• 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

Redress said:
Oh for god's sake...

Science is an attempt to understand the universe and is self correcting(we call that experimentation).
Click to expand...
Natural science is analytical, separatative and quantitative. It tries to understand a table by breaking it down, examining its parts and reducing it to a sum of as separate and quantified parts as possible. This way of thinking is certainly legitimate, up to a point, but it is anything but self-correcting, as the modern world shows time and time again. In fact it is basically cancerous, in the sense of having a natural tendency to indefinite and unhealthy growth, if not externally checked. It is the man who puts his dinner down on the table that corrects natural science.
Myths and religion are an attempt to understand the universe that is not self correcting, and in fact tends to discourage examination of evidence of the religions accuracy.
Click to expand...
All natural science, and almost discursive thought is a myth. Not that myths are bad things, or what moderns call subjective by which (to steal Chesterton's phrase) they mean false. That is one of the most silly things about the poster. Myths convey truths, the problem is in taking them for the truth itself, particularly if we do not even remember they are myths. The theory of gravity, written in textbooks, is not gravity. Natural science is always separative, it always places a barrier it cannot breakdown between itself, what its examines and who is doing the examining and this makes its myth particularly one-sided and limited. The wise and careful reader, or viewer, will learn more about man from Shakespeare than he would from all the biology, psychology and sociology textbooks in the world.
 
Last edited:
Wessexman said:
Natural science is analytical, separatative and quantitative. It tries to understand a table by breaking it down, examining its parts and reducing to a sum of as separate and quantified parts as possible. This way of thinking is certainly legitimate, up to a point, but it is anything but self-correcting, as the modern world shows time and time again. In fact it is basically cancerous, in the sense of having a natural tendency to unlimited and unhealthy growth, if not external checked. It is the man who puts his dinner down on the table that corrects natural science.
All natural science, and almost discursive thought is a myth. Not the myths are bad things, or what moderns call subjective by which (to steal Chesterton's phrase) they mean false. That is one of the most silly things about the poster. Myths convey truths, the problem is in taking them for the truth itself, particularly if we do not even remember they are myths. The theory of gravity, written in textbooks, is not gravity. Natural science is always separative, it always places a barrier it cannot breakdown between itself, what its examines and who is doing the examining and this makes its myth particularly one-sided and limited. The wise and careful reader, or viewer, will learn more about man from Shakespeare than he would from all the biology, psychology and sociology textbooks in the world.
Click to expand...

The next time you get injured please see your nearest playwrite....rediculous notion. Does myth and literature tell us about human existence and being, without a doubt. It is however, a one sided story. A subjective, emotional story. This is important for understanding how and what people and society are like but it does not tell us anything about the physical world. What would acient Athens be with just Aristotle and no Parthenon. What would Rome be with only Virgil and no Collosium. What would ancient China be with only Confucius and no Great Wall. The truth is science is just as critical if not more, to progress then all the art and phylosophy there is however, without art and phylosophy their can be no progress. The two are continually in conflict and continually interelated. One cannot exist without the other. Please sell your neo-iconclasm somewhere else.
 
Looks to me like the lottery system is a bad idea.

In fact - since this is the ncessary measures to be taken:
21 display spaces, which are vandal-proof, cage-like areas surrounded by chain-link fencing.
Click to expand...

Looks to me like any such displays are a bad idea if the forefront of concern is vandalism.
 
smb said:
The next time you get injured please see your nearest playwrite....rediculous notion. Does myth and literature tell us about human existence and being, without a doubt. It is however, a one sided story. A subjective, emotional story. This is important for understanding how and what people and society are like but it does not tell us anything about the physical world. What would acient Athens be with just Aristotle and no Parthenon. What would Rome be with only Virgil and no Collosium. What would ancient China be with only Confucius and no Great Wall. The truth is science is just as critical if not more, to progress then all the art and phylosophy there is however, without art and phylosophy their can be no progress. The two are continually in conflict and continually interelated. One cannot exist without the other. Please sell your neo-iconclasm somewhere else.
Click to expand...
Did I say I would take my broken foot to a playwright?

