• 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

Very true. What is impossible is the whole Virgin Birth Concept. My bad and thanks for correcting me;)

Do you ever feel strange that you may be doing the celebration at the wrong time? What if He is angry about it? Don't we all get a tad annoyed when someone forgets our birthday or sends us a late birthday gift? :mrgreen:

I don't think ANYTHING is impossible for God, so the Virgin Birth is also not impossible.

I don't think God gets angry that we may have the wrong day, otherwise, He would have been much clearer about it. Furthermore, Christmas is not the most important holiday for Catholics - the Paschal Triduum is. The important thing is that we remember WHY we celebrate this holiday. I think God would be sadder about the materialism that has come to typify the holiday than the date we use to celebrate it.
 
I am really curious about something that you said/asked in you very last question: Do you think that God works through other cultures and other faith systems?

Yes, I do. And, this is also consistent with the teachings of the Church.

Guess what I am trying to ask is do you think that most other faiths are all worshipping same god just under different names and that they will all go to Heaven because they have the right idea?

If they are doing good with the intention of seeking what is good and true, I believe they are doing it for the One God in Heaven, even if they don't know it. I know many good Buddhists. I can't believe that there isn't some aspct of God working through the positive aspects of that religion. In fact, one of the best known Buddhist masters in Taiwan was inspired by Catholics in the good works she does now and speaks highly of Catholics and the cooperation with her and her work.

I am sorry if I have came off as closed minded in this thread because that is not me. I guess this is just a touchy subject with me because I feel that sometimes Christians in this country have an advantage because they are the majority and yet they always cry about their rights when it is the other faiths that are in the minority that seem to get the most scorn in our country.

I think you would find Catholics to be generally more open minded about such things than Evangelical Protestants. I think they are generally good people, just a little misguided. Remember, Catholics are also a minority in the United States and there is a long history of prejudice and bigotry against Catholics in the US.

People are so shallow when it comes to religion. Like it is their way or the highway. I hope I have not came off as one of those shallow people in this thread but it is hard when people will not even be friends with you because of the path you decided to take. I am really open minded but hate when Christians try to convert me. Just accept me for me and also just leave your religion out of my government! Why the constant need to push when you are in the majority and control a lot of things in this country already. What about ALL people. :confused:

I hope I don't come off as closed minded on religious issues. I am devout in my faith and I will defend it, but I respect the faith (and non-faith) of others. Case in point, my wife is a devout Buddhist.
 
Well, clearly, they are ignorant obviously. Now, if I start googling the correlation between ignorance and intelligence, what do you suppose I will find, generally?

That your level of ignorance matches the original poster I responded to?

"There are several ways to define intelligence. In some cases, intelligence may include traits such as creativity, personality, character, knowledge, or wisdom. However, most psychologists prefer not to include these traits in the definition of intelligence."
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the movie "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" when Santa had to announce the cancellation of Christmas due to the weather before Rudolph saved the day.

That bastard Rudolph foiled my Atheist Fog Making Machine! Drats!!!!!
 
Nonsense. atheists governments namley the communist regiemes killed over 100 million people last century.

Those were anti-theist government, not atheist. Atheist governments tend towards secularism.
 
Not for me. I have been known to speak-in-tongues and make sacrifices when the Bears lose.

I went bugnuts crazy after they lost the Superbowl.

Don't bring up that Superbowl. Mother****ing Rex Grossman...I hate him almost as much as I hate Peyton Manning. Single handedly lost that Superbowl. Could not convert a damned 3rd down all game. D had Indy beat, just needed a little O for the win...nothing. And now, now I have to deal with Minn being if first place because we lost the second game to them...and they have to lose out whereas the Bears must win out to make the playoffs. God damned Vikings! I hope the lot of them burn in hell.
 
Don't bring up that Superbowl. Mother****ing Rex Grossman...I hate him almost as much as I hate Peyton Manning. Single handedly lost that Superbowl. Could not convert a damned 3rd down all game. D had Indy beat, just needed a little O for the win...nothing. And now, now I have to deal with Minn being if first place because we lost the second game to them...and they have to lose out whereas the Bears must win out to make the playoffs. God damned Vikings! I hope the lot of them burn in hell.

