Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1 Atheists' National Holiday? 
    HR Corporate Scum patriot45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Plant City, Florida
    Posts
    10,869
    Wilbur, Chuck is talking to you! :D

    Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door!


    Atheists from England to the West Coast of America are stepping up their efforts this year to make a bigger antagonistic splash on the Christmas scene. From London and Washington, D.C., buses to Colorado billboards, skeptics are skewering religions with little respect to the adherents of the religions.

    At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

    I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?

    If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.

    Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?

    What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country? As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."

    What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?

    What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?
    What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?

    What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?" Continued...

    : “Grow your own dope. Plant a liberal.”
    ” Obummercare, 20 percent of the time it works everytime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by patriot45 View Post
    Wilbur, Chuck is talking to you! :D
    Hehe. Unfortunately for Chuck... his mental ju-jitsu isn't up to snuff with his physical skills ;)

    At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
    I actually think the sign, while they have the right to display it surely, was unnecessarily confrontational, and should have reinforced a positive message about humanism rather than a negative view of religion.

    I am a patriot, and I believe that atheists are free to believe, speak and post whatever they want. This is America, and that's their First Amendment right. But to do so with harassment and hatred under the guise of free speech is despicable. An anti-religious poster filled with spite is in no way equal to a religious symbol, such as a Nativity scene. Where are the political correctness police when religious followers are the victims?
    Perhaps this particular event is inconsequential outside of the existence as an amusing newsbite? The opposition to this little sign invoked a major Streisand Effect. Although, I'm sure that was the intention for many, as the magnitude of the "War on Christmas" industry is in danger of eclipsing the actual "Christmas Industry" if things keep progressing. The War on Christmas is quite the faith strengthening exercise and fund-raising boon for churches and religious politicians, Chuck... we can expect it to stick around year after year, despite the fact it is a fabrication. You don't have to contribute to the lie though Chuck...

    If such words were written against any social minority group, protests would be ubiquitous. But anti-religious bigotry is in vogue these days. Still, there is absolutely no justification for these atheists' written revile. And if they want to keep using hate-filled language against theists -- particularly Christians -- then they shouldn't be surprised when they meet up with a yuletide (written) roundhouse kick.
    Well, unlike what we suspect about homosexuality, or skin color, religion is a choice. Atheists/secularists are more the victims of such diatribes and hate speech than religious folk are.... even Christians.

    Anyone can spew disdain for religion, but is that what America's Founders created our rights for? Just because they post such verbal vomit, does that demonstrate intellectual superiority or the type of moral decency our Founders hoped we would perpetuate?
    The problem is, Chuck, the religious sensitivity to criticism is so hyper-sensitive, one cannot criticize it at all, in any reasonable way, without a response such as yours... of faux victimization. Evidence of this is the painful thrashings about of people like yourself when religion is subject to the same criticism that any other idea endures. Can your beliefs stand up to scrutiny or not? Should you not welcome the challenge to defend your beliefs against the best arguments available?

    What profit would there be if I posted a taunt that atheists had no vital part in the founding of our country?
    Actually, Chuck... religious folk do this quite regularly.

    As Benjamin Franklin noted in his 1787 pamphlet for those in Europe thinking of relocating to America: "To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there."

    What profit would there be if I posted a claim that atheists are un-American because they try to suppress theists' freedom of religion by the false notion of separation of church and state?
    Well, it would be clearly false, for one. But there is profit to be made by such statements, and they are made regularly by many of your peers, Chuck.

    What profit would there be if I posted the accusation that atheists are imprudent because they exhaust too much time trying to convince everyone else of the absence of a being who doesn't exist?
    Many Christians think there is great harm in atheism, humanism, secularism, and are quite vocal about it. So extremely vocal and anti-secular that often the unwarranted juxtaposition is made between secularism humanism/atheism and genocide, nazi germany, etc etc. When atheists or humanists defend themselves or at the very least make a case for their ideas, they are 'victimizing the religious'... not letting them be, not respecting belief. or strangely obsessing about something in which they do not believe.

    Most atheists and humanists arent so much enemies of religion... but enemies of dogma. Religion just happens to be the largest purveyor of it.

    What profit would there be if I posted a retort that atheists are igmos because they try to replace Christmas with winter solstice celebrations, which are ancient pagan festivals entrenched in polytheistic religions?
    Winter solstice celebrations have been around since before Christmas... if anyone bothers to look into the history of Christmas/Solstice holidays, one would see it has been an ever shifting changing holiday season for thousands and thousands of years... its influences and traditions have been borrowed, changed, tweaked throughout its entire history from innumerable sources. Its a holiday season that has gone through as many revisions and changes and our own language. Christianity certainly is the dominant colouring of its most recent history, but it had a history before Christianity, from which Christians borrowed. There is nothing wrong with this, just as there is nothing wrong with secularists celebrating the winder holidays. Christians do not own Christmas any more than I do.

