If there is no God, Who Governs Right or Wrong?

[kebot]

---

Okay.

It's true, religion is not the only factor in determining which countries are the "most livable".

But since it was brought up, and examples were presented, let me just say that these countries who topped the "most livable" countries for the year 2007 / 2008 which are:

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan


are not based on religion and how it affected crime rate, poverty, or corruption.

The countries were ranked according to their Human Development Index, which includes life expectancy, literacy, GDP per capita, educational attainment, cost of living, and so on and so forth.

Religion has nothing to do with the ranking of these countries. Religion does not dictate whether or not the country is "most livable". So, I don't see how the example is relevant.

With regards to the topic, I think that "right and wrong" is subjective, which coincides with bluedes ideas on the two questions he raised (correct me if i took it differently). It depends on who's asking the question, and whether or not the answer is applicable to all. It all boils down to what we believe in.

I personally like the Social Contract Theory that was also mentioned here in this thread. The thread started out as a very interesting and intellectual thread. I learned a lot from it. Let's keep it that way.

I agree on your thinking brad. Sak2 btaw ka, dili religion ang hinungdan nano pobre or dato.. but if naa mo lalis... aw kamo.. dagko naman mo boot.. hahaha nice comments brad. I guess ikaw ray ni examine sa fact presented...

[kebot]

to kebot,

EPICRUS WHO? wtf. KEBOT nahan ka himo c kebot? ahhaha! irrelevant... wtf.

[munzter666]

hahaha, cheap.

Mag Bisaya lang ko brad para mag ka sinabot...

OMG, As expected dili nmo dawaton ang fact presented... No point of telling you what is lies and what is real. dont tell bantug ingon ka swede athiest, sayop ako fact presented. Brad you claim corrupt ang mga countries sa religion <-- i say this is shit, why because your claim does not reconcile with the fact. Ayaw ko ingna na ka2ng uban countries dili tinood. RESEARCH pa brad imo na obligasyon kay pataka raka og yaw yaw... unlesss d nalang ka mo 2o for convenience sake.

What is "demeaning connotation" brad, bsin ma sayop ko sa ako translation. Yea banga kaau ako vocabulary brad binisaya lang ta para wala nay translation or simple English para sayon sabton... We will try to measure content of your brain brad.

SWEDEN:
NationMaster - Swedish Religion statistics
Pataka napod ay.

Athiest?

Lutherans man lage...

INgon Ka:
Several studies have found Sweden to be one of the most secular countries in the world. According to Davie (1999), 80% of Swedes do not believe in God. In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". This, according to the survey, would make Swedes the third least religious people in the 27-member European Union,

AKO TUBAG:
Religions statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%

Brad Jurassic pamana imo proof 1999? ako 2008. Mas Sak2 imo? Pst, pentium 4 nata oi hapit na pentium 5. Pentium 1 pamana imo... ayko ingna mas kusog na imoha...

NORWAY:
Imo ingon:
23% answered "I believe in a higher power without being certain of what",
26% answered "I don't believe in God or higher powers", and
22% answered "I am in doubt".

Still, some 85% of the population are members of the Norwegian state's official Lutheran Protestant church.
<------- kita ka? Brad ambot lang ong naa pa bay logic imo gi pang sulti. SINGOT NA? Let me explain again ha...

IMO MAJOR CLAIM MAO NI:
most religious countries...well you'll find these countries are on the brink of poverty, high crime rate, and corrupt. (i told you some of the most livable countries kay naay religion so? religion has nothing to do with poverty, high crime rate.) <------------- fail doesnt prove anything Norway

If you cant defend or back up your claim satisfactorily then, naa ko question nmo.



IDIOCITY ni brad o Arrogance? Whatever your answer its between two choices.

mao na ni ron, pataka nag pagarps.
first of all, as my OBSERVATION:most religious countries...well you'll find these countries are on the brink of poverty, high crime rate, and corrupt.

take note, religious...dili kay naa lay religion.

second, its not me but you who is appealing/ADVERTISING nga "most livable countries=naaay religion=take that atheist scum"

Athiest?

Lutherans man lage...

INgon Ka:
Several studies have found Sweden to be one of the most secular countries in the world. According to Davie (1999), 80% of Swedes do not believe in God. In the Eurostat survey, 23% of Swedish citizens responded that "they believe there is a God", whereas 53% answered that "they believe there is some sort of spirit or life force" and 23% that "they do not believe there is any sort of spirit, God, or life force". This, according to the survey, would make Swedes the third least religious people in the 27-member European Union,

AKO TUBAG:
Religions statistics - countries compared - NationMaster
Lutheran 87%, other (includes Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist) 13%

Brad Jurassic pamana imo proof 1999? ako 2008. Mas Sak2 imo? Pst, pentium 4 nata oi hapit na pentium 5. Pentium 1 pamana imo... ayko ingna mas kusog na imoha...

you forgot to mention, 87% lutherans nga...same with norway majority sa ila lutherans pod. BUT

Although 80,7% of the Norwegian population belongs to the state church, only about 3% attend church services or other religious meetings more than once a month. Baptism of infants fell from 96.8% in 1960 to 73.5% in 2007, while the proportion of confirmants fell from 93% in 1960 to 67% in 2007. The proportion of weddings to be celebrated in the Church of Norway fell from 85.2% in 1960 to 44% in 2007. The proportion of funerals has remained on a high level, in 2007 93% of all funerals took place in the Church of Norway.

from church of norway site:Church of Norway

Church attendance figures declined markedly between 1850 and 1900, but now they vary a great deal. Average attendance is about 100 persons per service, corresponding to 3 per cent of the population.

