What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Cato]

Dr. Lars Dencik is professor of social psychology at Roskilde University, Denmark, and director of the social and cultural psychology program at the Danish Graduate School of Psychology.
In his article he states.
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...rssecr.htm

•  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.”

So being automatically registerd as a member of the Church upon birth is somehow NOT "invoking" religion? How is this secularism?

You forgot to quote the next paragraph.

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. The number of churchgoers on any regular Sunday is below 5 percent of the adult population and even on the religious holidays (with the exception of the Christmas Eve service) doesn’t rise much above that. A good 80 percent of the population can be characterized as “secular” in the sense that religious practices do not play any part in their daily life. Nor do they to any substantial extent support the Christian-Democratic political party—in Denmark that party attracts approximately 2 percent of the voters in general elections.

If you followed Huggy's link you still had to link through to Denmark. I will now provide the direct link to avoid any suspicion of obfuscation or chicanery:
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm

Although I suspect your intent was different, I will consider this exchange a mere clarification of terms. I am gracious. My offer to only solicit an admission of error and forego my right to demand apology still stands. Will you accept?

[Esquilax]

But you don't have the ammo, do you? I've asked for just one example where I was being dishonest, haven't seen it yet....

That's for much the same reason that it's impossible to point to a forest when you're inside it; you end up just pointing at trees, while the forest itself is pervasive. You lie so much, at so many varying intensities, that it's basically the background noise of every conversation we have with you.

It's also why it's pointless to point attempt to demonstrate this to you either, because you lie so habitually, you twist and refuse to admit wrongdoing so much that what's one more, to yet again escape accountability for your bullshit? You've committed yourself to believing these infantile defensive fantasies you weave because it's easier than just growing up and gaining that little shred of introspection that might make you seem like less of a legend in your own eyes.

You're a troll, plain and simple. You're an officious little twat who delights in stirring up shit with others, who fucking catalogs years old posts just in case you can use them for another petty "aha!" moment months or years down the line. You're so absorbed in pointing out every little perceived failing, so committed to trying to big yourself up by dragging others down any way you can, that when people make a simple mistake and admit it, you taunt them over it endlessly. You put it in your signature, so you can beam so proudly: "Ha ha, you were wrong once! I've never been wrong!" Unaware that everyone else sees the petty, mean spirited little toad behind it all.

This thread's just the icing on the cake; seeing you lash out at people right and left, for no reason, dragging up posts from disparate threads, months apart... the lengths you'll go to to insulate your ego from any criticism is mind boggling, and I realized today that I have better things to do than engage in your little circle jerk. If you want to stroke your little e-peen, then do it somewhere else and stop making this thread all about you.

[Huggy Bear]

Dr. Lars Dencik is professor of social psychology at Roskilde University, Denmark, and director of the social and cultural psychology program at the Danish Graduate School of Psychology.
In his article he states.
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...rssecr.htm
So being automatically registerd as a member of the Church upon birth is somehow NOT "invoking" religion? How is this secularism?

You forgot to quote the next paragraph.

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. The number of churchgoers on any regular Sunday is below 5 percent of the adult population and even on the religious holidays (with the exception of the Christmas Eve service) doesn’t rise much above that. A good 80 percent of the population can be characterized as “secular” in the sense that religious practices do not play any part in their daily life. Nor do they to any substantial extent support the Christian-Democratic political party—in Denmark that party attracts approximately 2 percent of the voters in general elections.

*emphasis mine*
I didn't forget anything, once again, the subject was on the secularist of the GOVERNMENT of Denmark...
Explain how the emboldened part helps your argument for the GOVERNMENT of Denmark being secular.

If you followed Huggy's link you still had to link through to Denmark. I will now provide the direct link to avoid any suspicion of obfuscation or chicanery:
http://www.trincoll.edu/depts/csrpl/rinv...enmark.htm

Although I suspect your intent was different, I will consider this exchange a mere clarification of terms. I am gracious. My offer to only solicit an admission of error and forego my right to demand apology still stands. Will you accept?

I noticed how you failed to answer a simple yes or no question, and avoided responding to any of my points.... typical.

spill more seed than Muhammad Ali filling a bird feeder,

Gag reflex?

