I agree that respect and teamwork should be the goal of all of us, and I hope (at least on the topic of faith in these specific forums) I've helped promote that. I think both sides really, just need to calm the hell down though. For every confrontational Atheist there's a "morally superior" Christian or twelve. Not that the Christian faith builds them that way, its just human nature and there are simply more Christians than Atheists. I've no doubt if the majority/minority was swapped the same could be said for my side. In keeping consistent with my politics, I think in cases where the goal is to quiet discord and become more cooperative, the majority should offer the olive branch to the minority, because I just don't see how it would work the other way around.
Indeed you have been a voice of reason in this forum and I have appreciated that. And you are also correct that the majority has to be the one to extend the olive branch. In fact it is in that effort to back everyone off that I would object to someone marching in someone else's parade. Despite how benign your intentions are, it will cause a flare-up. I think one of the things that has changed in America is that I doubt the majority of folks are indeed Christians anymore. In fact my guess is that the plurality position (I doubt any group in America currently has a majority) would likely be some kind of undesignated Diest, that is folks believe in some understanding of a "Higher Power" without any real definition or committment to a faith community arising from that belief. While a majority of Americans say they are "regular" in worship attendance the actual number of folks in a building on any given weekend is around 1 in 5 at best and that is for all faiths total in the country. While that is far greater than say Western Europe, it makes me doubt the truth to any contention positively or negatively that we are a "Christian" nation. (Not that we truly ever were nor perhaps should be. I am a believer in Martin Luther's doctrine of the "Two Kingdoms", that is to say that both faith and government are essential but both should stay out of each other's domains)
I always think about a bit some comedian once said...(can't remember his name) I was told I was going to hell. That's great news. It'll be a party. The Jews will cater, the gays will decorate, and the headbangers will provide the music. Party at Satan's house!
I don't understand why some Atheists seem to want to turn their beliefs into a religion. Seriously, we’ve ostensibly got science, facts, history, etc… on our side, why do we need to have meetings, billboards, and bands… What is the point? We aren’t saving someone’s soul. Why care if a superstition gives someone peace or happiness? I’m not suggesting that we stop standing up for our rights, that we accept the attempt to label the US as a Christian country, or the move to teach religion as science. There are battles to be fought. (Please note that I am not advocating that we fight actual battles, I’m not putting surveyors sights on anyone here…) What is the purpose of a billboard calling religions myths? Why have a band in the parade? I’m not debating the right to have a band in the parade; I just don’t understand the reason.
I think the billboard and the band in the parade are completely different. The billboard is an "attack", the band was celebrating Christmas. Non-christians celebrate christmas. As to your first question as to why people would want to do all those things, that is part of the human condition. The first part is to have people be like you and the second part is to save people. Not save their soul like a Christian would try to save someone from hell, however to save someone from being lied to. If you saw someone getting ready to buy a car at double the price as they should, wouldn't you try to help them? You are not saving their soul, however you are saving them from losing money. Some athiests believe that religion is dangerous. That putting up those billboards, even if they turn one person away from the evils of christianity, then it is worth it.
I think DFD is correct and of course the irony is the folks who do that are as aggressively "prosyltizing" as the Christians they are objecting to are doing. "Why can't everyone just get along!" It is one thing to invite to "come and see", it is another matter to say the opposing side is dangerous! I don't do it and would suggest if the side anyone is advocating can not stand on its own positive merits, then convincing folks the other side is dangerously wrong will not work!
I can see your points. I just do not believe that the band labeled themselves as atheists during the parade for any reason other than to provoke the reaction that they got. I could be wrong, maybe they wanted to show that Christmas should now be viewed as an inclusive non religious holiday, but I really doubt it. They wanted to get their message out, and the message was about atheism not Christmas. Which is fine I guess, but why lie about it? Especially if you are trying to promote the truth. As for the car scenario: if the person buying the car at double the price was truly happier paying the higher price, because it was higher, I would not try to convince them not pay the price. Happiness is subjective, what makes me happy doesn't make someone else happy. As weird as it sounds, there are actually Jet fans in the universe. This will probably offend some, but that is how I look at Christians, they're like Jet fans. I also think you can argue against the dangerous parts of religion without arguing against the religion in totality. I don't know of any faiths without some good in them. As an atheist I would be happier with the billboards if they promoted atheism instead of attacking faith.
Again, if the parade was sponsored in anyway, by the local government, then it is not an attack against Christians. In fact, it could be argued, if it was sponsored by the local government, the parade itself is an attack on everyone not a Christian. I say that because the government has no right to endorse or sponsor one religion over another and if they do, its no different, than if they just opened up your door and walked through your house and sat on your couch for an hour than left without permission or warrant. I honestly think, if religion wasn't pushed you'd have less angry Atheists. I also think if all the Atheists in America stopped being angry right now, the religious would still be trying to push their beliefs. So yes, purposely promoting something like anti-Christian, is far from an olive branch and does nothing to further tolerance, but I view it more as a defensive tactic than an offensive one.
