• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

Lachean said:
I'm sorry but I don't think that this is analagous. I never made ANY blanket statements about believers in the supernatural, I deal with each claim on a case by case basis.
Click to expand...

I've read you, a lot. Your words tend to become blanket statements when you get heated. Your pronouns sometimes exhibit absolutes rather than specifics, or you miss the pronouns altogether. Read this part of the sentence you wrote: "but generally concerned about the actions one's delusions could lead them to." One's denotes a generality. Blanket statement.

Honestly I don't understand how "delusion" can be regarded as unneccessary? Or how you could think I was calling your belief a delusion.

If I EVER do, I will be talking about it specifically, with you.
Click to expand...

See above. This is one of my pet peeves. Being aware of how we are speaking. As this is the internet and we do not have facial expressions, body language, or intonation to guide us, specifics in language are important. When you are responding to me, be aware of how you are responding to me.



I actually left because of all of the nastiness around election time. You seem to find the word "delusion" insulting, I really don't. You may just be more polite than me, or perhaps I've seen far worse than "delusional" far too many times.

I used it because I regarded it as accurate, and feel that it would be no different if I said "people who believe something that is not true." I only used the word in concision, I wasn't trying to be passive aggressive or indirect.

If I meant to be insulting, you'd know it. I can think of far more colorful language... "Bull****!" being my favorite, and my favorite show about debunking false claims.
Click to expand...

Election time was very tense around here. I did far more moderating than posting. And I probably am more polite than most around here, but my issue isn't with the word, it is how it was used.

And I prefer Mythbusters. Bull****! tends to be overdramatic.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Not precisely, though admittedly, I am more of a fan of civil debate than uncivil debate. No, more taking into consideration the essence of their position and attempting to understand where that comes from, rather than just arguing points in a disparaging way. Creates more of an attack-defend type of discourse, resulting in no understanding by either party. IMO, and I imagine you'll agree, the purpose of a religious debate is not to win. That is not possible. The purpose is for the other person to fully understand your position and get what you are presenting. Attacks do not accomplish that.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that, rational humans being convinced by the power of reason is possible in ALL debates. To be able to change ones mind when faced with new evidence is what it is to be a rational human being, and I truly believe in the power of reason.

I believe that if my reasons for something that I believe are good enough you will helplessly believe as I do.

CaptainCourtesy said:
And not only would I love to, but I do, whenever I can. But not when you are degrading and mocking my beliefs with insulting comments. You will not find me coming to your aid in those circumstances.
Click to expand...

I have NEVER degraded or mocked your beliefs, ever. In fact I don't think I've even debated anyone on jewish theology. Its far to nuanced for my 1 liners...

CaptainCourtesy said:
Good. :)

It's not the debunking of the claim. It's the disparaging comments that go along with your debunking, as I explained above.
Click to expand...

Have I ever made any to you? I know that I have to other people, and I'll admit that I am knowingly making most every personal attack that I make.

CaptainCourtesy said:
I am Jewish and I believe in one God. I suppose I would be classified as a deist. That is my business and I do not impose that belief on anyone else, nor does it govern the rational decisions I must make, day to day. Using the term "delusion" denotes a psychological disorder and is insulting. My beliefs may not be provable, however, they suit me fine, they do not interfere with me making rational decisions, nor do they cause me to affect anyone else in an irrational manner. Delusions is an incorrect term and is insulting. I understand, now that this was not personal, and I appreciate your clarification.
Click to expand...

You're wrong that it is incorrect, any time I label a specific belief (water dowsing for example) as delusional, this is absolutely according to the definition of the word.

CaptainCourtesy said:
I'm pretty sure it is; I'm very laid back when it comes to religion. Whatever one believes is OK with me, as long as they neither try to force those beliefs on me, nor place them with the government.

And though we haven't debated this topic before, I have read you, extensively, over the past couple of years. Real smart guy, Good, solid debater. A little too aggressive at times.
Click to expand...

Thank you and I know, I try to hold back and be less antagonistic but TBH I feel SO alive and SO aware when I debate on DP, and forget that I'm dealing with human beings rather than posted ideas.

In fact its RARE that the fact that I'm talking to a feeling human gets taken into account. Perhaps I'll try harder, but I maintain that I did not incorrectly use the word "delusion" even if I concede that I see how one could take it as questioning the health of one's neurology.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I've read you, a lot. Your words tend to become blanket statements when you get heated. Your pronouns sometimes exhibit absolutes rather than specifics, or you miss the pronouns altogether. Read this part of the sentence you wrote: "but generally concerned about the actions one's delusions could lead them to." One's denotes a generality. Blanket statement.

