• 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

Bonnie1988 said:
Why would you run a Satanism chat room if you don't believe in the existence of evil?
Click to expand...

Because I'm not a theistic Satanist and don't believe in Satan as an actual being. In order to be one I would have to subscribe to certain Christian ideals and I don't.

Do you mean you don't believe in evil as a presence, or that there is no such thing as evil deeds at all?
Click to expand...

I believe that evil is a subjective term and varies in definition from person to person. I don't believe in an absolute evil. As for my individual view on evil, I don't like to use the term at all because it has certain implications that I don't agree with. I think it's an absurdly oversimplified term.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Because there are Atheists out there who are just as arrogant and pushy as some Christian fundamentalists out there. There are Atheists who just can't deal with the fact that there are people out there who believe in a higher power. Though I will say this. It's not as if all Christians keep to themselves about their religion. A lot of them try to shove it onto others and this annoys a lot of people, myself included. Personally I found the sign by the Atheists to be bitter and arrogant. It's not as if the Christian Nativity scene was meant to really stick it to Atheists or any other specific belief system, so I believe it was an unwarranted attack. However, if there had been a non-attacking Atheist display or other non-Christian display that was put up next to the Nativity scene I think this would still be an issue for some.
Click to expand...
For the most part I agree. I think near the Nativity scene but kept to a distance that still allows it it's own dignity, and with all respect given would be alright by the standards of most rational people.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This is true, but to laugh at those who believe fervently with a fervent belief is hypocracy.
Click to expand...

Well, the militant atheist would argue that his conclusions and beliefs had come from facts, therefore his beliefs are more sound.
 
Blackdog said:
Unfortunately the average Joe does not read science journals and this is what causes the problem. 99.9% of the human race will never read a science journal. The perceptions they have are molded by things like an encyclopedia.

I also doubt the writers of an encyclopedia are all that concerned with "seeking sound bites." :lol:
Click to expand...
Here's how I read your comment:
The average joe does not read science journals.
Because the average joe does not read science journals he makes mistakes in assumption.
Therefore we should coddle those assumptions, wrong as they are, so that we do not upset average joe.

That about right?
 
Slippery Slope said:
Here's how I read your comment:
The average joe does not read science journals.
Because the average joe does not read science journals he makes mistakes in assumption.
Therefore we should coddle those assumptions, wrong as they are, so that we do not upset average joe.

That about right?
Click to expand...

Then you mite want to read the comments that lead up to it so you understand it in context. Rather than make improper assumptions or put words into my mouth when you know relatively little about me or my understanding of the issue.
 
Last edited:
ludahai said:
So, by allowing someone to make a speech on government property says that the government supports this form of speech above others?
Click to expand...
But we're not talking about someone making a speech on public property now are we? But to answer your question I believe that if that speech caused public disorder it would be stopped. Not stopping it would mean that the government backed whatever or whoever was the subject of the speech. Do you think there is public disorder surrounding the subject we are discussing?
 
ludahai said:
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.
Click to expand...
Could you please link to those statements or PM me with the thread? Thanks.
 
ludahai said:
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.
Click to expand...
Wait, you're not trying to use the bible as evidence of something in the bible, are you?
 
ludahai said:
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!
Click to expand...
Now would the "Put up or shut up" comment be inciting acrimony and unnecessary? :roll:
 
EgoffTib said:
Well, the militant atheist would argue that his conclusions and beliefs had come from facts, therefore his beliefs are more sound.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter, his facts are not conclusive, hence it amounts to fervent belief.
 
LaMidRighter said:
"You feel" is not a compelling reason, the fact is you have a freedom OF not FROM religion. No one who is reasonable feels offended by someone else's expression of belief, we are talking about a direct attack within the context of this story. I don't find saying "there is no god" to be inflamatory, but the Time, Place, and Manner of this particular sign in this particular news story is offensive.


In order for this to be an irony, I would have to be of the mindset that I am absolutely right that there is a god and you would have to be absolutely wrong, I do believe there is a god but can entertain others ideals as well, I am not the one telling Atheists to stop talking about their beliefs, I am the one, along with most moderate Christians, Atheists, and other faiths saying not to do it next to an expression of someone else's religion. I am also NOT the one saying no municipality should be able to express their majority beliefs on public property, regardless of my own worldview. In other words, if these Atheists feel so challenged that they must suppress others expressions of faith, why? Other than a less than solid belief.


You got one thing right, it was placed on public property, what part of that makes the Atheists placing a sign in it's direct area okay?



You make a lot of assumptions, first, I am a Catholic, but not a devout, I haven't been inside a church in years, since the last wedding I attended. Second, I don't take anyone's free and protected expression being attacked or infringed, which is why I am on the Christian's side here, not because I am affiliated with said beliefs, third, I am not advocating, as I have already stated, majority rule, however, you are taking this victimized minority stance, MOST people of various faiths are NOT offended by others expression, so sorry if YOU INDIVIDUALLY are.


