Bill O'Reilly's War on Christmas

[zerohour]

If you haven't heard, FOX News nut Bill O'Reilly thinks there is a left-wing conspiracy to destroy the Christmas holiday. I've written an essay on it, because he pisses me off and is an idiot.

So This is Christmas?
by Ryan Lothian
If you are lucky, you haven’t heard of the “War on Christmas,” an alleged crusade of “secular progressives” and those on the “far-left” to destroy the Christian holiday, as we know it. The war is the fantasy of fair and balanced Fox News anchors Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and John Gibson. Gibson has been promoting his new book, The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought, and many others have joined the good fight against the Grinches trying to take down Christmas. And yes, it is worse than you thought, much worse.

Read More>>> (http://www.zerohour.com/essaychristmas.htm)


Here is another place you can read about FOX News and their made up "War on Christmas"

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/war_on_christmas

[laserx54]

I was nodding my head the whole time during those last few paragraphs. This issue is totally the religious right's doing. Fuck them

[Freedom Toast]

It was so damn funny when O'Reilly was selling fucking HOLIDAY ornaments for the HOLIDAY Tree online.....then the next day they changed it to Christmas

[D_Raay]

It was so damn funny when O'Reilly was selling fucking HOLIDAY ornaments for the HOLIDAY Tree online.....then the next day they changed it to Christmas
where you been?

[roosta]

whilst i hate his guts and think he's a tool...and most of his arguments here are ridiculous, i kinda agree with some of the sentiment. anyone who is offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas" or wants the word "Christmas" removed from public viewing needs to live a little and enjoy life.
Fact of the matter is that Christmas IS a holiday, celebrated by billions of people, whether they be religious or not. the minority complaining about it are out of wack with popular thought on this one, and need to give up

[Ali]

whilst i hate his guts and think he's a tool...and most of his arguments here are ridiculous, i kinda agree with some of the sentiment. anyone who is offended by someone saying "Merry Christmas" or wants the word "Christmas" removed from public viewing needs to live a little and enjoy life.
Fact of the matter is that Christmas IS a holiday, celebrated by billions of people, whether they be religious or not. the minority complaining about it are out of wack with popular thought on this one, and need to give upIt's another Pagan ceremony hijacked by the christians, like Easter, so why all the fuss?

[Freedom Toast]

where you been?


Yeah...life sort of happened. It's been turned upside down and inside out.
2005 was a fucked up year for me....

Message-borading wasn't at the top of my list of things to do...but since I've moved across the country....I have a bit more time on my hands (since I don't have any friends out here).

[ms.peachy]

From last week's NY Times:

This Season's War Cry: Commercialize Christmas, or Else

By ADAM COHEN
Published: December 4, 2005

Religious conservatives have a cause this holiday season: the commercialization of Christmas. They're for it.

The American Family Association is leading a boycott of Target for not using the words "Merry Christmas" in its advertising. (Target denies it has an anti-Merry-Christmas policy.) The Catholic League boycotted Wal-Mart in part over the way its Web site treated searches for "Christmas." Bill O'Reilly, the Fox anchor who last year started a "Christmas Under Siege" campaign, has a chart on his Web site of stores that use the phrase "Happy Holidays," along with a poll that asks, "Will you shop at stores that do not say 'Merry Christmas'?"

This campaign - which is being hyped on Fox and conservative talk radio - is an odd one. Christmas remains ubiquitous, and with its celebrators in control of the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court and every state supreme court and legislature, it hardly lacks for powerful supporters. There is also something perverse, when Christians are being jailed for discussing the Bible in Saudi Arabia and slaughtered in Sudan, about spending so much energy on stores that sell "holiday trees."

What is less obvious, though, is that Christmas's self-proclaimed defenders are rewriting the holiday's history. They claim that the "traditional" American Christmas is under attack by what John Gibson, another Fox anchor, calls "professional atheists" and "Christian haters." But America has a complicated history with Christmas, going back to the Puritans, who despised it. What the boycotters are doing is not defending America's Christmas traditions, but creating a new version of the holiday that fits a political agenda.

The Puritans considered Christmas un-Christian, and hoped to keep it out of America. They could not find Dec. 25 in the Bible, their sole source of religious guidance, and insisted that the date derived from Saturnalia, the Roman heathens' wintertime celebration. On their first Dec. 25 in the New World, in 1620, the Puritans worked on building projects and ostentatiously ignored the holiday. From 1659 to 1681 Massachusetts went further, making celebrating Christmas "by forbearing of labor, feasting or in any other way" a crime.

The concern that Christmas distracted from religious piety continued even after Puritanism waned. In 1827, an Episcopal bishop lamented that the Devil had stolen Christmas "and converted it into a day of worldly festivity, shooting and swearing." Throughout the 1800's, many religious leaders were still trying to hold the line. As late as 1855, New York newspapers reported that Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist churches were closed on Dec. 25 because "they do not accept the day as a Holy One." On the eve of the Civil War, Christmas was recognized in just 18 states.

Christmas gained popularity when it was transformed into a domestic celebration, after the publication of Clement Clarke Moore's "Visit from St. Nicholas" and Thomas Nast's Harper's Weekly drawings, which created the image of a white-bearded Santa who gave gifts to children. The new emphasis lessened religious leaders' worries that the holiday would be given over to drinking and swearing, but it introduced another concern: commercialism. By the 1920's, the retail industry had adopted Christmas as its own, sponsoring annual ceremonies to kick off the "Christmas shopping season."

Religious leaders objected strongly. The Christmas that emerged had an inherent tension: merchants tried to make it about buying, while clergymen tried to keep commerce out. A 1931 Times roundup of Christmas sermons reported a common theme: "the suggestion that Christmas could not survive if Christ were thrust into the background by materialism." A 1953 Methodist sermon broadcast on NBC - typical of countless such sermons - lamented that Christmas had become a "profit-seeking period." This ethic found popular expression in "A Charlie Brown Christmas." In the 1965 TV special, Charlie Brown ignores Lucy's advice to "get the biggest aluminum tree you can find" and her assertion that Christmas is "a big commercial racket," and finds a more spiritual way to observe the day.

This year's Christmas "defenders" are not just tolerating commercialization - they're insisting on it. They are also rewriting Christmas history on another key point: non-Christians' objection to having the holiday forced on them.

The campaign's leaders insist this is a new phenomenon - a "liberal plot," in Mr. Gibson's words. But as early as 1906, the Committee on Elementary Schools in New York City urged that Christmas hymns be banned from the classroom, after a boycott by more than 20,000 Jewish students. In 1946, the Rabbinical Assembly of America declared that calling on Jewish children to sing Christmas carols was "an infringement on their rights as Americans."

Other non-Christians have long expressed similar concerns. For decades, companies have replaced "Christmas parties" with "holiday parties," schools have adopted "winter breaks" instead of "Christmas breaks," and TV stations and stores have used phrases like "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" out of respect for the nation's religious diversity.

The Christmas that Mr. O'Reilly and his allies are promoting - one closely aligned with retailers, with a smack-down attitude toward nonobservers - fits with their campaign to make America more like a theocracy, with Christian displays on public property and Christian prayer in public schools.

It does not, however, appear to be catching on with the public. That may be because most Americans do not recognize this commercialized, mean-spirited Christmas as their own. Of course, it's not even clear the campaign's leaders really believe in it. Just a few days ago, Fox News's online store was promoting its "Holiday Collection" for shoppers. Among the items offered to put under a "holiday tree" was "The O'Reilly Factor Holiday Ornament." After bloggers pointed this out, Fox changed the "holidays" to "Christmases."

[Ace42X]

Good article.

[EN[i]GMA]

OF course, 'Christmas' actually doesn't have anything to do with the birth of Christ and is a pagan ritual Christianized-cum-bastardized.

Every time I hear some fucktard talking about 'the war on christmas' or disparaging 'happy holidays' or whatever, I think two things:

1. That person is fucking stupid as they cannot seem to cope with people saying or doing something that does not meet their exact expcectations.

2. That person knows shit about any of the other holidays occuring, or of the pagan ancestry of 'Christmas'.

[ASsman]

Indeed, Ill finish it up after work.

It's all about Chrismakwanzaka.

[EN[i]GMA]

Ask any one of those fuckers to explain the differences between the stories behind Jesus's birth in the Bible.

Ask them when Jesus was born.

Ask them how they can act like fucking victims when they're over 85% of the population.

Ask them to fucking kill themselves and save my oxygen. I need it to think. They don't.

I need to start saying "Happy pagan-day!" or "OH, you're looking for Christ's birth? You're about a month or two late you stupid fucker, read the Bible".

[ASsman]

I piss my aunt off on a constant basis. I love it, too bad they don't take things more seriously. I bitch about XMas, easter, thanksgiving, err I think those are it, no one can answer me why they still celebrate it even though they are Mormon and not catholic.

[sam i am]

December 25 is a traditional date that was taken by the early Catholic Church (the only "Christian" church at the time).

It was a date meant to celebrate the days beginning to get longer over shorter in times prior to Christianity's onset.

WHEN Christ was born isn't important...HOW his birth is celebrated is what's important.

If you don't believe in him, don't celebrate it. Why does it bother you so much if someone wants to celebrate it? It's not like Christians are sacrificing animals publicly or lopping off heads. Christians are praying and singing and shopping and wishing peace and happiness and hope on the world.....

Yep....sounds like it's really horrible :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

GMA']
I need to start saying "Happy pagan-day!" or "OH, you're looking for Christ's birth? You're about a month or two late you stupid fucker, read the Bible".

They have special "Happy Winter Solstice" cards. My aunt's a secular humanist and sends them out every year.

The ignorance surrounding this holiday is ridiculous. I heard some peppy song singing about "Jesus, son of God, was born on Christmas Day. Now we can all be saved, thanks to Christmas Day." Now see, if I were Jesus, I'd be pissed at these idiots. It'd be like if my birthday fell on a Wednesday so I held my party on Saturday and all my friends came up and were like "Ohhh, Happy Birthday! How old are you today?" Those aren't real friends if they don't know it's just your party and not your actual birthday. It shows they don't care and don't know a damn thing about you. (n)

[D_Raay]

December 25 is a traditional date that was taken by the early Catholic Church (the only "Christian" church at the time).

It was a date meant to celebrate the days beginning to get longer over shorter in times prior to Christianity's onset.

WHEN Christ was born isn't important...HOW his birth is celebrated is what's important.

If you don't believe in him, don't celebrate it. Why does it bother you so much if someone wants to celebrate it? It's not like Christians are sacrificing animals publicly or lopping off heads. Christians are praying and singing and shopping and wishing peace and happiness and hope on the world.....

Yep....sounds like it's really horrible :rolleyes:

Yeah, except they aren't... at least not the ones who have appointed themselves to speak for them. They are spouting hate in a season they believe to be one filled with merriment and worship and prayer or whatever.

Why would they care whether or not some liberal somewhere says "merry christmas" or not?

What Enigma says is spot on, maybe without the strong language, and he is well within his rights to say so.

[Schmeltz]

I sure hope Christmas loses the War on Christmas, whoever it is that's prosecuting it. I fucking hate Christmas.

Now, Saturnalia (the pagan Roman festival that supplies the "traditional date" sam was talking about) - there's a festival I can appreciate. What better way to celebrate the return of Sol Invictis than by getting loaded and romping about with nubile young wenches in a Bacchanalian orgy of excess and indulgence?

[EN[i]GMA]

December 25 is a traditional date that was taken by the early Catholic Church (the only "Christian" church at the time).

'Traditional'? Try 'arbitrary'.


It was a date meant to celebrate the days beginning to get longer over shorter in times prior to Christianity's onset.

Which is extra-Biblical, isn't it?

Why not just celebrate Jesus's birth, on his birthday? Novel idea.

Why couldn't God have noticed this symbolism and actually birthed Christ on this day?


WHEN Christ was born isn't important...HOW his birth is celebrated is what's important.

Agree.

Which is why pagan trees, Santa Clause and Reindeer are an abasement of an abasement of a pagan ritual.



If you don't believe in him, don't celebrate it. Why does it bother you so much if someone wants to celebrate it? It's not like Christians are sacrificing animals publicly or lopping off heads. Christians are praying and singing and shopping and wishing peace and happiness and hope on the world.....

Yep....sounds like it's really horrible :rolleyes:

I don't really care if they choose to celebrate it or not. Bothers me none.

But when they act like victims, think 'Merry Christmas' is better than 'happy holidays' complain at people for not calling it a 'Christmas tree' even though they're the ones fucking it up and play their shitty Christmas music 24/7, they deserve some flak. A lot of it.

These people know, literally, nothing about Christmas. They learn most of it from shitty songs that don't even rhyme.

But forgive me for thinking that people should be educated about their beliefs, or learn basic manners, or respect other people's beliefs.

Forgive me. Jesus.

[EN[i]GMA]

They have special "Happy Winter Solstice" cards. My aunt's a secular humanist and sends them out every year.

The ignorance surrounding this holiday is ridiculous. I heard some peppy song singing about "Jesus, son of God, was born on Christmas Day. Now we can all be saved, thanks to Christmas Day." Now see, if I were Jesus, I'd be pissed at these idiots. It'd be like if my birthday fell on a Wednesday so I held my party on Saturday and all my friends came up and were like "Ohhh, Happy Birthday! How old are you today?" Those aren't real friends if they don't know it's just your party and not your actual birthday. It shows they don't care and don't know a damn thing about you. (n)

Agreed.

I wonder how people could have taken their supposed holiest day and turned it into this schlockfest we see around us.

Compare Christmas to Passover or Ramadan.

WHich is least religious? THe most commercial? The biggest bastardization of the actual religion?

Other religions don't allow their (Moronic) holy days to turn to (A different kind of) shit. WHy do Christians?

[EN[i]GMA]

What Enigma says is spot on, maybe without the strong language, and he is well within his rights to say so.

I do it for humor.

Just imagine my prosletyzing as that of a comedian. Sam Kennison is something.

[K-nowledge]

In the Western world, the birthday of Jesus Christ has been celebrated on December 25th since AD 354, replacing an earlier date of January 6th. The Christians had by then appropriated many pagan festivals and traditions of the season, that were practiced in many parts of the Middle East and Europe, as a means of stamping them out.

There were mid-winter festivals in ancient Babylon and Egypt, and Germanic fertility festivals also took place at this time. The birth of the ancient sun-god Attis in Phrygia was celebrated on December 25th, as was the birth of the Persian sun-god, Mithras. The Romans celebrated Saturnalia, a festival dedicated to Saturn, the god of peace and plenty, that ran from the 17th to 24th of December. Public gathering places were decorated with flowers, gifts and candles were exchanged and the population, slaves and masters alike, celebrated the occasion with great enthusiasm.

In Scandinavia, a period of festivities known as Yule contributed another impetus to celebration, as opposed to spirituality. As Winter ended the growing season, the opportunity of enjoying the Summer's bounty encouraged much feasting and merriment.

The Celtic culture of the British Isles revered all green plants, but particularly mistletoe and holly. These were important symbols of fertility and were used for decorating their homes and altars.

New Christmas customs appeared in the Middle Ages. The most prominent contribution was the carol, which by the 14th century had become associated with the religious observance of the birth of Christ.

In Italy, a tradition developed for re-enacting the birth of Christ and the construction of scenes of the nativity. This is said to have been introduced by Saint Francis as part of his efforts to bring spiritual knowledge to the laity.

Saints Days have also contributed to our Christmas celebrations. A prominent figure in today's Christmas is Saint Nicholas who for centuries has been honoured on December 6th. He was one of the forerunners of Santa Claus.

Another popular ritual was the burning of the Yule Log, which is strongly embedded in the pagan worship of vegetation and fire, as well as being associated with magical and spiritual powers.

Celebrating Christmas has been controversial since its inception. Since numerous festivities found their roots in pagan practices, they were greatly frowned upon by conservatives within the Church. The feasting, gift-giving and frequent excesses presented a drastic contrast with the simplicity of the Nativity, and many people throughout the centuries and into the present, condemn such practices as being contrary to the true spirit of Christmas.

The earliest English reference to December 25th as Christmas Day did not come until 1043.

[Documad]

Message-boarding wasn't at the top of my list of things to do...
Get your priorities straight! Welcome back! :)

[marsdaddy]

As Stephen Colbert said today on NPR's Fresh Air, it's about time someone stood up for the ignored US population of Christians. It's only about 80% of the people and I'm sure they're tired of being oppressed. Finally, a savior.

[Bob]

http://stfunoob.com/sa/TDS-OReilly-bustedonChristmas.wmv

jon stewart's take on the affair, it's roughly as classic as his crossfire appearance, i suggest you watch it (though possibly not at work if the words "fag/jizz/homobortion" don't fly in the workplace)

[greedygretchen]

WHEN Christ was born isn't important...HOW his birth is celebrated is what's important.

people using His "birth" as an excuse to buy all kinds of useless shit-gifts, trees, new clothes for the holiday parties, inflatable christmas decorations, christmas cards, christmas socks & underwear (like they used his father's house to sell goods at the temple)...don't you think Christ would be righteously angry?

I have nothing against Christmas personally-I mean I like to party and have the following Monday off of work-but for people to act like it's some sort of sacred Christian rite is rather ridiculous especially when you understand that it was based in pagan ritual...

[roosta]

you idiots.

it doesnt matter one bit when exactly he WAS born, its when christians decide to celebrate it. you act like your making some amazing statement by wheeling out the "its actually a pagan ritual" argument...we all know this....

[valvano]

is it safe to assume that those of you who see no problem callling a christmas tree a holiday tree also see no problem calling a menorah a candle holder?

:D

[Ace42X]

is it safe to assume that those of you who see no problem callling a christmas tree a holiday tree also see no problem calling a menorah a candle holder?

Well it certainly isn't an umbrella stand. Although candlestick is the preferred term.

[valvano]

Well it certainly isn't an umbrella stand. Although candlestick is the preferred term.

no, a candlestick is what you place in a candle holder.....

(!)

[Bob]

i'm offended by christmas tree, actually, i prefer tannenbaum, like it says in the bible

[Monsieur Decuts]

Anyone who gets bent out of shape about the day christmas falls on and uses this as some kind of attack on the holiday...you're an idiot. The church has chosen to honor it on the 25th for the last 1000 years, big deal. I also don't see the church pushing people to shop shop shop. My church encourages to share share share during the season. I can't help if corporate america has jumped on the chance to turn a biblical holiday into a end of the year spending blitz. That's part of the war right there, turning it into a secular holiday where the only thing that binds us together is that we all spend 2 grand on presents and food and trees.

If you think the average christian stands behind what is now christmas, they don't. The argument is HEY THIS IS CHRISTMAS...NOT HELP WALMART ROUND OUT THEIR FOURTH QUARTER SALES. I don't condone any commericalism in jesuses name, and i think that's part of the christians problem.

[EN[i]GMA]

you idiots.

it doesnt matter one bit when exactly he WAS born, its when christians decide to celebrate it. you act like your making some amazing statement by wheeling out the "its actually a pagan ritual" argument...we all know this....

Congrulations! You've earned a cookie!

[EN[i]GMA]

Anyone who gets bent out of shape about the day christmas falls on and uses this as some kind of attack on the holiday...you're an idiot. The church has chosen to honor it on the 25th for the last 1000 years, big deal. I also don't see the church pushing people to shop shop shop. My church encourages to share share share during the season. I can't help if corporate america has jumped on the chance to turn a biblical holiday into a end of the year spending blitz. That's part of the war right there, turning it into a secular holiday where the only thing that binds us together is that we all spend 2 grand on presents and food and trees.

And so they've been wrong for a 1000 years (Actually, more like 2000).

It's so easy to blame 'corporate America' isn't it. Blame average CHristians; they're the ones who support this wholesale bastardization.

Me? I don't really care. I just think the songs suck.


If you think the average christian stands behind what is now christmas, they don't. The argument is HEY THIS IS CHRISTMAS...NOT HELP WALMART ROUND OUT THEIR FOURTH QUARTER SALES. I don't condone any commericalism in jesuses name, and i think that's part of the christians problem.

I agree.

[greedygretchen]

you idiots.

...you're an idiot.


yeah that's sure representative of the Christmas/Christian spirit, did your church tell you to call,call,call people you disagree with idiots? (oh no they probably said to call them sinners)...more reasons why I think a lot of Christians are full of shit are that some are very self-righteous and rarely (if ever) practice what they preach...

"That which you do unto the least of my brethren you do unto me" -Jesus Christ

Do you realize you both just called Jesus an idiot?

[roosta]

oh no, i called Jesus an idiot!!!!!

how many rosarys must i do....

[EN[i]GMA]

oh no, i called Jesus an idiot!!!!!

how many rosarys must i do....

Do them until you learn how to capitalize.

[sam i am]

This has become rather comical.

As a Christian...if you say nothing to support your religious beliefs, you are not proud and proficient in your faith and are subject to ridicule as a person without conviction.

If you stand up for what you believe, you are somehow oppressing others who have different beliefs.

Sounds like a no-win situation and the rules have been setup by those who are opposed to Christianity.

Just observing....

[EN[i]GMA]

This has become rather comical.

As a Christian...if you say nothing to support your religious beliefs, you are not proud and proficient in your faith and are subject to ridicule as a person without conviction.

If you stand up for what you believe, you are somehow oppressing others who have different beliefs.

Sounds like a no-win situation and the rules have been setup by those who are opposed to Christianity.

It IS a no-win situation.

You can no-better defend your Christianity than you can defend your faith in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or some other absurdity.

It's a no-win situation that you put yourself in by subscribing to a certain belief system.

[sam i am]

GMA']It IS a no-win situation.

You can no-better defend your Christianity than you can defend your faith in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny or some other absurdity.

It's a no-win situation that you put yourself in by subscribing to a certain belief system.

Why is it so important to non-Christians to disabuse those who believe in Christ of their "delusion?"

I'm truly curious.

[QueenAdrock]

is it safe to assume that those of you who see no problem callling a christmas tree a holiday tree also see no problem calling a menorah a candle holder?

:D

If you can prove that the Jews stole the menorah idea from someone else, then by all means. I'm pretty sure that their little menorah idea was in their religion - it symbolizes the 8 days that the oil for the light held out, when it should have only been for a few days. It was a miracle, according to the religion.

Look in the bible and tell me where it mentions Christmas trees.

It therefore, would be in bad taste to call a menorah a "candle holder," since it is in fact, insulting their religion and tradition. Calling a Christmas Tree a "holiday tree" is calling it exactly what it is - a holiday tree that was celebrated long before Christianity stole it.


The Egyptians were part of a long line of cultures that treasured and worshipped evergreens. When the winter solstice arrive, they brought green date palm leaves into their homes to symbolize life's triumph over death. (http://www.christmas-tree.com/where.html)

[ASsman]

Hahaha, keep clawing at them pit walls Sam and co.



Now, Saturnalia (the pagan Roman festival that supplies the "traditional date" sam was talking about) - there's a festival I can appreciate. What better way to celebrate the return of Sol Invictis than by getting loaded and romping about with nubile young wenches in a Bacchanalian orgy of excess and indulgence?
Mmmm nubile, sounds like a plan. When's the party? I'm game doggy.


What you guys dont understand is that Christmas is being made more appealing to non-christians, to bring awareness to Jesus' birth. That is why he is excluded in all but a few Christmas traditions. Xmas, etc.

[Ali]

As a Christian...if you say nothing to support your religious beliefs, you are not proud and proficient in your faith and are subject to ridicule as a person without conviction...... only by other Christians.

[roosta]

GMA']Do them until you learn how to capitalize.

oh, its a conscious decision....

