Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 countrys 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 worlds 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 cant 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?
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?
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.
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?
If he is part of the league management, then he is certainly a politician. Clergyman would be a subset of politician.
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
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
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?
Thank you for conceding what I have been posting all along.
Do you have a problem with Merriam-Webster as an "authoritative source" on the definition of Atheism?
Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
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
How ironic that you had to move the goalposts after being exposed as an ignoramus on the issue of what constitutes a theocracy!
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].)
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....
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;
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
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?
Thank you for conceding what I have been posting all along.
Do you have a problem with Merriam-Webster as an "authoritative source" on the definition of Atheism?
Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
No, religion is not an entity, it is the collective thoughts of people. I agree. The fact that most religions hold ancient writings as there basis for their teachings, is where I see the issue. Yes, this is all done by us. But we (people) are not going to move forward, towards more civilized ways of living by worshiping ancient writings.
I don't believe we will ever come to a period where there is no such thing as murder, assault, bigotry, etc.. Like you said, it is part of our nature. But we are, collectively, more likely to learn how to live and cooperate together with people that have different points of view, without the dogma of religion.
Since I doubt you can point to a single human society in which people are not or have not worshiped ancient writings, I consider your conclusion to be suspect at best. We have seen some fairly rapid moving forward of late and we still worship ancient writings for the most part. I think you are believing your own dogma.
Taking religion as a purely human activity, we must consider that it is universal in human society. All human societies have had it as far back as we have any way of investigating. There are no exceptions. To argue that a particular species would develop a behavior in such a universal manner and that behavior has no beneficial aspect to it is, to me, an absurd claim. It is an unsupported belief which flies in the face of objective evidence.
So, because we have a history of believing in unproven stories and dogma, we should continue? Even as we continually learn real truths about our reality?
What is the objective evidence that religion is a beneficial behavior? How does believing in things that have no evidence, improve someones life?
Since I doubt you can point to a single human society in which people are not or have not worshiped ancient writings, I consider your conclusion to be suspect at best. We have seen some fairly rapid moving forward of late and we still worship ancient writings for the most part. I think you are believing your own dogma.
Taking religion as a purely human activity, we must consider that it is universal in human society. All human societies have had it as far back as we have any way of investigating. There are no exceptions. To argue that a particular species would develop a behavior in such a universal manner and that behavior has no beneficial aspect to it is, to me, an absurd claim. It is an unsupported belief which flies in the face of objective evidence.
So, because we have a history of believing in unproven stories and dogma, we should continue? Even as we continually learn real truths about our reality?
What is the objective evidence that religion is a beneficial behavior? How does believing in things that have no evidence, improve someones life?
I take it that you don't want to answer my questions.
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?
If he is part of the league management, then he is certainly a politician. Clergyman would be a subset of politician.
Then you make a tautology. What leader then is not a politician, or is that your true claim? All leaders are politicians?
So, because we have a history of believing in unproven stories and dogma, we should continue? Even as we continually learn real truths about our reality?
What is the objective evidence that religion is a beneficial behavior? How does believing in things that have no evidence, improve someones life?
I take it that you don't want to answer my questions.
Wow, you were serious?
lol, it is hard to tell these days when liar atheists are being trolls, being rhetorical or being stupid.
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?
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.
So you would be OK with combining the office of the POTUS with that of the Pope?
Since I doubt you can point to a single human society in which people are not or have not worshiped ancient writings, I consider your conclusion to be suspect at best. We have seen some fairly rapid moving forward of late and we still worship ancient writings for the most part. I think you are believing your own dogma.
Taking religion as a purely human activity, we must consider that it is universal in human society. All human societies have had it as far back as we have any way of investigating. There are no exceptions. To argue that a particular species would develop a behavior in such a universal manner and that behavior has no beneficial aspect to it is, to me, an absurd claim. It is an unsupported belief which flies in the face of objective evidence.
So, because we have a history of believing in unproven stories and dogma, we should continue? Even as we continually learn real truths about our reality?
What is the objective evidence that religion is a beneficial behavior? How does believing in things that have no evidence, improve someones life?
I take it that you don't want to answer my questions.
So you would be OK with combining the office of the POTUS with that of the Pope?
You think killing an innocent person is ok so long as you are afraid you might be killed yourself? That absolves the person of responsibility for their own actions?
Then you make a tautology. What leader then is not a politician, or is that your true claim? All leaders are politicians?
[
I disagree.....particularly in places like Nazi Germany and Communist Russia you will find people willing to follow orders simply because they don't want to be the next one martyred.....people always overplay the Inquisition....if I recall there were less than a thousand people who were put to death during the Inquisition, over a five hundred year period.....Hitler did worse than that in a day in Warsaw......
Actually, the Inquisition of the Vatican, a still existing institution by the way, was really not the problem regarding the numbers of tortured and killed people.
It was installed by the church to prevent senseless massacres, or better said to keep the killiing under control of the cleric.
But with little effect. The number of innocent people killed in bonfires, drowned, tared and feathered or ripped into peaces by horses for religious reasons in the dark ages goes into the millions.
Trust me, I live here.
