16
   

Equal rights for Atheists?

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 09:47 am
@Always Eleven to him,
Atheism is not a religious belief.

0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 10:17 am
@ebrown p,
Forget the "Roman census" part of that story, that's obviously bullshit, and for two reasons. The first is that we know when Augustus conducted the census or a lustrum, because he left a record to that effect, and the dates don't match up for any of proposed dates for the alleged birth of the putative Jesus. The second is that in a census or a lustrum, a count was made of Roman citizens, and neither the goofy carpenter Joseph, or his knocked-up teen-aged unwed Mary were Roman citizens. The Romans didn't give a rat's ass if they lived or died, never mind counting them.

The objection about winter is meaningless, because the claim about everyone returning to the place of their birth is obvious bullshit, too. You didn't need everyone to return to the place of their birth in order to conduct a census of the population of Roman citizens in the Empire (about 7,000,000 people in the reign of Augustus) and the logistics of such an enterprise would be staggering in our times, never mind 2000 years ago.

The entire nativity story, like so much in the rest of the so-called testaments is so much horseshit.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 10:24 am
@Foxfyre,
The clueless Fox wrote:
The idea is to be inclusive of all who wish to observe a commonly shared tradition or event or holiday. It does not matter that everybody in the community be a part of it so long as all in the community are provided opportunity to commemorate their own thing at the proper time or season should they desire to do so.


Which, of course, means that these corporate atheists have as much right to celebrate the solstice along the side of the goofy christian superstitions as the Jews do to celebrate Chanukah.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:26 am
@Thomas,
Quote:
These displays are there because you, the people, have decided, through your elected officials, that you want them to be.

That's an interesting way to look at it. But it's not exactly accurate.

The elected officials are there specifically to do a particular job, but approving religious symbolism for display in public places isn't part of that job. And in a larger sense, those officials are there to uphold the laws of the land, including the constitution (not the least).

So I could argue that those officials are being negligent in their duty to defend the constitution.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:27 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
The entire nativity story, like so much in the rest of the so-called testaments is so much horseshit.

Precisely. An historic fantasy (of epic proportions).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:31 am
@rosborne979,
But look at how long this "show" has been sold and bought? I would dare say, it's going to go on for many more generations...
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:39 am
@Setanta,
As an atheist, I was rolling on the floor laughing at this story as for some reason I found it funny.

In any case it is passed the time for the rational members of society(atheists) to speak out when the irrational(religious) nuts put their views out into the public square.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:41 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
But look at how long this "show" has been sold and bought? I would dare say, it's going to go on for many more generations...

Christianity is a very powerful meme. It offers ultimate reward versus ultimate punishment. It's built on Faith instead of Reason, so it requires no validation or proof of concept. And its followers are enjoined to spread it wherever they go (preferably to the young).
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:44 am
@ebrown p,
Why in the hell would you move whole populations around when travel of even a few miles was hard to take a census in any case no matter what time of year it happen to had been.

One more large hole in the Jesus fairy tale.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:46 am
@rosborne979,
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The entire nativity story, like so much in the rest of the so-called testaments is so much horseshit.

Precisely. An historic fantasy (of epic proportions).


Myths were never literal truth. At least the Christian believed in something, had a shared story to hold them together as they toiled at life.

what do modern westerners have, a shared belief in shopping? a shared belief in the idea that everyone should be able to do what ever they want? And you put down the Christians? They were much more wise than you.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:47 am
bookmark

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:50 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
The elected officials are there specifically to do a particular job, but approving religious symbolism for display in public places isn't part of that job.

Show me where your mayor's job description says it's part of his job to get the people's trash removed. Show me where the governor's job description says it's his job to build and run museums. My point is, it's for voters to decide the specifics of what is or isn't in their officials' job descriptions. Don't like mayors who allow religious displays on public property? Fine. Vote for somebody else.

rosborne979 wrote:
those officials are there to uphold the laws of the land, including the constitution (not the least)

Sure they are. So, when cities allow Christians to celebrate Christmas on public property, they also have to allow atheists to celebrate Newton day, and Jews to celebrate Hanuka. Your "ban them all" approach is by no means the only one consistent with the constitution. And to me, it's less attractive than other constitutional approaches.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 11:54 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye, You probably missed the obvious; the great majority in the US claim christianity to be "their" religion/belief; in essence what "westerners" have and share.

Quote:
According to the CIA,[6] the following is the order of religious preferences in the United States:

* Christian: (78.5%)
o Protestant (51.3%)
o Roman Catholic (23.9%)
o Mormon (1.7%)
o other Christian (1.6%)
* unaffiliated (12.1%)
* none (4%)
* other or unspecified (2.5%)
* Jewish (1.7%)
* Buddhist (0.7%)
* Muslim (0.6%)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 12:25 pm
@BillRM,
I personally object to the notion of anyone, including these alleged "atheists" being able to put their message up on public property--but if anyone gets to do it, then everyone gets to do it. People like Fox are a prime example of just how pernicious religion is in the public life of the United States, as she calls for an exclusive display of the dominant religion in a public place, and really just doesn't get it with regard to the establishment clause.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 12:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Myths were never literal truth. At least the Christian believed in something, had a shared story to hold them together as they toiled at life.


