# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  American Atheists Target Christmas in Billboard

## FrankRep

> The American Atheists have targeted the Christmas holiday in a billboard they purchased on Route 495 outside of the Lincoln Tunnel in Bergen, New Jersey, which depicts the Nativity scene, and reads, You KNOW its a Myth. This season, celebrate reason. by Raven Clabough



*American Atheists Target Christmas in Billboard*


Raven Clabough | The New American 
29 November 2010

----------


## Jeremy

Looks like it will be as affective as a 9/11 truther billboard.

----------


## Chester Copperpot

I noticed the little atomic looking logo in the bottom of the picture..  Maybe somebody should tell them that the atomic theory of matter is just that - a theory, and might be a myth as well.

----------


## 98Tokay

I can't decide whether I enjoy the commercialization or secularization of Christmas more.

Either way, the OP just seems to be looking for excuses to get his panties up in a twist.

----------


## nate895

See/hear Dave Silverman, the atheist quoted in the article, self-destruct:

http://www.aomin.org/catalog/product...roducts_id=996

----------


## Clairvoyant

> Looks like it will be as affective as a 9/11 truther billboard.


9/11 truth and atheism are both on the rise.

----------


## reillym

> I noticed the little atomic looking logo in the bottom of the picture..  Maybe somebody should tell them that the atomic theory of matter is just that - a theory, and might be a myth as well.


Yeah, just like the theory of gravity. 

Now go jump off a bridge, it's just a theory! 

Remedial thinking is great.

----------


## Seraphim

I find this to be incredibly comical.

Whether the story of Jesus is real or not is beside the point- the billboard is HILARIOUS.

----------


## sevin

It's a little hypocritical of Christians to complain about this. There are still "Blah blah blah -- God" billboards everywhere.

----------


## Dr.3D

> It's a little hypocritical of Christians to complain about this. There are still "Blah blah blah -- God" billboards everywhere.


Do they say Atheists are idiots on them as well?

----------


## Matt Collins

I don't think it should be illegal, but it is rude.

----------


## Seraphim

> Do they say Atheists are idiots on them as well?


Where does it say Christians are idiots?

----------


## nate895

> Where does it say Christians are idiots?


It implies that they are irrational and ignorant.

----------


## Seraphim

> It implies that they are irrational and ignorant.


And yet you often do the same about atheists when you make arguments for Christianity.

DISCLAIMER: I am not an atheist.

----------


## idirtify

> American Atheists Target Christmas in Billboard


frank,
what do you think should be done about this?

----------


## malkusm

Ha, I saw this billboard just yesterday when coming back into the city. My first thought was, "Hmm, there are probably more effective ways to get their point across...."

----------


## RM918

> And yet you often do the same about atheists when you make arguments for Christianity.
> 
> DISCLAIMER: I am not an atheist.


But their billboards don't, which was what you were arguing against.

I look at that billboard and I think, "Wow, what a bunch of smug pricks." I'd think the exact same if I saw a billboard saying, "Evolution: Monkeys? _Really?_ - Christianity, not believing we were stupid monkeys since forever."

And, actually, that atomic symbol is what you put on your gravestone if you're a REALLY big atheist...like a religious atheist. I guess? For veterans, at least:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...es_and_markers

----------


## oyarde

It does not look like an effective billboard to me , Are they saying the birth of Jesus is a myth ? That is what is depicted in the picture . Waste of money , looks like .

----------


## dannno

I'm agnostic, but I think the vast majority of Christian religions teach a perverted idol worshiping, pro-establishment version of religion that I find pretty sickening. 

If this billboard wakes up the people who are being brainwashed into religion simply because they are following what is socially acceptable, and this helps them feel that their non-belief in their particular bull$#@! mainstream brand of Christian religion is socially acceptable, then I think the ad can and very well may be successful.

----------


## Dr.3D

> But their billboards don't, which was what you were arguing against.
> 
> I look at that billboard and I think, "Wow, what a bunch of smug pricks." I'd think the exact same if I saw a billboard saying, "Evolution: Monkeys? _Really?_ - Christianity, not believing we were stupid monkeys since forever."
> 
> And, actually, that atomic symbol is what you put on your gravestone if you're a REALLY big atheist...like a religious atheist. I guess? For veterans, at least:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...es_and_markers


Three orbits and only one electron?   Humm.......

----------


## Bman

Ra approves this billboard.

----------


## oyarde

> I'm agnostic, but I think the vast majority of Christian religions teach a perverted idol worshiping, pro-establishment version of religion that I find pretty sickening. 
> 
> If this billboard wakes up the people who are being brainwashed into religion simply because they are following what is socially acceptable, and this helps them feel that their non-belief in their particular bull$#@! mainstream brand of Christian religion is socially acceptable, then I think the ad can and very well may be successful.


I wonder if most Christians believe because it is socially acceptable ? I doubt that , but what do I know .  You lost me on the idol worship ?

----------


## Seraphim

> *I wonder if most Christians believe because it is socially acceptable ? I doubt that , but what do I know* .  You lost me on the idol worship ?


I would consider a bit of objective consideration on that one.

If you are born into a world where a very large number of the people base their entire world view around X belief, as a child seeking approval you will almost always do what is expected of you to be accepted. 

If mommy and daddy teach you X story or belief system, you are almost definately going to believe it and accept it. If most people's mommy and daddy teach them that same concept, how many children have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the waves of peers who follow what their parents teach them (and socially castrate those who do not follow that world view)? NOT MANY.

In fact, most beliefs, PARTICULARLY RELIGION have become so powerful BECAUSE OF socialization and wanting societal and peer acceptance.

Religion just so happens to properly poke at your emotions and need to "explain it all and give life purpose".

This occurs when you are a child and teenager. The rationalizations to defend those culturally bred retardations are left to the stupid adults.

I'm not attacking religion per se, but merely pointing out that social acceptance is a VERY powerful tool in getting people to follow religion.

Here's a modern example: GLOBAL WARMING.

Most people find it difficult to publicly denounce global warming. It's like the socially taboo thing to do. Yet, I sometimes get in such a converstation with people.

I experimented. I started beggining the conversations by aggresively denouncing anthro global warming. The usual reaction is WHAT IN THE HELL ARE YOU SAYING? Then I follow up with logic and facts and they usually leave the conversation saying HMMM YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT! Boom, one person who from that day forward can comb through global warming information with a more complete view of things. WHO WOULDA THOUGHT THAT THE SUN WOULD BE THE DRIVING FACTOR BEHIND GLOBAL WARMING?!??!


Whether you like or not MOST Christians, Jews and Muslims are not so because they first believe their religion to be true. They believe what they believe because they have been socialized to believe since non believers are chastized and mocked. Not SOME believers, MOST believers. This of course strengthens the believer into...DEEPER BELIEF. By that I really mean more ludicrous rationalizations...but whatever.

I will never fault a human being for believing in "God" or a creator, or a higher power- in fact I think it is silly not too. I will however almost always fault religious followers and people who believe in nonsensical fairy tales holy book divine creation and walking on water. Thank you for abusing the minds of your own children and forever hampering their cognitive abilities. CONGRADULATIONS.

Believing in "God" is smart. Trying to explain what "God" is or wants for/from us, is stupid. Believing in scriptural explanations of God and/or God's word is tantamount to full blown mental retardation. One can be very smart and yet be so damn retarted at the same time.

K I'm done.

----------


## dannno

> I would consider a bit of objective consideration on that one.



lol ya, most Christians were raised in Christian societies and most Muslims were raised in Muslim societies.. other than that, there are very little inherent differences between the two groups.

----------


## oyarde

> I would consider a bit of objective consideration on that one.
> 
> If you are born into a world where a very large number of the people base their entire world view around X belief, as a child seeking approval you will almost always do what is expected of you to be accepted. 
> 
> If mommy and daddy teach you X story or belief system, you are almost definately going to believe it and accept it. If most people's mommy and daddy teach them that same concept, how many children have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the waves of peers who follow what their parents teach them (and socially castrate those who do not follow that world view)? NOT MANY.
> 
> In fact, most beliefs, PARTICULARLY RELIGION have become so powerful BECAUSE OF socialization and wanting societal and peer acceptance.
> 
> Religion just so happens to properly poke at your emotions and need to "explain it all and give life purpose".
> ...


I denounce man made global warming !!!!

----------


## oyarde

> Ra approves this billboard.


Where is Ra residing these days ?

----------


## oyarde

Danno is in California . I would think there , on the Coast , many things would be just as , if not more , socially acceptable as Christianity .

----------


## oyarde

> lol ya, most Christians were raised in Christian societies and most Muslims were raised in Muslim societies.. other than that, there are very little inherent differences between the two groups.


Many Christians , Muslims , Hindus , Jews etc were also raised in areas where there were other religions .

----------


## idirtify

> I would consider a bit of objective consideration on that one.
> 
> If you are born into a world where a very large number of the people base their entire world view around X belief, as a child seeking approval you will almost always do what is expected of you to be accepted. 
> 
> If mommy and daddy teach you X story or belief system, you are almost definately going to believe it and accept it. If most people's mommy and daddy teach them that same concept, how many children have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the waves of peers who follow what their parents teach them (and socially castrate those who do not follow that world view)? NOT MANY.
> 
> In fact, most beliefs, PARTICULARLY RELIGION have become so powerful BECAUSE OF socialization and wanting societal and peer acceptance.
> 
> Religion just so happens to properly poke at your emotions and need to "explain it all and give life purpose".
> ...


The obvious question from anyone so self-extracted from such social programming is: Why is it smart to believe in god? Besides the lack of evidence, isnt the concept of god the central element of the brainwashing process you decry?

----------


## Seraphim

> Many Christians , Muslims , Hindus , Jews etc were also raised in areas where there were other religions .


It's largely a family issue. They were raised and spent almost all their time with their family. Inherent bias towards whatever momma and papa are. I'm not saying that's wrong- that's how it should be. But that does not make it perfect and it certainly applies to religion and belief in religion.

----------


## Theocrat

> *American Atheists Target Christmas in Billboard*
> 
> 
> Raven Clabough | The New American 
> 29 November 2010


[lol] In terms of their own worldview, "atheists" can't even give an objective reason for Reason. Is it made of matter? Is it just the random processes of electrons firing in the brain? "Atheists" don't even know what the nature of Reason is. For all their intellectual jargon about "following reason, not religion," "atheists'" explanations make Reason unreasonable. After all, why should we use Reason in an "atheist" universe?

----------


## idirtify

Wishing FrankRep would enlighten us as to the purpose of his thread, if he isnt going to participate. 

Once again, Frank, what do you think should be done about the billboard? You obviously disagree with it.

----------


## low preference guy

Theo, out of curiosity, are you a priest or planning to become one?

----------


## low preference guy

> Wishing FrankRep would enlighten us as to the purpose of his thread, if he isnt going to participate. 
> 
> Once again, Frank, what do you think should be done about the billboard? You obviously disagree with it.


My guess would be he just wants some members to feel outraged.

----------


## idirtify

> In terms of their own worldview, "atheists" can't even give an objective reason for Reason. Is it made of matter? Is it just the random processes of electrons firing in the brain? "Atheists" don't even know what the nature of Reason is. For all their intellectual jargon about "following reason, not religion," "atheists'" explanations make Reason unreasonable. After all, why should we use Reason in an "atheist" universe?


re the nature of "reason", this seems like a pretty good definition:

Reason: a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Your turn.

----------


## dannno

> Danno is in California . I would think there , on the Coast , many things would be just as , if not more , socially acceptable as Christianity .


Hence there are less Christians raised here.. they don't feel the need to be Christian in order to 'fit-in'. In fact, it's often the very opposite.

----------


## oyarde

Everybody has the abilty to reason .

----------


## axiomata

> Three orbits and only one electron?   Humm.......


No kidding.  For a group so high an mighty about science I find it hilarious that they use an outdated Rutherford model of the atom for their logo.

Electrons don't orbit the nucleus.  The exist in a quantum mechanical state within certain predefined orbitals.  Talk about mythology.

----------


## Seraphim

> The obvious question from anyone so self-extracted from such social programming is: Why is it “smart” to believe in god? Besides the lack of evidence, *isn’t the concept of “god” the central element of the brainwashing process you decry*?


No the central element is the explanation of: What God is and what HE wants from you.

Religions were incepted in times of RADICAL male dominance when woman were nothing but serfs for men. Therefore, God has been culturally prescribde as a man. That is BIG red flag. $#@! off God is a man. God CANNOT logically be a man. A single creator cannot be a a sex that is a ying to a yang. That is blatant intelletual dishonesty. Perhaps ONE creator is a male. If that is the case I garuFUCKINtee you he has a female partner and there is more than one creator. I'm not saying that is the case (which is my point, my human mind cannot explain existence)- I'm just saying that religious accounts of God and creation are assanine and ARROGANT to the Nth degree. 

It is NOT the concept of God that is basis of religious indoctrination. That is a dangerous and widely believed misconception. It is the IMAGE of what/who God is and HIS intent and rules for humanity that are wildly dangerous (more so the ridiculous interpretations and changes to "The Books"). Which were, by the way, written and devised by HUMANS. See: history and reality.

----------


## idirtify

> My guess would be he just wants some members to feel outraged.


Well lets see if I can provoke him to revisit his own creation and elaborate (hes definitely online and reading):

Hey Frank, why put a reference to violence (target) in your thread title? Do you think disagreeing with Christianity is similar to attacking people?

----------


## Maximus

I find it ineffective because most people will see:

A:  The magi and a manger scene and not read the billboard fully
B: "Celebrate the reason for the season" is already a Christian catch-phrase, and it'd be easy to mix the two words... rendering it a pro-Christian billboard

Also, believing that Jesus of Nazareth was not born is a very unreasonable conclusion.  It is very clear that he existed.  Whether or not he was God can be debated.

----------


## dannno

> $#@! off God is a man. God CANNOT logically be a man. A single creator cannot be a a sex that is a ying to a yang. That is blatant intelletual dishonesty. Perhaps ONE creator is a male. If that is the case I garuFUCKINtee you he has a female partner and there is more than one creator. .


Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother, but they don't talk about her because she is too holy to speak of (but Heavenly Father is not)

----------


## oyarde

> I find it ineffective because most people will see:
> 
> A:  The magi and a manger scene and not read the billboard fully
> B: "Celebrate the reason for the season" is already a Christian catch-phrase, and it'd be easy to mix the two words... rendering it a pro-Christian billboard
> 
> Also, believing that Jesus of Nazareth was not born is a very unreasonable conclusion.  It is very clear that he existed.  Whether or not he was God can be debated.


I pretty much thought the same , driving by , it will look like a Christmas card and if you did read it , appearances are that Jesus is a myth which is incorrect . Ineffective .

----------


## idirtify

> No the central element is the explanation of: What God is and what HE wants from you.
> 
> Religions were incepted in times of RADICAL male dominance when woman were nothing but serfs for men. Therefore, God has been culturally prescribde as a man. That is BIG red flag. $#@! off God is a man. God CANNOT logically be a man. A single creator cannot be a a sex that is a ying to a yang. That is blatant intelletual dishonesty. Perhaps ONE creator is a male. If that is the case I garuFUCKINtee you he has a female partner and there is more than one creator. I'm not saying that is the case (which is my point, my human mind cannot explain existence)- I'm just saying that religious accounts of God and creation are assanine and ARROGANT to the Nth degree. 
> 
> It is NOT the concept of God that is basis of religious indoctrination. That is a dangerous and widely believed misconception. It is the IMAGE of what/who God is and HIS intent and rules for humanity that are wildly dangerous (more so the ridiculous interpretations and changes to "The Books"). Which were, by the way, written and devised by HUMANS. See: history and reality.


You are splitting hairs. What else is the concept of God, other than what he is and what he wants?

Even though god is pretty much synonymous with religion, it appears you are trying to separate religious accounts of God from YOUR concept of god. 

While it may be an improvement to reject all traditional accounts, I would not call it smart to retain the main element for absolutely no good reason.

I mean if religious accounts of God and creation are assanine and ARROGANT, how would ANY account (including yours) be any better?

----------


## Seraphim

> You are splitting hairs. What else is the “concept of God”, other than what “he is and what he wants”?
> 
> Even though “god” is pretty much synonymous with “religion”, it appears you are trying to separate “religious accounts of God” from YOUR concept of god. 
> 
> While it may be an improvement to reject all traditional accounts, I would not call it “smart” to retain the main element for absolutely no good reason.
> 
> I mean if “religious accounts of God and creation are assanine and ARROGANT”, how would ANY account (including yours) be any better?


Because I do not claim that I know what God is. I have no explanation. NONE. Could I let my imagination go wild and come up with plausible explanations? YUP. Would I write a book and claim that I KNOW what God is. NOPE. 

That's the difference. I willingly say I DO NOT KNOW WHAT GOD IS OR WHAT GOD EXPECTS OF US, IF ANYTHING AT ALL.

My reasoning for "keeping" the thought that there is SOMETHING that created this all, is that I cannot conclude that this all sort of just happened. 

There IS an explanation. I just don't claim to know what it is. Furthermore, I do not let archaic power struggles define existence and creation for me.

----------


## Baptist

Didn't read this thread, but throw me in with the "Christians against Xmas" crowd.  No Santa.  No presents.  No shopping.  No family.  No baby Jesus.  No manger.  I don't do pagan Christmas.

----------


## idirtify

> Because I do not claim that I know what God is. I have no explanation. NONE. Could I let my imagination go wild and come up with plausible explanations? YUP. Would I write a book and claim that I KNOW what God is. NOPE. 
> 
> That's the difference. I willingly say I DO NOT KNOW WHAT GOD IS OR WHAT GOD EXPECTS OF US, IF ANYTHING AT ALL.
> 
> My reasoning for "keeping" the thought that there is SOMETHING that created this all, is that I cannot conclude that this all sort of just happened. 
> 
> There IS an explanation. I just don't claim to know what it is. Furthermore, I do not let archaic power struggles define existence and creation for me.


So it is smart to believe in a god, but only one with no definition? Hmm. Im not clear on how one can believe in a word/thing which has no definition. But while I would not necessarily call that smart, its technically not any different than believing in no god. Seriously, I think you might want to click on the link in the OP and read about those who claim not to be atheists, but actually are.

----------


## oyarde

> Didn't read this thread, but throw me in with the "Christians against Xmas" crowd.  No Santa.  No presents.  No shopping.  No family.  No baby Jesus.  No manger.  I don't do pagan Christmas.


I am not giving up my pagan cultures yuel log and tree from the old world  . Why no family ??

----------


## FrankRep

> Didn't read this thread, but throw me in with the "Christians against Xmas" crowd.  No Santa.  No presents.  No shopping.  No family.  No baby Jesus.  No manger.  I don't do pagan Christmas.


I view Christmas as a Western Cultural practice. I enjoy celebrating with friends and family.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Didn't read this thread, but throw me in with the "Christians against Xmas" crowd.  No Santa.  No presents.  No shopping.  No family.  No baby Jesus.  No manger.  I don't do pagan Christmas.


You and me both brother.
Not to mention the materialism of this pagan holiday.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> In his appearance on Fox News, Silverman explained that the billboard has two aims. The first is to target closet atheists  those who participate in Christian activities while remaining unconvinced in their faith.
> 
> He continues, The other part of the billboard is to call Christians out on their own history. Christmas is not the first nor the fifth nor the tenth holiday that places a god in the winter solstice. Many religions have placed their gods to be born on the winter solstice. Christianity is not unique in this subject and people need to understand that while Christmas is a Christian holiday, the season belongs to everyone.
> 
> Silverman indicates that Christians were specifically targeted in this advertisement because Christians are the primary offenders in this case, as they insist upon saying Merry Christmas as opposed to Happy Holidays or other innocuous, non-Christian expressions.


Why does he care?  What's the point?  Why spend money on this...

----------


## BlackTerrel

> It's a little hypocritical of Christians to complain about this. There are still "Blah blah blah -- God" billboards everywhere.


I'm not really offended.  I mainly don't get it and think this dude is a jackass.

I get why Christians want to save others.  I don't get why an atheist cares if someone chooses to believe in a religion.

I'm a Christian, but if you want to be an atheist fine.  But isn't the whole point of an atheist that you don't believe it and don't care what others believe.  Kind of like Adam Carolla says "I'm an atheist - I don't give a crap".

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I'm agnostic, but I think the vast majority of Christian religions teach a perverted idol worshiping, pro-establishment version of religion that I find pretty sickening. 
> 
> If this billboard wakes up the people who are being brainwashed into religion simply because they are following what is socially acceptable, and this helps them feel that their non-belief in their particular bull$#@! mainstream brand of Christian religion is socially acceptable, then I think the ad can and very well may be successful.


Not really going to happen.

I don't think anyone sees a billboard and says "you know what - Christianty - not for me".

Just makes the $#@!s who put it up feel smug and good about themselves.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> I'm not really offended.  I mainly don't get it and think this dude is a jackass.


I don't see a reason to think anyone is a jackass, unless you're somewhat offended.

I think the billboard will cause some people to take the time to question their beliefs, and it would be my guess that this is the goal of whoever funded it.  They're promoting reason. Anything that gets people questioning their reality is fine by me.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> I don't see a reason to think anyone is a jackass, unless you're somewhat offended.
> 
> I think the billboard will cause some people to take the time to question their beliefs, and it would be my guess that this is the goal of whoever funded it.  They're promoting reason. Anything that gets people questioning their reality is fine by me.


Why?  Why would an atheist care if someone has a belief that is different than theirs?

I imagine 99% of atheists just live their life and mind their business like everyone else.  The problem is I don't see those people and I don't even know they're atheists.

It's always this 1% smug $#@!s who are on the news and posting billboards and talking $#@! and thinking they are better than everyone else.  Although I believe it all comes from insecurity.  If you know you are right why do you need to convince me?

----------


## idirtify

> Why?  Why would an atheist care if someone has a belief that is different than theirs?
> 
> I imagine 99% of atheists just live their life and mind their business like everyone else.  The problem is I don't see those people and I don't even know they're atheists.
> 
> It's always this 1% smug $#@!s who are on the news and posting billboards and talking $#@! and thinking they are better than everyone else.  Although I believe it all comes from insecurity.  If you know you are right why do you need to convince me?


You argue that atheists should not disagree with Christian belief, and that if they do, they are smug $#@!s/jackassestalking $#@! and thinking they are better than everyone else and showing insecurity. Im curious; do you insult everyone who disagrees with anothers belief, or do you just reserve this special aggressive treatment for those who disagree with YOURS? Either way, Im even more curious how you think you can remain consistent and credible while posting the numerous disagreements that you do here on LF?

Readers:
It seems the fog of religion has once again clouded reasonable perspective. Yet again, here is an example of an advocate of religion initiating aggression. With each one, the pattern becomes clearer.

----------


## idirtify

> If you know you are right why do you need to convince me?


This is amazing. You have literally questioned the two most fundamental elements of this discussion forum; sharing information and making disagreements.

----------


## Liberty4life

christmas is a bogus Christian holiday anyway, telling your kids something you know is a lie? santa claus? satans claws my friends the winter solstice is about the rebirth of the sun god mithra, how do you think old timey people sold it to the european pagans, "oh mithra? thats really Jesus, see the halo it represents the sun, wanna join?"

----------


## Liberty4life

modern christianity is so far off base, the whole church establishment takes its cues from the catholic church, even the names of days and months are set by the catholic church, all romanic. they worshiped many gods, old testament names and holidays are set aside, its all to decieve people and take them away from YHVH.
even the atheist are caught in it. 
please be kind to me idirtify

----------


## Tinnuhana

Hello to all the JW bloggers...if you are there. I am talking with a friend who is a Japanese JW and would like some insight as to why you support the liberty movement. 
On another slightly-related topic: I think the fish emblems on cars are pretty funny. There's the traditional Christian Ichthus, then there's the Darwin fish with the legs, then there's the Christian fish swallowing the Darwin fish. My favorite, though, is the Gefilte fish. Nice sense of humor.

----------


## idirtify

> modern christianity is so far off base, the whole church establishment takes its cues from the catholic church, even the names of days and months are set by the catholic church, all romanic. they worshiped many gods, old testament names and holidays are set aside, its all to decieve people and take them away from YHVH.
> even the atheist are caught in it. 
> please be kind to me idirtify


You are right. Modern religions are mostly amalgams of earlier traditions. But since that dilution process extends back into countless centuries worth of invasions and occupations and conquests and mixing of cultures, any original message that was ever there was lost long ago (well, at least deeply hidden). So I will kindly ask you: How are atheist caught in it?

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> Do they say Atheists are idiots on them as well?


Some say non-believers will burn.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Some say non-believers will burn.


Why should the non-believers care about that?   If they really don't believe, then they should also think nothing is going to happen to them and they are not going to burn.  It shouldn't bother them in the least.

----------


## TonySutton

> Why should the non-believers care about that?   If they really don't believe, then they should also think nothing is going to happen to them and they are not going to burn.  It shouldn't bother them in the least.


The same could be said about believers with regards to this billboard.  It shouldn't bother them in the least.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The same could be said about believers with regards to this billboard.  It shouldn't bother them in the least.


Doesn't bother me.   It just reflects badly on those who composed it.

----------


## Flash

> Didn't read this thread, but throw me in with the "Christians against Xmas" crowd.  No Santa.  No presents.  No shopping.  No family.  No baby Jesus.  No manger.  I don't do pagan Christmas.


