Current conditions
Fair
Complete forecast sponsored by
Dreaming of a skeptic's Christmas
St. Joseph Skeptics Society members claimed they tried to avoid controversy when they put the sign "Be Good for Goodness Sake," in Krug Park. David Carr, spokesman for the group, said all they wanted to do was express their sentiments for the holiday.
"By commemorating a moral lesson from the song 'Santa Claus is Coming to Town,'" he said. "In there is the phrase 'be good for goodness sake.'"
So, a skeptic will accept a moral lesson from Santa Claus, but not Jesus Christ? That made me skeptical. But I listened to Mr. Carr talk about his religious beliefs, or lack thereof, after someone stole his group's sign from the park last week. He said the Skeptics Society didn't try to offend anyone when it placed the sign in the holiday park. The group merely wanted to express the notion that being good in itself was rewarding. You don't need Jesus or God to be good.
"I think having hope is a good thing," Mr. Carr said. "For some people, like the people who stole our sign, that hope is so important to them no one else can have an opinion ... when it causes people to be that narrow-minded in their beliefs, I think it becomes a problem."
There's a belief afloat that the group itself had the sign stolen. Some think it was an attempt to draw attention and membership.
That may or may not be true. I don't know.
What is true is we live in a country where men have died for us to have the right to our beliefs. At the same time, there's always been an ill wind of intolerance blowing around and through that right.
Mr. Carr said as many as 20 people attend the monthly St. Joseph Skeptics Society meetings. Some are atheists, some are agnostic, but most don't have any personal belief in a religious faith.
"We just like to discuss beliefs philosophically and scientifically and try to give ourselves the best reasons we can for the beliefs that we do have," Mr. Carr said.
Mr. Carr said he believes in Jesus but doesn't believe him to be a supernatural being. And he doesn't believe in miracles. He only believes in things that can be proven by science.
He also said that he doesn't believe that Dec. 25 is the birthday of Jesus. But he celebrates the winter solstice during that time. He also believes that altruism, the act of caring for others, is evolutionary; God doesn't make us do it.
"We're made to ... sort of not made, but ...," Mr. Carr said, searching for words. "The way the species survives best is they happen to care about one another and I see this in other species caring about each other."
From what I understand about natural selection, it's survival of the fittest. That means if you can't climb the evolutionary ladder, ain't nobody gonna reach back to pull you up.
Society members have a right to believe or not believe any way they want. Ostensibly, they merely want to put up a goodwill sign in a public park. A park that, if judged by all the holiday displays, is not just for believers in Jesus Christ, but in Santa Claus and Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer, too.
But if they're placing a sign to potentially recruit nonbelievers in a park decorated for believers, that might be as futile as trying to place an ad for Klan membership in Jet magazine.
I told Mr. Carr that I am a Christian. I wished him well and told him to have a happy solstice or whatever before ending our conversation. I even told him that I might attend a St. Joseph Skeptics Society meeting someday.
The last time I engaged an atheistic skeptic in religious debate was in an online forum a few years back. After a weeklong and increasingly heated discussion, the person finally said to me, "I pray you burn in hell."
"And who will you pray this to?" I asked. The man never replied. But nevertheless, I did get him to pray and believe in hell.
Alonzo Weston can be reached at alonzow@npgco.com.
Share Your Thoughts
Expand
Policy
Comments are the responsibility of the person posting them. Comments will be removed if they: threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin religion or disability; ...
... contain abusive, vulgar or sexually oriented language; spread rumors or lies; or are written in all caps. Please stay on topic. Brief quotes are OK as long as the source is given. Comments must be 250 words or fewer. Newspressnow.com moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy.
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i think the insinuation that the group stole their own sign without mentioning other possibilities is journalistically irresponsible. the sign could have been taken by park employees. it could have been stolen by some dumb kid. it could easily have been taken by someone who got cranky in the discussion here on the comments. it could even have been alonzo weston.
i am not saying any of these things actually happenned. no intent to insult or to accuse the (wonderful) park employees, dumb kids or those in the comments. i am not even considering weston a suspect. i AM saying that it is inappropriate to have a whispering campaign initiated/validated here by a newspaper employee.
i went to the library last sunday to see what was up with this group. none of them had an A branded on their heart, all were well spoken, and i had a stimulating and interesting afternoon. they didn't stone me to death when i said i say the rosary, no one tried to put me into a trance to convert me. i even knew some of the group, and would never have guessed that they were skeptics........
i might even return.
December 9, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I doubt you do, heritage....
But your point is well taken. There are MANY other possibilities, and without evidence, irresponsible innuendos are just that....irresponsible....and innuendo!
December 9, 2009 at 9:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
pops..... that is great!!!!!!!
December 9, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
modvd says...
Why is it inappropriate for an employee like Mr. Weston to "initiate/validate(d)" a discussion like this? His writing style is generally known for being laced with his opinions based upon his observations. (A style I really appreciate, I might add) Mr. Carr did not need to agree to do the interview.
And for Liberty, Mr. Carr, on this very forum, has stated that anyone who is not accepting of others regardless of their beliefs is a bigot. At least, according to his belief system. Bigotry following bigotry.
And I don't know of any group that is more condescending than those that support a "scientific" view of evolution and put down "intelligent design." Anyone believing in the creation story of the Bible is considered to be a rube to those that don't believe.
December 9, 2009 at 10:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Margo says...
I am completely disappointed that this issue was handled the way that it was in this article. This is an important topic, especially this time of year and should be discussed in a rational, nonjudgmental way.
Believe it or not, not everyone in St. Joseph believes in a god/gods.
Mr. Weston should be ashamed of himself for not having more journalistic integrity with such a topic.
December 9, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smokeyjo says...
I was not aware that Holiday park was devoted to Christian believers. The last time I checked my bible Santa and his reindeer were nowhere to be found in it. Holiday Park is about the commercial side of Christmas which Santa is a big part of. We don't say to the kids, be good or Jesus won't give you gifts! I don't care what group put up what in the park, I go for the lights and the fun of seeing the kids marvel at the lights. Someone was a grinch and stole their sign end of story. St. Joe has so little tolerance for anyone who is not on the same page, sentence, and word as they are!
