WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Mister Agenda]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist%E2%...st_atheism

Marxist–Leninist atheism (Russian: Марксистско-ленинский атеизм) is a part of the wider Marxist–Leninist philosophy (the type of Marxist philosophy found in the Soviet Union), which rejects religion and advocates a materialist understanding of nature. Marxism-Leninism holds that religion is the opium of the people, in the sense of promoting passive acceptance of suffering on Earth in the hope of eternal reward. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism advocates the abolition of religion and the acceptance of atheism. Marxist-Leninist atheism has its roots in the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lenin.

By that reasoning, theism, particularly Christianity, is equally linked to Nazism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion

"The Nazi Party Programme of 1920 guaranteed freedom for all religious denominations not hostile to the State and endorsed Positive Christianity to combat “the Jewish-materialist spirit”.[150] It was a modified version of Christianity which emphasised racial purity and nationalism.[151] The Nazis were aided by theologians, such as, Ernst Bergmann. Bergmann, in his work, Die 25 Thesen der Deutschreligion (Twenty-five Points of the German Religion), held that the Old Testament and portions of the New Testament of the Bible were inaccurate. He claimed that Jesus was not a Jew and of Aryan origin, and that Adolf Hitler was the new messiah."

If you think it's stupid to say theism is linked to Nazism because of that, you may finally be starting to catch on.

---

I don't know how it is in Australia, but these stories are not uncommon in the US (probably the most litigious country in the world #American Atheists #Freedom From Religion Foundation), Hence why I didn't bother fact checking.

They're fairly common, but it's not because they're true. It's because guys like Starnes have made a career out of finding things for Christianists to be offended about, and nine times out of ten, when you check his facts, he's misrepresented the situation. He counts on people like you 'not checking'.

---

I could careless, which is how atheists claim to feel, except they don't.

Not having religious monuments on government property is ideal, but allowing monuments that reflect different religious viewpoints is acceptable. It's not going to be the atheists losing their minds when the Satanic monument goes up (if it's really allowed to go up).

---

I clearly stated that "Societies that are free to live how they please and treated fairly (no injustice/corruption) are the happiest." and "a societies happiness had nothing to do with secularism vs religion, but freedom of choice.

Secularism is an attempt to guarantee freedom of choice in religious matters. Your religious choices are less free when the government is backing a particular religion.

Therefore the concept is simple, it's not about secularism at all, in which you keep trying to beat that dead horse. Secularism is not even one of the criteria used to determine a societies happiness.

But the freedom of relgion that secularism supports IS relevant to fairness, justice, and freedom of a society; which ARE used to measure a society's happiness.

Paraguay and Panama top the first list
The religious identities of the people of Paraguay, or Religion in Paraguay for short, have since national independence been oriented towards the Christian faith, and specifically the Roman Catholic Church. In the most recent census (2002), Paraguayans of all ages 10 and older had their religious identities enumerated, and 89.6% were classified as Catholics.

Self-identification of Paraguayans with no established religion is quite low by worldwide standards, with only 1.14% of respondents enumerated as possessing no religious identity

The Constitution of Paraguay guarantees religious freedom and separation of church and state. Paraguay is a fine example of a country with a secular government.

The government of Panama does not collect statistics on the religious affiliation of citizens, but various sources estimate that 75 to 85 percent of the population identifies itself as Roman Catholic and 15 to 25 percent as evangelical Christian.[2] The Bahá'í Faith community of Panama is estimated at 2.00% of the national population, or about 60,000[3] including about 10% of the Guaymí population;[4] the Bahá'ís maintain one of the world's eight Baha'i Houses of Worship in Panama.

The government of Panama is a bit less secular than Paraguay's, but still has important provisions for protection of religious freedom. I'd call it mostly secular.

As you can see, in both of these countries the religious population is greater than 98%, by contrast in Denmark, only 28% of the population believe in God.

You do know that the political secularism of a country has little to do with the degree of religiosity of its inhabitants, right? In fact, a case can be made that a secular government contributes to a nation being more religious. The USA has the world's first officially secular government, and is the most religious developed country. That may be do to other factors, but it's clear that secularity is not a barrier to religiosity. You seem completely confused about what secularism actually is despite it being explained to you often and in different ways.

"According to the SKYE most recent Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[2] 28% of Danish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", 47% responded that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 24% responded that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force". Another poll, carried out in 2008, found that 25% of Danes believe Jesus is the son of God, and 18% believe he is the saviour of the world.[3] While a vast majority of Danes are technically agnostic or atheist, few choose to identify as such. It is speculated that this is because religion is such a non-issue that not believing in it does not require a specific label. "At the same time, they were “often disinclined or hesitant to talk with me about religion,” Mr. Zuckerman reported, “and even once they agreed to do so, they usually had very little to say on the matter."