Don't forget it was a celebration of life before the Christians took over the holiday. Hence the christmas trees. I'm sure there wasn't a giant Walmart in ancient Germania. It was the Christians who took over the holiday and made it about giving gifts to people. I guess that is more important than say donating to charities or whatnot. 





> Also, believing that Jesus of Nazareth was not born is a very unreasonable conclusion. It is very clear that he existed. Whether or not he was God can be debated.


Actually there's little evidence, if any, that Jesus existed. 
http://mwillett.org/atheism/jesusmyth.htm

----------


## Dr.3D

> Don't forget it was a celebration of life before the Christians took over the holiday. Hence the christmas trees. I'm sure there wasn't a giant Walmart in ancient Germania. It was the Christians who took over the holiday and made it about giving gifts to people. I guess that is more important than say donating to charities or whatnot. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there's little evidence, if any, that Jesus existed at all. 
> http://mwillett.org/atheism/jesusmyth.htm


Don't be so sure it was Christians who took over that pagan holiday.

----------


## Maximus

No one is saying that Christmas is actually Jesus' birthday.  Christmas is a celebration of the Incarnation of Christ and his birth into our world.

To those of you saying that Christmas was orginally a "pagan" holiday, who cares?  Why can't good from something like that?  Isn't it CS Lewis who called many pre-Christian traditions "happy dreams"?

The Church selected the date because of its cosmological significance, it is the day that you begin to see the days become longer again.  Christ is the light of the world.  It makes sense to celebrate his birth on the day the light begins to again overcome darkness.  It ties in perfectly with the message and mission that Christ brought to earth.  It should be a day of great feasting and rejoicing.  Why otherwise?

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to celebrate the fact that God was born into our world while you profess to believe in Him.  If you don't celebrate Christmas than you shouldn't celebrate your own birthday (pagans did that as well).  At least the Jehovahs Witnesses are consistent.

----------


## Liberty4life

> No one is saying that Christmas is actually Jesus' birthday.  Christmas is a celebration of the Incarnation of Christ and his birth into our world.
> 
> To those of you saying that Christmas was orginally a "pagan" holiday, who cares?  Why can't good from something like that?  Isn't it CS Lewis who called many pre-Christian traditions "happy dreams"?
> 
> The Church selected the date because of its cosmological significance, it is the day that you begin to see the days become longer again.  Christ is the light of the world.  It makes sense to celebrate his birth on the day the light begins to again overcome darkness.  It ties in perfectly with the message and mission that Christ brought to earth.  It should be a day of great feasting and rejoicing.  Why otherwise?
> 
> I don't understand why you wouldn't want to celebrate the fact that God was born into our world while you profess to believe in Him.  If you don't celebrate Christmas than you shouldn't celebrate your own birthday (pagans did that as well).  At least the Jehovahs Witnesses are consistent.


With all due respect sir, trying to get people to believe Jesus was born on this day is an insult to God.  Doing this "for the children" is even more insulting, you really think God approves of this?

----------


## nate895

> With all due respect sir, trying to get people to believe Jesus was born on this day is an insult to God.  Doing this "for the children" is even more insulting, you really think God approves of this?


I don't remember reading in the Bible anything about "Thou must get Jesus' brithday correct, lest one perish in everlasting fire." 

Isn't it just a bit extreme to say that those who say that Dec. 25th is Jesus' birthday are insulting God? That isn't even what he is saying.

----------


## Maximus

> With all due respect sir, trying to get people to believe Jesus was born on this day is an insult to God.  Doing this "for the children" is even more insulting, you really think God approves of this?


Did you not read my very first sentence?

Again, how is celebrating Jesus' birthday wrong?  Why do you celebrate your birthday if celebrating the fact that Jesus was born is wrong?

----------


## Liberty4life

I stand corrected, please excuse my enthusiasm.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Did you not read my very first sentence?
> 
> Again, how is celebrating Jesus' birthday wrong?  Why do you celebrate your birthday if celebrating the fact that Jesus was born is wrong?


Using a pagan date is what is wrong with celebrating Jesus' birthday when it is celebrated.

I've been accused of saying too much about this subject in the past so I'll just point to a link.
http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooc.html

I'll quote just a little from that site.



> *Can Christ be Honored by Christmas?*
> The most common justification that one will hear regarding Christmas is that people have replaced old pagan customs and intents by asserting that they are now focusing on Christ. I have heard many say that they are honoring Christ in their Christmas-keeping. The problem is that God does not say this is acceptable to Him! Actually, He plainly commands against it! Keeping Christmas dishonors Christ! He considers everything about it to be an abomination! We will soon see why.
> 
> Christ said, But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men (Matt. 15:9). Christmas is not a command of Godit is a tradition of men. Christ continued, Full well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition (Mark 7:9). Every year, throughout the world, on December 25th, hundreds of millions do just that!
> 
> We will see that God plainly commands, Follow not the way of the heathen. But most people do not fear God, and He allows them to make their own decisions. Human beings are free moral agentsfree to obey or disobey God! But woe to those who ignore the plain Word of God!

----------


## Maximus

> Using a pagan date is what is wrong with celebrating Jesus' birthday when it is celebrated.
> 
> I've been accused of saying too much about this subject in the past so I'll just point to a link.
> http://www.thercg.org/books/ttooc.html
> 
> I'll quote just a little from that site.


Pagans celebrated many things throughout the year, many dates would conflict with pagan holidays.  Maybe you were born on a pagan holiday, surely you are doing wrong by celebrating your birth on the same day that pagans had a holiday.  

Why are you saying that we cannot celebrate the fact that God became man?  Isn't this something that we should scream from the rooftops?  What is wrong in setting aside a day to commemorate this?  Was Jesus not born?  Should we not acknowledge it?  

Is it not Christian doctrine that the Word became flesh?  It helps people to understand that Jesus really was man, who humbled himself and was born in a manger, visited by shepherds.  Doesn't looking at a manger scene help people understand the story of the Nativity?  Why would that be a bad thing?

----------


## Dr.3D

> Pagans celebrated many things throughout the year, many dates would conflict with pagan holidays.  Maybe you were born on a pagan holiday, surely you are doing wrong by celebrating your birth on the same day that pagans had a holiday.  
> 
> Why are you saying that we cannot celebrate the fact that God became man?  Isn't this something that we should scream from the rooftops?  What is wrong in setting aside a day to commemorate this?  Was Jesus not born?  Should we not acknowledge it?  
> 
> Is it not Christian doctrine that the Word became flesh?  It helps people to understand that Jesus really was man, who humbled himself and was born in a manger, visited by shepherds.  Doesn't looking at a manger scene help people understand the story of the Nativity?  Why would that be a bad thing?


Do whatever you want.

I don't celebrate my birthday either.

----------


## Maximus

Well at least you're consistent.

----------


## MelissaWV

I celebrate whenever friends and family have time off that coincides with my time off, so that I can spend uninterrupted time with them.

Christmas provides a focus to some of that time, and I enjoy thinking about the birth of a Savior and the miracles one encounters in life.  This is along the same lines as how I enjoy Thanksgiving, reflecting on the things I am genuinely grateful for, and thinking of ways I can change those things which are making me unhappy or are otherwise not serving to better my life.  Do I think little naked suspiciously pale baby Jesus was birthed in a manger on Christmas?  Well, would it have been Christmas Eve or Christmas Day?  It was night, after all, but we celebrate on 12/25.  History disagrees with the notion of a December birthdate as well.  Does any of this really change my aforementioned reasons for enjoying Christmas?  Of course not.

* * * 

idirtify...

Where do I start?  FrankRep posts articles, and he posted this one.  Bobby posts, too, and so does Matt Collins and also Anti Federalist.  There are several forum members that simply post and move on.  It's News & Discussion, and without the News being dropped off in the forums... there'd be very little Discussion.  He is unlikely to answer, no matter how hopping mad you get, or how you choose to read intent into his posting this article.  

Also, BlackTerrel did not say all atheists are anything.  He was talking about the proverbial 1%, the very vocal minority, that seem to pop up and make demands of the rest of the population.  I would agree with him that zealotry of that sort solves nothing on any side of the fence.  It's akin to a Christian wanting every school to teach the Christmas Story as fact.  This isn't what the original article was about, though.  

The article was about a billboard, and it seems to have served its purpose since people are talking about it.  I don't find it offensive at all.  I can think of numerous things a billboard could show in order to be incredibly offensive to Christians around Christmas... and this isn't one of them.  When it comes down to it, the billboard was negotiated between businesses and put up.  Even within the constructs of current "decency" laws and the like, it isn't crossing any lines.  It just mildly offends some people.

His point about Christianity seeming to have more motivation does bring to light the disturbing fact that, to some, atheism becomes its own religion... its own crusade.  Instead of wanting everyone to believe in one's particular deity, it's wanting everyone to believe that there is no deity and that only science and reason can be trusted.  I fail to see this as noble.  Examine motivation, for a moment, and you'll see that (in theory, anyhow) a Christian trying quietly to convert me might think they are doing so to save my soul.  An atheist trying to get me to renounce my religion is doing so... for what?  To make me less stupid?  To make my holidays more commercialized?  Yank hope and faith from someone in order to leave them with no alternative?  I can see, then, how BlackTerrel's point could be valid.  Maybe.

I'm inclined to think that no one trying to "convert" me is doing an absolutely altruistic thing.

----------


## idirtify

> Where do I start?  FrankRep posts articles, and he posted this one.  Bobby posts, too, and so does Matt Collins and also Anti Federalist.  There are several forum members that simply post and move on.  It's News & Discussion, and without the News being dropped off in the forums... there'd be very little Discussion.  He is unlikely to answer, no matter how hopping mad you get, or how you choose to read intent into his posting this article.


“Hopping mad”? No. I’m actually enjoying dangling in front of FR the fact that until he explains his disagreement, he really has none. I mean come on; the idea that a billboard can “target” (as in “shoot” or “harm” or “attack”) something is pretty funny. It’s just an advertisement based on a disagreement. But since it disagrees with a popular religion, it somehow magically becomes something overtly harmful. Yeah right. It’s just more religious strawmanning in order to justify initiating aggression. I mean go ahead and enjoy your holidays; that billboard is hurting nothing.




> Also, BlackTerrel did not say all atheists are anything.


Where did I claim he did? 




> He was talking about the proverbial 1%, the very vocal minority, that seem to pop up and make demands of the rest of the population.  I would agree with him that zealotry of that sort solves nothing on any side of the fence.  It's akin to a Christian wanting every school to teach the Christmas Story as fact.  This isn't what the original article was about, though.


I think BT would do a better job of defending his posts. BUT HE LEFT TOO (there's your hint )




> His point about Christianity seeming to have more motivation does bring to light the disturbing fact that, to some, atheism becomes its own religion


Either defend what he really posted, or give it up. Or maybe you too would like to try to claim that the basic act of stating an opinion and making a disagreement is a “religion”. 




> I fail to see this as noble.  Examine motivation, for a moment, and you'll see that (in theory, anyhow) a Christian trying quietly to convert me might think they are doing so to save my soul.  An atheist trying to get me to renounce my religion is doing so... for what?  To make me less stupid?  To make my holidays more commercialized?  Yank hope and faith from someone in order to leave them with no alternative?  I can see, then, how BlackTerrel's point could be valid.  Maybe.
> 
> I'm inclined to think that no one trying to "convert" me is doing an absolutely altruistic thing.


Regarding Christian evangelists’ ALTRUISTIC/NOBLE INTENTIONS: Do I have to repeat the VERY OLD bit of wisdom about roads to hell paved with such? And as far as the intent behind ANY disagreement on LF (including ones against theism), need there be any more than education and information exchange?

----------


## Andrew-Austin

> His point about Christianity seeming to have more motivation does bring to light the disturbing fact that, to some, atheism becomes its own religion... its own crusade. Instead of wanting everyone to believe in one's particular deity, it's wanting everyone to believe that there is no deity and that only science and reason can be trusted. I fail to see this as noble. Examine motivation, for a moment, and you'll see that (in theory, anyhow) a Christian trying quietly to convert me might think they are doing so to save my soul. An atheist trying to get me to renounce my religion is doing so... for what? To make me less stupid? To make my holidays more commercialized? Yank hope and faith from someone in order to leave them with no alternative? I can see, then, how BlackTerrel's point could be valid. Maybe.


Do you think religiosity, or religion in general, has a net effect upon this world which can be considered very negative?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> You argue that atheists should not disagree with Christian belief, and that if they do, they are smug $#@!s/jackassestalking $#@! and thinking they are better than everyone else and showing insecurity. Im curious; do you insult everyone who disagrees with anothers belief, or do you just reserve this special aggressive treatment for those who disagree with YOURS? Either way, Im even more curious how you think you can remain consistent and credible while posting the numerous disagreements that you do here on LF?