[valvano]

If you can prove that the Jews stole the menorah idea from someone else, then by all means. I'm pretty sure that their little menorah idea was in their religion - it symbolizes the 8 days that the oil for the light held out, when it should have only been for a few days. It was a miracle, according to the religion.

Look in the bible and tell me where it mentions Christmas trees.

It therefore, would be in bad taste to call a menorah a "candle holder," since it is in fact, insulting their religion and tradition. Calling a Christmas Tree a "holiday tree" is calling it exactly what it is - a holiday tree that was celebrated long before Christianity stole it.


The Egyptians were part of a long line of cultures that treasured and worshipped evergreens. When the winter solstice arrive, they brought green date palm leaves into their homes to symbolize life's triumph over death. (http://www.christmas-tree.com/where.html)

so why not call the menorah a "holiday candle holder" then....
:D

[Schmeltz]

Sounds like a no-win situation


Yep, that's exactly what religion is.


When's the party?


My finals are done on the 15th - party goes until January 10th! Whoooo!


so why not call the menorah a "holiday candle holder" then....


She just explained that to you, valvano. Repeating your question over and over again doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
:D :D :D

[K-nowledge]

All this attack on religion but don't attack the menorah!


kinda sounds ridiculous

[Schmeltz]

What do you expect? Religion is an inherently ridiculous thing.

[ASsman]

I laugh at it on a constant basis. Doesn't mean I don't mind a girlie in a sexy santa suit, sazaam.

[valvano]

Yep, that's exactly what religion is.



My finals are done on the 15th - party goes until January 10th! Whoooo!



She just explained that to you, valvano. Repeating your question over and over again doesn't constitute a rebuttal.
:D :D :D

no, i changed it from calling a menorah a candle holder to a "holiday" candle holder, dumb ass
:D

and do we now call Ramadhan a "Holiday Hunger Strike"?

[Schmeltz]

But the point is still exactly the same. The addition of a single word doesn't change a single thing.
:D :D :D :D :D

[EN[i]GMA]

Why is it so important to non-Christians to disabuse those who believe in Christ of their "delusion?"

I'm truly curious.

Why not?

Why should ignorance persist uncontested? If I'm not going to crusade against it (And I'm not), I should at least combat it.

Delusions are a bad thing for people to hold. That disconnect from reality can be hurtful.

[ASsman]

Have you been paying any attention?


...duh.... Just that Christians seem to be doing a super duper job at being moronic "faith" based followers.

[greedygretchen]

Why is it so important to non-Christians to disabuse those who believe in Christ of their "delusion?"


that's hilarious...you know I never had any "atheism" thumpers or agnostic witnesses knocking at my door and stopping me on campus to try to convert me to their way of thinking... :rolleyes:

[K-nowledge]

What about that athiest in No. Cal. that wants to get the word "god" taken out of every possible thing that has to do with America. I would call him an athiest thumper.

[greedygretchen]

well he's full of shit too or maybe he's just hung up on the whole separation of church and state thing (btw, the term wasn't coined for atheists which implies for the most part atheists don't thump-hehe :p )

but like I said- he hasn't come knocking on my door or shoved pamphlets in my hand or left pamphlets on my desk at work or asked me to come with him to church on sunday or called me incessantly to come to bible study (and one guy versus the hundreds of bible thumpers I alone have encountered hardly compares)...

[Ace42X]

no, a candlestick is what you place in a candle holder.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=candlestick

can·dle·stick Audio pronunciation of "candlestick" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kndl-stk)
n.

A holder with a cup or spike for a candle.

You are such a fucking moron, Valv. Really, you just can't help yourself can you?

[franscar]

Wouldn't it have been called a candlestick holder anyway? You can't forget the candlestick, it's the second most important part.

[ASsman]

What about that athiest in No. Cal. that wants to get the word "god" taken out of every possible thing that has to do with America. I would call him an athiest thumper.
It's not like I wouldn't support him, I just don't think its THAT important. Like bitching about getting rid of the Queen of England, muh sure it makes sense but it's not really hurting anyone because it's just some meaningless tradition. I mean everyone knows God's existance is only a possibility, right?

[Ace42X]

What about that athiest in No. Cal. that wants to get the word "god" taken out of every possible thing that has to do with America. I would call him an athiest thumper.

That's because you're a fucking moron!

"Damn those atheists saying the sunrise is to do with the rotation of the planet! Everyone knows it is moved by GOD! And ridden across the sky in a chariot! We should be teaching our children that!"

And cars are powered by demons...

[EN[i]GMA]

Do you hold the same attitude and opinion towards Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, etc..?

Of course.

I just don't encounter as many of them, living in America and posting on a very 'Western' forum.

I would say I dislike Muslism even more because their belief system is generally more ignorant and repressive.

I would say it's worse.

They're all superstitions though. They should all be combated wherever possible.

[QueenAdrock]

Some of my relatives seem to be atheist thumpers. I mean, I respect their opinion and I love that they're liberal and all, but...I feel SO conservative around them, which makes me disgusted with myself. But seriously, I believe in God, I'm not Christian and I don't have religion. Talking to them makes me feel weird sometimes, because I by no means am conservative, but I have to talk them down from some of their crazy rants because I feel they're too far out there.

[K-nowledge]

That's because you're a fucking moron!

"Damn those atheists saying the sunrise is to do with the rotation of the planet! Everyone knows it is moved by GOD! And ridden across the sky in a chariot! We should be teaching our children that!"

And cars are powered by demons...


I'm not sitting here shoving god down anyones throat. Just clearly pointing out that there are zealots of every religous/non-religous sect of beliefs. I used an athiest as an extreme example.

So, you can take your slandering comment and go fuck yourself.

[Ace42X]

I'm not sitting here shoving god down anyones throat. Just clearly pointing out that there are zealots of every religous/non-religous sect of beliefs. I used an athiest as an extreme example.

No, you're perpetuating the latest myth that "religion is just another, equally valid, way of looking at things" - and not very well either.

It's a totally irrational way of looking at it that shrinks a complicated theological argument into a continuum narrow enough to fit between your cloth-ears.

So, you can take your slandering comment and go fuck yourself.

Or I could fuck your mother, get her pregnant, and in 9 months there might be at least someone with an IQ over 100 in your family.

[sam i am]

GMA']Why not?

Why should ignorance persist uncontested? If I'm not going to crusade against it (And I'm not), I should at least combat it.

Delusions are a bad thing for people to hold. That disconnect from reality can be hurtful.

In what way is it hurtful?

Also...are you saying that at all times you are completely rational and non-delusional? Do you never get drunk or high or are on meds? Do you not rationalize poor behaviors or decisions? ARe you bereft of feelings and emotions, never allowing them to rule your decision-making process?

BTW...if you can honestly answer absolutely yes to all of the above queries, then you are a robot, not a human being.

[Funkaloyd]

Delusions are lies or myths accepted as fact. Drugs offer but temporary escape (like fantasies, books, etc.), and emotions don't necessarily have anything to do with delusion.

[ASsman]

Yah that was a stretch, even for you sam.

[EN[i]GMA]

In what way is it hurtful?

In the same way that believing that if you jump off of a ledge, you'll fly is hurtful.


Also...are you saying that at all times you are completely rational and non-delusional?

No.

But I am saying that I try to be. That should be the goal.

Is it realistic? No, but it's still the goal.


Do you never get drunk or high or are on meds?

It's rational to want to enjoy one's self.


Do you not rationalize poor behaviors or decisions?

Of course.

But I also try to look at them logically and not make them again.


ARe you bereft of feelings and emotions, never allowing them to rule your decision-making process?

No, but emotion should be only a part of your decision making, and often only a small part.

Again, the goal is rationality, but I understand that it isn't likely.

We should at least be as rational as we can be.


BTW...if you can honestly answer absolutely yes to all of the above queries, then you are a robot, not a human being.

Interesting way of putting it...

[sam i am]

GMA']In the same way that believing that if you jump off of a ledge, you'll fly is hurtful.

Strictly speaking, the belief itself is NOT dangerous or hurtful, only the APPLICATION of that belief...in your example. Whereas, for the vast majority of human beings, religious or spiritual beliefs TEND to elevate humans above their own base emotions and desires...calling them to a greater good.

It's rational to want to enjoy one's self.

Really? Hmm....wonder why people wallow in misery or self-pity or suicidal thoughts or vote Republican then :eek:

But I also try to look at them logically and not make them again.

The key word there seems to be "try." We all "try" to do better in life, but without some moral compass, how is one to objectively KNOW or ascertain what is "logical" or moral or right or wrong?

No, but emotion should be only a part of your decision making, and often only a small part.

Interesting. Most major religions call upon their adherents to NOT be emotional in their decisions as well, but rather to question and logically ascertain what is true and right and rational through empirical evidence and an inquisitive mind. The conclusions that are reached, of course, are believed by one who has faith, to be God-inspired (or Allah or whatever) and Truth.

Again, the goal is rationality, but I understand that it isn't likely.

We should at least be as rational as we can be.

What are the benefits to a completely rational mindset, and macro-level, how does such a midset play out in politics, economics, etc?

[sam i am]

Delusions are lies or myths accepted as fact. Drugs offer but temporary escape (like fantasies, books, etc.), and emotions don't necessarily have anything to do with delusion.

Ah...but they DO. Does anyone dispute that thoughts and emotions are but composites of chemical reactions and electrical impulses along neurons and transferred to the rest of our bodies via nerves?

No? Then you might want to look at what causes discordance between "rational" thought and actual actions and outcomes in the human psyche and societies at large.

[Ali]

Ah...but they DO. Does anyone dispute that thoughts and emotions are but composites of chemical reactions and electrical impulses along neurons and transferred to the rest of our bodies via nerves?God is love.
Love is an emotion.
Therefore, God is an emotion. :p

[ASsman]

I think my brain just pooped some emotions.

Suck it.

[EN[i]GMA]

Strictly speaking, the belief itself is NOT dangerous or hurtful, only the APPLICATION of that belief...in your example. Whereas, for the vast majority of human beings, religious or spiritual beliefs TEND to elevate humans above their own base emotions and desires...calling them to a greater good.

How do religions elevate you past your base emotions when they're comprised wholly OF those base emotions?

You can't 'rise above' who you are, that's meaningless.

I lack absolutely nothing spiritually. I've never felt any 'longing' for a deity or any hole in my life that needed filled.

I can't even understand those concepts, and I get the distinct feeling that those who utter them don't understand them either, they just pretend.

That 'hole in your heart' is something made up, something else, that you choose to apply to religion, because it's popular.


Really? Hmm....wonder why people wallow in misery or self-pity or suicidal thoughts or vote Republican then :eek:


Because many of them aren't rational.

I've never understood 'wallowing in misery' or whatever.

Perhaps I'm not as emotive as others or something, but it doesn't behoove me.


The key word there seems to be "try." We all "try" to do better in life, but without some moral compass, how is one to objectively KNOW or ascertain what is "logical" or moral or right or wrong?

Compass, or divining rod?

I would say that, since religion is made up, I'll be at least as well off just making up my own morals, or doing what seems logical. It's served me well.

Logic is just that: Logic.

You can't explain it without already assuming it exists, logically.


Interesting. Most major religions call upon their adherents to NOT be emotional in their decisions as well, but rather to question and logically ascertain what is true and right and rational through empirical evidence and an inquisitive mind.

The hell you say?

I doubt you'll find a passage in the Bible that says: "Doubt God! Come up with logical arguments against them and discuss them with your friends!".

Something I've recently realized is most X-ians don't doubt. At all. It's a totally foregin concept to them.

'Doubting God, to them, is like doubting 2 + 2 = 4. They really are that deluded.


What are the benefits to a completely rational mindset, and macro-level, how does such a midset play out in politics, economics, etc?

Without being perfectly rational, I don't think I'm qualified to answer.

I think we can at least say 'things would be better'.

Depending on how the 'rationality' manifested itself, it could be a very good thing indeed.


Plus one does not 'be rational' because it helps you out, as if 'being illogical' is a valid option.

You can't believe 1 + 1 = 3 if you want to.

Being rational isn't something one needs to want to do. It's something one needs to be.

[D_Raay]

If God dropped acid, would he see people?

[K-nowledge]

Depends on which demention god wanted to go to when he/she/it dropped it.

[zerohour]

I find it amazing that more people don't question religion. Maybe because that is considered "sacrilegious." Ha ha, but seriously, religion is made up. Humans made it up to help explain existence and to make themselves feel special. Many ancient cultures had a god for everything, to explain each thing that needed explaining in their life. They didn't have answers to so many questions that we do today.

It irks me more than anything when people question scientific research and then defend a religion they have no way of ever proving. When our fucking President says, "the jury is still out on evolution," I think what the hell. Buddy, the jury will always be out on religion! People pushing intelligent design are idiots, they want to add warnings about evolution? Is this the 50s? Just because some people think there is a God and he created everything doesn't make it so. Living beings are complicated, that isn't evidence for God. Stop trying to teach your religion in schools.

And then the people that think that their religion is right!?! Why because when you were born and your parents made you catholic or Jewish or Muslim? Most people identify with the same religion as their parents. So I guess YOU must have been born in the right place. You can thank (your) God for that...must be another one of those "miracles."

People should question everything, that's why America is in the condition it is in, everyone accepts the status quo. Nobody cares about anyone but themselves and buying shit. To quote George Carlin on why the American public sucks, "Everybody's at the mall scratchin' his ass, pickin' his nose, takin' his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them." I couldn't have said it better.

Christians think they are right, but there are tons of different kinds of Christianity now and through history. One says you get into heaven by doing good deeds. One says it is predetermined who gets into heaven (rich people). And one says you have to say this on this day and eat this on this day and blah blah blah.

Instead of figuring out who is right and who is going to heaven and why they should say Merry Christmas at fucking Target, maybe people should look at the message that most religions send: helping others. How can "compassionate conservatives" be Christians and fuck the poor? Is that what Jesus would do? Saying one thing and doing another. If you believe it, then practice it.

Everyone should believe what they believe based on what they've learned and what they've been through, or believe what works for them, not what was passed down from their parents. Just because the majority of people think something doesn't make it right. Remember when everyone thought the world was flat. Groupthink is dangerous. Organized religion is groupthink. What everyone believes or has faith in should be personal.

Think before you believe. Sorry for the rambling.

[D_Raay]

I find it amazing that more people don't question religion. Maybe because that is considered "sacrilegious." Ha ha, but seriously, religion is made up. Humans made it up to help explain existence and to make themselves feel special. Many ancient cultures had a god for everything, to explain each thing that needed explaining in their life. They didn't have answers to so many questions that we do today.

It irks me more than anything when people question scientific research and then defend a religion they have no way of ever proving. When our fucking President says, "the jury is still out on evolution," I think what the hell. Buddy, the jury will always be out on religion! People pushing intelligent design are idiots, they want to add warnings about evolution? Is this the 50s? Just because some people think there is a God and he created everything doesn't make it so. Living beings are complicated, that isn't evidence for God. Stop trying to teach your religion in schools.

And then the people that think that their religion is right!?! Why because when you were born and your parents made you catholic or Jewish or Muslim? Most people identify with the same religion as their parents. So I guess YOU must have been born in the right place. You can thank (your) God for that...must be another one of those "miracles."

People should question everything, that's why America is in the condition it is in, everyone accepts the status quo. Nobody cares about anyone but themselves and buying shit. To quote George Carlin on why the American public sucks, "Everybody's at the mall scratchin' his ass, pickin' his nose, takin' his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them." I couldn't have said it better.

Christians think they are right, but there are tons of different kinds of Christianity now and through history. One says you get into heaven by doing good deeds. One says it is predetermined who gets into heaven (rich people). And one says you have to say this on this day and eat this on this day and blah blah blah.

Instead of figuring out who is right and who is going to heaven and why they should say Merry Christmas at fucking Target, maybe people should look at the message that most religions send: helping others. How can "compassionate conservatives" be Christians and fuck the poor? Is that what Jesus would do? Saying one thing and doing another. If you believe it, then practice it.

Everyone should believe what they believe based on what they've learned and what they've been through, or believe what works for them, not what was passed down from their parents. Just because the majority of people think something doesn't make it right. Remember when everyone thought the world was flat. Groupthink is dangerous. Organized religion is groupthink. What everyone believes or has faith in should be personal.

Think before you believe. Sorry for the rambling.

Well said... and the fact that we have a president who has said that God told him to do things is downright scary if not comical.

[sam i am]

Try this on for size...

I find it amazing that more people don't question humanism. Maybe because that is considered "irrational." Ha ha, but seriously, humanism is made up. Humans made it up to help explain existence and to make themselves feel not special. Many ancient cultures had no gods but wanted to explain each thing that needed explaining in their life. They didn't have supposed answers (read "theories") to so many questions that we do today.

It irks me more than anything when people question faith and then defend a humanistic outlook they have no way of ever proving. When people who don't know any better say, "the jury is still out on God," I think what the hell. Buddy, the jury will always be out on humanism! People pushing strict evolution are idiots, they want to add warnings about God? Is this the 60s? Just because some people think there is no God and he didn't create everything doesn't make it so. Living beings are complicated, that isn't evidence for evolution. Stop trying to teach your misguided theories in schools and purvey them like they are the ONLY answer to questions.

And then the people that think that their humanism is right!?! Why because when you were born and your parents made you non-catholic or non-Jewish or non-Muslim and instead gave you agnosticism or atheism? Most people identify with the same non-religion as their parents. So I guess YOU must have been born in the right place. You can thank (your) "evolution" for that...must be another one of those "miracles."

People SHOULD question everything.

Humanists think they are right, but there are tons of different kinds of non-beliefs now and through history. One says there's no such thing as heaven. One says it is predetermined who gets what status in life via genetics. And one says you have to say this on this day and eat this on this day and blah blah blah.

Instead of figuring out who is right and who is not going to heaven and why they shouldn't say Merry Christmas at fucking Target, maybe people should look at the message that most humanists send: don't help others because it doesn't matter - we're all only here for a short while and we should make the best of it for ourselves since there are no consequneces to our actions or beliefs. How can "compassionate evolutionists" be Humanists and fuck the poor? Is that what Darwin would do? Saying one thing and doing another. If you believe it, then practice it.

Everyone should believe what they believe based on what they've learned and what they've been through, or believe what works for them, not what was passed down from their parents. Just because the minority of people think something doesn't make it right. Remember when everyone thought that human activity was the cause of global warming? Groupthink is dangerous. Organized humanism is groupthink. What everyone believes or has faith in should be personal.

Think before you believe. Sorry for the rambling.

Goes to show you, it goes both ways......

[sam i am]

GMA']How do religions elevate you past your base emotions when they're comprised wholly OF those base emotions?

Not necessarily. Many doctors and lawyers and psychologists, etc. et al, "believe" in God even though they rationally have jobs every day that would, ostensibly, preclude such "base emotions." Intelligent, rational scientists, who wholeheartedly focus on the scientific method still realize, rationally, that human beings are not comprised solely of flesh and blood...that a human "spirit" does exist, causing selfless actions and non-rational emotional responses.

You can't 'rise above' who you are, that's meaningless.

According to your narrow view of it. Again, spirit is substanceless. Flesh and blood is not all that we are comprised of.

I lack absolutely nothing spiritually. I've never felt any 'longing' for a deity or any hole in my life that needed filled.

I'm truly sorry for you. Always so full and confident and sure of yourself, eh? Hmmm...wonder what your childhood was like? Were you EVER exposed to any spiritual concepts as a child or as a teenager? Have you never gotten drunk or high to "chase the blues away?" That's sorta what it's like to "fill a hole."

I can't even understand those concepts, and I get the distinct feeling that those who utter them don't understand them either, they just pretend.

Does the above help a bit to give you a glimmer of an understanding? There are many who don't "pretend" to have holes in their hearts, but who have truly witnessed horrific events or suffered great loss or pain and look for answers where there are none in their own heads. Love, as another example, is NOT a rational or measurable emotion, yet our spirits feel it.

That 'hole in your heart' is something made up, something else, that you choose to apply to religion, because it's popular.

I can distinctly remember, as a child and teenager, feeling a "hole a in my heart" many a time and I DIDN'T turn to religion for answers. As a matter of fact, I turned AWAY from religion when I felt those things, becoming an agnostic/atheist for many years. I turned to drugs and alcohol and sundry other things to try to feel whole, never feeling completely comfortable in my own skin. Only when I found God again, of my OWN understanding, did I begin to feel peace and freedom.

Because many of them aren't rational.

Agreed, but what is truly "wrong" with that? It's amusing to me that many agnostics/atheists have a ton of pity for mentally ill people or criminals, who can also be considered in the "non-rational" camp from the perspective of the amoralist, but have only loathing and fear and hatred for those who embrace religion.

I've never understood 'wallowing in misery' or whatever.

Perhaps I'm not as emotive as others or something, but it doesn't behoove me.

Are you emotive at all? Have you ever been in love, or felt tears well up because of some emotional response (of course, only when no one else was around to see it...)?

I would say that, since religion is made up, I'll be at least as well off just making up my own morals, or doing what seems logical. It's served me well.

In what way has it "served you well?" How do you KNOW if you'd be better or worse off with some kind of faith? Have you tried any faiths on for size, or done any research to convince yourself that you are truly better off?

Logic is just that: Logic.

You can't explain it without already assuming it exists, logically.

This is a circular argument, and you know it. C'mon, you're better than this...

I doubt you'll find a passage in the Bible that says: "Doubt God! Come up with logical arguments against them and discuss them with your friends!".

Actually, you're correct. No where does it say to "doubt God." However, it is quite rational to do so and to ask questions and find answers and evidence for one's faith.

Something I've recently realized is most X-ians don't doubt. At all. It's a totally foregin concept to them.

Actually, we must travel in very different circles. I do not know even one Christian, among the thousands I do know, who HASN'T struggled with their faith at one point or another. I hear Christians, all the time, speak about thier hopes and fears and doubts and questions. I'm a perfect example of a doubting Christian, but it doesn't preclude my faith. See "Doubting Thomas" or Martin Luther for some other examples.

[STANKY808]

Agreed, but what is truly "wrong" with that? It's amusing to me that many agnostics/atheists have a ton of pity for mentally ill people or criminals, who can also be considered in the "non-rational" camp from the perspective of the amoralist, but have only loathing and fear and hatred for those who embrace religion.



So for you every atheist is "amoral"? Nice.

I think religious folks SHOULD be pittied and afforded the understanding offered to those other "non-rationals" you describe.

[zerohour]

Not necessarily. Many doctors and lawyers and psychologists, etc. et al, "believe" in God even though they rationally have jobs every day that would, ostensibly, preclude such "base emotions." Intelligent, rational scientists, who wholeheartedly focus on the scientific method still realize, rationally, that human beings are not comprised solely of flesh and blood...that a human "spirit" does exist, causing selfless actions and non-rational emotional responses.

Or maybe "selfless actions" are better explained by lets say, biology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/


And gee non-rational emotional responses? That must be a spirit and not the interaction of different hormones and neuro-transmitters. Humans aren't inherently rational, they are emotional, but that has everything to do with their biological composition or "flesh and blood" as you call it.



According to your narrow view of it. Again, spirit is substanceless. Flesh and blood is not all that we are comprised of.


You shouldn't end your sentence in a preposition and how do you know that?



I'm truly sorry for you. Always so full and confident and sure of yourself, eh? Hmmm...wonder what your childhood was like? Were you EVER exposed to any spiritual concepts as a child or as a teenager? Have you never gotten drunk or high to "chase the blues away?" That's sorta what it's like to "fill a hole."


What was your childhood like? Did an angel come visit you and fill the hole in your spirit? Many people get drunk and high because they like it. Getting drunk and high doesn't mean you have a "hole." And I doubt that getting high and drunk fills anything. If thinking that God's love is always shining down upon you gets you through the day, fine, but it doesn't prove God exists or justify religion.



