|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/07/2008 08:03:19 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I don't think this is unreasonable, I am a bit taken aback at the aggressiveness of the atheist message ... |
As compared to the Christian message of "believe as we do or burn in Hell for all eternity -- that is if we don't burn you heretics ourselves first"? |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:06:53 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I don't think this is unreasonable, I am a bit taken aback at the aggressiveness of the atheist message ... |
As compared to the Christian message of "believe as we do or burn in Hell for all eternity -- that is if we don't burn you heretics ourselves first"? |
But of course it doesn't say that on the manger does it? I mean Christianity is at its most benevolent and benign at Christmas. If you can't find at least a modicum of happiness in the Christmas Story then you are cynical indeed. I would have certainly taken umbrage with a Christian placard that states what you have above. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:22:16 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you can't find at least a modicum of happiness in the Christmas Story then you are cynical indeed. |
Babies being knifed to death is happy? Hey, it's part of the story. And personally, I don't find any happiness in the message of the Christmas story, which is one of the irrational acceptance of the divine because it says so somewhere. I do, however, find happiness in the latter-day message of the season itself, which is one of goodwill, cheer, fellowship, and community, all applied to Christmas long after the fact.
As for the aggressive atheist message, my opinion remains that it's a reaction to the heretofore aggressive message and behaviour of the believer. I don't find anything particularly over the top in the message, incidentally, since it simply speaks the truth. I think it hurts feelings, which I'm not too comfortable with, and which would curtail me from doing something like that, but how else will their message prevail? |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:24:58 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Funny thing is, Jesus would probably not have me raked over the coals the way that most fundamentalists would.
That always puzzles me.......how those ostensibly the most fervid can be the most fevered.......8>) |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Just to point this out. You could be completely wrong. My point is that I'm not sure why you would consider your own interpretation of "Jesus" as obviously more accurate than a fundamentalist's. In other words, it's possible your first statement is completely false. |
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
At no point did I say that my interpretation of Jesus is more accurate that that of fundamentalists.
I *HATE* when people do that!
I never said any such thing!
This is what I said:
I'm fairly certain that my views on Jesus are outright blasphemy, yet I have the highest regard for the man.
Funny thing is, Jesus would probably not have me raked over the coals the way that most fundamentalists would.
That always puzzles me.......how those ostensibly the most fervid can be the most fevered.......8>)
I should have inserted Jesus, as I have a view of him, probably would not have raked me over the coals as most fundamentalists would.
My view that it's the teachings of Jesus, and that it's irrelevant to me whether or not he was the son of God, is what I would imagine would be considered blasphemous.
Thereby mustering up a coal-raking were I to share this view with some people.
I have no opinion on whether or not your beliefs are one thing or another. I hope that yours don't involve hurtfulness or the need to be forced onto others. My faith and beliefs, my take on what works for me with my relationship with God as I understand him, has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else. It's a VERY personal thing.
See, this is one of those things that completely pisses me off about these damn threads.
I guess I need to reiterate this AGAIN.
I will NOT force my thinking on anyone, nor think/state that your view, faith, belief, or feelings are wrong, it is not my place to judge your faith. The ONLY thing I have ever asked is that you respect my wishes to allow me my right to hold my beliefs while respecting yours.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:28:14 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But of course it doesn't say that on the manger does it? I mean Christianity is at its most benevolent and benign at Christmas. |
Oh, well then that cancels out all the "Burn in Hell if you don't believe" messages for the other 364 days, right?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:33:30 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I should have inserted Jesus, as I have a view of him, probably would not have raked me over the coals as most fundamentalists would. |
I wouldn't have responded at all to this statement as it could very well be true. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:38:13 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you can't find at least a modicum of happiness in the Christmas Story then you are cynical indeed. |
Babies being knifed to death is happy? Hey, it's part of the story. And personally, I don't find any happiness in the message of the Christmas story, which is one of the irrational acceptance of the divine because it says so somewhere. I do, however, find happiness in the latter-day message of the season itself, which is one of goodwill, cheer, fellowship, and community, all applied to Christmas long after the fact.