INACTIVE mostly ang members. irreligious theism read about it.



let me refresh your memory, kabahin ug RIGHT and WRONG man kaha. ayaw na kawala ha.
your words: page 2, post #20 reference

My personal take on this:
1. I need God to tell me what is right and what is wrong morally.

(like the kill your first born son orders from above thingy)
note: before you TRUST the word of your GOD...you'd have to TRUST in the words of MEN first. same MEN who lie and cheat.

if you are so proud and mighty about god and religion, how come the religious majority keep screwing up things lately? ever thought about that?

being religious and being PART of a religion is different, varying DEGREES of enthusiasm. either way...if you are a religious person, it doesnt mean your a GOOD person. hypocrites like you and those that go BOOOOOM!! says otherwise.

[handsoff241]

This is by far.. the longest post I have seen monster has done.

Damn kebot you annoyed them... keep on annoying!

Kebot presents...
Wrath of the Burning Crusade: Annoy the Atheist Campaign

kewl

[bluedes]

i'm not an atheist bro, but the question of who governs is a dangerous question..
let me ask you these questions:

1.) You ask "Who governs", right? Who is the asker, and why is he asking?
2.) So when you determine the answer to question 1, does it apply to everyone else?

will somebody answer the above questions?

[handsoff241]

There is no such thing as "asker" that pertains to someone asking, we can use inquiring or questioning.
Or we can just simply say,"Who is asking".

I will answer that disregarding the previous post, but with relation to a universal/general perception I am now using.

1.)
a. Who is asking? I have no idea, but everyone can ask who is governing righteousness and it's otherwise situations.
b. Why is he asking? I have no idea, but everyone has the right to ask in order to suffice their curiosity or dire need of inquiry for vital purposes.
2.) So when we determine the answers to question 1, will it be applicable to everyone?
Well of course, anyone can ask for the satisfaction of their own reasons be it important or not. And to this specific question of who govern the right and the wrong, it is of no doubt that whoever is asking to whoever he is asking surely must have something in his mind.

[bluedes]

There is no such thing as "asker" that pertains to someone asking, we can use inquiring or questioning.
Or we can just simply say,"Who is asking".

spare me the semantics.. the fact that the question was posted means someone asked, and someone asked therefore he is the "asker".. synonym ra na ang inquirer/asker/questioner..

I will answer that disregarding the previous post, but with relation to a universal/general perception I am now using.

1.)
a. Who is asking? I have no idea, but everyone can ask who is governing righteousness and it's otherwise situations.
b. Why is he asking? I have no idea, but everyone has the right to ask in order to suffice their curiosity or dire need of inquiry for vital purposes.

2.) So when we determine the answers to question 1, will it be applicable to everyone?
Well of course, anyone can ask for the satisfaction of their own reasons be it important or not. And to this specific question of who govern the right and the wrong, it is of no doubt that whoever is asking to whoever he is asking surely must have something in his mind.

your answer to #1 boils down to "you have no idea".. so how can it apply to everyone else when in fact you have no idea who the inquirer/questioner/asker is? what right does this "nobody" have to make it important to everyone else?

bottomline: everybody is a nobody.. yet they keep making their answers sound "important" kuno..

[handsoff241]

spare me the semantics.. the fact that the question was posted means someone asked, and someone asked therefore he is the "asker".. synonym ra na ang inquirer/asker/questioner.

It's grammar my friend, and you suck on it. (X_x)Q=(" ,)Q

your answer to #1 boils down to "you have no idea".. so how can it apply to everyone else when in fact you have no idea who the inquirer/questioner/asker is? what right does this "nobody" have to make it important to everyone else?

No, cause I said on a general perception that I am using, therefore the bottom line of my answer in number 1 is, everyone.

bottomline: everybody is a nobody.. yet they keep making their answers sound "important" kuno.

But I strongly agree on this, finally something I can agree with you. Applies to everyone, religious, non-believers and passer by's.

[bluedes]

It's grammar my friend, and you suck on it. (X_x)Q=(" ,)Q

sorry.. you the grammer police?

besides, i hear some americans are even worse than filipinos

No, cause I said on a general perception that I am using, therefore the bottom line of my answer in number 1 is, everyone.
But I strongly agree on this, finally something I can agree with you. Applies to everyone, religious, non-believers and passer by's.

yeah.. on a general note there, we really do not know who is asking.. but on a more specific note, it can really help you deal with the person.. just figure the person who's asking, and give him an answer that will suit his needs.. no need to impose one's beliefs on the other because you and the asker are not the same person..

[handsoff241]

hehehe sorry na gud blue sungog ra gani tika

no need to impose one's beliefs on the other because you and the asker are not the same person

Exactly!