WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD ORDER...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Define secularism Nappies. You say it's irrelveant but it's the fucking basis of this conversation.

You're arguing against something you don't understand, which is painfully obvious to everyone reading this thread. You can't just add 'it's coincidental' to your argument as though that suddenly absolves you of the utter tripe you've posted thus far on this thread, mate. It's ridiculous. I could talk to you about things like nominal ascription in religious/political demographics but it would go over your head. Also I could talk (Again) about how religious adherence has nothing to do with secularism, but that too is a very easy to understand point you've failed to get.

Keep on embarrassing yourself, though, it's funny. I want everyone to read this exchange and get as many chuckles as I have. So pass this thread around nappies if you can, please.

I put it to you that you can't define secularism because you don't know what it is. So, what, -10 now nappies? How low can you go?

nice filibuster!
Said all that without addressing anything in my last post, and still managing to bring up more irrelevant topics.

You said something in your last post? Looked like a dump of ramblings from a guy who, again, hasn't got the foggiest what he's talking about.

The point of this debate is if "secular states" tended to be happier than "non-secular states". I've proved by your own evidence that this statement is false, do you agree or disagree, that is the only question.

I disagree because all you've done is post a link where (at least the) top 10 states were secular.

What I've said is factual. Because you believe secularism = atheism, you're continually failing to make a dent in any of the arguments on this thread. You contradict yourself by saying that the basis of a 'happy' population is freedom of choice, when that's exactly what secularism promotes - freedom to (not) believe. I can only conclude that you're mentally ill in some way by not recognising this contradiction inherent within your own reasoning. Either that, or, as I suspect, you don't what secularism is so insist on blundering into arguments you don't understand.

Not to mention your statement

And you ignored that all the top 10 states are secular.

was also wrong, when in fact 4 of those are non-secular/ambiguous.

Based on whose assumption? Yours? The guy who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about? Cite, with explanations. Go on, give us some political discourse that evidences your brain which everyone up until this point has concluded is absent.

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

Of all the religions in Denmark, the most prominent is Christianity in the form of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark, the state religion. However, pockets of virtually all faiths can be found among the population. The second largest faith is Islam, due to immigration since 1980. In general, however, Danes are secular, and church attendance is generally low.[1]

http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm
http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/lett...ar-society
http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledg...s-mediator

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. A 1998 study by the Danish National Institute of Social Research found that only four percent of church members attended church at least once a month1. Thirty-six percent said they never attended church at all, and another thirty-six percent only went on major holidays such as Christmas. Thus, only forty percent of church members attend services even once per year, and most of the four percent who do attend regularly are elderly.

...

Still, most Danes can be considered “Christian” only in the loosest sense of the word; they accept those aspects of Christianity that fit into their secular worldview and are ready to disregard the rest.

Look, I've even done you a favor and posted a link which questions the secularity [sic] of Danish institutions vis it's people general acceptance of secularism (80%+). This is where those terms of nominal ascription arise and where the automatic acceptance of a state relgion =/= people endorsing that religion's right to hegemony over matters spritual.

In a post prior to this I said secularism is not an easy subject to evaluate as it's contextual. You dismissed this like a goon by saying, effectively, that it is.

So I repeat, you have no clue what you're talking about and in replying to me and others are continually making yourself out to be a laughing stock.

Continue with the silliness, please, and ensure you're linking this discussion as many times as possible so as to increase the level of general laughter.