As for the aggressive atheist message, my opinion remains that it's a reaction to the heretofore aggressive message and behaviour of the believer. I don't find anything particularly over the top in the message, incidentally, since it simply speaks the truth. I think it hurts feelings, which I'm not too comfortable with, and which would curtail me from doing something like that, but how else will their message prevail? |
I dub thee cynic! ;)
Peace on Earth! Good will toward man! Can't you dig a little of that? Anyway, my point was about the aggressiveness of the atheist message. It doesn't detract from that point if the nativity is somehow as aggressive (which I doubt). They would both just be aggressive. It's not like Washington state is the most conservative state in the Union. We're not Mississippi or anything. We're pretty liberal and someone the Nativity is allowed up. There was a Menorah up one year (and I'm unclear why not on subsequent years) and I can enjoy that even though it's not part of my tradition. It's a neat message.
Message edited by author 2008-12-07 20:40:00. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:39:23 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I should have inserted Jesus, as I have a view of him, probably would not have raked me over the coals as most fundamentalists would. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wouldn't have responded at all to this statement as it could very well be true. |
Having been cornered before and demanded to know if I've been "Saved", I can assure you it's true.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:40:35 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I should have inserted Jesus, as I have a view of him, probably would not have raked me over the coals as most fundamentalists would. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wouldn't have responded at all to this statement as it could very well be true. |
Having been cornered before and demanded to know if I've been "Saved", I can assure you it's true. |
Well...HAVE YOU?!? (advances toward Jeb...) ;) |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:45:40 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps cogent to this discussion is the hub-bub going on in Olympia, Washington where an atheist group has placed a placard on display next to a nativity in the capitol building. While I don't think this is unreasonable, I am a bit taken aback at the aggressiveness of the atheist message, namely the last line. The placard, in it's entirety, says "At this season of the WINTER SOLSTACE 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." |
What's aggressive about saying Santa Claus isn't real?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point in bringing it up is to question why atheists feel they need to be so "in your face"? The nativity, while definitely Christian, is hardly threatening. It's not like you push a little button on the baby Jesus and he says, "Muhammed sucks eggs!" Why do some atheists feel so compelled to tear down at religion? Which group is proselytizing here? I think they would have advanced their case much further with a simple humanitarian message; perhaps faith in man or something. Instead they were fielding 200 phone calls an hour at the governor's office and the sign was stolen. |
What about separation of church and state? Why do the Christians get to have their display, yet the citizens of the state who don't share those beliefs have to just live with it?
Could you be supporting a double standard?
Gee, maybe the tide is turning and those who would be vilified for not having the "right" beliefs might be having their fair share.
I'm guessing you don't like the idea of fairness?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2008 08:47:05 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I should have inserted Jesus, as I have a view of him, probably would not have raked me over the coals as most fundamentalists would. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I wouldn't have responded at all to this statement as it could very well be true. |
Having been cornered before and demanded to know if I've been "Saved", I can assure you it's true. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well...HAVE YOU?!? (advances toward Jeb...) ;) |
Advances toward Jeb, neck craned to look UP at his face.....8>)
Well Jason, that'd be between me and God, now wouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
12/07/2008 10:32:53 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Peace on Earth! Good will toward man! Can't you dig a little of that?
|
I'm an atheist and I can dig those things. I can especially dig the actual "reason for the season" which is the seasons. I love that the days are going to start getting longer again soon in my hemisphere. But, it sounds to me like you're saying that Christmas is about all of these wonderful things we can all agree on, so atheists are somehow against those things. If so, that is one ginormous straw man. Christmas displays also have the message that the particular beliefs of Christians are true. If you Christians are allowed to say that on government property then we atheists have just as much right to counter by saying, "No, those supernatural things you claim are false".
Ultimately, I think most atheists share the view that none of these religious displays are appropriate on government grounds. Since that's not the way the courts currently see it we atheists will continue to counter religions when they use government venues to push their belief system. You have to accept all or none when it comes to allowing religious expression on government property. If you can't handle all, including atheists, then I suggest you start pushing for none.
