Case in point this time around is Jane Gilvary, a student at St. Joseph's University who is throwing a fit over the existence of a "Tree of Knowledge" erected in West Chester, PA, by the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia. As an alternative to traditional holiday displays, this "tree" is designed to promote the values of literacy, learning, and skepticism -- none of which seem to be accepted or appreciated by the complaining Christians. Jane Gilvary in particular regards it as little more than "denigrating" for Christians to have to deal with something other than a religious display this time of year.
Jane Gilvary asks why the Tree of Knowledge is there and instead of asking the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, or citing any of their literature on the subject, quotes someone who just makes up nonsense out of thin air:
Colin Hanna, Founder of Let Freedom Ring and former Chester County Commissioner summates their motives quite nicely, "It's an agenda of hate and denigration, not a reverential celebration of any religious tradition. The Freethought Society is about attacking respectful Judeo-Christian traditions and nothing else."
Hanna sponsors the crèche each year on behalf of the Pennsylvania Pastors Network--a project of Let Freedom Ring, a nonpartisan public policy membership organization promoting Constitutional government, economic freedom, and traditional family values.
As a sponsor of the creche, Colin Hanna is hardly an impartial observer -- and as someone who is not now and has never been a member of the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia, he's hardly in any position to speak about their motives, goals, or values. Maybe that's why he was picked to comment on exactly that topic rather than on something that he would know about. After all, why interview the people who have relevant knowledge and information if there is a risk that actual facts might undermine a good rant?
I don't think it's a coincidence that attacking people not only without the use of fact, but while deliberately avoiding the gathering of actual fact, is far more characteristic of hate-mongering and having an agenda of hate than anything which the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia has done. In effect, then, Jane Gilvary is more guilty of the things she is complaining about than any of the people she is trying to attack. But that's what happens when a person stops relying on facts, isn't it?
As a further indication that Jane Gilvary is more interested in ideology than sober, objective facts, just witness her own speculations about the atheists' motivations:
Indeed, the Freethought Society and their founder Margaret Downey are agents of the Enemy in every regard and their garish tree replete with "ornaments" in the shape of laminated book covers by prominent atheists is in poor taste. Of the hundreds of book titles hanging on the tree some include A Devil's Chaplain and The God Delusion by avowed doubter Richard Dawkins, Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, and The End of Faith by Sam Harris.
Did you notice the phrasing in the first sentence? Not content with quoting Colin Hanna's baseless, fact-free accusations, Jane Gilvary decided to up the stakes by accusing the Freethought Society of Greater Philadelphia of being "agents of the Enemy." That means they are agents of Satan, if you misplaced your Fundy-to-English dictionary. It's not enough to get people to believe that atheists are the one's with an agenda of hate, but here Gilvary wants readers to regard the atheists as literally acting on behalf of a satanic agenda -- an evil agenda lacking any sort of redeeming, mitigating qualities. If that's not hate mongering, I don't know what is.
What's amusing, though, is that Jane Gilvary thinks she can base such an absurd claim on the fact that out of hundreds and hundreds of book titles referenced in the Tree of Knowledge, there are a couple of books that were actually written by atheists. How horrible! Why, it must be satantic for anyone to promote any sort of book written by atheists for the purpose of critiquing religion, theism, or Christianity. No one but an Agent of the Enemy would ever do such a dastardly, vile thing!
And this is the level of reasoning, evidence, and discourse we can expect from Christians trying to "defend" Christmas, right?
“Jane of the United States” apparently doesn’t love the US constitution that much.
Calling equal access to the public realm regardless of religion “denigration” is just one step away from describing it as “perpetrating a holocaust on Christian values”. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised to read that either.
Thank you for writing about this strident harpy. Please e-mail her your post. I hope she blows a gasket.
Hmmm…”Tree of Knowledge”, huh?
I’d say that’s a very relevant metaphor for poking at the absolutely ridiculous foundation of the whole Abrahamic monstrous “Ruse” on humanity.
I’m reminded that, according to the rather preposterous (and outrageously dumb?) Bible/Quran mythologies, humans were…originally…never intended to even HAVE knowledge…EVER…only totally blind (and moronic?) obedience was in the original “Garden of Eden” scenario contained in the so-called “Infininate Divine Plan”.
Yeah…that oh-so-loving creator of Satan and Eternal Hell…yada, yada. It’s no wonder, considering all that, that we’ve only had “Modern Science” for little more than a Century. Yeah…absolutely no instructions…not one iota…in the “Babble” about things like…medical anesthesia, Electricity, aspirin…etcetera, etcetera.
And what, indeed, is indicated?…a FLAT Earth?
“D’uh”!
A good ornament (sub-theme?) for the tree, I think, might simply be some strategically placed fake apples…
with a prominent bite out of each one. You get the symbolism, of course.
On another, somewhat tangential, Holiday note; for anyone interested…
This year’s “131st Carnival of the Godless” is being hosted by “Gaytheists”.
[A Place for LGBTQ Atheists, Skeptics and Humanists] at:
http://gaytheists.org/?p=821
Lest we forget; we atheists, according to many statistics, are the most hated, and mistrusted of people. Remember, George H. W. Bush didn’t consider atheists as “proper” US citizens.
Perhaps even worse still…LGBTQ atheists get “the double whammy”, so to speak.
Just my opinion…
I think, especially considering today’s rather widespread and often blatantly bigoted climate, as fellow atheist “Earthlings”, at the very least…they deserve our sincere compassion and support.
It would seem that atheism is linked to paganism or even satanism in the minds of many. Yesterday, in a group, this website came up in conversation, and one person, trying to crack a joke, asked what the website was about, drawing pentagrams. I said nicely, atheists are not satanists, and the person corrected himself.
The funny thing is the person that said this is not in the least religious, was not raised in a religious way, and I think if pushed would not know what he thought about the existence of god. But I think he would hesitate to call himself atheist or even agnostic because there is some connection to evil in his mind. Where does that come from? It must be in society somehow.
For Xians, atheism really is evil. Many are taught that there is no such thing as atheism. Atheists are people who *reject* god for some reason. Many are taught (and we’ve seen it in comments to blogs on this site) that it is evil to live without god. Basically, the notion of god is so intertwined in these people’s life philosophies that they cannot envision having a “good” worldview without god.
It is sad though. We live in a society where each person is free to think what he/she wants and to express those thoughts. Is Xianity so weak that Xians cannot even hear an alternate viewpoint? I think that many think the pull of Satan is very strong and they might be contaminated by any contact.
For myself, I can look critically at religious claims. I have no “fear” that I might be “swayed”. I evaluate what people say and look at the evidence they present. Then, I decide what I think. I don’t assume that because something was written down by someone it is true.