December 9, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Well, all in all, I feel this article was more a slight against the Skeptics Society, and less an attempt at an actual story. Mr. Weston, I understand the need to make your work stand out in a tough and saturated journalistic community...at the same time I think it's petty to to malign a group by insinuating that anyone from that group would steal their own sign for publicity.
And by the way, your final line doesn't seem to fit. You pointing to a past experience with something vaguely similar to the article is a bit demeaning.
Thank you so much for trying to use any means possible to discredit a group that does only good for the community.
December 9, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
I haven't seen anyone put this in correct perspective yet, so here it is: The St. Joseph Skeptic's Society has been the victim of a HATE CRIME.
Oh, and the park ISN'T decorated for believers, it's decorated for everyone. I don't understand, many many many other groups put up signs to recruit members, and the ones that are tax-exempt churches are using it as a cheap way of advertising to eventually get money and members for thier organization.
A lot of people seem to think that only Christian groups should be allowed to put up paraphernalia in "HOLIDAY PARK" um, I thought it was about being merry in what is literally the darkest part of the year, the winter solstice. Well, good luck believers, and hopefully next year you won't have anyone claiming Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, Cheondoism, Bahai, Yazidism, etc., trying to put up recruiting posters in your Christian park. "LORD" knows what kind of hate crimes that might spark.
December 9, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
taxedout says...
Great article Mr. Weston! I read this entire article about an insignificant group and somehow you managed to keep my attention. Good job writing an entertaining article about an irrelevant group. God bless and Merry Christmas to all!
December 9, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Digsy,
"Hate crime"?? Really? Are you telling me this is the ONLY incident of "vandalism" that's occurred at Krug Park this year, or in years past? Additionally, why can't we just call it "vandalism" and get over it? Why must it be called a "hate crime"?
I agree....Holiday Park is just that...a Holiday Park? Would you mind explaining to me where, in the Bible, the reindeer and the sleigh appear? How about all the references to Santa? Can you tell me where, in Bethlehem, was Santa's Toy Shop? I've read the Bible most of my life, and I don't recall any reference to snowmen ANYWHERE in the Holy Scripture!! Same goes for Christmas trees, lights, tinsel, and pretty baubles.
Except for a very, VERY few Christian references, I'd say Holiday Park is more a celebration of the commercialized christmas (note the lower case). Please don't fall off that soap box and lose that chip on your shoulder!!
December 9, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
****A lot of people seem to think that only Christian groups should be allowed to put up paraphernalia in "HOLIDAY PARK"*****
The word "Holiday" is derived from HOLY day, as in annoited by God, set apart from an ordinary day. Sounds Christian to me, but good luck with that winter solstice thing.
I agree with taxedout, irrelevant seems to fit I might add meaningless. I personally think this group is basking in the attention they're getting. The free publicity may well work out for them, it looks like Sarah is leaning their way
December 9, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Aw c'mon, agent....one can lean a bit without compromise...right????
December 9, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Pops, I would use the law of averages and say there is absolutely other vandalism in Krug/Holiday park, how much I don't know. But, the theft of one sign only, and one so specifically targeted that they came back to steal the support bracings the next night, shows this to be a valid claim. Have I proof, no, it's a claim, not a factual statement.
I think that's exactly what this is. Hate. Through and through. Perhaps my youth is clouding my judgement and making my tongue wag unnecessarily, but I am firm in this "Belief."
Hate is the emotion some believers show when I say what I am, Atheist. I don't hate religious people. I hate when believers use religion to demean another group or individual. We have a difference in opinion, but you will never catch me passing legislation declaring the missionary position or the displaying of a cross with a bloody figure on it illegal. I love that we are allowed to have and express our opinions, I just wish more people wouldn't allow theirs to be influenced by the perspective of others.
December 9, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Funny how atheists seem to feel a need to declare their "beliefs", or their particular...ahem....religious bents. I know some Christians who do the same. Seems to me it puts you in the same boat...just opposite gunwhales!!
Again...while you address your feelings/beliefs that this is a hate crime, you failed to address the other, more pressing questions, with regard to the overwhelming secularim of Holiday Park. Rather than lay all this at the feet of some religious nutcase, why not recognize the display at Krug Park is merely a winter celebration, with one or two minor religious displays...plain and simple?
December 9, 2009 at 1:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I might point out, too, that I did NOT disagree with either the skeptic's sign OR it's intended message. Personally, at the risk of accusations of my being a "leaner"....I think it was a nice touch.
December 9, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Agent you are so right. However in the grand tradition of the english language that word has taken on a different meaning: A day free from work that one may spend at leisure, especially a day on which custom or the law dictates a halting of general business activity to commemorate or celebrate a particular event.
And thou shalt lieth to thy offspring that there exist a fat white man with a great beard that sneakthief into thy home and leaveth presents under thy glowing tree in exchange for good behaviour and cookies, once a year coinciding with the birth of jesus, as annointed by the lord our God.
Meaningless. I think your beliefs are meaningless. I have never been to jail. I have never raped a woman. I have never even considered killing. god didn't tell me this is right, I did. See, I don't need the idea of a threatening deity who shall cast me into perdition for breaking his rules to keep me in line. But it seems you do.
I view Christmas the same way I view your religion, a ficticious story filled with fictional characters.
By the way, I like your cunning use of scathing words to draw out comments from us non-believers. It makes me laugh.
December 9, 2009 at 1:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Digsby,
Not to be picky, but you DID forget to use the words "in my opinion" after your remarks to meaningless.
I'm sure it was just an oversight...
December 9, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
pops.... funny, a short while ago i was pandering to the muslim vote. now i am working for the skeptics. at this rate, i am a slam dunk for city council, eh?
digsy, i wouldn't go so far as to say this is a hate crime. some misguided oaf, a zealot, or just a prankster could easily have done this. the brackets, and the light being taken was odd, i grant you.
or, it could be weston........ that may, or may not be true.
