Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
January 26, 2015 at 10:45 pm (This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 10:46 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 24, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 15, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... I'd rather redefine "back-pedal" so that it has a meaning amenable to my point.
And what does this explain exactly?
You've already had the difference between atheism and secularism explained to you several times. You've also had the importance of that distinction explained to you.
Looks to me like the only explanation needed here is what the fuck you were doing in English class ... 'cause you sure as hell weren't paying attention, to judge from the comprehension skills you're displaying here.
January 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm (This post was last modified: January 26, 2015 at 11:39 pm by Huggy Bear.)
(January 26, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(January 24, 2015 at 2:08 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: And what does this explain exactly?
You've already had the difference between atheism and secularism explained to you several times. You've also had the importance of that distinction explained to you.
Looks to me like the only explanation needed here is what the fuck you were doing in English class ... 'cause you sure as hell weren't paying attention, to judge from the comprehension skills you're displaying here.
Look muppet,
Speaking of reading comprehension, That quote was questioning Fidels reference to post #208 as an answer to this post.
(January 24, 2015 at 2:01 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not throwing a tantrum, just pointing out the hypocrisy.
considering i made this post on page 27, i hardly see how it's relevant to go back to page 8. https://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-p...#pid848245
(January 16, 2015 at 11:53 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: 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?
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 https://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-p...#pid846133 http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm
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....
If you notice, those are quotes taken from your own post, no need to go back and read, I took the time to find your definition of secularism and quote them along with the link.
as you can plainly see, you contradict yourself by claiming that Denmark is secular, I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS THE CONTRADICTION which you have not done, but avoid the issue like a child.
Just man up and admit you were wrong, I would have dropped it a long time ago.
Jeez
Since you're the resident genius here, why don't you explain how this post
(January 15, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(January 15, 2015 at 12:23 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Nah...I'm too lazy to flip back a few pages~
... I'd rather redefine "back-pedal" so that it has a meaning amenable to my point.
(January 26, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Secular countries are neutral towards religion. Atheist countries obviously aren't neutral towards religion. I'm not sure the source of your difficulty in understanding this basic difference.
You state that "Atheist countries obviously aren't neutral towards religion", But that would then mean that religious countries obviously aren't neutral to things A-religious, correct?
But you guys are quick to point out that Panama/Paraguay are close to 100% religious yet have a secular government.
(January 26, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Paraguay is a religious country and a secular nation.
Is it your position that an Atheist country cant have a secular government?
January 27, 2015 at 12:39 am (This post was last modified: January 27, 2015 at 12:42 am by Thumpalumpacus.)
(January 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Look muppet,[...]
lol, you're funny when you're butthurt.
(January 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Since you're the resident genius here, why don't you explain how this post
(January 15, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... I'd rather redefine "back-pedal" so that it has a meaning amenable to my point.
is relevant to anything I said.
I'd rather let you go back through the thread and find your own mistakes. I think that would be an edifying exercise for you, because you clearly need practice identifying the hidden premises in your own argumentation, so that you can learn to avoid retreating over bridges you've already burnt.
All that's a fancy way of saying think for yourself. No one else, especially me, is going to let you off easy.
(January 26, 2015 at 10:45 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: Secular countries are neutral towards religion. Atheist countries obviously aren't neutral towards religion. I'm not sure the source of your difficulty in understanding this basic difference.
You state that "Atheist countries obviously aren't neutral towards religion", But that would then mean that religious countries obviously aren't neutral to things A-religious, correct?
Not necessarily, no. A religious country might have no formal opinion about gasoline vs diesel power for public transport.
January 27, 2015 at 1:12 am (This post was last modified: January 27, 2015 at 1:19 am by Huggy Bear.)
(January 27, 2015 at 12:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Look muppet,[...]
lol, you're funny when you're butthurt.
(January 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Since you're the resident genius here, why don't you explain how this post
is relevant to anything I said.
I'd rather let you go back through the thread and find your own mistakes. I think that would be an edifying exercise for you, because you clearly need practice identifying the hidden premises in your own argumentation, so that you can learn to avoid retreating over bridges you've already burnt.
All that's a fancy way of saying think for yourself. No one else, especially me, is going to let you off easy.
Or it's dodging the question, spin it however you like.
You state that "Atheist countries obviously aren't neutral towards religion", But that would then mean that religious countries obviously aren't neutral to things A-religious, correct?
Not necessarily, no. A religious country might have no formal opinion about gasoline vs diesel power for public transport.
You could say that same for an atheist country.
This is a dad analogy, because gas vs diesel is not an issue central to either sides ideals. A better example would be opinions on divorce, adultery, or state sanctioned churches.
But I see you Dodged, the question again, which was "Is it your position that an Atheist country cant have a secular government?"
(January 27, 2015 at 12:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: lol, you're funny when you're butthurt.
I'd rather let you go back through the thread and find your own mistakes. I think that would be an edifying exercise for you, because you clearly need practice identifying the hidden premises in your own argumentation, so that you can learn to avoid retreating over bridges you've already burnt.
All that's a fancy way of saying think for yourself. No one else, especially me, is going to let you off easy.
Or it's dodging the question, spin it however you like.
(January 27, 2015 at 12:39 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Not necessarily, no. A religious country might have no formal opinion about gasoline vs diesel power for public transport.
You could say that same for an atheist country.
This is a dad analogy, because gas vs diesel is not an issue central to either sides ideals. A better example would be opinions on divorce, adultery, or state sanctioned churches.
But I see you Dodged, the question again, which was "Is it your position that an Atheist country cant have a secular government?"
Depends on what you mean by "Atheist country", If your talking about state atheism then no obviously the government wouldn't be secular as a secular government would be neutral in matters of religion. If your talking about a country where the population identifies as atheist then sure the government could be pretty much anything.
January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm (This post was last modified: January 27, 2015 at 1:46 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: And the idiocy of countering my contention that the Stalinist government was not secular with an example of them being anti-secular did not occur to you?
The nerve to call someone an idiot when we were talking about COMMUNISM not STALIN.
Thanks for catching that, it makes a HUGE difference in the point being discussed.
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 24, 2015 at 2:06 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Its idiocy. Communism isn't any kind of secularism, it's an economic system (and not a very good one in my opinion).
Stalin did not invent communism, the date above is referring to 1917, Stalin didn't come into power until 1924.
I see that finding someone else in error is such a rare experience for you that you just can't stop celebrating. Congratulations.
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Also explain how, "separation of church and state" and "freedom from religious and anti-religious (read atheist) propaganda" isn't secular?
They're both secular and neither applies to the Soviet Union oppressing the Russian Orthodox Church. Didn't they use 'atheist propaganda' which you've admitted above isn't secular?
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yes, we all know you found one line on the internet somewhere in the world that you think supports a definition of secularism that will let you apply it to state oppression of religious freedom, but it's only your profound lack of intellectual integrity that let's you turn 'from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people' into 'see, secular governments shut down churches!' Yes, to the extent a secular government imposes religious practices on its people, it's not being secular; but where you're getting communists preventing people from practicing their religion being secularism is your ass.
So secularism is black and white...Gotcha!
A particular policy can be black-or-white secular or not secular, but governments and populations are going to be on a continuum.
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: No shit, Sherlock. 'Secular' is not a binary condition, either on or off. It's a continuum, and the side of the middle Denmark is on is the secular side. Paraguay is a religious country and a secular nation. Denmark is a (somewhat) religious nation and a secular country. You don't get to put Denmark on the 'theocracy side' of the middle because it's got one non-secular provision in its constitution.
So secularism isn't black and white... wait... what? Can't have it both ways.
Nope, and I haven't tried to have it both ways. You just desperately want me to have tried to have it both ways because you're not interested in discussion, just 'gotchas'.
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: And yet again, you think it's some kind of counter to my point that Russia wasn't secular to point out them doing anti-secular things. Or that may be what you're pretending to think, I'm not really sure where the line between stupid and dishonest is drawn with you.
Like I said, you can't have it both ways.
That's is true, but your ability to comprehend what is both ways and what is not is warped by your desperation to be right.
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: If it's your claim that Russia wasn't secular because it engaged in anti-secular activity, then you cant claim that Denmark is secular when it clearly engages in anti-secular activity. Which is it?
The Soviet Union wasn't secular because of its widespread anti-secular policies and actions. It was too anti-secular to be considered secular. Denmark is secular because despite having an official church, religious freedom is both guaranteed in law and allowed in practice, and no one has to support the state church with their taxes; not to mention the majority of the population upholds a secular point of view in practice. It's too secular to be considered anti-secular.
(January 26, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: (By the way, just for clarification, I emboldened parts of your quotes.)
Thanks for being up front about it, no worries.
(January 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Paraguay is a religious country and a secular nation.
Is it your position that an Atheist country cant have a secular government?
Of course not. What on earth would lead you to think I could possibly hold that position?
(January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Thanks for catching that, it makes a HUGE difference in the point being discussed.
there IS a huge difference between communism and "Stalinism"
(January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: I see that finding someone else in error is such a rare experience for you that you just can't stop celebrating. Congratulations.
When that someone wants to refer to someone else as an idiot, then he'd better be absolutely certian he's not in error himself.
(January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Nope, and I haven't tried to have it both ways. You just desperately want me to have tried to have it both ways because you're not interested in discussion, just 'gotchas'.
You have a clear double standard in what you consider secular vs non secular, which i will explain below.
(January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: The Soviet Union wasn't secular because of its widespread anti-secular policies and actions. It was too anti-secular to be considered secular. Denmark is secular because despite having an official church, religious freedom is both guaranteed in law and allowed in practice, and no one has to support the state church with their taxes; not to mention the majority of the population upholds a secular point of view in practice. It's too secular to be considered anti-secular.
(emboldened by me for clarification)
You say that communism isn't secular because it suppressed religion (I disagree with that position), That's the only example you gave of why Communism isn't secular, your own quote from http://atheistforums.org/thread-30615-po...#pid836110
(January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Except that the communist countries you cited weren't secular. Political secularism is government neutrality toward religion, and that includes not oppressing it as much as it includes not promoting it.
The purpose of secularism is to keep the government from infringing on people's religious freedom of choice.
So according to you, engaging in religious oppression is a sign of not being secular, also, you define secularism as being "neutral toward religion."
Now in the case of Denmark
1. They have a state sanctioned church
2. They are automatically born as members of this church
3. regardless of what religion you are, a portion of your tax dollars supports this church
But yet you claim Denmark is secular, how is the above being neutral in matters of religion?
(January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Political secularism is government neutrality toward religion, and that includes not oppressing it as much as it includes not promoting it.
If Russia wasn't secular because of "religious oppression" as you stated, then how can you claim that Denmark is secular when it clearly promotes it's state religion? see the double standard?
Nice of you to come to FIDEL's aid though, the guy is clearly a coward and can't do his own dirty work.
(January 27, 2015 at 1:42 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:
(January 26, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Is it your position that an Atheist country cant have a secular government?
Of course not. What on earth would lead you to think I could possibly hold that position?
That was directed at Parkers tan, i just happened to use your quote as an example.
