• 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!

Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

Indeed. If it turns out I'm wrong about my disbelief, I'll be standing before the big man himself saying, "Well, this is awkward." :mrgreen:

I'm counting on being reincarnated as a Jedi. Don't know if I will get my wish.
 
I don't "actively believe" that god does not exist. No more than I "actively believe" that werewolves don't either, or that Elvis is still alive, or that I have four arms. Some things are just obviously false. Now, while they may not be as obvious to some, framing the argument as if belief in god were some kind of default position is disingenuous. Especially when it is likely that no two people believe in exactly the same god.

Danger Mouse is 100% correct. Atheists, or rather, people who do not have the added element of theism, arrive at their position for a myriad of reasons.

Indeed. If it turns out I'm wrong about my disbelief, I'll be standing before the big man himself saying, "Well, this is awkward." :mrgreen:

If I am wrong, I will be very very angry. The piss poor job that a supreme being would have to be doing for the world to be the way it is stands among my chief evidence that no such supreme being exists. Doing a better job than I would is certainly a prerequisite for supremacy.
 
Last edited:
I don't "actively believe" that god does not exist. No more than I "actively believe" that werewolves don't either, or that Elvis is still alive, or that I have four arms. Some things are just obviously false. Now, while they may not be as obvious to some, framing the argument as if belief in god were some kind of default position is disingenuous. Especially when it is likely that no two people believe in exactly the same god.

Danger Mouse is 100% correct. Atheists, or rather, people who do not have the added element of theism, arrive at their position for a myriad of reasons.



If I am wrong, I will be very very angry. The piss poor job that a supreme being would have to be doing for the world to be the way it is stands among my chief evidence that no such supreme being exists. Doing a better job than I would is certainly a prerequisite for supremacy.

And if you're right, you'll never know it.
 
I'm really trying not to be rude, but once again you're typing a lot of words but not really saying anything.
And you seem here to show us how to say nothing in few words.

If you cannot or will not understand my clear point, which was in one paragraph and not a doctoral thesis, then it is your look out I'm afraid.
 
I'm always amused by how quickly many of the common irreligious types, who are puffed up only by some dubious contemporary idea of their superiority and not by any real knowledge or insight, deflate when really challenged to think.

Hence they scoff in the most childish way at religious belief; 'let's leave the Fairy Tales behind, he, he, he, aren't I so clever.'.

But when you point out the most obvious assumptions and complexities which threaten this bigotry they quickly get defensive. For example it should be obvious to any one who allows himself to think that atheism must be based on a view of the evidence of and ability for knowledge about God and also therefore what these show or point to or even hint to as an alternative to the theistic view of reality. If you cannot see that then there is really no helping you.
 
Last edited:
Absolute poppycock. Being an "atheist" is quite simply not believing in God or gods. That's all it is. Atheists believe in lots of things, just as all inviduals do. We just don't believe there is an invisible, all-powerful diety in the sky listening to the individual prayers of 6 billion earthings. :shrug: Any other presumptions about "atheists" as a group are nothing more than stereotypical garbage.

Most theists don't beleive in an "invisible, all-powerful diety in the sky listening to the individual prayers of 6 billion earthings"

That is "nothing more than stereotypical garbage"
 
Absolute poppycock. Being an "atheist" is quite simply not believing in God or gods. That's all it is. Atheists believe in lots of things, just as all inviduals do. We just don't believe there is an invisible, all-powerful diety in the sky listening to the individual prayers of 6 billion earthings. :shrug: Any other presumptions about "atheists" as a group are nothing more than stereotypical garbage.

The same could be said for Christians.

The difference is that Christians aren't trying to disrupt or diminish and atheistic celebrations. There is also the fact that many non practicing Christians, or even people of different faiths, celebrate Christmas for the spirit behind it.

Those who want to disrupt Christian celebrations are usually silent about holidays such Halloween and Valentine''s Day (among others) because they tend to be ignorant about the backgrounds. In the case of Christmas they try to intellectualize their arguments but instead sound like spoiled teenagers who have never read a book without pictures in their lives.

No one is denying atheists their rights, it's just that many of them have become tiresome jerks and should seek out a more worthwhile hobby than trying to disrupt a very special holiday like Christmas.
 
As a non-Christian, I don't really see what the big deal is. Let them have their nativity scenes. Who cares? They don't take up a lot of space, and if they bother you that much... don't look at them! By taking them down, you give Christians a sense that there is a war on Christianity in this country even though that obviously isn't what you are going for. I realize many are trying to keep a separation between church and state and that is valid. Do it where it matters. For instance, when Christianity or other religions influence legislation. That's where it matters. A little nativity scene with plastic statues isn't going to disrupt the world. Let it go.
 
As a non-Christian, I don't really see what the big deal is. Let them have their nativity scenes. Who cares? They don't take up a lot of space, and if they bother you that much... don't look at them! By taking them down, you give Christians a sense that there is a war on Christianity in this country even though that obviously isn't what you are going for. I realize many are trying to keep a separation between church and state and that is valid. Do it where it matters. For instance, when Christianity or other religions influence legislation. That's where it matters. A little nativity scene with plastic statues isn't going to disrupt the world. Let it go.

Right on.
If the atheists want to have a celebration, let them.. what celebrations do atheists have, anyway? The Druids can put up a Druid display if they want, Hindus can have their sacred cow, and I won't try to butcher it, what's the big deal?
 
The big deal in this case is the anguished screams of the displaced Christian displayers bewailing their loss of entitlement.
 
The big deal in this case is the anguished screams of the displaced Christian displayers bewailing their loss of entitlement.

Anguished screams?

Why do Leftists always fall back on hyperbole? Can't you deal with facts?
 
Anguished screams?

Why do Leftists always fall back on hyperbole? Can't you deal with facts?

You are absolutely correct. I should have said pathetic whines.


...and snideries.
 
Anguished screams?

Why do Leftists always fall back on hyperbole? Can't you deal with facts?
There is a wonderful quote from William Cobbett's Peter Porcupine pamphlets where he describes one writer's hyperbole as what the rhetoricians call overblown hyperbole, but what others would be tempted to call a damned lie. I have a feeling what he would have thought of Manc's recent comments.
 
Right on.
If the atheists want to have a celebration, let them.. what celebrations do atheists have, anyway? The Druids can put up a Druid display if they want, Hindus can have their sacred cow, and I won't try to butcher it, what's the big deal?
The Druids are dead.
 
That's OK. Let's not discriminate against the non living Americans.
If we rule out vague hints of Irishmen (though I think they were mostly monks and not Druids) reaching the New World in the first millennium, then none of them were Americans.
 
Last edited:
You are absolutely correct. I should have said pathetic whines.


...and snideries.

No, what you really should do is provide links to any future claims you might make in order to demonstrate that they are based on fact and not your whimsical fantasies.
 
There is a wonderful quote from William Cobbett's Peter Porcupine pamphlets where he describes one writer's hyperbole as what the rhetoricians call overblown hyperbole, but what others would be tempted to call a damned lie. I have a feeling what he would have thought of Manc's recent comments.

Calling it 'hyperbole' is being kind as we all know it was a "damned lie". He knows it, we know it, and yet these damned lies continue.

Perhaps we expect pride to kick in, that creating lies to advance a personal opinion would be an affront to our own dignity as human beings, but that never seems to happen with some people.

I can often be as wrong as the next guy but certainly don't deliberately "hyperbole".
 
Back
Top Bottom