Stargazer Posted January 1, 2012 Posted January 1, 2012 (edited) One of my favorite atheists lashes out at Nativity Scenes -- that is, at Atheists demanding they be removed from public property. Edited January 1, 2012 by Stargazer
Calm Posted January 1, 2012 Posted January 1, 2012 The idea that nativity scenes are intimidating is quite silly.
Bill Hamblin Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 It's the lambs in nativity scenes that really get to me. They're so ... silent!
thesometimesaint Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 I'm obviously not offended or intimidated by Christmas, Kwansa, Hanukkah, Yule, painting yourself blue and dancing naked around a tree, or what have you. Just don't use my tax dollar to put it in the public square.
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 It's the lambs in nativity scenes that really get to me. They're so ... silent!What a coincidence!Since you know a lot of rich guys, let me tell you about this original screen play I wrote.....
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 One of my favorite atheists lashes out at Nativity Scenes -- that is, at Atheists demanding they be removed from public property. How come atheists always look angry even if they are being agreeable and kinda funny?
Bill Hamblin Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 They have a psychological disorder that has recently been recognized by the American Psychological Association. It is call Angry Atheist Speech Syndrome, known as AASS.
LeSellers Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 They have a psychological disorder that has recently been recognized by the American Psychological Association. It is call Angry Atheist Speech Syndrome, known as AASS.Can we assume the reason it took so long to identify, is that most of them suffer from the same condition?Lehi
lachrymolotov Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Did the nativity scene actually happen? Or was it made up later? If you believed it was a lie and that people were trying to perpetuate a lie, would you be justified in not wanting the nativity scene on public display?
selek1 Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 If you believed it was a lie and that people were trying to perpetuate a lie, would you be justified in not wanting the nativity scene on public display?Thank you for admitting (however obliquely) that the kernel of opposition is (in most of these cases) a quest for "Truth", as opposed to truth.The problem with your "principled" position, of course, is that you and yours are so terribly arbitrary in deciding which "truths" to champion and which "lies" to decry.If "exposing lies" were truly your raison d'etre, athiests would be the watch-dogs against government waste, fraud, and abuse, instead of the lapdogs.If "exposing lies" were truly your passion, athiests would be speaking out about the widespread abuse of women and massive instances of pederasty in the Middle East and elsewhere.If "telling the truth" instead of "perpetuating lies" were really the heart and soul (forgive the metaphor) of the athiest movement, then all of their guns would be pointed at the glittering citadel of corruption and turpitude which is Hollywood.If saving people from harmful lies were truly the greatest cause of the atheist movement, then they would be the loudest voices decrying drug and alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, domestic violence, and a host of other social ills- and yet their battle cry is most often, "Hey, if it feels good, do it>'In every substantive instance, atheism (as a movement) is in bed with wasteful and abusive government, silent on the practices of any religion save Christianity, and in gleeful, wanton wallow in the filth and decay of "popular' culture.Of all of the lies which "noble", "principled" athiests could and should be combatting, nativity scenes are beyond doubt or dispute the lowest of low-hanging fruit. 2
Sethbag Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 How come atheists always look angry even if they are being agreeable and kinda funny?Funny, I think Pat Condell looks rather bemused in this video, not angry.
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Did the nativity scene actually happen? Or was it made up later? If you believed it was a lie and that people were trying to perpetuate a lie, would you be justified in not wanting the nativity scene on public display?Dude- Haven't you seen the photographs? Clearly none of these were made up.
mfbukowski Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 Funny, I think Pat Condell looks rather bemused in this video, not angry.Yeah, actually he looks like an angry person who is at the moment bemused.Oh and an interesting point on LDS culture- to me a "frown" is a wrinkled brow like he exhibits, but after speaking to many born LDS, to them a "frown" is a down turned mouth.This is based on years of research, arguing the point with my wife who is of pioneer heritage, while I am a convert. So she should know a Mormon frown when she sees one. I am sure she got plenty as a kid.I think that all comes from "take a frown and turn it upside down", but for normal, non-Mormon, real live fellow Amuricans, a frown is a wrinkled brow.So as usual, I am right.
Sethbag Posted January 3, 2012 Posted January 3, 2012 In every substantive instance, atheism (as a movement) is in bed with wasteful and abusive government, silent on the practices of any religion save Christianity, and in gleeful, wanton wallow in the filth and decay of "popular' culture.There is no concerted atheism movement, in any sense that you probably mean. But how are atheists, however well organized or not, in bed with wasteful and abusive government? And by "silent on the practices of any religion save Christianity", you apparently haven't been paying attention to very many atheists, because most of the "big name" atheists I've seen or heard from in recent years seem more vocal against Islam than anything else. And Richard Dawkins, in his "Root of All Evil" special for British TV pretty much went after all of the Abrahamic religions together.For that matter, watch more of Pat Condell's videos and you'll think "um, nevermind" about that "silent on the practices of any religion save Christianity" bit.Of all of the lies which "noble", "principled" athiests could and should be combatting, nativity scenes are beyond doubt or dispute the lowest of low-hanging fruit.In addition to converting to Conservative/Libertarian hybrids and curing the world of every problem you either see or imagine, should atheists also be required to cure cancer before being allowed to express an opinion on something like a nativity scene on public grounds?I'm personally not too worked up about the nativity scenes. While I do recognize a certain problem with people assuming that our government should represent itself as somehow Christian, or have the government overtly recognize or support various churches or religious positions, I am wary of making a tempest in a teapot. This may make for some inconsistency, where I judge one fight to be worth fighting, while judging others differently, but oh well. I'd probably prefer the nativity scenes not be place on public grounds, but not worked up enough to think it's worth fighting over.