Regardless of your opinion about Gilvary’s piece it does seem a little aggressive that atheists feel the need to put up a tree of knowledge right smack in the middle of a major Christian holiday. December 25th is the set aside as a Christian celebration why not choose a different time of the year to voice atheistic opinions? No one can argue with the rights of anyone to express their opinions and hold their beliefs why do it at that time of the year? Does it seem like a reasonable effort for example to stand outside a mosque and declare “a month of feasting” in the middle of Ramadan? Don’t you think Muslims would take it as an assault to their religion? It obviously would be an aggressive move against that religion rather than a simple statement about the need to eat. Atheists have every right to express their opinions, but expressing those views at a different time of the year would be regarded as more mature and less intolerant.
“Atheists have every right to express their opinions, but expressing those views at a different time of the year would be regarded as more mature and less intolerant.”
So shut up and go to the back of the bus then? What drivel you write.
“No one can argue with the rights of anyone to express their opinions and hold their beliefs why do it at that time of the year?”
And yet here you are, doing just that. I would claim cognitive dissonance, but that might be giving you too much credit (i.e.implying you have cognitive processes.)
“Does it seem like a reasonable effort for example to stand outside a mosque and declare “a month of feasting” in the middle of Ramadan? Don’t you think Muslims would take it as an assault to their religion?”
This is in an area designated for public displays; and yet you do not object to the Jewish display; you know, those Jesus deniers. Why is this? Since you object to the tree of knowledge alone, why, it’s almost as if you hold- some kind of double standard? Surely not! The tree is in no way comparable to picketing a mosque, since it occurs during a mid-winter festival period shared by many religions and those of no religion, and in a public space. Go home concern troll.
It’s also a major secular holiday.
I can’t think of a better time and place to offer up a dissent, critical opinion than when the first opinion is being expressed.
If no one can argue with the rights of anyone to express their beliefs, why are you arguing against atheists expressing their beliefs?
False analogy, since no atheists are standing outside any churches arguing against Christmas.
Whereas is it totally mature and tolerant for Christians to get upset when atheists disagree with them publicly — even to the point of stealing and vandalizing atheist displays, which is common this time of year.
If atheists then want to express their opinion around the time of the Winter Solstice then express your opinion without attacking someone else. Go pick a symbol that is not being used already by another religion, like a tree. Think of something more original. There isn’t anything more original though because this isn’t just about expressing your belief it’s about attacking someone else’s religion. I wouldn’t mind the expression of beliefs at any time of the year if it didn’t seem to purposely attack Christians. Let’s face it the knowledge tree is put up to try and do away with Christian belief. It’s purposely taking a symbol of that celebration and trying to change it from what it is to something it isn’t. If I thought it was merely an expression of ideas then I wouldn’t care so much, but it is an obvious attack against Christians. Why does every spin off religion want to look like Christianity but deny it’s intrinsic truth? Why single out Christians and Christmas? Why not go after Jehovah’s Witness, Muslims, Mormons and other religious groups. Christians are a powerful threat that’s why. Open your eyes everyone. Christianity is getting attached all across this country. People want to wipe it out of our history and wipe it out of our culture. If one group can be wiped out then any group can be wiped out including your own selves. We should be defending and respecting each other not trying to purposely rip each other apart. The more we are divided against ourselves the weaker we become. The tree of knowledge is another direct attack against Christians. Walk right into the middle of our important celebrations and try to scream louder than anyone else. It’s disrespectful and rude to people at that time of the year. There is no respect or consideration for our right to celebrate as well. Find another time of the year!!!
And so the true face emerges. I don’t really think that this deserves a length response, so I shall address just a few points.
“Why does every spin off religion want to look like Christianity but deny it’s intrinsic truth?”
If I am reading this correctly then you are implying that atheism is a spin-off religion from Christianity. Since atheism predates christianity and is not a religion… well, you work it out.
[why Christians are allegedly the sole target of critical thinking]“Christians are a powerful threat that’s why. Open your eyes everyone. Christianity is getting attached all across this country. People want to wipe it out of our history and wipe it out of our culture. If one group can be wiped out then any group can be wiped out including your own selves.”
So here you combine a passive aggressive argumentum ad baculum with paranoid delusions. You tell us that Christianity is a ‘threat’ and note in an odd way how groups can be ‘wiped out’ including our ‘own selves’, before noting “We should be defending and respecting each other not trying to purposely rip each other apart.” So essentially your propose a coalition based upon our silence in the face of an implicit threat from Christians.
“Walk right into the middle of our important celebrations and try to scream louder than anyone else. It’s disrespectful and rude to people at that time of the year.”
No-one is screaming, an atheist group only wants equal treatment under the law. Does this mean that the christmas tree is ’screaming’ against the Jewish display by applying your same (il)logic? What is disrespectful and rude is trying to silence a minority.
“Find another time of the year!!!”
You too, leave Mithras’ traditional holiday festival alone!
And where’s the attack, exactly?
Christians took it from pagans, so why can’t atheists use it as well?
The operative word here is “seem.” I challenge you to justify your accuation.
Prove it.
Yeah, why single out the dominant religion in society for critique?
FYI, JWs and Mormons are Christians.
Prove it.
Examples, please.
How?
The attack comes because atheists are taking a symbol of a religious tradition, the Christmas tree and trying to turn it into something else “the knowledge tree”. Why not choose a different symbol to use? Something that isn’t connected to the religion. The attack is that it’s used by Christians in a Christian celebration and to put up a “knowledge tree” gives the impression of diminishing the symbols of the holiday. Why not the “plant of knowledge” or the “volcano of knowledge” or the “cloud of knowledge” or something that makes sense yet doesn’t try to take a symbol of Christian ideas and beliefs and water it down to mean whatever anyone wants it to mean.
As for attacks on Christianity. The list is long and unnerving. No one wants to say Merry Christmas for fear of offending someone, yet they’ll be glad to take all the money that Christmas generates. There has been a move to wipe any evidence of God off the money and the text book companies are effectively rewriting history to diminish the Christian foundation on which this country was founded. The founding fathers themselves said that if the country abandons basic Christian principles then the democracy would be jeopardized. Christians are arrested on the streets of this country for speaking their views (research the Phildalphia 5 as an example) Christians are being met with more and more violence and discrimination as time goes along. Among Christians there is a growing understanding and a sense that people hate us more and more and the laws are working to try to prohibit us from speaking our views (for example the current Hate Speech laws could make it a crime to say anything against the homosexual lifestyle) Understand that as a Christian I do not hate gay people. I actually enjoy the friendship of all kinds of people. I also enjoy the banter and respectful exchange of ideas with people who disagree with me. I have learned a lot from people who have different views of the world. Christianity IS under attack though in this country there’s no denying that. So when I see a “knowledge tree” it really does seem like one more symbol of Christianity is being watered down, twisted in its meaning or just flat out attacked.
Finally, I would argue that Atheism is a religion in that it’s something you are putting your faith in and basing your life on. Everyone puts their faith in something whether it’s God or a belief that there is no God. I think it’s interesting to note that everyone is required to come to a conclusion about God. The very idea of “God” requires each of us to reconcile within our own selves the question “is there a God or not?”. The drawing power of the question leads one to think that’s there’s some power there that we don’t really understand, maybe actually a God calling to us all. I don’t feel the need to reconcile what I believe about any other person in the world, only the idea of God requires everyone to come to a conclusion.
Hey no hard feelings here at all! I have actually enjoyed talking with you all and am glad for the differing opinions and views. The cultural issues of the day are complicated, but I really do believe that until we start talking to each other we’ll never find a way for ourselves and our country and then we all might be lost. That wouldn’t be good for any of us. Happy New Year!!
Just one more thought. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormom’s are not considered Christians since neither of those religions believes that Jesus was the Messiah, God with us on earth. They believe he was a prophet or an angel, a good person etc, but not God in the form of man to offer healing in the souls of all men.
So you’ve made no substantive attempt to engage with what I said at all.
“Finally, I would argue that Atheism is a religion in that it’s something you are putting your faith in and basing your life on. Everyone puts their faith in something whether it’s God or a belief that there is no God.”
Atheism has no creed, beliefs, dogma or scripture. How dare you be so stupidly ignorant and yet confident? What does it even mean to say that I have a faith that there is no god? Do you have a faith in aThorism?
“Christians are being met with more and more violence and discrimination as time goes along. ”
As a vast majority how oculd you possibly claim that you are facing discrimination, let alone violence? When was the last violent act against christians motivated by someone’s atheism?
I don’t mean to sond pompous but I’m going to stop responding unless you actually address some of the things that I have said- it seems as if you’re on autopilot.
1. It’s not an “attack” to use a symbol for something new.
2. The tree isn’t uniquely a symbol of Christmas. It isn’t even originally Christian in this context. Christians don’t “own” trees as a symbol any more than they own the year-end holiday season.
Because it’s useful to promote knowledge in contrast to the Christian tradition where the “tree of knowledge” is depicted negatively.
Only in your mind.
The evergreen was an important symbol used in this holiday season long before Christians came along and stole it for their own celebrations. So why complain when others are using it now too?
Yet you are unable to cite a single substantive example.
Actually, it’s Chrstians who get offended when “Merry Christmas” isn’t said. People say “Happy Holidays” instead because it’s both more polite to everyone else and still inclusive for Christians.
That’s only connected to Christianity if you admit that “God” on the money is a Christian reference — which is an admission that the reference is illegal. This is why legal defenses of the reference insist that it isn’t Christian. So, which is it?
What “Christian foundation” would that be?
That would only be true if democracy required Christianity, which is a bigoted position towards all non-Christians.
Lots of people are arrested for speaking their views. You’re attacking atheists for speaking their views in a manner you disapprove of. So, nothing unique there.
That’s a pretty serious allegation. Care to back it up?
Yet, no one is telling you to not have holiday displays like you’re telling atheists here.
Could? Prove it.
But do you have to fear discrimination, censure, and violence like gays do?
Except that a “tree” isn’t an inherent symbol of Chrstianity. You’re trying to claim ownership over something that isn’t yours and which you stole.
You should learn the basics of atheism before revealing such extreme ignorance about it like this. When you causally repeat such obvious falsehoods, no one around here will take you seriously anymore.
Prove it.
I think it would be more interesting for you to support this claim.
Only when believers like you force the issue on everyone else. If it weren’t for people like you, the rest of us would go about our lives much happier for not having to waste our time on the matter.
No, it’s just the raised, shrill voices of evangelists.
Why would there be “Hard feelings” for one more Christian repeating ridiculous falsehoods about atheists and atheism when it’s clear that they’ve never made any effort to learn anything about the subject first?
It’s not a lack of talking that’s the problem, it’s a lack of questions and listening. You, for example, did take time to ask any questions or do any listening, thus you never tried to learn anything and never demonstrated any interest in learning. Too much talking and not enough listening is what does people in, not a lack of sufficient talking.
Yes, they do and yes, they are Christians.
With that, I think it’s safe to say that you wrote not one single true thing in any of your comments. Not one.
1. It’s not an “attack” to use a symbol for something new.
2. The tree isn’t uniquely a symbol of Christmas. It isn’t even originally Christian in this context. Christians don’t “own” trees as a symbol any more than they own the year-end holiday season.
REGARDLESS OF THEIR ORIGIN TREES ARE UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED AS A SYMBOL OF CHRISTMAS, A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY.
Because it’s useful to promote knowledge in contrast to the Christian tradition where the “tree of knowledge” is depicted negatively.
IT’S DEPICTED NEGATIVELY BECAUSE IT IS SET UP AS AN ATTACK AGAINST CHRISTIAN THOUGHT. IF IT WERE JUST A STATEMENT OF BELIEF THAT WOULD BE FINE, BUT IT’S AN AGGRESSIVE MOVE TO WALK INTO THE MIDDLE OF SOMEONE’S RELIGIOUS CELEBRATION AND BASICALLY YELL “YOU’RE WRONG. YOU’RE WRONG YOU’RE WRONG” AGAIN NO ONE WOULD DREAM OF DISRESPECTING MUSLIMS BY DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE MIDDLE OF ONE OF THEIR CELEBRATIONS. IT’S POLITICALLY INCORRECT, BUT IT’S OK TO BE AGGRESSIVE AGAINST CHRISTIANS IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR CELEBRATIONS?
Everyone puts their faith in something
SO DO YOU THOROUGHLY EXAM EACH CHAIR BEFORE YOU SIT ON IT? OR DO YOU JUST PUT YOUR FAITH IN THE FACT THAT IT’S GOING TO HOLD YOU UP? YOU DON’T BELIEVE A GOD CREATED ALL THE INTRICACIES AND BEAUTY OF THE WORLD, BUT YOU HAVE FAITH THAT IT SOMEHOW JUST APPEARED AND ORGANIZED ITSELF. AFTER EXAMINING THE DELICATE BALANCE OF JUST THE HUMAN BODY IT SEEMS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. EVEN IF YOU CONSIDER THE OPTION STATISTICALLY IT’S NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. SO YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH IT’S A PRACTICAL IMPOSSIBLE THAT THIS WORLD WAS ORGANIZED RANDOMLY YOU STILL BELIEVE IT. IT’S AS MIND BOGGLING TO ME THAT YOU BELIEVE IT AS MUCH AS IT’S MIND BOGGLING TO YOU THAT I BELIEVE GOD CREATED THE WORLD. YOU PUT YOUR FAITH IN RANDOM ORGANIZATION. I PUT MY FAITH IN GOD. BOTH ARE UNBELIEVABLE IF YOU REALLY GIVE IT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION. I WOULD BE INTERESTED FOR YOU TO PROVE TO ME THE LOGIC OF THE WORLD RANDOMLY ORGANIZING RIGHT DOWN TO THE INTRICATE BALANCE OF THE HUMAN BODY.
I think it’s interesting to note that everyone is required to come to a conclusion about God.
I think it would be more interesting for you to support this claim.
I THINK IT’S INTERESTING THAT YOU DON’T SEE THIS SINCE WE ARE EVEN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. IN ORDER TO BE AN ATHEIST YOU HAVE TO GIVE CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE EXISTENCE OF GOD AND CONCLUDE THAT HE ISN’T REAL. ATHEISM IS BASED ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. EVERY ATHEIST IS REQUIRED TO SETTLE THE GOD QUESTION. CHRISTIANS ARE REQUIRED TO DO THE SAME. EVERYONE REALLY. CHRISTIANS COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF BELIEVING GOD, ATHEISTS COME DOWN ON THE SIDE OF DISBELIEF BUT YES EVERYONE IS REQUIRED TO COME TO A FINAL CONCLUSION ABOUT IT.
The very idea of “God” requires each of us to reconcile within our own selves the question “is there a God or not?”.
Only when believers like you force the issue on everyone else. If it weren’t for people like you, the rest of us would go about our lives much happier for not having to waste our time on the matter.
NOBODY IS FORCING THE ISSUE ON “EVERYONE ELSE” WE ARE SIMPLY GOING ABOUT OUR BUSINESS TRYING TO LIVE AND PRACTICE AS WE BELIEVE. I’M NOT TRYING TO FORCE CHRISTIANITY ON ANYONE ELSE. I’M JUST TRYING TO PRACTICE MY FAITH IN PEACE. IT’S THE FREE THOUGHT SOCIETY THAT IS STIRRING UP DRAMA BY ERECTING A “KNOWLEDGE TREE” IN THE MIDDLE OF MY CELEBRATION. LOOK IF THE MATTER WEREN’T THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU THEN YOU WOULDN’T BE SPENDING ANY TIME AT ALL ON IT. I NEVER GIVE A SECOND THOUGHT TO ATHEISM BECAUSE IT ISN’T IMPORTANT TO ME AT ALL. YOU HOWEVER HAVE GIVEN GOD ENOUGH THOUGH THAT IT HAS LED YOU TO TAKE THE TIME TO SET UP A WEB SITE, RESPOND TO PEOPLE’S NEWS ARTICLES AND ENGAGE ME IN LENGTHY CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WHOLE MATTER. ANYWAY, FOR YOU TO SAY “BELIEVERS LIKE YOU..” REVEALS YOUR OWN TRUE COLORS BECAUSE YOU DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ME AT ALL. WHY WOULD YOU JUDGE ME LIKE THAT AND LUMP ME INTO SOME MASS IDEA OF WHAT YOU THINK “CHRISTIANS” ARE? I’M TRYING TO HAVE A FAIR EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. I’M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW. I’M TRYING TO ENGAGE IN REASONABLE CONVERSATION BUT YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO “PEOPLE LIKE YOU” COMMENTS.
SIGH…..WELL MAYBE THIS IS ALL THAT CAN BE EXPECTED. THAT’S ALL THAT GOES ON IN THE SOCIETY AT LARGE ANYWAY WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREES THEN LET THE NAME CALLING BEGIN. IN THE END I GUESS THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE.
YOU DON’T THINK I’VE SPOKEN ONE WORD OF TRUTH? NOT ONE? I THOUGHT YOU WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE OPEN MINDED. I WAS TRYING TO OPEN MINDED WITH YOU. HERE’S A BIT OF TRUTH : THERE IS A GOD AND YOU SEEM TO BE GIVING THE WHOLE IDEA A LOT OF THOUGHT!
Coryat can you do anything but call me names? How old are you like 25?
And by the way Mormons do not believe that Jesus is God come to earth, the Messiah. They believe that Jesus was a prophet. And JW’s believe that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. I studied with them, in an effort to be open minded, that’s what they taught me.
1. Only a particularly sort of tree decorated in a particular sort of way is recognized as a symbol of Christmas — not trees generally. Your statement that “trees” are “universally recognized as a symbol of Christmas” couldn’t be more wrong or absurd.
2. This wasn’t that sort of tree decorated that sort of way.
3. Even the right sort of tree decorated the right sort of way isn’t inherently Christian — it is, in fact, a very secular part of Christmas which has become a very secular holiday in the way so many people celebrate it.
So, where are the “attacks” on “Christian thought”? Identify one specific attack on any specifically Christian throught.
Funny, but even very mild statements of belief receive the same sort of reaction as you’re giving here, if not worse.
That might be relevant if this weren’t all occurring in public space where everyone is equal.
You’re equivocating on definitions of “faith.” Sitting in a chair without examining it first has nothing to do with “faith” as used in religion and, what’s most relevant in this specific context, how Paul defined it. The equivocating is made more evident if one considers that your original statement (”Everyone puts their faith in something”) can hardly apply to “the chair won’t collapse.”
Your original statement is clearly about having “faith” in the religious sense in something “higher,” akin to a theists “faith in God.” You were trying to attribute this basic attitude to everyone, with some focusing on gods and others focusing on something else. Your original statement was not an observation that people trust their chairs won’t collapse and thus the fact that people do trust chairs to not collapse cannot count as an example of what you were talking about.
Unless, of course, you wish to insist that your “faith in God” really is so close to your “faith that a chair won’t collapse when I sit in it” that you think it’s reasonable to assume that when others also trust their chairs to not collapse then this is basically like your faith in your god.
Do you have “faith” that thunderstorms develop naturally as opposed to being created by Thor? I don’t, any more than I have “faith” that the universe developed naturally.
I don’t see how it is “nearly impossible.” Feel free to show how it is, if you can.
No, I don’t. In my experience, the addition of the word “random” to natural processes is a hallmark of people who don’t understand science or nature.
I see you didn’t follow my advice to learn the basics about atheism before presume to lecture others about it.
All atheism requires is the absence of belief in gods, because that’s how it’s defined. Everything else is your own creation — or maybe the creation of whomever wrote the script you’re reading off of.
Then I guess you never heard of evangelism and proselytization.
Whereas you erecting religious displays in public is just fine. You can do it, but others can’t.
You are confusing “god” with “believers in gods” — which is understandable, given how often many theists confuse their own beliefs, attitudes, and hates with their gods.
I consider theism important, in large part because of the behavior of theists. Their gods are irrelevant except for the role they play in theists’ behaviors.
You’re here complaining about atheists, arguing for your belief. That’s the only “like you” I had in mind and which was relevant. Hundreds of Christians have passed by here saying things just like you have been, coping the same attitude like you have been. In such a context, “believers like you” is both accurate and reasonable.
That would require that you ask questions and spend time learning about things you don’t already understand. Since you have done the opposite, which is make false assertions about subjects you don’t understand, I can’t accept the above as true.
Since you keep trying to tell me what my point of view is instead of listing to what others tell you, I think it’s fair to say that you think you already “understand” it and are not interested in having that “understanding” challenged.
No. I’ve pointed out specific, obvious falsehoods and challenged the legitimacy of others. In the first case you’ve simply ignored those corrections in favor of repeating more falsehoods; in the latter case you’ve not offered any sort of substantive support for your claims.
Once again, you are confusing giving thought to your god and making challenges to believers who presume to speak about or for some sort of god.
These are common assertions made by conservative evangelical groups which are in the habit of denying that most other Christains are “real” Christians. I suspect that the “they” here are those evangelical apologists who teach such things, not the original groups themselves. If it were the latter, you’d be able to cite specific, original texts which demonstrate this.
I think you need to stop following the scripts given to you by evangelical apologists and spending more time listening to what others tell you — they are far more likely to give you an accurate picture of what they really think that then apologists are.
Well, my first comment was perhaps a little intemperate in implying that you lack cognitive processes, for which I apologise. The fact remains however that I have indeed done more than just insult you.
I have specifically asked you:
-Why atheism receives your ire and no other display. Jews do not agree with Christian dogma, and yet you don’t declare their presence in a PUBLIC SPACE as yelling “YOU’RE WRONG. YOU’RE WRONG YOU’RE WRONG”. Why is this?
- To cite an example of violence and discrimination inflicted upon Christians by atheists, since you stated that “Christians are being met with more and more violence and discrimination as time goes along. ”
Beyond that I have simply pointed out the lack of logic in your position.
Two final things. Although you keep saying that an atheist tree is ’screaming’ and ‘yelling’, you’re the one who wrote a message in CRAZY-PERSON STYLE BLOCK CAPITALS. I find this bemusing. Further, in the one, sole, solitary sentence in which you have acknowledged the existence of my rebuttals, you write
“Coryat can you do anything but call me names? How old are you like 25?”
essentially criticising me for being insulting… and then insulting me (or so I suppose you intend- I’m younger than 25 actually, but really, what of it?)
N.B
“SIGH…..WELL MAYBE THIS IS ALL THAT CAN BE EXPECTED. THAT’S ALL THAT GOES ON IN THE SOCIETY AT LARGE ANYWAY WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREES THEN LET THE NAME CALLING BEGIN. IN THE END I GUESS THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE.”
Do you see any humorous irony in the juxtaposition of your last two sentences? Any at all old timer?
Well, my first comment was perhaps a little intemperate in implying that you lack cognitive processes, for which I apologise. The fact remains however that I have indeed done more than just insult you.
Apology accepted.
-Why atheism receives your ire and no other display. Jews do not agree with Christian dogma, and yet you don’t declare their presence in a PUBLIC SPACE as yelling “YOU’RE WRONG. YOU’RE WRONG YOU’RE WRONG”. Why is this?
I’m not angry at atheism. Neither am I mad at atheists. I’m mad that someone is irritated enough with Christmas that they feel the need to put up a “tree of knowledge” implying that the rest of us are dumb. The Tree of Knowledge is the passive aggressive move. If The Free Thought Society wants people to really hear their message why don’t they try doing something to add to the community. Approach and timing are everything and this only serves to irritate people at a time when they are trying to be happy and giving toward others. Honestly, if the Free Thought Society was out during community days I would take the time to meet them, talk to them and read their literature, just like I’m doing with you. I am sincerely interested in what you think. Hard to believe I know, but it is true.
- To cite an example of violence and discrimination inflicted upon Christians by atheists, since you stated that “Christians are being met with more and more violence and discrimination as time goes along. ”
I never said atheists were violent against christians. I don’t think that’s true. I don’t think atheists are a violent group.
Mostly what is happening is our free speech rights are being challenged. I used the example before of Hate Speech legislation. The day may come when Pastor’s can’t preach what they believe from their own pulpits for fear of the government accusing them of a hate crime. The thought police shouldn’t muzzle law abiding citizens speaking their mind. (Yes I think it’s true for Atheists too!!!! Speak your mind!!! All I’m saying is the tree is in poor taste, bad timing and seems to be more of an aggresive move against christian thought rather than a pleasant declaration of beliefs. Choice of place and time are so important when trying to spread a message. The Tree of Knowledge only serves to piss off people)
Two final things. Although you keep saying that an atheist tree is ’screaming’ and ‘yelling’, you’re the one who wrote a message in CRAZY-PERSON STYLE BLOCK CAPITALS. I find this bemusing. Further, in the one, sole, solitary sentence in which you have acknowledged the existence of my rebuttals, you write
Please!! I wrote all caps so you could see the difference between what was written by someone on the blog and what I was writing. I know in cyber-world it is taken as yelling, but I figured it would be obvious that I was just trying to differentiate between my writing and the other persons writing. I didn’t do it here just for your sake. Hopefully, you could follow it. I don’t see how to make italics or bold to show a difference. You however are resorting to name calling again “Crazy Person”. Yeah yeah!
“Coryat can you do anything but call me names? How old are you like 25?”
essentially criticising me for being insulting… and then insulting me (or so I suppose you intend- I’m younger than 25 actually, but really, what of it?)
Hey, I’m just trying to speak your language! I thought maybe you would understand me better that way. Calling people names …..just smacks of immaturity. I don’t mean to be condescending because you have interesting thoughts to share, but it did give you away. Your arguments will be stronger and more convincing if you don’t call people names.
“SIGH…..WELL MAYBE THIS IS ALL THAT CAN BE EXPECTED. THAT’S ALL THAT GOES ON IN THE SOCIETY AT LARGE ANYWAY WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREES THEN LET THE NAME CALLING BEGIN. IN THE END I GUESS THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE.”
Do you see any humorous irony in the juxtaposition of your last two sentences? Any at all old timer?
No I don’t see any irony. What I see is a political and cultural atmosphere that makes it seem ok to just call people names. When liberals and conservatives disagree they just start attacking each other. Like I said before if we can’t learn to talk to each other then our country will be lost. So I’m making an effort to talk to you even if you do call me “old timer” ha ha very funny. A little older, but not that much older.
REGARDLESS OF THEIR ORIGIN TREES ARE UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED AS A SYMBOL OF CHRISTMAS, A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY.
1. Only a particularly sort of tree decorated in a particular sort of way is recognized as a symbol of Christmas — not trees generally. Your statement that “trees” are “universally recognized as a symbol of Christmas” couldn’t be more wrong or absurd.
Absurd that you thought I was talking about ALL trees. Of course we’re talking about christmas trees…that’s what we’ve been talking about all along. You’re just looking for an arguement. Seriously….get over it!
Funny, but even very mild statements of belief receive the same sort of reaction as you’re giving here, if not worse.
Time and place. Time and place. No one wants to hear this message at this time. At another time it might be better received. Like I said the choice of this time and at this place only serves to piss people off.
You’re equivocating on definitions of “faith.” Sitting in a chair without examining it first has nothing to do with “faith” as used in religion and, what’s most relevant in this specific context, how Paul defined it. The equivocating is made more evident if one considers that your original statement (”Everyone puts their faith in something”) can hardly apply to “the chair won’t collapse.”
Yes, faith in God is exactly like faith that the chair won’t collapse. You know that it’s true and your belief leads you to act. Simple.
All atheism requires is the absence of belief in gods, because that’s how it’s defined. Everything else is your own creation — or maybe the creation of whomever wrote the script you’re reading off of.
I resent the fact that you are accusing me of “reading off a script” Judgment on me AGAIN? You don’t know anything about me. I have no script! I haven’t researched all the ins and outs of this I’m just sharing what I believe and trying to understand what you believe. Why is it so hard to believe that I’m just trying to have a reasonable conversation. Trust me….there’s no script!
Thunderstorms develop under the rules of nature God created. Who’s Thor?
Whereas you erecting religious displays in public is just fine. You can do it, but others can’t.
If atheism isn’t a religion then how can your display be a religious display? You’re talking in circles. I’ll say it again choice of place and time with a message is critical to actually getting people to hear it. At Christmas right next to the Christmas Tree only pisses people off, doesn’t do much to spread your message.
You are confusing “god” with “believers in gods” — which is understandable, given how often many theists confuse their own beliefs, attitudes, and hates with their gods.
I consider theism important, in large part because of the behavior of theists. Their gods are irrelevant except for the role they play in theists’ behaviors.
Trust me…I am not confused. The “gods” don’t present a confusion to me either. Judging me AGAIN.
These are common assertions made by conservative evangelical groups which are in the habit of denying that most other Christains are “real” Christians. I suspect that the “they” here are those evangelical apologists who teach such things, not the original groups themselves. If it were the latter, you’d be able to cite specific, original texts which demonstrate this.
Evangelical apologists? How did they get into this conversation? You’re just making that up! I never said anything about “evangelical apologists” I studied with the JW’s themselves in my home every weekend for months. (because I like to understand and consider what people think. Imagine…open minded AND a Christian….go figure) That’s what they, the JW’s taught me. Go to watchtower.org right now and see their argument that Jesus is not God. Not Christians only spin offs. It looks like Christian on the surface just deep enough to be confused with Christianity. At the core tho JW’s do not hold to Christian beliefs. I think you sir are the one who is confused.
AFTER EXAMINING THE DELICATE BALANCE OF JUST THE HUMAN BODY IT SEEMS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE.
I don’t see how it is “nearly impossible.” Feel free to show how it is, if you can.
Oh….I can…it’s more information than can be accurately expressed in this forum though. Pick any system of the body and study it. It doesn’t seem reasonable that the human body came together by any other means than intelligent design by the hand of a creator, God. Even if one system would come together to function, it’s interaction with all the other systems in the body is an even more intricate phenomenon. When studied it really is amazing. It’s easier to believe that God designed it rather than it evolved from the smallest building blocks. Say the body does find its way to its present state by natural selection, evolution, random acts of kindness by the universe….the breath of life comes from somewhere. Self awareness comes from somewhere. The fight against death comes from somewhere. These things are put into a body by God.
Yes, faith in God is exactly like faith that the chair won’t collapse. You know that it’s true and your belief leads you to act. Simple.
Not quite as simple as you think, your faith in the chair is derived from a multitude of mini-experiments, each time you sit further proving that “Chairs are safe to sit on”. Faith has numerous definitions and they are not all equivelant to each other.
Faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability
is quite different from
2. belief that is not based on proof:
which is quite different from:
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
So while your years of experience may tell you that you can be confident that chairs will not collapse, that faith is not the same as faith in god, which is essentially belief without proof.
Same word, two entirely different things.
If atheism isn’t a religion then how can your display be a religious display? You’re talking in circles. I’ll say it again choice of place and time with a message is critical to actually getting people to hear it. At Christmas right next to the Christmas Tree only pisses people off, doesn’t do much to spread your message.
Quite the contrary, given all the complaining one hears about the so-called ‘tree of knowledge’ I would say the message has been spread just fine. Its gotten people talking about it, it may inspire a closet atheist to perhaps step forward knowing that there are organizations that at least in one way relate to him.
It seems quite clear that some christians cannot contemplate that in a public square all forms of speech are given equal rights. They also apparantly believe that if it is in any way critical of thier beliefs then it should not be allowed. In America have the right to free speech, there is no right to not be offended.
This is actually no different than the christians complaining about billboards that say nothing more innocuous than “Dont believe in god? youre not alone” They still come out and claim that simple statement is offensive, denigrating and an insult to their religion.
The fact that an athiest organization has used the tree symbol, that christains took from pagans is immaterial, the fir tree is not a christian symbol any more than a reindeer is.
Mostly what is happening is our free speech rights are being challenged. I used the example before of Hate Speech legislation.
Codswallop, have you read the legislation? The bill, known as the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, amends language that prohibits “hate crimes” not speech, motivated by the victim’s race, color, or religion to include violence motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation, gender identity, gender or disability.
Do you find the other protections that have been in this legislation for years to be limiting upon your freedom of speech, or just because it now protects sexual orientation? If you do, then where has been the complaints against that, I dont think I’ve ever heard any complaints until this year.
In brief the legislation states:
Section 2 –
Adopts the definition of “hate crime” as set forth in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (i.e., a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person).
Section 6 –
Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit willfully causing bodily injury to any person through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.
and most specificly
Section 8 –
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
In fact not once in the legislation does the word “speech” even appear. Yet somehow christians believe when they are told that it limits their free speech.
Christians are still free to continue their homophobic teachings and proclamations that gays are going straight to hell, this law only modifies the punishment if they are caught trying to help them get there earlier.
Section 8 –
Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed to prohibit the exercise of constitutionally-protected free speech.
In fact not once in the legislation does the word “speech” even appear.
Well except in that portion of section 8
Well, in the spirit of fairness I suppose I should once again apologise. Athough it looks a little odd I concede that you were not screaming and were just trying to make yourself clear. Sorry.
But. You still have some key things to address.
You DID state clearly and unequivocally that “Christians are being met with more and more violence and discrimination.” You then said that atheists were not being violent. Is anyone being violent to christians in America, or would you like to withdraw this bit?
Atheists and Jews both disagree with most points of christian dogma. Yet you STILL have refused to say why it is only atheists that you want to silence.
You’ve still got to reconcile these two statements of yours:
“The thought police shouldn’t muzzle law abiding citizens speaking their mind. (Yes I think it’s true for Atheists too!!!! Speak your mind!!” [...]
and
“No one wants to hear this message at this time”
you cannot possibly have it both ways. You’re either committed to free speech or not.
You also said
“SIGH…..WELL MAYBE THIS IS ALL THAT CAN BE EXPECTED. THAT’S ALL THAT GOES ON IN THE SOCIETY AT LARGE ANYWAY WHEN SOMEONE DISAGREES THEN LET THE NAME CALLING BEGIN. IN THE END I GUESS THAT’S ALL YOU HAVE.”
Do you see any humorous irony in the juxtaposition of your last two sentences? Any at all old timer?
No I don’t see any irony. What I see is a political and cultural atmosphere that makes it seem ok to just call people names.
That was my point: you decry name calling, after saying thta name calling is all we have! Yet another ‘don’t insult me, I’ll insult you’ moment. That is precisely why I called you old timer, to get you to notice your own double standard.
And finally, saying things like
“Hey, I’m just trying to speak your language! I thought maybe you would understand me better that way. Calling people names …..just smacks of immaturity. I don’t mean to be condescending because you have interesting thoughts to share, but it did give you away.”
Is in actually fact incredibly patronising, especially from someone who comes onto an atheist site and starts saying inane things such as that atheism is a religion and (apologies if I am misreading but I assume this is about atheism) saying off-the wall things like
“Why does every spin off religion want to look like Christianity but deny it’s intrinsic truth?”
What is my under-25 language anyway? Juvenile terms like argumentum ad baculum?
“Your arguments will be stronger and more convincing if you don’t call people names.”
Yours would be stronger if you actually made some. Either support your bigotry in denying one minority a voice in a public forum, or stop trying to.
Haha, further support for what you said about how difficult it can be formatting teacher: sorry the above is confusingly mostly in bold, I forgot to close the tag : (
It’s your responsibility to be specific — especially given the fact that the “Tree of Knowledge” is not presented as a “Christmas” tree, just a tree. To complain about a more generic tree being an appropriation of a Christian symbol is to imply that trees generally are a Christian symbol.
Even ignoring all that, though, I notice that you deliberately avoided responding to a critical point. I’ll repeat it here:
You mean that you don’t, and whether you in particular want to hear it is irrelevant.
Prove it. Explain how your “faith that the chair won’t collapse” fits Paul’s definition of faith — or justify why your faith in your god ignores what Paul taught.
Then maybe you shouldn’t use the exact same words and ideas as every other evangelical Christian who pops up here.
This doesn’t address what I wrote. I’ll have to repeat it again:
I already explained. I’ll have to repeat it again:
We can add to the above how you keep ignoring what’s been written by others.
Considering you “confused” is simply the generous interpretation of your behavior. There are far less generous interpretations of why you would so blatantly ignore the issues being raised. I’ll repeat the issue that you ignored at this particular instance:
Now, if you are not “confused” here — if you are not confusing concern with how theists behave with concern with “gods,” then the other likely explanation is that you are deliberately conflating the two. Is that the case?
You brought up the claims they make about other Christian groups.
So, your argument is: “it doesn’t seem reasonable to me that it developed naturally, so it must be impossible”? That’ a logical fallacy known as the argument from personal incredulity.
So you don’t have any actual evidence that it’s impossible for the body to develop naturally, you just can’t comprehend it and go with something easier to grasp?
The fact that it irritates you doesn’t mean that it irritates everyone — especially given the fact that you can’t point to anything specific that is insulting. All you do is engage in vague hand-waving about how it’s “passive-aggressive.”
Right, that’s why you continually presume to tell atheists what they think instead of ask, listen, read, and learn.
And you were challenged to demonstrate that this is true — that it’s a reasonable concern based on hard evidence and sound reasoning rather than just paranoid fear-mongering. You refused.
You wrote “people” when you meant to write “Me.”
But you aren’t making any effort to ask questions, listen, and learn. There is nothing laudable about “making an effort to talk,” because everyone does lots of talking all the time.
You did allege that there is “Christians are being met with more and more violence and discrimination as time goes along. ” You have been challenged by two people more than once to support this claim. So not only are you substituting talking for listening, but your talking is not being used to support the many claims and accusations you are making. Both individually are ethically and intellectually problematic, but taken together we have a person who keeps making assertions and accusations while ignoring many of the rebuttals, challenges, and questions of others. That’s something which every demagogue does, but you’re presenting such behavior as if it were ethical and socially responsible.
Then you feign confusion over why anyone would fail to regard you as being interested in substantive, adult conversation.
You guys spend every post just picking apart every word and firing back at me to defend myself, which I don’t really feel compelled to do but have tried to do for the sake of a conversation. There is no end to the conversation so at some point I have to just bow out. That point is now. Soooo Happy New Year.
Coryat says:
Well, in the spirit of fairness I suppose I should once again apologise. Athough it looks a little odd I concede that you were not screaming and were just trying to make yourself clear. Sorry.
You seem like a very nice person. It doesn’t look odd to admit something that is true. Apology accepted. And apologies to you if I was condescending. It’s in my nature as a teacher to point out this sort of thing. In real life with real students I can communicate support and confidence with the “coaching” I offer. It’s harder to do in this forum and maybe a poor choice on my part of “time and place” to get my message across. :O) A very happy new year to you!
Austin – we’re talking in circles! The conversation becomes to cumbersome when I have to constantly correct your false assumptions about what I’m saying. You want me to answer every big question ever found in the universe to convince you of…..I don’t even know what….you’re right and I’m wrong? I’m not altogether interested in trying to convince you, but you seem to challenge every word out of my mouth rather than just offer your own view and let it be. The conversation we need to have would be a welcomed conversation in person but I don’t have time to sort through every single point you want to make in this forum. Besides you constantly judge me. I have to say one more time that you do not know me. I am not feigning anything…I am not using talking points….I am not trying to shut you up…..etc. You’re so busy attacking me that we never crossed the line into pleasant conversation. Too bad.
And as for acts of violence. Right after the original article was written there was an act of violence from someone who disagreed toward someone involved with the printing of that article, over the article!
Codswallop (I like that. That’s for the vocabulary lesson!)
You won’t be hearing from me again and I do sincerely wish each of you a Happy New Year.
Yes, we are critically examining your statements in order to determine how true, false, or reasonable they are. Did you seriously expect that you could just say anything and have it all taken at face value, accepted as true without question, criticism, or challenge?
So, you don’t feel compelled to support claims and accusations. That is both unethical and anti-intellectual — yet I’ll bet you still imagine that you should be taken seriously as someone interested in serious discussion.
FYI, serious discussion is not possible when one or more of those involved are unable or unwilling to support their claims and accusations.
If I have assumed anything incorrect, then you are at liberty to demonstrate that.
I offer my own views all the time here on this site. You made the choice to post your claims and accusations here in comments which, ethically and intellectually, obligated you to support them.
This particular statement is very telling, though. Taken with earlier statements it strongly suggests that your idea of serious, substantive conversion consists of nothing more than two people giving their “own views” then just letting it be — not asking any questions, not critiquing any ideas, not challenging any claims, nothing.
Personally, I see nothing but intellectual poverty in such an exchange. If this is how you actually conduct conversations through your life, it’s little wonder that you reacted so badly when challenged here. Perhaps you are just completely unaccustomed to ever being challenged or questioned and just don’t know how to react to it.
A person who makes claims and accusations which they cannot or will not support is not a person who is genuinely interested in serious, adult, or pleasant conversation.
Another vague claim without details or references — and I’ll bet you expect people to take it at face value, believing it to be true and accurate.
If you aren’t able or willing to support the claims and accusations you make, then you shouldn’t be heard from at all in the first place. Making claims and accusations which you cannot or will not support is no different from lying — deliberately telling falsehoods out of a complete disregard for truth or reality.
There is but one thing that would make me happy in the next year: that Christians finally learn the ethical and intellectual value of supporting claims and accusations.
I won’t hold my breath, though.
Ha ha. Feel like you “won”?
Feeling a need to get in the last word?
Austin didn’t win, because he failed to accomplish what he wanted to, which was to get you to think about what you’re saying.
I hope you had a merry Christmas and that your New Year will be great.
Interesting that you view this as something where “winning” and “losing” are relevant categories. Might explain a lot about your attitude and behavior, but I’m afraid I just don’t care enough to tease out the possible implications.
And as for acts of violence. Right after the original article was written there was an act of violence from someone who disagreed toward someone involved with the printing of that article, over the article!
Another vague claim without details or references — and I’ll bet you expect people to take it at face value, believing it to be true and accurate.
Furthermore, it would take more than one example of violence to justify the statement ““Christians are being met with more and more violence and discrimination as time goes along.” I have no doubt that this is discussed frequently in christian churches around the nation as it has become quite fashionable for christians to cry out about discrimination and loss of freedoms.
It doesnt appear important to them to support the claim.
For example, I pointed out your mistaken impression of the hate crimes legislation, yet the only comment recieved in return is a comment about the word Codswallop.
No response acknowledging you might have been mistaken, or perhaps pointing out where I am mistaken in my reading of it. No effort whatsoever to support your claim that this legislation could bring forth a day “when Pastor’s can’t preach what they believe from their own pulpits for fear of the government accusing them of a hate crime”
Finally I would direct teacher to this site. http://thomas2026.wordpress.com/2009/09/27/christians-in-america-you-arent-persecuted/
Atheists’ merely displaying and arguing for their opinions being an unfair offence against Chrisitanity? That seems pretty absurd—what’s next, something even sillier like imagining that letting gay couples marry would hurt _my_ marriage?—wait, NOone could be that…oops.
Austin: Your valiant attempt to reach teacher9916 using reason and logic made for interesting reading. In our “politically correct” society where the theistic majority believe they have a Constitutional right to never be offended or to have their irrational belief system challenged. What worries me as a historian is that teacher9916 is a (self proclaimed) teacher. He/she didn’t say at what level but it sounded like elementary school giver his/her obvious lack of critical thinking skills. I mean c’mon, what level instructor feels compelled to end their posting with “Ha ha. Feel like you “won”?”
I would seriously question the hiring standards of any high school or college that would employ teacher9916 unless it is a religious school where such obstinate ignorance about the real world is considered a requirement in indoctrinating impressionable youth.
Happy New Year’s to all of my fellow Rationalists!!!
The “Tree Of Knowledge” should be left up all year since it celebrates rational and intelligent thought.
However, the Creche should only be put up for one day.
There is no such thing as a Christmas season, it is merely a one day holiday.
Isn’t Jane Gilvary the same stupid woman who claimed that you should not give our candy on Haloween because demons live in the candy bags at the supermarket?
Its amazing that she would be in college since she seems to be incapable of rational thought. Obviously, St Josephs is not a secular institution, and unable to teach rational
courses.
However, she certainly is the poster girl for representing the old adage:
“If you don’t come to my school and pray, then I won’t come to your church and think”
Nietzsche: “God is dead.”
God: “Nietzsche is dead.”
I’ve personally seen the tree of knowledge. If anything, it is a tree of hate. I really don’t give a darn if a person worships a tree, a God, Jesus, Moses, or a speck of sand. What I don’t understand is the need to hate! When one sees the trtee of knowledge, they see an attack on Christianity, and in particular an attack on Catholics. Why all this hate? If I wished to spread my beliefs, I would not do it by attacking someone else, but I would use the effort to explain my beliefs. Hate is a four letter word!
I was really offended be the statement with with Austin negated the undeniable fact that Thor creates a thunderstorm. Teacher, please help me! You are the only intelligent person here around. Tell them that it’s unreasonable not to believe in Thor. Will you, please…
Skye, you quote me as having said that Nietzsche were dead. When did I say such a thing?
Feel free to explain how and why, if you can.
Prove it.
You mean, like you’re doing now.
Hatred is a mature response to fight and flight or force and fraud
Jane Gilvary needs to switch to decaff.
Austin needs to write a book and go on tour.
A quick poll:
1.How many think teacher9916 is really a teacher?
2.How many want him/her teaching their cildren and grandchildren?
If this person is really a teacher I truly feel sorry for the students.
Sometimes I am perplexed at the animus displayed in America by the “Christians” not only towards non believers but to those of differing sects.
In Australia being an atheist is a non sequitur. But we are so common, actually outnumber many Christian sects. There may be those who are extremist believers who would do us harm but I have not found them. Harm other religious followers Oh! yes. Muslims V Christians V Jews and vice versa. But it is really confined to the lunatic fringe. By and large they ignore the poor old atheist. Maybe it is because we, generally, ignore them, or even that we actually are elected to Government, alongside theists.
Come on America lighten up. Stop trying to impose on others your personal hangups and the problems disappear.
Anti abortionists, don’t abort. Anti alcohol, don’t imbibe, anti smoke, don’t inhale. anti anything. Just don’t insist others follow your protestations but lead by example.
If your lives are exemplar,y and obviously beneficial it will “Encourage des autre’s.”
Jane Gilvary is my teacher and after reading this retort, I love how your piece highlights the hypocrisy and ignorance of Ms. Gilvary’s harangue. Great post.
nice job pwning teacher austin, she had no idea what she was talking about. and to answer your question
john about teacher9916 i dont think s/he is actually a real teacher.
thank you for being the voice of sanity and speaking up against silly jane gilvary.
i would recommend not responding to the comments in your article. your statement is strong enough and participating in one’s comments rarely strengthens it. if you have enough new things to say, it’s time to write a new article. i’d like to read it, in any case.