[split] AF Hall of Shame, various discussion including Denmark & bible contradiction

[downbeatplumb]

---

[quote='Jörmungandr' pid='1701763' dateline='1518644012']

Having looked back on that thread, it appears the debate in question started with this post.  In this post, you link to studies that show that the country of Denmark is one of the happiest in the world, and attempt to make some point about secularism not being linked to happiness in these top countries.  Pandemonium in responding to your post about the happiest countries, specifically Panama and Denmark, stated, "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."  It's not clear that he is here specifically claiming that Denmark in particular has a secular government, rather than that he was simply speaking in general about the lists you presented.  Several pages later, you introduce the dubious claim that a state (meaning country) is not secular if its government is not secular.  I went through the pages rather rapidly, but from what I could see, you kept pressuring people on the question of whether Denmark had a secular government or not, and your interlocutors continually refused to answer that question directly, generally inclining toward trying to direct the conversation back to the question of whether Denmark was a secular state (meaning country) or not.  I didn't find any examples of anybody claiming that Denmark had a secular government, but my examination was rather cursory, so if you have an example of such, please provide it.


So, if my perusal of that thread is accurate, the claim under dispute was whether or not Denmark was a secular country or not.  (You yourself say as much at several points in the discussion.)  Whether you were or were not right on that point is debatable.  Claiming victory on the main point of that discussion would then be completely improper.  Instead, you are claiming that you won a victory based upon a question which you yourself independently introduced, and which, to the best that I can see, was never argued contrary-wise by any atheist.  How you see that as some kind of a victory for you, and a shameful defeat for the participating atheists, is something of a mystery to me.  The evidence appears to be that the "Denmark issue" is simply a case where your vanity led you to claim a victory based on your self appraisal of the matter, an appraisal which appears to be in contradiction to the actual facts of the matter.  But, as I said, my examination of that thread was not completely thorough, so I'm open to being shown wrong.  Simply provide a link to where one of the atheist debaters in that thread claimed that Denmark had a secular government, and I'll concede the point.

Here you go.

---

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.

Actually that is the exact link I posted, thank you very much

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.

*emphasis mine*

---

Pandæmonium clearly said that the top 10 STATES in that list were secular... a State is a government.

The top 10 nations in that list.

1. Denmark  = not secular
2. Norway = ambiguous
3. Switzerland = ambiguous
4. Netherlands = secular
5. Sweden = secular
6. Canada = secular
7. Finland = ambiguous
8. Austria = secular
9. Iceland = not secular
10. Australia = secular

I used this site to determine which countries are which because some countries aren't clear, like Norway for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Norway

A constitutional amendment of May 21, 2012 designates the church as "Norway's people's church" (Norges Folkekirke), with a new provision that is almost a verbatim copy of the provision for the Danish state church (folkekirken) in the Constitution of Denmark; the Minister of Church Affairs Trond Giske stressed that the reform meant that "the state church is retained." On 27 May 2016, Stortinget approved a new act to establish the Church of Norway as an independent legal entity rather than a branch of the civil service, and the law took effect on 1 January 2017. The church remains state funded.

Denmark just happened to be first on the list that was clearly not secular, therefore making Pandæmonium's claim of the top 10 States in that list being secular patently false.

All he had to do was correct his mistake, but he chose to double down, the rest is history...

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

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

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://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....

[/quote
]

---

Huggy, would you consider the UK to have a secular government?

I would say yes, and yet there is a church of England with unelected representatives in the house of lords.

Seems like a contradiction and yet it really isn't.