[Liberator]

The difference between the Christian and the Socialist is that the Christian gives what he has of his own pocket; the Socialist takes from someone elses, drops a chunk of change into their own, and hands over what's left.

Surely you jest?

Fact:  Christian charitable donations are politically motivated.  Christians don't tend to donate towards better health care for all, or increased access to sexual health clinics, or better sex education programs.  Christians buy political policy through donation.  Blunt, but unfortunately true.  Actually, it goes for any religious group - their donation patterns are heavily biased in favor of moralistic patterns.  Frankly, I'd prefer they donated less and decreased their corresponding political influence.

Socialism is about everyone chipping in for the benefit of all.  Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in.  Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.

You seem to have socialism confused with Leninist-Stalinist Communism (which is a far cry from actual Communism as outlined by Marx which was never put into practice on a national scale anywhere).

I have a question about Sweden and Norway then.  What is the general level of wealth there?  Is it all middle class?  How do they fund this "Socialist Paradise"?

And yes, Christians do donate to causes they believe in, in great numbers and great amounts.  The same as every other social group.  If you wanna talk about a group that has undue political influence I suggest you look at the gay and lesbian population, they consist of less that 2% of the population but they're one of the most influential left wing organizations.

[Nuclear1]

Apparently, you haven't heard of the new DHS report on supposed "right-wing" extremists from Janet Napolitano says need to be monitored.  It targets people who have pro-life, traditional marriage views, or conservative views in general as being suspected "domestic terrorists".  Also, this report includes returning military personnel, people who want border stability, anti-amnesty for illegal aliens, don't like losing their jobs overseas, etc.

And you're calling that persecution...why?

So, we shouldn't be on the lookout for people who bomb abortion clinics and federal buildings?  Given that nearly every single instance of domestic terror in the last fifty years has come from Christian or extreme-right groups, we have every right to be as suspect of them as we do of extremist Islam.

[karajorma]

Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-). 

No.

Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God. It's a lack of belief in God. Those are two fundamentally different things.

The majority of atheists believe that there is no more proof of the existence of God than there is for the existence of Rama, Buddha or Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a result of this lack of proof there is no sensible way to pick a religion and the only possible course of action is to not pick any of them until more evidence is found.
 
Even very militant Atheists will say "God probably doesn't exist." Hardly the kind of comment you'd expect from a fundamentalist of an anti-religion based on the non-existence of God. How many fundamentalists do you know who ever say "God most probably exists"?

Believing that there is no God is missing the point just as much as believing that there is.

[Kosh]

Or else, what?

Or else you rot in hell forever and ever. You could be the best person and the world and according to the bible still go to hell just for not believing.

ou Worship Him everyday by helping your neighbor, contributing to society, being the best person you can be

No I don't, I contribute to making the world and where I live a better place. That's humanism, nothing more.

So, committing harm to another is wrong, no matter the circumstance, thus making it an absolute truth.

Yeah. If everyone adhered to such a belief, there would be no need to defend myself since no one would hurt me.

This is illogical.

No it isn't. What gets followed and what doesn't is cherry picked.

There are many rules in regards to the treatment, purchace, and freeing of slaves, if that's what you're getting at.

Which is basically saying that slavery is ok. In the US for a very long time the enslavement of blacks was justified by the bible.

Here's a long list of crap the bible says to justify slavery. Yet, we don't follow these now. So if it is the "Absolute Truth", how come these passages are suddenly ignored?

"Exploited people" ?  No offense but you certainly sound like a Marxist.

So 19th century robber barons in making workers (including little children) work in dangerous, unsanitary, unhealthy work places for 12+ hours a day 6 days a week for pennies a day were really making a workers paradise? I'm not a Marxist, but I do have a fairly good understanding of how crappy life was for almost everyone in the 19th century when the communist manifesto was written.

Religion is still being used to keep people in line even in the 21st century if you take a look at the Third World.

Yeah, and a lot of those countries are such great places to live in. The fact is that a great many of these countries are still stuck in the 19th century, their social development is a full century behind ours.

There certainly are faiths such as secular humanism, but again, that places man as top dog in place of God, and man can justify anything he does or doesn't do for better or worse without being held to account.

It's not really a religion it is an idea that we should make the world better. We can't justify anything we do or don't do without being held into account, we have society to hold us all accountable.

[castor]

Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in.  Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.

No! They're not socialist countries, more like moderately capitalistic. The level of democracy in Sweden/Norway takes care of that (100% of anything isn't possible).

[karajorma]

Sweden and Norway are socialist countries and consistently rate high among the top nation's to reside in.  Both enjoy standards of living considerably higher than the United States, I might add.

No! They're not socialist countries, more like moderately capitalistic. The level of democracy in Sweden/Norway takes care of that (100% of anything isn't possible).

No, they are socialist. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't use the stupid definitions for words like socialist and liberal that America insists on using.

[Janos]

I have a question about Sweden and Norway then.  What is the general level of wealth there?  Is it all middle class?  How do they fund this "Socialist Paradise"?

Sweden is social-democratic though. It has extremely high tax revenue and is very rich; I think the GDP(PPP) per capita is around 10th rich in the world or so. I think the standard of life is much higher than in USA, at least populace is much more educated and rich, blaa blaa blaa.

This isn't any kind of secret knowledge; Sweden is a very well known example when it comes to enacting socialist policies in capitalistic societies. They have done it pretty much always.

And yes, Christians do donate to causes they believe in, in great numbers and great amounts.  The same as every other social group.  If you wanna talk about a group that has undue political influence I suggest you look at the gay and lesbian population, they consist of less that 2% of the population but they're one of the most influential left wing organizations.

Sexual orientation = left wing organization

we have a winner here

[castor]

No, they are socialist. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't use the stupid definitions for words like socialist and liberal that America insists on using.

Well, these definitions are debatable.

For many years, no single political party in Sweden has managed to gain more than 50% of the votes, so political parties with similar agendas cooperate on several issues, forming coalition governments. In general, two major blocks exist in parliament, the left and the right, or socialists and non-socialists (conservatives/liberals). Currently the liberal/right coalition consisting of the Centre Party, the Liberal People's Party, the Christian Democrats and the Moderate Party governs Sweden. In the previous three electoral periods the socialists formed the government but lost the election in 2006.

Code: [Select]

Current party representation in the Riksdag Parties¹
    Leaders¹                  Seats²                  Votes³
    Social Democratic Party   Mona Sahlin             130   34.99%
    Moderate Party            Fredrik Reinfeldt       97    26.23%
    Centre Party              Maud Olofsson           29    7.88%
    Liberal People's Party    Jan Björklund           28    7.54%
    Christian Democrats       Göran Hägglund          24    6.59%
    Left Party                Lars Ohly               22    5.85%
    Green Party               Maria Wetterstrand
                              and Peter Eriksson      19    5.24%


[MP-Ryan]

No, they are socialist. It's just that the rest of the world doesn't use the stupid definitions for words like socialist and liberal that America insists on using.

Well, these definitions are debatable.

For many years, no single political party in Sweden has managed to gain more than 50% of the votes, so political parties with similar agendas cooperate on several issues, forming coalition governments. In general, two major blocks exist in parliament, the left and the right, or socialists and non-socialists (conservatives/liberals). Currently the liberal/right coalition consisting of the Centre Party, the Liberal People's Party, the Christian Democrats and the Moderate Party governs Sweden. In the previous three electoral periods the socialists formed the government but lost the election in 2006.

Code: [Select]

Current party representation in the Riksdag Parties¹
    Leaders¹                  Seats²                  Votes³
    Social Democratic Party   Mona Sahlin             130   34.99%
    Moderate Party            Fredrik Reinfeldt       97    26.23%
    Centre Party              Maud Olofsson           29    7.88%
    Liberal People's Party    Jan Björklund           28    7.54%
    Christian Democrats       Göran Hägglund          24    6.59%
    Left Party                Lars Ohly               22    5.85%
    Green Party               Maria Wetterstrand
                              and Peter Eriksson      19    5.24%


Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science.  It is artificially polarized into left/right dichotomy by it's large number of American contributors.

Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not see such an overwhelming polarization of left/right political movements.

[Janos]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science.  It is artificially polarized into left/right dichotomy by it's large number of American contributors.

Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not see such an overwhelming polarization of left/right political movements.

The Swedes disagree with that, and I must remind you that in these cases the article itself is most probably written by Swedes or at least Nordic people. Castor's link does not seem odd at all.

I must question your assumption of global polarization (and I also want to know where you're from) - go tell the Nepalese that they are not polarized in left-right axis. The two-party system of America seems weird, but as soon as you start to observe the rhetorics and national dialogue in almost any parliamentary democracy you will notice that the socialist-capitalist dichotomy does exist, and is often even stronger than in USA. The idea of partisanship or nonpartisanship is not American but historical, and complex dynamics and even violence between two parties is the norm in all the world! It is not uncommon that these things cause civil wars even today; if that is not polarization I do not know what is. The rhetorics differ around the world - sometimes the ideologue or parties are more important than individuals. But rest assured: the American model is actually less fanatic about ideology (partly by design) than many other nations.

[Liberator]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science.  It is artificially polarized into left/right dichotomy by it's large number of American contributors.

Believe it or not, the rest of the world does not see such an overwhelming polarization of left/right political movements.

The Swedes disagree with that, and I must remind you that in these cases the article itself is most probably written by Swedes or at least Nordic people. Castor's link does not seem odd at all.

I must question your assumption of global polarization (and I also want to know where you're from) - go tell the Nepalese that they are not polarized in left-right axis. The two-party system of America seems weird, but as soon as you start to observe the rhetorics and national dialogue in almost any parliamentary democracy you will notice that the socialist-capitalist dichotomy does exist, and is often even stronger than in USA. The idea of partisanship or nonpartisanship is not American but historical, and complex dynamics and even violence between two parties is the norm in all the world! It is not uncommon that these things cause civil wars even today; if that is not polarization I do not know what is. The rhetorics differ around the world - sometimes the ideologue or parties are more important than individuals. But rest assured: the American model is actually less fanatic about ideology (partly by design) than many other nations.

Did Janos just say something nice about the USA?!?!??!??

[General Battuta]

This is your problem. You think that anyone who holds a viewpoint opposed to yours hates America and all it stands for.

It apparently hasn't occurred to you that liberals can be patriots who believe conservatives oppose all that America stands for.

I don't particularly favor one side of the political spectrum. What I care about is people's ability to understand and empathize with other viewpoints, instead of just demonizing them.

[castor]

Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for commentary on political science.

Yes, thats why I was careful to pick that part - a simple observation. You see no opinions there.

[karajorma]

Well the opinion is who is a socialist party and who isn't. An American writing that article would probably have a completely different point of view from a Swede.

Which was kinda my point.

[Polpolion]

Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-). 

No.

Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God. It's a lack of belief in God. Those are two fundamentally different things.

The majority of atheists believe that there is no more proof of the existence of God than there is for the existence of Rama, Buddha or Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a result of this lack of proof there is no sensible way to pick a religion and the only possible course of action is to not pick any of them until more evidence is found.
 
Even very militant Atheists will say "God probably doesn't exist." Hardly the kind of comment you'd expect from a fundamentalist of an anti-religion based on the non-existence of God. How many fundamentalists do you know who ever say "God most probably exists"?

Believing that there is no God is missing the point just as much as believing that there is.

Then what differentiates agnostics from people that believe there is no god, if they're all atheists?

[Liberator]

Simply this:

When presented with the concept of God n Atheist says there is no god, an agnostic says "Prove it!".

[Turambar]

Simply this:

When presented with the concept of God n Atheist says there is no god, an agnostic says "Prove it!".

there is no difference, agnostics are just hesitant to be labeled atheist in a society that largely demonizes atheists.  It's understandable really.  I'm sure there were plenty of black people who would have preferred to pretend they were white back in the '50s

[Ghostavo]

Atheism itself is more of a belief that there is no deity, and it's exact opposite, which is theism, believes in God or gods (mono- or poly-). 

No.

Atheism is not a belief in the non-existence of God. It's a lack of belief in God. Those are two fundamentally different things.

The majority of atheists believe that there is no more proof of the existence of God than there is for the existence of Rama, Buddha or Flying Spaghetti Monster. As a result of this lack of proof there is no sensible way to pick a religion and the only possible course of action is to not pick any of them until more evidence is found.
 
Even very militant Atheists will say "God probably doesn't exist." Hardly the kind of comment you'd expect from a fundamentalist of an anti-religion based on the non-existence of God. How many fundamentalists do you know who ever say "God most probably exists"?

Believing that there is no God is missing the point just as much as believing that there is.

Then what differentiates agnostics from people that believe there is no god, if they're all atheists?

Agnostism is a subset of weak atheism.

[karajorma]

It depends on your definition Ghostavo. I prefer the one I explain below.

Simply this:

When presented with the concept of God n Atheist says there is no god, an agnostic says "Prove it!".

Wrong again. You seriously prove your ignorance by claiming it.

The atheist says "Prove it"

The agnostic says "Yes, but you're wrong to be certain about who or what he is"

The difference is that an agnostic does have faith that there is a purpose to the universe and/or a higher being or beings. An atheist says that there is no proof so far of either.

[Polpolion]

I was always taught that atheists do not believe in a god, agnostics believe that we cannot know if there is a god or not, and ignostics think people assume too much about god.

Huh.