The New Atheists have long told us that we all need to become more like Denmark. We’re told places like Denmark are more culturally advanced because they are more atheistic.
Well…..did you hear about the Danish man who videoed himself burning the Quran charged with blasphemy?
Which leads to a question. Yes, there are many countries that are more atheistic than the USA. Yet they also seem to be more heavily into the SJW ethic. Is there a connection between the two?
Shadow To Light 
There almost certainly is a connection. Much of the outcry and screams of intolerance, ‘unfair!’, and similar violent methods to implement their changes reminds me quite a bit of the atheist’s reply to any notion of design a few years back when I was more interested in those debates. You’d hear so’n’so atheist comment how “it’s time to start putting on the steel tipped boots”… other atheists sincerely recommending taking children away from their religious parents. Then those same atheists started flipping out when a feminist makes issue with a shirt a scientist was wearing.
I’ve said it before: “Gnus Atheist NEED victimhood to preach atheism and anti-atheism.”
New Atheism is forever a subservant in need of humanism and for that they need to claim: “Have mercy (to non-religious and religious people alike), I am a victim of RELIGION tm”. When they lose their victimhood or the say victimhood have less priority for SWJs over other people victimhood like muslims they become part of the “oppresive “WHITE” people”, then you have the Atheism+ (SWJs groups unite by a form humanitarian “ATHEISM tm”) and the “Islam is a religion of peace” idea surpassing their views on atheism, humanism and humanity.
Like SWJs ethic, the gnus atheists, NEED the moral high ground or a authoritative status (SCIENCE tm/scientism). Example: How the Atheism+ people dish gnus atheists for they lack of “diversity” of “thought”, how this “March for SCEINCE tm” is about politics and mainly about Climate Change (A.K.A. “man-made” Global Warming minus nuclear power as a viable solution), how easy it was for the fans of Richard Dawkins leave him under the bus for is “Dear Muslima” (Elevatorgate) but they still think that religious people (like muslim) are “mentaly ill”, “idiots”, “delusional”, “the enablers of evil (RELIGION tm)”, “child abusers”, “people that want a pripiori a theocratic society”, “the disease of humanity (I, personaly, heard a gnu atheist say that)” and “deserve mockery, with CONTEMPT (Richard Dawkins words), for what they believe and are (religious)”
* In the danish man case, i must add that burning a Quran is the way of dispose of “unwanted Qurans” or Qurans that alredy can be used as a book (degradation/old) for muslim.
* I must add, likewise, that gnus atheists used to say the same thing about Sweden (How Sweden was a atheists utopia, or almost a utopia, that because atheism they make a socialist society work because they are not relgious people).
—————————————————————————————————————————
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4075328/Man-jailed-leaving-bacon-sandwiched-outside-mosque-dead-prison-half-way-12-month-sentence.html
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-arrest-muslim-tweet-brussels
This was in the UK, that i remember that Richard Dawkins have the citizenship of United Kingdom, so this happen in his country.
This case was curious, in Russia:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/man-arrested-impersonating-jesus-after-8662120
Apparently this guy wanted to make a point but “he was accused of blasphemy by local church leaders and fell foul of police for being a potential traffic hazard.”, that local church leaders are definitely non-christians because this don’t “offends believers” of christianity, the good news is made by someone in the comments section:
“CLJ says: Just waiting for a terrorist attack as he has offended a persons religious beliefs. Oh wait this religion doesnt pray to amurdering pedophile so a terrorist attack wont happen!! What a surprise!!”
What this guy (Mr Novikov) learned for this experience was:
“Mr Novikov said: “My friend gave me some wooden sticks so I made a cross out of them. The experience of Jesus Christ was repeated. People were laughing, shouting and mocking me. This reaction proves that the Bible story was true and that after 2,000 years people have still not changed – we are still cruel and intolerant to our neighbours.””
—————————————————————————————————————————
In what point disdain become hate in the “post-christian” Europe, in gnus atheists logic?
Every time there is a islamic terrorist attack there is at least a gnu atheist ready to say “RELIGION ™ attack again!” ready to brush all religions as if they were the same (relativism).
@Llegual – I don’t see that Russia is particularly atheistic. But, that’s sort of splitting hairs here, because…
To the general question, it does seem to be a peculiarity of particular to (young) atheists that certain groups need protection, to the point of genuine interference with other people’s freedoms. I don’t see Christians demanding we not insult Muslims, or Muslims demanding we not insult women.