Message edited by author 2008-12-07 22:36:28. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 10:49:11 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Fundamentalism in any belief is wrong. This just happens to be a case of atheist fundamentalism. |
You are going to have to give me your definition of fundamentalism before I can disagree with that statement. |
Well, this is a case of context. Fundamentalist behavior that results in pushing an agenda for your own purposes, disregarding any and all other ideas/beliefs. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 10:57:17 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Perhaps cogent to this discussion is the hub-bub going on in Olympia, Washington where an atheist group has placed a placard on display next to a nativity in the capitol building. While I don't think this is unreasonable, I am a bit taken aback at the aggressiveness of the atheist message, namely the last line. The placard, in it's entirety, says "At this season of the WINTER SOLSTACE 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." |
What's aggressive about saying Santa Claus isn't real?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My point in bringing it up is to question why atheists feel they need to be so "in your face"? The nativity, while definitely Christian, is hardly threatening. It's not like you push a little button on the baby Jesus and he says, "Muhammed sucks eggs!" Why do some atheists feel so compelled to tear down at religion? Which group is proselytizing here? I think they would have advanced their case much further with a simple humanitarian message; perhaps faith in man or something. Instead they were fielding 200 phone calls an hour at the governor's office and the sign was stolen. |
What about separation of church and state? Why do the Christians get to have their display, yet the citizens of the state who don't share those beliefs have to just live with it?
Could you be supporting a double standard?
Gee, maybe the tide is turning and those who would be vilified for not having the "right" beliefs might be having their fair share.
I'm guessing you don't like the idea of fairness? |
Ummm...you need to read my original post again. To quote a portion..."where an atheist group has placed a placard on display next to a nativity in the capitol building. While I don't think this is unreasonable" Does that sound like I think only the Nativity should be up? Not at all. My biggest point was that given 15 minutes, a napkin, and a pen, I'm sure I could have come up with something for the atheist placard that would actually have people agreeing with them instead of this "in your face" message presented.
You get a bit ahead of yourself sometimes... |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 10:57:46 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Fundamentalism in any belief is wrong. This just happens to be a case of atheist fundamentalism. |
You are going to have to give me your definition of fundamentalism before I can disagree with that statement. |
Well, this is a case of context. Fundamentalist behavior that results in pushing an agenda for your own purposes, disregarding any and all other ideas/beliefs. |
OK, I can buy that. :) |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 10:59:03 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Fundamentalism in any belief is wrong. This just happens to be a case of atheist fundamentalism. |
You are going to have to give me your definition of fundamentalism before I can disagree with that statement. |
Well, this is a case of context. Fundamentalist behavior that results in pushing an agenda for your own purposes, disregarding any and all other ideas/beliefs. |
Um, how about this: Fundamentalist: One who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 11:03:57 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by JMart:
I'm an atheist and I can dig those things. I can especially dig the actual "reason for the season" which is the seasons. I love that the days are going to start getting longer again soon in my hemisphere. But, it sounds to me like you're saying that Christmas is about all of these wonderful things we can all agree on, so atheists are somehow against those things. If so, that is one ginormous straw man. Christmas displays also have the message that the particular beliefs of Christians are true. If you Christians are allowed to say that on government property then we atheists have just as much right to counter by saying, "No, those supernatural things you claim are false". |
It's in the delivery, no? If the Nativity had a message written in front "Repent and believe in the one true Son of God!" then I'd think it was likewise pretty aggressive. If, like I mentioned, you pushed the baby Jesus and he said, "Muhammed sux eggs!" I'd think it was aggressive. That being said, a nativity scene, while being totally Christian, is benign in itself. I think it would be fine to have one up with any other religions that wanted to participate. I even think the atheists should be welcomed to the table, but why do they just spit in everybody's eye? Heck, I found this quote in like two minutes and would think it would be way better for their cause. How about this for a placard:
In rememberance of the WINTER SOLSTACE atheists of the world remind you that
“Religions are many and diverse, but reason and goodness are one”
Message edited by author 2008-12-07 23:04:50. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 11:06:07 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Fundamentalism in any belief is wrong. This just happens to be a case of atheist fundamentalism. |
You are going to have to give me your definition of fundamentalism before I can disagree with that statement. |
Well, this is a case of context. Fundamentalist behavior that results in pushing an agenda for your own purposes, disregarding any and all other ideas/beliefs. |
OK, I can buy that. :) |
This I don't understand. So, if anyone stands up for themselves and says, "No, you're wrong." Then that person is a fundamentalist?!? Come on. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 11:10:18 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Fundamentalism in any belief is wrong. This just happens to be a case of atheist fundamentalism. |
You are going to have to give me your definition of fundamentalism before I can disagree with that statement. |
Well, this is a case of context. Fundamentalist behavior that results in pushing an agenda for your own purposes, disregarding any and all other ideas/beliefs. |
OK, I can buy that. :) |
This I don't understand. So, if anyone stands up for themselves and says, "No, you're wrong." Then that person is a fundamentalist?!? Come on. |
Like DrAchoo says, it's in the delivery. I would be considered aethist, I don't really think there is a god or higher power of any kind, but can I say for 100% certainty that what I believe in is 100%, absolutely, irrevocably true?
