• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Things that don't help the reasonable athiests

WTF? The Atheists, to be reasonable, should use a Christmas symbol? This is where you claiming you are part of the reasonable people becomes rather hilarious.

I have to agree fully with this. The atheists shouldn't use a Christmas symbol. It would be like Christians getting the rights to a popular spot for Muslims during Ramadan and erecting an Islamic symbol to be reasonable.
 
Last edited:
i have to agree fully with this. The atheists shouldn't use a christmas symbol. It would be like christians getting the rights to a popular spot for muslims during ramadan and erecting an islamic symbol to be reasonable.

thank you. :)
 
I have to agree fully with this. The atheists shouldn't use a Christmas symbol. It would be like Christians getting the rights to a popular spot for Muslims during Ramadan and erecting an Islamic symbol to be reasonable.
Yes, because celebrating the holidays instead of making a political point(and a piss poor one at that) is soooo unreasonable :rolleyes:
 
lol at christmas tree being christian.

There is actually a group of christians trying to ban it in my town, it's quite odd to say the least.

LOL at you not realizing that for 90% of people in America, a Christmas tree is intrinsically linked with Christmas.

Are Christmas trees inherently Christian? Nope. Do most people associate them with a Christian holiday? Yep.

Of course, how would you have felt about a pagan group having a YULE tree? Would that have been okay? ^.^
 
Yes, because celebrating the holidays instead of making a political point(and a piss poor one at that) is soooo unreasonable :rolleyes:

I can't believe you aren't willing to start celebrating Ramadan. Clearly, you're being unreasonable. :D
 
LOL at you not realizing that for 90% of people in America, a Christmas tree is intrinsically linked with Christmas.
uuhhh YEA. CHRISTMAS, not CHRISTIAN. you are confusing words here.
Are Christmas trees inherently Christian? Nope. Do most people associate them with a pagan holiday? Yep.
fixed.
Of course, how would you have felt about a pagan group having a YULE tree? Would that have been okay? ^.^
I have no idea what a yule tree is, so I wouldn't know. Is it from Harry Potter?
 
I can't believe you aren't willing to start celebrating Ramadan. Clearly, you're being unreasonable. :D
lol I don't personally celebrate ramadan but, I don't care if muslims do. :rolleyes:
 
lol I don't personally celebrate ramadan but, I don't care if muslims do. :rolleyes:

But wait. I thought you said that reasonable people should adopt the celebrations and traditions of faiths that they don't celebrate...i.e., Atheists displaying a CHRISTmas tree. I just assumed that you were going to be similarly reasonable and start celebrating Samhain and Ramadan. After all, that would be the "reasonable" thing to do.
 
Yes, because celebrating the holidays instead of making a political point(and a piss poor one at that) is soooo unreasonable :rolleyes:

I think it would be unreasonable for them to have to conform to something they don't believe in in order to be considered reasonable. If I was an atheist I would think it would be unreasonable for me to put something up that I don't believe in just because for many a certain time of the year is religious/festive. It would be like showing support for something you don't believe in, similarly to my example of Christians placing Muslim symbols up during Ramadan. I agree that what these atheists are doing is spiteful, but I don't think they should compromise and go against their beliefs in order to look reasonable.
 
So, I've seen some athiests on the forum comment on how they feel athiests are often treated poorly when they make it known they're athiests. While listening to the radio today I heard about something going on in a local city up in the DC Metro area that highlights, a bit, why some people...even not extremely staunch religious people...may have a negative view of athiests.

*snip for brevity*

This kind of stuff does not turn anyone away from religion, it doesn't turn anyone on to athiesm, it doesn't promote people to "think" about the notion of religion, it doesn't make people strive for the "seperation of church and state", all it does is turn those that are somewhat in the middle and don't care that much either way to have an increasingly negative view of Athiests, rightly or wrongly.

Sorry, I know this is a bit of a rant, but hearing the news update a few times talking about it just had me shaking my head thinking "what a bunch of jerks"

The people who are most vocal ten to be the least tolerant OR respectful of other people's opinions *REGARDLESS* of what their beliefs are or what they think they know about yours.
This small minority seems "in your face all the time" because they're the loudest - 2 voices can easily trumpted over the 200 that were quiet. If people could try to show respect or tolerance - without the need to trump their opinions or thoughts - then we'd all be better off.

It goes both ways, however . . . my Mom invited me, for years, to talk about my religious beliefs with her - and I always refused. It was obvious I didn't believe what they did: I stopped going to church, I stopped sending in my tithes, I removed myself from their mailing list - and so forth.
For years everyone in my family prodded every chance they had - it was constant, truly annoying. I even received some phone calls from random church members who seemed suddenly interested (likely on the encouragement of my parents) to call me and "see where my soul lays"

The moment I finally (being an adult, 23 - married) actually started to respond in kind to her ususal prodding one night and answer her questions - after just a few sentences of my 'belief explanation' her response was a horribly pungent, "What family did you grow up in?"

It's been very hard for me (as many have seen on this forum) to SHOW respect or tolerance when I don't receive it from people.