Oops! I think we just proved the Revs point :rofl
 
Don't bring up that Superbowl. Mother****ing Rex Grossman...I hate him almost as much as I hate Peyton Manning. Single handedly lost that Superbowl. Could not convert a damned 3rd down all game. D had Indy beat, just needed a little O for the win...nothing. And now, now I have to deal with Minn being if first place because we lost the second game to them...and they have to lose out whereas the Bears must win out to make the playoffs. God damned Vikings! I hope the lot of them burn in hell.

Not for me. I have been known to speak-in-tongues and make sacrifices when the Bears lose.

I went bugnuts crazy after they lost the Superbowl.
I'm a Saints fan, and Yankees, I've been known to get a little demonic at times when watchning my teams, especially the Saints.
 
There may have been necessity of a fledgling nation to keep slavery around till a point in which it could get rid of it and survive the turmoil that it would cause.

My HS US-History teacher strongly believed this and made a convincing argument. I wish I had a source to quote it, but this is something I hold to be true now.

And while Christianity is still the dominate religion, it no longer holds monopoly in the eyes of the public at large.

I agree.

The base of Christianity would of course say it's wrong, but if people were always working from the base then it wouldn't have been a problem in the first place.

You're speaking my mind. The more we practice what our religion preaches the more freedom people have.

Love thy enemy and turn the other cheek are also teachings from Christianity, yet how many Christians are pro war?

I think a discussion on this belongs in another thread, but "turn the other cheek" is about leveling the battle field, not pacifism, and "love thy enemy" does not mean "let them blow up your school buses, rape your women and fly plains into your buildings".

God and Jesus are gods of war. Make no mistake about that.

So just because the founders did something doesn't mean that we should still be doing it. There is a lot of wisdom in their words and philosophy, but there's also some folly in their action. It's not an end all excuse, though I happen to like much of the writings of the founders. There's no war on Christmas or War on Christianity in this country, that's just a ratings grab by people like Hannity and O'Riley. There is beginning to be an overall shift in public perception that is one of more inclusion of other ideals and opinions, but it's not something aligned against the practice of Christianity on the whole (there are individual examples of some being against the practice of religion, but that's a small percentage of the whole).

I don't consider a special interest group fishing for artificial victims and creating a spectical when no damage actually occurred to be the same as a genuine public shift of opinion.

I encounter people who want to see the public domain stripped clean of religion to often to accept your claim that said people do not exist.
 
Last edited:
Where did that come from? Cheering on a sports team is hardly the same thing as getting dressed, going to place of worship and performing rituals. Think about the drinking of the blood and eating of the body/spirit. ;)

Hey, you claimed that all ritual was pagan.

If that's true then even brushing your teeth at regaler times is pagan.
 
Thanks.. But No Thanks! Next time you want me to read a linky? Try to find an unbiased source;)

This isn't exactly a True Debate, or even a heavy topic.

My source is authoritative on the topic and the refrences it gives in it's argument are independently verifiable.
 
Religious snobbery at its very best. :roll:

More people have died in the name of religion(s) than anything else so spare me this crap about how more religion is better for society:doh

If the people who died needed to be killed, then that's good for society :2wave:

People dying per-se is not automatically bad. It all depends on what they were fighting for and why they died.
 
Last edited:
I don't consider a special interest group fishing for artificial victims and creating a spectical when no damage actually occurred to be the same as a genuine public shift of opinion.

I encounter people who want to see the public domain stripped clean of religion to often to accept your claim that said people do not exist.

I kinda wish you'd read what I write. There is a genuine public shift of opinion to more inclusion. Christianity doesn't enjoy the same amount of prestige and monopoly it once did. There are individuals who go further, as I clearly stated before. That's not the whole, that's individuals. I did not claim they didn't exist, I clearly said you can find them on the individual level. Those words were right there in the text I wrote down. Their actions, however, are not part of the whole nor does it reflect on the aggregate shift of public opinion towards more inclusive views of differing religions and displays. That group is specifically exclusive, but the are not the majority and are not representative of what I was talking about. Again, it was clearly written in the post you quoted.

Your hyperbole and...well outright lie that I claim they don't exist...I don't know where you get off trying to make claims which were so obviously and blatantly false. Nor as to how it would accomplish any goal in the debate for you to have severely and (for I can think of no other reason) purposefully misrepresent what I had written. Especially in relation to that specific quote as your lie and misrepresentation does not seem to accomplish anything to further even your side of the debate.
 