Jaybear Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Strawman alert. Show me one statement from atheist that says that nativity scenes "intimidate" them. The only relevant question is whether the nativity scenes violate the Constitution. A British atheist hardly can be expected to understand what motivates the ACLU to advocate an expansive 1st amendment, anymore than he could understand what motivate the gun right advocates seeking an expansive interpretation of the second amendment.
selek1 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 If you believed it was a lie and that people were trying to perpetuate a lie, would you be justified in not wanting the nativity scene on public display?Equally problematic in your underlying assumption is the fascistic impulse to censor other people's words and ideas (and trample their First Amendment rights) based on your own subjective and myopic assessment of "Truth".The Constitution does not grant veto authority over Freedom of Speech to every crackpot who wanders in and declares something "a lie"By attempting to harass and/or intimidate believers into silence, atheists are not adding to the marketplace of ideas- but are attempting to establish a monopoly of thought- the very essence of totalitarianism.It is far better, more rational, and more conducive to freedom of thought to explain why you think the believers are wrong and misguided than to silence them."Shut Up" is an admission of defeat, rather than a debate tactic or tool to foster dialogue. 3
lachrymolotov Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Hello, selek1. I find it odd that you are so quick to call me fascist. I asked a question. Did I ever suggest that the nativity scene be censored? Nope. If someone wants to put a nativity scene in their yard, I have no problem with that. i have no problem with Christmas trees, crosses on hills, or any other cultural icon that someone wants to nail up because they think it has some significance. Even lies are covered under free speech, to a certain extent.No atheist is trying to establish a monopoly on thought. If anything, the reigning sentiment is to question everything... like asking whether or not the nativity scene so often represented is portraying something that actually happened. If it never actually happened, could you see how some people might perceive it as having someone else's incorrect beliefs shoved down their throat?My understanding is that the manger scenario never happened. Even then, I don't hold any animosity towards these displays. So, go ahead and check yo self.
frankenstein Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Lachry, calling people names who dare not toe the line is almost stauts quo around her, particarly from selek. So while you did not call for censorship your comments did not toe the line selek wants you to tow, you dared pose a reasonable question. Perhaps if you posted more like bill hamblin and ridiculed others then you would be better recieved here.But speaking of oppressive governments which trample rights, history is repleat with examples of self annoited religious governments which oppress others in the name of religion. The Founders of the United States knew this and did their best to keep it from happening. Unfortunately it is Christianity in the United States which has done itself the most harm by forcing itself in to the lives of people whose right it is to not be subjugated by religion. And when people exercise their freedom from religion it is religionist wailing and knashing teeth demanding that the non- religious government by design force religion.Not too long ago a coworker loudly commented that only Christians should be allowed to work the job we have and that it was hypocritical of nonchristians to work for our employer, mind you our job is public and has nothing to do with religion.In short public monies should not used for the promotion of religion. Edited January 4, 2012 by frankenstein
LeSellers Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) Lachry calling people names who dare not tow the line is almost stauts quo around her, particarly from selek. So while you did not call for censorship your comments did not tow the line selek wants you to tow, ... The phrase is "toe the line", as in come up to the line and put your toes on it. "Tow the line" is to drag the rope (or cable), a saying that has no meaning in this kind of context.Also, it took me more than one reading to decide that your were addressing 'Lacry", not telling us that he is the one who calls people names. A comma following his "name" would have made a great deal of difference to understanding and facility of reading.(No charge for the information, it's a public service.)Lehi Edited January 4, 2012 by LeSellers
Kemara Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 No atheist is trying to establish a monopoly on thought. If anything, the reigning sentiment is to question everything... like asking whether or not the nativity scene so often represented is portraying something that actually happened. If it never actually happened, could you see how some people might perceive it as having someone else's incorrect beliefs shoved down their throat?In the spirit of questioning everything, I would ask if the scenario proposed by M-theory is actually true. Unless it can be shown to actually be true then what should we do about these incorrect beliefs (trumpeted as fact by its proponent while at the same time quietly laying escape clauses from the "theory") being shoved down people's throats? Not that I have any animosity toward the proponents of M-theory or the theory itself, in fact I find it fascinating, but is it actually true, did it actually happen, is it actually happening? What to do, what to do.
mfbukowski Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) No atheist is trying to establish a monopoly on thought. If anything, the reigning sentiment is to question everything... like asking whether or not the nativity scene so often represented is portraying something that actually happened. If it never actually happened, could you see how some people might perceive it as having someone else's incorrect beliefs shoved down their throat?If you are seriously questioning everything, I would suggest that you begin with questioning, or at least getting some education, on what "truth" is.Here is a quote from one of your atheist colleagues, Richard Rorty whom I happen to admire quite a lothttp://marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/rorty.htmThe question of whether the pragmatist is right to be so sanguine is the question of whether a culture is imaginable, or desirable, in which no one – or at least no intellectual-believes that we have, deep down inside us, a criterion for telling whether we are in touch with reality or not, when we are in the Truth. This would be a culture in which neither the priests nor the physicists nor the poets nor the Party were thought of as more “rational,” or more “scientific” or “deeper” than one another. No particular portion of culture would be singled out as exemplifying (or signally failing to exemplify) the condition to which the rest aspired. There would be no sense that, beyond the current intra-disciplinary criteria, which, for example, good priests or good physicists obeyed, there were other, transdisciplinary, transcultural, ahistorical criteria, which they also obeyed.For you to come here and spout some naive notion of "truth" and then act in a condescending manner is the height of arrogance. Edited January 4, 2012 by mfbukowski 1
wenglund Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) To me, the notion of questioning everything ought not to be confused with closed or empty mindedness.Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited January 4, 2012 by wenglund
thesometimesaint Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out.
Recommended Posts