[Ravenshire]

But you don't have the ammo, do you? I've asked for just one example where I was being dishonest, haven't seen it yet....

In the meantime I could provide at least 10 examples (there's more if you're interested) of Atheists being dishonest, I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy...that's it. I mean come on, Atheists criticize priests for sexually abusing underage boys, but run to the defense of a gay guy doing the exact same thing... and YOU think MY actions of pointing out the hypocrisy of that reprehensible.

smh

Woah back the fuck up dude. First of all stop lumping ALL atheists into one group who think the same things because I, for one, do NOT condone any adult having sex with underage kids. Period.

Just another example of Huggies intellectual dishonesty.

[Huggy Bear]

You're a troll, plain and simple. You're an officious little twat who delights in stirring up shit with others, who fucking catalogs years old posts just in case you can use them for another petty "aha!" moment months or years down the line. You're so absorbed in pointing out every little perceived failing, so committed to trying to big yourself up by dragging others down any way you can, that when people make a simple mistake and admit it, you taunt them over it endlessly. You put it in your signature, so you can beam so proudly: "Ha ha, you were wrong once! I've never been wrong!" Unaware that everyone else sees the petty, mean spirited little toad behind it all.

I'll respond to this one point.

we are having a debate, therefore anything you say can be used against you, pointing out where a person contradicts themselves is what you SUPPOSED to do. If I contradicted myself as much as you do, are you saying you would never bring it up? As far as trolling goes, if quoting someone's own words back at them are what you define as trolling then ban me... I know you already like to stretch the definitions of rules to whatever you want them to be, and please request proof of that because I'd be more that happy to supply that too.

I should add, I've had my sig privileges revoked for quoting someone in my sig, while ironically you quote someone in yours... I could point out others doing the same, but who cares about fairness right?

As for your other point. If one indeed did display their ignorance and apologize, I WOULDN'T bring it up, but that means this person no longer has the right to refer to anyone else as ignorant, when they do, I bring up their past....simple as that.

BTW, I don't catalog old quotes, I could just browse through my post history and pick em out at random, there are THAT many.

Woah back the fuck up dude. First of all stop lumping ALL atheists into one group who think the same things because I, for one, do NOT condone any adult having sex with underage kids. Period.

Just another example of Huggies intellectual dishonesty.

How is that any different from you guys lumping all theists into one group?

speaking of dishonesty...

[Joods]

Huggies,

There is no love in your heart. You live a hypocritical life filled with lie after lie after lie. "Let me get them before they get me" is your motto. Clearly, YOU, the disillusioned, are nothing more than selfish and narcissistic. At every turn, you have violated your own faith and the Christian principles you claim to live by. You have relentlessly judged others. You have insulted, put down and used arrogance towards the members of this forum time and time again. You viciously target a select few members (me, for one) and continuously drag up the same quotes over and over and over again, trying desperately to prove a point. For someone claiming to be a Christian, you are quite the opposite. Let me assure you, no one here, except for the few religious folk that are still around, will ever agree with you. Far too many people think you are bat shit crazy, off your rocker and in desperate need of some sort of medication to help you with your psychosis or whatever it is that you seem to suffer from.

For the sake of your religion, stop talking. Stop chiming in on things because clearly, you cannot possibly claim to live as a Christian when your behavior, your words, your reaction to the simplest of questions shows that you are unable to adhere to whatever it means to be a Christian. You do little else here besides pass judgement on others. You repeatedly bully others on here through your perpetual and relentless use of quote mining. It would not surprise me one iota if you actually kept a log of quotes somewhere that you can quickly refer to. While other adults are capable of moving on to other discussions, you literally hang onto every thread and every post hoping to use it again and again and again in order to make a point. What is so sad about that is that the vast majority of the time, rather than engaging in meaningful discussions, you resort to this child-like behavior, which is comparable to throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way.

I pity you. Not because of what you do here, but because you are not capable of reasonable or rational thought. For you it's either up or down. Black or white. There are no gray areas in your life. It's either all or nothing and that way of thinking simply isn't healthy - for anyone. You sir, are addicted to conflict. You are addicted to arguing and you are addicted to speaking the famous word salad argument.

