Originally posted by Proper Knob [b]by your argument, scientologists should and will get hung until they number a billion or so.
What on earth are you talking about?!
it has nothing to do that we in general are more tolerant of different ideas
That's the point i was making. Ideas that can be freely expressed nowadays, in the UK anyways, were punishable by death a few hundred years ago.[/b]
which was also because they were intolerant. not because there were so few atheists then. if the atheists then would have been more numerous than christians, the christians would have gotten hung.
the point about the scientologists which you clearly missed is that they are in the same position the "freethinkers" were a few hundred years ago? why aren't they hung? could it be that we as a race christians, jews and muslims have evolved to be more tolerant? other than that there would be no reason. so still you have no point to claim "ideas can be freely expressed noawadays" because there are 1.1 billion atheists. without whom we would still be living in the dark ages like rwingett so briliantly pointed out.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi which was also because they were intolerant. not because there were so few atheists then. if the atheists then would have been more numerous than christians, the christians would have gotten hung.
the point about the scientologists which you clearly missed is that they are in the same position the "freethinkers" were a few hundred years ago? why aren't t ...[text shortened]... out whom we would still be living in the dark ages like rwingett so briliantly pointed out.
If Christianity is a more tolerant religion nowadays, it is because they were forced into that position by the freethinkers of the enlightenment. Today Christians view their religion through the prism of that enlightenment and it has had an undeniable mellowing effect upon their zealotry and fanaticism. If the secular controls of the enlightenment were to be removed, Christianity would inexorably revert to its prior intolerant and fanatical form.
Originally posted by rwingett If Christianity is a more tolerant religion nowadays, it is because they were forced into that position by the freethinkers of the enlightenment. Today Christians view their religion through the prism of that enlightenment and it has had an undeniable mellowing effect upon their zealotry and fanaticism. If the secular controls of the enlightenment were to be removed, Christianity would inexorably revert to its prior intolerant and fanatical form.
so your point is that an oppressive regime would be constant in its opressiveness. that while the opressed can change, the regime will never. that only an atheist will ever be able to break loose the shackles of faith and only because of the atheists we are not living today under the inquisition. that the church had no choice but to bow down to the "freethinkers". that the transition was not facilitated at all because the church became more tolerant. and also you are saying that the church had no influence on the enlightenment period
Originally posted by Zahlanzi do you know who enters the "Secularist/Irreligious/Agnostic/Atheist"? people unregistered in any religion. i might be considered in that group too because i haven't gone to church in a zilion years. and even then i haven't signed any guest book. that if they really base their statistic on something. more likely they simply get a statistic together which is really hard to do worldwide and put forth some numbers.
Probably the opposite. My country still has an official 90% of Roman Catholics because everybody who is baptised is still counted as being one. Polls show much lower numbers.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi so your point is that an oppressive regime would be constant in its opressiveness. that while the opressed can change, the regime will never. that only an atheist will ever be able to break loose the shackles of faith and only because of the atheists we are not living today under the inquisition. that the church had no choice but to bow down to the "freethi ...[text shortened]... tolerant. and also you are saying that the church had no influence on the enlightenment period
To a large extent, yes. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's the general gist of it.
Progressive change is very seldom ever initiated from the top. It almost always percolates at the bottom before working its way up. All political and religious institutions are organized with the implicit objective of maintaining the status quo. Johnson didn't enact civil rights legislation (for example) because it was the right and noble thing to do. He did it because of agitation from the people at the bottom. The country was shifting from under its political institutions. Johnson's civil rights legislation was merely a reflection of that. The same holds true for religious institutions. They are always on the trailing edge of any reform movement.
Originally posted by Palynka Probably the opposite. My country still has an official 90% of Roman Catholics because everybody who is baptised is still counted as being one. Polls show much lower numbers.
i don't like polls. i don't trust them. you get 1000 people and you try and get them proportionately from all areas of society. you then ask them some questions and when 250 of them say they like pudding you say that 25% of that society likes pudding.
yes you are perfectly right. anyone baptized is counted as a christian. but maybe some are not. while someone who doesn't go to church might be labeled an atheist. or maybe someone is a baptist (or someone that doesn't get baptized at birth) and then at adulthood he delays getting baptized while still believing.
Originally posted by Zahlanzi i don't like polls. i don't trust them. you get 1000 people and you try and get them proportionately from all areas of society. you then ask them some questions and when 250 of them say they like pudding you say that 25% of that society likes pudding.
yes you are perfectly right. anyone baptized is counted as a christian. but maybe some are not. while ays getting baptized while still believing.
that's why i asked how that study was made.
I understand. I was just saying that it's not clear at all that the third group benefited from that problem, which was what you seemed to be hinting at.
Sampling is the only way to do it properly, as it's infeasible to count everybody. Of course, the sample has to be representative but this is usually taken into account in most serious polls.
Originally posted by rwingett Of course I didn't waste my time looking at your stilted propaganda. My point remains that although there are religious individuals who are agents for change, the established churches never are.
Your attempt to confuse naturalism with consumerism through the dual meaning of 'materialism' is disingenuous. Secularism is not synonymous with avarice any more than religiosity is synonymous with asceticism.
i see, so you have basically closed your mind to counter arguments, hardly the open minded approach that you would have us believe freedom from religion produces, secondly, its not my propaganda, i did not write it, i merely mentioned it as a counter argument, and thirdly, i have every right to claim that consumerism is a direct consequence of a materialistic outlook, for materialism has as it very essence, the view that there is no reality but a materialistic one, of which consumerism is a direct consequence of, for persons now evaluate themselves, not through who they are or the qualities they display, but by the type of car they drive, the house they live in and the clothes they wear, refute it if you will!
Bronze Medal
13 Jan '10 15:10
Back to Top