You would see it that way, and trust me, you and others like you are the furthest things from our minds, until someone pulls stupid **** like we are seeing now, or the prayer bans in school, etc. Don't attack us and you won't hear anything from us, keep these attitudes up though, and it will eventually get ugly. Our attitude huh? Have you ever considered that whining and asserting rights you don't have get irritating and bring this to you.
Click to expand...

You go from -I'm not one of "them", I'm just arguing a point, to "you are the furthest things from our minds,"
This tells me that you are not truthful OR that you make the same mistake most of us make in these debates; we use the words us and them in debate and without fail one of the debaters says "but I'm not one of them". Which is it?
Click to expand...
 
LaMidRighter said:
"You feel" is not a compelling reason, the fact is you have a freedom OF not FROM religion.
Click to expand...
You're right, I was typing as if I were speaking to someone. I'll refrain from such politeness.

The fact is that our government was established with equality and freedom for all. Jefferson was quite clear on the desire for there to be a separation of church and state so that neither would infringe on the rights of the other AND so that government would not favor a particular group over another. This makes our government secular as was intended. I can provide the words of Jefferson and his peers but I cannot force you to accept the ideology so you may trot out whatever argument against THEIR words as you deem necessary to convince yourself that this is a xian nation founded on xian principles and should therefore favor xianity in whatever matter or manner.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Because placing your religious trappings on property owned by every citizen, when you could and usually do place it on property owned by your religion is the same as saying that you have no regard for other people who own that property as well. Every time you place something religious on public property you are saying to those who do not believe in your religion (not just atheists) that you think we are all stupid for not believing as well as saying I don't care about your beliefs because you are wrong and I am right. You are pushing your religion in my face just as surely as if you walked up to me on the street and shoved a cross in my face and called me a heathen. I do not want your religious garbage on my property, you want to put it there against my wishes therefore you are the instigator.
Click to expand...

I certainly hope you are using the general "you" here, especially since I have, not only, never claimed on any of the things you mentioned above, but have denounced them and believe the opposite. I am against religion and government being mixed in any way.

So, who are you talking to?

Now, you made it fairly clear that you think you are not one of the extremists and you want us to believe you have the live and let live attitude. Do you feel the same way about the majority of muslims that do not stand up against the extremists in their religion or does providing the foundation for extremism only apply to other religions?
Click to expand...
Be more clear. I am not sure what you are asking.

And by the way, in the post of mine that you quoted. You seem to be behaving exactly like one of the extreme atheists that I describe. You are lumping all those who believe in GOD in one group, and attacking them all.
 
Last edited:
LaMidRighter said:
Hah! You do not get the concept of Time Place Manner at all. You're personal offense is not required in that, it is not anyone else's problem but YOURS if you see offense where there is none intended.
Click to expand...
In your opinion. TPM is exactly about offending 1 or 1 million. Quantity is irrelevant. In my opinion...

Religious symbols at holiday times are done for communal celebration, if YOU are personally offended by that it's your problem.
Click to expand...
But not everyone celebrates the holiday as a religious celebration. This is why the White House lights a xmass tree every year instead of a manger.

The sign in question done by the Atheists was done specifically to attack.
Click to expand...
In your opinion.

Time:Christian Holiday, Place: Public Square, Manner: Condescending and directly in front of a Christian symbol.
Click to expand...
Again you offer nothing but your opinion. Some xians find the sign offensive, I find the nativity offensive. The sign didn't seem to be directly in front of the nativity.

Any reasonable person of multiple faiths could be offended by that behavior.
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any people of other religious faiths complaining so your assertion is incorrect.

You are trying to argue that Time:Christian Holiday, Place: Public Square, Manner: Reverential toward said Christian holiday offends YOU so it is an attack, get over yourself, most reasonable people would either participate or ignore, YOU however and that 5% I have talked about earlier in this thread have decided to become butt hurt over it.
Click to expand...
You can try to insult me if you like but I am not "butt hurt" by any of this other than the incredulous nonsense that xians continually hoist on all of us which we are told to either accept or move along. I wonder if I can find "condescending" elsewhere in your arguments.
 
Last edited:
CaptainCourtesy said:
I certainly hope you are using the general "you" here, especially since I have, not only, never claimed on any of the things you mentioned above, but have denounced them and believe the opposite. I am against religion and government being mixed in any way.
Click to expand...
Yes I'm using "you, your" et al in the general sense and if it doesn't apply to you then it wasn't directed at you. If you are arguing for or against one side then I am assuming it's OK to present my argument against your words.

Be more clear. I am not sure what you are asking.
Click to expand...
I don't think I can be more clear on that subject.