    The largest myth about Christmas/Solstice holidays, like marriage, is that it is now as it always was.

    What profit would there be if I posted that atheism hides behind a false pretense that it is scientific when eminent scientist Paul Davies -- the renowned British-born physicist, agnostic and professor of cosmology, quantum field theory and astrobiology -- once spoke against the certainty of atheism to Time magazine (in the column "Science, God, and Man"): "Agnosticism -- reserving judgment about divine purpose -- remains as defensible as ever, but atheism -- the confident denial of divine purpose -- becomes trickier. If you admit that we can't peer behind a curtain, how can you be sure there's nothing there?" Continued...
    There is lots of profit to be made, Chuck. There is a whole culture of fear built upon the Christian conception/mythology of atheism.. it is very prolific, powerful and profitable.
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-16-2008 at 01:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    And for the rest:

    What profit would there be if I posted that atheists are totally blind to the pristine beauty and ordered complexity of creation, so they cannot see the hand of a Creator? As the Bible pointed out 2,000 years ago, "For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."
    Chuck, again this sort of thing is very common... and profitable. You can sell many books if you do just that.

    What profit would there be if I posted the fact that atheists denigrate every religion and prayer that ever has been offered? To say God doesn't exist is to say every religious leader in every age was delusional at best. And it also is to say that not one prayer on any continent in any era of human history has been answered. That premise alone rules atheism preposterous and foolish.
    You would certainly say that many religious leaders were in fact delusional... unless you subscribe to every religion. I think they were too... I just also include yours on the list. Actually calling them delusional may be wrong. It can be said they did the best with what the knowledge they had.

    Finally, what profit would there be if I posted that I agree with my friend Mike Huckabee, who said on his book tour via Fox News that atheists shouldn't be fighting for a holiday in December when they already have a holiday: April Fools' Day (a holiday also grounded in sacred Scripture, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no god'")?
    I don't know, but this article seems to be slowly building to that... I must say that that particular bible passage is one of the most irksome, because it universally grants the theist permission to decry intelligence as foolishness if it comes from an atheist if they find themselves unable to justify their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Its a discussion killer. It enshrines reason as subordinate to belief, and lets any Christian escape justification for their positions by dismissing opponents as fools.

    We all know I would be labeled as an extremist, irrational and a bigot if I posted any of the preceding ideas. Yet atheists do and get away with First Amendment murder.
    Again, hyper-sensitivity to criticism... perhaps the atheist and humanist sensitivity to biting commentary and criticism has been dulled... due to being the lightning rods for just those sorts of attacks that you describe.. institutionalized and deep. Can you forgive us for a time we respond in kind?

    I'd like to remind our nation that it was only a short time ago when Ronald Reagan freely spoke for the majority by explicitly and passionately conveying belief in Jesus Christ during his presidential Christmas addresses. Compare the message in his Dec. 23, 1981, speech with that of the present day, when the very term "Christmas" is being erased from every corner of culture.
    GWB does the same. There is no grounds for claiming this erasure of the term Christmas.

    As long as different displays line the corridors of Washington state's Capitol like Christmas potpourri, let me posit this last idea as a final pre-Christmas posting. At the base of the bust of George Washington (which stands between the atheists' winter solstice sign and the Nativity scene in the Washington state Capitol), I suggest the posting of one more sign, which would contain the wisdom from George Washington's farewell address: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
    Even the founders had to pander, Chuck.
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-16-2008 at 01:20 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    The very last bit:

    (Note: In the spirit of Christmas, Chuck is giving away a free chapter of his current New York Times best-seller, "Black Belt Patriotism."
    Ohhhhhh.. I guess you answered your own questions, Chuck... there is profit... ;)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Hehe. Unfortunately for Chuck... his mental ju-jitsu isn't up to snuff with his physical skills ;)
    Unfortunately for wilbur, his factual knowledge pales in comparison to his skills at attacking Christianity.

    Chuck Norris has black belts in Tang Su Do (karate) and Tae Kwon Do. Jiu Jitsu (the correct spelling you should note) is primarily a grappling technique, far different than the striking techniques of Tae Kwon Do and karate.

    ;)

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I actually think the sign, while they have the right to display it surely, was unnecessarily confrontational, and should have reinforced a positive message about humanism rather than a negative view of religion.
    Except that's all atheism has, attack and degrade religion. Atheism has no holidays or celebrations of divinity, because it is, by definition, opposed to religious beliefs. Or at least, it should.

    Atheists however are driven by a perverse desire to attack religion and demean its followers. The adherance to secularism has taken on all the trappings of religious belief, with none of the benefits. Atheists gather together to worship their ideas, they debate dogma, they confront other religions, and attempt to convert others to their worldview.



    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Perhaps this particular event is inconsequential outside of the existence as an amusing newsbite? The opposition to this little sign invoked a major Streisand Effect. Although, I'm sure that was the intention for many, as the magnitude of the "War on Christmas" industry is in danger of eclipsing the actual "Christmas Industry" if things keep progressing. The War on Christmas is quite the faith strengthening exercise and fund-raising boon for churches and religious politicians, Chuck... we can expect it to stick around year after year, despite the fact it is a fabrication. You don't have to contribute to the lie though Chuck...
    The failure of a particular brand of censorship should not be used as evidence that the attempted censorship didn't occur. The Atheist religion has clearly made an attempt to attack Christians and Christmas. Do you deny that this has occured?

    A woman in the UK was told to remove Christmas lights. The Salvation Army is being accused of religious intimidation by asking for charity during Christmas. These are examples of attacks by government and private citizens against religion, to deny they exist is to shut your eyes to the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Well, unlike what we suspect about homosexuality, or skin color, religion is a choice. Atheists/secularists are more the victims of such diatribes and hate speech than religious folk are.... even Christians.
    Yes, but unlike skin color or homosexuality, Religion is a right protected under the 1st and 14th amendments. Unless by "skin color" you meant race.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    The problem is, Chuck, the religious sensitivity to criticism is so hyper-sensitive, one cannot criticize it at all, in any reasonable way, without a response such as yours... of faux victimization. Evidence of this is the painful thrashings about of people like yourself when religion is subject to the same criticism that any other idea endures. Can your beliefs stand up to scrutiny or not? Should you not welcome the challenge to defend your beliefs against the best arguments available?
    You're welcome to criticize and attack, but the government has no obligation to allow you to debate the merits of religious belief in the public sector. In fact, religions have no obligation whatsoever to defend their beliefs to the government. In sponsoring such an offensive sign to be displayed adjacent a religious image, the government is violating it's First amendment duty to allow the free exercise of religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Many Christians think there is great harm in atheism, humanism, secularism, and are quite vocal about it. So extremely vocal and anti-secular that often the unwarranted juxtaposition is made between secularism humanism/atheism and genocide, nazi germany, etc etc. When atheists or humanists defend themselves or at the very least make a case for their ideas, they are 'victimizing the religious'... not letting them be, not respecting belief. or strangely obsessing about something in which they do not believe.
    So Nazi Germany wasn't a secular state? Soviet Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia? These were all religious nations?

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Most atheists and humanists arent so much enemies of religion... but enemies of dogma. Religion just happens to be the largest purveyor of it.
    Yes, the language "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" on the sign was obviously directed not towards religion, but towards dogma. Obviously advanced reading comprehension skills are required to see this distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Christians do not own Christmas any more than I do.
    Actually, Christians do own Christmas. Other religions are free to celebrate their own religious beliefs - Hanukkah, Solstice, Brumalia, Saturnalia - during this time. But do not try to discourage Christians from celebrating the birth of Christ, because that is a holiday which is exclusively Christian.

    It is the intentional interference with Christian celebration of Christmas that gets people upset. Muslims should similarly be offended if children are required to eat lunch at school during Ramadan, or Jews are prohibited from lighting candles during Hanukkah.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    Unfortunately for wilbur, his factual knowledge pales in comparison to his skills at attacking Christianity.

    Chuck Norris has black belts in Tang Su Do (karate) and Tae Kwon Do. Jiu Jitsu (the correct spelling you should note) is primarily a grappling technique, far different than the striking techniques of Tae Kwon Do and karate.

    ;)
    I wasn't really aiming for precision with that off the cuff comment... sure I could have researched the forms of martial arts Chuck Norris practices... but uhh... didn't feel like it ;)

    Except that's all atheism has, attack and degrade religion. Atheism has no holidays or celebrations of divinity, because it is, by definition, opposed to religious beliefs. Or at least, it should.
    Atheism is an empty set, so of course it doesn't have its own holidays. Any holiday that can be celebrated for non-religious reasons is the holiday of an atheist. The fourth of July for example.

    Atheists however are driven by a perverse desire to attack religion and demean its followers. The adherance to secularism has taken on all the trappings of religious belief, with none of the benefits. Atheists gather together to worship their ideas, they debate dogma, they confront other religions, and attempt to convert others to their worldview.
    Every time a theist says this it is proof positive that they simply dont pay attention, or listen to the good arguments.

    The failure of a particular brand of censorship should not be used as evidence that the attempted censorship didn't occur. The Atheist religion has clearly made an attempt to attack Christians and Christmas. Do you deny that this has occured?
    Yes. I deny there is a war on Christmas. Its much ado about nothing every single year we are subjected to it... its marketing.. fund-raising.. political engineering... taking advantage of the religious persons propensity to perceive themselves as victims. Sure we can find anecdotal cases here and there that marginally support your case if looked at in isolation, but it doesn't change the overwhelming presence of religious themes behind Christmas celebration in every city in this country (none of which are in danger of being removed).

    A woman in the UK was told to remove Christmas lights. The Salvation Army is being accused of religious intimidation by asking for charity during Christmas. These are examples of attacks by government and private citizens against religion, to deny they exist is to shut your eyes to the truth.
    The War on X-Mas profiteers will loudly point out all of these anecdotes at the top of their lungs, to distract you from the mountain of freely publicly practised religious sentiment all over throughout the holidays.

    It's like a billionaire huffing and puffing about how he's going to go broke because someone stole a buck from him. Yes, the stolen dollar was an injustice... is he in any real danger? No.

    Yes, but unlike skin color or homosexuality, Religion is a right protected under the 1st and 14th amendments. Unless by "skin color" you meant race.
    What does that have to do with religious criticism? It seems you simply want to be immune from it.

    You're welcome to criticize and attack, but the government has no obligation to allow you to debate the merits of religious belief in the public sector. In fact, religions have no obligation whatsoever to defend their beliefs to the government. In sponsoring such an offensive sign to be displayed adjacent a religious image, the government is violating it's First amendment duty to allow the free exercise of religion.
    They have no obligation to allow your religious symbols to be expressed in the public sector in the form of nativity scenes, 10 commandment monuments, or crucifixes either. In this case, the government decided to allow it. The government didn't 'sponsor' the sign.... they simply allowed equal expression for those individuals and groups who wanted to take part. Sorry you don't like it. That's really all this amounts too... another atheist somewhere had the gall to criticize religion.... and claims of victimization were soon to follow when the government refused to censor that criticism.

    On what grounds do you claim that the atheist sign should be taken down, but the nativity scene left standing? Would you claim that they should disallow Fred Phelps to post his 'Santa will send you to Hell' message while allowing the nativity, and on what grounds?

    So Nazi Germany wasn't a secular state?
    Not really, no.

    Soviet Russia, Vietnam, Cambodia? These were all religious nations?
    They certainly weren't humanists.

    Yes, the language "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" on the sign was obviously directed not towards religion, but towards dogma. Obviously advanced reading comprehension skills are required to see this distinction.
    I didn't endorse the language on the sign. They certainly don't speak for any and all atheists/secularists.

    Actually, Christians do own Christmas. Other religions are free to celebrate their own religious beliefs - Hanukkah, Solstice, Brumalia, Saturnalia - during this time. But do not try to discourage Christians from celebrating the birth of Christ, because that is a holiday which is exclusively Christian.
    No one is trying to discourage Christians from 'keeping the Christ in Christmas'... you've bought the fear-mongering, hook, line and sinker.

    It is the intentional interference with Christian celebration of Christmas that gets people upset. Muslims should similarly be offended if children are required to eat lunch at school during Ramadan, or Jews are prohibited from lighting candles during Hanukkah.
    I think many need to look more critically at the sources of these stories, and the motivation behind them... Christmas isn't and never has been in any danger.
    Last edited by wilbur; 12-16-2008 at 04:00 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by patriot45 View Post
    Wilbur, Chuck is talking to you! :D

    Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door!

    At the forefront is a group's government-sanctioned posting of a sign by a Nativity scene in the Capitol of Washington state (and now also in Wisconsin and Illinois): "At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
    Does this mean I get to post anti-islamic stuff at ramadan? I'd like to be able to post a sign talking about how the prophet is a child molester and a rapist - since he was. . . . .
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Does this mean I get to post anti-islamic stuff at ramadan? I'd like to be able to post a sign talking about how the prophet is a child molester and a rapist - since he was. . . . .
    I wouldnt be opposed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    They certainly weren't humanists.
    This isn't about the dogma of humanism, this is about atheism. If you want to debate the merits of humanism and allege that they are not mass murderers, we can have that discussion.

    But this is about atheism. Atheists are the mass murderers and genocide purveyors throughout history, not Christians.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by biccat View Post
    This isn't about the dogma of humanism, this is about atheism. If you want to debate the merits of humanism and allege that they are not mass murderers, we can have that discussion.

    But this is about atheism. Atheists are the mass murderers and genocide purveyors throughout history, not Christians.
    But you have to look at the philosophies in question of the people running those deadly regimes. Atheism is not a philosophy... its a by product of rationalism, or objectivism or some such other philosophy. If someone comes upon atheism by other means, its not something representative of what most atheists around today would vouch for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •