| Re: Qbasic [message #316676 is a reply to message #316624] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 06:21   |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 18/04/2016 18:21, JimP wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 16:44:46 +0100, Andrew Swallow
> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 18/04/2016 14:38, JimP wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:43:08 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>> <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
{snip}
>>>
>>>> On 17/04/2016 10:53, Huge wrote:
>>>> > On 2016-04-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:18:08 PM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Those business pages never mention morality, which is a unagreeable
>>>> >>> subject anyway, but is a tobacco company as unobjectionable as,
>>>> >>> say, a bottled water one?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Morality is the government's job,
>>>> >
>>>> > God forbid.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Morality and ethics are religious matters.
>>>
>>> I know a number of ethical and moral atheists, and a number of
>>> untheical religious folowers, so your claim holds no water.
>>>
>>
>> Atheism is a religion.
>
> They don't think so. I know some religious groups claim atheism is a
> religion, but its lack of religion.
>
It is part of a scale.
Number of gods:
Many
One
Zero
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316678 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 07:06 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2016 10:24 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> In article <nf38le$ia6$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com
>> says...
>>>
>>
>> And they're the ones that get noticed. If you want people to believe
>> that atheism is not a religion, then learn to police your ranks.
>>
>>
> <shrug>The worst ones seem to be those who grew up in religious
> households. I've known them from Catholic and Jehovah's Witness
> backgrounds. I doubt that there's anything anyone could do to "police"
> them short of hitting them with a 2x4.
>
> In any case, I don't really care if people believe that atheism is a
> religion, they're often the same ones who believe that "science" is a
> religion. It just seems sorta silly to me.
Christian Scientists, who I was once told had the only good newspaper
in the US. Never read it.
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316679 is a reply to message #316677] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 07:13 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On 18/04/2016 20:02, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2016-04-18, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2016 16:05, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>>> In article <PM00053099A0C69A1F@aca4007c.ipt.aol.com>,
>>>> jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I like Foreign Affairs, too.
>>>> >
>>>> > /BAH
>>>>
>>>> So does Trump. Or is it that there are some jobs Americans won't do?!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Americans will do it but finding an American girl that has not been
>>> contaminated with feminism is difficult.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>>
> Find out why white men are not getting married.
Gay?.
Have you ever been abroad?. US women are assertive, but not uniquely so.
Even Muslim women will have their way too. And if you think US women
are bad, try Russian ones. (Many of which have gone through their first
husbands, left behind as shattered, alcoholic wrecks.)
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316680 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 07:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2016 4:26 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 18/04/2016 14:38, JimP wrote:
>>>> > On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:43:08 +0100, Andrew Swallow
>>>> > <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On 17/04/2016 10:53, Huge wrote:
>>>> >>> On 2016-04-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>> >>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:18:08 PM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>> Those business pages never mention morality, which is a unagreeable
>>>> >>>>> subject anyway, but is a tobacco company as unobjectionable as,
>>>> >>>>> say, a bottled water one?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Morality is the government's job,
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> God forbid.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Morality and ethics are religious matters.
>>>> >
>>>> > I know a number of ethical and moral atheists, and a number of
>>>> > untheical religious folowers, so your claim holds no water.
>>>>
>>>> Atheism is a religion.
>>>
>>> Sounds idiotic to me, but if holding that belief makes you feel
>>> better I'm betting there is nothing any of us can say that will
>>> dissuade you. It's pretty clear that logic and reason aren't
>>> operating on your end.
>>>
>>
>> Some atheists seem to want to engage religious people in an argument trying
>> to "convert" them by telling them how stupid they are.
>
> "True Believers" of any sort are a PITA. They're all similar, though
> for some it's atheism, for some flag-waving, for some wanting to make
> sure you know Ali was the rightful successor to Mohammed or that
> Jehovah is going to intervene soon and destroy all earthly
> governments. It's not the belief that's the problem, it's that they
> insist on inflicting it upon others.
>
> Some seem to take
>> personal offense at celebration of religious holidays such as Christmas,
>> and go to great lengths to prevent any public celebration, to the point of
>> trying to get "Merry Christmas" converted to "Happy Holidays." If I were
>> in a predominantly Buddhist country, for example, I would have no
>> difficulty wishing my Buddhist neighbor a happy Buddha's Birthday, or
>> whatever, now would I object to taking part in whatever festivities went
>> along with it. An atheiest in a Christian country for whom athieism was
>> _not_ a religion would most likely do the same, perhaps with a shrug and a
>> thought of "whatever". An atheiest for whom atheiesm _was_ a religion
>> would object to any religious expression, such as putting up a Christmas
>> Crib on the town hall lawn.