The SJW crowd is a particular peculiarity because it doesn’t seem invest in its own circumstance: they are not protecting liberals or atheists, which is what they appear to be. They do appear to be protecting against their own interests — protecting religious conservatism, bigotry and extremism. (That is not intended to put those three characters on a par, but on a hierarchy in the order they are written in.)
(Arguably, in this respect, someone like Resa Aslan is not an SJW. He is protecting his own interests, while also offering shelter to extremism. That offers a distinction between a regressive leftist, and the subset of that: SJWs.)
What I will say, in the name of balance, is that secularism does still correlate with freedom of the press, societal health etc. It’s a shame it (maybe the case that it) comes with the cost of a socially regressive ideology taking hold. But it is still a very small minority. Not a cost I want to pay, but still a lesser cost that religious conservationist (IMO).
@Allallt:
Do you have a citation for that, or is it just your subjective impression? A moment’s research on the freedom of the press issue takes me to Reporters Without Borders ranking Finland as most free, and Finland is majority Protestant Christian, with about a 22% non-religious segment. Similarly, the least religious countries start with China, which is near the bottom of the list of press freedom. As such, your claim looks like complete balderdash, failing to survive even casual scrutiny.
And let’s not forget that “non-religious” ≠ Atheist.
here are some more correlations to go along with secularism/societal-health…
@Doug, LOL! That’s a keeper.
Allallt says:
“@Llegual – I don’t see that Russia is particularly atheistic. But, that’s sort of splitting hairs here, because…
To the general question, it does seem to be a peculiarity of particular to (young) atheists that certain groups need protection, to the point of genuine interference with other people’s freedoms. I don’t see Christians demanding we not insult Muslims, or Muslims demanding we not insult women.
The SJW crowd is a particular peculiarity because it doesn’t seem invest in its own circumstance: they are not protecting liberals or atheists, which is what they appear to be. They do appear to be protecting against their own interests — protecting religious conservatism, bigotry and extremism. (That is not intended to put those three characters on a par, but on a hierarchy in the order they are written in.)”
Having religious belief or not is not the problem, is the laws that they want in western societies, most people want that their religous tenets and other ideologies to become part of the awareness of society not a set of laws (because this will pervert the vision of the ideology, if the ideology is not specifically about law making). The rights are the same, rights are not supose to be laws, but something that people are suppose to give to others as humans.
My main problem with SJWs is that they want do politics with the purpose to make laws using rights (universal human rights). And my problem with gnus atheists (not every atheists, i don’t believe that gnbu atheist are really atheists) is that they have indistinguishable goals with the SJWs (except that they act as if they are a elite of especial “enlightened” people) and are equaly relativists in the same basic points, nothing is important or valuable and nothing is really non-negotiable and i am very objetivist when i deal with law making, is the only way to make laws that are supposed to be followed with ethics, moral and honor.
In case of Islam, for example, the problem is obvious it is not the religion but they (muslims) imposition of Sharia (witch include dimminitude to non-muslims), they take jurisprudence of the goverment as part of their religion, the gnu atheists do that with relativism and scienctism and the SJWs do that with pity, prejudice and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Yeah, is about “splitting hairs here”, because gnus atheists let pass and actual opportunity to build something more important that their celebrity status.
* Notes: the current Pope is altmost demanding “we not insult Muslims” and is a heavy critic (lately) about populism and nationalism, linking polulism and nationalism to the figure of Hitler every time (he talk about Donald Trump every time).
* “Muslims demanding we not insult women.” I will like if they demand other muslims to not insult western women (like the rape/ mass rape problem in Europe).
* The current crowd of SJWs are not protecting liberals, they are the political liberals, they don’t care for atheists of others minority religious or racial groups if it is not as a groups of victims.
* I care for the methods they use (SJWs and gnus atheists) with what they view as a problem in society, by now:
SJWs = anti-white prejudice, political riots, virtude signaling against any non-liberal group, doble down with “anti-islamophobia law” (blasphemy law) in Canada, don’t want to talk (in good terms) about the muslim (mainly north african) problem in Europe, etc.
Gnus Atheists = replaced by full SJWs, thrown under the bus of “political correcness”, atheists is now a “non-trendy” idea and they (the gnus) double down with scientism in non-scientific issues (like religion).
* They make me want the return of feudalism (having gropus of families to do the specific job of do politics for life) or a full old democarcy (puting forward the laws that the mayority and only the mayority want) as a viable political system, maybe then they will stop their complaints.
Denmark may quite possibly be more advanced, but it certainly isn’t because they’re more atheistic.
-Denmark has been one of the most prosperous nations in the world for many generations now, but the rise of atheism in Denmark is less than a generation old. The elderly Danes are still mostly Christian, whereas the Millennials are nearly all secularists.
-Until a few years ago, Denmark didn’t even have the concept of separation of Church and State. The Lutheran Church was technically a part of their government.
-Denmark was one of the early adopters of the Reformation, basing their government and culture on the Bible.
-If atheism is going to eventually rot the culture of Denmark and undo all of those centuries of good (and it is,) it’s going to take a lot longer than a few years to tear it all down.
-Despite all the above, the decline of Denmark, cultural and otherwise, is already becoming noticeable. Secularism is not the reason Denmark is great; it is the reason Denmark’s greatness is eroding fast.
Oops, the above bullet point about the Lutheran Church actually refers to Norway. My mistake. Same principle there.
Allallt,
I don’t see that Russia is particularly atheistic.
This may be a tangential but in the early 80s, about a decade before the end of the USSR, I remember seeing some statistics that suggested about 75% of the population were identifying as atheists. This suddenly changed with the end of the USSR. On the other hand in terms of regular church attendance I think Russia is close to Sweden, likewise with praying, levels of religious knowledge and so on among the Orthodox majority. Maybe it is changing and will continue to change as the Orthodox Church gains social prominence and can engage in educational activities again.
What I will say, in the name of balance, is that secularism does still correlate with freedom of the press, societal health etc.
I think this is true if secularism is defined in terms of enjoying high levels of press freedom, societal health (i.e. something like: ‘only societies where there is a high level of press freedom and societal health can be considered representative of true secularism’).
Otherwise it seems untrue because very secular countries like China, North Vietnam, Cuba don’t enjoy full freedom of the press nor particularly high levels of societal health, Iran, for example, a theocracy, probably has similar levels of societal health to these highly secular countries.
@ TFBW
@FZM
I have to admit to not being at all impressed by your ‘casual scrutiny’. This is especially the case for two reasons: any source I see on Finland’s religiosity makes a special note the nominal state of religiosity in Finland; and because China was not the actual bottom of the Reporters without Borders list in 2016, Eritrea was. That is cherry picking.
However, upon doing further research and analysis of the numbers that are readily available, I have to concede to there being no discernable relationship between religiosity and societal health.
I initially explored available data by creating a list of the top 10 and bottom 10 of the Reporters without Borders report, listing their levels of irreligiosity along side it. I could then compare the averages. I did in fact do that, the top 10 countries listed by Press Freedom have an average irreligiosity of 36.9%; the bottom 10 of the countries for which data exists have irreligiosity levels of 21.6% (and that is inclusive of countries that make the data questionably favourable to your argument, like China).
(My table of information is available here, this is what I will reference throughout the rest of this comment.)
The problem is that reliable irreligiosity figures are sparse. And that lead to a bit of a problem, especially with defining the scope of the question. One particular issue it lead to was defining a ‘secular’ country. You can check constitution and the like, and indeed I did collect that data. But it leads to some peculiarities: the official stance of the constitution doesn’t seem to reflect, in all cases, the actual state of law making or governing in those countries.
There is a third metric I collected: the percentage of the population who considers religion unimportant. This helps to clarify countries like Finland, with high percentages of people identifying as religious, but in a nominal sense. (Again, all this data and the references are available in my table.)
I made a number of graphs using some statistical software. You are free to attempt to duplicate the graphs from the data in the table. I am not replicating them here because they are quite well summed up as showing no significant correlations, explored as linear, exponential or polynomial correlations.
As I cannot actually get raw data which avails such a relationship, I retract my claim. There is no correlation between metrics of irreligiosity and societal health.
Further research to be recommended includes crime rates or education scores.
@Allallt:
Starting with the good news …
Retraction granted, and kudos for being candid enough to admit it, but what made you so sure that the correlation existed in the first place if the data does not support it? I mean to say, this is clearly the first time you’ve done a somewhat thorough analysis of the data. Is it just some talking point that you’ve heard somewhere and trusted to be accurate? Do you recall where you got the idea in the first place?
