Atheism is a Fringe Kook Theory Cult

[JimBowie1958]

de·ter
verb \di-ˈtər, dē-\

: to cause (someone) to decide not to do something

: to prevent (something) from happening

Are you saying someone who has been executed has not been prevented from committing another crime?

You can't prevent a dead person from doing something, that makes no sense, they're dead. Prevent suggests to stop something from happening, dead people aren't happening.

I believe if you make a person dead you have certainly prevented them from doing anything at all from that point on. What you are saying is that if you come at me with a knife and I shoot and kill you, that I have not prevented you from killing me?

But you are trying to explain that to a fucking moron.

good luck with that.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The head of the state of the UK is the monarch, and the head of the church of England is also that same monarch. The government of the UK pays the salaries of the clergy of the Anglican church. The government of the UK appoints the clergy and bishops of the Anglican church.

If that is NOT a theocracy, dumbass, then all the horrific bullshit coming from pants piddling atheists about how the Tea Party is trying to make the USA into a theocracy is just paint curdling horse shit.

If ignorance is bliss the OP is a space cadet!

Obviously he doesn't even understand the terminology that he abuses!



The Queen of England is not an ordained minister in the CofE. Her Role is defined as such;

the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. If you turn to the back of that book you will often find printed the 39 Articles of Religion. Article 37 states that the monarch is not a minister of God’s Word, or of the Sacraments, but only has the authority “given always to all godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself”.

In other words, the Queen is not a priest or bishop

Our-Queen-Supreme-Governor-of-the-Church-of-England

England has a secular Parliament and is ruled by a Prime Minister selected from the democratically elected majority party.

That is NOT a theocracy!

The head of the state is also the head of the church and by definition that intermingles the function of church and state and is therefore a theocracy.

Lol, I am going to save this thread for future reference when you dumbass atheists try to insist that kids saying a prayer at some high school football game constitutes a theocracy, roflmao

Feel free to make your own appalling ignorance the subject of further mockery in the future.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Religion and politics are the same thing.

lol.....liberals tend to believe that crap.....until you accuse them of being religious....then its all denial.....

I'm not a liberal and I am religious. That doesn't change the fact that religion and politics are the same thing. I try to see my environment the way it is, not the way I would like it to be.

The two intermingle a lot in various ways, but I would hesitate to say that they are exactly the same things.

How many politicians know what the hell the Tulip doctrines or of the difference between transubstantiation and the Lutheran view of the eucharist? Few if any but they are staples to an educated cleric..

 

[pinqy]

His 'question' was a rhetorical one, a tossed out guess for spin.

But to answer the question seriously, no, I do not want a theocracy like they have in England, Israel or Sweden.

In a Theocracy, political power and law are all derived from religion. This is not the case in England, Sweden, or even Israel. The Vatican is a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Other Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen can also be considered theocracies.

Lol, do you realize that the government of the church of England is based on theological claims?

The government of the church of England? Ummm all churches are based on theological claims.

Did you know that the supreme cleric of the church of England is the monarch of England?

The title is "Supreme Governor" and the Monarch has never been a cleric The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of the Church.

Did you know that the government of the UK pays all the salaries and expenses of the church of England?

That's not true. The government does not directly finance the Church
Did you know that although it has no state religion, Germany collects taxes to be distributed to recognized churches? Does that make Germany a theocracy of multiple religions?

The LAWS of England are not religious laws and are not based on Church of England rules.

An official religion is NOT a theocracy.

 

[PratchettFan]

80% of Swedes are either atheists or agnostics even though they may technically be counted as "belonging" to a religion simply because that was the religion their parents had when they were born.

Yes, religion is a social tool to control society. But to exercise that control there needs to be a risk/reward mechanism that will motivate desired behavior and punish undesirable behavior. The invention of a deity that can see everything and administer punishment and rewards is essential to the functioning of the religion itself. There are a couple of minor religions that don't use deities but all of the major religions have them and belief in them is part of the control mechanism.

You are wrong.

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012,[6] the religions in Sweden are the following
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%
Buddhist 1%
Other 3%
Atheist 13%
Agnostics 30%

You again give me a definition and expect me to accept it on faith. That is dogma. You can define yourself as a leprechaun if you like, but that doesn't make you Irish or give you a pot of gold.

If you want to believe that the dictionary definition of atheism is something that you need to take "on faith" then sobeit. That is up to you.

Furthermore you were provided with the link showing that a mere 20% of Swedes believe in God. You, in turn, failed to provide a link to support your statistics. Unlike you, I don't take what you post "on faith".

Religion in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a Eurobarometer Poll in 2010, just 18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".[6] In a 2009 Gallup poll, 17% answered yes to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?".[7] Less than 4% of the Church of Sweden membership attends public worship during an average week; about 2% are regular attendees.[8] Some scholars consider the nation to be a place where religion is regarded with “benign indifference”.[9]

Church of Sweden?s Nonbelievers | The Living Church

A recent survey by the Church of Sweden found that about two-thirds of the country’s 9.4 million people belong to the church. Yet only 15 percent of church members say they believe in Jesus Christ. An equal percentage of Swedes call themselves atheists. And only about 400,000 of the roughly 6.6 million members of the church say they attend services at least once a month.

The survey, conducted by Jonas Bromander, chief analyst of the Church of Sweden, also found that membership continues to decline (at an accelerating pace), from about 95 percent of the population 40 years ago to the historically low 68.8 percent today.

A December poll by the Swedish opinion research organization Sifo found that 83 percent of Swedes believe that Christmas should be about family, compared to a good meal (55%), attending church (12 percent) and celebrating the birth of Jesus (10 percent).

Others say that the decline in church membership in Sweden can also be attributed to the scrapping in 1996 of a law making children automatic members at birth, provided that one or more of their parents belonged. Today only children who are baptized into the church become members.

H.B. Hammar, former dean of Skara Cathedral, said that of the 3,384 churches in Sweden only 500 or so are used at most once a month.

Freedom of religion, meanwhile, remains a pillar of the Swedish constitution, and all public schools are required to teach students at least the basic tenets of the world’s major religions.

But every year, the government has felt the need to remind pastors and public school principals the law requires the separation of church and state.

“The law stipulates that Swedish schools are non-confessional,” the Swedish National Agency for Education, for example, said in an op-ed piece in the daily national newspaper Dagens Nyheter in November, “[which means] that there can’t be any religious elements such as prayer, blessings or declarations of faith in education. Students should not have to be subjected to religious influence in school.”

I didn't think I had to give you the link since I was pulling those numbers directly from the link you provided. I just assumed you had read it.

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[6]
18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".
45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
34% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".

As to the definition, are you putting that forth as the authoritative source of what an Atheist is?

 

[JimBowie1958]

If ignorance is bliss the OP is a space cadet!

Obviously he doesn't even understand the terminology that he abuses!



The Queen of England is not an ordained minister in the CofE. Her Role is defined as such;



Our-Queen-Supreme-Governor-of-the-Church-of-England

England has a secular Parliament and is ruled by a Prime Minister selected from the democratically elected majority party.

That is NOT a theocracy!

The head of the state is also the head of the church and by definition that intermingles the function of church and state and is therefore a theocracy.

Lol, I am going to save this thread for future reference when you dumbass atheists try to insist that kids saying a prayer at some high school football game constitutes a theocracy, roflmao

Feel free to make your own appalling ignorance the subject of further mockery in the future.

So which of the following are a violation of the speration of church and state and are moves toward a theocracy?

a kid saying a prayer at a football game?

a kid praying in a classroom?

a teacher leading a prayer in a class room?

the President leading a prayer in Congress?

The President being a clergy man?

the office of the president being combined with the archbishop of Washington DC?

You are OK with all of that? None of that is theocratic?

lolol you stupid fucktard atheists want to say one thing on one topic then its exact opposite on another, lolol

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are wrong.

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2012,[6] the religions in Sweden are the following
Protestants 41%
Orthodox 1%
Catholics 2%
Other Christian 9%
Buddhist 1%
Other 3%
Atheist 13%
Agnostics 30%

You again give me a definition and expect me to accept it on faith. That is dogma. You can define yourself as a leprechaun if you like, but that doesn't make you Irish or give you a pot of gold.

If you want to believe that the dictionary definition of atheism is something that you need to take "on faith" then sobeit. That is up to you.

Furthermore you were provided with the link showing that a mere 20% of Swedes believe in God. You, in turn, failed to provide a link to support your statistics. Unlike you, I don't take what you post "on faith".

Religion in Sweden - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Church of Sweden?s Nonbelievers | The Living Church

A recent survey by the Church of Sweden found that about two-thirds of the country’s 9.4 million people belong to the church. Yet only 15 percent of church members say they believe in Jesus Christ. An equal percentage of Swedes call themselves atheists. And only about 400,000 of the roughly 6.6 million members of the church say they attend services at least once a month.