Ah yes . . . a shared story with which to support a brutal, violent, unjust society. It is no accident that copies of scripture were not available to the general population. Established religion did not want the common people to know how scripture actually reads. With the rise of the Protestants, and the proliferation of copies of scripture, these new breed christians became far more doctrinaire, and far less tolerant of divergent theological opinion that the Roman Catholics had been. People on a chain gang have something to hold them together, too.

Quote:
what do modern westerners have, a shared belief in shopping? a shared belief in the idea that everyone should be able to do what ever they want? And you put down the Christians? They were much more wise than you.


What basis do you have for your a priori assumption that people need something to hold them together? What holds you together with your fellows? A belief in the right to **** little girls whenever you feel like it?

It's really rich to see the likes of you defend the social value of organized religion. Go rape your wife, and leave the grown-ups to discuss a serious subject.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 12:59 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
It is no accident that copies of scripture were not available to the general population.
For most of the Christain period very few people had the ability to read, all known stories were passed verbally.

Quote:
With the rise of the Protestants, and the proliferation of copies of scripture, these new breed christians became far more doctrinaire, and far less tolerant of divergent theological opinion that the Roman Catholics had been. People on a chain gang have something to hold them together, too.


the splintering of the church....is that a cause or is it effect, did the church splinter because it had grown weak, or did it become weak as the center fell apart? I don't think that we know.

Quote:
What basis do you have for your a priori assumption that people need something to hold them together? What holds you together with your fellows? A belief in the right to **** little girls whenever you feel like it?

It's really rich to see the likes of you defend the social value of organized religion. Go rape your wife, and leave the grown-ups to discuss a serious subject

I know that collectives need some type of shared experience to glue them together because I am not a compete idiot. Notice how when you run out of argument you turn to personal slander? I did.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 06:00 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
For most of the Christain period very few people had the ability to read, all known stories were passed verbally.


You just make this **** up as you go along, dontcha, Rollo?

Quote:
the splintering of the church....is that a cause or is it effect, did the church splinter because it had grown weak, or did it become weak as the center fell apart? I don't think that we know.


I'm sure you don't know. You could try educating yourself, but you'd have to understand a lot of ecclesiastic history. Start with Avignon Papacy, then proceed to the Western Schism. While you're working on that, look up the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade, the Waldensians, and Jan Hus and the Hussites, for a more balanced view of continuing schism and the gradual fragmentation of ecclesiastic authority. When you've gotten as far as the Hussites, you're within a century of Martin Luther. Jan Hus was condemned by the Council of Constance, which was attempting to heal the rift in the Church which had lead to the Papal Schism. So you'll want to read all about the Council of Constance. But you'll also want to read all about simony, because that was how three popes financed their political and military campaigns against one another. You want to then read about the Spaniard, Roderic de Borja y Borja, known to the Italians as Rodrigo de Borgia, and who became Pope Alexander VI. He was depraved even by the lax standards of the Schism and the Renaissance. Which will lead you back to simony, and in particular, to the selling of indulgences and to Johann Tetzel.

Which will finally lead you to Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

Just because you don't know a thing (a common enough circumstance, especially when it comes to history), doesn't mean that "we" don't know it.

Quote:
I know that collectives need some type of shared experience to glue them together because I am not a compete idiot.


No, i'd say that you are as yet incomplete . . . you are so far, only a novice idiot. What glues people together is common cause, and the social contract, the one being necessary to the other. It doesn't require organized religion, and in fact, many successful societies in world history have prospered without established religion, and even with religious tolerance. So, once again, what you "know" and what you can substantiate with sound historical evidence are not consonant.

Quote:
Notice how when you run out of argument you turn to personal slander? I did.


I didn't run out of arguments, i asked you a question. You haven't answered that question satisfactorily. The personal insults are just gravy at the side of a solid, sustaining meal, Rapist Boy.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 06:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye wrote:
Quote:
For most of the Christain period very few people had the ability to read, all known stories were passed verbally.


Do you have evidence about your claim? I tried to research it on Google, but failed. Maybe you can direct us to the right resource(s).
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 06:31 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:

You just make this **** up as you go along, dontcha, Rollo

http://books.google.com/books?id=zlrxbYml2ioC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=ancient+world+%22literacy+rate%22&source=web&ots=3OqCKWRoSN&sig=GpkBrFJvjJHPWFa_5JFPKoSQVPI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result
page 23
You run your mouth real good, but do you have any evidence that I am wrong??

Re your ramblings about the church: fact is till the reformation it held together, that fact that before then there where arguments serves to prove that the Church was vital. It obviously does not register with you that the fact there there were these squabbles and that the church held together in spite of them proves the power of the glue that held these people together. Now when people don't agree they insult each other and then walk away. When people where committed to a common cause they fought, and tried to work it out, and even if they could not work it out they still worked together as best they could.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2008 06:34 pm
It's not rambling--the fact that you don't understand something is not evidence that no one else does. The events and persons and sects to which i have referred all form a part of the sequence of cracks in the facade of ecclesiastic authority which eventually resulted in the 95 Theses of Martin Luther. It is hardly surprising that you know nothing about it.

When you make an extraordinary claim, you bear the responsibility of proving your thesis. No one is obliged to disprove it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/28/2022 at 04:50:42