Alas, I have to defend myself against this accusation. There was no cherry-picking. Finland was top of the Reporters Without Borders list, and surveys show that the vast majority identify as Lutheran. As such, it’s a far from secular culture, even if the Christianity is somewhat nominal (I don’t know, and I don’t consider that too important, since nominal religion is still not secular). The point is, the top of the list was distinctly non-secular. So, I thought, what about a distinctly secular state? Which culture identifies as most godless these days? Turns out that was China, which sounded unpromising in terms of press freedom. Sure enough, it’s way down near the bottom. I didn’t do anything beyond that: I looked at the most free, and the most secular, and concluded, based on a couple of examples where it should have been particularly evident, that the data does not support your correlation. Some other samples on the “most secular” list were nowhere near as bad, frankly, but that’s neither here nor there — I was only challenging your alleged correlation, not trying to establish its opposite.
If I’d had to dig a lot to find counter-examples, then yeah, that would have been cherry-picking. As it was, I was just picking low-hanging fruit. And to carry on the fruit metaphor, you’ve been gracious enough to acknowledge that the data doesn’t support your correlation theory — don’t get all sour grapes about the fact that I noticed. I’d appreciate an acknowledgement that I didn’t engage in cherry-picking, if you don’t mind.
I can’t say I am sure where I got the idea from. I imagine it’s a double hit of ill-informed talking points and the pitfalls of a selection bias. After all, Europe is more secular than the Middle East, American is more secular than Africa. But that’s a level of analysis that is so board as to only really permit itself to anecdotes. I admit fault there.
As religion and secularism are not the antithesis of each other, I do not accept that just because Finland is largely Lutheran that it is not also highly secular. Finding out whether or not they actually are depends on all sorts of nuance that it would be almost impossible to quantify to put into data analysis. Is it suffice to say the government officially endorses no particular religion?
I also accept that your explanation as to why you went for those two countries is sufficient. Innocent until proven guilty, I retract that claim too. Happy to admit I’ve got my ass kicked on this one.
re: “religiosity” and societal health. There appear to be two distinct brands of “irreligiosity”: one has a totalitarian (i.e., quasi-religious) bent, and is imposed on the populace (Albania, Cambodia, North Korea, USSR, China). The other is parasitic on a healthy society. Hence there is no surprise that, among cherry-picked countries, there might indeed be a correlation between “irreligion” and societal health, as “discovered” by the infamous Gregory S. Paul. But such a correlation by no means even suggests causation, as should be obvious from a moment’s reflection: the healthy societies in question (Denmark, Finland, Sweden, The Netherlands) have been healthy (ranking at the top of the world) for centuries before the rise of “irreligion”.
@Allallt:
Sounds like you need to clarify your own criteria for “secular” before you can make any headway on your problem. I think it’s a real stretch to classify Finland as secular, though. I mean, it has an official state church! According to that link I posted, you don’t have to be a member (and you have to pay additional tax if you are a member, so there’s some financial incentive to disassociate if you’re not serious about it), but they’ve still got majority membership. If that’s secular in your book, then I’d say you’re gerrymandering the definition of “secular” around the desirable places.
Thanks heaps for the retractions, though. You’re the second atheist I’ve seen back off an over-reaching claim today, and I can’t remember the last time I saw it happen at all. It’s days like this that make the effort seem worthwhile, and I get the faint hope that some sort of dialectic progress might be possible after all.
Same here, where do you guys get these claims from? Either way, yours is not as bad as the google images claiming 80% of the Swedish population is Atheist.
If that’s secular in your book, then I’d say you’re gerrymandering the definition of “secular” around the desirable places.
I’m wondering if this is a strong temptation if someone wants to defend the idea that there is a necessary connection between societal health and levels of freedom and secularism.
The existence of strong forms of secularism in Communist countries seems to undermine claims that there is a necessary connection between secularism and secularist discourse and high levels of societal health, freedom of the press etc. If you then take account of the fact that some of the societies which are understood as being the models for the link between secularism and high levels of societal health and freedom don’t obviously fit the model for political secularism because they still have (or had till very recently) state churches, faith schooling, church taxes and monarchies, it seems to get even more problematic.
I can see one way of trying to maintain the argument would be to shift the definition of secularism away from issues like the separation of church and state, removal of religion from politics and minimising its role in public life and reframe it instead in terms of describing a high level of economic development and affluence linked to commitment to certain kinds of social democratic politics.
Then there’s also maybe scope for the use of ‘no true Scotsman’ type arguments; religion and religiosity can be redefined tacitly as meaning ‘collectively held beliefs and practices which are harmful or damaging to social well being and freedom’, secularism and secular as ‘collectively held beliefs which promote and maintain well being and freedom’, then the argument would make itself.