And by the way, in the post of mine that you quoted. You seem to be behaving exactly like one of the extreme atheists that I describe. You are lumping all those who believe in GOD in one group, and attacking them all.
Click to expand...
If lumping together all those who believe in an a deity makes me an extremist then either you don't understand the term or are using it incorrectly.
 
Last edited:
earthworm said:
Pray tell, Slippery Slope,where is this in our Constitution ?
Click to expand...
Well, to be honest I'm not a Constitutional law professor so I could be wrong but doesn't equal right imply equality? Perhaps there is no sentence that says "the majority...blah blah" but I think the ideology is quite clear and I'm sure I could skinny up a few SCOTUS decisions to back up that ideology.

Or you could prove me wrong.
 
Slippery Slope said:
In your opinion. TPM is exactly about offending 1 or 1 million. Quantity is irrelevant. In my opinion...
Click to expand...
No, it was the Supreme Court's opinion. 1 person or 1 million only counts as far as what a reasonable person would react to with violence, only an extremist would get pissy about a manger.


But not everyone celebrates the holiday as a religious celebration. This is why the White House lights a xmass tree every year instead of a manger.
Click to expand...
Not everybody does.....does not equate to prohibited OR offensive.


In your opinion.
Click to expand...
What else would you describe it as, it was condescending, insulting, rude, and placed in a disrespectful manner.

Again you offer nothing but your opinion. Some xians find the sign offensive, I find the nativity offensive. The sign didn't seem to be directly in front of the nativity.
Click to expand...
But a reasonable person wouldn't find the nativity offensive, whereas a moderate Atheist or other such reasonable person might find offense with the sign.


I haven't seen any people of other religious faiths complaining so your assertion is incorrect.
Click to expand...
You need a dictionary, I said could be, and many of the standards provided in Supreme Court cases already demonstrate the principle. I didn't say "people of other faiths got offended" I said "people of other faiths COULD be offended".


You can try to insult me if you like but I am not "butt hurt" by any of this other than the incredulous nonsense that xians continually hoist on all of us which we are told to either accept or move along. I wonder if I can find "condescending" elsewhere in your arguments.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're pretty bitter to me.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
You're right, I was typing as if I were speaking to someone. I'll refrain from such politeness.

The fact is that our government was established with equality and freedom for all. Jefferson was quite clear on the desire for there to be a separation of church and state so that neither would infringe on the rights of the other AND so that government would not favor a particular group over another. This makes our government secular as was intended. I can provide the words of Jefferson and his peers but I cannot force you to accept the ideology so you may trot out whatever argument against THEIR words as you deem necessary to convince yourself that this is a xian nation founded on xian principles and should therefore favor xianity in whatever matter or manner.
Click to expand...
WOW! Way to completely misrepresent my stance and miss the point. Bravo!
 
Blackdog said:
Then you mite want to read the comments that lead up to it so you understand it in context. Rather than make improper assumptions or put words into my mouth when you know relatively little about me or my understanding of the issue.
Click to expand...
I have read the entire thread including what led up to your comment and then I quoted that comment and used it to make a counter argument in a particular style. Was I mistaken on what the meaning of your comment was?
 
Slippery Slope said:
Jefferson was quite clear on the desire for there to be a separation of church and state so that neither would infringe on the rights of the other AND so that government would not favor a particular group over another.
Click to expand...
Provide that quote that Jefferson stated there shall be no religious expression in public less it be considered endorsement.
This makes our government secular as was intended.
Click to expand...
Don't be obtuse, the basis of our laws is Judeo-Christian.
I can provide the words of Jefferson and his peers but I cannot force you to accept the ideology so you may trot out whatever argument against THEIR words as you deem necessary to convince yourself that this is a xian nation founded on xian principles and should therefore favor xianity in whatever matter or manner.
Click to expand...
Your side has constantly misrepresented Jefferson over the years, but please, show me where he said prayer in government and religious symbols amount to endorsement.
Click to expand...
 
Slippery Slope said:
You're right, I was typing as if I were speaking to someone. I'll refrain from such politeness.

The fact is that our government was established with equality and freedom for all. Jefferson was quite clear on the desire for there to be a separation of church and state so that neither would infringe on the rights of the other AND so that government would not favor a particular group over another.
Click to expand...

OK

Slippery Slope said:
This makes our government secular as was intended. I can provide the words of Jefferson and his peers but I cannot force you to accept the ideology so you may trot out whatever argument against THEIR words as you deem necessary to convince yourself that this is a xian nation founded on xian principles and should therefore favor xianity in whatever matter or manner.
Click to expand...

This is a secular nation but that makes it no less a nation influenced by the majority who were and are Christian. The only way for the government to be uninfluenced by Christianity would be to take away the voting privilege from Christians, and not allowing them to run for public office.

The fact is he is absolutely correct in that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment and freedom from religion is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom