Norway has the highest quality of life in the world and a high atheist rate(LINK HERE)
August 23rd 2011, 12:16 AM
Predator
Holy shoot! Dink Network News! I never knew we had that!
Huh, so why did someone go there and kill a bunch of kids?
Atheists are the parasites that drain the wealth of a religious-based society.
Well, ok - that was a rather prejudiced statement. Regardless, I will guarantee to you that atheism has not given Norway the greatest quality of life; It's just that Norway is in the right place at the right time with a well-balanced economy and political system.
Also, it's one of the world's most expensive countries, so the poor are chewed up and spat out.
According to "The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality-of-Life Index" as of 2007, the countries with the highest quality of life are: Ireland, Switzerland and Norway. The predominant system of beliefs are: Catholicism, Catholicism and Lutheranism, respectively.
However, I suspect that the financial crisis will have changed all that.
Well, ok - that was a rather prejudiced statement. Regardless, I will guarantee to you that atheism has not given Norway the greatest quality of life; It's just that Norway is in the right place at the right time with a well-balanced economy and political system.
Also, it's one of the world's most expensive countries, so the poor are chewed up and spat out.
According to "The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality-of-Life Index" as of 2007, the countries with the highest quality of life are: Ireland, Switzerland and Norway. The predominant system of beliefs are: Catholicism, Catholicism and Lutheranism, respectively.
However, I suspect that the financial crisis will have changed all that.
August 23rd 2011, 01:08 AM
Predator
Their richer than say saudi arabia
becuase atheist dont spensd all their time blowing up everything killing everyone.
becuase atheist dont spensd all their time blowing up everything killing everyone.
Athiests don't make a country rich. Their work does. There may be a high atheist rate, but it also has religious people.
I like date cookis.
I like date cookis.
August 23rd 2011, 01:28 AM
Predator
Its what those atheist do what make Norway rich and stable.
Maybe if youre country had more atheist it would be more stable.
Maybe if youre country had more atheist it would be more stable.
No, because atheists are ugly, stupid, wrestling fanboys.
I ate a chocolate muffin with a glass of milk for breakfast.
I ate a chocolate muffin with a glass of milk for breakfast.
Africans have the biggest dicks in the world.
Does that mean that every african is a rapist?
Does that mean that every african is a rapist?
Aww Pred.
Dont flatter me so much.
All I did was to apply your logic.
Dont flatter me so much.
All I did was to apply your logic.
re Schnapper: The religiosity of a nation and its quality of life or essentially any other similar variable are inversely related:
eg
http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf
http://godlesspaladin.com/2010/03/12/religiosity-vs-quality-of-life/
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/the-future-of-religion/
I know those are atheist websites but the inverse correlation is well accepted/known in sociology, with the US and China being the only significant deviants to the trend
eg
http://www.rationalist.com.au/archive/73/p20-27_paul_ar73_web.pdf
http://godlesspaladin.com/2010/03/12/religiosity-vs-quality-of-life/
http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/the-future-of-religion/
I know those are atheist websites but the inverse correlation is well accepted/known in sociology, with the US and China being the only significant deviants to the trend
Hey someone, long time...
PS: I couldnt word of what you said.
PS: I couldnt word of what you said.
re: Someone
Perhaps. Atheism could be a universally proven system of belief that would unite people; the problem is that A.) it is currently too militaristic B.) It's adherents are predominantly the scum and outcasts of society (Bitter, angry individuals who accuse gods/religion/austerity for all their' faults and failings.)
Furthermore, average atheists push for radical changes including forcing religious people to adhere. These are, in terms of normality, atheist adherents' most significant problems - arrogance and hypocrisy.
By contrast, the Bible provides clear instructions for living an effective life that benefits the most people and as such one could extract the basic tenets of the Bible and adapt them into secular society. The problem with this idea is that it places the accountability on other humans as opposed to a deservingly superior and more powerful being (deity), creating inequality in power/ rights which would, in turn, have a negative impact on societal life quality/ enjoyment.
Perhaps. Atheism could be a universally proven system of belief that would unite people; the problem is that A.) it is currently too militaristic B.) It's adherents are predominantly the scum and outcasts of society (Bitter, angry individuals who accuse gods/religion/austerity for all their' faults and failings.)
Furthermore, average atheists push for radical changes including forcing religious people to adhere. These are, in terms of normality, atheist adherents' most significant problems - arrogance and hypocrisy.
By contrast, the Bible provides clear instructions for living an effective life that benefits the most people and as such one could extract the basic tenets of the Bible and adapt them into secular society. The problem with this idea is that it places the accountability on other humans as opposed to a deservingly superior and more powerful being (deity), creating inequality in power/ rights which would, in turn, have a negative impact on societal life quality/ enjoyment.
I wasn't arguing that atheism would unite people. I wasn't even arguing that atheism leads to better quality of life. I was simply pointing out that your argument was based on a false premise. The nations with high quality of life are not relatively religious, but relatively non-religious.
Atheism is not defined by the behaviour of atheists (and certainly not by your perceptions of atheists). Atheism is also not a system of belief. It is not instructions for living an effective life. It is nothing but the belief there is no diety.
Finally your accusal of atheism being arrogant or hypocritical is bizarre and patently prejudiced. I don't know why you believe the average atheist pushes for radial change, or why this is relevant to what atheism is anyway even if it were true. I think your overconfidence that led you to "guarantee" that atheism is not a factor in Norway's quality of life rating was arrogant. I think your response of "perhaps" to me also appears arrogant since I made no argument and merely pointed out an empirical fact.
Maybe you should expand your social network and readings a little since you seem to have some warped perceptions of atheism and atheists.
Atheism is not defined by the behaviour of atheists (and certainly not by your perceptions of atheists). Atheism is also not a system of belief. It is not instructions for living an effective life. It is nothing but the belief there is no diety.
Finally your accusal of atheism being arrogant or hypocritical is bizarre and patently prejudiced. I don't know why you believe the average atheist pushes for radial change, or why this is relevant to what atheism is anyway even if it were true. I think your overconfidence that led you to "guarantee" that atheism is not a factor in Norway's quality of life rating was arrogant. I think your response of "perhaps" to me also appears arrogant since I made no argument and merely pointed out an empirical fact.
Maybe you should expand your social network and readings a little since you seem to have some warped perceptions of atheism and atheists.
Actually, Schnapper was pretty much correct in everything he said. Just sayin'.
Dear Someone,
Thankyou for stereotyping me as an illiterate Christian. I never said "Someone is arguing this point", it was simply a good point, so I made it.
You may also wish to gather some facts before accusing me of being non-factual: "I was simply pointing out that your argument was based on a false premise. The nations with high quality of life are not relatively religious, but relatively non-religious." I'm fairly sure you'll be wanting to direct that a Predator, who actually initially proposed that atheism is directly correlated with a nation's quality of life; I actually made this statement: "It's just that Norway is in the right place at the right time with a well-balanced economy and political system.", which clearly points out that success is not equal to one's religion.
Be sure to actually read my statements before ripping into them.
"Atheism is also not a system of belief." - Someone
"A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these." - Wikipedia
I won't even start on the factuality of evolution at this point.
"Finally your accusal of atheism being arrogant or hypocritical"
My statement was in reference to atheisms adherents, not it's teachings; I've amended it for easier reading for the intellectually flaccid amongst us.
"I think your overconfidence that led you to "guarantee" that atheism is not a factor in Norway's quality of life rating was arrogant."
Once again, you're misconstruing my words to suit your' own agenda. What I actually said was "I will guarantee to you that atheism has not given Norway the greatest quality of life." I explicitly DID NOT claim that "atheism is not a factor in Norway's quality of life rating", so check your' facts as per above.
"I think your response of "perhaps" to me also appears arrogant since I made no argument and merely pointed out an empirical fact."
Under no circumstances are a bunch of links posted on TDN "empirical facts". I did read through the documents you provided. You may be offended that I said "perhaps" as opposed to, say, falling before you and worshipping your glory and singing of your' illustriousness, but why should I be any more convinced of the infallibility of those documents then you should be of the Bible? Because a few numbers and big words were thrown around? I think not.
"Maybe you should expand your social network and readings a little since you seem to have some warped perceptions of atheism and atheists."
Ahhh, the personal attacks. So classy - you should be a politician. It is clear to me that you know nothing of the individual behind the keyboard, of the values of individuality and personal opinions, or of my previous writings and readings.
You are entitled to your fantasies, but I would turn your statement back into your court, lest the kettle be thought to be calling the pot black.
Thankyou for stereotyping me as an illiterate Christian. I never said "Someone is arguing this point", it was simply a good point, so I made it.
