(January 15, 2015 at 3:14 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Also, another map from the Wiki:

Looks like Denmark is listed as "least religious".

This is the difference between de facto and de jure, alluded to upthread.

Heeyyy, look who's using Gallup!

That map has no bearing on secular vs non secular, case in point, Panama is secular, yet very religious.

What you need to post is a map of countries with state religions.

(January 15, 2015 at 3:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That map has no bearing on secular vs non secular, case in point, Panama is secular, yet very religious.

What you need to post is a map of countries with state religions.

... or, I can do the sensible thing, which is to understand that secularism is as much a social attitude as it is a legal construct.

(January 15, 2015 at 1:56 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And here you come..

I'm trying to see where parkers tan is coming from, what I said was that communism was secularism taken to an extreme.

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

Quote:The year 1917 was a major turning point in Russian history, and also the Russian Orthodox Church. The Russian empire was dissolved and the Tsarist government - which had granted the Church numerous privileges - was overthrown. After a few months of political turmoil, the Bolsheviks took power in October 1917 and declared a separation of church and state. Thus the Russian Orthodox Church found itself without official state backing for the first time in its history. One of the first decrees of the new Communist government (issued in January 1918) declared freedom from "religious and anti-religious propaganda". This led to a marked decline in the power and influence of the Church.

But as I said, all of that is irrelevant seeing how there is not one communist country that placed in the top 30 of this list, making the point moot.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel...untry.html
However FIDEL clearly stated that the top 10 countries of that list were secular, which is false.


But keep trying to make the debate about "secularism" vs "athiesm"..

SMH

So, communism is "secularism taken to an extreme," because it contains individual elements of secularism, surrounded by large additions that aren't germane to secularism at all, yet are more core to the definition of communism than the parts you're trying to pretend are.

By that logic, pizza is just milk taken to the extreme, because there's dairy in the cheese. Never mind all the other things that go into a pizza, never mind that the definition of one concerns those extra things but never milk, never mind all that. Pizza is just extreme milk, because it shares slight similarities with it.

See, this is why nobody takes you fucking seriously.

(January 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 3:21 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That map has no bearing on secular vs non secular, case in point, Panama is secular, yet very religious.

What you need to post is a map of countries with state religions.

... or, I can do the sensible thing, which is to understand that secularism is as much a social attitude as it is a legal construct.

That would be nice if we were talking about "social attitudes" but were talking about state/governments.

---

(January 15, 2015 at 3:34 pm)Esquilax Wrote: So, communism is "secularism taken to an extreme," because it contains individual elements of secularism, surrounded by large additions that aren't germane to secularism at all, yet are more core to the definition of communism than the parts you're trying to pretend are.

By that logic, pizza is just milk taken to the extreme, because there's dairy in the cheese. Never mind all the other things that go into a pizza, never mind that the definition of one concerns those extra things but never milk, never mind all that. Pizza is just extreme milk, because it shares slight similarities with it.

See, this is why nobody takes you fucking seriously.

If you say so...

(January 15, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... or, I can do the sensible thing, which is to understand that secularism is as much a social attitude as it is a legal construct.

That would be nice if we were talking about "social attitudes" but were talking about state/governments.

W're talking about nations. Nations are made up of governments, institutions, and people.

Keep trying, though. You'll get here ... in a couple of years, at this rate.

Anyway, off to work, ta-ta for now, Speedbag.

(January 15, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... or, I can do the sensible thing, which is to understand that secularism is as much a social attitude as it is a legal construct.

That would be nice if we were talking about "social attitudes" but were talking about state/governments.

... Which feed into/are reflections of social attitudes, unless you're living in a dictatorship where there are no elected government officials... but I don't see any of those on any list of happiest or most prosperous countries.

(January 15, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That would be nice if we were talking about "social attitudes" but were talking about state/governments.

... Which feed into/are reflections of social attitudes, unless you're living in a dictatorship where there are no elected government officials... but I don't see any of those on any list of happiest or most prosperous countries.

I wouldn't call choosing the lesser of two evils (democrat/republican) an accurate reflection of "social attitudes" there is simply no other choice.

(January 15, 2015 at 3:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 15, 2015 at 3:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: ... Which feed into/are reflections of social attitudes, unless you're living in a dictatorship where there are no elected government officials... but I don't see any of those on any list of happiest or most prosperous countries.

I wouldn't call choosing the lesser of two evils (democrat/republican) an accurate reflection of "social attitudes" there is simply no other choice.

And I wouldn't call "choosing the lesser of two evils," an accurate representation of the totality of the democratic process in every form of government that isn't autocracy in the entire world, so good job on addressing the actual point, there.

"Where will ALL the good people come from?"
Because, clearly, atheists are just terrible people.
A good person can be from almost anywhere, regardless of race, gender, religion or lack of, etc.

(January 16, 2015 at 12:39 am)Roxy904 Wrote: "Where will ALL the good people come from?"
Because, clearly, atheists are just terrible people.
A good person can be from almost anywhere, regardless of race, gender, religion or lack of, etc.

I'm not a terrible person because i am atheist. I am quite the polar opposite. And also statistically with my own set of morals and no belief in god, i am more likely not to be in jail unlike people who are christian.