• 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

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?

Absolutly.

If we cannot trust something as benign as an encyclopedia, then why should we trust anything?
 
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,
At least we agree on that point.

only an extremist would get pissy about a manger
In your opinion. Sounds like you're pretty bitter to me.

Not everybody does.....does not equate to prohibited OR offensive.
I never claimed that it does. Simply saying that religious symbols are used for communal celebration on holidays doesn't make it right or necessary to have those symbols on public property.

What else would you describe it as, it was condescending, insulting, rude, and placed in a disrespectful manner.
In your opinion. In my opinion placing the nativity on tax payer property, knowing that not all tax payers are xian, is condescending, insulting, rude, and placed in a disrespectful manner.

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 am a reasonable person. Making an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Not to mention that your statement could also be construed as an ad hominem.

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".
I have one. And a thesaurus and a bible and a lot of other books. Now you're just being obtuse. I'll play along. Right, anyone could be offended by anything. Are we done with that game now?

Sounds like you're pretty bitter to me.
Should I say -no YOU sound bitter to me... oh wait, too late.
 
Provide that quote that Jefferson stated there shall be no religious expression in public less it be considered endorsement. Don't be obtuse, the basis of our laws is Judeo-Christian. 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.
Oh OK, I see that when the onus is on you ideology seems fine but when used against you, you demand quotation. OK then instead I'll simply say, Show me where it is written that the basis of our laws are Judeo-xian. :2wave:
 
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.
I never said there was no xian influence. You seem to be implying that xians cannot govern in a secular manner. I don't believe this to be true.

The fact is he is absolutely correct in that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment and freedom from religion is not.
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. If we are to be strict Constitutionalists then there needs to be a lot of change, the first should be the dissolution of our military. But I digress.
 
Oh OK, I see that when the onus is on you ideology seems fine but when used against you, you demand quotation. OK then instead I'll simply say, Show me where it is written that the basis of our laws are Judeo-xian. :2wave:

Shamless plug!!

RandomHouse.ca | Books | The 10 Big Lies About America by Michael Medved
Myth: The Founders intended a secular, not Christian, nation.

Fact: Even after ratifying the Constitution, fully half the state governments endorsed specific Chris*tian denominations. And just a day after approving the First Amendment, forbidding the establishment of religion, Congress called for a national “day of public thanksgiving and prayer” to acknowledge “the many signal favors of Almighty God.”

YouTube - Medved talks 10 Big Lies About America
 
Last edited:
I never said there was no xian influence. You seem to be implying that xians cannot govern in a secular manner. I don't believe this to be true.

You really need to let go of preconceived notions and assumptions.

I never said anything about Christians being able to govern one way or the other. Never even implied such a thing.

I said Christians are a major part of the history/politics of this nation and still are. So they influence the government, thats it.

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.

Please point out this "favoritism" I for one would like to know how I missed out on it. :lol:

All religions in this country get the same treatment under the law.

If we are to be strict Constitutionalists then there needs to be a lot of change, the first should be the dissolution of our military. But I digress.

I would be considered a Jeffersonian Constitutionalist, and even I think that is a foolish libertarian ideal in this day and age. But that as you pointed out is another debate all together.

Edit: Not that libertarians are foolish mind you. I just consider some of the things they want unrealistic.
 
Last edited:

If I'm not going to put any stock in what a liberal political commentator says I'm certainly not going to put any in what a conservative political commentator says. The problem with a lot of the arguments that he presents in the video you posted is that he takes these positions and turns them into absolutes. Did we as a nation make all of our money from enslaving Africans? No, but we made some of it from that. Did we commit genocide against Native Americans? No, but we killed a lot of them for the purpose of expanding Westward and claim their land for our own. And as for his comments about how this is the greatest nation in the world. It's typical nationalist nonsense. I'm not anti-patriotic. I love this country because of the freedoms that I am allowed. But do I think that this is the greatest nation in the world? No, I don't. I think that's an incredibly arrogant statement to make. I've never traveled outside of our national borders so how the hell do I know if this is the greatest nation?
 
Last edited:
If I'm not going to put any stock in what a liberal political commentator says I'm certainly not going to put any in what a conservative political commentator says.

The facts support his position, not yours, and there is no error in being biased in favor of the truth.

America was not founded as or intended to be seculer; it was meant to be a Christian nation. This in no respect implies or mandates a theocracy nore the exclusion of other religions from the populace.
 
Last edited:
The facts support his position, not yours, and there is no error in being biased in favor of the truth.

America was not founded as or intended to be seculer; it was meant to be a Christian nation, and that in no respect implies or mandates a theocracy.

I hear people get into this argument time and time again and it always turns into a war of Thomas Jefferson quotes back and forth. I'd say the fact that we have freedom of religion in this country and that the government doesn't favor one over the other shows that we are pretty secular. If this was in fact a crystal clear issue there would be no debate, but people have different interpretations of what our founding fathers meant and both arguments have their own merit. Just because a conservative political commentator writes a book stating that his own interpretation of it is fact doesn't mean that it is. I guarantee that there is a liberal commentator who would state the contrary and would state it as fact as well. And you can get into the whole argument of "well, my guy is right," but you are really only stating so because you are also a conservative.
 
I hear people get into this argument time and time again and it always turns into a war of Thomas Jefferson quotes back and forth. I'd say the fact that we have freedom of religion in this country and that the government doesn't favor one over the other shows that we are pretty secular. If this was in fact a crystal clear issue there would be no debate, but people have different interpretations of what our founding fathers meant and both arguments have their own merit. Just because a conservative political commentator writes a book stating that his own interpretation of it is fact doesn't mean that it is. I guarantee that there is a liberal commentator who would state the contrary and would state it as fact as well. And you can get into the whole argument of "well, my guy is right," but you are really only stating so because you are also a conservative.

It is not logicly posable to corectly interpret congress creating a day for prayer and acknolegment of God as a seculer act.

However, you clim that there is a liberal comentator who does claim that creating a day for prayer and acknolegment of God is a seculer act.

Please give a link to this comentator, or supply an argument of the same yourself.
 
Wait, you're not trying to use the bible as evidence of something in the bible, are you?

I am using the Bible to show that there is Scriptural evidence for the December 25th date to counter those who say it was solely chosen to convert pagans.
 
Now would the "Put up or shut up" comment be inciting acrimony and unnecessary? :roll:

Not when I have repeatedly referred to actual evidence justifying the Dec. 25th date and all the pagan origin supporters can come up with is a debate that was held centuries ago and so-called pagan symbols, all of which entered the Christmas celebration centuries AFTER the establishment of the Dec. 25th date.
 
Doesn't matter, his facts are not conclusive, hence it amounts to fervent belief.

...and yet he would have facts behind his argument. This would seem to make his argument stronger than that of the creationist.
 
In your opinion. Sounds like you're pretty bitter to me.
Actually, I'm quite happy, I live in the greatest nation on the planet, neither of us will be executed for our viewpoints nor beaten severely, it's Christmas time, my friends are great, and my religious beliefs are protected, as are yours. Nope, I'm good.


I never claimed that it does. Simply saying that religious symbols are used for communal celebration on holidays doesn't make it right or necessary to have those symbols on public property.
Necessary? No. Right? possibly, depending on the Time Place and Manner. The subject of this debate, the particular sign in question, unwarranted.


In your opinion. In my opinion placing the nativity on tax payer property, knowing that not all tax payers are xian, is condescending, insulting, rude, and placed in a disrespectful manner.
I don't see a problem with it, I will concede that taxpayer money is the problem, but if a church wanted to donate the manger scene, would you not agree that it would be more tolerable?


I am a reasonable person. Making an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Not to mention that your statement could also be construed as an ad hominem.
Fair enough, but I am not necessarily making an appeal to popularity, more or less the community standards argument, which is more or less what is deemed acceptable and proper in a communtiy versus what is taboo, I don't necessarily believe in that argument when it comes to censorship, but rather for expression of sentiment, such as the manger scene, hell, I'd even let the sign go if it didn't have at least one of the TPM standard trifecta involved.
 
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.

OK, just making sure.


I don't think I can be more clear on that subject.

I think you can. Try restating it. The sentence is devoid of punctuation, other than a period, and the modifiers are ambiguous.


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.

Neither, since the assertion you are attributing to me is not what I said. Re-read my post. It is not your lumping together of all those who believe in a deity that makes you and extremist. It is your lumping together of all those who believe in a deity and attacking them because of their belief that makes you an extremist.
 
I am using the Bible to show that there is Scriptural evidence for the December 25th date to counter those who say it was solely chosen to convert pagans.

BS. You have only stated one passage backing the date and you are using it completely out of context...

The Gospel According to Luke gives us the most information regarding the Birth of Jesus. In Luke 1:26, it says "In the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, (27) to a virgin betrothed to a man named Joseph, of the House of David." Measureing the Jewish Calendar from Rosh Hoshanna, the sixth month frequently falls in March in the modern solar calandar. This is the time we celebrate the Annunciation.

You seem to think the sixth month means a month in the calendar year. If we look as this passage in context though we find that the "sixth month" is actually refrencing Elizabeth's sizth month of gestation with John the Baptist.

Luke 1: 24 And after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived; and she hid herself five months, saying,
Luke 1: 25 Thus hath the Lord done unto me in the days wherein he looked upon me, to take away my reproach among men.
Luke 1: 26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth,
Luke 1: 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
Luke 1: 28 And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee.
BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 1;
 
Last edited:
BS. You have only stated one passage backing the date and you are using it completely out of context...



You seem to think the sixth month means a month in the calendar year. If we look as this passage in context though we find that the "sixth month" is actually refrencing Elizabeth's sizth month of gestation with John the Baptist.


BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Luke 1;

Then please explain to me why LUke 1:31 says, "Behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son."? Future tense indicates that the conception has NOT occurred yet, making your claim that the "sixth month" refers to anything but the month of the year.
 
If you do not believe in the Christian concept of God, it should not really matter. People tell me if I kill someone I can go to jail and get the death penalty, I am not offended. If you told me I was going to hell to burn because I did not worship your God, most reasonable people would laugh and not be offended, I would not.

The only reason I can think that this mite offend is because you think the offending Christian may be right?



You say everyone should respect each others beliefs, then you rally against Christians and they are somehow hypocrites? :lol:

I should laugh at people when they insult me and imply that I am gonna go burn in Hades forever? Maybe you have a better sense of humor than me but I do not take kindly to insults about getting tossed into fire! :shock:
 
I should laugh at people when they insult me and imply that I am gonna go burn in Hades forever? Maybe you have a better sense of humor than me but I do not take kindly to insults about getting tossed into fire! :shock:


I like blackdog have thicker skin.


I don't worry what others believe. Try it sometime.,
 
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.

All humans are hypocrites. This is a fact of life.

The Christian faith is indeed a rip off of others. Explain why most major Xtian Holidays are pagan based!

The first Good V/S Bad Concept does stem from Zorasterism and that is all the Christian Faith consist of: good v/s bad.
 
Back
Top Bottom