The key point to this whole discussion. after a few millenia of the various religious sects pushing their beliefs onto others (to the point that just about every war and the majority of truly despicable moments in history can be traced back to disagreements on religion), athiests feel like they want to push back. As a proud atheist, I do not have that urge, but I can certainly understand it.
What is sad to me is you probably believe that. Stalin's purges, Pol Pot and the killing fields, Rwandi-Burundi, WW I, even WWII had nothing to do with religious beliefs. In WW II Hitler had an agenda about Jews (and Gypsys and Homosexuals as well) but lacked any systematic religious belief himself. I am not saying religion, indeed even my own Christian faith, has not done terrible things in the name of God but to blame us for all the troubles of the world is narrow minded and a poor reading of history. Since most of the world holds some form of faith committment , then religious components are included in most conflicts, but economic issues of trade, property, and wealth are far more responsible for tragedy than are faith practices. And since this thread has been more about "rights" than doing the right thing, would you deny people of faith the first amendment in trying to speak of the joy of their faith and experiance? I practice my faith each and every day. Sometimes, I even use words. Every hospital, nursing home, senior housing complex and youth offender support facility within fifty miles of here was started by faith based groups or folks who did it politically out of their faith committment. Would you take those away as well? This thread has had a lot of grand rhetorical statements. Christians are "afraid" of Atheists. Religion is the source of all evil. Come on, let's step back and agree that in America if it is public and you pay the correct fee, you can be as obnoxious and inflammatory and as rude to anyone as you wish to be. While legal it is a lousy way for all of us to live together. So unless we want to start a spate of religious cleansing ala the Balkan ethnic cleansing we should simply try to be civil and polite to each other. For me that is a religious mandate, I would hope for others it is simply good manners.
very good, you managed to pick out a few that weren't motivated mostly by religion, now you have about 95% to go. and I'd argue with you that whether Hitler had any systematic religious beliefs or not, saying religion had nothing to do with his agenda against Jews seems myopic. And I wasn't implying that Christianity was solely responsible for all of these evils, they are just one side of the coin. but history shows they are often a strong player. and you keep telling yourself the latter. while economic conditions certainly play a big role in these conflicts, it's dumb as hell to refute that the underlying tone to most of the current conflicts in the world have religious undertones. and yes, I do respect your ability to be civil and polite, it's apparent in all of your posts in this forum. I can say the same about the majority of my christian, muslim, hindu, jewish and pagan friends as well. but that doesn't mean that the religious sects as a whole are civil and polite and well behaved (and yes this can equally apply to a group of angry athiests). growing up in the bible belt during my formative years, I can easily attest to the fact that individual people are polite, the group as a whole when they find out you're an athiest, not so much.
Most wars are never as simply based on religion. If anything religion is a motivator as in a way to get the people behind you but not the major reason.
Its dumb as hell to think most wars aren't fought over simple things as power and greed. In fact if you read about most wars you find within in them many land grabs, power grabs, etc. That has more to do with evolution if anything.
you just clarified and supported my reasoning. yes, you can make a case that the primary motivator for going to war is not always religion, but getting the masses to fall in line and believe in your war often is religiously motivated. a person's religious faith is a wonderful thing, and something I have a ton of respect for. the religious masses, when they are swayed by some POS then become the ones responsible for the atrocities throughout history.
Nationalism, racial pride, etc also have a part to play. War is never that clean and cut nor are peoples motivations. And no that doesn't help your original point. If you want to blame solely religion for war, then you are not looking hard enough.
and just to add, the only motivator that ever works is fear. people will not kill or support wars for any other reason or rather the great masses, who will never benefit from the land grabs or resource grabs will never support the enrichment of a few of their citizens unless they feel they are in danger of some sort. Adolph Hitler was a loon but he was a master propogandist and he made a great point regarding WW1. He said the main mistake Germany had made in that war in regards to propaganda was to ridicule the British as clowns or fools while the British did the correct thing and caricatured the Germans as bloodthirsty Huns hellbent on ravaging the British way of life. This schism in perceptions, according to Hitler, is what allowed the British public to support the continued war even when it had bogged down into nothing more than a bloodletting massacre of a stalemate due to the fact that they were motivated by fear while the German public grew increasingly disenchanted by the carnage since their motivation was less intense and less personal. That is why all wars are sold as defenses of life, liberty, our way of life, all we hold dear, etc...You never hear we are attacking them to steal their oil. there's no motivation for the average citizen to support that. alsoone can use religion as a way of justifying the bloodshed on moral grounds since all or most humans want to see themselves as being moral and being good. In this way religion is usually used in the manner that God supports whatever country is going to war and the ideals and values that that country represents. But like you say it is almost never the main motivator, it is merely an add on argument. we are going to war to protect so and so and by the way god approves
My fellow Ohioian, we are never going to agree on the degree with which religion has played a part in humanity's inhumanity to each other. I point out the major atrocities of the twentieth century and you dismiss them as anomolies. We might as well not discuss this, as I said, it is sad to me that you believe your point without critical analysis. We can agree that religious beliefs do play a role in motivation of the masses as do economic factors, racial/ethnic pride, etc. Even professional historians debate to what degree so I will leave it there. I would ask you to temper your generalizations. If I can come up with two world wars and three major genocides in one century without breaking a sweat, maybe you should reconsider the generalization, huh? I am very sorry you had a bad experiance in the Bible Belt. We Christians do find a great deal of strength, solace, communtiy, etc. in our faith and our relationship to God. It is hard to not want to share that with folks who are "missing" that. Most have not worked out a way of talking which is both informative and respectful, thus they come across as zealots. It is an unfortunate reality and as a Christian, I say to you on behalf of my erring co-religionists, I am sorry for your mistreatment.