HOWEVER - it took me many years to realize there's a defined difference in people *disapproving* of your views - but still being tolerant or respectful at the same time.
(example: most people I talk to at school ARE religious and they know I'm NOT religious but they don't preach to me, prod me like my parents or encourage me to come to church with them. Yet we discuss our thoughts and opinions. At the same time - I don't get bristly or say hurtful or rude things to them, either - which is easier said than done. Apparently I can be one thoughtless mouthy bitch sometimes without even wanting to be).

This "casual approach" is how *most* people are - most people have their beliefs and might talk about them casually in conversation - but that doesn't encroach on being fanatical and "in your face" judgmental (as goes it with my family).

However - it took me a LONG TIME to realize that this is really how things are.
It's very easy to be judgmental and prickly - being kind and in control takes far more thougtht.
 
Last edited:
Of course, how would you have felt about a pagan group having a YULE tree? Would that have been okay? ^.^

That would apparently be illegal according to at least one poster on the thread and probably would be horrible and bad. Then again, I guess technically Christmas should be illegal in and of itself.

Though I don't necessarily agree with Dark that they should've put up a tree or some secular symbol. If they celebrated christmas a secular holiday, then yeah and their only care was to simply replace the nativity scene with something secular...then yeah, that'd make sense. I'd still say its a bit of a dick move though, as its trying to specifically take another spot for no other reason than not wantin them to have it, but at least it'd be slightly less rude since what you do with the spot isn't purposefully thumbing its nose as those that had it and those that'd visit it.

I guess what I'm saying and I'll speak for no one else other than me...there were two tactless actions that put together create a larger one. The first was purposefully gunning for a spot specifically so that another group you dislike that's had it for over a decade and has become a bit of a tradition can't have it. The second was then using said spot to push a political message thumbing its nose at those that previously had it and those that would visit it.

Which is why I said that if the athiests group had just got into town, had no clue about the this group traditionally doing a nativity on the spot, happened to be first in line, and happened to pick that spot to put up their already pre-planned message I'd have little to no problem with it. I still don't quite think its very tactful to use a big area of holiday celebration to push a political message, but its a relatively minor thing.

Its why they did it and then what they did with it and the attitude behind it that all came together to rub me the wrong way.

I wouldn't expect an atheist who got the spot, regardless of how, that doesn't himself celebrate christmas to then up and choose to put up a christmas decoration.
 
Zyphlin, your new example, with religious symbols replacing secular, wouldn't be dickish either. Both aren't IMO the absolute best way to go about it, but not being deferential toward the "other side" in getting something that you have just as much right to get isn't automagically "dickish".
 
Zyph:

Would you have been offended by a Festivus display?

LOL - I put a festivus pole in my front yard.
I celebrate it, indeed - it's great. I send out festivus cards and everything else.

It's fun - because it's actually not a real holiday and people either htink you're psycho, stupid - or into Seinfeld.
 
But wait. I thought you said that reasonable people should adopt the celebrations and traditions of faiths that they don't celebrate...i.e., Atheists displaying a CHRISTmas tree. I just assumed that you were going to be similarly reasonable and start celebrating Samhain and Ramadan. After all, that would be the "reasonable" thing to do.
Nope, wrong again. please, reread, and educate yourself about the "so-called" religious origins of a christmas tree.

Regardless, if I was in a muslim area, I would just put nothing up, because I'd rather not offend them with a sign that says "bomb the terrorists" in a public area.
 
There's a reason that CHRISTmas and CHRISTian both start with CHRIST. Lulz.
Yes, I know, because the catholic church wanted to le-idiots. I don't give a ****. The christmas tree is secular, and doesn't offend anyone, not even the hard-rights because they mis-associate it as christian.
Yule - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I personally think that it would have been a lot funnier, and more clever, for them to have set up a Festivus display...

Festivus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Nope, wrong again. please, reread, and educate yourself about the "so-called" religious origins of a christmas tree.

Regardless, if I was in a muslim area, I would just put nothing up, because I'd rather not offend them with a sign that says "bomb the terrorists" in a public area.

Salt with your wounds, anyone?

You know - I don't recall the origins of Christmas symbolism because I wasn't there. And neither were you.

At some point HOW something started or WHERE it was inspired or taken from actually stops mattering. What DOES matter is the current social, cultural or religious reverence, belief, tradition (or absence of).

Knowing the past and origins of things like the symbolism of the peacock for early Christians is a great way to understanding how religious beliefs develop and change - in order to further understand *what they mean, now" you have to accept that symbols CHANGE - and change with good gusto and often for good reason.

But such knowledge doesn't need to be used as a haughty weapon of arrogance - especially if you don't actually, yourself, have interest in learning about *all* origins of symbols - there's many many more than just the candy cane or the Christmas tree.

I was thoroughly surprised to learn (mainly in my art history class) of all the symbolism used in art in the Middle Ages - the Ox and Ass, a single lit candle, mirrors, colors as allegories, other animals like the dog and snake. . . and so forth.

And symbolism changes depending on culture - bare-breasted images in the US would likely be considered sexual. yet the Minoans considered such sculpted figures merely to be representations of fertility goddesses. Yet that further changes over time as other people imply their own views onto said imagery.