See above. This is one of my pet peeves. Being aware of how we are speaking. As this is the internet and we do not have facial expressions, body language, or intonation to guide us, specifics in language are important. When you are responding to me, be aware of how you are responding to me.
Click to expand...

What in what you quoted of mine had an ambiguous tone?

CaptainCourtesy said:
Election time was very tense around here. I did far more moderating than posting. And I probably am more polite than most around here, but my issue isn't with the word, it is how it was used.

And I prefer Mythbusters. Bull****! tends to be overdramatic.
Click to expand...

Mythbusters is awesome because they do their own work, on Bull**** the guys just pay a crazy research team, or hire actors. But I'm a huge fan of Penn.
 
Kali said:
Huh? There is nothing hypocritical about anything I said.. I speak the truth.. It is not my fault that your faith is a rip off of several others.. This is just a fact.. Sorry if you do not like my speaking facts.. I am not trying to insult ya.. Just being honest..
Click to expand...

Actually you are not correct on many points.

#1 In stating the truth it makes you no less a hypocrite.

#2 The Judo/Christian religions are not a rip off of other religions do to the fact religions from different regions of the world have great flood epics and yet no plagiarism was involved. Many such things exist with all religions. This does not mean they where copied.

Satan is not a name given to Lucifer in the Bible. The Hebrew name "Satan" actually means "adversary," and most often in the Hebrew Bible it is prefaced by the direct object, meaning "the adversary" rather than a distinct personal name. His name in the Bible is "Lucifer." It was the Catholic church which started using it as a proper name for the devil.

So as you can see you are operating under a few biblical misconceptions.
 
Lachean said:
I disagree with that, rational humans being convinced by the power of reason is possible in ALL debates. To be able to change ones mind when faced with new evidence is what it is to be a rational human being, and I truly believe in the power of reason.

I believe that if my reasons for something that I believe are good enough you will helplessly believe as I do.
Click to expand...

I disagree. We are not talking about facts, here. We are talking about beliefs, philosophies, and to some extent, morals. These are not positions that have a right or a wrong. It's the same as the conservative vs. liberal debate. One might win on specifics, but overall, no one can win on what is better or, more accurately, more correct.

I believe in GOD. There is nothing that you can say or do that will alter this.

I have NEVER degraded or mocked your beliefs, ever. In fact I don't think I've even debated anyone on jewish theology. Its far to nuanced for my 1 liners...
Click to expand...

Let me be specific. When you degrade the belief of GOD, it attacks me, indirectly. Let's say you get in an argument with a Jew, and call him a Kike. Would I be offended? Somewhat. Yes, you did not direct it at me, specifically, but you directed it towards my ethnicity. You could insult that guy in far more specific ways, other than going after him being Jewish. What I am saying is that if you are going to attack someone's beliefs, try to go after what they are saying and be specific towards them.



Have I ever made any to you? I know that I have to other people, and I'll admit that I am knowingly making most every personal attack that I make.
Click to expand...

No, you haven't. However, some of your comments are presented in generalities, attributing them to all of those of faith. I am one of them. That's where I have the problem.

You're wrong that it is incorrect, any time I label a specific belief (water dowsing for example) as delusional, this is absolutely according to the definition of the word.
Click to expand...

Not the clinical definition. And even the layman definition identifies a delusion as something untrue. Unproven is more accurate.

Thank you and I know, I try to hold back and be less antagonistic but TBH I feel SO alive and SO aware when I debate on DP, and forget that I'm dealing with human beings rather than posted ideas.

In fact its RARE that the fact that I'm talking to a feeling human gets taken into account. Perhaps I'll try harder, but I maintain that I did not incorrectly use the word "delusion" even if I concede that I see how one could take it as questioning the health of one's neurology.
Click to expand...

This is one area that you and I are on total opposite ends of the spectrum. I always remember that there is a human on the other end of the screen, and make it a point to address them as such.

And I appreciate your concession.
 
Lachean said:
What in what you quoted of mine had an ambiguous tone?
Click to expand...

The word "one's".

Mythbusters is awesome because they do their own work, on Bull**** the guys just pay a crazy research team, or hire actors. But I'm a huge fan of Penn.
Click to expand...