What's even more interesting is that the United Arab Emirates makes top 15 in both lists yet they have freaking sharia law......

So I say once again, you equating secularism with happiness is utter nonsense.

So I say once again, your ignorance of what secularism is and means is astounding given the education on it that has been spoon-fed to you here. So astounding that only a willful desire not to understand it can account for it in someone capable of using a computer.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Actually that wasn't the point I was making, I see either you or FIDEL edited it out, but no matter. The important thing is you're able to recognize that Stalin and Mao didn't kill people because they were atheist but because they were paranoid and power mad, why can't you draw the same conclusion in regard to religion? The Pope was and probably still is the single most powerful person on the planet. Don't you think he would do anything to keep that power?

Who says I haven't drawn that conclusion? Once again, you miss my point, which is that for all the religious bleating about how it requires belief in a god to be a moral person, such belief hasn't stopped the atrocities committed by the faithful which still go on today -- nor has it stopped the blind lemmings such as yourself to keep bleating the mantra that belief in a god is the only way to be moral.

By the way, I didn't change any of your words -- I simply edited out the claptrap and kept what deserved a reply.

As per usual the atheist tries to discredit the information. I find it interesting that we are not even discussing religion, yet you still have to take the opposite side of the argument. I don't even believe you guys are really even against religion, you just have a disagreeable psychology.

If you think a phone poll is of the same probative value as collated data, you're not as smart as I had thought -- and believe me, I've been underwhelmed by your intellect, such as it is, for quite some time now.

Lets recap shall we, as per usual Abris implies that the source of my information (Gallup) is flawed.
If you read HIS Wikipedia link, you would see that the souce for information report is gallup!!!

You apparently have an inability to read simple English. Here's a list of the references for that Wiki article:

References[edit]
Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013 Ranks Happiest Countries Around Globe". Huffingtonpost.com. 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2014-04-25.
Jump up ^ "GNH Survey 2010". The Centre for Bhutan Studies. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
Jump up ^ Helliwell, John; Layard, Richard; Sachs, Jeffrey (April 2, 2012). "World Happiness Report". Columbia University Earth Institute. Retrieved 2014-06-29.
Jump up ^ Kyu Lee (2013-09-09). "Sustainable Development Solutions Network | World Happiness Report 2013". unsdsn.org. Retrieved 2014-04-25.
Jump up ^ Helliwell, John; Layard, Richard; Sachs, Jeffrey (September 9, 2013). "World Happiness Report 2013". United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Retrieved 2014-06-29.

Note the absence of the Gallup Organization in that list of references.

And here is the Happiness Report itself: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/...Report.pdf. Note that it is not a Gallup poll. Note also that it goes into extensive detail, as opposed to a phone poll, which is inherently superficial, as well as suffering from selection bias.

Do you see your mistake now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
(the part in red is what I stated makes a happy society, as you can see, secularism isn't a criteria)
The report in the Wiki is from 2013, while the link I posted from the ACTUAL WEBSITE is from 2014, yet you try to explain why it's wrong when both reports are done by the same organization! smh

Except that they weren't done by the same organization with the same methodology asking the same people, which should be obvious to anyone with a working brain.

Ok sir, please post a link to the correct "report" if you have one....

The link is above, but in case you missed it in your hurry to post yet another idiotic reply, here it is again: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/...Report.pdf.

Dumbass.

[Huggy Bear]

If you think a phone poll is of the same probative value as collated data, you're not as smart as I had thought -- and believe me, I've been underwhelmed by your intellect, such as it is, for quite some time now.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults in each country, aged 15 and older, conducted in 2013 in 138 countries and areas.

Nice try

You apparently have an inability to read simple English. Here's a list of the references for that Wiki article:

References[edit]
Jump up ^ "World Happiness Report 2013 Ranks Happiest Countries Around Globe". Huffingtonpost.com. 2013-09-09. Retrieved 2014-04-25.
Jump up ^ "GNH Survey 2010". The Centre for Bhutan Studies. Retrieved 17 October 2013.
Jump up ^ Helliwell, John; Layard, Richard; Sachs, Jeffrey (April 2, 2012). "World Happiness Report". Columbia University Earth Institute. Retrieved 2014-06-29.
Jump up ^ Kyu Lee (2013-09-09). "Sustainable Development Solutions Network | World Happiness Report 2013". unsdsn.org. Retrieved 2014-04-25.
Jump up ^ Helliwell, John; Layard, Richard; Sachs, Jeffrey (September 9, 2013). "World Happiness Report 2013". United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Retrieved 2014-06-29.

Note the absence of the Gallup Organization in that list of references.

If you look at the actual wiki page you will notice two separate sections, Under International rankings, it does indeed reference Gallup..

