Christianity banned from cinemas

[BashfulAnthony]

Nasrin has hit the nail on the head about you lot, and you can waffle away all night, and you won't alter a thing she so rightly says about you, her fellow atheists.  I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners.  Thank you Taslima Nasrin!   

[Maeght]

Nasrin has hit the nail on the head about you lot, and you can waffle away all night, and you won't alter a thing she so rightly says about you, her fellow atheists.  I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners.  Thank you Tasmina Nasrin!   

Yeah, right. You keep telling yourself that. You haven't addressed any of the points made, have repeatedly asked questions when they have been answered before, and then hidden behind someone else when you didn't have your own words to make a sensible argument. Not really taking anyone to the cleaners now is it. And you make a lot of fuss about bad language because it doesn't show respect for other people, then you take the approach and attitude you have on this thread. There is more than one way of showing disrespect.

[Shaker]

BA you couldn't take anybody to the cleaners if you walked them into the nearest branch of Johnson's holding their hand.

[Sebastian Toe]

Nasrin has hit the nail on the head about you lot, and you can waffle away all night, and you won't alter a thing she so rightly says about you, her fellow atheists.  I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners.  Thank you Taslima Nasrin!   

Take this quote from her with you since you seem to be in agreement with things that she says!

Religion pulls human beings backwards, it goes against science and progressiveness. Religion engulfs people with a fear of the supernatural. It bars people from laughing and never allows people to exercise their choice.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

I can go for a meal now in the pleasant glow of having taken you to the cleaners.  Thank you Taslima Nasrin!   

Having no argument of your own and simply ignoring the arguments that rebut your opinion is not taking taking someone else to the cleaners, it's being taken to the cleaners yourself.

Incidentally, here are some other gods with birthdays on 25 December: Marduk, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Mithras, Saturn, Sol,
Apollo, Serapis, and Huitzilopochli.

What are the chances eh? It's almost as if all of them plus Jesus had birthdays picked for them on the basis of pre-existing observations about the shortest day, the re-birth of the year etc.

Funny that.

[Samuel]

I actually think it is far simpler than anyone has admitted so far. The origin of Christmas, and the various rituals etc is not the point. Perhaps it's most recent identity as a festival was most closely associated with Christianity, but those days are waning.

The fact is that Christmas doesn't belong to Christians any more. Perhaps it never did.

None of your protestations are going to change that BA. The horse is long gone. You are fumbling for a barn door that rotted off its hinges years ago.

[Nearly Sane]

You, of course, never would suggest that someone who holds your views is therefore, right!

You are an atheist, so I presume you think she is right, as she is an atheist, too.

Ah so if someone is a theist, by this logic you must agree with them in everything. So you, Bashful Anthony, are a supporter of the attacks in Paris, Yola and Bamoko.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

BA,

Having no argument of your own and simply ignoring the arguments that rebut your opinion is not taking taking someone else to the cleaners, it's being taken to the cleaners yourself.

Incidentally, here are some other gods with birthdays on 25 December: Marduk, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Mithras, Saturn, Sol,
Apollo, Serapis, and Huitzilopochli.

What are the chances eh? It's almost as if all of them plus Jesus had birthdays picked for them on the basis of pre-existing observations about the shortest day, the re-birth of the year etc.

Funny that.

With the exception of Mithras I think many on your lists are gods rather than God. Read Bentley Hart on the difference.....Hint.....
gods don't rank with Philosophical naturalism as a world view.

You don't know much about Leprechauns either.

[Maeght]

Ah so if someone is a theist, by this logic you must agree with them in everything. So you, Bashful Anthony, are a supporter of the attacks in Paris, Yolanda and Bamoko.

I really don't think that BA meant that since she is an atheist that other atheists must agree with her on everything. I think the point was that atheists would say she is right regarding atheism - it was an attempt to point out that atheist would use the word 'right' when they meant they agreed with her regarding atheism, a justification for his use of the word right. I think.

[Nearly Sane]

I really don't think that BA meant that since she is an atheist that other atheists must agree with her on everything. I think the point was that atheists would say she is right regarding atheism - it was an attempt to point out that atheist would use the word 'right' when they meant they agreed with her regarding atheism, a justification for his use of the word right. I think.

And given their theism was at least in part the reason hat they provide for their behaviour, then they, by his 'logic' should be agreed with and supported by him

[ProfessorDavey]

Nasrim went on to say:

 " I do not celebrate religious festivals, I do not miss anything. I can celebrate a happy feast any day. I can celebrate a family get-together any day of the year. You can do the same if you want. You can give gifts to the children you love on Children’s Day. You can light up your home and neighbourhood on December 10 to celebrate Human Rights Day or on December 15 to celebrate Bill of Rights Day or on December 16 to celebrate Boston Tea Party Anniversary or Beethoven’s birthday or Victory Day of Bangladesh. Do we really need Krishna, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad or any charlatan’s birthday to have our family re-union, to exchange gifts, to eat good food, or to light up our homes? The answer is simple, no."

That covers all the excuses you lot have lamely tried.  She is a clear-sighted, and honest woman.  Take a lesson atheists.  I may not appreciate her atheism, but I appreciate her honesty and lack of hypocrisy.

But none of those are close to the actual winter solstice (under the amended Gregorian calendar) nor on the traditional winter solstice under the Julian calendar of 25th Dec that has traditionally been the day of celebration of mid winter long before Jesus' birth.

And if we are on dates for celebrating Jesus' birth don't forget that many Christians don't celebrate on the 25th Dec but in early January - so you guys aren't even consistent which isn't surprising as Dec 25th is a date merely plucked from the air to celebrate Jesus' birth, unlike for celebrating mid winter where it is linked to a real, live event that actually happens (indeed actually happens every year).

[Nearly Sane]

With the exception of Mithras I think many on your lists are gods rather than God. Read Bentley Hart on the difference.....Hint.....
gods don't rank with Philosophical naturalism as a world view.

You don't know much about Leprechauns either.

No, let's read you on the difference. Tell me the definitions that make some form of logically coherent position and lay out the differences.

[Rhiannon]

I actually think it is far simpler than anyone has admitted so far. The origin of Christmas, and the various rituals etc is not the point. Perhaps it's most recent identity as a festival was most closely associated with Christianity, but those days are waning.

The fact is that Christmas doesn't belong to Christians any more. Perhaps it never did.

None of your protestations are going to change that BA. The horse is long gone. You are fumbling for a barn door that rotted off its hinges years ago.

Well said. 

[ad_orientem]

And if we are on dates for celebrating Jesus' birth don't forget that many Christians don't celebrate on the 25th Dec but in early January - so you guys aren't even consistent which isn't surprising as Dec 25th is a date merely plucked from the air to celebrate Jesus' birth, unlike for celebrating mid winter where it is linked to a real, live event that actually happens (indeed actually happens every year).

Firstly, all Christians celebrate the Feast of the Nativity on the 25th of December. Work it out! Secondly, the 25th of December is not a date "merely plucked from the air". As I said on "The Trinity" thread:

"Both the scriptures and creation mystically point to midwinter. We know that St. John the Baptist was born six months before our Lord and in the Gospel he says of Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease". Creation also testifies to this, for the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on midsummer after which the Sun decreases, and the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ on midwinter after which the Sun increases. Both the liturgical calendar and the cosmos are in harmony and of that we should not be surprised for creation speaks of him through whom all things were made."

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=9512.msg563030#msg563030

[Maeght]

And given their theism was at least in part the reason hat they provide for their behaviour, then they, by his 'logic' should be agreed with and supported by him

No.

[Nearly Sane]

No.

You would have to flesh that out a bit.

[Maeght]

If someone says they believe there is a God and someone else says they are 'right' then they are saying they agree there is a God , not agreeing with everything else that person thinks. In this case the point was, I believe, that since BA agreed with what the person said he was correct in saying that she was right.  He said that he assumed atheists would say someone else who said they didn't believe in God was 'right' on this not necessarily right on everything. It was about whether the word 'right' was correct in a situation where you shared a common point of view on something.