December 9, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
I don't think it's funny at all. I think it's FUNNY that I have to defend my simple not believing in any god. In the last few days I've been accused of being a "social deviant" and in the same sentence accused of being gay and my my possible molestation by the clergy bent on ruining the church.(because you can't be an atheist and not be gay or raped) My belief is that this is a:
"hate crime:Function: noun
Date: 1984
: any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)-Merriam Webster
I believe that there is gravity. I believe the star we call the Sun is very hot and bright.
And many people have pointed out that the park deorations are a winter celebration, me being one of them.
December 9, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I don't understand your hostility, Digsby. You don't like it when religious people contend their beliefs are "fact", yet you did that very thing, in the other direction.
By the way, you, again, forgot something in your post. Your "hate crime" definition did NOT include religion, so unless you feel that "So be good for goodness sake" is a creed, I'd say your definition isn't valid in this case.
Yup....vandalism....
December 9, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
For the record: "I think..."=== in my opinion.
Everything I say is MY opinion. I try not to make generalizations, but I also try not to mix my words. Pops, you are right, but "in my opinion" it's silly for someone to take my words to represent the "opinion" of every skeptic on the planet.
I think it's sad, Pops, that we have to watch our words so very closely when it comes to separating our individual opinions from the opinions of those around us.
December 9, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
i do believe that was checkmate.
December 9, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
sorry, pops took your king, there digsy...........
December 9, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
All I was trying to say, Digsby, was that you were appearing to paint with a wide brush, just like you seem to feel people of faith are doing toward you. You also said some things about the Christian faith, and saying them as FACT, without qualifying those statements to be just your own.
For the record, I'm a Christian. I'm sometimes embarrassed by the behavior of some who profess to be the same. Their words and actions don't match what I believe Jesus would wish for us. However, I can't force people to not be hateful toward others.
I'm not trying to be difficult with you. I respect your beliefs, but respect is often a one-way street. I recognize there are difficult "christians" out there. I deal with them in my own circle of friends, and, believe it or not, in my own church. It's amazing how UN-christian some folks can be, and still teach Sunday School, sing in the choir, or preach! Please understand that not all christians you meet are clods....and some of us are actually pretty cool folks to know!!
I've been trying to have some fun with you in this thread...and still make a point. Can we shake and be friends?
December 9, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
n.
A crime motivated by prejudice against a social group: " (Jane Caputi and Diana E.H. Russell).
I have no qualms with anyone believing in anything being a fact. A man born of a virgin, performs miracles, comes back from the dead, doesn't sound very plausible to me, but to some it is an absolute fact. I can't argue that.
The thing I argue is when it becomes illegal for two men to marry. If you view the bible to be absolute fact, that's your decision. But when that view or opinion becomes a law affecting people who accept or denounce your opinion, I take issue.
Besides, this forum is fun for me, and I hope everyone who posts here. I like being able to spout my opinions and banter with the others here. Just keep in mind, I don't care what you believe in, just be good to others. Accept them for who they are, and if you just can't, go away from them.
December 9, 2009 at 2:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Pops, when my words aren't limited by a numerical cap, I do clarify in person that OBVIOUSLY not every christian is alike and I've been very clear that any issues I have are with the perpetrator of the action of violating or removing the rights of others based on religious preference, not the religion.
Religions do wonderful things for the world. They also currently do bad as well.
I have never likened ALL the members of any group together with the ones who take it too far. There are crazies everywhere and associated with every group imaginable. But the vast majority are good, in my opinion.
My parents are Baptist, my gay friends and family are, I believe, ALL religious in some form. I'm just a guy with an opinion and it's harder to really show the complexities of my intent in type form.
I will be at all of the Skeptics meetings starting the week after the "Winter Celebration" on December 25th. (people get tight when I refer to that date as Holiday or Christmas.) I would love to meet anyone from these forums there. Remember, there is no yelling or accusing, just clean fun debate and the voicing of new ideas.
December 9, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
not to kick a dead horse but...
--The FBI defines a hate crime (a.k.a. bias crime) to be:
"a criminal offense committed against a person, property or society which is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin." 2
December 9, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
just_sayin says...
"By the way, you, again, forgot something in your post. Your "hate crime" definition did NOT include religion, so unless you feel that "So be good for goodness sake" is a creed, I'd say your definition isn't valid in this case."
Is the above post 'checkmate'? Sounds more like a half-hearted attempt at a double-jump to me.
'So be good for goodness sake' may not be a creed by itself, but atheism IS a creed. Some forms of atheism are even religion (gasp!.
I don't think it's a stretch to say the sign was stolen (or vandalized) by someone who didn't like atheists. If so, that would make it a hate crime.
FYI, I'm writing this as a Christian.
December 9, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
...my mistake, I thought the point of the definition could be extrapolated by anyone to mean what it says, "any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group"
It's easy to misquote me and read into my opinions and make something else out of them, but regarding definitions with a few examples, it's impossible. OOPS.
December 9, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
megafrog says...
I would like to wish all the atheists and agnostics a happy day. Since you don't believe in Christ, you obviously don't celebrate Christmas. . . Oh wait, you mean you put a sign up in a Christmas display? That must mean you did it to be spiteful trolls. Shame on you. If you don't believe in Christ, leave those of us alone who do!
December 9, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Freddie_P says...
So now we are finally getting to the heart of the matter Isnt that right Digsy.
"The thing I argue is when it becomes illegal for two men to marry."
SO are you saying that and agnostic cannot have morals or find fault in sexual deviance? You have finally showed your true colors and it has nothing to do with being an agnostic or atheist or your need to disprove God. It has to do with YOUR need to feel accepted by society.
December 9, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
Digs,
Since I didn't see you not rape, murder or steal I don't think I can believe you. How can I be sure? The gay/ priest rape victim thing is just a couple of examples of what I think would wobble one's faith, not necessarily constitute the entire group, but feel free to interpret it any way you want.
God doesn't want any harm to come to his children, therefore He provided a way to save us from ourselves in the person of Jesus. By our own nature we are doomed to sin and fall short of the glory of God. He cares about you and your skeptic friends too I believe. You probably already know that if you have Baptist parents, hate the sin love the sinner.
I will concede on the santa comment but hey it's fun for the children.
December 9, 2009 at 3:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Francisco_dAnconia says...
Dear Alonzo Weston,
I would like to congratulate you for successfully stealing the meaning from a group of people with good intentions. You have so skillfully denounced the Saint Joseph Skeptics Society that most of your readers may not realize that you have done it. All your readers will be left with negative, hateful attitude. Your manipulation of the public view is flawless, almost.
It may not seem so, but your words would do more if they actually stood for what you meant to say. For example:
When you say, "Ostensibly, they merely want to put up a goodwill sign in a public park."
You could be saying, "The Atheists of the Saint Joseph Skeptics Society are corrupting our children in a public park."
When you say, "So, a skeptic will accept a moral lesson from Santa Claus, but not Jesus Christ? That made me skeptical."
You could be saying, "The Skeptics at the Skeptic Society are using Santa Clause to spread their evil. Is Jesus Christ next?"
And finally: When you say, "I wished him well and told him to have a happy solstice or whatever before ending our conversation."
You could be saying, "I told him to keep his grimy hands out of my bible, and I encourage all of you readers to do the same."
These are just some suggestions from an impressed reader.
Keep up the good work!
Sincerely,
Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d'Anconia
P.S.
-Shall we decry the evils of invention next? Or should it be eighth grade language arts classes?
December 9, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fantome says...
I said it before and I will say it AGAIN what better way to further your cause than become the martyr. As Alonzo pointed out this is a Christian Holiday. This group doesn't care about "The Winter Solstice" if The Islamic Center of Greater St. Joseph put a sign in the Holiday Park people would be just as outraged and justifiably so. The message this group was trying to convey on their sign may have been benign but the web address on it was far from that.
Since we have been going with chess references here I would say Freddie took your king Digsy or should I say queen.
December 9, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
All this fuss over a sign. I could see if someone burnt down your local gathering spot or something. But calling it a hate crime when you have no idea who did it. I had a bike stolen when i was kid i didn't go tell the newspaper and make a big deal out of it I got a new bike a moved on. Much less call my bike being stolen a hate crime cause the person may or may not have been a different race, religion or alien from mars that hates earthlings.
December 9, 2009 at 3:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Freddie_P, again, I wish people wouldn't misquote me. You're taking that comment out of the context of the conversation. I take issue with ANYONE who attempts to INCONVENIENCE another by any means. Cutting someone off on the highway, taking away the rights of a gay couple to marry, etc.
I do feel accepted by society. It just upsets me when people mince words and try to say I'm devious because of my beliefs or lack thereof.
Just to be clear, my view of sexual deviance has to do with sexual contact with animals, forced sexual contact or innuendo, and sex with the dead.
MEGAFROG, Spiteful trolls? Christmas display? Again I will point out the constant changing of the meaning of words in the english language to include other meanings. Christmas and Holiday have origin in theism, but have come to refer to the commercialization of December 25th. It's a festive inclusion of glowing lights and if I recall from my childhood correctly, a long series of painted boards that explain the evolution of Santa Claus. It's NOT exclusively a religious holiday, so please stop refering to it that way. And please stop attacking the Skeptics society for putting up a sign.
I never "bother" those who believe in Christ. You won't catch me going into churches telling everyone they're wrong.
Some people need to believe in something, some people don't need but still believe. I don't need to believe in God. I am a good person who believes in fair treatment of every person on earth.
Does everyone remember the golden rule? It is the backbone of my moral compass. Leave you alone? As you wish. But today, we're discussing and defending the opinions of ourselves and others. ABSOLUTELY NOONE is required to read or post here, and I would hope every person who does read takes this for what it is, a discussion.
December 9, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
@ Francisco
I didn't get that impression at all maybe you're trying to read to much into what was written.
From what YOU wrote YOU could be saying "The garble woo drank them from the sea of putty glue and toe trunks"
Or maybe i was just putting words into what you wrote that weren't there to begin with who knows!
December 9, 2009 at 4:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
FRANCISCO, very well put.
December 9, 2009 at 4:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
It is not a Christian holiday, it is a PAGAN holiday adopted by Christianity. I ask anyone in here that thinks that the "Christmas" holiday is solely a Christian day to do a little research into the origin of the celebrations this time of year.
The web address far from benign? Again I point out that ANY AND EVERY group that puts up signage in holiday park for any reason is looking for attention. And I think I can represent most Skeptics in saying that ANY group should be allowed to put up a sign IN Holiday Park.
And exactly what King or Queen or Rook? That comment was made in reference to the definition I put up that came from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It does not include an example of every type of hate crime. Here, let me help you with a few more: racial group, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, and political affiliation. A hate crime can be an act by an individual or group on any other group based on bias. By the standard definition, the Royals could perpetrate a hate crime upon the Chiefs for example, if they disagree with them playing football.
As to the chess reference, I believe I have demonstrated a slam dunk.
December 9, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
I agree with Francisco as Mr. Weston's form of writing takes on quite a bit of innuendo. It's called reading between the lines. He was mocking the group and Mr. Carr.
December 9, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Far from a slam dunk. Just cause 2 holidays share the same day does not mean they are the same. Christmas is still a religious holiday.
December 9, 2009 at 4:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
From Skeptics Christmas to 2 men marrying... yeah that sums it up Freddie P has the checkmate here.
***Does everyone remember the golden rule?***
Would that be the golden rule from Mathew 7:12?
Perhaps Romans 13:8-10?
December 9, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ELPOEPsdrawkcab says...
Alonzo -
This reminds me of when I was a music columnist for my local student newspaper in high school. I was going to review the new Carlos Santana CD, which was very popular at the time (the 15 times multi-platinum "supernatural").
The only problem was, I was a nu-core metal fan, and I thought Santana's music was crap. So I wrote a tongue in cheek "review" of the album that was heavily biased by my pre-existing beliefs and views on the artist. I gave it half a star. I gave Hypnotize Minds Camp Posse 3 stars, just for reference. It was unjust. I may have even made dismissive comments about the artist, just to support my original theory that "santana is old, old music sucks, nu-core is better...".
Later in life I would look back at that moment and think I could have done better. What I had produced wasn't even good journalism. It was a pre-determined rant fest that didn't even address the content of the issue.
Hopefully, this parable can serve as an opportunity for you to consider your own approach to writing and will serve as a tool to sharpen your talents, or whatever.