>
> Your "live and let live" approach is great. But it should be people
> who have religions (if they choose), not countries. The problems arise
> when any religious category starts trying to enforce its requirements
> on others, whether that's telling people they may not drink alcohol,
> may not open their store on Sunday, must wear a head covering, whatever.
>
> The "True Believer" atheist might object to people putting up the
> Christmas Crib on their own lawn. But in the US, the government is not
> allowed to establish (favor or require) a religion, so the town hall
> would need to make room for other religions as well. While I admit to
> a bit of curiosity as to what that goat sculpture the Satanists made
> looks like, the idea of that rubbing shoulders with St. Francis, who's
> next to Kali dancing on Shiva's corpse beside the capitalists' Scrooge
> McDuck bathing in a mound of money makes my head hurt, town hall is
> going to look like one of those lots where they sell concrete lawn
> decor. We're all probably better off keeping the displays off public
> property.
>
>
A country should not enforce a religion. However, the culture of a country
is determined by the majority of its people. It would be hard to avoid
Hinduism in India, for example, whatever your religion, nor should you try
to abolish the celebration of the Holi festival or force the removal of
roadside shrines because they'te against your religion, or your atheiestic
prolivities.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316681 is a reply to message #316673] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 07:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:25:55 -0500
> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2016 10:44 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> Atheism is a religion.
>>
>> Not believing in a religion is a religion? Doesn't that make the term
>> basically meaningless? NOT-X == X?
>
> Athiesm is not "not believing in a religion" athiesm is "believing
> there are no gods" - everybody (I think) does not believe in most
> religions, few people manage to believe in more than one. Agnosticism is
> believing in no religions - note that this does not mean believing they are
> wrong just not believing they are right. In short.
>
> Athiest: There are no gods.
> Theist: My god(s) is(are) the only one(s).
> Agnostic: Nobody knows so stop pretending.
>
> They're all religions - the last relies on the unprovable
> proposition that no religion has the answer, which strikes me personally as
> being the most likely case.
>
>> Maybe you're using the term in a way I don't understand. How do you
>> define the term "religion" used in that statement?
>
> Religion is a very difficult term to define, but to me it involves
> strongly holding beliefs which cannot be demonstrated or falsified. Gods
> are a common form of this kind of belief, but Buddhism is a religion with
> no gods - it's an athiestic religion.
>
>> Yes, there are some evangelist atheists. It's always struck me as the
>
> Evangalism is not IMHO a defining characteristic of religion, it is
> a common one though. Unquestioning belief seems to me to be the single
> defining characteristic of religion.
>
> Cross threading a bit, science is not a religion it is a philosphy
> aimed at eliminating wrong answers - quite successful at it too.
>
In most cases. Without mentioning current controversies the have been
times when scientists were so convinced they had the right answers that
they ignored any evidence that they might be wrong. Ideally scientists
should be open-minded and willing to re-examine their beliefs when needed,
but practically someone who has built a career and become famous for
expounding "x" is unlikely to be willing to change.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316683 is a reply to message #316681] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 08:19 |
Ahem A Rivet's Shot
Messages: 4843
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:29:16 -0400
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> Cross threading a bit, science is not a religion it is a
>> philosphy aimed at eliminating wrong answers - quite successful at it
>> too.
>>
>
> In most cases. Without mentioning current controversies the have been
> times when scientists were so convinced they had the right answers that
> they ignored any evidence that they might be wrong. Ideally scientists
They are after all human and so sometimes stop practicing science
while still pretending to.
--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316684 is a reply to message #316656] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 09:20 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:20:44 PM UTC-6, JimP wrote:
> I was taught that proselytizing was sinful.
Most Christian denominations would find it hard to accept that doctrine, as it
appears to be contrary to Scripture:
Mark 16:15
And He said unto them: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to
every creature".
Of course, even the most die-hard of Biblical literalists have stopped at
preaching the Gospel to horses or cats.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316685 is a reply to message #316680] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 10:15 |
scott
Messages: 4237
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2016 4:26 PM, Peter Flass wrote:
>> We're all probably better off keeping the displays off public
>> property.
>>
>>
>
> A country should not enforce a religion.
This country (USA) _CANNOT_ enforce a religion. It's
written write into the consitution.
> However, the culture of a country
> is determined by the majority of its people.
Not when it conflicts with the constitution.
> It would be hard to avoid
> Hinduism in India, for example, whatever your religion, nor should you try
> to abolish the celebration of the Holi festival or force the removal of
> roadside shrines because they'te against your religion, or your atheiestic
> prolivities.
Strawman. Dave was talking about displays on government property,
not some festival or roadside shrine.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316686 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 11:29 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2016 6:06 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2016-04-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> In any case, I don't really care if people believe that atheism is a
>>> religion, they're often the same ones who believe that "science" is a
>>> religion. It just seems sorta silly to me.
>>
>> Christian Scientists, who I was once told had the only good newspaper
>> in the US. Never read it.
>>
>
> The Christian Science Monitor is (well, was, I think it's online-only
> now) a good paper, certainly one of the best in the US.
>
> However, don't let the name fool you. Any connection between "science"
> and "Christian Science" is tenuous, I think "science" was a marketing
> buzzword in 1875 when the sect arose. They (the adherents, not most
> of the readers of the paper) believe that illness should be cured by
> prayer, not doctors. But on the science side of the ledger, it was
> rumored that Mary Baker Eddy's (their founder) crypt was equipped with
> a telephone, so that when resurrection took place, she could call to
> be let out.
>
>
Not for the same reason, but I understand this type of thing used to be
common in the 1800s. Given the state of medicine in those days they'd
occasionally bury someone who was only in a coma but not dead. Even more
occasionally they'd discover that they had done this, so there was a fad of
giving the "dead" person some means of communicating if they were, in fact,
still alive.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316687 is a reply to message #316683] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 12:20 |
Andrew Swallow
Messages: 1705
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 19/04/2016 13:19, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:29:16 -0400
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>>> Cross threading a bit, science is not a religion it is a
>>> philosphy aimed at eliminating wrong answers - quite successful at it
>>> too.
>>>
>>
>> In most cases. Without mentioning current controversies the have been
>> times when scientists were so convinced they had the right answers that
>> they ignored any evidence that they might be wrong. Ideally scientists
>
> They are after all human and so sometimes stop practicing science
> while still pretending to.
>
The sin of scientists is false witness, particularly against their work.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316689 is a reply to message #316681] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 07:55 |
Morten Reistad
Messages: 2108
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In article <1466851693.482757937.049985.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:25:55 -0500
>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/18/2016 10:44 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>> Atheism is a religion.
>>>
>>
>> Cross threading a bit, science is not a religion it is a philosphy
>> aimed at eliminating wrong answers - quite successful at it too.
>>
>
> In most cases. Without mentioning current controversies the have been
> times when scientists were so convinced they had the right answers that
> they ignored any evidence that they might be wrong. Ideally scientists
> should be open-minded and willing to re-examine their beliefs when needed,
> but practically someone who has built a career and become famous for
> expounding "x" is unlikely to be willing to change.
Cross threading a bit more; "our science is advancing one death at a time".
Said about "the dismal science".
-- mrr
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316690 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 14:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-18, Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-18, Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2016 10:53, Huge wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-04-17, Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, April 16, 2016 at 2:18:08 PM UTC-6, ma...@mail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Those business pages never mention morality, which is a unagreeable
>>>> > subject anyway, but is a tobacco company as unobjectionable as,
>>>> > say, a bottled water one?
>>>>
>>>> Morality is the government's job,
>>>
>>> God forbid.
>>
>> Morality and ethics are religious matters.
>
> Religion or philosophy. Anything but Government.
History has many examples of where churches have bungled morality
and ethics as badly as any government. Pick your poison.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316692 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 14:29 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-18, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/2016 1:45 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>
>> Religion is not necessarily a belief in God. 3rd definition of religion
>> from my dictionary is: 'a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes
>> supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.'
>
> Ah yes. But being vegan, or a libertarian, or seeking personal power
> or money, or believing in logical positivism, isn't really the same
> thing, except as a metaphor. Or maybe it is.
With reference to consumerism above, I'd say that it arguably is.
Consider the tones of reverence with which our society refers to
The Economy, and the religious zeal with which its needs are attended
to - often at the expense of individuals, but isn't sacrifice one of
the trappings of religion?
God is not dead, He's just been bought out in a hostile takeover.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316693 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 14:36 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> On 4/19/2016 6:06 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2016-04-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> In any case, I don't really care if people believe that atheism is a
>>> religion, they're often the same ones who believe that "science" is a
>>> religion. It just seems sorta silly to me.
>>
>> Christian Scientists, who I was once told had the only good newspaper
>> in the US. Never read it.
>>
>
> The Christian Science Monitor is (well, was, I think it's online-only
> now) a good paper, certainly one of the best in the US.
>
> However, don't let the name fool you. Any connection between "science"
> and "Christian Science" is tenuous, I think "science" was a marketing
> buzzword in 1875 when the sect arose. They (the adherents, not most
> of the readers of the paper) believe that illness should be cured by
> prayer, not doctors. But on the science side of the ledger, it was
> rumored that Mary Baker Eddy's (their founder) crypt was equipped with
> a telephone, so that when resurrection took place, she could call to
> be let out.
>
AFAIK, the Christian Scientists aare still around, and can be a
roblem with medical treatment
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316694 is a reply to message #316689] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 14:36 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <1466851693.482757937.049985.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 13:25:55 -0500
>>> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/18/2016 10:44 AM, Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Atheism is a religion.
>>>
>>> Cross threading a bit, science is not a religion it is a philosphy
>>> aimed at eliminating wrong answers - quite successful at it too.
>>
>> In most cases. Without mentioning current controversies the have been
>> times when scientists were so convinced they had the right answers that
>> they ignored any evidence that they might be wrong. Ideally scientists
>> should be open-minded and willing to re-examine their beliefs when needed,
>> but practically someone who has built a career and become famous for
>> expounding "x" is unlikely to be willing to change.
>
> Cross threading a bit more; "our science is advancing one death at a time".
> Said about "the dismal science".
Not just economics. The original quote comes from Max Planck.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316695 is a reply to message #316686] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 14:39 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2016 6:06 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>> In any case, I don't really care if people believe that atheism is a
>>>> religion, they're often the same ones who believe that "science" is a
>>>> religion. It just seems sorta silly to me.
>>>
>>> Christian Scientists, who I was once told had the only good newspaper
>>> in the US. Never read it.
>>>
>>
>> The Christian Science Monitor is (well, was, I think it's online-only
>> now) a good paper, certainly one of the best in the US.
>>
>> However, don't let the name fool you. Any connection between "science"
>> and "Christian Science" is tenuous, I think "science" was a marketing
>> buzzword in 1875 when the sect arose. They (the adherents, not most
>> of the readers of the paper) believe that illness should be cured by
>> prayer, not doctors. But on the science side of the ledger, it was
>> rumored that Mary Baker Eddy's (their founder) crypt was equipped with
>> a telephone, so that when resurrection took place, she could call to
>> be let out.
>>
>>
>
> Not for the same reason, but I understand this type of thing used to be
> common in the 1800s. Given the state of medicine in those days they'd
> occasionally bury someone who was only in a coma but not dead. Even more
> occasionally they'd discover that they had done this, so there was a fad of
> giving the "dead" person some means of communicating if they were, in fact,
> still alive.
>
Still around. There is a company that will install a cable,
with a bell overground, that you can pull after you revive.
A radio commentator had aan item about that once, which went
"The family are all in the pub, fighting over who got what.
Who will hear the bell?"
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316697 is a reply to message #316657] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 14:52 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 9:25:44 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
> Putting a religious disolay up at City Hall, or any other government
> location, is pushing a specific religion as a State Religion. Not
> allowed. It has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with not
> allowing a State Religion to take over America.
For decades, government has had Christmas concerts in schools
and put up creches on public property. Big deal. It didn't
create a state religion, nor push anything. They didn't
hurt anything.
The effort to oppose such displays and acts ended up being
highly counter-productive, creating a lot of ill-feeling.
The current trend of substituting "songs of the season" or
"holiday" in lieu of Christmas is stupid and hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316698 is a reply to message #316690] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 15:00 |
hancock4
Messages: 6746
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 2:29:56 PM UTC-4, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> History has many examples of where churches have bungled morality
> and ethics as badly as any government. Pick your poison.
People are lazy, and allow themselves to get sucked in by
emotion into crusades, be it Sen. McCarthy or whoever.
Fortunately, later Americans usually see the light and throw
the bum out. However, in the meantime, a lot of people get hurt.
We had some whack job get on the school board. Some of my
neighbors really fell for his b/s (he was very anti-union
and they didn't like unions). He was voted out after one
term.
One big problem with the U.S.' political system is that it
asks so much from candidates and public servants and gives
very little in return. One has to be psycho to run for any
significant public office since every freaking detail of
your life will become public knowledge, as well as some
stuff that's not even true. How many highly talented
people are there who'd make a great president, but don't
want to deal with the b/s to get elected?
This isn't anything new. One of the most distinguished
public servants, George Marshall, was ripped by a partisan
Congress for no good reason.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316699 is a reply to message #316692] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 15:18 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-18, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2016 1:45 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>>
>>> Religion is not necessarily a belief in God. 3rd definition of religion
>>> from my dictionary is: 'a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes
>>> supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.'
>>
>> Ah yes. But being vegan, or a libertarian, or seeking personal power
>> or money, or believing in logical positivism, isn't really the same
>> thing, except as a metaphor. Or maybe it is.
>
> With reference to consumerism above, I'd say that it arguably is.
> Consider the tones of reverence with which our society refers to
> The Economy, and the religious zeal with which its needs are attended
> to - often at the expense of individuals, but isn't sacrifice one of
> the trappings of religion?
>
> God is not dead, He's just been bought out in a hostile takeover.
>
"The Gods, if they exist at all, live far away, and care little for
the affairs of men"
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316700 is a reply to message #316697] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 15:59 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 9:25:44 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
>
>> Putting a religious disolay up at City Hall, or any other government
>> location, is pushing a specific religion as a State Religion. Not
>> allowed. It has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with not
>> allowing a State Religion to take over America.
>
> For decades, government has had Christmas concerts in schools
> and put up creches on public property. Big deal. It didn't
> create a state religion, nor push anything. They didn't
> hurt anything.
>
> The effort to oppose such displays and acts ended up being
> highly counter-productive, creating a lot of ill-feeling.
>
> The current trend of substituting "songs of the season" or
> "holiday" in lieu of Christmas is stupid and hypocritical.
>
>
The Okanagan Nation Alliance sent out an email in December, titled
something like "Seaons Greetings".
Attached was a photo, and some writing that I didn't recognize, but
assumed was Syilx. I do a websearch, and it turns out to be "Merry
Christmas" in Salish (Syilx being a Salish language).
It was amusing, don't "upset people by mentioning Christmas, but put it in
the traditional language and it's okay".
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316704 is a reply to message #316692] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 16:04 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> writes:
> On 2016-04-18, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2016 1:45 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>>
>>> Religion is not necessarily a belief in God. 3rd definition of religion
>>> from my dictionary is: 'a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes
>>> supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.'
>>
>> Ah yes. But being vegan, or a libertarian, or seeking personal power
>> or money, or believing in logical positivism, isn't really the same
>> thing, except as a metaphor. Or maybe it is.
>
> With reference to consumerism above, I'd say that it arguably is.
> Consider the tones of reverence with which our society refers to
> The Economy, and the religious zeal with which its needs are attended
> to - often at the expense of individuals, but isn't sacrifice one of
> the trappings of religion?
Remember the exhortations about how Communism relegated people to the
status of economic units? How under the godless Commies, people qua
people didn't matter, only their roles in the economy?
The cold war is over and the bad guys won. (At the risk of tedious
explanation, the bad guys are the ones who regard people as economic
units, whether capitalist or communist. The capitalist bad guys won.)
> God is not dead, He's just been bought out in a hostile takeover.
The new Established Church, albeit a subliminal one, is the one whose
doctrines are the controlling dogma of for-profit corporations: Make
profits for shareholders with the letter of the law as the only
constraint. We are continuously schpritzed by the media (inter alia)
with holy water of that flavour. There are always people who fail to
rise above, "What's in it for me?" But that's the mantra of the newly
Established Church and everybody's expected to join or at least come
to like it.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316705 is a reply to message #316700] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 16:07 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
> The Okanagan Nation Alliance sent out an email in December, titled
> something like "Seaons Greetings".
>
> Attached was a photo, and some writing that I didn't recognize, but
> assumed was Syilx. I do a websearch, and it turns out to be "Merry
> Christmas" in Salish (Syilx being a Salish language).
>
> It was amusing, don't "upset people by mentioning Christmas, but put it in
> the traditional language and it's okay".
Ha!
Bikpela hamamas bilong dispela Krismas na Nupela yia i go long yu.
Maybe not exotic/cryptic enough to get past the censors?
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316706 is a reply to message #316705] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 17:20 |
osmium
Messages: 749
Registered: April 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Mike Spencer" wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>
>> The Okanagan Nation Alliance sent out an email in December, titled
>> something like "Seaons Greetings".
>>
>> Attached was a photo, and some writing that I didn't recognize, but
>> assumed was Syilx. I do a websearch, and it turns out to be "Merry
>> Christmas" in Salish (Syilx being a Salish language).
>>
>> It was amusing, don't "upset people by mentioning Christmas, but put it
>> in
>> the traditional language and it's okay".
>
> Ha!
>
> Bikpela hamamas bilong dispela Krismas na Nupela yia i go long yu.
>
> Maybe not exotic/cryptic enough to get past the censors?
If I tell google translate that is Chinese (my first guess was Klingon) it
provides an audible message that almost sounds like it makes sense.
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316707 is a reply to message #316692] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 17:52 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-18, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/18/2016 1:45 PM, Mark Storkamp wrote:
>>
>>> Religion is not necessarily a belief in God. 3rd definition of religion
>>> from my dictionary is: 'a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes
>>> supreme importance : consumerism is the new religion.'
>>
>> Ah yes. But being vegan, or a libertarian, or seeking personal power
>> or money, or believing in logical positivism, isn't really the same
>> thing, except as a metaphor. Or maybe it is.
>
> With reference to consumerism above, I'd say that it arguably is.
> Consider the tones of reverence with which our society refers to
> The Economy, and the religious zeal with which its needs are attended
> to - often at the expense of individuals, but isn't sacrifice one of
> the trappings of religion?
My pet peeve here is the phrase "must have", which is usually said about
something I have no need or desire for.
>
> God is not dead, He's just been bought out in a hostile takeover.
>
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316710 is a reply to message #311288] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 19:40 |
Michael Black
Messages: 2799
Registered: February 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 4/19/2016 1:36 PM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>> On 2016-04-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2016 6:06 AM, mausg@mail.com wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-19, Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> wrote:
>>>> > In any case, I don't really care if people believe that atheism is a
>>>> > religion, they're often the same ones who believe that "science" is a
>>>> > religion. It just seems sorta silly to me.
>>>>
>>>> Christian Scientists, who I was once told had the only good newspaper
>>>> in the US. Never read it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The Christian Science Monitor is (well, was, I think it's online-only
>>> now) a good paper, certainly one of the best in the US.
>>>
>>> However, don't let the name fool you. Any connection between "science"
>>> and "Christian Science" is tenuous, I think "science" was a marketing
>>> buzzword in 1875 when the sect arose. They (the adherents, not most
>>> of the readers of the paper) believe that illness should be cured by
>>> prayer, not doctors. But on the science side of the ledger, it was
>>> rumored that Mary Baker Eddy's (their founder) crypt was equipped with
>>> a telephone, so that when resurrection took place, she could call to
>>> be let out.
>>>
>>
>>
>> AFAIK, the Christian Scientists aare still around, and can be a
>> roblem with medical treatment
>>
>
> Oh yes. When I was a kid, my piano teacher was one. And I believe the church
> still owns the newspaper. It's not so much a problem with the adults (Darwin
> will take care of things), it's when one of their children gets sick that the
> situation gets nasty.
>
When I was a kid, it sounded so exotic, but then anything with "science"
had a lure, I'm sure that's why I started reading science fiction.
When I was four, there was an exotic church up the street, but I can't
remember what it was, and can't find a mention of it on the internet. It
was not a traditional church physically, but I also thought it wsa one of
the "newer" faiths or sub-faiths. But I don't know if those were the
scientists. I'm sure they had a pavillion at Expo '67 here, because I
knew about them even if I knew nothing about them.
Michael
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316716 is a reply to message #316698] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 21:36 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> One has to be psycho to run for any significant public office
Amen. Look at how many psychos get in.
Still, it's got to be tough. There you are, trying to do some good
in a system where so much good is smothered in bureaucracy and blocked
by vested interests. And it costs so much to get elected that you
usually wind up beholden to some of those vested interests: the ones
who sponsored you in return for your allegiance.
It's little wonder that even the noblest candidates either get ground
up and spit out, or turn to the dark side.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316718 is a reply to message #316705] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 21:36 |
Charlie Gibbs
Messages: 5313
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>
>> The Okanagan Nation Alliance sent out an email in December, titled
>> something like "Seaons Greetings".
>>
>> Attached was a photo, and some writing that I didn't recognize, but
>> assumed was Syilx. I do a websearch, and it turns out to be "Merry
>> Christmas" in Salish (Syilx being a Salish language).
>>
>> It was amusing, don't "upset people by mentioning Christmas, but put it in
>> the traditional language and it's okay".
>
> Ha!
>
> Bikpela hamamas bilong dispela Krismas na Nupela yia i go long yu.
>
> Maybe not exotic/cryptic enough to get past the censors?
I would suggest rot13, but only we denizens of a.f.c would get it.
--
/~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316724 is a reply to message #316631] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 21:06 |
Joy Beeson
Messages: 159
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:47:08 -0400, Peter Flass
<peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Atheism these days is an active belief, as opposed to simply not believing.
More precisely, anti-theists falsely call themselves "atheists".
It's truly irritating to the real ones, but we aren't evangelical
enough to do anything about it.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316725 is a reply to message #316706] |
Tue, 19 April 2016 23:45 |
Mike Spencer
Messages: 997
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
> "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>
>> Bikpela hamamas bilong dispela Krismas na Nupela yia i go long yu.
>
> If I tell google translate that is Chinese (my first guess was Klingon) it
> provides an audible message that almost sounds like it makes sense.
Traim Tok Pisin. Lukim yu.
--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316729 is a reply to message #316706] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 00:56 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 3:20:07 PM UTC-6, Osmium wrote:
> "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>> Bikpela hamamas bilong dispela Krismas na Nupela yia i go long yu.
>>
>> Maybe not exotic/cryptic enough to get past the censors?
>
> If I tell google translate that is Chinese (my first guess was Klingon) it
> provides an audible message that almost sounds like it makes sense.
I'd go for either Tagalog or some sort of Pigdin.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316730 is a reply to message #316725] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 00:59 |
Quadibloc
Messages: 4399
Registered: June 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 9:45:40 PM UTC-6, Mike Spencer wrote:
> Traim Tok Pisin. Lukim yu.
And Google tells me that Tok Pisin is spoken in Papua New Guinea, so that settles
that.
John Savard
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316731 is a reply to message #316730] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 02:52 |
Stan Barr
Messages: 598
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:59:03 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 9:45:40 PM UTC-6, Mike Spencer wrote:
>
>> Traim Tok Pisin. Lukim yu.
>
> And Google tells me that Tok Pisin is spoken in Papua New Guinea, so that settles
> that.
>
> John Savard
And other Pacific islands too. The Pacific Islands Broadcasting
Service still broadcasts in the language, I believe.
(I've gat a Pigin <-> English dictionary somewhere. Nearly same
language...)
--
Stan Barr plan.b@bluesomatic.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316734 is a reply to message #316700] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 06:32 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-19, Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2016, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 9:25:44 PM UTC-4, JimP wrote:
>>
>>> Putting a religious disolay up at City Hall, or any other government
>>> location, is pushing a specific religion as a State Religion. Not
>>> allowed. It has nothing to do with atheism. It has to do with not
>>> allowing a State Religion to take over America.
>>
>> For decades, government has had Christmas concerts in schools
>> and put up creches on public property. Big deal. It didn't
>> create a state religion, nor push anything. They didn't
>> hurt anything.
>>
>> The effort to oppose such displays and acts ended up being
>> highly counter-productive, creating a lot of ill-feeling.
>>
>> The current trend of substituting "songs of the season" or
>> "holiday" in lieu of Christmas is stupid and hypocritical.
>>
>>
> The Okanagan Nation Alliance sent out an email in December, titled
> something like "Seaons Greetings".
>
> Attached was a photo, and some writing that I didn't recognize, but
> assumed was Syilx. I do a websearch, and it turns out to be "Merry
> Christmas" in Salish (Syilx being a Salish language).
>
> It was amusing, don't "upset people by mentioning Christmas, but put it in
> the traditional language and it's okay".
>
> Michael
>
Christmas is a Germanic midwinter festival. nothing really Christian
about it, except that the Christians took it over, as so many pagan
festivals, for their use. (AFAIK, the closest Roman festival was
Saturnalia, when the chiefs became the Indians, so to speak, and a
_good_ time was had by all). Nowadays, its `the buying rubbish' festival.
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316735 is a reply to message #316725] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 06:34 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-20, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
> "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "Mike Spencer" wrote:
>>
>>> Bikpela hamamas bilong dispela Krismas na Nupela yia i go long yu.
>>
>> If I tell google translate that is Chinese (my first guess was Klingon) it
>> provides an audible message that almost sounds like it makes sense.
>
> Traim Tok Pisin. Lukim yu.
>
"Hello, Italian country person, I like you?"
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316736 is a reply to message #316718] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 06:36 |
mausg
Messages: 2483
Registered: May 2013
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 2016-04-20, Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:
> On 2016-04-19, Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> writes:
>>
>>> The Okanagan Nation Alliance sent out an email in December, titled
>>> something like "Seaons Greetings".
>>>
>>> Attached was a photo, and some writing that I didn't recognize, but
>>> assumed was Syilx. I do a websearch, and it turns out to be "Merry
>>> Christmas" in Salish (Syilx being a Salish language).
>>>
>>> It was amusing, don't "upset people by mentioning Christmas, but put it in
>>> the traditional language and it's okay".
>>
>> Ha!
>>
>> Bikpela hamamas bilong dispela Krismas na Nupela yia i go long yu.
>>
>> Maybe not exotic/cryptic enough to get past the censors?
>
> I would suggest rot13, but only we denizens of a.f.c would get it.
>
Who else matters?.
(AFAIK, there are several varieties of Pidgin. Like CSV)
--
greymaus
iD|marrA Raa|fLa
Ireland
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316738 is a reply to message #316724] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 10:31 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:47:08 -0400, Peter Flass
> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheism these days is an active belief, as opposed to simply not believing.
>
> More precisely, anti-theists falsely call themselves "atheists".
>
> It's truly irritating to the real ones, but we aren't evangelical
> enough to do anything about it.
Of course not.
But we are really seeing a persecution complex more than
any actual anti-theists. There may be a few, but they are
usually set off by some theist trying to get prayer back
in schools or some other nonsense.
We just had some theist complaining that his municipality
won't allow religious display on public property earlier
in this thread.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316740 is a reply to message #316738] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 10:55 |
Peter Flass
Messages: 8375
Registered: December 2011
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
> Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:47:08 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheism these days is an active belief, as opposed to simply not believing.
>>
>> More precisely, anti-theists falsely call themselves "atheists".
>>
>> It's truly irritating to the real ones, but we aren't evangelical
>> enough to do anything about it.
>
> Of course not.
>
> But we are really seeing a persecution complex more than
> any actual anti-theists. There may be a few, but they are
> usually set off by some theist trying to get prayer back
> in schools or some other nonsense.
>
> We just had some theist complaining that his municipality
> won't allow religious display on public property earlier
> in this thread.
>
Whatever is was previously or has become, Christmas is the celebration of
the birth of Christ. To take the christian part out of it and replace it
by Santa and dancing snowmen is to take all the cultural relevance out and
replace it by trash. If you believe, fine, if you don't then "Oh, I see
all my neighbors are enjoying celebration of their Christian holiday." It
would be like Moslems turning Eid into an opportunity to sell junk and take
all the references to religion out. Whether or not _I_ celebrate that
particular holiday, that's what it _is_, and I wouldn't want to try to
change it to suit myself.
--
Pete
|
|
|
|
| Re: Qbasic [message #316741 is a reply to message #316740] |
Wed, 20 April 2016 11:15 |
Dan Espen
Messages: 3867
Registered: January 2012
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:47:08 -0400, Peter Flass
>>> <peter_flass@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheism these days is an active belief, as opposed to simply not believing.
>>>
>>> More precisely, anti-theists falsely call themselves "atheists".
>>>
>>> It's truly irritating to the real ones, but we aren't evangelical
>>> enough to do anything about it.
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> But we are really seeing a persecution complex more than
>> any actual anti-theists. There may be a few, but they are
>> usually set off by some theist trying to get prayer back
>> in schools or some other nonsense.
>>
>> We just had some theist complaining that his municipality
>> won't allow religious display on public property earlier
>> in this thread.
>
> Whatever is was previously or has become, Christmas is the celebration of
> the birth of Christ. To take the christian part out of it and replace it
> by Santa and dancing snowmen is to take all the cultural relevance out and
> replace it by trash. If you believe, fine, if you don't then "Oh, I see
> all my neighbors are enjoying celebration of their Christian holiday." It
> would be like Moslems turning Eid into an opportunity to sell junk and take
> all the references to religion out. Whether or not _I_ celebrate that
> particular holiday, that's what it _is_, and I wouldn't want to try to
> change it to suit myself.
Disagree.
Last year I put up XMAS lights.
Why? They look nice during one of the more dismal parts of the year.
I see it and me and my neighbors get to share.
I think I have the cultural relevance just right.
To me, that's the true relevance of XMAS.
Celebrating the birthday of someone we supposedly tortured to death
has never done much for me culturally or otherwise.
--
Dan Espen
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
