More like

(January 9, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Haha, wow.

You pulled that tactic straight out of FIDEL's book, loose the argument so change the argument to the definition of a word...

Pathetic.

I just want to remind everyone reading this thread to go back and re-read it, and judge for themselves just how stupid Nappies here is, considering he started arguing against something he didn't understand and, further, dodged almost every rebuttal put to him. I suspect that even if the part of his brain (I'm presuming he has one here, which is probably a presumption too far) which is responsible for assimilating and compiling information was replaced with an expert's in political discourse, he would still continually not get the issue he has taken a dump over. And in order to 'lose' an argument, he'd have to actually have one and know at least a little bit about what he was talking about.

No arguments were changed as evidenced in the thread, but Huggie's IQ dipped into negative figures, which I think might be a first.

(January 9, 2015 at 6:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: More like

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t187/...20Dude.gif

Or perhaps --

Lol nappies That got me good!

(January 9, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(January 9, 2015 at 2:41 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Haha, wow.

You pulled that tactic straight out of FIDEL's book, loose the argument so change the argument to the definition of a word...

Pathetic.

I just want to remind everyone reading this thread to go back and re-read it, and judge for themselves just how stupid Nappies here is, considering he started arguing against something he didn't understand and, further, dodged almost every rebuttal put to him. I suspect that even if the part of his brain (I'm presuming he has one here, which is probably a presumption too far) which is responsible for assimilating and compiling information was replaced with an expert's in political discourse, he would still continually not get the issue he has taken a dump over. And in order to 'lose' an argument, he'd have to actually have one and know at least a little bit about what he was talking about.

No arguments were changed as evidenced in the thread, but Huggie's IQ dipped into negative figures, which I think might be a first.

You should have quit while you were behind, but nooooo, you still had to get your two cents in, even after seeing your boy... Parkers Tan get dismantled.

So my IQ is negative? funny.
Quoting Esquilax

(January 3, 2015 at 12:36 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Whoa, two examples! I guess Denmark, Sweden, Australia and so on just ceased to exist!

Denmark is in fact NOT secular
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm

Quote: Let me briefly summarize what the State-church system implies:

• According to the constitution (§ 54), the Lutheran-evangelic Church is the Danish People’s Church (“Folkekirke”), and is, as such, supported by the State, which means that the Lutheran-evangelic religion and its institutions and churches are given a favored place among religions in Danish society. All tax-paying citizens, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, thus contribute to the priests and bishops of the “Folkekirke.”

• Practically all citizens are automatically born as members of the “Folkekirke.” Not to be so demands that the citizens take the initiative to leave the church. At present 83 percent of the Danish population belong to the “Folkekirke.”

My point to you was that secularism had nothing to do with a societies happiness and was purely coincidental as it relates to the list, yet you want me to define secularism for you.... irrelevant.

Since you guys don't like the data I provide I'll use the list you posted.

(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

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.

There are over twice the amount of secular governments versus non-secular yet of the top 15 countries on that list, 6 are non-secular and 2 are ambiguous with Denmark (non secular) topping the list.

(I included Norway in the non secular group because they didn't officially become secular until mid 2012, the report from your link was done between 2010-2012, another reason why you don't use old data, but you guys insisted)

So I say again, according to your own list.....

(January 6, 2015 at 8:52 am)Fidel_Castronaut 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.

YOU sir, are just plain wrong! In fact, using your logic and data, most happy societies tend to be non-secular.....

You're arguing against something you don't understand, which is painfully obvious to everyone reading this thread. You can't just add 'it's coincidental' to your argument as though that suddenly absolves you of the utter tripe you've posted thus far on this thread, mate. It's ridiculous. I could talk to you about things like nominal ascription in religious/political demographics but it would go over your head. Also I could talk (Again) about how religious adherence has nothing to do with secularism, but that too is a very easy to understand point you've failed to get.

Keep on embarrassing yourself, though, it's funny. I want everyone to read this exchange and get as many chuckles as I have. So pass this thread around nappies if you can, please.

I put it to you that you can't define secularism because you don't know what it is. So, what, -10 now nappies? How low can you go?

(January 14, 2015 at 9:07 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You should have quit while you were behind, but nooooo, you still had to get your two cents in, even after seeing your boy... Parkers Tan get dismantled.

I'm still waiting for you to learn the difference between a study and a poll. Have you figured that out yet? I mean, I know it's a terribly difficult task, akin to the three-body-problem of physics, but I'm sure a genius such as yourself should be able to figure it out in a few days.

What's that? You'll need more time?

The fact is, you don't know what the difference is between the two. You don't know what the word "secular" means. And you don't even understand what this discussion is about.

I'd suggest silent consideration in order to ameliorate those defects, but clearly you're capable of neither silence nor thinking.

(January 15, 2015 at 3:51 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You're arguing against something you don't understand, which is painfully obvious to everyone reading this thread. You can't just add 'it's coincidental' to your argument as though that suddenly absolves you of the utter tripe you've posted thus far on this thread, mate. It's ridiculous. I could talk to you about things like nominal ascription in religious/political demographics but it would go over your head. Also I could talk (Again) about how religious adherence has nothing to do with secularism, but that too is a very easy to understand point you've failed to get.

Keep on embarrassing yourself, though, it's funny. I want everyone to read this exchange and get as many chuckles as I have. So pass this thread around nappies if you can, please.