December 9, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
So maybe the skeptics group and Mr. Carr need to either learn to mock themselves, or, at the very least, develop a little thicker skin. I'd say some of us who consider ourselves to be Christians have had to do that.
I don't think it's necessary for all the rancor to be tossed back and forth. I offered a hand in friendship, even if we disagree about our beliefs. Personally, I felt that was the right thing to do.....
As for the reference to Christians "adopting" a pagan holiday...I've asked before, and will again. Please tell me WHICH day we are allowed to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Obviously, pagans feel this is THEIR day, and I TOTALLY understand that. I HATE it that there are millions of other people around the world who have the audacity of celebrating THEIR birthdays the same day as I!! After all, it's PERFECTLY clear to me that my birthday is mine, and mine alone....
December 9, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fantome says...
That might be a slam dunk on Verne Troyer. You know the significance of the holiday park and you know the intention of this group is to malign the TRUE intention of the park. I am not a Christian yet I choose to respect Christians faith. You wish to destroy it. Stop acting as though you or this group has noble intentions. I would have more respect for them if they would honestly say that yes our sole purpose it to discredit and demean anyone that believes in a deity, and that is why we put our sign there. Winter solstice my a*s.
December 9, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Dude and Agent, the checkmate referred to here was about the definition I posted, and as to the correctness and appropriate usage. My mistake for thinking you could all read the definition and make sense of it.
PLEASE stop mincing my words. It should NOT be your right to take away the ability of same-sex couples to marry. Shame on you for forcing your religions rules on others.
From the earlier post you are referring to Agent:
"I have no qualms with anyone believing in anything being a fact. A man born of a virgin, performs miracles, comes back from the dead, doesn't sound very plausible to me, but to some it is an absolute fact. I can't argue that.
The thing I argue is when it becomes illegal for two men to marry. If you view the bible to be absolute fact, that's your decision. But when that view or opinion becomes a law affecting people who accept or denounce your opinion, I take issue."
December 9, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabble_Rouser says...
ELPOEPsdrawkcab = backwards people OOoooo my you "Free Thinkers" are so cerebral arent you.
December 9, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
taxedout says...
@ELPOEPsdrawkcab
I think Mr. Weston (who happens to make a living as a newspaper columnist) will not be needing your advice, but that's just a guess. Again great article on such a mundane topic.
December 9, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Fantome, why would you think they were trying to malign the TRUE intention of the park. I haven't seen the mission statement posted by the Optimists Club that states the reason for the park is for religious ideals to be expressed, and for all others to be discredited. The Optimists Club has the final say as to what displays go up or not. The mere inclusion of Santa, Elves, flying Reindeer should, based upon what you state, be seen as trying to malign the intention of the park.
"Stop acting as though you or this group has noble intentions." You're stating that the Saint Joseph Skeptics Society is trying to maliciously take down the institution of organized religion with a well placed sign stating "Be good for goodness' sake."
December 9, 2009 at 4:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
@ Digsy I'm not religious just find your playing the victim of a "hate crime" annoying.
December 9, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Santa Claus is Saint Nicholas
December 9, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
I have never ever said that Christians couldn't celebrate what they think is the birth of their deity on Dec. 25th. What I said was, that it's NOT only a chrisian holiday. EVERYONE should be able to put up a display in Holiday Park.
I vote we end this debate by removing EVERY single sign and display from Holiday Park that does not specifically state that god and jesus are lord. No atheists, NO santa claus, reindeer, snowflakes, candy canes...Am I being silly?
December 9, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Dude, I was simply pointing out that this could be the case. If someone stole the baby jesus out of the manger scene, I would call it a hate crime.
December 9, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Here's a little note on the reason for the season.
"Roman pagans first introduced the holiday of Saturnalia, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25. During this period, Roman courts were closed, and Roman law dictated that no one could be punished for damaging property or injuring people during the weeklong celebration. The festival began when Roman authorities chose "an enemy of the Roman people" to represent the "Lord of Misrule." Each Roman community selected a victim whom they forced to indulge in food and other physical pleasures throughout the week. At the festival's conclusion, December 25th, Roman authorities believed they were destroying the forces of darkness by brutally murdering this innocent man or woman."
taken from:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/vital...
December 9, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Well 1st we would have to know the persons intentions. We can't just jump to calling it hate crime. Unless it was something that couldn't be interpreted as anything else. Stealing happens way to often for us to jump to conclusions.
December 9, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Is anyone celebrating that holiday today? Not sure i get the point of that article in this discussion.
December 9, 2009 at 5:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Well, first, I stated my opinion that this could be a hate crime, and for the last few hours I've been defending the DEFINITION of the term hate crime. And of course we don't know the intention of the criminal, but it's not a far off idea that the motivation could be similar to the opinions of the people posting on these forums the last few days. You cannot deny the fact that the ONLY display that has, to my knowledge, been vandalized, is the one put up by the Skeptics Society.
I would hope noone is celebrating that holiday anymore, but I posted it to give everyone perspective. Christmas is based on this holiday festival started long before you claim Jesus came about. In current times, there are plenty of reasons to to make merry on December 25th, but when someone attacks the intent of a non-religious group for making and placing a sign with a phrase taken from a traditional Christmas song, I think your perspective is a bit jaded. The last time I will say this: It is not solely a Christian holiday, and the name Holiday Park does not indicate a religious pretext to the scenery, thus one cannot deny the opportunity to express sentiments by any group or person. Further, the notation of the group providing the sign and a way to contact them should also be allowed.
December 9, 2009 at 6:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CatFish_Wiskers says...
I admit it. It was me!
I took that sign to make religious people look intolerant. First I made the sign, put it up, then returned under cover of darkness and took it back! MUAHAHAHA!
or
I took that sign because I love Jesus. Hell is not punishment enough for these atheists. I must also ruin their arts and crafts! MUAHAHAHA!
or
I hate that song and I was drunk. I also pooped under wooden deer. It was funny at the time. BUUURP!