[Nearly Sane]

If someone says they believe there is a God and someone else says they are 'right' then they are saying they agree there is a God , not agreeing with everything else that person thinks. In this case the point was, I believe, that since BA agreed with what the person said he was correct in saying that she was right.  He said that he assumed atheists would say someone else who said they didn't believe in God was 'right' on this not necessarily right on everything. It was about whether the word 'right' was correct in a situation where you shared a common point of view on something.

But 'this' is nothing to do with being atheist unless you assume that being an atheist means you agree on things other than not believing in God. Since Bash has not put any boundaries around that supposed agreement then logically the point about agreeing with the murderers in Yola applies. He doesn't, of course, actually believe that but that means his 'argument' falls.

[Maeght]

But 'this' is nothing to do with being atheist unless you assume that being an atheist means you agree on things other than not believing in God.

What 'this'?

Since Bash has not put any boundaries around that supposed agreement then logically the point about agreeing with the murderers in Yola applies. He doesn't, of course, actually believe that but that means his 'argument' falls.

His argument here was that it is correct to use the word 'right' when you agree with someone on something. It is not at all logical to extrapolate that to suggest that he thinks the murderers in Yola where right.

The wider discussion is about a different argument where I, clearly, think he is wrong. It is no

[Nearly Sane]

That it is wrong for an atheist to celebrate Christmas. Note you were the first to use the term 'this' so I assumed you were talking about that. His comment on it doesn't limit in any sense what atheists are want to agree on, and clearly implies that it should be everything.

[Maeght]

That it is wrong for an atheist to celebrate Christmas.

A seperate argument.

Note you were the first to use the term 'this' so I assumed you were talking about that.

I thought I had made it clear in a couple of posts at least what I was referring to. When I used 'this' I said 'He said that he assumed atheists would say someone else who said they didn't believe in God was 'right' on this not necessarily right on everything.' so seems pretty clear what I was referring to and it wasn't the argument about whether atheists should celebrate Christmas.

His comment on it doesn't limit in any sense what atheists are want to agree on, and clearly implies that it should be everything.

Not to me and I really think you are taking the interpretation way too far.

[ProfessorDavey]

Firstly, all Christians celebrate the Feast of the Nativity on the 25th of December.

Really, and there was me thinking that Christmas was celebrated on the 7th Jan in some places, for example Russia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_in_Russia

And Greece, and Ukraine etc etc

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11329660/Where-is-Christmas-being-celebrated-on-January-7.html

[Gonnagle]

Dear Samuel,

The fact is that Christmas doesn't belong to Christians any more. Perhaps it never did.

Help me out here, where am I going wrong in my thinking.

Christmas, Christ's Mass, Mass, The Eucharist, atheists are celebrating this?

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Samuel,

Help me out here, where am I going wrong in my thinking.

Christmas, Christ's Mass, Mass, The Eucharist, atheists are celebrating this?

Gonnagle.

I doubt that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlud,

With the exception of Mithras I think many on your lists are gods rather than God. Read Bentley Hart on the difference.....

Whether people thought these gods were ones among many or the only real one has no relevance whatever to that fact that they were all given the same birthday.

Hint.....
gods don't rank with Philosophical naturalism as a world view.

Hint...stop spouting gibberish and try to grasp what's actually being said here.

You don't know much about Leprechauns either.

But here's the thing - on what basis do you think you "know" anything about your pick of the available deities either? For all you know I may think I've "intuited" every bit as much knowledge about leprechauns as you think you've "intuited" knowledge about the christian god.   

As you utterly ever to provide a method of any kind to distinguish the epistemic value of your claims abut "god" from the epistemic value of my claims about leprechauns, we must be equally knowledgeable or equally ignorant as you please.

Oh, and as it seems to have slipped your mind again:

Bluehillside's fourth maxim clearly states that any argument for god that works equally well for leprechauns is probably a bad argument.   

Maybe if you wrote it down a hundred times or something you'd stop blundering into the same mistake about the content of the respective claims?