Isegrim

Yep, but between that kind of constitutional secular state and an agnostic state is a huge difference. The leading German conservative party calls itself "Christian Democratic Union" and bases its policies very much on Christian values. In that regard Germany is hardly secular but especially not agnostic.

Scandanavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe for a start. I'd call none of these countries agnostic in any way tbh. Just take your example of Scandinavia. Sweden disestablished state church in 1999, in Norway they are just starting to discuss it. And despite of the separation between state and church religion still plays a major role in all of these countries. For a more closer look at it, from your table I just take the example of Germany. Those figures of the link you posted don't talk the whole story. The numer of atheists in Germany is stated with 41-49%. A closer look at the official numbers still list 65% of the population registered as members of a church. You can examine this number even closer. In former West-Germany 75% of the population are registered as members of a church. In the part of the former GDR the figures are down to 27% which is mostly down to historical developments during the socialist regime (where religious indoctrination was replaced by political indoctrination btw). But even there the church played a major role, especially in toppling the regime in a peaceful way. Most of the mass protests that lead to the resignation of the government were directly connected to so-called peace prayers in the churches (most famous the one in the Nikolai church of Leipzig). In reference to Germany and the number of people resigning from the churches you have also to consider a pecunary aspect. In Germany there is a church tax of 8-9% of your income you have to pay as long as you are officially registered with a recognised church. I concede that religion seems to lose its relevance in many peoples daily life and that their believes change. People believing in the biblical (personal) god become fewer and the believes become more deistic (and I'd list myself among them). But I wouldn't mix this sort of atheism up with agnosticism or irreligiouism (if that is a word?). Christian values in their modern form (and biblical interpretation) are still playing a predominant role in today's society and politics. Therefore I think describing western states as mostly agnostic is a huge misunderstanding.

I'd like to know which "agnostic" civilised countries you mean.

Still a bit very simplistic view in my opinion, just to condemn religion because its violent past (Leazes would say that hindsight is a wonderful thing). If it was that easy to think of an areligious peaceful society you have to wonder why never in history such a society developed. And before you spring in, it also won't develop if you cut out "religious indoctrination" for a couple of generations. Religion has always been answering those metaphysical questions natural science couldn't answer. With scientific progress these questions might get fewer, but even that trend is questionable. In fact the current trend to irrational religious fundamentalism rather shows the opposite. There will always be metaphysical questions that science will hardly find answers to but mankind will try to cope with, e.g. the sense of life. And it is also hard to believe that the concept of transcendence will ever be abolished. Even the likes of Einstein (or more recently Stephen Hawkins) don't go that far. In fact I do find it also a bit too simplictic to reduce religion/theology onto an antipode of natural science. The scope of religion is a bit broader than just that. It isn't just about describing or explaining natural phenomens by linking them to a higher being. Religion is much more also about answering questions in regard to morality and ethics. And in this regard Christianity has very much contributed to the development of our modern western society. As much as you are (probably) proud of the current western values like freedom etc., it is a historical fact that those developments are always linked to religion as well. Blanking out religion in this historical process would just be highly hypothetical.

Even if it doesn't prove where he came from, only that we know we evolved over a massive period of time to the species we are now, we certainly know we didn't spring forth from gods finger (or whatever!) and then get women from losing a spare rib! So leaving aside the theory of evolution, as has been said on here there is more than enough evidence of how long there has been life on earth and the like. So people can quite easilly dismiss anything from Genesis (especially the Phil Colins years) Evolved from what, originally? Gemmill.

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though. I'd challenge those figures. Or better I say from those who really take it literally only a very small proportion is dangerous, i.e. religious nutters who take it literal and dispel modern science as well. Those people who just believe that there was a person called Jesus existed and believe in some of the moral teachings based on this do hardly cause harm. I'd say the vast majority of Americans firstly believe in their constitutional system and it's freedom rights. And a lot of these values have - like it or like it not - been developed on the foundations of Christianity. Modern Christianity is not thinkable without the age of enlightenment and therefore got far more "reason" than modern atheists often want to acknowledge. In fact the development of "reason" would be kind of unthinkable if it had come from Christian thoughts itself. That is something that seperates Christianity from more "barbaric" religions as Islam for example, it's ability to adapt. The pope had a kind of point in this regard. I took that from the first post in this thread - 45% of Americans believe the world is less than 10,000 years old. If you've ever been to Texas, you'd hardly find this surprising. And of course one Texan, president Bush, believes in Armageddon and the Rapture. Does this not worry you? It scares the shit out of me, and it affects his policies, such as the Middle East and the environment. The enlightenment was not driven by Christians, rather they have always opposed it. What I'm worried about is that we are in an age where science and rationality is being rejected, the enlightenment is in reverse, so to speak. As a passionate scientist and humanitarian this greatly depresses me, and I think it should be resisted. I wish there were more Richard Dawkins in this world. Btw, might I add your dig at Islam being a barbaric religion, was that supposed to be an ironic joke? No, it wasn't an ironic joke, because I think that Islam which was once far more "modern" than Christianity got stuck in time without being able to cope with scientific progress. And yes, enlightenment is unthinkable without its Christian forethinkers, e.g. the reformation and newer critical text methods by the likes of Luther, Melanchthon et al. Descartes first aim was to prove that there was actual a god that existed and the list goes on an on. Only later it started more and more to seperate itself from Christianity like in the form of deism (but which for example didn't have a big impact in Germany). Yes, and I do share your worries about a reverse in enlightenment by the new form of Christian orthodoxy like the evangelical right in America. If religious nutters like Ashcroft (the one unable to cope with a naked statue of Justitia and promoting creationism) are getting into important political positions it is indeed a worrying sign.

