Why has Norway yet to become secular?

I'm of the opinion that the state church, and state religion itself, should be illegal. What a person does in their own home, to their own body (so long as it doesn't interfere with everyone else doing the same) is noone elses business. If their religion has a problem with it, then well, change their religion. Religion is a religion because it has dogma/rules of belief. If your lifesyle doesn't fit that dogma, then it's not your religion. Don't change the religion to fit your belief, simply believe in something else.

 

This is the first (and likely only) time I have ever said this...

I agree with Orintil.

 

Whether or not Atheism is a religion is a semantic debate that has spoiled countless arguments over history.

 

Kinda stupid too, much like the discussion whether God exists or not.

 

Mmm. The problem is that keeping the state out of the church, in a democracy, allows the church to meddle in the state. See: America. Hell, if not for the Supreme Court, abortion and homosexual acts would still be illegal by law in a large portion of the country, because church groups can organize political movements based on their version of God Said So.

It's automatic excommunication for a Catholic politician to say "the government should mind its own business, even if I'm personally opposed" on abortion, for instance. Or for a Catholic voter to vote for anyone who votes that way. No, not making this up. That's a consequence of "the state does not meddle in the church" that I'm not entirely comfortable with: Norway can mandate that their state church stay out of politics, America really can't do that.

 

Atheism is the belief that there is no God. No where in that does it mention that an atheist has to believe in the big bang theory. If you do not believe there is a God, you are atheist. If you are uncertain, you are agnostic. If you believe we are controlled by the overlords above, you play way too many videogames.

 

..and if you believe we're alien spirits trapped in human bodies thanks to evil Xenu, you're a scientologist.

 

"–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

That's from dictionary.com...

And like what Grakelin says, it is a pointless debate. People who disbelieve the idea of a God existing and wishing to not place themselves into the category of an atheist are arrogant and hate the idea that they are being categorized. It does not matter what you wish to believe, everyone is part of a set of belief and is categorized. And if you do not wish to be categorized, you are therefore categorized with other individuals who wish to not be categorized.

 

Not believing in something, and believing there to not be something is the same thing

 

No it isn't.

 

Does anyone remember that the Church of England was created so that King Henry VIII didn't have to chop off any more of his wives' heads?

And just to throw a spanner in the works.... has anyone heard about this story about the atheist in the army?

 

Ahhhh.... duly noted.

 

"I don't believe in god."

"I believe there to be no god."

You can argue it all you want, but it still has the same meaning...it all relies on the existence of a supreme being to be null. Sure, there being no "not" in front of god could signify that in all reality a god exists and the individual speaking such is giving claim to that possibility, but I can almost guarantee that anyone stating that they don't believe in god is claim of them wishing to state that they believe there to be no god. You can argue semantics all you want, but it does not change the meaning of a phrase. Anyway, I'm done with this pointless arguement!