Westboro Atheists

[loCAtek]

So, saying they're myths; how/why does opposing the heroic/spiritual fulfill you?

[Scooter]

I don't oppose it, I simply don't need it.

[thestoat]

The comparison to Westboro Baptist Church is inapt. No atheist is barging into a church service -- or even standing outside one -- screaming "Reason Hates Christians" or "Thank Secularism For Dead Christians."

Actually it is oddly apt if you consider both blatantly violate what they claim to believe. Seeing as there is no way to reasonably know that it's a myth. In order to know that you would have to have evidence proving such. there is none. you could claim that it is extremely unlikely (and that would be reasonable) but, instead they took the leap of faith to claim their beliefs are known.

That is true, but I suspect they are simply fighting fire with fire. I don't know the area or establishments around there, but I have seen so many signs saying things like "God loves you" or other such stuff. There is a clear implication there that God does exist - what they should say, if they were being reasonable, is "If there were a god, and if he was in any way remotely interested in our species, then he would probably not hate you". But I don't think the church is based on reason ...

[thestoat]

LOL we are all children of God; that's a fact.

ROFLMFAO

[Gob]

Strange thing for a Buddhist to say?

[Crackpot]

That is true, but I suspect they are simply fighting fire with fire....

also know as "the assholes defense"

[Crackpot]

I don't know the area or establishments around there, but I have seen so many signs saying things like "God loves you" or other such stuff. There is a clear implication there that God does exist - what they should say, if they were being reasonable, is "If there were a god, and if he was in any way remotely interested in our species, then he would probably not hate you". But I don't think the church is based on reason ...

Then again they are not claimng to base their argument on reason.

[Lord Jim]

Saying; the Son of God is just a myth doesn't bother you then, OK.

I'm going to assume that was intended as a response to my post since it immediately follows my post....

I didn't say that at all...

Look, as I said I consider a lot of the antics that some atheists engage in , particularly at this time of the year to be arrogant and obnoxious. But I believe on the gratuitous cruelty scale it rises to nowhere near the level of the Westborites....

Laying the Westboro thing aside, I believe there are a couple of reasons that some atheists feel the need to choose this particular time of the year to be especially obnoxious...

The first and by far the greatest reason is that it's the time of the year when this behavior will draw the most attention and publicity to themselves and their organizations. (which by the sheerest of coincidences no doubt helps them with their fundraising) Putting up a billboard mocking The Birth Of Christ in August, isn't going to draw reporters as effectively....

If you had an organization dedicated to attacking the institution of Motherhood, it would make the most sense to have your protest demonstration on Mother's Day....that would create maximum controversy, and controversy attracts the press.

The second reason is that many, (though not all) atheists have nothing but absolute contempt for religious believers, who they consider to all be fools and/or idiots. (This is most likely to be true of atheists who are so dedicated to their atheism that they have decided to become attention seeking activists about it.)

Because of this they hold religious believers in utter contempt, and have absolutely no regard or respect for them, and therefore take pleasure in seeking to cause anger and unhappiness in those who they consider to be fools and/or idiots. (Of course it could be argued that one who deliberately sets out to torment those who they consider to be their intellectual inferiors is engaging in boorish, sadistic, and childish behavior, but there you are)

One further point...

A lot of atheists seem to enjoy expressing their contempt for religion by comparing religious accounts to "fairy tales"....

But some how, I have a hard time imagining these folks working themselves into a hissy fit over a display in a public square depicting a scene from Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs....

I wonder why that is...

[Lord Jim]

One possible motivation for the annual Christmas Season antics of the activist atheists that we can absolutely rule out, is the idea that they engage in this behavior in the hopes of winning people over to their position...

In-your-face tactics that anger and insult people represent the absolute worst possible approach to take if your objective is to get folks to be open to your arguments and persuade them to your point of view....

If any of those folks believe this is a good way to attract people to their way of thinking, then they need to re-assess just who the idiots and/or fools are....

[Scooter]

"Our purpose is not to offend, but to reach out to our own," said Fred Edwords, national director of the United Coalition of Reason. "It would take more than a few words on the side of a bus to change someone's religion."

Apparently they are in agreement with you on this point.

[Sue U]

A lot of atheists seem to enjoy expressing their contempt for religion by comparing religious accounts to "fairy tales"....

But some how, I have a hard time imagining these folks working themselves into a hissy fit over a display in a public square depicting a scene from Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs....

I wonder why that is...

It is because the Bill of Rights prohibits government from even appearing to support one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. As far as I know, there is no Church of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves (although the analogies to Jesus and the apostles -- complete with death and resurrection -- are obvious).

This is also the time of year that many Christians choose to be particularly arrogant and obnoxious concerning their faith and what they perceive to be its role in society -- and I am particularly referring to the imaginary "War on Christmas" that Bill O'Reilly and his ilk invented to fuel the manufactured outrage that has become the common curerncy of the political right. I grew up being patronized and condescended to, with teachers and other adults telling me how they felt sorry for me because our family didn't "have" Christmas (just that odd, also-ran winter holiday with the candles or whatever), and we didn't participate in all the community celebrations of The Birth Of Our Lord And Savior. You want to know what real outrage feels like? You want to know what the real "culture war" is, and who is really under attack? I am sick to death of hearing about "our Christian nation" and "our Christian heritage" and "our Christian values" and whether our political leaders display a sufficient amount of Christianity in their personal and public lives. Fuck all that.

[Crackpot]

It is because the Bill of Rights prohibits government from even appearing to support one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.

You are incorrect there Sue if that were true an practice done onder a religious guise would have to be allowed.

In reality what we hapve is a prohibition against the creation of a state religion or a state endorsement of an existing one. this allows the govenrment to funtion independanly of religons be it singular or plural giving it the ability act against tenets of a religion if deemed harmful to the cmmon good. (such as drug use and human sacrifice)

[Sue U]

It is because the Bill of Rights prohibits government from even appearing to support one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.

You are incorrect there Sue if that were true an practice done onder a religious guise would have to be allowed.

No, that is incorrect; the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are different (although correlative) things.

Under the Free Exercise clause, "neutral" laws of general application that are not a pretext for religious discrimination may be enforced; but laws that merely seek to restict a religious practice must be justified by a compelling state interest that would survive the strictest judicial scrutiny. See Empolyment Div. v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Bablu Aye v. Hialeah, 580 US 520 (1993).

The Establishment Clause prohibits a governmental entity from appearing to endorse religion, or otherwise lending support to or promoting a religious message by other organizations. See Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 US 573 (1989).

[rubato]

What is wrong with atheists proselytizing? How is it any different from the constant barrage of christian proselytizing? It is obvious to any reasoning being that one ought not to believe something for which there is no evidence; it is the beginning of science.

And really, 1 billboard. Nothing. On the other hand we have millions of people screaming that they must be allowed to force other people's children pray to their god in their way in schools and their religious texts must be posted in all public buildings their idols and fetishes must be permitted on public property. Christians really are thin-skinned little people to object to any expression of doubt about their dogmas.



yrs,
rubato

[loCAtek]

The Feast of the Circumcision is news to me, but in looking it up, Wiki says it's held on January 1st. That would be New Year's Day, not New Year's Eve.

Which is why I compared it to Mardi Gras.

There is a lengthy cultural tradition of including the holiday's "eve" as part of the celebration (e.g., Christmas Eve, Hallowe'en).

I'm going to disagree, because nearly all faiths and cultures celebrate the coming of the new year, while it may be held at different dates*; for example most Asian societies celebrate it on the first day of Spring. When Japan adopted the Western Calender, they also moved their New Year's festivals to Dec. 31. because the point is to welcome renewal, not necessarily to engage of any form of worship, per se.

New Year's Eve has become so secular to the point most folks aren't aware of the Feast of Circumcision; nor are celebrating it on Dec. 31, they are celebrating the coming year.


*Just a note: It's more accurate to say The Festival of Mithras is a New Year celebration, and not a a birthday.

[rubato]

"This year celebrate REASON!"


We'll there's the problem right there. Agnostics and Athiests need some good holidays to celebrate. And we have better things to celebrate too; the periodic table of the elements is responsible for more improvement in human life than 2000 years of Roman Catholicism and reveals more that is true about the nature of reality and matter than all religious myths combined.

There were some great college games involving the periodic table and beer too ....


yrs,
rubato

[Crackpot]

It is because the Bill of Rights prohibits government from even appearing to support one religion over another, or religion over non-religion.

You are incorrect there Sue if that were true an practice done onder a religious guise would have to be allowed.

No, that is incorrect; the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause are different (although correlative) things.

Under the Free Exercise clause, "neutral" laws of general application that are not a pretext for religious discrimination may be enforced; but laws that merely seek to restict a religious practice must be justified by a compelling state interest that would survive the strictest judicial scrutiny. See Empolyment Div. v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990); Church of the Lukumi Bablu Aye v. Hialeah, 580 US 520 (1993).

The Establishment Clause prohibits a governmental entity from appearing to endorse religion, or otherwise lending support to or promoting a religious message by other organizations. See Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 US 573 (1989).

I'm not fluent in legalese but the I woud think there would be more of a requrement than "appearance" If "appearance" was all that was needed I doubt there would be any allowance for any type of governmantal observances of any remotely religious activities like Holiday Trees, Easter Egg hunts etc. even though they contain no real religious signifigance (to Christan theology at least)

[rubato]

How about "materialism day"; the day when we celebrate the fact that all physical effects have physical causes.

Not much 'zing' to it. Is there?

yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I am particularly referring to the imaginary "War on Christmas" that Bill O'Reilly and his ilk invented

I've said before that this "War on Christmas" business is silly; (if there is a war being waged on Christmas, those waging it are losing badly; just look around...Christmas certainly doesn't seem in danger of being eliminated any time soon)

However, O'Reilly doesn't make up the stories from around the country that he cites...

It's true that he takes anecdotal incidents, and tries to weave them into a grossly inflated narrative, but these things do in fact happen....

If there wasn't a moronic small town bureaucrat stupidly banning floats from the town's "Winter Festival" parade that have a religious theme...

Or simple minded school principals banning "Silent Night" from the Christmas Program....

Or paranoid store managers banning their employees from saying "Merry Christmas"....

O'Reilly would not have these sorts of incidents to cite...

These dummies play straight into his hands...

[Lord Jim]

I just had an epiphany....

In reviewing what I said here:

In-your-face tactics that anger and insult people represent the absolute worst possible approach to take if your objective is to get folks to be open to your arguments and persuade them to your point of view....

I believe I have stumbled on to the explanation as to why so few minds are ever changed on this board...