Does the above help a bit to give you a glimmer of an understanding? There are many who don't "pretend" to have holes in their hearts, but who have truly witnessed horrific events or suffered great loss or pain and look for answers where there are none in their own heads. Love, as another example, is NOT a rational or measurable emotion, yet our spirits feel it.


Yeah, love isn't rational or explained by biology at all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/hottopics/love/

I'd respond to the rest but it is just you preaching, have you ever considered seminary?

[Monsieur Decuts]

Troll Comment: Its fun trying to watch people blast holes in faith. Faith is just that people, Faith. It is not always a crutch, not always a drone inducing mantra, its a belief in something you can't fully prove or refute.

Those who don't know it will never be able to understand it.

[ASsman]

Uh if you cant prove it..... uh...yeah....Nice try though.

[EN[i]GMA]

Not necessarily. Many doctors and lawyers and psychologists, etc. et al, "believe" in God even though they rationally have jobs every day that would, ostensibly, preclude such "base emotions." Intelligent, rational scientists, who wholeheartedly focus on the scientific method still realize, rationally, that human beings are not comprised solely of flesh and blood...that a human "spirit" does exist, causing selfless actions and non-rational emotional responses.

And what evidence do you have for this 'spirit'?


According to your narrow view of it. Again, spirit is substanceless. Flesh and blood is not all that we are comprised of.

This is getting absurd.

There's no point in discussing a 'soul' you can't prove and I can't disprove.


I'm truly sorry for you. Always so full and confident and sure of yourself, eh? Hmmm...wonder what your childhood was like? Were you EVER exposed to any spiritual concepts as a child or as a teenager? Have you never gotten drunk or high to "chase the blues away?" That's sorta what it's like to "fill a hole."

Exposed to spirituality? Like praying?

I always felt like I was talking to myself.

I look back on and pity myself for thinking I was talking to someone else. Horrid delusions.

I don't really have a problem with 'the blues'. Obviously I've been sad before and am sad from time to time, but I don't need any particular thing to 'chase them away'.

If I actually do need escapism, games or books serve well. Music as well.

I feel most 'spiritual' when listening to music or reading.

Gaining knowledge is easily the best cure for any emotional problems I may have.

If I have a problem, I try to understand the problem.


Does the above help a bit to give you a glimmer of an understanding? There are many who don't "pretend" to have holes in their hearts, but who have truly witnessed horrific events or suffered great loss or pain and look for answers where there are none in their own heads. Love, as another example, is NOT a rational or measurable emotion, yet our spirits feel it.

Perhaps I've just realized that are no anwers and have come to grips with it.

I think that's it.

Love isn't rational, but it isn't spiritual either.


I can distinctly remember, as a child and teenager, feeling a "hole a in my heart" many a time and I DIDN'T turn to religion for answers. As a matter of fact, I turned AWAY from religion when I felt those things, becoming an agnostic/atheist for many years. I turned to drugs and alcohol and sundry other things to try to feel whole, never feeling completely comfortable in my own skin. Only when I found God again, of my OWN understanding, did I begin to feel peace and freedom.

I really felt peaceful and free when I found deism. It was a great feeling, getting away from Christian dogma.

Atheism was just an extension of that.

I love it. It's a good feeling, atheism.


Agreed, but what is truly "wrong" with that? It's amusing to me that many agnostics/atheists have a ton of pity for mentally ill people or criminals, who can also be considered in the "non-rational" camp from the perspective of the amoralist, but have only loathing and fear and hatred for those who embrace religion.

I don't really pity most criminals.

But those who embrace religion discard rationality, conciously. That's not good.


Are you emotive at all? Have you ever been in love, or felt tears well up because of some emotional response (of course, only when no one else was around to see it...)?

Sure.

But I'm not one who dwells on my emotions.

They don't consume me, they just ARE.

I've been depressed about the world and felt all nihilistic before.

It happens to everyone.

But I solved it through rationality. I made my existence make sense to me. I would accept nothing less, no religious salve.

I've felt like shit before, for various, personal reasons, but I got over them. I didn't NEED religion.

I've felt the same things other people feel, but I deal with them differently, and I would say more effectively.

I love my life. It's quite an enrapturing feeling. Drunk off life as it were.



In what way has it "served you well?" How do you KNOW if you'd be better or worse off with some kind of faith? Have you tried any faiths on for size, or done any research to convince yourself that you are truly better off?

I don't think I can feel faith.

It's utterly absurd to me.

It's like supposing unicorns are real or something.


This is a circular argument, and you know it. C'mon, you're better than this...


No, it's an a priori assumption.

Try proving rationality without already assuming you're rational.

You can't do it.


Actually, you're correct. No where does it say to "doubt God." However, it is quite rational to do so and to ask questions and find answers and evidence for one's faith.

And when you invariably find none, to discard those beliefs.

Why not carry it all the way?


Actually, we must travel in very different circles. I do not know even one Christian, among the thousands I do know, who HASN'T struggled with their faith at one point or another.

Good. Maybe they aren't too far gone.


I hear Christians, all the time, speak about thier hopes and fears and doubts and questions.

Rationality peering through.


I'm a perfect example of a doubting Christian, but it doesn't preclude my faith. See "Doubting Thomas" or Martin Luther for some other examples.

[sam i am]

So for you every atheist is "amoral"? Nice.

I think religious folks SHOULD be pittied and afforded the understanding offered to those other "non-rationals" you describe.

Morality is a product of religion, isn't it? Therefore, if you are non-spiritual and non-religious, aren't you, de facto, amoral?

Why should what anyone else thinks or feels or wants be important to you if you have no soul and are only responsible for yourself? Why should your life have any meaning or depth or character if you are truly self-possessed and unable to see anything greater than yourself?

[Schmeltz]

No, morality is not a product of religion. Where in the hell did you get that idea?

If you understood a thing at all about the humanism you mock so poorly and ineffectively, you would know that a major part of it involves the promotion of the rights, liberty, and happiness of everybody else in addition to yourself. Contrary to your skewed misinterpretation, humanism actually teaches you that there is something greater than yourself: society, civilization, the human family, whatever you want to call it. Humanism doesn't mean that your only responsibility is to yourself and that there are no consequences for your actions, that's bullshit made up by superficial people who think religion has a monopoly on moral behaviour.

[D_Raay]

that's bullshit made up by superficial people who think religion has a monopoly on moral behaviour.
End of thread.

[sam i am]

No, morality is not a product of religion. Where in the hell did you get that idea?

If you understood a thing at all about the humanism you mock so poorly and ineffectively, you would know that a major part of it involves the promotion of the rights, liberty, and happiness of everybody else in addition to yourself. Contrary to your skewed misinterpretation, humanism actually teaches you that there is something greater than yourself: society, civilization, the human family, whatever you want to call it. Humanism doesn't mean that your only responsibility is to yourself and that there are no consequences for your actions, that's bullshit made up by superficial people who think religion has a monopoly on moral behaviour.

OK. I stand corrected.

I appreciate the additional information. I was misinformed on the tenets of humanism.

Can I ask a question : WHY does humanism want to promote the rights, liberty, and happiness of everybody else in addition to the life, liberty, and happiness of oneself?

I'm truly curious as to where the derivation of this idea comes from....

[STANKY808]

Morality is a product of religion, isn't it? Therefore, if you are non-spiritual and non-religious, aren't you, de facto, amoral?

Why should what anyone else thinks or feels or wants be importatn to you if you have no soul and are only responsible for yourself? Why should your life have any meaning or depth or character if you are truly self-possessed and unable to see anything greater than yourself?

So my desire not to hurt others is derived, unbeknownst to me, through religion? Right.

I consider the impact my actions have on other people. That too comes from religion? You people are just too much.

Nice of you to assume my life has no "meaning, depth or character". It's statements like that that make the faithful fully fucking annoying to me.

And as for seeing nothing greater than myself - what schmeltz said.

[sam i am]

So my desire not to hurt others is derived, unbeknownst to me, through religion? Right.

