Satan statue

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.

Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God.  Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.

Maybe it occurred by magic, as BHS uses to say 'if magic then anything'.

Yes that sounds like the sort of thing Elvis would have said.

[jeremyp]

But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.

Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God.  Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.

Oh dear.  It's a logical contradiction to be both fully human and fully God.  If bits of you are God, then clearly you are not fully human.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.

Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God.  Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.

Oh dear.  It's a logical contradiction to be both fully human and fully God.  If bits of you are God, then clearly you are not fully human.

That's rubbish since you can be fully antitheist and fully twat at the same time.

[Shaker]

Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see

[ProfessorDavey]

In Montana there is a statue of Jesus of 50 years standing which a group of atheists and agnostics wanted pulling down.

It was ruled against because it is a popular meeting place for normal people.

Are you somehow suggesting that atheists and agnostics aren't 'normal people' - seems to be the obvious inference of your comment.

[jeremyp]

That's rubbish since you can be fully antitheist and fully twat at the same time.

Perhaps you should find a forum more suited to your intellect,  I hear CBeebies has one.

[Owlswing]

In Montana there is a statue of Jesus of 50 years standing which a group of atheists and agnostics wanted pulling down.

It was ruled against because it is a popular meeting place for normal people.

Are you somehow suggesting that atheists and agnostics aren't 'normal people' - seems to be the obvious inference of your comment.

Of course that's what he meant - another Vladinsult!

As soon as Vlad gets rubbished he resorts to insults - see Shaker's post - hence to Vlad he's a twat!

Vlad is the twat because he cannot undestand what a contradiction is when one is pointed out to him!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In Montana there is a statue of Jesus of 50 years standing which a group of atheists and agnostics wanted pulling down.

It was ruled against because it is a popular meeting place for normal people.

Are you somehow suggesting that atheists and agnostics aren't 'normal people' - seems to be the obvious inference of your comment.

Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm. The statue is a popular meeting place for secularist purposes and that probably includes lots of atheists and agnostics who aren't upset by statues i.e. normal people.

I suppose what I am saying is that there is a level where antitheism becomes a bit ''off the norm''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see

Nope. Did I name names?

I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.

[Owlswing]

Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see

Nope. Did I name names?

I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.

I wouldn't touch a straight line lie trhat with a barge-pole!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see

Nope. Did I name names?

I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.

I wouldn't touch a straight line lie trhat with a barge-pole!

Eh?

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm.

Disingenuous in the extreme.

And of course there is a difference between not being in the majority (i.e. not the norm) and not being a normal person. The first use isn't pejorative, merely reflecting a minority view (or characteristic) while characterising someone as not being a normal person is clearly pejorative.

Given that elsewhere you have suggested you believe that atheists are in the majority in the UK, would you therefore describe christians in the UK as not being 'normal people' which would be the obvious conclusion of your supposed argument. Somehow I doubt it. Likewise would you indicate that non white people in the UK are not normal people, which again would be consistent with your 'not the norm' view.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm.

Disingenuous in the extreme.

And of course there is a difference between not being in the majority (i.e. not the norm) and not being a normal person. The first use isn't pejorative, merely reflecting a minority view (or characteristic) while characterising someone as not being a normal person is clearly pejorative.

Given that elsewhere you have suggested you believe that atheists are in the majority in the UK, would you therefore describe christians in the UK as not being 'normal people' which would be the obvious conclusion of your supposed argument. Somehow I doubt it.

If a group of Christians wanted a fifty year old statue of Bertrand Russell pulled down I would think that was ''off the norm'' and extreme if not a bit loopy.

Are you prepared then to defend the behaviour of antitheists no matter how abnormal?

[Owlswing]

Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see

Nope. Did I name names?

I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.

I wouldn't touch a straight line like that with a barge-pole!

Eh?

I've corrected the typo's - sorry about that!

[ProfessorDavey]

Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm.

Disingenuous in the extreme.

And of course there is a difference between not being in the majority (i.e. not the norm) and not being a normal person. The first use isn't pejorative, merely reflecting a minority view (or characteristic) while characterising someone as not being a normal person is clearly pejorative.

Given that elsewhere you have suggested you believe that atheists are in the majority in the UK, would you therefore describe christians in the UK as not being 'normal people' which would be the obvious conclusion of your supposed argument. Somehow I doubt it.

If a group of Christians wanted a fifty year old statue of Bertrand Russell pulled down I would think that was ''off the norm'' and extreme if not a bit loopy.

Are you prepared then to defend the behaviour of antitheists no matter how abnormal?

I didn't ask whether their view was 'off the norm' but whether they were 'normal people'. The notion that people who might hold minority views are somehow not normal people is deeply offensive - but of course you only use that in the context of atheists - quelle surprise!!

[Shaker]

The notion that people who might hold minority views are somehow not normal people is deeply offensive - but of course you only use that in the context of atheists - quelle surprise!!

Excuse me, this is Vlad you're talking to now; I think you mean anti-theists. (It's the only term he knows).

[ProfessorDavey]

The notion that people who might hold minority views are somehow not normal people is deeply offensive - but of course you only use that in the context of atheists - quelle surprise!!

Excuse me, this is Vlad you're talking to now; I think you mean anti-theists. (It's the only term he knows).

Indeed, but on this occasion he broadened his 'not normal people' bile to include atheists and agnostics.

He really does come across as someone whose irrational hatred of a particular group is so extreme is clouds everything he says - he comes across as so full of hatred and bile that you feel his head is going to explode at any time.

And it must be all the worse for him, given that he has indicated that he feels that the majority of the UK population are atheist so he must walk around twitching every time he passes someone in the street just in case they are one of the atheist 50+% and somehow out to get him.

[ippy]

If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.

Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).

If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.

ippy

PS,  found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all

[ProfessorDavey]

If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.

Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).

If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.

ippy

PS,  found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all

You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.

[ippy]

If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.

Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).

If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.

ippy

PS,  found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all

You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.

Hadn't thought of that Proff;  mind you I shouldn't be surprised at anything the Americans do.

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.

Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).

If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.

ippy

PS,  found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all

You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.

Actually just found details of the case.

And yes this was on federal land and therefore the challenge was on constitutional grounds, not due to atheists not liking religious statues. The challenge was lost, out of interest as the court concluded that the statue's purpose was primarily secular. There was a dissenting position from one of the judges.

What is interesting of course is that the challenge failed only because the court found that the statue's primary purpose was secular. By inference then were there to be a statue on federal land whose primary purpose was deemed to be religious then the challenge would have been upheld.

But the key point is that the challenge was purely on constitutional grounds.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.

Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).

If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.

ippy

PS,  found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all

You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.

LOL. It was reported to be a group of atheists and agnostics.

[Shaker]

... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.

[ProfessorDavey]

If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.

Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).

If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.

ippy

PS,  found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all

You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.

LOL. It was reported to be a group of atheists and agnostics.

Actually the group that brought the case have the following 'strap-line' as their mission:

'Protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state'

Looks like they are most concerned about the constitutional issue regardless of whether the group includes atheists and agnostics.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.

Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?