I have several friends who are considered Progressive Christians. And you know what? It is an absolute PLEASURE discussing religion with them because they are some of the most open-minded Christians I know. Even when we disagree, they never resort to bashing someone else's opinions. They never have to spend an absurd amount of time dragging up posts from long ago that have nothing to do with the current discussion.

You, on the other hand, are just not capable of having such adult conversations. Every single thread you contribute to, always ends up in one of the following places:

1. Buried because you killed the thread with your endless circular arguments.
2. Killed because you managed to turn the thread into focusing entirely on YOU.
3. Taken so far off the original topic that it is pointless to even discuss it anymore.
4. Endless quote mining by you, over topics that had nothing to do with the original topic.

Have you not realized that the vast majority here are tired of your infantile tantrums and your predictability? Have you not realized that the vast majority here can't even take you seriously because you have developed for yourself, a negative image - one that quite honestly - no one gives a shit about? I think you have used up your time here. You have proven time and time again how ignorant you can be and how low you are willing to go in order to either change the subject, avoid answering a direct question, blameshift onto others for your shortcomings or prove someone wrong. Mostly, it's the last one. You have such a difficult time admitting when you are wrong, that you will literally spend way more time digging up quotes and taking the topic so far off track than you would if you just said - "Yeah I'm wrong about that. Thanks for the clarification."

You would probably earn "some" respect if you could just admit when you are wrong, understand that you aren't perfect and you stopped trying to play God to the members of this forum. Guess what? You. Are. Not. God. Period. If Jesus were real, he would be ashamed to associate with you because you are the farthest thing from what an example of living a "Christ-like" life should be.

[Esquilax]

I should add, I've had my sig privileges revoked for quoting someone in my sig, while ironically you quote someone in yours... I could point out others doing the same, but who cares about fairness right?

I have no interest in the rest of your self serving platitudes, however...

You did not have your "sig privileges" revoked, so kindly do not lie about mod actions. You were told to remove the sig you had put up at the time, not for quoting somebody- that's your second lie- but because the quote itself was nothing but trolling, a way for you to taunt another user on the site. We have rules against trolling, and your sig had been found to be in violation of those rules. You had your opportunity to argue your case at the time and you failed, you do not then get to misrepresent what happened later.

Interestingly enough, you said nobody had yet provided evidence of you lying, and then in the very next post you lied twice for personal gain; did you just think I'd forgotten that report? That we don't have it archived for posterity? All this was explained to you at the time, you know.

[Huggy Bear]

I should add, I've had my sig privileges revoked for quoting someone in my sig, while ironically you quote someone in yours... I could point out others doing the same, but who cares about fairness right?

I have no interest in the rest of your self serving platitudes, however...

You did not have your "sig privileges" revoked, so kindly do not lie about mod actions. You were told to remove the sig you had put up at the time, not for quoting somebody- that's your second lie- but because the quote itself was nothing but trolling, a way for you to taunt another user on the site. We have rules against trolling, and your sig had been found to be in violation of those rules. You had your opportunity to argue your case at the time and you failed, you do not then get to misrepresent what happened later.

Interestingly enough, you said nobody had yet provided evidence of you lying, and then in the very next post you lied twice for personal gain; did you just think I'd forgotten that report? That we don't have it archived for posterity? All this was explained to you at the time, you know.

Here you go.
https://atheistforums.org/thread-31826-p...#pid902393

It's a non-issue now, as we have permanently suspended Huggy's signature.

What part was I lying about? I had received no message in any OFFICAL capacity telling me to change my Sig, If you think I have please point it out.

[Joods]

And AGAIN, you've just proven my point. ALL you do is drag up the past. Knock it the fuck off already and learn to let shit go huggy.

[Cato]

I noticed how you failed to answer a simple yes or no question, and avoided responding to any of my points.... typical.

Nobody else reading our exchange will draw that conclusion because your yes/no question was dishonest and disingenuous.

spill more seed than Muhammad Ali filling a bird feeder,

Gag reflex?

I would be shocked if you didn't gag. God made me in his image, more specifically like Ezekial 23:20...
...
whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.