I kinda wish you'd read what I write. There is a genuine public shift of opinion to more inclusion. Christianity doesn't enjoy the same amount of prestige and monopoly it once did. There are individuals who go further, as I clearly stated before. That's not the whole, that's individuals. I did not claim they didn't exist, I clearly said you can find them on the individual level. Those words were right there in the text I wrote down. Their actions, however, are not part of the whole nor does it reflect on the aggregate shift of public opinion towards more inclusive views of differing religions and displays. That group is specifically exclusive, but the are not the majority and are not representative of what I was talking about. Again, it was clearly written in the post you quoted.

Your hyperbole and...well outright lie that I claim they don't exist...I don't know where you get off trying to make claims which were so obviously and blatantly false. Nor as to how it would accomplish any goal in the debate for you to have severely and (for I can think of no other reason) purposefully misrepresent what I had written. Especially in relation to that specific quote as your lie and misrepresentation does not seem to accomplish anything to further even your side of the debate.

Instead of becoming over emotional and insulting you might try to show how the ACLU is merely an extreme fringe with little influence or no ability to lead public opinion.

We agree that there is a shift in public opinion. Where we differ is that you believe the shift is naturally occurring within the public, and I believe the public is being lead.
 
Instead of becoming over emotional and insulting you might try to show how the ACLU is merely an extreme fringe with little influence or no ability to lead public opinion.

We agree that there is a shift in public opinion. Where we differ is that you believe the shift is naturally occurring within the public, and I believe the public is being lead.

It was neither overly emotional nor insulting. I merely asked you to read what I write. When I state something and then someone quotes that and misrepresents what I had written, I'm going to ask them to be more careful.

The ACLU is a group of lawyers who sit around and look for things they don't think are just and brings the issue to court. They don't necessarily influence the whole of the public; they probably have sway over part of the public, but I would doubt their influence covers the whole. Plus there is another group of the public which tends to have severe backlash against the ACLU. The overall shift is merely a shift in inclusion. That as a drift that was bound to happen in a free society. As people open up and become more and more exposed to differing ideals, people, religions, etc. they naturally become more tolerant of those things. It's because on the whole people are people and while there are bad examples in every group; most people aren't bad. So you meet a new person from a group you looked down on, you get to know them, and you start to think "hey, this guy ain't so bad". Any open society is going to have this, so we've moved to a point where we're becoming well more tolerant of folk, and in fact liking people that are different than ourselves. So we begin to think in broader terms.

Is it forced/led? I'm not sure that something like this can actually be forced, I think you'd get well too much resentment. Look at what happens when people try to push same sex marriage. If the people aren't ready to accept it, there's going to be major resistance. Just because maybe the ACLU picks up the case doesn't mean that the people will automatically say "oh well, same sex marriage if fine". Though I do personally believe that we will eventually arrive there, same as other things. There's a natural progression and maturing of society as it ages. There are things which can be forced, but public opinion is the aggregate of the opinions of individuals and we have yet to find a machine that can force people to think in particular ways. Thus public opinion closely resembles the opinion of many individuals in the society. I see nothing which would indicate that this is a movement led by some group either. It has all the appearance of natural progression. While groups can come together and support or denounce certain movements, I would find it hard to believe that such a large perception shift is due to something of that nature. I believe people on the whole have just experienced a lot of different things over many generations and have come to adopt more inclusive policies, including in the realm of religion.
 
Last edited:
You said...

"This has been argued endlessly and seems to be an open debate only among xians who want favoritism for their religion, which they get anyway." - Slippery Slope

You are saying specifically Christians want favoritism, and are getting it anyway. So no, I have not changed your premise in any way.



All established legal religions in this country pay no property taxes. So this is not any kind of special Christian treatment.



Here is a list of all National holidays...

January 1, 2009 - New Year's Day

January 19, 2009 - Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday (observed)

February 16, 2009 - President's Day

May 25, 2009 - Memorial Day (observed)

June 14, 2009 - Flag Day

July 4, 2009 - Independence Day

September 7, 2009 - Labor Day

October 12, 2009 - Columbus Day (United States)

November 11, 2009 - Veteran's Day

November 26, 2009 - Thanksgiving

December 25, 2008 - Christmas | December 25, 2009


Hmmm looks like those "holidays" don't exist according to the US government.