I would agree with you if they were the only group to point out who they are. I would believe more that they wanted to at least open up dialog
One of the reason why religious people are afraid of the atheist is because they know that their religion is only a myth.
So your conclusion after reading this whole thread and from your vast life experiance is that three billion folks on the planet are all holding a consciencious delusion? You really think this is going to promote discussion? How could you possibily "know" what I think? I (and others in this forum of radically different views from mine) have worked hard to seperate the thinking between "I'm right" and thus "therefore you are wrong". We respectfully post the former without resorting to the latter. To be a part of religious discussions in this kind of forum, we all need to be able to do that, in my opinion. For me your post crosses that line unacceptably
Yes, but I don't think that Christmas was the focus of the dialog that they wanted to open up. I think we're just restating our arguments now. I do see your point though.
Maybe not attack, but tweak, annoy, make upset, even ridicule? I think it is far more likely they were attempting to provoke controversy than they wanted to engage in some meaningful dialog. I may be wrong but I doubt it.
You believe God existed before Jesus was born correct? Than how can you know when his birthdate is? It was actually closer to 30K last I checked. And did you really mock the idea that Earth is a nurterer while ignoring that God slaughtered or had people slaughtered every other page or so of the Old Testament?
This seems counter intuitive. Religious people as a whole aren't afraid of Atheists, but unlike most "religions" a large part of Christianity is to "save" people. This means that it is actually a large part of a Christian's belief system to talk to Atheists and other non believers about what they believe in. This is called Evangelism and is actually one of the last things that Jesus called believers to do. My question would be is it a large part of an Atheists belief system to trash other people's belief systems? And if so doesn't that seem like a strange code to live by.
When somebody trys to be a role model, theres always going to people to try and poke holes, antagonise and try and make them contradict themselves. Christians are kind of in that boat...Its kinda along the lines of: "So ya think your better than me do ya?!? Why I oughta..." .....Some people love to try and topple others off of their high horse. Its not just christians either, it can be politicians, scientists, sports figures or even you 6th grade math teacher!
well i can toss my non-religious mass murder body count of the 20th century from communist regimes (whom were decidedly anti-religious and actually sought to supplant established spirituality and organized religions with the government) and other instances on the scales that would cast a gigantic shadow...like in the neighborhood of 100+ million people. but thats not the point. the point is that ideologies, be them religious or non-religious, taken the their extremes are responsible. believers and non-believers should not fear what the other says, but the content of the specific message. neither side is any more pre-disposed to violence than the other the worst case of religious violence in our present time is radical islam. but the radicalization is political in nature. most of the rhetoric is about political and power structures; capitalism and poverty. it is so dangerous because radical islam sees the political and the religious as one and merges two radical ideologies together. taken by themselves and only having one of the two elements would make the movement less potent, which is what luck was saying
I am Christian and I do not know what his Birthdate is. It has also been admitted by many in various Christian organizations that Christ's birthdate is not DEC. 25th. Its most commonly thought that the date coincides with an old Roman holiday 'Saturnalia' and then it was changed. Though it could've been due to any of the winter celebrations. Since people were already celebrating during that time of year, it was thought to go ahead and do it then was most likely the reasoning. However is that really that important in the grand scheme of things? How does knowing what exact date he was born make any difference in what his teachings and his purpose was? As far as God 'slaughtering' in the Old Testament. He did no such thing. When someone(s) was/were killed it was because of something that was done. An action or actions that either broke his laws, hurt others, or a pretty justifiable reason. Not just "Oh well there's Joe and his family let me kill them."
I disagree with that statement. God may not have been doing the slaughtering directly, but it was at his direction. He instructed the Isrealites to kill every man, woman and child and he often punished those that didn't. Saying that god didn't slaughter people in the old testament is like saying Hitler didn't kill anybody b/c he didn't pull the trigger.
