double down, the rest is history...

He never said that huggy. He said secular state as in the presence of secularism in culture and policy and general populous . He never said the government was secular .  A state is not the same the government or a constitutional decree of church and state . So once again your caught bullshiting.

Denmark and the other countries above are definitely culturally secularized

Quote:Secularization refers to the historical process in which religion loses social andcultural significance. As a result of secularization the role of religion in modern societies becomes restricted. In secularized societies faith lacks cultural authority, and religious organizations have little social power.

Sounds all the countries  above

This is absurd, lol.

(January 6, 2015 at 8:52 am)Pandæmonium Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 8:50 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 8:36 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: And finally, no, not 'capiche' you pigeon. Your links don't marry up to the data presented by abaris just a couple of posts ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel...untry.html

Actually that is the exact link I posted, thank you very much

(January 6, 2015 at 7:53 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Article from September 11, 2013
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel...untry.html

---

---

And you ignored that all the top 10 states are secular.

Answer my question re: what you think secularism is (we all know you think secular = atheist but I want you to say it), and reply to the rebuttals, or GTFO.

Okay.  It does appear that Pandemonium erred in claiming that the top ten states/countries, including Denmark, were secular in the sense of having a secular state/government.  If that's what he was claiming, then fair enough.

As a parenthetical, I would note that, according to the Danish parliament, "People are under no obligation to be members of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Denmark." (My Constitutional Act with Explanations)  From what little I can glean from a cursory examination, the government of Denmark supports the church and provides direction and supervision of the church, but it's unclear just to what degree church and state are entangled in Denmark.

Quote:In Denmark, there is a high degree of control. The constitution provides that: 'The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Folk Church of Denmark, and as such shall be supported by the State'; moreover, the monarch shall be a member of that church. However, the Danish folk church has no synod, no legal personality as a corporate body, and its constitution is to be laid down by statute (but this has not yet occurred). The church is subject to direct state control. The Ministry of Ecclesiastical Affairs determines rules on church membership, the creation of new parishes, and the appointment and dismissal of its clergy (who have the status of civil servants). Local church units (the parishes) operate as state agencies performing various administrative functions for the State, and all taxpayers who are members of the national church pay a church tax. Nevertheless, Danish law also provides for religious freedom, prohibitions against religious discrimination, and the operation of other religious organizations which may function freely in society.

Law and Religion in Europe: A Comparative Introduction, By Norman Doe (p. 30) (accessed here)

In the sense which Pandemonium asserted that secularism means there is no state mandated church, he seems to have been mistaken (depending on the meaning of "mandated" of course, as Denmark doesn't appear to require that everyone be a member of the state church). However, on the more general question, it's not as clearly black and white. While the Danish government appears to be deeply entrenched in the affairs of the church, it's not clear that the reverse is true, that the church is deeply entrenched in affairs of state. Is that an example of a non-secular government? It seems to me that Denmark falls in a gray area where the conclusion is not so obvious. Regardless, I concede the point; it does appear that Pandemonium was mistaken in his claims.

(February 14, 2018 at 9:50 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 8:52 am)Pandæmonium Wrote: And you ignored that all the top 10 states are secular.

Answer my question re: what you think secularism is (we all know you think secular = atheist but I want you to say it), and reply to the rebuttals, or GTFO.

Okay.  It does appear that Pandemonium erred in claiming that the top ten states/countries, including Denmark, were secular in the sense of having a secular state/government.  Fair enough.

As a parenthetical, I would note that, according to the Danish parliament, "People are under no obligation to be members of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Denmark." (My Constitutional Act with Explanations)  From what little I can glean from a cursory examination, the government of Denmark supports the church and provides direction and supervision of the church, but it's unclear just to what degree church and state are entangled in Denmark.  They seem to have embraced a form of having their cake and eating it, too.

Where did he say they had a secular government ?