I don't say that anyone who disagrees with me is an $#@!.  I question why an atheist would want to spend time/money/effort on a billboard to deny a Christian his belief.  Why would they care that much?




> Readers:
> It seems the fog of religion has once again clouded reasonable perspective. Yet again, here is an example of an advocate of religion initiating aggression. With each one, the pattern becomes clearer.


What aggression?  $#@! can do whatever he wants - I can call him an $#@!.

----------


## idirtify

> I don't say that anyone who disagrees with me is an $#@!.  I question why an atheist would want to spend time/money/effort on a billboard to deny a Christian his belief.  Why would they care that much?
> 
> 
> 
> What aggression?  $#@! can do whatever he wants - I can call him an $#@!.
> 
> sig line:
> Ron Paul: "For those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do."


Right; you only call $#@! to those who disagree with YOUR RELIGION. Thats called inconsistent - As is questioning why an atheist would WANT to disagree. As is claiming such a disagreement is denying anyone anything. As is not understanding that name-calling anyone $#@! is AGGRESSIVE posting. But the crescendo of your inconsistency is held until the end where you flaunt your perceived right to name-call $#@!, immediately followed by your sig line confessing that Jesus Christ is your personal Savior. With such an obvious hypocritical incongruity, I must thank-you for emphasizing the pattern of religious aggression that I have been pointing out for some time.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Right; you only call $#@! to those who disagree with YOUR RELIGION. Thats called inconsistent - As is questioning why an atheist would WANT to disagree. As is claiming such a disagreement is denying anyone anything. As is not understanding that name-calling anyone $#@! is AGGRESSIVE posting. But the crescendo of your inconsistency is held until the end where you flaunt your perceived right to name-call $#@!, immediately followed by your sig line confessing that Jesus Christ is your personal Savior. With such an obvious hypocritical incongruity, I must thank-you for emphasizing the pattern of religious aggression that I have been pointing out for some time.


I had responded far more eloquently last night, at which point I was informed politely by the computer that the site was undergoing software upgrades.

The post you are referring to talks about $#@! behavior, and is specific about what that behavior entails.  It doesn't say that the criteria is disagreement with religion.

The most aggressive posts I see in this thread... are yours.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The most aggressive posts I see in this thread... are yours.


We must be reading different threads...

----------


## MelissaWV

> We must be reading different threads...


Earlier there was a delightful implication that a poster "not being in the thread anymore" (after a few hours) was a sign of victory.  There are myriad mischaracterizations, and a seemingly deliberate effort to "call people out" rather than discuss the subject at hand.  

I will grant that these things are unlikely to rub everyone the wrong way.

Anyhow, it's a billboard.  Some people reached an agreement with the owner and posted their image.  I can think of some genuinely offensive things they could have gone with, but they went with a perfectly unoffensive image of the nativity story with some text.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Right; you only call $#@! to those who disagree with YOUR RELIGION. Thats called inconsistent - As is questioning why an atheist would WANT to disagree. As is claiming such a disagreement is denying anyone anything. As is not understanding that name-calling anyone $#@! is AGGRESSIVE posting. But the crescendo of your inconsistency is held until the end where you flaunt your perceived right to name-call $#@!, immediately followed by your sig line confessing that Jesus Christ is your personal Savior. With such an obvious hypocritical incongruity, I must thank-you for emphasizing the pattern of religious aggression that I have been pointing out for some time.


You're all over today with your anti-Christian BS.  Read my signature line and think about it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> You're all over today with your anti-Christian BS.  Read my signature line and think about it.


Guess he didn't get the part about Ron Paul saying that.

----------


## idirtify

> The post you are referring to talks about $#@! behavior, and is specific about what that behavior entails.  It doesn't say that the criteria is disagreement with religion.


Of course it doesnt CALL it disagreement, but thats all it actually is. 




> The most aggressive posts I see in this thread... are yours.


Then we apparently define aggression very differently.

----------


## idirtify

> Earlier there was a delightful implication that a poster "not being in the thread anymore" (after a few hours) was a sign of victory.  There are myriad mischaracterizations, and a seemingly deliberate effort to "call people out" rather than discuss the subject at hand.


If its aggressive to imply that exiting is a sign a poster cannot support his disagreement, then I confess guilt.




> Anyhow, it's a billboard.  Some people reached an agreement with the owner and posted their image.  I can think of some genuinely offensive things they could have gone with, but they went with a perfectly unoffensive image of the nativity story with some text.


Upon that we agree.

----------


## idirtify

> You're all over today with your anti-Christian BS.  Read my signature line and think about it.
> 
> sig line -
> Ron Paul: "For those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do."


Speaking of all over, there you go again with your profane hostility. Is calling people $#@!s and my disagreements bull$#@! things your Personal Savior Jesus Christ told you to do?

Onward Christian Aggression, right?

----------


## idirtify

> Guess he didn't get the part about Ron Paul saying that.


Of course I did. That makes it even more inconsistent. Youll rarely (never?) hear RP name-calling or insulting or confusing the message with the person.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Speaking of all over, there you go again with your profane hostility. Is calling people $#@!s and my disagreements bull$#@! things your Personal Savior Jesus Christ told you to do?
> 
> Onward Christian Aggression, right?


I am not hostile to anyone.  I do not care if this guy wants to put up a billboard.  I think he's an idiot.

You are the one that is all over the map criticizing "Christians" for everything under the sun.

----------


## Flirple

I like it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Right; you only call $#@! to those who disagree with YOUR RELIGION. Thats called inconsistent - As is questioning why an atheist would WANT to disagree. As is claiming such a disagreement is denying anyone anything. As is not understanding that name-calling anyone $#@! is AGGRESSIVE posting. But the crescendo of your inconsistency is held until the end where you flaunt your perceived right to name-call $#@!, immediately followed by your sig line confessing that Jesus Christ is *your* personal Savior. With such an obvious hypocritical incongruity, I must thank-you for emphasizing the pattern of religious aggression that I have been pointing out for some time.





> Of course I did. That makes it even more inconsistent. Youll rarely (never?) hear RP name-calling or insulting or confusing the message with the person.


Bull$#@!!  If that was the case, you wouldn't have said *"your"* in your previous statement.  I've had enough of this stupidity....

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's a little hypocritical of Christians to complain about this. There are still "Blah blah blah -- God" billboards everywhere.


How is that hypocritical?

I don't recall ever seeing a billboard put up by Christians talking about how full of $#@! atheists are.

Note:  Guys, can't you see that if you keep on with this incessant Christian-bashing, all you are doing is ensuring that the vast majority of Americans will want nothing to do with you or any other ideas that you have?  In fact, every time I read yet another thread full of this nonsense, it makes me want to distance myself from people who do not seem to care one iota about other peoples' liberty if those people happen to be Christians.  

If you think bashing Christians is helping Ron Paul, you are very wrong.

----------


## idirtify

> I am not hostile to anyone.  I do not care if this guy wants to put up a billboard.  I think he's an idiot.
> 
> You are the one that is all over the map criticizing "Christians" for everything under the sun.


1) You cant credibly deny hostility in a first sentence, and then call a guy an idiot in a third sentence. 

2) You cant credibly claim that disagreeing with Christianity is the same as criticizing Christians for everything under the sun.

----------


## idirtify

> Bull$#@!!  If that was the case, you wouldn't have said *"your"* in your previous statement.  I've had enough of this stupidity....


Yet another defender of religion resorting to a profane expletive. 

I will continue to make examples of those who resort to such hostile tactics in the name of religion.

(I used “your” because BT agrees with the RP quote.)

----------


## Dr.3D

> Yet another defender of religion resorting to a profane expletive. 
> 
> I will continue to make examples of those who resort to such hostile tactics in the name of religion.
> 
> (I used your because BT agrees with the RP quote.)


And just what is profane about anything I said?
There is nothing in Christianity that says I can't use the word bull$#@!.  I can call bull$#@! when I see it.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> How is that hypocritical?
> 
> I don't recall ever seeing a billboard put up by Christians talking about how full of $#@! atheists are.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=270778

----------


## idirtify

> And just what is profane about anything I said?
> There is nothing in Christianity that says I can't use the word bull$#@!.  I can call bull$#@! when I see it.


Bull$#@! is not profane? That is your claim??

----------


## Dr.3D

> Bull$#@! is not profane? That is your claim??


Is there anything in the Bible that says I am prohibited from saying that word?

----------


## CCTelander

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=270778



Touche!

----------


## Maximus

> Is there anything in the Bible that says I am prohibited from saying that word?


It does talk about loving your neighbor as yourself.  Loving your enemies, etc.

Your point is absolutely ridiculous.  The Bible doesn't say that I can't call people dip $#@!s either, does that mean that's okay?

----------


## Dr.3D

> It does talk about loving your neighbor as yourself.  Loving your enemies, etc.
> 
> Your point is absolutely ridiculous.  The Bible doesn't say that I can't call people dip $#@!s either, does that mean that's okay?


Think again.
I didn't call anybody anything.  I just said bull$#@!.

----------


## Flash

> His point about Christianity seeming to have more motivation does bring to light the disturbing fact that, to some, atheism becomes its own religion... its own crusade. Instead of wanting everyone to believe in one's particular deity, it's wanting everyone to believe that there is no deity and that only science and reason can be trusted. I fail to see this as noble. Examine motivation, for a moment, and you'll see that (in theory, anyhow) a Christian trying quietly to convert me might think they are doing so to save my soul. *An atheist trying to get me to renounce my religion is doing so... for what?*


If the atheist believes it's healthier for the individual to have no religion, then I can understand what motivates them. I'm more disturbed at the Christians in this thread implying  a billboard will make them question their faith. If this is indeed the case, then perhaps it's time for them to re-think things.

----------


## idirtify

> I am not hostile to anyone.  I do not care if this guy wants to put up a billboard.  I think he's an idiot.
> 
> You are the one that is all over the map criticizing "Christians" for everything under the sun.


You either:
1)	have no concept of the difference between message and person or disagreement and insult, or;
2)	do not care about your credibility.

For how else could you persist in name-calling and describing my disagreements as “criticisms of Christians”?

Do you not know about this fundamental distinction, which is core to the concept of individual liberty? Or do you simply not care about being credible?

edit: OOPS, I already replied to that before.

----------


## idirtify

> How is that hypocritical?
> 
> I don't recall ever seeing a billboard put up by Christians talking about how full of $#@! atheists are.
> 
> Note:  Guys, can't you see that if you keep on with this incessant Christian-bashing, all you are doing is ensuring that the vast majority of Americans will want nothing to do with you or any other ideas that you have?  In fact, every time I read yet another thread full of this nonsense, it makes me want to distance myself from people who do not seem to care one iota about other peoples' liberty if those people happen to be Christians.  
> 
> If you think bashing Christians is helping Ron Paul, you are very wrong.


If you really think Christian-bashing is incessant in this thread, surely you can quote some examples. Are you sure you didnt mean, Christianity bashing? You DO know the difference, dont you?

----------


## idirtify

> Is there anything in the Bible that says I am prohibited from saying that word?


Well I dont know. Maybe Im wrong then. You tell me: Does your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ approve of casting vulgar profane expletives at opponents? Or maybe since I am disagreeing with Christian belief, your god makes special allowances for you to use more hostility. Does he make special exceptions like that? Onward Christian Aggression, right?

----------


## dannno



----------


## MelissaWV

> If its aggressive to imply that exiting is a sign a poster cannot support his disagreement, then I confess guilt.
> 
> ...


The guy was "gone" for literal hours.  It's an internet forum.  I was gone for far longer than he was non-responsive today... does this mean I cannot support any arguments I made in my posts last night?  There are more important things than keeping up with the forums, even if you happen to somehow be 100% in the right.

I exit threads all the time lol I've never made a post I couldn't support or argue into the ground, though.  Usually I just realize the other person will never magically think my points valid, so I use my time otherwise.

That's probably what will happen with this thread, too

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well I dont know. Maybe Im wrong then. You tell me: Does your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ approve of casting vulgar profane expletives at opponents? Or maybe since I am disagreeing with Christian belief, your god makes special allowances for you to use more hostility. Does he make special exceptions like that? Onward Christian Aggression, right?


Who the hell is being hostile?

----------


## nate895

> 


The Roman Empire:

Pics or it didn't happen.

----------


## dannno

> The Roman Empire:
> 
> Pics or it didn't happen.

----------


## nate895

> 


Well, if that's you standard for "Pics."

Bible:

----------


## heavenlyboy34



----------


## nate895

> 


And how does that prove the Roman Empire existed? 