You may also wish to gather some facts before accusing me of being non-factual: "I was simply pointing out that your argument was based on a false premise. The nations with high quality of life are not relatively religious, but relatively non-religious." I'm fairly sure you'll be wanting to direct that a Predator, who actually initially proposed that atheism is directly correlated with a nation's quality of life; I actually made this statement: "It's just that Norway is in the right place at the right time with a well-balanced economy and political system.", which clearly points out that success is not equal to one's religion.
Be sure to actually read my statements before ripping into them.
"Atheism is also not a system of belief." - Someone
"A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs may be religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these." - Wikipedia
I won't even start on the factuality of evolution at this point.
"Finally your accusal of atheism being arrogant or hypocritical"
My statement was in reference to atheisms adherents, not it's teachings; I've amended it for easier reading for the intellectually flaccid amongst us.
"I think your overconfidence that led you to "guarantee" that atheism is not a factor in Norway's quality of life rating was arrogant."
Once again, you're misconstruing my words to suit your' own agenda. What I actually said was "I will guarantee to you that atheism has not given Norway the greatest quality of life." I explicitly DID NOT claim that "atheism is not a factor in Norway's quality of life rating", so check your' facts as per above.
"I think your response of "perhaps" to me also appears arrogant since I made no argument and merely pointed out an empirical fact."
Under no circumstances are a bunch of links posted on TDN "empirical facts". I did read through the documents you provided. You may be offended that I said "perhaps" as opposed to, say, falling before you and worshipping your glory and singing of your' illustriousness, but why should I be any more convinced of the infallibility of those documents then you should be of the Bible? Because a few numbers and big words were thrown around? I think not.
"Maybe you should expand your social network and readings a little since you seem to have some warped perceptions of atheism and atheists."
Ahhh, the personal attacks. So classy - you should be a politician. It is clear to me that you know nothing of the individual behind the keyboard, of the values of individuality and personal opinions, or of my previous writings and readings.
You are entitled to your fantasies, but I would turn your statement back into your court, lest the kettle be thought to be calling the pot black.
I never stereotyped you as anything.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were attributing to me. But considering you wrote "re: Someone. <new line> Perhaps." and immediately after (with no new paragraph) starting discussing these things I think you can understand why I thought you were attributing them to me.
Your false premise was what I thought you were implying with this:
According to "The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality-of-Life Index" as of 2007, the countries with the highest quality of life are: Ireland, Switzerland and Norway. The predominant system of beliefs are: Catholicism, Catholicism and Lutheranism, respectively.
"I won't even start on the factuality of evolution at this point."
What does evolution have to do with anything?
"Once again, you're misconstruing my words to suit your' own agenda."
I'm not quite sure what my agenda here is. Honestly.
Under no circumstances are a bunch of links posted on TDN "empirical facts".
The links were not empirical facts. The empirical fact is that there is an inverse relationship between how religious a country is and its quality of life. I don't care about anything else written on those pages besides the description of the surveys that show this. This has nothing to do with the infallibility of the Bible either.
Ahhh, the personal attacks. So classy - you should be a politician
I'm sorry if what I wrote sounded like a personal attack. I just can't read something like "It's adherents are predominantly the scum and outcasts of society (Bitter, angry individuals who accuse gods/religion/austerity for all their' faults and failings.)" without getting the opinion of someone has not been exposed to too many atheists and atheistic thought. Your view of atheists is patently prejudiced and just plain absurd.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you were attributing to me. But considering you wrote "re: Someone. <new line> Perhaps." and immediately after (with no new paragraph) starting discussing these things I think you can understand why I thought you were attributing them to me.
Your false premise was what I thought you were implying with this:
According to "The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Quality-of-Life Index" as of 2007, the countries with the highest quality of life are: Ireland, Switzerland and Norway. The predominant system of beliefs are: Catholicism, Catholicism and Lutheranism, respectively.
"I won't even start on the factuality of evolution at this point."
What does evolution have to do with anything?
"Once again, you're misconstruing my words to suit your' own agenda."
I'm not quite sure what my agenda here is. Honestly.
Under no circumstances are a bunch of links posted on TDN "empirical facts".
The links were not empirical facts. The empirical fact is that there is an inverse relationship between how religious a country is and its quality of life. I don't care about anything else written on those pages besides the description of the surveys that show this. This has nothing to do with the infallibility of the Bible either.
Ahhh, the personal attacks. So classy - you should be a politician
I'm sorry if what I wrote sounded like a personal attack. I just can't read something like "It's adherents are predominantly the scum and outcasts of society (Bitter, angry individuals who accuse gods/religion/austerity for all their' faults and failings.)" without getting the opinion of someone has not been exposed to too many atheists and atheistic thought. Your view of atheists is patently prejudiced and just plain absurd.