What DOES stop you? The law? Where does the law derive it's power from?

If not the law, then what? I'm truly curious to know.

I consider the impact my actions have on other people. That too comes from religion? You people are just too much.

Why do you consider the impact your actions have on others? They have no soul, in your estimation, so what does it matter if they're just a bunch of well-connected atoms and molecules with random electrical impulses that animate their flesh and blood?

Nice of you to assume my life has no "meaning, depth or character". It's statements like that that make the faithful fully fucking annoying to me.

I apologize for offending you. I appreciate the info. that schmeltz imparted. I was not as informed as I would have liked to have been and should not have made assumptions based upon a lack of knowledge. I'll take back the offending portion of my last statement that your life has no meaning, depth, or character. I'm sure it has all of those, but I still don't understand where those measures derive from. What's the marking posts of accomplishment of those features : i.e., meaning, depth, and character?

[Schmeltz]

WHY does humanism want to promote the rights, liberty, and happiness of everybody else


Because these things are desireable in and of themselves. A peaceful, productive, and cooperative society open to the advantage of all is a good thing. Certainly it's much better than the repressive, violent, inegalitarian, ignorant, theocratic social systems that dominated the West before the advent of humanism. Humanism, I would say, is an end product of the intellectual backlash (which we call the Enlightenment) against the idiocy perpetuated by the religious establishments of Europe back in the Dark Ages and early modern period. A way of thinking that centers around the idea that we can make things better through our own efforts, instead of suffering miserably through God's will.

It's quite strange to me that you, a person with a liberal arts degree and a knowledge of history, could be so misinformed about the most important intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment. I learned these things very early in my still-ongoing university career and I would think anybody with an education should be familiar with them. But then, if you think the Israelite Exodus was a real event, I guess I can hardly claim to be surprised that you think all morality proceeds from religion.

[Schmeltz]

Why do you consider the impact your actions have on others? They have no soul


Because they're people just like me. Being able to appreciate my own rights as an individual allows me to appreciate that others enjoy the same rights I do. I'm not just a random collection of atoms and impulses, nor is anybody else.

[sam i am]

Because they're people just like me. Being able to appreciate my own rights as an individual allows me to appreciate that others enjoy the same rights I do. I'm not just a random collection of atoms and impulses, nor is anybody else.

Really? So you DO believe in a soul? That you were designed in some way....because otherwise there seems to be a disconnect between what you are stating and what is the logical conclusion of your belief system.

[sam i am]

Because these things are desireable in and of themselves. A peaceful, productive, and cooperative society open to the advantage of all is a good thing. Certainly it's much better than the repressive, violent, inegalitarian, ignorant, theocratic social systems that dominated the West before the advent of humanism. Humanism, I would say, is an end product of the intellectual backlash (which we call the Enlightenment) against the idiocy perpetuated by the religious establishments of Europe back in the Dark Ages and early modern period. A way of thinking that centers around the idea that we can make things better through our own efforts, instead of suffering miserably through God's will.

It's quite strange to me that you, a person with a liberal arts degree and a knowledge of history, could be so misinformed about the most important intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment. I learned these things very early in my still-ongoing university career and I would think anybody with an education should be familiar with them. But then, if you think the Israelite Exodus was a real event, I guess I can hardly claim to be surprised that you think all morality proceeds from religion.

I graduated from college 15 years ago and have not studied the Enlightenment in depth since then.

More of it is coming back to me, as you post, so I truly do appreciate your thread here and taking the time to discuss it further.

Can you remind me of the major players in "Enlightened" thinking (I'm remembering Hobbes, etc., et al) and what their thinking was? Were they anti-religion and anti-spirit or simply pro-human and dismissive of what you call "...repressive, violent, inegalitarian, ignorant, theocratic social systems..."?

Why would anyone, let alone the majority of humanity, believe in God if all of this is so self-evidentiary?

[catatonic]

My hope in we could keep this thread open and watch Bill O'Reilly occasionally and my plan is to respond in case time permits. That was grammatical!

[STANKY808]

FUCK!

I was raised by my (non-religious) parents to consider the impact my actions have on others. The law does not enter into it.



What's the marking posts of accomplishment of those features : i.e., meaning, depth, and character?

You first.

[sam i am]

FUCK!

I was raised by my (non-religious) parents to consider the impact my actions have on others. The law does not enter into it.

You first.

Have you ever questioned how you were raised, as others have questioned how the religious were raised?

No. You first. I asked first. :)

[STANKY808]

Of course I questioned how I was raised but it had nothing to do with religion.

It seems your definition of a humanist or other non-religious person is akin to a sociopath. Without religion, we wouldn't know that running down the street waving a butcher knife isn't a good idea? Really.

You reasoning is specious and I'm outta here.

[Funkaloyd]

Try this on for size... Goes to show you, it goes both ways......He didn't even mention humanism. Humanism and atheism/agnosticism aren't synonymous.

[Schmeltz]

I didn't say that I believed in a soul or a designer - why do you consider these things to be necessary to a valued image of yourself? At the bottom line people might be nothing more than atoms, but an individual is a whole greater than the sum of its parts. People are also memories, knowledge, skills, experiences, and emotions, intangible things like that. A soul that goes to heaven to be with Jesus when your body dies doesn't enter into the equation, nor does it have to in order to appreciate the wonder and the joy of being human.

We're here for a good time, man. The purpose of life is to give life purpose. There's no higher power or answer, and we don't need one either.

[Schmeltz]

Humanism and atheism/agnosticism aren't synonymous.


Good point.


Can you remind me of the major players in "Enlightened" thinking


Hmmm... Locke, Kant, Hume, Voltaire, Newton, and across the pond some of the Founding Fathers (Franklin, Jefferson, and especially Paine) all come to mind. Hobbes more properly belongs to the Age of Reason, but he was kind of an ancestor of the whole movement. I don't know that any of them were explicitly anti-religion, but they were all fiercely in favour of using your own intelligence (Sapere aud, as Kant wrote), which at the time amounted to pretty much the same thing.


Why would anyone, let alone the majority of humanity, believe in God if all of this is so self-evidentiary?


Well, it's not that self-evident really. If you're raised in a religious household, as I was, these ideas are very foreign - even heretical - until you thoroughly familiarize yourself with them and where they came from. And people are very insecure. A belief in God can help reconcile a fear of death or a guilty conscience, and provides a kind of anchor in a world that's always been unstable and tumultuous to one degree or another. And anyway, gods were invented when our ability to observe the world was more primitive than our ability to explain it. They're only still around because of the sheer staying power of human cultural institutions.

[catatonic]

Please control your cuss words, I ask. I'm intending

[sam i am]

He didn't even mention humanism. Humanism and atheism/agnosticism aren't synonymous.

Really? What's the inherent or overt difference?

[sam i am]

We're here for a good time, man. The purpose of life is to give life purpose. There's no higher power or answer, and we don't need one either.

You don't want answers? Inquisition isn't a part of your human nature?

It really is pointless for us to continue.

I respect your stance and would fight for your right to express it, but you are coming from a completely different paradigm than I am.

Enjoy! Skoal!

[Schmeltz]

Humanism would be nothing without inquisition, and nowhere have I said I don't support rational, objective inquiry. What I meant was that you're looking for something that isn't there.

We really are coming from different paradigms, and I couldn't be more thankful for the fact.

[Funkaloyd]

What's the inherent or overt difference?All Secular Humanists are atheists or agnostics, but not all atheists and agnostics are Secular Humanists. An obvious example would be nihilists, who don't believe in gods, and don't believe that there's objective value to humans.

[EN[i]GMA]

All Secular Humanists are atheists or agnostics, but not all atheists and agnostics are Secular Humanists. An obvious example would be nihilists, who don't believe in gods, and don't believe that there's objective value to humans.

Very true.

One could be an 'atheist' and have any number of philosophies or spiritualities or whatever.

[Ali]

Back to the point (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/uc/20051214/lbs051214.gif).

[sam i am]

We really are coming from different paradigms, and I couldn't be more thankful for the fact.


Right back at ya, sunshine! :)