I agree that those ruins, at least very probably, are related to the Roman Empire. I'm just saying that the mere fact of their existence isn't proof of the Roman Empire. We have just as much evidence for the existence of Biblical locations as we do for the Roman Empire. The reason why we associate any ruins with particular historical events or places is because of the fact that we already trust the written historical record to at least reflect the truth to a broad degree.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And how does that prove the Roman Empire existed? 
> 
> I agree that those ruins, at least very probably, are related to the Roman Empire. I'm just saying that the mere fact of their existence isn't proof of the Roman Empire. We have just as much evidence for the existence of Biblical locations as we do for the Roman Empire. The reason why we associate any ruins with particular historical events or places is because of the fact that we already trust the written historical record to at least reflect the truth to a broad degree.


Okay, so artifacts don't impress you.  What constitutes "proof" to you?

----------


## oyarde

> 


Does not look like much of an Empire now . Guess that is par for the course for Empires though . I lived in Italy once for a short time . Amused myself by seeing all the sites .

----------


## nate895

> Okay, so artifacts don't impress you.  What constitutes "proof" to you?


It's not that they don't impress me. It's that they don't impress me without the proper context. Within the context of the historical record (which, like it or not, includes the historical portions of the Holy Bible), they make sense and can be placed and expand our knowledge of that period of history. For example, if we found the ruins of a city in the heart of Africa somewhere where we have no record of there ever being a city and no historical records contained inside the city, the we would still have very little knowledge. All we would know is that at some point in the past, people probably lived there. 

My main point was that the standard of proof assumed by danno in that little graphic would lead to a complete lack of historical knowledge. We can only know history and historical artifacts by their associated written records.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It's not that they don't impress me. It's that they don't impress me without the proper context. Within the context of the historical record (which, like it or not, includes the historical portions of the Holy Bible), they make sense and can be placed and expand our knowledge of that period of history. For example, if we found the ruins of a city in the heart of Africa somewhere where we have no record of there ever being a city and no historical records contained inside the city, the we would still have very little knowledge. All we would know is that at some point in the past, people probably lived there. 
> 
> My main point was that the standard of proof assumed by danno in that little graphic would lead to a complete lack of historical knowledge. We can only know history and historical artifacts by their associated written records.


oic.  Yeah, that's how I see it as well.  Thanks for expounding on that.

----------


## idirtify

> The guy was "gone" for literal hours.  It's an internet forum.  I was gone for far longer than he was non-responsive today... does this mean I cannot support any arguments I made in my posts last night?  There are more important things than keeping up with the forums, even if you happen to somehow be 100% in the right.
> 
> I exit threads all the time lol I've never made a post I couldn't support or argue into the ground, though.  Usually I just realize the other person will never magically think my points valid, so I use my time otherwise.
> 
> That's probably what will happen with this thread, too


OK, youre right; BT was only gone for about 12 hours. I thought it was longer. But anyway, my mistake does not add up to aggression. Maybe inaccuracy or jumping to a conclusion, but not aggression.

----------


## EndDaFed

> I noticed the little atomic looking logo in the bottom of the picture..  Maybe somebody should tell them that the atomic theory of matter is just that - a theory, and might be a myth as well.


The fact that you have working computer is proof enough that atomic theory is working. You couldn't build CPU's without it.

----------


## Dr.3D

> The fact that you have working computer is proof enough that atomic theory is working. You couldn't build CPU's without it.


Plenty of theories work, it's just that they have to come up with a theory as to why things work the way they do.  So, they postulate as to how it might work and go from there.

Gravity works... but they still don't know exactly what makes it work.

----------


## reillym

> The Roman Empire:
> 
> Pics or it didn't happen.


Are you seriously attempting to disprove the existence of the Roman Empire?

Really kid?

What they hell do they teach in schools now a days? Was the Holocaust a myth too? Christ.

----------


## Theocrat

> re the nature of "reason", this seems like a pretty good definition:
> 
> Reason: a mental faculty (or ability) found in humans, that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises. In other words, it is amongst other things the means by which rational beings propose specific reasons, or explanations of cause and effect.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason
> 
> Your turn.


In terms of a Christian outlook of the world, that definition makes sense because it touches on an immaterial aspect of human beings, namely, that we have souls which utilize the intellect to make rational connections to come to conclusions about the world.

However, in terms of an "atheistic" outlook on the world, where there are no invisible entities like concepts, souls, or God, that definition is nonsense. There can be no such thing as "mental faculties," "assumptions and premises," or even "cause and effect" in an "atheistic" worldview because each of those things are immaterial in nature. You can't use the five senses to ascertain those entities, after all, but "Atheism" tells us that we only need our five senses to come to truth.

So, "atheists" cannot agree with the definition you provided unless they use another worldview to make sense of the nature of reason, for reason is not made of matter. Of course, that worldview is Christianity, and Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of reason because reason cannot justify itself (which would be a logical fallacy of reification). It comes from God and reflects His thinking.

Philosophically speaking, "Atheism" cannot justify reason in any way, whether it appeals to _a priori_ assumptions or empirical methods based on experience. At its foundation, "Atheism" starts from irrational premises and tries to argue to rational conclusions. The American "Atheists" are just being arbitrary when they tell people to "celebrate Reason." Their own worldview makes reason anything from eating hot fudge sundaes to using laws of logic. There is no objective way, in an "atheist" universe, to determine what is the best utilization of reason because it makes it all relative, in the eye of the (evolutionary) beholder.

----------


## idirtify

> In terms of a Christian outlook of the world, that definition makes sense because it touches on an immaterial aspect of human beings, namely, that we have souls which utilize the intellect to make rational connections to come to conclusions about the world.
> 
> However, in terms of an "atheistic" outlook on the world, where there are no invisible entities like concepts, souls, or God, that definition is nonsense. There can be no such thing as "mental faculties," "assumptions and premises," or even "cause and effect" in an "atheistic" worldview because each of those things are immaterial in nature. You can't use the five senses to ascertain those entities, after all, but "Atheism" tells us that we only need our five senses to come to truth.
> 
> So, "atheists" cannot agree with the definition you provided unless they use another worldview to make sense of the nature of reason, for reason is not made of matter. Of course, that worldview is Christianity, and Christianity is the only worldview that makes sense of reason because reason cannot justify itself (which would be a logical fallacy of reification). It comes from God and reflects His thinking.
> 
> Philosophically speaking, "Atheism" cannot justify reason in any way, whether it appeals to _a priori_ assumptions or empirical methods based on experience. At its foundation, "Atheism" starts from irrational premises and tries to argue to rational conclusions. The American "Atheists" are just being arbitrary when they tell people to "celebrate Reason." Their own worldview makes reason anything from eating hot fudge sundaes to using laws of logic. There is no objective way, in an "atheist" universe, to determine what is the best utilization of reason because it makes it all relative, in the eye of the (evolutionary) beholder.


When comparing a belief in the concept of the soul with a disbelief, it is certainly not reasonable to claim the former is more reasonable than the latter.

To claim that atheism cannot recognize a process such as reason is preposterous. What will you claim next, that it cant recognize math? 

Your whole post depends on a ridiculously narrow definition of atheism at best, or obliterating standard terms at worst.

----------


## Liberty4life

del

----------


## austin944

> However, in terms of an "atheistic" outlook on the world, where there are no invisible entities like concepts, souls, or God, that definition is nonsense. There can be no such thing as "mental faculties," "assumptions and premises," or even "cause and effect" in an "atheistic" worldview because each of those things are immaterial in nature. You can't use the five senses to ascertain those entities, after all, but "Atheism" tells us that we only need our five senses to come to truth.


Human reason can be explained in terms of physical processes occurring inside the brain, and our interaction with the world through our physical senses.  The philosophy of Physicalism holds that all things -- reason included -- are ultimately material things.  So there is no need for atheists to believe in immaterial things such as "souls" in order to explain reason.

----------


## Theocrat

> Human reason can be explained in terms of physical processes occurring inside the brain, and our interaction with the world through our physical senses.  The philosophy of Physicalism holds that all things -- reason included -- are ultimately material things.  So there is no need for atheists to believe in immaterial things such as "souls" in order to explain reason.


If reason is reduced to mere physical processes occurring inside the brain, then everyone reasons, whether it's Christians who celebrate Jesus during Christmas, or "atheists" who complain against Christians for celebrating Jesus. Both groups have physical processes going on inside the brain, so how does one determine which one is being reasonable or not? In other words, in a physicalist paradigm, whose brain process becomes the determining factor of reason, say, between a Christian celebrating Jesus or an "atheist" crying about it?

Also, you fail to understand the metaphysical nature of concepts, such as reason. Reason has no physical element to it. It does not take up space, nor can it be observed empirically (by a microscope or something else). For a physical object like a box, we can examine its tangible qualities, such as its weight, length, texture, etc. With other things like reason, we cannot do any such thing. Reason is an immaterial entity. It makes no sense to say "Reason weighs 13 lbs.," or "I took Reason out of my pantry today."

But "atheists" have no way to account for immaterial realities like reason in terms of their worldview because they only allow empirical/physical entities to be observed as true. They have to borrow assumptions and terms from the Christian worldview in order to even appeal to reason. And in so doing, they attest that God is true, even if they suppress knowledge of His existence.

----------


## Theocrat

> When comparing a belief in the concept of the soul with a disbelief, it is certainly not reasonable to claim the former is more reasonable than the latter.
> 
> To claim that atheism cannot recognize a process such as reason is preposterous. What will you claim next, that it cant recognize math? 
> 
> Your whole post depends on a ridiculously narrow definition of atheism at best, or obliterating standard terms at worst.


My argument is not that "atheists" don't use reason. In fact, they do. Rather, what I'm arguing is that *"atheists" cannot account for why we should use reason or what reason is, in terms of their own worldview*. Instead, "atheists" have to work off borrowed capital from another worldview to explain reason, and that worldview is Christianity.

My challenge to any "atheist" is to give an account for why reason should be celebrated (as was mentioned in the OP), and then tell us why all people should agree with *their definition and understanding of reason*. I say they can't do it, and on philosophical grounds, reason is nonsense for "Atheism."

----------


## BlackTerrel

> How is that hypocritical?
> 
> I don't recall ever seeing a billboard put up by Christians talking about how full of $#@! atheists are.
> 
> Note:  Guys, can't you see that if you keep on with this incessant Christian-bashing, all you are doing is ensuring that the vast majority of Americans will want nothing to do with you or any other ideas that you have?  In fact, every time I read yet another thread full of this nonsense, it makes me want to distance myself from people who do not seem to care one iota about other peoples' liberty if those people happen to be Christians.  
> 
> If you think bashing Christians is helping Ron Paul, you are very wrong.


+1,000.  These people hurt Ron Paul and the "movement" more than they know... or maybe they do know and don't care.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> 1) You cant credibly deny hostility in a first sentence, and then call a guy an idiot in a third sentence. 
> 
> 2) You cant credibly claim that disagreeing with Christianity is the same as criticizing Christians for everything under the sun.


1.  I think many people are dumb.  Does not mean I am hostile to them.  And yes this guy is dumb.

2.  Perhaps.  But there are a number of people on this forum who do just that.  Put it this way when that idiot wanted to burn a Koran almost everyone here agreed that he was an idiot.

----------


## reillym

> My argument is not that "atheists" don't use reason. In fact, they do. Rather, what I'm arguing is that *"atheists" cannot account for why we should use reason or what reason is, in terms of their own worldview*. Instead, "atheists" have to work off borrowed capital from another worldview to explain reason, and *that worldview is Christianity.*
> 
> My challenge to any "atheist" is to give an account for why reason should be celebrated (as was mentioned in the OP), and then tell us why all people should agree with *their definition and understanding of reason*. I say they can't do it, and on philosophical grounds, reason is nonsense for "Atheism."


Prove it. Christianity isn't that old, and most the stories of it (including Jesus) are borrowed/influenced from older religions.

You have borrowing capital from the caveman worldview. 

See? I can do it too. I also can act like an arrogant christian fascist.

----------


## reillym

> If reason is reduced to mere physical processes occurring inside the brain, then everyone reasons, whether it's Christians who celebrate Jesus during Christmas, or "atheists" who complain against Christians for celebrating Jesus. Both groups have physical processes going on inside the brain, so how does one determine which one is being reasonable or not? In other words, in a physicalist paradigm, whose brain process becomes the determining factor of reason, say, between a Christian celebrating Jesus or an "atheist" crying about it?
> 
> Also, you fail to understand the metaphysical nature of concepts, such as reason. Reason has no physical element to it. It does not take up space, nor can it be observed empirically (by a microscope or something else). For a physical object like a box, we can examine its tangible qualities, such as its weight, length, texture, etc. With other things like reason, we cannot do any such thing. Reason is an immaterial entity. It makes no sense to say "Reason weighs 13 lbs.," or "I took Reason out of my pantry today."
> 
> But "atheists" have no way to account for immaterial realities like reason in terms of their worldview because they only allow empirical/physical entities to be observed as true. They have to borrow assumptions and terms from the Christian worldview in order to even appeal to reason. And in so doing, they attest that God is true, even if they suppress knowledge of His existence.


You missed a lot of schooling.

Immaterial realities like "reason" are constructs of mankind. Just like god and other fairies. Reason is an idea, an idea that is understand through logic and intelligence. The human race has evolved to gain said intelligence. This is proven by evolutionary biology, something that 99% of all biologists accept as truth based on solid evidence. 

Your attempt to argue that Christianity is responsible for ANY metaphysical concept is hilarious dude. That man made religion is very very young and there were many before it, just like it (people controlling other people through fear)

----------


## Maximus

> Prove it. Christianity isn't that old, and most the stories of it (including Jesus) are borrowed/influenced from older religions.
> 
> You have borrowing capital from the caveman worldview. 
> 
> See? I can do it too. I also can act like an arrogant christian fascist.


If you studied religion you would see how your claim is not true in any respect.  Don't get all your ideas about religion from Zeitgeist.

----------


## reillym

> If you studied religion you would see how your claim is not true in any respect.  Don't get all your ideas about religion from Zeitgeist.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C...22true_myth.22

The idea of some guy dying and being resurrected for our sins is not a Christian idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity

Just another point proving that religion is a tool that has been used for years to control people. 

My claim is very indeed correct. Religious intolerance fails again.

----------


## Maximus

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C...22true_myth.22
> 
> The idea of some guy dying and being resurrected for our sins is not a Christian idea.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity
> 
> Just another point proving that religion is a tool that has been used for years to control people. 
> 
> My claim is very indeed correct. Religious intolerance fails again.


It's not an exclusively Christian idea but the way in which the stories are to be approached is radically different than what you are suggesting.

http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Com...he-Movie-.aspx

----------


## eOs



----------


## jmdrake

> It's a little hypocritical of Christians to complain about this. There are still "Blah blah blah -- God" billboards everywhere.


A "blah blah blah -- God" billboard would not be the same.  If you wanted an equivalent billboard you would need one that says "Darwin is still wrong" or something to that effect.  And atheists could have put up a "Darwinists wish you a happy holiday" season or a "Keep evolution science in the classroom" billboard without being offensive.

----------


## jmdrake

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_C...22true_myth.22
> 
> The idea of some guy dying and being resurrected for our sins is not a Christian idea.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-death-rebirth_deity
> 
> Just another point proving that religion is a tool that has been used for years to control people.
> 
> My claim is very indeed correct. Religious intolerance fails again.


Neither of your links supports the proposition of non-Christian deities dying for sin.  But since they are Wikipedia links I suppose you could go and "fix" them.

----------


## nate895

> Neither of your links supports the proposition of non-Christian deities dying for sin.  But since they are Wikipedia links I suppose you could go and "fix" them.


Not to mention most of them, like the Osiris one (the most commonly cited parallel in my experience), do not resemble Christ's Resurrection in any way at all. Osiris was reassembled and came back as lord of the dead, an actual zombie-type figure. Christ conquered death, not make it a different life in an undead fashion whereby you continue in a state of decomposition or something.  

These types of arguments also assume that a true religion would have to be totally different from other religions. However, if one religion were the true religion, then you would see aspects of it in the other false religions. That's exactly what you have with Christianity. If what we call Christianity really did start in the Garden of Eden with Adam and Eve (which is what the Judeo-Christian religion has always claimed), then, since everyone is descended from Adam and Eve, we would expect to see aspects of the one true religion in the other corrupted traditions. Now, I'm not claiming these similarities prove Christianity; I'm saying these similarities are not evidence against it.

----------


## nate895

I noticed that in the "see also" section, these is a "List of Virgin Births" link, which actually takes you to "Miraculous Births," and none of the other ones are like the Christian story of Christ being born of a virgin. These lists are meant as a convenient way of denigrating the Christian religion without actually showing evidence of story stealing. If you actually read about these deities/prophets, then you will find out that their stories have significant enough differences that the Christian writers of the Holy Bible could not have stolen from them.

----------


## Maximus

Fr. Barron in the video I posted earlier makes the important point that the majority of the deities proclaimed to be "similar" to Jesus are in no way based in actual history.  One of the unique things about Jesus is that his historical reality cannot be denied, whereas all of these other myths happened as Father B. put it "a long time ago in the distant past" (simliar to Star Wars a long time ago in a galaxy far far away

----------


## jmdrake

> Speaking of all over, there you go again with your profane hostility. Is calling people $#@!s and my disagreements bull$#@! things your Personal Savior Jesus Christ told you to do?
> 
> Onward Christian Aggression, right?


Onward atheistic passive aggression...
Crying wolf once more....
With the pen of Darwin....
Marching on before....
Claiming persecution....
And every mildest slight....
Always play the victim....
So to prove you're right...

Onward atheistic passive aggression...
Crying wolf once more....
With the guns of Stalin...
Marching on before....

----------


## jmdrake

> 


Easy.  Pool of Siloam.  People thought that was a myth until recently.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6750670/...ience-science/

----------


## idirtify

> If reason is reduced to mere physical processes occurring inside the brain, then everyone reasons, whether it's Christians who celebrate Jesus during Christmas, or "atheists" who complain against Christians for celebrating Jesus. Both groups have physical processes going on inside the brain, so how does one determine which one is being reasonable or not? In other words, in a physicalist paradigm, whose brain process becomes the determining factor of reason, say, between a Christian celebrating Jesus or an "atheist" crying about it?
> 
> Also, you fail to understand the metaphysical nature of concepts, such as reason. Reason has no physical element to it. It does not take up space, nor can it be observed empirically (by a microscope or something else). For a physical object like a box, we can examine its tangible qualities, such as its weight, length, texture, etc. With other things like reason, we cannot do any such thing. Reason is an immaterial entity. It makes no sense to say "Reason weighs 13 lbs.," or "I took Reason out of my pantry today."
> 
> But "atheists" have no way to account for immaterial realities like reason in terms of their worldview because they only allow empirical/physical entities to be observed as true. They have to borrow assumptions and terms from the Christian worldview in order to even appeal to reason. And in so doing, they attest that God is true, even if they suppress knowledge of His existence.





> My argument is not that "atheists" don't use reason. In fact, they do. Rather, what I'm arguing is that *"atheists" cannot account for why we should use reason or what reason is, in terms of their own worldview*. Instead, "atheists" have to work off borrowed capital from another worldview to explain reason, and that worldview is Christianity.
> 
> My challenge to any "atheist" is to give an account for why reason should be celebrated (as was mentioned in the OP), and then tell us why all people should agree with *their definition and understanding of reason*. I say they can't do it, and on philosophical grounds, reason is nonsense for "Atheism."


You conflate two definitions of reason; one defines the process of thinking, the other defines the degree of validity/logic OF THAT THINKING. IOW a person can reason (verb), but in a very unreasonable way.

I cant figure out why you think atheists have to work off borrowed capital from the worldview of Christianity to explain reason. Reason is easily explained without the slightest reference to Christianity: Reason should be celebrated simply because it is a faster route to more-accurate knowledge and wisdom, which are more life-supporting than less-accurate knowledge and ignorance. And supporting life/survival is an ethic that is quite independent of religion.

----------


## idirtify

> 1.  I think many people are dumb.  Does not mean I am hostile to them.  And yes this guy is dumb.
> 
> 2.  Perhaps.  But there are a number of people on this forum who do just that.  Put it this way when that idiot wanted to burn a Koran almost everyone here agreed that he was an idiot.


1. Surely you are not seriously claiming that name-calling someone “dumb” is not hostility. HINT: You believing it does not render it non-hostile! Please educate yourself on the definition of such fundamental elements of discussion-forum rules against initiated aggression, insults, ad hominem, and the concept of crossing the line from attacking the message and attacking the person. These elements are not only fundamental to most discussion forums, but also to the concept of individual liberty. SECOND HINT: This forum is about individual liberty. If you still wish to deny such fundamentals, at least check out the rules section of this forum. Individual liberty depends on people agreeing to control their aggressive behavior. Do you understand that?

2. And had he been participating in a discussion here on LF, you would have violated the rules by calling him an “idiot”. Do you reject the rules set forth by the admin?

----------


## BlackTerrel

> 1. Surely you are not seriously claiming that name-calling someone dumb is not hostility. HINT: You believing it does not render it non-hostile! Please educate yourself on the definition of such fundamental elements of discussion-forum rules against initiated aggression, insults, ad hominem, and the concept of crossing the line from attacking the message and attacking the person. These elements are not only fundamental to most discussion forums, but also to the concept of individual liberty. SECOND HINT: This forum is about individual liberty. If you still wish to deny such fundamentals, at least check out the rules section of this forum. Individual liberty depends on people agreeing to control their aggressive behavior. Do you understand that?
> 
> 2. And had he been participating in a discussion here on LF, you would have violated the rules by calling him an idiot. Do you reject the rules set forth by the admin?


I'll tell you what I'm starting to feel hostile right now.

----------


## idirtify

> I'll tell you what I'm starting to feel hostile right now.


I have no problem with you expressing how you feel, but that’s different than engaging in ad hominum. Few find confrontation a pleasant experience, but it all depends on how you handle it. The challenge to every defender of individual liberty is to control your desire to initiate aggression. Again: HAVING the desire is fine; acting on it is not.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=270778


Thanks, LFoD.  Apparently some claiming to be Christians have put up such billboards.  I don't agree with that, either.  Two wrongs do not make a right, however.

This board was established to promote Ron Paul for President.  Many of us think he will run again in 2012.  Whether he does or not, he reinvigorated a revolution to reinstate our Constitution and regain our liberty.  This revolution in inclusive of people of a number of faiths, and hate it as many do, the faith is predominantly Christian.  

Also, as you all know, Ron Paul is a Christian.  If I remember correctly, two of his brothers are pastors.  Rand Paul is also a Christian.  So, I really do not understand why you feel the need to smear this man's good name by interjecting your hate for his faith all over this board, over and over again.  At this point, most of you must know that it does not further our cause, so why do you do it?   Or does your hate for God so cloud your thinking that it takes priority over us making headway in our quest?  

I do realize that hating God is the "in thing", today and in fact, it is being pushed.  Did it ever dawn on you that just like so many other things, this is also being done for a purpose and by the very same people who are heralding all the other things we are fighting against?  As much as you hate it, remember that history has shown that just as guns are confiscated in countries as one of the last steps before complete totalitarianism, so is the worship of God made illegal.  And yes, I do think this is part of the agenda.  I honestly do.  Just think about it, please.

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks, LFoD.  Apparently some claiming to be Christians have put up such billboards.  I don't agree with that, either.  Two wrongs do not make a right, however.


Well I don't see anything wrong with this billboard which LFoD linked to.



Are we to become so politically correct that founding father quotes become insults in and of themselves?

However this one does cross the line:

----------


## jmdrake

> I'll tell you what I'm starting to feel hostile right now.


Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap.  The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See?  Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."

----------


## Flash

Yeah that second billboard goes way too far. For one, it assumes being anti-american is a bad thing. I hate the nation of America and the american government, so am I anti-american too? In fact I fail to see why any _true_ Christian would love America or any worldly nation for that matter.

----------


## Flash

> Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap.  The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See?  Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."


Mmm I've been insulted by plenty of online Christians when I try to civilly discuss things like Israel or religion and *they* are the first to use insults. If you're a Christian and read the Bible then you should actually celebrate when one insults you, since it's regarded as a test. And one is suppose to _"turn the other cheek."_

----------


## muzzled dogg

well played

----------


## jmdrake

> Mmm I've been insulted by plenty of online Christians when I try to civilly discuss things like Israel or religion and *they* are the first to use insults. If you're a Christian and read the Bible then you should actually celebrate when one insults you, since it's regarded as a test. And one is suppose to _"turn the other cheek."_


Did you even pay attention to the context of the discussion?  I never said that Christians never insulted anyone.  I pointed out that the *particular* atheist that BT was responding to has a *particular* history of baiting people and then trying to play victim.  As for "turning the other cheek", that was kind of my point to BT.  That is to learn to spot passive aggression for what it is and not respond with the kind of aggression that the person who's playing the game is *hoping* for.  

That said, the same Jesus who preached turning the other cheek was not above calling His enemies "vipers" or "whitewashed graves" or "blind" or "liars" or "murderers" or "sons of Satan" to their face.  How do these two different faces of Jesus square up?   Ecclesiastes 3:1 _There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:_

I wish atheists would first fully learn about Christianity before trying to lecture Christians on its application.

----------


## Flash

> Did you even pay attention to the context of the discussion?


Haha, another cherry-picking Christian. I've been paying attention to the conversation, your snobby attitude isn't going to win anyone over btw. 