No.
If I try to, I'm no better than someone telling me that God is 100%, irrevocably real. No better than someone that is willing to blow people up, or shoot a doctor, or hang a gay man from a fence in order to get their message across. Because once I decide that my belief has to be true and that nothing else could be, then yes, I'm a fundamentalist.
That message, beside that nativity scene, is trying to force one version of someone's "truth" on everyone else instead of just trying to share an idea.
|
|
|
|
12/07/2008 11:19:17 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JMart:
I'm an atheist and I can dig those things. I can especially dig the actual "reason for the season" which is the seasons. I love that the days are going to start getting longer again soon in my hemisphere. But, it sounds to me like you're saying that Christmas is about all of these wonderful things we can all agree on, so atheists are somehow against those things. If so, that is one ginormous straw man. Christmas displays also have the message that the particular beliefs of Christians are true. If you Christians are allowed to say that on government property then we atheists have just as much right to counter by saying, "No, those supernatural things you claim are false". |
It's in the delivery, no? If the Nativity had a message written in front "Repent and believe in the one true Son of God!" then I'd think it was likewise pretty aggressive. If, like I mentioned, you pushed the baby Jesus and he said, "Muhammed sux eggs!" I'd think it was aggressive. That being said, a nativity scene, while being totally Christian, is benign in itself. I think it would be fine to have one up with any other religions that wanted to participate. I even think the atheists should be welcomed to the table, but why do they just spit in everybody's eye? Heck, I found this quote in like two minutes and would think it would be way better for their cause. How about this for a placard:
In rememberance of the WINTER SOLSTACE atheists of the world remind you that
“Religions are many and diverse, but reason and goodness are one” |
Well, I can't disagree with you about the quality of what the Freedom From Religion Foundation chose as the message. I think the Tree of Knowledge in Pennsylvania was a much better idea (although just as maligned). Regardless of the FFRF's lack of style points it is at least an honest message. We atheists think religious beliefs are false. Christianity has popular following and Christian icons are easily recognized. This is not true for atheism, so we just use English instead. There is no law that requires religious speech to be agreeable, otherwise there should be no religious displays on government property in the first place, which is what I actually believe anyway. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 11:30:43 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Fundamentalism in any belief is wrong. This just happens to be a case of atheist fundamentalism. |
You are going to have to give me your definition of fundamentalism before I can disagree with that statement. |
Well, this is a case of context. Fundamentalist behavior that results in pushing an agenda for your own purposes, disregarding any and all other ideas/beliefs. |
OK, I can buy that. :) |
This I don't understand. So, if anyone stands up for themselves and says, "No, you're wrong." Then that person is a fundamentalist?!? Come on. |
Like DrAchoo says, it's in the delivery. I would be considered aethist, I don't really think there is a god or higher power of any kind, but can I say for 100% certainty that what I believe in is 100%, absolutely, irrevocably true?
No.
If I try to, I'm no better than someone telling me that God is 100%, irrevocably real. No better than someone that is willing to blow people up, or shoot a doctor, or hang a gay man from a fence in order to get their message across. Because once I decide that my belief has to be true and that nothing else could be, then yes, I'm a fundamentalist.