December 9, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
Has anyone ever heard of the St. Joseph Skeptics before this? I know I hadn't. This sign thing put you guys on the radar. I do not and have not thought that the act of stealing anything is acceptable behavior, but it makes for a great deal of publicity. It's no wonder some would entertain the idea that this was an inside job with the sole purpose of furthering your own agenda.
Although my church wouldn't approve of sexual immorality in the form of same sex marriage that is not my only reasons for opposing it. Atheists put much stock in evolution so how are same sex couples going to produce offspring? When put to a popular vote it fails very handily. It's not good for the species in any way, perhaps in a true evolution scenario the gays would just die off (since they can't reproduce) and the anomaly that caused this condition would die with them. So which is it a born trait or learned behavior?
December 9, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Digsy,
You asked:
Am I being silly?
YEP!!!
Santa, the reindeer, snowmen and elves....along with a myriad of other symbolic images are no more reflective of a Christian theme than your missing sign.
I've already said I didn't have a problem with your sign...and I don't think the huge majority of people in St. Joe would have any problem with it. It only takes one person who DOES have a problem to CAUSE a problem. I agree with several of the other posters, here....before this week, I'd never even HEARD of the Skeptics Society.
I'm beginning to be skeptical that sign ever existed. After all, not only have I not seen it....I don't even know anyone who has seen it. As far as I can tell, the sign is merely a figment of certain people's imagination. Until I see it, touch it, and read its words for myself, I will not believe.
Funny....even Jesus had a "skeptic" as one of his disciples!! Thomas was skeptical, and yet the Lord still loved him!!
See, Digsy...you're not alone!!
December 9, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Ok, but there is a question that goes along with my being silly. and as more than a few posters have stated, they think the sign was a slight against the holiday spirit. I have a picture of the sign if anyone wants it e-mailed to them.
Question:
Do those people opposing the sign based on the groups views wish to remove all other paraphernalia not devoted solely to Jesus and god as they could also be seen as an act of diminishing the purpose for Holiday Park? Granted, they all have a Holiday theme, but do not specifically state that Jesus is lord.
December 9, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Digsy,
I'm not sure how to answer your question. You're basically assuming the individual(s) who stole the sign did it because of:
1. They disagreed with it's message
2. They don't agree with your group's stance on religion
Why can't you see that it's just as easily someone who HEARD of your group and it's sign, and thought it would be FUNNY? Why must it be "those bad ol' hateful christians" who are angry that the atheists, agnostics and skeptics are 'bout to take over our Lord's beyoutiful town? Why can't it be some nut job who gets their jollies from causing controversy? Boy!! If it's the LAST one, they've done a tremendous job, wouldn't you say?
Seems to me there are some serious chips on some very skeptical shoulders....
December 9, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Crazy indeed. Christmas is factually associated with a pagan festival involving ritual sacrifice. A loose association because of a Non-Religious song is by no means a declaration of it's having a religious pretext. If you want to associate things with religion, ok. So can I, Hitler, Catholic run extermination camps in WWII, the crusades for example. And by the way, I'm NOT a member of the group and have never said that I am. As for my stance on the whole Christmas theme, I've made that clear in previous posts.
And, as many of you have made it clear, a new sign would now almost assuredly be stolen, and would make my insinuation this was a hate crime absolute fact.
Whatever your views, this is a season of good will and I hope that no one defile it yet again by being deviant.
December 9, 2009 at 7:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whiskey_tango says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
December 9, 2009 at 7:35 p.m. ( permalink | )
pops says...
Hmmm....several loosely insinuations, based solely in innuendo and heresay...little or nothing based in fact. Let's see:
1. Christmas "factually" associate with a pagan festival
False. The fact that Christmas is celebrated during the same time period is immaterial. Fact: George Washington was born on Feb. 11th, yet his birthday, for many reasons, is not celebrated on that day. So what!!
2. Hitler's extermination camps were Catholic.
False. The fact Hitler professed to be a Catholic is hardly reason to call his camps "Catholic". Personally, if I were Catholic, I might find myself being offended at such a reckless, baseless charge! I'm somewhat offended, even though I'm not Catholic, because they are fellow Christians...and, yet, somehow, I'm not surprised at the charge....I've become somewhat used to such remarks.
3. The Crusades
This arguement is so....so....last year!The Crusades had very little to do with religion, and more to do with economics and conquest.
Yep...your new sign would almost surely be stolen. After all, the thieves/vandals have had SO much fun stirring your pot THIS time!! Might I suggest when you place a new sign in Holiday Park, you install hidden cameras, so you can catch the naughty Christians in the very act! That way, you can....um...well....uh...go TELL on them!!
Get over it!! This is a stupid, non-issue!!
Would SOMEONE PLEASE go to Holiday Park and steal one of the reindeer so these skeptics will feel vindicated??
December 9, 2009 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Seems to me, there are some serious chips on some very religious shoulders. If I come here to defend the accusations that someone from a group of people went to the trouble to put up then steal a sign to get attention from the press and others, or to simply defend their right to put up said sign, and run into hostility, can you blame the chip on my skeptical shoulder? I constantly see religious sentiments in all manner of places and don't steal or attempt to verbally disparage the owners of said signage. Yet, a group of law abiding citizens not telling you that you're wrong, but stating that you should "Be good for goodness sake" are now being accused of all sorts of debauchery, because of their participation in a very old celebratory time of year.
December 9, 2009 at 7:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
Whiskey,
I think your saying that Digsme is being redundant (that means repeating himself over and over), I only explain it because your over the top lack of spelling makes one question your intellect (that means yur smarts). I agree with you on this point, but you and MM1967 could really benefit from some type of spell check program. Try it sometime you may like it, you'll be the envy of the double wide.
December 9, 2009 at 7:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I might point out that just because Hitler may have insisted he was Catholic doesn't make it so....any more so than just because Al Gore said he invented the internet makes it so!! Hitler could have said he was an automaker, but would that make you anti-cars? He was PROVEN to be a womanizing, alcoholic drug addict. Does that make you anti-women, beer or pharmaceuticals?
C'mon...those are really lame arguements!! Just admit it....this whole thing is over a silly sign that some nut case stole!!