I put it to you that you can't define secularism because you don't know what it is. So, what, -10 now nappies? How low can you go?

nice filibuster!
Said all that without addressing anything in my last post, and still managing to bring up more irrelevant topics.

The point of this debate is if "secular states" tended to be happier than "non-secular states". I've proved by your own evidence that this statement is false, do you agree or disagree, that is the only question.

Not to mention your statement

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

was also wrong, when in fact 4 of those are non-secular/ambiguous.

(January 15, 2015 at 4:32 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm still waiting for you to learn the difference between a study and a poll. Have you figured that out yet? I mean, I know it's a terribly difficult task, akin to the three-body-problem of physics, but I'm sure a genius such as yourself should be able to figure it out in a few days.

What's that? You'll need more time?

The fact is, you don't know what the difference is between the two. You don't know what the word "secular" means. And you don't even understand what this discussion is about.

SMH, again with the irrelevant topics. Like I said, a tactic straight out of Fidel's book. In case you missed it, the discussion was about whether or not secular societies tended to be happier, do you agree or disagree?

(January 15, 2015 at 4:32 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'd suggest silent consideration in order to ameliorate those defects, but clearly you're capable of neither silence nor thinking.

Actually you should be going the other direction and proclaiming my genius, because basically, all your saying is that your argument was destroyed by an idiot....

I do have to hand it to Rhythm though, he is the first and only Atheist on this forum I've seen admit they were wrong.

Just concede defeat and move on dude...

Define secularism Nappies. You say it's irrelveant but it's the fucking basis of this conversation.

(January 15, 2015 at 8:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 3:51 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: You're arguing against something you don't understand, which is painfully obvious to everyone reading this thread. You can't just add 'it's coincidental' to your argument as though that suddenly absolves you of the utter tripe you've posted thus far on this thread, mate. It's ridiculous. I could talk to you about things like nominal ascription in religious/political demographics but it would go over your head. Also I could talk (Again) about how religious adherence has nothing to do with secularism, but that too is a very easy to understand point you've failed to get.

Keep on embarrassing yourself, though, it's funny. I want everyone to read this exchange and get as many chuckles as I have. So pass this thread around nappies if you can, please.

I put it to you that you can't define secularism because you don't know what it is. So, what, -10 now nappies? How low can you go?

nice filibuster!
Said all that without addressing anything in my last post, and still managing to bring up more irrelevant topics.

You said something in your last post? Looked like a dump of ramblings from a guy who, again, hasn't got the foggiest what he's talking about.

(January 15, 2015 at 8:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote: The point of this debate is if "secular states" tended to be happier than "non-secular states". I've proved by your own evidence that this statement is false, do you agree or disagree, that is the only question.

I disagree because all you've done is post a link where (at least the) top 10 states were secular.

What I've said is factual. Because you believe secularism = atheism, you're continually failing to make a dent in any of the arguments on this thread. You contradict yourself by saying that the basis of a 'happy' population is freedom of choice, when that's exactly what secularism promotes - freedom to (not) believe. I can only conclude that you're mentally ill in some way by not recognising this contradiction inherent within your own reasoning. Either that, or, as I suspect, you don't what secularism is so insist on blundering into arguments you don't understand.

(January 15, 2015 at 8:40 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to mention your statement

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

was also wrong, when in fact 4 of those are non-secular/ambiguous.

Based on whose assumption? Yours? The guy who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about? Cite, with explanations. Go on, give us some political discourse that evidences your brain which everyone up until this point has concluded is absent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

Quote:Of all the religions in Denmark, the most prominent is Christianity in the form of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion. However, pockets of virtually all faiths can be found among the population. The second largest faith is Islam, due to immigration since 1980. In general, however, Danes are secular, and church attendance is generally low.[1]

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/lett...ar-society
http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledg...s-mediator

Quote:Denmark is a paradox when it comes to religious matters. Although there is freedom of religion, there is no equality of religion, as the state sponsors only one church – the Evangelical Lutheran Church called Folkekirken, the “People’s Church.” It receives some twelve percent of its income from the state, but its largest source of income is the church taxes paid by its members. Most Danes – 84.7 % in 2001 – are members of the church, yet very few of them actively participate in it. A 1998 study by the Danish National Institute of Social Research found that only four percent of church members attended church at least once a month1. Thirty-six percent said they never attended church at all, and another thirty-six percent only went on major holidays such as Christmas. Thus, only forty percent of church members attend services even once per year, and most of the four percent who do attend regularly are elderly.

...

Still, most Danes can be considered “Christian” only in the loosest sense of the word; they accept those aspects of Christianity that fit into their secular worldview and are ready to disregard the rest.

Look, I've even done you a favor and posted a link which questions the secularity [sic] of Danish institutions vis it's people general acceptance of secularism (80%+). This is where those terms of nominal ascription arise and where the automatic acceptance of a state relgion =/= people endorsing that religion's right to hegemony over matters spritual.

In a post prior to this I said secularism is not an easy subject to evaluate as it's contextual. You dismissed this like a goon by saying, effectively, that it is.

So I repeat, you have no clue what you're talking about and in replying to me and others are continually making yourself out to be a laughing stock.

Continue with the silliness, please, and ensure you're linking this discussion as many times as possible so as to increase the level of general laughter.