It's evolving - always - and with all due honesty we really don't actually know the origins of many things like the dragon - it's symbolism in some cultures has been immortalized in art but left for us without description.
 
Last edited:
Zyph:

Would you have been offended by a Festivus display?

Less so than what they did, but still think its a dickish move.

Now if they had done the festivus display and got the spot honestly no having any clue what they were moving out from it or the history of the spot...then yeah, wouldn't be offended in the slightest.
 
X being = Placing a display in accordance with an American Tradition for over a decade of years, becoming a traditional spot for a local town.
An American Tradition? Some town puts up a nativity and it becomes an American Tradition? What a crock. And how is “tradition” relevant?
And you then mean protest isn't an american tradition then? Or is it because they are atheist protesters that you don’t recognize that their protest is valuable?

I think tradition is often dumb, ill thought out, mindless, boring, and otherwise something not to intentionally seek out. By extension I’m then a dick because I like to mix things up? Your position is absurd from every angle Zyph, stop defending it.

Y being = Purposefully attempting to get the spot that the other group used for X specifically to remove them and to further your political message, and to replace that display with a political message that doubly pokes at those it disposed of.
Right right. Because purpose X didn't poke at those atheists for years from their perspective. I get it now. It’s tradition to bash atheists, that’s why it’s ok, right? A GREAT ****ing American Tradition right? Presidents do it, world leaders do it, the MAJORITY does it….hooray tradition.

CHRIST on CHRISTmas" would be dicks.
Speaking of christmas, wasn't it a dick move for christianity to commandeer the pagan winter solstice celebration and stick christmas on the title? Absurdity to be sure.

So someone putting up a display, stating to support the troops and wishing them luck in the wars abroad, in town on veterans day for over a decade at the same spot is neutral, an anti-war group going out of their way specifically to take that spot to then put up a banner stating "Embrace Peace, Reject Killers, No More War!" are being dicks.
Sure Zyph, your comparison of putting a sign up that reads “ Reject Killers”, specifically implying the servicemen are both killers and should be rejected, the first not being necessarily true, and the second being a personal attack, is reasonably the same as: “Celebrate our constitutional right of seperation of church and state”

You can’t even be outraged reasonably.

Tommy hasn't been doing it for such a long time that it becomes tradition.
Here we go again with that tradition. I’d argue the opposite. Tommy was being a dick by hogging the PC and passively forming what amounts to a defacto CLAIM on something that IS NOT HIS. Get it?
Buy some god damn land and put up the god damn nativity. Who cares. Just don’t get bent when someone takes their legal, appropriate, turn in the public square.

Seriously, you're analogy does nothing and proves nothing but the fact you didn't even bother to actually read the thread.
You keep replying to posts in this thread by claiming people didn’t read your post, or the thread, what are you doing? It’s a weak debate tactic, and it’s not true.
 
Last edited:
Less so than what they did, but still think its a dickish move.
Now if they had done the festivus display and got the spot honestly no having any clue what they were moving out from it or the history of the spot...then yeah, wouldn't be offended in the slightest.
OK, so now we have:

1. Repeatedly hogging the public spot - not dickish.
2. A different group beats them in line to take the spot but doesn't know what is normally in that spot - not dickish
3. A different group beats them in line to take the spot, and happens to also know what is normally in that spot - dickish?

So what if a Muslim who just moved there and saw it, and was inspired by the natvity, and thought it would be culturally enriching to display their traditional winter celebration stuff on that lawn the following year and waited in line then displayed it?
 
Last edited:
An American Tradition? Some town puts up a nativity and it becomes an American Tradition? What a crock. And how is “tradition” relevant?
And you then mean protest isn't an american tradition then? Or is it because they are atheist protesters that you don’t recognize that their protest is valuable?

No, celebrating Christmas is an American tradition, so much so that its recognized as an actual federal holiday.

Speaking of christmas, wasn't it a dick move for christianity to commandeer the pagan winter solstice celebration and stick christmas on the title? Absurdity to be sure.

And here you basically show you're not here to honestly discuss anything. You're here to be a militant atheist with a bone to pick. I'll happily discuss this with any person being reasonable in this thread...me and catz had a back and forth being on opposite sides of this...but I'm not endulging you so you have a platform to derail my thread and turn it into another bully pulpit piece condemning the evil evil christians.
 
You know - it's been a while since I've read up on the origins of our traditional Christmas - so I decided to do so.

I was immediately humored by this gem:
Christmas gift giving was banned by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages due to its suspected pagan origins. It was later rationalized by the Church on the basis that it associated St. Nicholas with Christmas, and that gifts of frankincense and myrrh were given to the infant Jesus by the Biblical Magi.
Christmas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Fine, be all rational. The fact remains that every year, we get to fight the war on Christmas, and I've seen twenty million threads on this subject.

The only ones fighting wars on Christmas are those culture warriors who do so. Everybody else is either opening presents, going to church, or eating Chinese food and just chilling out while doing any combination of those three.
 
Back
Top Bottom