I like Penn, but he's a bit over the top...which I'm sure is his intention. I can't count how much I've learned from Mythbusters. I know that if I am ever being chased by someone with a gun, and I am unarmed, I'm finding some water to dive into. :mrgreen:
 
Lachean said:
Who called anyone stupid because the disagree?
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you personally did this, I am saying that the behavior involved in the story, which is an admittedly small minority of Atheists, is at the heart of the matter here is the problem, and yes, I do concede that there exists that attitude in all religions to some degree as well.
 
Lachean said:
Oh I see, well there are two atheists on this board who are "strong atheists" and insult people, but for the most part everyone else is quite reasonable...
Click to expand...
Which is probably why I got a little defensive earlier, sorry if I assumed something that isn't reality.

In my experience its the believer who takes offense where there is none, and cannot understand the difference between "you're wrong here's why" and "you're stupid because you're wrong."
Click to expand...
True, I don't know if wrong is the preferential word here since anything is technically still possible, but the point is taken.



I think its because most people are under the impression that its alright to criticize ones opinions about politics, history, current events, etc... but never their supernatural beliefs. Those beliefs are "sacred" to them and often the underlying premise in their whole worldview.
Click to expand...
Religion is one of the most powerful beliefs in our world, which is why there are so many fights over it I would guess.

You wouldn't believe how many times people confuse my skepticism with cynicism, or my certainty and tone with arrogance.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
Click to expand...
 
Lachean said:
And yet when I asked you TWICE in which posts I could find said information you refused to. Only telling me that you posted something which would support your claim, is a bit like telling me that you already cited court cases to me, which you didn't. Or its like citing a book or a letter saying that somewhere in there is the answer to my alleged misunderstanding, and yet you refuse to quote it for me, or even tell me where to look.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was upset about something earlier and was a little contentious. The cases are Chaplinski v New Hampshire, it was a more serious degree but similar to the current news bit here, Chaplinski actually started a fight and lost the case, it was noted as a freedom of speech issue. The other case was Gitlow v New York, it involved the advocation of violence, there was another one Brandenburg v Ohio, involving incitement to riot.
Click to expand...
 
Lachean said:
I've said "great surveillance camera in the sky" but that was to make the point that fear of god is a contemptible reason to be good.
Click to expand...
Learning through shock, one of my methods when necessary, I like it. You are correct though, ethics should not come from fear, rather from wanting to be good as an unselfish want to treat others with kindness and dignity.



not being able to disprove a claim is not an argument for its truth.
Click to expand...
I agree with this, which is why I get offended by absolutists where beliefs are concerned, I realize that I cannot prove I am correct any more than the next faith, and would hope the majority of us are likeminded in the matter.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
I disagree, by allowing religious symbols to be placed on public property the government is saying we support this religion above others. The government would have to allow every religion to put up their symbols too and then of course what if someone's religious scene obscured another's? The simple solution is to not allow ANY religious symbols on public property. How can you deny this simple statement of reason?
Click to expand...

So, by allowing someone to make a speech on government property says that the government supports this form of speech above others?
 
Kali said:
The fake moral outrage that certain Christans do each year over their Holy Holiday and the Fake War on Christmas disgust me. :roll: It is so very ironic since Christians stole the Christmas idea from Pagans. Anybody that knows the least little thing about religion knows this and also knows there is no way in hell that Jesus was born in Dec. Give me a break and spare me the fake outrage over some non X-tians trying to ruin your special day that you stole from so called Heathens.. *Snickers* :roll::roll::roll:
Click to expand...

I have already gone ahead and shown that this idea for Christmas was NOT stolen from the pagans. Interesting that I have shown evidence that the date was NOT completely pulled out of thin air and that there is actually scriptural support for it. I have pointed out that many of the symbols of the holiday that are allegedly pagan in orgin and indicate that the holiday itself has pagan origins actually have their origins CENTURIES after the December 25th date was codified.

If you are going to make such ignorant comments, please read the rest of the thread and note the references to scripture that have already been presented. Thank you and Merry Christmas.
 
Kali said:
Why is the double standard ok? Why should Christians be treated with kid gloves? I mean fair is fair.. Why is it they are allowed to say things like if you do not believe you are going to Hell? That is NOT an insult to me? Saying I am gonna go burn in some huge firepot and be tormented forever? I guess that is all ok.. I have never understood this.. Is it because their are more Christians and they should be allowed to all tell me I am going to hell but I best just shut up and not say a word? Glass Houses and Hypocrites come to mind. :(
Click to expand...

And when you spout off ignorant lies about our religion, don't be surprised if you get called on it.
 
Kali said:
Huh? There is nothing hypocritical about anything I said.. I speak the truth.. It is not my fault that your faith is a rip off of several others.. This is just a fact.. Sorry if you do not like my speaking facts.. I am not trying to insult ya.. Just being honest..
Click to expand...

Care to back up your claims with a few facts?

Be careful, some have already tried to claim that there is no basis for the December 25th date save to convert pagans and that the use of "pagan" symbols is proof of that - those have already been shot out of the water. You are welcome to try, but don't be surprised if some on here actually challenge you on it.
 
ludahai said:
Care to back up your claims with a few facts?

Be careful, some have already tried to claim that there is no basis for the December 25th date save to convert pagans and that the use of "pagan" symbols is proof of that - those have already been shot out of the water. You are welcome to try, but don't be surprised if some on here actually challenge you on it.
Click to expand...

Winter Solstice isn't in December? :confused:
 
ludahai said:
So any holiday held in December automatically has some relationship with the Winter Solstice?

You have to do better than that!

:lol:
Click to expand...

Which was celebrated first, the winter solstice or Christmas? Christmas came after and the reasoning was to convert pagans. You can try to re-invent the reason all you want, but it won't succeed.
 
Last edited:
TheNextEra said:
Which was celebrated first, the winter solstice or Christmas? Christmas came after and the reasoning was to convert pagans. You can try to re-invent the reason all you want, but it won't succeed.
Click to expand...

So, any holiday held in December is done for the purpose of converting pagans?

Is Hanukkah similarly linked to the Winter Solstice? Next, you are going to try to convince me that the Christian observance of the Paschal Triduum/Easter is somehow a pagan holiday as well.

Any other evidence? This seems pretty flimsy to me, especially given the Scriptural support for the December date I gave earlier.
 
Last edited:
Easter is a pagan holiday. Did you ever wonder where the Easter bunny came from?
 
ludahai said:
The Christian celebration of Easter FAR PREDATES the use of the Easter Bunny in Christian cultures.
Click to expand...
I'm starting to see a trend of people judging the holiday by the symbols and celebratory traditions instead of the actual mass, then again though, who can blame them when our own christian peers make the same mistake.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'm starting to see a trend of people judging the holiday by the symbols and celebratory traditions instead of the actual mass, then again though, who can blame them when our own christian peers make the same mistake.
Click to expand...

Also comical because every example they have trotted out so far came into the celebration CENTURIES after the December 25 date was established or the celebration of Easter began.
 
ludahai said:
So any holiday held in December automatically has some relationship with the Winter Solstice?

You have to do better than that!

:lol:
Click to expand...

People studied the skies. The Egyptians, Mayans, Stonehenge, all knew something was significant about the skies and growing food and weather changes. The Winter Solstice goes way back. It would behoove a new religion to incorporate that.

I don't think Pearl Harbor Day has anything to do with Winter Solstice. ;)
 
LaMidRighter said:
I'm starting to see a trend of people judging the holiday by the symbols and celebratory traditions instead of the actual mass, then again though, who can blame them when our own christian peers make the same mistake.
Click to expand...

The point was that originally the term holiday was told that saying it has a connection to religion because the origin of the word is holy-day. And since that was the original meaning, it still holds even though it is not used in such a reference anymore. Thus, if original meanings are all that matter than the original meaning for the spring equinox and winter solstice celebrations should hold true as well.

The Easter bunny, by the way, is pagan in and of itself. The rabbit was a symbol of fertility, and that was one of the main celebrations for the spring equinox. I don't exactly know why it was adopted, but as other things it was probably to help pagans make a transition by usurping holidays and symbols.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
People studied the skies. The Egyptians, Mayans, Stonehenge, all knew something was significant about the skies and growing food and weather changes. The Winter Solstice goes way back. It would behoove a new religion to incorporate that.

I don't think Pearl Harbor Day has anything to do with Winter Solstice. ;)
Click to expand...

Any EVIDENCE rather than your supposition that this was the purpose of the Dec. 25 date? I have already shared the Scriptural backing for it. Put up or shut up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom