Because Atheism isn't a thing, it's about education. That's what brings about Atheism as believing in fairy tales is just that, fairy tales.
Britain, and large parts of Europe, have gone through the tipping point of Religion being the Norm. The young generation don't believe in mystical gods like the old generation do.
Yes, of course - only Atheists would slot into the educated bracket
The Atheist <insert religion> would be the same - when a cyclist goes shopping, I too, usually refer to them as 'Shopper Cyclists' now .
Oh I totally agree with you as regards the Guardian survey . Its very worrying that nearly 40% want sharia law - its shocking that this story was basically ignored by the media for fear of offense
Er, how is "published in The Guardian" "basically ignored"?
What's more worrying is that, if it wasn't labelled sharia law, 40% of Daily Mail readers would want it too.
In 1815 all the European countries that had been conquered by the atheist French during the Revolution restored religious monarchies as their form of Government. France itself, the Netherlands (inc Belgium and Luxembourg), the various states of Italy, the various states of Germany, Spain and Portugal. In 1989 all the countries of Eastern Europe overthrew atheist governments to restore religious freedom. In 1991 all the countries of the ex-Soviet Union overthrew an atheist government to restore religious freedom.
still avoiding providing an example of the Socially Liberal Democatric country.
Ex colonies that reinstate religious monarchies in preferenc to the politics of their ex masters hardly count - youre clutching at straws.
Again I would hardly class Communist Eastern Europe as an example of a Socially Liberal Democratric country...
why do you you keep confusing athetist dictatoprships / military rule / communism / with Socially Liberal Democracies ? - you don't come across as that stupid in your other posts .
What's more worrying is that, if it wasn't labelled sharia law, 40% of Daily Mail readers would want it too.
A perfect encapsulation of why we are in the mess we are. Sneering at the right is psychologically much more satisfying for the left than defending the values of a liberal democratic state.
Of course not. You keep changing the definition of what you mean to satisfy your own arguments.
See this article on the laws governing the status of women in Tunisia when it became independent in 1955. Do they meet your criteria for secularlist, liberal and democratic? [Well, obviously not, because you are more intent on winning your argument than you are on discovering the truth] But I imagine that most objective observers would say they did, because in the context of 1955 they were in fact far more liberal than the laws of France, Spain, Ireland, Switzerland etc.
And yet it was precisely these liberal laws that the Tunisian people voted massively to overturn in 2011. That's what all the Femen protests there are about.
Of course not. You keep changing the definition of what you mean to satisfy your own arguments.
See this article on the laws governing the status of women in Tunisia when it became independent in 1955. Do they meet your criteria for secularlist, liberal and democratic? [Well, obviously not, because you are more intent on winning your argument than you are on discovering the truth] But I imagine that most objective observers would say they did, because in the context of 1955 they were in fact far more liberal than the laws of France, Spain, Ireland, Switzerland etc.
And yet it was precisely these liberal laws that the Tunisian people voted massively to overturn in 2011. That's what all the Femen protests there are about.
I'm not changing my definition at all - Socially Liberal Democratic has been pretty consistent in my request.
Between 1956 and 1987 Bourguiba ruled Tunisia in an extremely oppressive way - the state and his party declared themselves guardians of democracy. In 1955 after independence Tunisia declared itself a secular democracy. Your latest example is just like all the rest - Invalid. Its very easy to quote a line from a despotic regime propaganda saying everyones equal etc .
you've so far offered up Athetist Dictatorships, Military juntas , communist atheist states as examples of Socially Liberal Democratic states and now you've moved on to North African post colonial dictatorships (who without a shred of irony see themselves as democracies ) as examples .
When was Turkey a socially liberal democracy ? It was run by the military for most of the past 50 years and had its first free elections only 10 years ago ....yes there are currently growing pains with their model of democracy . I hardly think this is the example of a Socially Liberal Democracy that is atheist in nature that has turned its back to embrace a theocratic form of government ....maybe you want to try again ?
I never stated Turkey was a socially liberal democracy which was atheist in nature.
I was responding to your post which asked for a secular democracy.
Your post is still there for all to see, I don't know why you are trying to pretend you asked a different question?
I never stated Turkey was a socially liberal democracy which was atheist in nature.
I was responding to your post which asked for a secular democracy.
Your post is still there for all to see, I don't know why you are trying to pretend you asked a different question?
Sorry I left out the Socially Liberal on that post but I consistently asked for an example of a socially Liberal Democracy on all the other posts
+ I think you mean disproving one interpretation? What if there's others?
You'd need to disprove Theism, wouldn't you?
Muslim and Christian dogma say the world was formed in 6 days ...and it was 6,000 years ago if you follow the born again Christian version...very scientific I'm sure you'll agree.