> I never said that Christians never insulted anyone.  I pointed out that the *particular* atheist that BT was responding to has a *particular* history of baiting people and then trying to play victim.


So who are you to judge? Like most modern day Christians you haven't read your bible. You are to turn the other cheek and stop insulting this person. Accusing people of baiting isn't going to get them to come to Christ. Someone that truly followed the scripture would dust their shoes off and move on if someone was unwilling to _accept_ Christ. But I guess the same rules don't apply for RPF Christianity. 



> That said, the same Jesus who preached turning the other cheek was not above calling His enemies "vipers" or "empty graves" or "blind" or "liars" or "murderers" or "sons of Satan" to their face.  How do these two different faces of Jesus square up?   Ecclesiastes 3:1 _There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven:_



This is going off-topic. This is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity as a religion. 



> I wish atheists would first fully learn about Christianity before trying to lecture Christians on its application.


I'm not an atheist, and I've been Christian for years. I've been a Christian for years, and I know how little Christians actually know of their religion. Especially the ones that have their heart set on promoting the faith.

----------


## jmdrake

> Haha, another cherry-picking Christian. I've been paying attention to the conversation, your snobby attitude isn't going to win anyone over btw.


Fine.  Whether I "win you over" or not isn't important.  My message was for BT, not you.




> So who are you to judge? Like most modern day Christians you haven't read your bible. You are to turn the other cheek and stop insulting this person.


LOL.  Talk about a "snobbish attitude"?  Talk about "cherry picking"?  You misquote one verse, take it out of context, take on your own interpretation to the end of it *ignore what Jesus actually did according to the Bible* and then falsely accuse others in a most insulting way of "not reading their Bible".  

And "who am I to judge"?  *Who are YOU to judge?*  I've seen enough of the poster in question to discern a pattern.  You jump in on the middle of a conversation *that was not directed at you* and you attempt to pass judgement on me by cherry picking the parts of the Bible that best fit your argument?  And I should be concerned because....?




> Accusing people of baiting isn't going to get them to come to Christ. Someone that truly followed the scripture would dust their shoes off and move on if someone was unwilling to _accept_ Christ.


Yes.  I've shaken the dust off my feet from idirtify.  *And I've shaken the dust off my feet from you also*.  My message was for BlackTerrel.  If you didn't like it you didn't have to read it.  The message wasn't "Please flash and idirtfy won't you come to Christ?"  You two have already made your decision.  My message to BT was "Don't fall into the trap of letting idirtify ruffle your feathers".  That's all.  It wasn't an insult.  If you took it that way, that's your problem.




> But I guess the same rules don't apply for RPF Christianity.


What rules?  The ones that you make up?  Those rules only apply to you.




> This is going off-topic. This is one of the reasons why I reject Christianity as a religion.


Fine.  You are free to make whatever decision you want.  I'm not going to stand in your way or be fake in order to con you into becoming Christian.  Again my message was for BT.  The same sun that melts butter hardens clay.




> I'm not an atheist, and I've been Christian for years. I've been a Christian for years, and I know how little Christians actually know of their religion. Especially the ones that have their heart set on promoting the faith.


Let's see.  Because I don't agree with you, and because I apply the *entire* Bible, you mistakenly assume I haven't "read my Bible".  That's fine.  I've seen such superficial application of Christianity as what you are doing done before.  It's funny how people like you complain that Christianity is too "restricting" and yet wish to impose your own interpretation of Christianity on others.  Ok, if that makes you feel better about yourself who am I to stand in the way?

----------


## Flash

> Fine.  Whether I "win you over" or not isn't important.  My message was for BT, not you.


Once again, you're not following the Bible. I don't know why you continue on and on. 




> LOL.  Talk about a "snobbish attitude"?  Talk about "cherry picking"?  You misquote one verse, take it out of context, take on your own interpretation to the end of it *ignore what Jesus actually did according to the Bible* and then falsely accuse others in a most insulting way of "not reading their Bible".


Read my post again. I've had PLENTY of Christians do to me what Atheists have done to you Christians. Even worse. And I don't sit here bitching about it constantly like the RPF-Christians. Oh noes them atheists are mad at me boohoo. If you're so secure in your faith then someone complaining about the Bible shouldn't be a problem. Hell, it wasn't when I was a Christian. 




> And "who am I to judge"?  *Who are YOU to judge?*  I've seen enough of the poster in question to discern a pattern.  You jump in on the middle of a conversation *that was not directed at you* and you attempt to pass judgement on me by cherry picking the parts of the Bible that best fit your argument?  And I should be concerned because....?


Calm down, you're not making any sense whatsoever. If I'm not a Christian, that how am I bound to the rules of the Bible? I believe in passing judgement in a constructive way. It's not my ideology. 




> Yes.  I've shaken the dust off my feet from idirtify.  *And I've shaken the dust off my feet from you also*.  My message was for BlackTerrel.  If you didn't like it you didn't have to read it.  The message wasn't "Please flash and idirtfy won't you come to Christ?"  You two have already made your decision.  My message to BT was "Don't fall into the trap of letting idirtify ruffle your feathers".  That's all.  It wasn't an insult.  If you took it that way, that's your problem.


It was for bt, it was for bt, it was for bt, it was for bt. This is a public forum. I have the ability to respond to whatever I like. 





> Let's see.  Because I don't agree with you, and because I apply the *entire* Bible, you mistakenly assume I haven't "read my Bible".  That's fine.  I've seen such superficial application of Christianity as what you are doing done before.  It's funny how people like you complain that Christianity is too "restricting" and yet wish to impose your own interpretation of Christianity on others.  Ok, if that makes you feel better about yourself who am I to stand in the way?


I'm imposing what's in the Bible. If you're so secure in your faith you should be able to disagree with me respectfully. But once again, that's too much for any Christian to ask. Don't bother replying, I'm leaving this thread.

----------


## jmdrake

> Once again, you're not following the Bible. I don't know why you continue on and on.


I will agree with you on one thing.  This isn't worth going "on and on" about.  I've proven my point from the Bible.  You've only misquoted a single Bible verse and twisted it to your on pathetic ends.  If you want the last word fine.  I have better things to do than to continue to, as Jesus put it, "cast my pearls before swine".

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> Well I don't see anything wrong with this billboard which LFoD linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> Are we to become so politically correct that founding father quotes become insults in and of themselves?
> 
> However this one does cross the line:


and another:

----------


## jmdrake

> and another:


Well if you're "keeping score" this one doesn't cross the line either.



I explained in detail why here: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpos...6&postcount=13

So 2 of the 4 signs LFOD complained about were not attacks on atheism in the least.  I'm not sure what grade you get at your school for 50% but....

----------


## Brian4Liberty

John Stewart attacked Christmas on the Daily Show last night.

----------


## oyarde

> John Stewart attacked Christmas on the Daily Show last night.


What does he have against it ?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> What does he have against it ?


You also might ask what his writers have against it. 

Actually, the segment was multi-dimensional. It was making fun of those who oppose the changing nature (to non-religious and non-Christmas) of the Christmas Holiday, and at the same time utilizing cartoons that were a big part of the propaganda campaign to secularize Christmas in the first place. They took special aim at Linus (Charles Schulz's Peanuts), who may have been the only childrens special producer that actually mentioned the religion of Christianity. There was a bit of a demonization of Peanuts.

----------


## jmdrake

> You also might ask what his writers have against it. 
> 
> Actually, the segment was multi-dimensional. It was making fun of those who oppose the changing nature (to non-religious and non-Christmas) of the Christmas Holiday, and at the same time utilizing cartoons that were a big part of the propaganda campaign to secularize Christmas in the first place. They took special aim at Linus (Charles Schulz's Peanuts), who may have been the only childrens special producer that actually mentioned the religion of Christianity. There was a bit of a demonization of Peanuts.


I guess the TV stations in John Stewart's town didn't show the little drummer boy?

YouTube - Little Drummer Boy

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I guess the TV stations in John Stewart's town didn't show the little drummer boy?


Yeah, that one was buried...

----------


## libertarian4321

> Everybody has the abilty to reason .


Yup.

But luckily for religious leaders, most people rarely exercise that ability.

Don't worry Benedict, the gold and riches will keep rolling in...

BTW, I don't think the bill board is all that effective.

----------


## oyarde

> Yup.
> 
> But luckily for religious leaders, most people rarely exercise that ability.
> 
> Don't worry Benedict, the gold and riches will keep rolling in...
> 
> BTW, I don't think the bill board is all that effective.


I do not think it is effective as well.

----------


## oyarde

> You also might ask what his writers have against it. 
> 
> Actually, the segment was multi-dimensional. It was making fun of those who oppose the changing nature (to non-religious and non-Christmas) of the Christmas Holiday, and at the same time utilizing cartoons that were a big part of the propaganda campaign to secularize Christmas in the first place. They took special aim at Linus (Charles Schulz's Peanuts), who may have been the only childrens special producer that actually mentioned the religion of Christianity. There was a bit of a demonization of Peanuts.


Or maybe he is evil and demented from never getting what he wanted as a kid ......

----------


## idirtify

> So, I really do not understand why you feel the need to *smear this man's good name* by interjecting your *hate for his faith* all over this board, over and over again.  At this point, most of you must know that it does not further our cause, so why do you do it?   Or does your *hate for God* so cloud your thinking that it takes priority over us making headway in our quest?  
> 
> I do realize that *hating God* is the "in thing", today and in fact, it is being pushed.  Did it ever dawn on you that just like so many other things, this is also being done for a purpose and by the very same people who are heralding all the other things we are fighting against?  As much as you *hate* it, remember that history has shown that just as guns are confiscated in countries as one of the last steps before complete totalitarianism, so is the worship of God made illegal.  And yes, I do think this is part of the agenda.  I honestly do.  Just think about it, please.


When making such strong allegations, it would be good to be more specific. Your vague generality implies that the allegations you make are not exactly true, and my emphasis above shows that you are intentionally mislabeling the simple and respectable process of disagreeing with Christian belief.

----------


## idirtify

> Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap.  The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See?  Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."


How about quoting some of the passive aggressive stuff, esp where the envelop of civility is pushed to the edge and beyond. I suspect you are miss-defining the term and intentionally miss-describing the posts.

----------


## idirtify

> Mmm I've been insulted by plenty of online Christians when I try to civilly discuss things like Israel or religion and *they* are the first to use insults.


Yes, that same pattern is demonstrated here on LF.

----------


## idirtify

> Yes.  I've shaken the dust off my feet from idirtify.


Hey, you callin idirtify dirty!? Alright, thats it! Im in this fight now too! 

Just kidding

----------


## idirtify

> I will agree with you on one thing.  This isn't worth going "on and on" about.  I've proven my point from the Bible.  You've only misquoted a single Bible verse and twisted it to your on pathetic ends.  If you want the last word fine.  I have better things to do than to continue to, as Jesus put it, "cast my pearls before swine".


Please stop the thinly veiled insults! 

Using a bible verse to call someone a pig certainly doesnt make it OK.

----------


## idirtify

> Well if you're "keeping score" this one doesn't cross the line either.





> Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has.



Actually, it's quite true.

----------


## BlackTerrel

> Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap.  The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See?  Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."


Yep.  See here:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=271569

----------


## Maximus

> Actually, it's quite true.


St. Thomas Aquinas would greatly disagree

----------


## jmdrake

> Please stop the thinly veiled insults! 
> 
> Using a bible verse to call someone a pig certainly doesn’t make it OK.


Please stop with the passive aggressive baloney.  You've cried wolf one time to many for any intelligent person to take you seriously.  And this insult is not veiled.  Save your nonsense for Sarah "Obama called me a pig"* Palin.

*Reference to Sarah Palin getting her undies in a bunch over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment.

----------


## jmdrake

> Actually, it's quite true.


Thank you for proving me right yet again.   Some atheists attack Christians for merely saying what atheists actually believe.  Yet another example of the whole passive aggressive nature of this debate.  And note I never said you were the only one to use that tactic.  But you certainly have used it.

----------


## jmdrake

> How about quoting some of the passive aggressive stuff, esp where the envelop of civility is pushed to the edge and beyond. I suspect you are miss-defining the term and intentionally miss-describing the posts.


LOL.  That's really a waste of time.  It's like trying to get a pathalogical liar to admit he's lying.  But I'll humor you.  In one thread you kept trying to say I didn't know the difference between "attacking the person and attacking the message".  That's your opinion, not fact.  (And your opinion is wrong).  I pointed out that you don't understand person liberty.  That's my opinion.  You called that an "almost ad hominem" (I don't remember your exact words but it doesn't matter).  So when other people do *exactly* what you do, you disparage their behavior while trying to pretend your own behavior is civil.

So just like I expect a pathological liar to lie and say he's telling the truth even when you catch him in a lie, I expect a passive aggressive person such as yourself to continue to claim others are "miss-defining the term" or "miss-describing" his activity.  It's just part of the pathology.