The survey, conducted by Jonas Bromander, chief analyst of the Church of Sweden, also found that membership continues to decline (at an accelerating pace), from about 95 percent of the population 40 years ago to the historically low 68.8 percent today.

A December poll by the Swedish opinion research organization Sifo found that 83 percent of Swedes believe that Christmas should be about family, compared to a good meal (55%), attending church (12 percent) and celebrating the birth of Jesus (10 percent).

Others say that the decline in church membership in Sweden can also be attributed to the scrapping in 1996 of a law making children automatic members at birth, provided that one or more of their parents belonged. Today only children who are baptized into the church become members.

H.B. Hammar, former dean of Skara Cathedral, said that of the 3,384 churches in Sweden only 500 or so are used at most once a month.

Freedom of religion, meanwhile, remains a pillar of the Swedish constitution, and all public schools are required to teach students at least the basic tenets of the world’s major religions.

But every year, the government has felt the need to remind pastors and public school principals the law requires the separation of church and state.

“The law stipulates that Swedish schools are non-confessional,” the Swedish National Agency for Education, for example, said in an op-ed piece in the daily national newspaper Dagens Nyheter in November, “[which means] that there can’t be any religious elements such as prayer, blessings or declarations of faith in education. Students should not have to be subjected to religious influence in school.”

I didn't think I had to give you the link since I was pulling those numbers directly from the link you provided. I just assumed you had read it.

According to the Eurobarometer Poll 2010,[6]
18% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a god".
45% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force".
34% answered that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, god, or life force".

As to the definition, are you putting that forth as the authoritative source of what an Atheist is?

No he is simply saying whatever is convenient for his lies at any given moment. In a month he will be saying something totally different depending on whatever the topic is at that time.

 

[PratchettFan]

lol.....liberals tend to believe that crap.....until you accuse them of being religious....then its all denial.....

I'm not a liberal and I am religious. That doesn't change the fact that religion and politics are the same thing. I try to see my environment the way it is, not the way I would like it to be.

The two intermingle a lot in various ways, but I would hesitate to say that they are exactly the same things.

How many politicians know what the hell the Tulip doctrines or of the difference between transubstantiation and the Lutheran view of the eucharist? Few if any but they are staples to an educated cleric..

How many US divorce attorneys understand Russian criminal law? That doesn't mean they aren't both law. All you are saying is that religion is a structured hierarchy governed by specified policies and tenets. What does that sound like to you?

 

[PratchettFan]

The head of the state is also the head of the church and by definition that intermingles the function of church and state and is therefore a theocracy.

Lol, I am going to save this thread for future reference when you dumbass atheists try to insist that kids saying a prayer at some high school football game constitutes a theocracy, roflmao

Feel free to make your own appalling ignorance the subject of further mockery in the future.

So which of the following are a violation of the speration of church and state and are moves toward a theocracy?

a kid saying a prayer at a football game?

a kid praying in a classroom?

a teacher leading a prayer in a class room?

the President leading a prayer in Congress?

The President being a clergy man?

the office of the president being combined with the archbishop of Washington DC?

You are OK with all of that? None of that is theocratic?

lolol you stupid fucktard atheists want to say one thing on one topic then its exact opposite on another, lolol

I would be against the teacher leading a prayer in a class room, but I'm fine with the rest.

 

[PratchettFan]

You can't prevent a dead person from doing something, that makes no sense, they're dead. Prevent suggests to stop something from happening, dead people aren't happening.

I believe if you make a person dead you have certainly prevented them from doing anything at all from that point on. What you are saying is that if you come at me with a knife and I shoot and kill you, that I have not prevented you from killing me?

But you are trying to explain that to a fucking moron.

good luck with that.

I thought I was the fucking moron.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In a Theocracy, political power and law are all derived from religion. This is not the case in England, Sweden, or even Israel. The Vatican is a theocracy. Iran is a theocracy. Other Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen can also be considered theocracies.

Lol, do you realize that the government of the church of England is based on theological claims?

The government of the church of England? Ummm all churches are based on theological claims.

Did you know that the supreme cleric of the church of England is the monarch of England?

The title is "Supreme Governor" and the Monarch has never been a cleric The Archbishop of Canterbury is the Primate of the Church.

She is not ordained, but she is the top of the clerical hierarchy, meaning she is by definition a type of cleric herself.

Did you know that the government of the UK pays all the salaries and expenses of the church of England?

Yes. Did you know that although it has no state religion, Germany collects taxes to be distributed to recognized churches? Does that make Germany a theocracy of multiple religions?

It makes their state have theocratic overtones, yes, as they blur the lines between state and church. I personally think the state should not pay for ANY functions of ANY church. Period, and not an Obama period.

The LAWS of England are not religious laws and are not based on Church of England rules.

The laws regarding the procedures of appointing the bishops of the church of England most certainly are also church rules or laws. And in any democracy that has a religious population laws are by nature in part also religious in their origin and rationale.

An official religion is NOT a theocracy.

IF it is financially supported by, controlled by and ruled by the head of a church-state monolith then it is by definition a theocracy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I believe if you make a person dead you have certainly prevented them from doing anything at all from that point on. What you are saying is that if you come at me with a knife and I shoot and kill you, that I have not prevented you from killing me?

But you are trying to explain that to a fucking moron.

good luck with that.

I thought I was the fucking moron.

We all take turns at playing the moron, but I don't do much fucking any more. lol

 

[JimBowie1958]

Feel free to make your own appalling ignorance the subject of further mockery in the future.

So which of the following are a violation of the speration of church and state and are moves toward a theocracy?

a kid saying a prayer at a football game?

a kid praying in a classroom?

a teacher leading a prayer in a class room?

the President leading a prayer in Congress?

The President being a clergy man?

the office of the president being combined with the archbishop of Washington DC?

You are OK with all of that? None of that is theocratic?

lolol you stupid fucktard atheists want to say one thing on one topic then its exact opposite on another, lolol

I would be against the teacher leading a prayer in a class room, but I'm fine with the rest.

So which church would you be OK with the President of the US being the archbishop of?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not a liberal and I am religious. That doesn't change the fact that religion and politics are the same thing. I try to see my environment the way it is, not the way I would like it to be.

The two intermingle a lot in various ways, but I would hesitate to say that they are exactly the same things.

How many politicians know what the hell the Tulip doctrines or of the difference between transubstantiation and the Lutheran view of the eucharist? Few if any but they are staples to an educated cleric..

How many US divorce attorneys understand Russian criminal law? That doesn't mean they aren't both law. All you are saying is that religion is a structured hierarchy governed by specified policies and tenets. What does that sound like to you?

Sounds like it is organized to a purpose and function.

Wait, you are not suggesting that is the case with politics and government are you?

So is my softball coach a politician and a clergyman too?

 

[pinqy]

The LAWS of England are not religious laws and are not based on Church of England rules.

The laws regarding the procedures of appointing the bishops of the church of England most certainly are also church rules or laws.

Of course they are. But all the other laws in the country?

An official religion is NOT a theocracy.

IF it is financially supported by, controlled by and ruled by the head of a church-state monolith then it is by definition a theocracy.

[/quote]
I edited, too late apparently, but the Church of England is NOT financially supported by the government and the Queen exerts no power over the Church except as a formality.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The LAWS of England are not religious laws and are not based on Church of England rules.

The laws regarding the procedures of appointing the bishops of the church of England most certainly are also church rules or laws.

Of course they are. But all the other laws in the country?

An official religion is NOT a theocracy.

IF it is financially supported by, controlled by and ruled by the head of a church-state monolith then it is by definition a theocracy.

I edited, too late apparently, but the Church of England is NOT financially supported by the government and the Queen exerts no power over the Church except as a formality.

Any democracy of a religious population will have laws that are influenced by the clergy of that religion.

As to what 'formality' means depends on if the officer involved wants to push his power or not. The Queen, if she had the political support, could easily make what you think is merely a formality into something not merely anything.

And whether it is a formality or not is irrelevant. They conduct those formalities for a reason; the institutions are subordinate to each other as they both share the same person in charge.

As to you erroneous assertion that the government does not pay any of the costs of the church of England, they do supply funding under various rubrics, though not directly any more, but the distinction is meaningless given the fungible nature of funding.

Appointment of Church of England bishops - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When meeting to nominate an archbishop, the commission is chaired by a fifteenth voting member, who must be an "actual communicant lay member of the Church of England". He or she is appointed by the prime minister (if an Archbishop of Canterbury is being appointed) or by the Church of England Appointments Committee (if an Archbishop of York).

The commission meets several times in secret. The commission then forwards two names to the prime minister, who chooses one of them, or (exceptionally) requests additional names from the commission. In recent memory, the only prime minister who has not accepted the commission's preferred candidate was Margaret Thatcher, who opposed James Lawton Thompson’s nomination as Bishop of Birmingham, due to his (perceived) liberal and left-leaning views. Since 2007 the convention has been that the prime minister will choose the first-named recommendation.[2] If the chosen individual accepts the office, the prime minister advises the Sovereign, who then formally nominates the prime minister's choice. Thereafter, the diocese's College of Canons meets to 'elect' the new bishop. (This stage of the process was mocked by Ralph Waldo Emerson thus: "The King sends the Dean and Canons a congé d'élire, or leave to elect, but also sends them the name of the person whom they are to elect. They go into the Cathedral, chant and pray; and after these invocations invariably find that the dictates of the Holy Ghost agree with the recommendation of the King" [Emerson, English Traits, XIII, 1856].)

Church of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

House of Lords[edit]

Main article: Lords Spiritual

Of the 42 diocesan archbishops and bishops in the Church of England, 26 are permitted to sit in the House of Lords. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York automatically have seats, as do the Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester. The remaining 21 seats are filled in order of seniority by consecration....

Properties and finances of the Church of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On 17 May 2012 The Church of England welcomed an agreement with the Government over the future funding of alterations and repairs to its 12,500 listed buildings, providing an extra £30 million a year on top of the £12 million already granted by the Government to The Church of England in the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme (LPWGS)...
As current congregation numbers stand at relatively low levels and as maintenance bills increase as the buildings grow older, many of these churches cannot maintain economic self-sufficiency but their historical and architectural importance make it difficult to sell them. In recent years, cathedrals and other famous churches have met some of their maintenance costs with grants from organisations such as English Heritage;

BTW 'English Heritage' is a government sponsored aid program to historical buildings and the institutions that own them.

 

[PratchettFan]

So which of the following are a violation of the speration of church and state and are moves toward a theocracy?

a kid saying a prayer at a football game?

a kid praying in a classroom?

a teacher leading a prayer in a class room?

the President leading a prayer in Congress?

The President being a clergy man?

the office of the president being combined with the archbishop of Washington DC?

You are OK with all of that? None of that is theocratic?

lolol you stupid fucktard atheists want to say one thing on one topic then its exact opposite on another, lolol

I would be against the teacher leading a prayer in a class room, but I'm fine with the rest.

So which church would you be OK with the President of the US being the archbishop of?

I would not care. So long as he/she did their job in accordance with the Constitution, their religious affiliations are irrelevant to me.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Only on the surface. Religion is not a cause of violence and neither is Atheism. People don't need a cause to kill each other, we just like having an excuse.

I partially disagree.
Many religious beliefs influence separation. Just creating an "us" and "them" is enough to spark conflict.
Would you agree with that?

a phenomena that did not originate with religions......moreso politics, if I'm not mistaken.....

or professional sports or MMOs or bowling leagues or bingo tournaments or.....

 

[pinqy]

So which of the following are a violation of the speration of church and state and are moves toward a theocracy?

a kid saying a prayer at a football game?

a kid praying in a classroom?

Obviously neither of those is a violation of church and state. Private, non-disruptive prayer is perfectly allowed. Disruptive prayer, of course, is a problem of disruption...not a problem of prayer, and official, sponsored, approved prayer is no longer just "a kid praying" but a government agency endorsing the prayer over others. Not necessarily a theocracy.

a teacher leading a prayer in a class room?

Private school? No problem. State run school? That's the state telling children when, where, how, and what to pray. Clearly a violation of separation. Not necessarily a theocracy.

the President leading a prayer in Congress?

Not a problem, though it might give the wrong impression.

The President being a clergy man?

Not an issue.

the office of the president being combined with the archbishop of Washington DC?

State religion, may or may not be a theocracy.

 

[JimBowie1958]

. What happened in the 20th century to affect the rate of killing wasn't Atheism, it was technology.

I have to disagree.....the purges brought on by the Communists were aimed at eliminating those who had beliefs and ideals which the Party believed were contradictory to the growth of communism......that included the middle and upper class, but it also included religion.....atheism was a significant goal of the leadership.....that's why Mao attacked the Buddhists and Catholic Church in China and why Stalin attacked Jews and the Eastern Orthodox......

We were talking numbers, not excuses. If the Catholic Church of the middle ages had air transport and machine guns, the Inquisition would have been a very interesting period indeed.

I will point out, once more, that the people who did the killings were almost certainly religious. Mao and Stalin gave orders, they did not pull triggers. Giving an order means nothing unless there is someone willing to follow the order.

And the people following those orders were also communists, in fact elites among the commies. Do you have any clue what a Chekist is?