That message, beside that nativity scene, is trying to force one version of someone's "truth" on everyone else instead of just trying to share an idea. |
Bologna. That message is a statement of belief just as much as having an idol of the "savior" Jesus is a statement about Christian beliefs. Regarding "fundamentalism", even "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins will readily say that they don't "know" 100% that there is no god, they just believe that there is no good evidence that there is a god and they are almost certain that there are no gods. If you call that fundamentalism then pretty much everybody is a fundamentalists with regard to the Roman Gods, the Toothfairy (Tim2 excluded), and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Comparing the willingness of some of us to say, "No, what you're saying is not true" to terrorism is highly illogical and offensive to me. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 11:35:59 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Bologna. That message is a statement of belief just as much as having an idol of the "savior" Jesus is a statement about Christian beliefs. Regarding "fundamentalism", even "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins will readily say that they don't "know" 100% that there is no god, they just believe that there is no good evidence that there is a god and they are almost certain that there are no gods. If you call that fundamentalism then pretty much everybody is a fundamentalists with regard to the Roman Gods, the Toothfairy (Tim2 excluded), and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Comparing the willingness of some of us to say, "No, what you're saying is not true" to terrorism is highly illogical and offensive to me. |
You are reading so much into what I said that I didn't say that I can hardly even take you seriously anymore.
I was calling the message of the note fundamentalism. Just as I would call a note that said, "God is your Lord the Saviour, repent your sins now!" fundamentalist. A nativity scene does not say that. It merely says, "Here is a story that has been passed down through the years". Any interpretation of it is the person viewing it, and the person viewing it alone. A note like the atheist one leaves nothing to interpretation. If someone had put up a diorama of Cro Magnon man writing on cave walls, then that would be more like what a nativity scene is. Or a scene showing the Minotaur of Crete. Or Santa's damn North Pole Village (which is everywhere as well, and nobody believes in HIM do they?)
So please stop misinterpreting everything for your own ends, aight?
Message edited by author 2008-12-07 23:36:29. |
|
|
|
12/07/2008 11:54:42 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by JMart:
Bologna. That message is a statement of belief just as much as having an idol of the "savior" Jesus is a statement about Christian beliefs. Regarding "fundamentalism", even "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins will readily say that they don't "know" 100% that there is no god, they just believe that there is no good evidence that there is a god and they are almost certain that there are no gods. If you call that fundamentalism then pretty much everybody is a fundamentalists with regard to the Roman Gods, the Toothfairy (Tim2 excluded), and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Comparing the willingness of some of us to say, "No, what you're saying is not true" to terrorism is highly illogical and offensive to me. |
You are reading so much into what I said that I didn't say that I can hardly even take you seriously anymore.
I was calling the message of the note fundamentalism. Just as I would call a note that said, "God is your Lord the Saviour, repent your sins now!" fundamentalist. A nativity scene does not say that. It merely says, "Here is a story that has been passed down through the years". Any interpretation of it is the person viewing it, and the person viewing it alone. A note like the atheist one leaves nothing to interpretation. If someone had put up a diorama of Cro Magnon man writing on cave walls, then that would be more like what a nativity scene is. Or a scene showing the Minotaur of Crete. Or Santa's damn North Pole Village (which is everywhere as well, and nobody believes in HIM do they?)
So please stop misinterpreting everything for your own ends, aight? |
Sorry if I misunderstood, please let me know which part I mis-read:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Like DrAchoo says, it's in the delivery. I would be considered aethist, I don't really think there is a god or higher power of any kind, but can I say for 100% certainty that what I believe in is 100%, absolutely, irrevocably true?
|
To this I pointed out that most atheists agree that they do not have 100% certainty. After all, it is problematic to "prove" a negative such as "there is no purple elephant that appears in your closet after you close the door". That's crazy, but you can't prove it's not true.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If I try to, I'm no better than someone telling me that God is 100%, irrevocably real. No better than someone that is willing to blow people up, or shoot a doctor, or hang a gay man from a fence in order to get their message across. Because once I decide that my belief has to be true and that nothing else could be, then yes, I'm a fundamentalist.
|
This is what pissed me off a bit as an atheist and because I don't paint all fundamentalists as terrorists. There's a huge difference between saying, "I'm sure I'm right in my beliefs" and saying, "I'm willing to become a terrorist for my beliefs". When's the last time a "fundamentalist" atheist became a suicide bomber, shot a doctor, hung a gay man, or did anything at all violent to get the atheist message across?!? That's the part of your words that really upsets me.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
That message, beside that nativity scene, is trying to force one version of someone's "truth" on everyone else instead of just trying to share an idea. |
No one is forced to read the atheist message.