Archeology and maybe Dinosaurs would disprove this
Education doesn't make you an atheist at all, the current leader of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a surgeon, the two terrorists who attacked Glasgow airport in 1997, one was a doctor and the other an engineer studying for a PhD.
Muslim and Christian dogma say the world was formed in 6 days ...and it was 6,000 years ago if you follow the born again Christian version...very scientific I'm sure you'll agree.
Archeology and maybe Dinosaurs would disprove this
I suppose they don't all interpret it as 6 days then.
Is this similar to the "domino effect" of the last century that was going to cause communism to take over the word but it's Muslims this time?
Those in power always need a bogey man to keep the ignorant masses scared. The French, the Hun, witches, the Irish, Saddam Hussain and WMD's. Now it's the turn of Muslims and see how the uneducated lap up these stories.
Comments
Not really, the sample size was good at a 1000. However, it would be interesting to see the questions.
Yes, of course
The Atheist <insert religion> would be the same - when a cyclist goes shopping, I too, usually refer to them as 'Shopper Cyclists' now .
Er, how is "published in The Guardian" "basically ignored"?
What's more worrying is that, if it wasn't labelled sharia law, 40% of Daily Mail readers would want it too.
That mind reader chip is we in the West call the assassin's bullet.
You can think what you like in Islam - it's deregulated in the same way as Protestant Christianity was during the Reformation.
That's the rules - but the average Muslim country is a bit behind in its development index - most probably interpret it freely to fit how they live.
still avoiding providing an example of the Socially Liberal Democatric country.
Ex colonies that reinstate religious monarchies in preferenc to the politics of their ex masters hardly count - youre clutching at straws.
Again I would hardly class Communist Eastern Europe as an example of a Socially Liberal Democratric country...
why do you you keep confusing athetist dictatoprships / military rule / communism / with Socially Liberal Democracies ? - you don't come across as that stupid in your other posts .
Just admit it you cant name one country -
A perfect encapsulation of why we are in the mess we are. Sneering at the right is psychologically much more satisfying for the left than defending the values of a liberal democratic state.
Of course not. You keep changing the definition of what you mean to satisfy your own arguments.
See this article on the laws governing the status of women in Tunisia when it became independent in 1955. Do they meet your criteria for secularlist, liberal and democratic? [Well, obviously not, because you are more intent on winning your argument than you are on discovering the truth] But I imagine that most objective observers would say they did, because in the context of 1955 they were in fact far more liberal than the laws of France, Spain, Ireland, Switzerland etc.
And yet it was precisely these liberal laws that the Tunisian people voted massively to overturn in 2011. That's what all the Femen protests there are about.
I mean once published in the Guardian the survey was barley discussed in other parts of the media -
Has Richard Dawkins not explained to you that ONLY people who agree with him can be called rational and intelligent.
"Fairy tale" believers such as Isaac Newton, William Blake, Dostoyevsky and Kerouac were all thick as pony shit.
I'm not changing my definition at all - Socially Liberal Democratic has been pretty consistent in my request.
Between 1956 and 1987 Bourguiba ruled Tunisia in an extremely oppressive way - the state and his party declared themselves guardians of democracy. In 1955 after independence Tunisia declared itself a secular democracy. Your latest example is just like all the rest - Invalid. Its very easy to quote a line from a despotic regime propaganda saying everyones equal etc .
you've so far offered up Athetist Dictatorships, Military juntas , communist atheist states as examples of Socially Liberal Democratic states and now you've moved on to North African post colonial dictatorships (who without a shred of irony see themselves as democracies ) as examples .
I never stated Turkey was a socially liberal democracy which was atheist in nature.
I was responding to your post which asked for a secular democracy.
Your post is still there for all to see, I don't know why you are trying to pretend you asked a different question?
That's right it's called the religious conditioning chip it usually causes self destruct via a suicide bomb if free thinking is detected.
that does rather depend on how right wing tinged your definition of "barely discussed" is:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1852/Surge-in-Muslim-youth-who-want-Islamic-rule
The Atheist view is, I think, that the Atheists of today are Atheists because that's what educated people end up believing.
But Atheism is yet another idea with as much validity and common sense as religion.
The Martians are landing next Sunday on your settee
.
I will send the Martians round to yours when they have finished with me:)
I am an atheist and my views are founded in science, eg how the world was formed.
I am yet to see any sensible science supporting religions' views of how the world was formed
How does religion say the world was formed?
+ I think you mean disproving one interpretation? What if there's others?
You'd need to disprove Theism, wouldn't you?
Sorry I left out the Socially Liberal on that post but I consistently asked for an example of a socially Liberal Democracy on all the other posts
Muslim and Christian dogma say the world was formed in 6 days ...and it was 6,000 years ago if you follow the born again Christian version...very scientific I'm sure you'll agree.
Archeology and maybe Dinosaurs would disprove this
I suppose they don't all interpret it as 6 days then.
We agree then