Your view of atheists is patently prejudiced and just plain absurd.
If you want to prevent your posts from soundling like personal attacks, then you might want to remove sentences like those from them.
If you want to prevent your posts from soundling like personal attacks, then you might want to remove sentences like those from them.
I understand the discourse between us now - I appreciate what you have said.
My statements may be a little too ambiguous for some - I apologise. A word of wisdom to all: be sure not to take every word I say literally.
"What does evolution have to do with anything?"
I said that because I felt that in saying "Atheism is also not a system of belief" you were suggesting that atheism is factual.
"I'm not quite sure what my agenda here is. Honestly."
Neither am I, hence the ambiguity of my claim.
"someone has not been exposed to too many atheists and atheistic thought. It's patently prejudiced and just plain absurd."
That's where you come undone. I assure you that a significant number of my friends and associations are atheists. Furthermore, my sister is an atheism enthusiast, so I have been to a number of talks around Melbourne on the subject of atheism, and have been blessed with suffering words of Richard Dawkins both by day and by night.
So no, my statements are not "patently prejudiced and just plain absurd" in my considerable experience, though perhaps you cannot say the same.
My statements may be a little too ambiguous for some - I apologise. A word of wisdom to all: be sure not to take every word I say literally.
"What does evolution have to do with anything?"
I said that because I felt that in saying "Atheism is also not a system of belief" you were suggesting that atheism is factual.
"I'm not quite sure what my agenda here is. Honestly."
Neither am I, hence the ambiguity of my claim.
"someone has not been exposed to too many atheists and atheistic thought. It's patently prejudiced and just plain absurd."
That's where you come undone. I assure you that a significant number of my friends and associations are atheists. Furthermore, my sister is an atheism enthusiast, so I have been to a number of talks around Melbourne on the subject of atheism, and have been blessed with suffering words of Richard Dawkins both by day and by night.
So no, my statements are not "patently prejudiced and just plain absurd" in my considerable experience, though perhaps you cannot say the same.
I said that because I felt that in saying "Atheism is also not a system of belief" you were suggesting that atheism is factual.
That's not what I meant. I meant there is only one thing to atheism: the belief there is no diety. So it's not a "system" as there is only one belief.
That's where you come undone. I assure you that a significant number of my friends and associations are atheists. Furthermore, my sister is an atheism enthusiast, so I have been to a number of talks around Melbourne on the subject of atheism, and have been blessed with suffering words of Richard Dawkins both by day and by night.
Then I take it back and admit I was wrong.
That's not what I meant. I meant there is only one thing to atheism: the belief there is no diety. So it's not a "system" as there is only one belief.
That's where you come undone. I assure you that a significant number of my friends and associations are atheists. Furthermore, my sister is an atheism enthusiast, so I have been to a number of talks around Melbourne on the subject of atheism, and have been blessed with suffering words of Richard Dawkins both by day and by night.
Then I take it back and admit I was wrong.
"That's not what I meant. I meant there is only one thing to atheism: the belief there is no diety. So it's not a "system" as there is only one belief."
You have a good attitude, so it is only fair that I should admit that, in the strictest sense, atheism = not believing in the existence of deities.
You have a good attitude, so it is only fair that I should admit that, in the strictest sense, atheism = not believing in the existence of deities.
I sense someone taking one thing and attributing it to something that is unrelated is belief in and of itself.
Here you go preddy . now at pred's premmision you can restart the argument now that Pred may properly defend his views.
. now at pred's premmision you can restart the argument now that Pred may properly defend his views.Development and Religion are as inter-reletaed as your car and your aunt.
Which, in other words, means that they have no inter-relation.
Which, in other words, means that they have no inter-relation.
oh great another flame thread. JUST what we needed.
ZX
Let me tell you what flaming is.
Flaming is "shut up you b!tch, you have no idea what I am talking about. Why dont you just do the moari tribal dance, you retard"
This is proper flaming.
The above post was just a humourous comment.
PS: This post was just to illustrate what flaming is. No offence meant to any dinker.
Let me tell you what flaming is.
Flaming is "shut up you b!tch, you have no idea what I am talking about. Why dont you just do the moari tribal dance, you retard"
This is proper flaming.
The above post was just a humourous comment.
PS: This post was just to illustrate what flaming is. No offence meant to any dinker.
lol maoris dont have tribal dances hehehe silly you
Some wally called it 'tribal' but it aint 