I CAUGHT three young guys breaking into my son's pickup a few years ago. They were all dressed in black. Because they were trying to steal my son's stereo, does that mean they were OBVIOUSLY music haters? Do I dislike EVERYONE, from that time on, who wears black clothes or stocking caps? Does that mean that ALL teenage boys are thieves?
I don't think you can paint with a brush as wide as yours!!
December 9, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Francisco_dAnconia says...
mm1967,
Can I not "Be good for goodness sake" without being a Christian? If this is your opinion, I would ask you to check your premises. For you to insinuate that only Christians can "be good for goodness sake" is ignorantly contradictory. It is true that Christians who believe this will also believe that they are living FOR God. Such a person does not do "good for goodness sake." Such a person does good for God's sake. Which is to say, such a person does good to get into heaven.
A person who would truly "be good for goodness' sake" would be a person who is not trying to get into heaven, but instead acting upon his own mind, and his own ideals.
Sincerely,
Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d'Anconia
December 9, 2009 at 8:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
whiskey_tango says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
December 9, 2009 at 8:11 p.m. ( permalink | )
whiskey_tango says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
December 9, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. ( permalink | )
Digsy says...
Good point, a nutcase stole a sign. There were actual Catholic prison camps. And there will be another sign. By most of your estimations, it will be horrendously offensive, and likely stolen again. Make sure you all go take a look at the Atheists screwing up your drive-through Christmas pageant with their babble about being kind to your fellow humans.
December 9, 2009 at 9:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
flAmer says...
I would really encourage you all to get to know some of these people. David is a wonderful person and not at all confrontational.
December 9, 2009 at 9:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
heritage_sarahhochschwender says...
digsy, you are digging yourself a hole.
i note a new member of the atlas shrugged group has appeared.
December 10, 2009 at 8:00 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tydej says...
So I'm going out tonight and gonna heist a baby Jesus from the church around the corner and replace it with a homemade baby Obama doll,wearing a rainbow shirt and holding the Koran. Sounds like a great night to me, anyone wanna join, I'll have hot chocolate after and we can all dance about in a trance while we celebrate the 1st gay kiss on the AMA. Really...... it should be fun, after let's go to a local farm and marry a cow, saw one with great utters the other day, I even think the Mayor was there using his own brand of utter cream, he knows how I like to party.
December 10, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ELPOEPsdrawkcab says...
"Go live in a hole", "All this BS", "screw it up for the children"
MM, given that this is such a joyous time of year for millions, couldn't we all be a bit more respectful and tolerant to those of dissenting beliefs or opinions? Can't we just be fair and kind to each other, alternatively stated - "be good for goodness sake".
December 10, 2009 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
mm
Last time I checked Holiday Park was full of displays about Jesus and Christmas. How can you declare that this group's sign pushes their beliefs on others, and your Christmas displays do nothing of the sort? That makes no sense to me. You can't have it both ways either nothing about religion is allowed or each group gets to have equal say.
Whether you like it or not it IS Happy Holidays because there are many holidays celebrated at this time of the year and that is what Holiday Park is designed for; to celebrate all of them. I would also like to point out that if it WAS created just to celebrate Christmas it would be illegal. So how about taking Elpoep's advice and just be nice to everyone, this is the time of year to celebrate and you shouldn't deny anyone that right whether you like their opinion or not.
December 10, 2009 at 12:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ktwykc says...
digsy,
You should thank heritage for pointing out the obvious and please 'DroP' the shovel.
heritage,
Thanks for pointing out the appearance of the new member.
Welcome to the Atlas Shrugged group.
Merry Christmas all
December 10, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AnnieS,
Sure, there are some displays that are Christian in nature. The overwhelming number of displays, however, are secular...plain and simple.
Unless, of course, you wish to show me, in the Bible, references to reindeer, Santa, elves, snowmen, Christmas trees, tinsel, sleighs.......
December 10, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
That's my point exactly. "there are some displays that are Christian in nature". If these displays are allowed then this group should be allowed their sign too. And the message was a good one. You can't honestly tell me you disagree with being "good, for goodness sake".
December 10, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
It seems to me more than just someone doesn't want your sign there. As a kid growing up i did relate the Holiday Park with Christmas and Jesus so i do find it offensive for you to place a sign there. If you want to get your skeptic group attention do something positive. All you are doing now is bringing negative attention to your group. I also am against two males being married. I will always vote against that if you choose that life keep it to yourself i nor any of my friends want to see it and yes i know that for sure.
December 10, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
ufc,
I would like to know how placing a sign that reads "Be Good for Goodness Sake" is negative?
December 10, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BHSGRAD says...
The sign is basically a back handed slap at Christianity. It's saying there is no God, so just be good in order to be good. The message itself it not a horrible one in a certain context, but there is more to what they are trying to get across by the sign then wishing everyone a "Happy Holidays", or it would have said 'Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings". Instead they choose something that was inflammatory and that is where I have the problem. I hope if they place a new sign in there it would be something that didn't have an agenda attached with it and was just for the sake of park viewers enjoyment.
December 10, 2009 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
mm,
You misread my statement. I didn't say that it was illegal to say Merry Christmas or to call December 25th Christmas, I say Merry Christmas myself, and if you look at a calendar I guarantee that it will also mark the Winter Solstice (or first day of winter) and the first day of hanukkah. What I said was that it is illegal to erect a display with the sole intent of celebrating christmas in a public park. And if the park was meant to celebrate solely christmas why is it open from November through January and not just on christmas day. And if it was meant to celebrate solely christmas why are there hanukkah displays there as well? You can rant all you want about saying merry christmas but it doesn't change the fact that there are many holidays and people that celebrate those holidays at this time of year. You don't have to like it and you can say that you don't accept it but it doesn't change the simple facts.
December 10, 2009 at 1:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AnnieS,
I, personally, don't have a problem with these folks and their sign. What I DO have a problem with is their insistance that this MUST be a "hate crime". I call it simple vandalism...nothing more. I don't care if they put up a sign that declares "There Is No God" or "Christmas Is A Stolen Holiday"....they have rights, too. My point is, and has been through this entire thread, that these people are trying VERY hard to be a "martyr" and make a name for themselves. I said, earlier in this thread, that I even AGREE with the sign. I think it was a good thought....and something I wish more people would apply to themselves....