On a scale running from 0 to 10, people in over 150 countries, surveyed by Gallup over the period 2010-12, reveal a population-weighted average score of 5.1 (out of 10).

See that, that is called a reference.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reference

ref·er·ence
noun \ˈre-fərn(t)s, ˈre-f(ə-)rən(t)s\
: the act of mentioning something in speech or in writing : the act of referring to something or someone

If the report has nothing to do with Gallup, why mention it?

The link is above, but in case you missed it in your hurry to post yet another idiotic reply, here it is again: http://www.earth.columbia.edu/sitefiles/...Report.pdf.

Dumbass.

Error - Page Not Found
try posting a working link...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Error - Page Not Found
try posting a working link...

Here you go, this one works: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/201...online.pdf

Now if you go to page 93 of this report, you'll find the list of references the authors used.

Not one of them is the Gallup Organization.

The fact that you don't know the difference between a report and an opinion poll speaks volumes about your education, or lack thereof.

[Huggy Bear]

Error - Page Not Found
try posting a working link...

Here you go, this one works: http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/201...online.pdf

Now if you go to page 93 of this report, you'll find the list of references the authors used.

Not one of them is the Gallup Organization.

The fact that you don't know the difference between a report and an opinion poll speaks volumes about your education, or lack thereof.

Really? you freaking Muppet...
page 133 in the Bibliography

Bjørnskov, C. (2010). How comparable are the gallup world poll
life satisfaction data?.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 11,
41-60.

Gallup Organisation. (2012).
Indexes and Questions.

And in case you don't know what a bibliography is

A bibliography is a list of the sources you used to get information for your report. It is included at the end of your report, on the last page (or last few pages

As a matter of fact, Gallup is mentioned all throughout that report, lets see
Page 5

In Chapter 2 we update our ranking of life
evaluations from all over the world, making
primary use of the Gallup World Poll, since it
continues to regularly collect and provide com
parable data for the largest number of countries.

Also on pages 6,7,10,11,13,18,19,35,38,56,74,100,118,126,136,137,145,148 and 149
Now what's your excuse?

[Huggy Bear]

Well, well well, once again it seems Parkers Tan doesn't have the guts to respond after sticking his a$$ in his mouth.

Like I said, the topic of our discussion is not even religious, yet Atheists will take the opposite point of view from the perceived "theist" regardless of how wrong their position is. I guess it's just that US versus THEM mentality, suggesting that maybe people who identify as Atheist just generally have a disagreeable psychology.

So to Parkers Tan, who after deliberately omitting information to make his position seem tenable, you sir have lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned, and please don't bother responding to anything I post, unless it's an apology.......

I won't hold my breath.

*EDIT*
Oh, and btw "Gallop world poll" is actually mentioned 26 times in your report...

Just a little bit of trivia.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, because that one chapter means the entire study is based on the poll. I missed that one, and a good catch -- but if you think that substantiates your earlier claim, you're wrong. Oh, shit, there I go being contrarian again -- I better stop it before you get mad[der].

As for "having the guts to respond" -- here I am, asshole. Holy shit, you had to wait 12 entire hours?! The nerve of me! I should have been more thoughtful, and considerate. I know you don't understand the concept of having other things to do, but trust me, you're not so important that I think about responding to you every waking moment.

It's funny, though, how you like to let people live in your head, rent-free.

Boy, do I feel sorry for the neighbors in the downstairs apartment ... your pacing back-and-forth must have driven them fucking nuts.

[Huggy Bear]

Yes, because that one chapter means the entire study is based on the poll. I missed that one, and a good catch -- but if you think that substantiates your earlier claim, you're wrong. Oh, shit, there I go being contrarian again -- I better stop it before you get mad[der].

As for "having the guts to respond" -- here I am, asshole. Holy shit, you had to wait 12 entire hours?! The nerve of me! I should have been more thoughtful, and considerate.

we've already determined you have a short memory.

Of course, no response.... shocking.

Oh, it slipped my mind, that thread. It's not like you're important to me, you know. I don't hold our exchanges close to hand so that I can drop an old and irrelevant link into a conversation months later ... unlike someone here.

I know you don't understand the concept of having other things to do, but trust me, you're not so important that I think about responding to you every waking moment.

If by "other things to do" you mean, "post in other threads while avoiding this one like the plague", then you got me.

It's funny, though, how you like to let people live in your head, rent-free.

Boy, do I feel sorry for the neighbors in the downstairs apartment ... your pacing back-and-forth must have driven them fucking nuts.

I'm guessing you never played sports? It's always satisfying make a trash talker eat his words.

Also I did tell you to no longer respond to my posts, That was just my closing statement...

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't give a shit what you "told me", numbnuts.

Have you figured out the difference between a poll and a study yet?

Do you need my help?

Oh, and remember your meds -- you'll need them if you want to be coherent.

[Huggy Bear]

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.