Anyway, I wasn't directed my post to BlackTerrel at you per se, but at the behavior.  I really don't care what you think at this point.  But I want others to be able to recognize the behavior and avoid the trap.  Another example of this behavior is coming from Flash.  Even after I acknowledged his Bible quote, but provided quotes of my own in rebuttal, all he could do was to keep repeating "You don't know your Bible".  Now that's rather illogical and a (to use *your* term and standard) "veiled insult".  Of course in your own mind you can pretend I'm "defining the word wrong" or whatever, but like I said, at this point I don't care what you think.  If Flash wanted to carry on a civil conversation he could have by offering some explanation to rebut the Bible verses I provided or some other verses of his own, or even by saying that he didn't really believe the Bible anyway but wished to provide some other standard.  He didn't.

So in short, you can keep playing your little games.  I can't stop you.  I'm not a moderator so I can't ban you.  And passive aggression isn't against forum rules.  It's just bad form in my world.  But I'm sure it's ok in yours.  And I'm also sure you will think of some cleverly dishonest way to define yourself out of it.

----------


## idirtify

Originally Posted by jmdrake  
Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap. The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See? Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."





> Yep.  See here:
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=271569


Well good; you are not talking about me  since Im not in that thread.

----------


## idirtify

> St. Thomas Aquinas would greatly disagree


please elaborate.

----------


## idirtify

> Please stop with the passive aggressive baloney.  You've cried wolf one time to many for any intelligent person to take you seriously.  And this insult is not veiled.  Save your nonsense for Sarah "Obama called me a pig"* Palin.
> 
> *Reference to Sarah Palin getting her undies in a bunch over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment.


Hmm. So you call your opponent a swine, and I call you out on name-calling, and then you claim I am being passive aggressive. Please give us your definition of passive aggressive. It doesn't seem to fit.

And how about we leave Sarah Palin out of it? I cannot fathom what she has to do with it.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Idirtify, from the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at picking fights with people and derailing most every thread you enter.  

Are you interested in the liberty movement, or in just playing games?

----------


## idirtify

> Thank you for proving me right yet again.   Some atheists attack Christians for merely saying what atheists actually believe.  Yet another example of the whole passive aggressive nature of this debate.  And note I never said you were the only one to use that tactic.  But you certainly have used it.


What are you saying; that my agreement with the sign is me being passive aggressive? Or are you approving of my agreement with the sign? Your post could be taken different ways. Could you reword it?

----------


## idirtify

> LOL.  That's really a waste of time.  It's like trying to get a pathalogical liar to admit he's lying.  But I'll humor you.  In one thread you kept trying to say I didn't know the difference between "attacking the person and attacking the message".  That's your opinion, not fact.  (And your opinion is wrong).  I pointed out that you don't understand person liberty.  That's my opinion.  You called that an "almost ad hominem" (I don't remember your exact words but it doesn't matter).  So when other people do *exactly* what you do, you disparage their behavior while trying to pretend your own behavior is civil.
> 
> So just like I expect a pathological liar to lie and say he's telling the truth even when you catch him in a lie, I expect a passive aggressive person such as yourself to continue to claim others are "miss-defining the term" or "miss-describing" his activity.  It's just part of the pathology.
> 
> Anyway, I wasn't directed my post to BlackTerrel at you per se, but at the behavior.  I really don't care what you think at this point.  But I want others to be able to recognize the behavior and avoid the trap.  Another example of this behavior is coming from Flash.  Even after I acknowledged his Bible quote, but provided quotes of my own in rebuttal, all he could do was to keep repeating "You don't know your Bible".  Now that's rather illogical and a (to use *your* term and standard) "veiled insult".  Of course in your own mind you can pretend I'm "defining the word wrong" or whatever, but like I said, at this point I don't care what you think.  If Flash wanted to carry on a civil conversation he could have by offering some explanation to rebut the Bible verses I provided or some other verses of his own, or even by saying that he didn't really believe the Bible anyway but wished to provide some other standard.  He didn't.
> 
> So in short, you can keep playing your little games.  I can't stop you.  I'm not a moderator so I can't ban you.  And passive aggression isn't against forum rules.  It's just bad form in my world.  But I'm sure it's ok in yours.  And I'm also sure you will think of some cleverly dishonest way to define yourself out of it.


Far from a waste of time, providing good support for an accusation is usually regarded as a responsibility. Instead of providing only loose recollections and paraphrases, why dont you just go get a quote? 

AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE INSULTED ME. Please get this through your skull: Calling me a passive aggressive person is ad hominem. Have you EVER looked at the definition of either ad hominem or insult? CAN YOU NOT CONTROL YOUR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR?? Have you ever looked at the definition of passive-aggressive, which you seem to have recently adopted as one of your favorite terms?  

The rest of your post is just more mass-mischaracterizations, not worthy of direct replies.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Someone please remind me how one blocks a member's posts?  I am feeling the need to do so.

----------


## idirtify

> Idirtify, from the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at picking fights with people and derailing most every thread you enter.


Lets me translate you:

From the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at posting too strong of disagreements and inciting opponents to falsely claim that you are derailing most every thread you enter.  




> Are you interested in the liberty movement, or in just playing games?


That is a most curious question, considering the fact that a large portion of my disagreements focuses on defending the foundations of individual liberty. Since the concept of liberty is based on human behavior (an agreement to cease aggression), its only appropriate that aggressive behavior is addressed whenever and wherever it is encountered. Apparently, you do not appreciate that. I find it amazing that so many participants in a forum on individual liberty, including yourself, demonstrate such little knowledge about the behavioral foundation of the concept.

----------


## idirtify

> Someone please remind me how one blocks a member's posts?  I am feeling the need to do so.


Even though Ive never done it, Id like to help you. I think its called ignore.

----------


## jmdrake

> What are you saying; that my agreement with the sign is me being passive aggressive? Or are you approving of my agreement with the sign? Your post could be taken different ways. Could you reword it?


 To paraphrase Carly Simon.... _You're so vain.  You probably thought that post was about you._

The point you proved is that people such as LFOD will complain about "Christian attacks" even when Christians are giving an honest assessment of atheism that other atheists agree with.  I'm not approving or disapproving of your agreement with the sign.  I'm making a point about how your side "cries wolf".

----------


## jmdrake

> Far from a waste of time, providing good support for an accusation is usually regarded as a responsibility. Instead of providing only loose recollections and paraphrases, why dont you just go get a quote? 
> 
> AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE INSULTED ME. Please get this through your skull: Calling me a passive aggressive person is ad hominem. Have you EVER looked at the definition of either ad hominem or insult? CAN YOU NOT CONTROL YOUR ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR?? Have you ever looked at the definition of passive-aggressive, which you seem to have recently adopted as one of your favorite terms?  
> 
> The rest of your post is just more mass-mischaracterizations, not worthy of direct replies.


LOL.  I'm going to treat you just like you treated LibertyEagle.  (And I'm sure you will dishonestly claim that somehow you were being different).

Translation of your above post:  "I'm so insecure in myself that I will go around and insult other people, try to cleverly disguise my insults as legitimate conversation, and then complain about other people insulting me at the slightest provocation".

----------


## jmdrake

> Idirtify, from the very first day you've been on here, your behavior has been aimed at picking fights with people and derailing most every thread you enter.  
> 
> Are you interested in the liberty movement, or in just playing games?


Considering how we have bumped heads in the past I probably look like a jackass for saying this, but I *really miss* you being a moderator.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hmm. So you call your opponent a swine, and I call you out on name-calling, and then you claim I am being passive aggressive. Please give us your definition of passive aggressive. It doesn't seem to fit.
> 
> And how about we leave Sarah Palin out of it? I cannot fathom what she has to do with it.


I didn't call anybody "swine".  I posted a proverb that fit the situation.  As for Sarah Palin, you just don't get the analogy.  She claimed Obama was calling her a "pig" when he was merely quoting a proverb.  So you're acting just like Palin in this respect.  (And next I bet you're going to say I'm calling you a woman).

----------


## jmdrake

> Originally Posted by jmdrake  
> Don't fall for the passive aggressive trap. The whole game is to push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, get you to react, and then say "See? Look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well good; you are not talking about me  since Im not in that thread.


Ding ding ding!  Finally he gets it!  I was talking about the *behavior* as opposed to you in particular.  Yes I've seen you exhibit that behavior as have other people.  But whenever anyone talks about negative behavior with respect to *you* you call it an insult.  You talk about negative behavior with respect to *others* and it's supposed to be all hunky dory.

----------


## idirtify

> LOL.  I'm going to treat you just like you treated LibertyEagle.  (And I'm sure you will dishonestly claim that somehow you were being different).
> 
> Translation of your above post:  "I'm so insecure in myself that I will go around and insult other people, try to cleverly disguise my insults as legitimate conversation, and then complain about other people insulting me at the slightest provocation".


If you think I insulted LibertyEagle, you dont know what it means. An insult is an attack on the person, not the persons message  which is only a disagreement. For example: You make yet another insult when you attack my person as insecure. Do you see how calling me insecure is an insult against my person, and not a disagreement with my message? Seeing such a simple thing doesnt seem too difficult to me. Another thing that leads me to believe that you dont know what insult means is that you keep claiming that I insult people. If you would only provide a quote/example of mine, Im sure I could explain how it did not attack the person.

If you continue to refuse to accept the clear distinction between person and message, you will not only continue to violate the terms of this forum, but you will be rejecting a main tenet of individual liberty. Do you not care about reciprocating individual liberty, but only having it for yourself? Do you not care about your credibility?

----------


## idirtify

> I didn't call anybody "swine".  I posted a proverb that fit the situation.


Sure you did. You quoted the proverb to do it for you. 




> As for Sarah Palin, you just don't get the analogy.  She claimed Obama was calling her a "pig" when he was merely quoting a proverb.  So you're acting just like Palin in this respect.  (And next I bet you're going to say I'm calling you a woman).


I largely forget the details of the palin/obama situation, but I believe he DID call her a pig. Besides, Im not sure that what you imply (if palin claimed it, it must be false) is true.

----------


## specialK

It's a little on the rude and insensitive side, but I wish I had as many nice things to say about the god of Moses.

----------


## idirtify

> Ding ding ding!  Finally he gets it!  I was talking about the *behavior* as opposed to you in particular.  Yes I've seen you exhibit that behavior as have other people.  But whenever anyone talks about negative behavior with respect to *you* you call it an insult.  You talk about negative behavior with respect to *others* and it's supposed to be all hunky dory.


OK, so you WERE talking about me. Thats not good. You are incorrect. I do not push the envelop of civility to the edge and beyond, let alone say look at the aggressive Christians and how terrible they are." The latter is an overt insult against a large group of people, and the former is a mass mischaracterization of the simple process of making disagreements. Obviously, Ive done neither, since you cant cite one quote where I have. Apparently you are only mischaracterizing because: a) I have disagreed with YOUR beliefs, b) you cant actually refute my disagreements with your beliefs, c) you are making excuses for insulting me because of it.

----------


## austin944

> Also, you fail to understand the metaphysical nature of concepts, such as reason. Reason has no physical element to it. It does not take up space, nor can it be observed empirically (by a microscope or something else). For a physical object like a box, we can examine its tangible qualities, such as its weight, length, texture, etc. With other things like reason, we cannot do any such thing. Reason is an immaterial entity. It makes no sense to say "Reason weighs 13 lbs.," or "I took Reason out of my pantry today."


Individual electrons cannot be observed directly.  We have some idea of their properties through indirect measurements, but we have yet to directly observe an electron with our current scientific equipment.  According to your reasoning, because our senses cannot directly observe individual electrons, those electrons are immaterial.  Yet we know that "something" is there.

It is a mistake to argue that our senses define what is and what is not immaterial.  It could be that our senses themselves are flawed and we are not (yet) capable of observing that which we suppose as immaterial.  

So it is with our brain processes -- there is much that we do not yet understand.  It may turn out that human reason and consciousness correspond to brain processes which we previously supposed as being immaterial.

----------


## reillym

> Individual electrons cannot be observed directly.  We have some idea of their properties through indirect measurements, but we have yet to directly observe an electron with our current scientific equipment.  According to your reasoning, because our senses cannot directly observe individual electrons, those electrons are immaterial.  Yet we know that "something" is there.
> 
> It is a mistake to argue that our senses define what is and what is not immaterial.  It could be that our senses themselves are flawed and we are not (yet) capable of observing that which we suppose as immaterial.  
> 
> So it is with our brain processes -- there is much that we do not yet understand.  It may turn out that human reason and consciousness correspond to brain processes which we previously supposed as being immaterial.


Exactly. Only remedial minds would think that unobservable things can only be attributed to god. It's the 21st century, people.

----------