Yet Rome did have the Collosium and Athens did have the Parthenon. It seems you have no idea of the symbolic, spiritual and indeed mythological role of mathematics, geometry and natural sciences in the Ancient Greek world. Plato could say that 'God geometricises always', and he and Pythagoras could use mathematics and geometry as spiritual exercises. Ancient and Medieval thought continued to utilitise Pythagorean number theory. When Thales theorised water as the first principle of nature, he did not mean it as we mean the material of water. He meant it in a highly symbolic and metaphysical sense. To see pre-modern natural science simply as we see it would be a mistake. The full analytical, separative and quantitative nature of the modern natural sciences was unknown in the pre-modern world, even in the latter Greco-Roman era. The only 'progress' that may depend on it is post-1700AD.

But I never repudiated natural science, I only talked about what amounted to definitions, limits and priorities, which you have ignored.

Who says great art is simply subjective and emotional? That is a peculiarly modern assumption. You have also, of course, defined subjective as basically trivial and false, when it comes to any real truth. Despite the fact that subjective actually refers to the subject, and not necessarily to any notion of illusionary or trivial content. This simply shows the problems with unthinking acceptance of modern ways of thinking, you have ridiculed the subject in favour of some highly externalised and quantitative view of objective world, without remembering that your only knowledge of this is through being a subject. In the Ancient Greek world it was Apollo who was the God of poetry and music, he was also the light of God, the God of truth and prophecy. It was from Apollo that Socrates felt he got his mission to make Athenians wise through Elenchus.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
If I were the grand pooba of public displays in Santa Monica, I'd ban them all and be done with the childish behavior.
Click to expand...
Harry Guerrilla for Grand Pooba of the USA!

So for years the Christians in Santa Monica have had the display areas to themselves for Nativity scenes and now that the tie is turned for the first time they are raising a fuss. As with the ten commandments, crosses, menorahs, yin and yang, star and crescent, wheel of Dharma, etc., if they are important to you put them up on you church lawns, your own lawn, at your business, etc. Public space is not on hold for any group to display their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
 
StillBallin75 said:
How many spaces are there in total? Perhaps there are simply more atheists groups that lobby for a spot compared to religious groups?
Click to expand...

I find it quite odd that 2 people got all of their 9 ballots chosen.
 
Frolicking Dinosaurs said:
Harry Guerrilla for Grand Pooba of the USA!

So for years the Christians in Santa Monica have had the display areas to themselves for Nativity scenes and now that the tie is turned for the first time they are raising a fuss. As with the ten commandments, crosses, menorahs, yin and yang, star and crescent, wheel of Dharma, etc., if they are important to you put them up on you church lawns, your own lawn, at your business, etc. Public space is not on hold for any group to display their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
Click to expand...

Funny...thats not what the article says...are you privy to information that is not available to the general public?
 
What I find dispicable besides thier signs making attacks at religions is the fact that out of the 18 slots that they got they are only using 3 of them. Any person with a good moral code would not just let those slots sit empty just to spite something/someone they don't like. If you're not going to use them then give them up. Or use them.

Also I've got to agree with others when it comes to questioning how 2 people got 18 spaces out of 14 possible people. It does say that 1 person can request up to 9 spaces each but requesting 9 spaces and getting 9 spaces are two different things. I would imagine that for the lottery to be fair they would have had to have a drawing for each and every slot available. The odds of the same 2 people getting picked 18 times is not good. I really can't imagine a city lottery like this making it to where who ever gets picked gets to have as many slots as they can in one draw.
 
Thorgasm said:
I thought the dickish part was because they called Santa Claus a myth. It's a crappy thing to do to kids.
Click to expand...

Santa isn't a myth.
 
I'm not so sure it's all that uplifting to Christ to portray him in a dog run like these cages resemble. :lol:
 
God saw his Santa Monica Christians were getting complacent, so He rigged the ballot to hear them scream.
 