Your premise for this one is ridicules at best.



You mean the initiative that gives Federal funding to all religious aid organizations? You mean the same government funds that go to secular aid organizations?

Again not just for Christians here.



So far you have proved little and said much of nothing. You are going to have to try much harder post more than a few biased and silly examples.

Fine, you're absolutely right, I was too narrow by pointing to xians. This is because xianity is the majority.

Hows this then - the religious get favoritism for their religions. Feel better now that I included the other religions? :roll:
 
It was neither overly emotional nor insulting.

You were much of each.

I merely asked you to read what I write.

Witch I did. Every word.

I have found that repetition is often required, and I stopped expecting people to get what I'm saying the first time I say it.

When I state something and then someone quotes that and misrepresents what I had written, I'm going to ask them to be more careful.

You are bing insulting again.

You just accused me of deliberately misrepresenting your argument; being dishonest.

Please stop and consider the possibility that someone may simply misunderstand your point. I suggest that when you see someone inaccurately reflect your argument, that you guide them to an accurate view and display a fair measure of tolerance before accusing them of deliberate misrepresentation.

I suppose I should give you time and space to practice your communication skills before attempting to have this discussion with you further. Your insults only shut down communication, which is when the punishable flame begins.

I'm sorry neither of us were able to convince the other today :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Thank you kindly for this response.

The government of the US is secular just as it should be.

The whole US as a nation the secular government is an element of is not secular.

I think it's important for people to realize the distinction.
Sorry, you sentence came out so ****ed that I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Can you please rephrase?

Just because your computer doesn't have a word program is no excuse for not proof reading. Hell, Firefox even underlines misspelled words so you can look them up if your spelling is that bad. :lol: IOW, you get no pass because you are connected to the internet.
 
The argument against slavery was based on ideals codified in the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment is based on the Natural Law of the Deceleration of Independence, which is overtly Christian.

Therefore, slavery's end in America is accurately credited to core Christian ideals.

Not secular ideals.

Arguing, as you just did, that the presence of Christianity = the presence of slavery is contradictory logic. Christianity, coming from Judaism, is nesiseraly based on deliverance from savory. One only needs to look at history to see that this Christian nation, in it's pursuit to become more perfect, seceded in becoming more perfect in it's practice of it's ideal when it chose to end slavery.

Also, arguing that the whims of society are inherently benign and that the law must change to accommodate whatever those whims are is to allow slavery to be re-established if the whims of society head in that direction.
Actually you're wrong. Hume was a greater influence to the founding fathers in the area of natural law/natures god along with Locke and a few others.
Judaism was not against slavery as evidenced in the bible and slavery was outlawed by most civilized nations long before the founding of the USA. Southern business owners (plantations) used xianity and the bible to keep support for slavery. Much in the same way that businesses and the republican party use xianity today.
 
You were much of each.

Twas neither. Less you have cameras in my lab and where observing my behavior, you'd actually not be able to know. Other than going off the written word, which is sometimes hard to portray emotion through.

Witch I did. Every word.

Then you would have clearly seen the note in which I said the behavior is found on the individual level. Which, of course, means that I don't claim it to not exist; it's just not reflective of the whole.

You are bing insulting again.

I am not, I am merely asking that one exercise diligence. That's not an insult, it's a request. Had I been obtuse, or had used improper grammar or rhetoric I can understand mistakes. It's not a universal. However, that which is in question was unambiguously written down. It was in fact the second time in this thread alone you had misconstrued and misrepresented what I wrote. The first being when you claimed I was trying to equate Christianity with slavery. In fact, the second post you misconstrued was a clarification to the first one in which I was unequivocally stating that I was in no way blaming Christianity for slavery (
Arguing, as you just did, that the presence of Christianity = the presence of slavery is contradictory logic.
as reference). Thus seeing two "misconstruings" (which is a word I just made up) in as many posts, I naturally concluded that you were not clearly reading what I was writing.

You just accused me of deliberately misrepresenting your argument; being dishonest.

It seems hard that it was any other way, especially if (as you claim) you read every word I had written.

Please stop and consider the possibility that someone may simply misunderstand your point. I suggest that when you see someone in accurately reflect your argument, that you guide them to an accurate view and display a fair measure of tolerance before accusing them of deliberate misrepresentation.

I had considered it well. I am not without fault and oft have written things in a confusing manner. However, that was not one of those times. And considering the previous misunderstanding which I had to correct, following immediately with another misunderstanding seemed a bit suspect. As if you were rushing through what I said without reading so that you could argue against a point that in reality I hadn't made. If I write in a confusing manner and one misconstrues it; I go back to clarify my argument. If someone makes subsequent mistakes, the aggregate of the folly starts to look purposeful or at the very least very careless.


I suppose I should give you time and space to practice your communication skills before attempting to have this discussion with you further. You insults only shut down communications, which is when the punishable flame begins.

Wait...is that an insult. The thing you were just complaining about? Except that mine were requests to be more careful and quit misrepresenting what I say. Where as yours is more a direct attack. That's ok, I can dish and take. I'll just give you time and space to practice your reading skills before attempting to have this discussion with you further.

HAHA! You can't complain about that one, it was just as you dished out.
 
Sorry, you sentence came out so ****ed that I can't figure out what you are trying to say. Can you please rephrase?

I am pleased to see that you have chosen to now use the quote code correctly. I appreciate it.

Just because your computer doesn't have a word program is no excuse for not proof reading. Hell, Firefox even underlines misspelled words so you can look them up if your spelling is that bad. :lol: IOW, you get no pass because you are connected to the internet.

  • It's not my computer;
  • The guest account I use on it does not allow downloads, so I can't just go get a word program;
  • My skill at spelling is so bad that I hardly noticed an error in any of teacher's posts, so I don't even recognize words of my own that need to be looked up;
  • Yesterday I discovered that this computer has Firefox anyway, which doesn't have as good of a spell checker as MS Office, which I use on my computer, but is at least something.

Also, you might notice that over the last week, some of my posts have horrible spelling while others are just fine. This is because the public library's computers have MS Office, while my father's computer has no word program at all.

It's so much easier to simply exorcise torrence then assume you know all the facts and begin to make assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Wow, you really do need to look at your history.

The most destructive wars in the history of man kind had nothing at all to do with religion. Just the death toll from WWII alone would be enough to prove you wrong. But lets add a few more...

WWI
Korea
Vietnam
English Civil War
American Civil War
French Revolutoin
American Revolution


And the list goes on and on.

That's a bit disingenuous to say the least. While religion may not have been the direct cause of those wars it was none the less an important piece of the puzzle. You neglect the wars mentioned in the OT as well as the myriad of killing the Popes advanced.
Modern warfare killed more people because of technology. The engine brought more people to the war and the bullet killed at a greater distance. If those wars had been fought with swords and bows they would have produced far less death. Korea and Vietnam were fought because our xians had too keep communism from spreading godlessness. Remember? That's why we had to put "in god we trust" on our money and and "one nation under god" in our pledge. The problems with the Monarchy (and it's religious control of government) was one of a couple reasons for the American revolution. Similarly with the French revolution.
The Civil war was over slavery and the southern xians used the bible to justify slavery.
WWI, here's a xian fundy talking
Its all to do with prayer. Theres two sides to the spirit war on earth. God and satan. Satan is always starting wars and conflicts and the prayers of the people, the christian believers, bring God into the situation. As the people pray, God releases His Spirit and his angels to come against the dark spirit beings that work with satan. Thats the way the Holy Bible tells us it is. In WW1 the prayers of the christian believers were against Germanys aggression (desire to invade and take control of Europe) and in the end God, His Spirit and the holy Angels brought the US into the war in support of England and France etc. and the allied forces defeated Germany. The very same thing happened in WW2. It may sound a bit childish... but its the truth. You can always ask Jesus if you want to know more.
 
Nonsense. atheists governments namley the communist regiemes killed over 100 million people last century.
But you wrongly (go figure) attribute atheism to that. Most of those deaths were due to starvation because of a bad government. Atheism has no ideals or dogma to follow, only a lack of belief in the supernatural. If I run over a squirrel with my car it's not because my car hates squirrels.
 
Back
Top Bottom