(edited for spelling)
Message edited by author 2008-12-07 23:59:40. |
|
|
|
12/08/2008 12:05:35 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by JMart:
Bologna. That message is a statement of belief just as much as having an idol of the "savior" Jesus is a statement about Christian beliefs. Regarding "fundamentalism", even "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins will readily say that they don't "know" 100% that there is no god, they just believe that there is no good evidence that there is a god and they are almost certain that there are no gods. If you call that fundamentalism then pretty much everybody is a fundamentalists with regard to the Roman Gods, the Toothfairy (Tim2 excluded), and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Comparing the willingness of some of us to say, "No, what you're saying is not true" to terrorism is highly illogical and offensive to me. |
You are reading so much into what I said that I didn't say that I can hardly even take you seriously anymore.
I was calling the message of the note fundamentalism. Just as I would call a note that said, "God is your Lord the Saviour, repent your sins now!" fundamentalist. A nativity scene does not say that. It merely says, "Here is a story that has been passed down through the years". Any interpretation of it is the person viewing it, and the person viewing it alone. A note like the atheist one leaves nothing to interpretation. If someone had put up a diorama of Cro Magnon man writing on cave walls, then that would be more like what a nativity scene is. Or a scene showing the Minotaur of Crete. Or Santa's damn North Pole Village (which is everywhere as well, and nobody believes in HIM do they?)
So please stop misinterpreting everything for your own ends, aight? |
Sorry if I misunderstood, please let me know which part I miss-read:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Like DrAchoo says, it's in the delivery. I would be considered aethist, I don't really think there is a god or higher power of any kind, but can I say for 100% certainty that what I believe in is 100%, absolutely, irrevocably true?
|
To this I pointed out that most atheists agree that they do not have 100% certainty. After all, it is problematic to "prove" a negative such as "there is no purple elephant that appears in your closet after you close the door". That's crazy, but you can't prove it's not true.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
If I try to, I'm no better than someone telling me that God is 100%, irrevocably real. No better than someone that is willing to blow people up, or shoot a doctor, or hang a gay man from a fence in order to get their message across. Because once I decide that my belief has to be true and that nothing else could be, then yes, I'm a fundamentalist.
|
This is what pissed me off a bit as an atheist and because I don't paint all fundamentalists as terrorists. There's a huge difference between saying, "I'm sure I'm right in my beliefs" and saying, "I'm willing to become a terrorist for my beliefs". When's the last time a "fundamentalist" atheist became a suicide bomber, shot a doctor, hung a gay man, or did anything at all violent to get the atheist message across?!? That's the part of your words that really upsets me.
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
That message, beside that nativity scene, is trying to force one version of someone's "truth" on everyone else instead of just trying to share an idea. |
No one is forced to read the atheist message. |
1. I was still referencing the SPECIFIC placard.
2. Examples to make a point. I still don't believe that if you say "You're wrong!" to someone without any concrete evidence behind it that it is much different than people that take it many steps further. I doubt christianity had too many murderers and terrorists in the beginning either. The scary thing is, once a belief system starts down a fundamentalist path, bad things begin to happen.
3. That doesn't make it the right message. |
|
|
|
12/08/2008 12:07:40 AM · #50 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
A note like the atheist one leaves nothing to interpretation. |
Why should it? Must the message be so subtle as to be esoteric? Is it required for it to be even subtler than the scene of the Nativity, which literally depicts the birth of a god?
I don't consider the atheist message dogmatic. It expresses, strongly, a rational position juxtaposed against the strongest, most prevalent religious symbol of irrational belief that this society can offer up. Is it cold? Yes. Does it take people's feelings into account? No. Is it controversial? Certainly. Is it appropriate? I don't have an opinion. But it is not a dogmatic (fundamentalist) statement of belief -- far from it.
The Nativity scene, on the other hand, certainly is. While it's tempting to believe that it's just an innocent abstraction of quaint tradition that alludes to peace and harmony and other lovely sentiments, it's much more than that. In our society, it's an unambiguous dogmatic statement of the acceptance of the literal story of the Nativity, which is, in my view, an irrational fiction better left off government property. People can put it on their front lawns where I can easily avoid it if they like, but it doesn't belong on public causeways. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:58:43 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 11:58:43 AM EDT.
|