Things that made the goalposts move: Proving Genesis is bollocks - all of a sudden it became a "metaphor" when the authors wouldn't have a clue what that was. General progress in the understanding of the Earth and its place in the universe. The printing press and the education of the masses to read. The moral progress of civilisation (see how Christians were okay with slavery). None of those were pushed by Theists - in fact I maintain the catholic church were and would be much happier now if only they had the ability to "interpret" the bible - nothing should cause more doubts that a browse of the OT. As Dawkins says what we use to "cherry pick" the bible for the good parts are our own inate sense of morals we have as humans - if you take away the nice but obvious bits and ignore the really nasty bits as we're all a bit more civilised now what exactly is left? - the mythology of one small middle eastern tribe. As I said people are moral for all sorts of good reasons - "thanking" religion for that or for any kind of progress is giving too much credit imo. All nice and good, but you simply can't rewrite history. Would you have been able to express the same thoughts say 700 years ago. Hardly. Of course the authors of the bible could only express what they knew at that certain time. Though, that just shouldn't stop anyone later to adapt a more "modern" thinking even if it might get oppressed at first. And it might be right that mankind has some simple (a priori) morals. Though, your own example of slavery shows that it wasn't shared by everybody. Other cultures had no problem with slavery either. But again that doesn't take away that most of our modern western thinking was developed on the base of modern interpretation of the bible. The abolishment of slavery for example...

Nearly half of Americans believe in the Bible literally though. I'd challenge those figures. Or better I say from those who really take it literally only a very small proportion is dangerous, i.e. religious nutters who take it literal and dispel modern science as well. Those people who just believe that there was a person called Jesus existed and believe in some of the moral teachings based on this do hardly cause harm. I'd say the vast majority of Americans firstly believe in their constitutional system and it's freedom rights. And a lot of these values have - like it or like it not - been developed on the foundations of Christianity. Modern Christianity is not thinkable without the age of enlightenment and therefore got far more "reason" than modern atheists often want to acknowledge. In fact the development of "reason" would be kind of unthinkable if it had come from Christian thoughts itself. That is something that seperates Christianity from more "barbaric" religions as Islam for example, it's ability to adapt. The pope had a kind of point in this regard.

I haven't read any of the books mentioned, except of parts from Russell. I am reading Paine's "Age of reason" at the moment which is quite interesting. Of course there are many flaws in the bible, but just concentrating on disproving religion by pointing them out is a bit nonsensical as not even the major Christian religions do take the bible that kind of literal anymore. With that kind of accusations you might wind up a couple of religious nutters, but that's all. It's far too simple to reduce the bible in that kind of way. Christianity and the understanding of the bible have always developed and its impacts on our modern "western thinking" are far deeper than the reduction on some historical inaccuracies suggest. The goalposts have been moved right from day one.

Just register as Alberta Luque then.

I think some people got confused by AVG telling about one or two months ago that they won't provide update service for an older version (7.3 or something similar). When I updated to 7.5 I never got the message from AVG again.

Wouldn't a real life involve a real motorbike?

Wasn't he already a member of the brainless ejits before.

Or alternatively he can buy himself an old arcade...

just before he became a politician... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GK-Z1ptcfg

Just because your private connection uses DHCP doesn't mean you cant just add static IP addresses though. Anyhoo, im not even sure the secondary IP thing would work. Ok, in that case I will have another (closer) look at it. Thanks. Ah, found it now. Looks like this could do the trick. I will try it later.

Just because your private connection uses DHCP doesn't mean you cant just add static IP addresses though. Anyhoo, im not even sure the secondary IP thing would work. Ok, in that case I will have another (closer) look at it. Thanks.

Well, I don't have the router yet, that's the problem. If I already had the router I would use a wireless connection that doesn't conflict with my LAN settings. Those secondary IPs don't work as my private does not work with pre-set settings, and vice versa my work network does not work with automatically receiving IPs and gateways.

I am using my laptop both at work and at home. In the past I was using my work's wireless lan connection at home. Though, as I was a bit restricted in reading Wacky's posts and had to resist to visit any dodgy websites I finally decided to get a private provider at home. But the incompetent idiots not only needed several attempts to finally install the cable internet connection, but also didn't bring along the WLAN router, which I will be get sent by post. Knowing them that probably will take another two months. I can use the internet connection, but have to use a LAN cable. Now I have a bit of a problem. At work I have a static IP address. But the new connection at home automatically receives an IP address. This means I always have to change the settings when I am at home or at work. Ok, now my question: Is there the possibility to create two alternative LAN-settings for both (home/office) scenarios? I couldn't find a way to create a second alternative LAN-connection under Windows XP.

You can rape someone in this country and be out in half that time He is also going to be stigmatised as sexual offender for the rest of his life as in the US you have access to public databases to see which sexual offenders live in your neighbourhood. Shamefully there is no distinction between paedophiles and consentual sex between young teenagers.

That's why our lot thankfully got saved from the ideas of Mr. Morgenthau...

Hmm, Hustler.

IIRC the UK got more than double the money from the Marhsall plan fund compared to Germany (and rightly so). Germany had to repay a certain amount with the differences on how much and when being settled at a conference in the early 50s and the last installment being repaid in the early 70s.

Hmm, I think nearly all modern Dracula adaptions are not even a patch of Murnau's work. Herzog's version is quite good, too. The rest is shit IMHO, especially the most recent ones.

Yes, my office has central heating, too.