(January 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 5:58 am)robvalue Wrote: He must be winding you guys up.

Nah I think he really is this thick.

says the guy who still believes Denmark is secular....

(January 16, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Nah I think he really is this thick.

says the guy who still believes Denmark is secular....

Most of the people in Denmark aren't religious only such a small fraction is.

(January 16, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 2:03 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Nah I think he really is this thick.

says the guy who still believes Denmark is secular....

You're as thick as two planks, probably thicker. That penny I mentioned before has depreicated. You'd actually have to give people money in order for them to listen to your thoughts now.

Everytime you post on this forum, please add this to your signature so people know what to expect so they don't need to read what you post:

---

(January 16, 2015 at 3:15 pm)dyresand Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 2:46 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: says the guy who still believes Denmark is secular....

Most of the people in Denmark aren't religious only such a small fraction is.

Don't bother. You could explain, in parsimonious terms, things like nominal ascriptions, codified constitutions, the nature of governmental structures, de jure defacto, and so on, and stay dry all night here would still fail to get it.

Give him a plastic toy gun and this guy would still manage to shoot himself in the foot.

(January 16, 2015 at 3:45 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Don't bother. You could explain, in parsimonious terms, things like nominal ascriptions, codified constitutions, the nature of governmental structures, de jure defacto, and so on, and stay dry all night here would still fail to get it.

Give him a plastic toy gun and this guy would still manage to shoot himself in the foot.

You're seriously delusional.
This is a clear example of the mindset of an atheist, If you won't accept that Denmark's government is in fact NOT secular which is easily provable, how are you going to even begin to discuss spiritual matters?

Your own quote (in bold for clarity)
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid835049

(January 3, 2015 at 8:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Secularism Gurantees what ive highlighted you suggest in the above post. It gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for then. It prevents a state mandated religion from either existing or enforcing it's rules and dogmas on the body politic.

Now if that's not the 'freedom to chose' I don't know what is.

so according to YOU, secularism prevents a state mandated religion.
This link is taken from your own post.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
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.

Also according to YOU secularism "gives people the ability to chose a religion (or no-religion) without the state choosing for them"
This link is also taken from your exact same post
http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid846133
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Denmark

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.”

Denmark, then, from one point of view is clearly a Christian country—as are by the same standards the other Scandinavian countries.

This amalgamates into what I for want of a better label would label a secularised Lutheranism as a dominant cosmology in Denmark. Although Denmark (and Sweden) is a country in which most of the citizens by tradition belong to the State church, Christianity as a religion does not characterize the life of any large segment of the population.

Need I go on?
Denmark clearly does not have separation between church and state, yet you fail to acknowledge your own evidence proving this fact.

You're contradicting yourself dude.

I can't wait to hear your next excuse....

Just throwing it out there denmark is secular.
http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledg...s-mediator

(January 17, 2015 at 12:02 am)dyresand Wrote: Just throwing it out there denmark is secular.
http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledg...s-mediator

Did you read the article?

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.

How is this being secular?

(January 16, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 4:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: And I wouldn't call a selection made in the voting booth the only expression of a nation's identity.

What sort of simpleton are you?

You can't be that dense....

Esquilax is the one that brought up elected government officials being a reflection of social attitudes.

That is what I was responding to you muppet.

The funny thing is, you have the nerve to insult peoples intelligence on top of it.

I'm responding to your straw man of his position, not his position directly. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair competence in English.

Perhaps you wouldn't be on the butt end of my insults if you actually used the neurons at your command. Even then I'm doubtful, because your language skills are so obviously insufficient to the task of intelligent discussion.

Also, "Muppet" is getting old. Can't you show any creativity at all, or have you run out of insults? Shit, this really is like having a whack at a punching bag. What a scrub. You definitely need to up your game ... you wouldn't make a pimple on a real troll's ass.

(January 17, 2015 at 12:07 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(January 17, 2015 at 12:02 am)dyresand Wrote: Just throwing it out there denmark is secular.
http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledg...s-mediator

Did you read the article?

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.

How is this being secular?

There is freedom of religion, - secular value
there is no equality of religion - there is only 1 state church
Its a country with secular values... the end.

(January 17, 2015 at 12:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(January 16, 2015 at 1:14 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You can't be that dense....

Esquilax is the one that brought up elected government officials being a reflection of social attitudes.

That is what I was responding to you muppet.

The funny thing is, you have the nerve to insult peoples intelligence on top of it.

I'm responding to your straw man of his position, not his position directly. This should be obvious to anyone with a fair competence in English.

Once again I'll spell it out for you,

"elected government officials being a reflection of social attitudes." is Esquilax's point, I DISAGREED WITH THAT POSITION.

So saying to ME "I wouldn't call a selection made in the voting booth the only expression of a nation's identity." is neither here nor there, it is only relevant to Esquilax since that HIS point.

So in that way your response is addressing Esquilax not me

(January 16, 2015 at 4:39 am)Parkers Tan 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.

And I wouldn't call a selection made in the voting booth the only expression of a nation's identity.

What sort of simpleton are you?

See there? Fixed it so your post now makes sense...

(January 16, 2015 at 4:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Also, "Muppet" is getting old. Can't you show any creativity at all, or have you run out of insults?

I think it fits you perfectly, aren't you a musician? Aren't the Muppets also musicians? Sounds pretty creative to me.

Muppet

---

(January 17, 2015 at 12:40 am)dyresand Wrote: There is freedom of religion, - secular value
there is no equality of religion - there is only 1 state church
Its a country with secular values... the end.

Secular values? what? don't start back pedaling already, no one is discussing "secular values" were discussing secular state/government.

"there is no equality of religion - there is only 1 state church"

This means that's one state church too many to be considered secular...

(January 17, 2015 at 4:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: Once again I'll spell it out for you,

"elected government officials being a reflection of social attitudes." is Esquilax's point, I DISAGREED WITH THAT POSITION.

No. his position was:

Quote:... Which feed into/are reflections of social attitudes [...]

He's clearly stating that there's a feedback loop happening here, which you oversimplify (understandably, considering your limitations):

(January 15, 2015 at 3:47 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 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 then try to strut about as if you have made a point. That is the point I'm making here, you're either an idiot who doesn't understand his point, or you're a dishonest asshole deliberately misrepresenting it.

Myself, my money is on "dishonest idiot". Who says you can't eat your cake and have it too?

(January 17, 2015 at 4:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: So saying to ME "I wouldn't call a selection made in the voting booth the only expression of a nation's identity." is neither here nor there, it is only relevant to Esquilax since that HIS point.

No, it's directly addressing your strawman, which you're either too stupid to see you've erected, or too dishonest to admit to creating.

(January 17, 2015 at 4:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: So in that way your response is addressing Esquilax not me

No, you're not only wrong, you're unaware.

(January 17, 2015 at 4:39 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I think it fits you perfectly, aren't you a musician? Aren't the Muppets also musicians? Sounds pretty creative to me.

... said the guy who thinks the Bible sounds pretty factual. Dumbfuck.