Christmas nativity scenes = idol worship :D
 
Redress said:
While I understand the irony, they are no more dicks than those who want to put their message in and are complaining now that they have competition.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sorry....I can't think of anyone that I have known to ever put up a nativity with the purpose of attempting to belittle, insult, or ridicule people or their thoughts and at least is somewhat related to Christmas. If most of the athiest ones are in the vien a shown above...directly attempting to belittle and insult folks and having zero to do with the federal holiday that the decorations are usually used to refer to...then yes, I think they are significantly being larger "dicks". I also think if they're rallying organizations that aren't even part of the city to just come in and bid for it when traditioanally its been local groups attempting to put up decorations locally then I think its also a rather dickish move.

There's a way to get your message out and take part without being an ass. They've purposefully decided to act like asses due to this idiotic seeming persecution problem these particular paranoid groups seem to have because someone did so much damage to their fragile little egos by "forcing" them to have to view a nativity.
 
misterman said:
How does putting up a display about your own belief "oppress" the beliefs of others?
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, at least for me...

If a Christian group decided to take the oppertunity, instead of putting up anything related to christmas, to put up some display that's directly insulting Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc in a way that is proclaiming their faith isn't "true" then I'd be caling them dicks too. Putting something up, especially in a place generally meant for Christmas displays, with the intent to push that someone ELSE'S view is wrong and bad to me is a dickish, childish, tactless thing to do.

A nativity scene doens't do that. At worst its a positive assertion regarding ones own faith or belief. Blatantly placing a picture of Jesus next to Minitaurs and Posiden is a negative assertion towards someone elses faith or belief.

If Christians put up a sign saying "Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me" with a depiction of god's foot stepping on a Rabbi, Muhammed, and Buddha then I'd be ripping that too. If the Christian sign was "Which of these is the one TRUE god" and had a picture of Muhammed, Shiva, "God", Steve Jobs I'd say its chlidish and inappropriate.

If athiests want to express their beliefs in a form of positive assertion a public setting I've got no issue with them doing it. More power to them! If Christian folks get upset too bad. If they want to express their belifes in a dickish targetted form going after others then I'll treat them the same way I do Christians or any other group that does it...by considering the group in christian to be a jackasses.
 
Zyphlin said:
Yeah, sorry....I can't think of anyone that I have known to ever put up a nativity with the purpose of attempting to belittle, insult, or ridicule people or their thoughts and at least is somewhat related to Christmas. If most of the athiest ones are in the vien a shown above...directly attempting to belittle and insult folks and having zero to do with the federal holiday that the decorations are usually used to refer to...then yes, I think they are significantly being larger "dicks". I also think if they're rallying organizations that aren't even part of the city to just come in and bid for it when traditioanally its been local groups attempting to put up decorations locally then I think its also a rather dickish move.

There's a way to get your message out and take part without being an ass. They've purposefully decided to act like asses due to this idiotic seeming persecution problem these particular paranoid groups seem to have because someone did so much damage to their fragile little egos by "forcing" them to have to view a nativity.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying. I would never have done what they did and think it is a bad idea. However, I stand by my comment that they are not being any more dicks than those who are complaining that they have competition for public space. It's another one of those cases where the religious groups and the atheists should be glad I didn't run the whole thing since I would just shut the ****ing things down since no one can manage to play nice.
 
misterman said:
Uh, yes. Obviously a nativity scene proclaims a message that contradicts atheism or other religions..
Click to expand...

There's a difference between positive and negative presentation of ones message. Lets take a football analogy with the Cowboys and Redskins rivally.

If I go out stating "I love the Redskins" or "The Redskins are the best" I'm making a personal assertion to my particular prefered team. If you disagree with me, it may bother you, but its not directly betlittling your views but rather simply propping up mine.

If I go out stating "Loving the Cowboys is dumb" or "The Cowboys suck" now instead I'm making my messgae through a negative assertion by attacking and insulting and belittling specifically someone elses team instead of positively propping up my own.

One of those is clearly aimed at those interested in the Redskins and instilling a positive feeling in them, the other is clearly aimed at those interested in the Cowboys and attempting to instill a negative feeling in them.

While that may not be much of a different to you, to some people there's a distinct difference in the tactfullness of those two types of methods of pushing ones views. It essentially goes back to the age old addage of "if you don't have anything nice to say...." If you can't promote your view without tearing down someone else then perhaps there's an issue with the worth of your own view...and that's a universal type of thing.
 
Zyphlin said:
If I go out stating "Loving the Cowboys is dumb" or "The Cowboys suck" now instead I'm making my messgae through a negative assertion by attacking and insulting and belittling specifically someone elses team instead of positively propping up my own.
Click to expand...

I would call that just being honest.
 
Redress said:
I understand what you are saying. I would never have done what they did and think it is a bad idea. However, I stand by my comment that they are not being any more dicks than those who are complaining that they have competition for public space. It's another one of those cases where the religious groups and the atheists should be glad I didn't run the whole thing since I would just shut the ****ing things down since no one can manage to play nice.
Click to expand...

And again, I fully disagree with you. For one, you're assuming they have an issue that the yhave "Competition" for the public space, which is a baseless assumption. Right off the bat its clear there's NUMEROUS reasons they could be complaining...

- They could be complaining not because of competition in general but specifically due to non-locals coming in and competing for spots that they had no intent to actually use. The issues between "outsiders" and "locals" are hardly a new thing, nor a religion based thing.

- They could be complaining that people entered into the lottery to get spots with the explicite purpose to PREVENT people from putting ANYTHING up rather than to put up their own things as evidenced by 15 of the 18 spots being simply left vacant

- They could be upset that those bidding for the spot during the Holiday seasons choose to put nothing up at all that relates to the holidays. I don't see them complaining about the individual putting up stuff for Chaunaka if I read the story right as to who got the last spot.

- They could be upset that those ibdding for the spots then decided to use those spots to specifically attack and belittle a particular group of people

All four of those reasons are just as likely as your assertion that they're upset there's "competition" and yet you decide to deem with absolute assuredly that they are complaining because they now have competition and are thus "dicks".

IF they are complaining simply becuase its Athiests and would be doing so regardless of what they put in their displays, then I'd likely go along with dicks. Actually, I don't really think that's "dickish"...I think it'd be more petulent and whiny. Complaining isn't so much a dick move as a ***** move.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
And again, I fully disagree with you. For one, you're assuming they have an issue that the yhave "Competition" for the public space, which is a baseless assumption. Right off the bat its clear there's NUMEROUS reasons they could be complaining...

- They could be complaining not because of competition in general but specifically due to non-locals coming in and competing for spots that they had no intent to actually use. The issues between "outsiders" and "locals" are hardly a new thing, nor a religion based thing.

- They could be complaining that people entered into the lottery to get spots with the explicite purpose to PREVENT people from putting ANYTHING up rather than to put up their own things as evidenced by 15 of the 18 spots being simply left vacant

- They could be upset that those bidding for the spot during the Holiday seasons choose to put nothing up at all that relates to the holidays. I don't see them complaining about the individual putting up stuff for Chaunaka if I read the story right as to who got the last spot.

- They could be upset that those ibdding for the spots then decided to use those spots to specifically attack and belittle a particular group of people

All four of those reasons are just as likely as your assertion that they're upset there's "competition" and yet you decide to deem with absolute assuredly that they are complaining because they now have competition and are thus "dicks".
Click to expand...

From the article:

"Our belief is that these new applicants have been working together to displace and push out the nativity scenes from the park, rather than erecting a full display of their own," said Hunter Jameson, a spokesman for a coalition of the city's churches.
Click to expand...

They got upset that there is competition for public space. Boo ****ing hoo.
 
Hmm, one would think in the name of tolerance, they would give some of them away.... I guess it's not about being "equal" after all. Ironic.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
Hmm, one would think in the name of tolerance, they would give some of them away.... I guess it's not about being "equal" after all. Ironic.
Click to expand...


Tolerance is not the same thing as charity, and why was not one suggesting the christian group should give some away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom