Key

Thanks, Jonathan. And I for you.

No, I don't find the word, itself, offensive. But the way in which you used it to single out a particular ideology, was. As for providing examples? They've been given numerous times by various persons throughout this forum. Why should I ride that carousel when I know it won't go anywhere? Even if I manage to clutch the brass ring, you'll deny that I did.

Now you are making it sound like a political debate. The comment is uncalled for and is an offensive generalized opinion. No one has made an equally offensive aside for a conservative, which, rest assured, is certainly just as true. I have witnessed you making many of the same nitpicking and semantic maneuvers, as well, so I'll leave it at that. You aren't as innocent as you portray yourself.

You do know the difference between an Atheist and Atheism, right? Atheism is in regards to not believing in a deity without evidence. Atheist are a result of that thinking. Atheism, itself, is "not a system of morals", and, in fact, not a system at all, really. Whereas, an Atheist is an individual that may actually have morals that don't necessarily follow a system, per se. They may simply not need to have right and wrong written down for them on stone tablets, nor copied many times over with translation difficulties. Now, when you write an Atheist doesn't have morals, you actually are implying that a person could not have morals.

Wholly inaccurate, Dan, and you know it. A person can have morals, regardless of any religious belief system they may or may not have. Why do you continue to insist that morality can not be exclusive from a belief in a deity?

Yep, she was all that and a bag of chips! 😉

A thought provoking read. Not surprising at all about many of the old Christian church denominations that are anti-gay. Equally unsurprising is their stubbornness not to follow the example of Christ's inclusiveness in His messages. At least from my perspective.

True, but that form fitting dress made no doubt she was in great shape, too.

OMG! Morticia! Mine still does, too.

To be fair, Jonathan, not all Christian churches have either a cross, or replication of Christ crucified displayed to pray or worship before. Some even hold that such imagery may become idolatry. Not all, just some.

I think you mean discern, not divide. It was meant to unite the faithful, not divide them. One shift in a single word's interpretation makes a huge difference, as do entire passages.

You're welcome. Though I, myself, am neither an atheist, nor an agnostic, since I do believe there is something more, but can't prove it, either, I do also believe others may choose what they do believe, as well. It gets as much tiresome to argue the point for you, as it does for me to continuously read the same debate waged time and again across many threads with the same information circulated just as repetitiously supplied. Much like many screws being continuously drilled into a board until their heads are stripped. Board is always there, the screws no longer make much difference to whether it is loose or secure anymore. But somehow, I am always hopeful something will change. I guess I am more overly optimistic, than I am an analytical skeptic.

Yes, but somehow they usually seem to get lumped together with atheist in an argument based on belief, inevitably. Regrettable.

Dan, atheism is not about belief, at all. It's about acceptance of evidence. As you say, no evidence that God doesn't exist, but that doesn't necessarily leave the option that He does, as there is no evidence of that, either. For an atheist, just as the label implies, they accept that God does not exist based on no evidence. They would not be atheist, otherwise, would they? No. Again, as I said before, should evidence arise for them that He does, certainly their view would change. I might also argue that the "evidence" Jonathan provided to you is to you what you cite Scripture as "evidence" is to him. Perspective, you know?

Sorry, Dan, as much as I hate to admit it, this is very debatable, even to this day, which has also lead to divisions within the faith, as well.

Well, that was kinda interesting. Long winded for me, but interesting.

Your question and answer, both in the same paragraph, Dan. Evidence is key to their acceptance of a conclusion.

I understand your deep frustrations. I try to give him the benefit of the doubt. It seems to me, and I may be wrong, even far off base, that he may have some difficulty in relating to not using faith in some way to accept a conclusion. For him, all the "isms" deal with some form of faith. I think atheism, itself, isn't about having faith, but rather about acceptance of evidence or lack thereof, to base any conclusion. I hope I have at least understood your perspective a little bit, or enough to draw a conclusion close enough to be nearly correct.

No, Dan, it isn't exactly trust in their cognitive reasoning, nor faith in any conclusions. Merely acceptance of evidence given to them to confirm truth, one way or the other. Should the divine provide it with certainty, I have no doubt they would accept it, then believe it. Btw, I'm not attacking you over this, should you feel that way. I am simply making an observation as an outsider gleaning information from the debates I've witnessed.

Dan, you still seem to be missing the point. There is no belief of an atheist. An atheist thinking is dependent upon the evidence they are provided. It is based on evidence or lack thereof that renders their mind to be right. That requires NO faith, just proof or lack of it. Thinking requires no faith, only deductive reasoning. This is what they have been trying to tell you many times, if I have been interpreting them correctly. Have I?

As I've had a similar discussion in another thread, there are some Christians who point this out as pertaining to the Old Testament. But there are others who argue that the laws of Old may still pertain to Christians, as well, citing His own words of, "I have not come to abolish the laws, rather to fulfill them", which may mean their faith must follow God's commandments just as the Hebrews must. Thoughts?

Okay. But my original response still stands. Jonestown did not start as a "suicide" cult. It only became that in the very end.

Sorry, Dan, but this explanation still makes little sense to me. How could a mere display be a ploy to "disrupt" something that couldn't possibly have been impeded? That would require those faithful to the holiday to simply stop observing it. Not seeing that happening, do you?

But it didn't start that way, by a long shot. Virtually none ever do. And, btw, consider this, at one time, every religion may have been considered a sort of cult until it gained acceptance of a greater populace.

First question: How does it "interfere with a Christian holiday"? The holiday continues, regardless of any displays, whatsoever. Second and Third question: As the displays in question are on public properties, and the public is made up of many faiths, why should one religion hold precedence over others in the manner of these presentations? If their"s "irritates" Christians, does it not hold that Christian displays may irritate others? I can see their points, and do kind of comprehend what you are trying to imply, but your wording is failing to back you up, in my view. Sorry.