However, to try making this out to be more than simply vandalism is only making a mountain out of a mole hill....
December 10, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
BHS,
It is only a "back handed slap at christianity" if you can't handle views that are different than your own. I like to think that i am an optimist by nature and I would guess that the vast majority of the people going through Holiday Park would take no offense to the sign and I hope they would think of it as a pleasant message.
December 10, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
Thanks for clarifying your views. I agree with you and I think that if you go back through the comments you will see that the "hate crime" comment was made by only one person and one that has declared that they are not associated with the group at this time.
I think that some of the people on this thread have made a mountain out of a mole hill, but I also don't believe that the group members have tried to "martyr" themselves, the person that stole the sign did that for the group. I also think the bigger theme here is censorship of opposing view points and the outrage some people here have expressed is due to that attempt at censorship.
But I think that we generally agree on this issue which is good to know.
December 10, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BHSGRAD says...
My faith personally is not threatened by their sign, nor do I doubt most peoples would be. What I do take exception to is they are obviously being that little brother that goes "I'm not touching you" as he pokes that finger an inch from your nose. The group is trying to technically be in the right, while at the same time provoke a reaction from others and what should be a joyous and happy time.
December 10, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
No matter WHAT this skeptics society, and their supporters insist, their sign was INTENDED to provoke. Personally, I feel it COULD, and should, provoke thought, but I have little doubt it was intended to "shake up" people in town. I know this may rile some of the sign supporters, but it's illogical to think that the society placed the sign with nothing but benign intentions. It was, without ANY doubt, intentionally controversial. While there is no proof that the skeptics stole their own sign, to FURTHER the controversy, there's also no evidence to the contrary. Until I know for use, either way, I'll be skeptical of the whole affair....
December 10, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
What happened to you? "There are MANY other possibilities, and without evidence, irresponsible innuendos are just that....irresponsible....and innuendo!"
December 10, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NotaboutMe says...
Matthew 22 - 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Romans 2 - "1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?"
I only ask that those of you claiming to be Christian:. claiming to recite the Rosary:. get out your book. Read it. Pray. And pray for the lost. It is not your job to condemn, or judge. I don't know who stole the sign. And I would guess that the park employees had to remove the remnants of it for safety's sake.
If you "Christian's" didn't hit your knees when you read Alonzo's article and pray for the Skeptic members, and Mr. Weston, then start over. I pray that you will let the richness of God's kindness, TOLERANCE and PATIENCE lead you to repentance.
I also pray that you will go to a skeptics meeting. It IS what Jesus would do.
December 10, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AnnieS,
There's a difference in accusing specific people, or groups, of stealing a sign. However, it's a completely different thing to say that these people knew exactly what their sign would do to folks in this town. They can't say they didn't know the sign would cause controversy....at least not with a straight face....
Again, though....I don't CARE what their sign said, and I'm appalled at the community for BEING so up in arms. Freedom of speech doesn't just apply to Christians. It applies to us all. It's my sincere hope that the Skeptics Society would be the FIRST to stand up and fight for the rights of Christians to put THEIR stuff in Holiday Park, were someone to challenge it.
In a way, I CELEBRATE the Skeptics Society sign in the park...it means the Constitution still works!
December 10, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
If this sign belonged to any other group is this even a news story? Would any other group go this far to be victim or would they have just put up a new sign and moved on. Who sought out the first story saying the sign was stolen? Who contacted who first in this article?
December 11, 2009 at 5:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
Well that was an interesting read! Thanks for all the positive comments! It is encouraging to hear so many people supporting free speech and our contribution to the park. Hope you will join us sometime at our meetings.
I am optimistic that the attention that has been brought to this will keep people from doing something like this again. However, if it does I think we will be getting our sign back. DON'T look around for any camera's! We hid them too well! JK
Also, I have noticed a lot of people, like I, enjoy conversing or debating religious ideas. If anyone would like to debate some of these ideas with me, you can contact my non-personal email address. DRBMC3I@yahoo.com
Happy Holidays Everybody!
December 11, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
While I wish you and your group the best, Mr. Carr, I don't intend to come to your meetings. I don't debate my beliefs. Beliefs are just that....beliefs, and without concrete evidence to back up those beliefs, my beliefs...yours, too...are based solely on faith. I don't debate faith.
Still, I felt, even as someone who disagrees with your choice of beliefs, you had every right to display your sign...and I wish people in our town would learn to live by that simple code. Especially the person(s) who stole the sign!!
Today, someone hit my daughter's car. More than likely, they slid around the corner and hit it. They didn't do it on purporse...but they did damage her car. Instead of leaving a note, or knocking on the door, they left my daughter with a damaged car. Since she only has liability coverage, my daughter won't be getting her car fixed anytime soon.
I don't know who did it. I didn't see the accident happen. It could have been a skeptic or Christian, atheist or believer. It could have been a Republican or a Democrat...a conservative or liberal. Doesn't matter what label we put on that person....they weren't honest and decent enough to own up to what they did. I've found, in life, that one can't always place blame on someone for everything. Sometimes, life just happens. I've also found that not everyone we meet or come across in life are good people. Some folks are shifty, dishonest and selfish. They come in all shapes, sizes, colors and creeds/belief systems. No matter what they call themselves, their actions speak louder than words.
December 11, 2009 at 12:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
renogirl says...
So (tongue in cheek) does this mean that the burglars who stole my flashlight hated darkness?? Come on people, we live in a town where thieves are the norm. Ask any police officer - they'll tell ya. I don't think stealing this sign is a religious statement, nor an atheist one...it's simply another freakin theft in good ol' St Joe, where if you leave something out long enough, it vanishes. It's likely to be found in the basement of someone's home, among their college aged son's posters, long about 2013, so enough of this ridiculousness! And how any of this has to do with the crusades or being of any particular belief is beyond my comprehension. WOW, this newly discovered atheist group is really getting the mileage outa this one! Guess that was the point. Alas, they're on the map, can we now move on?
December 11, 2009 at 1:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
I appreciate your sentiments pops. However, I do debate faith, because faith is irrational. Like Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so." If someone has bad reasons like faith for their beliefs, I back up and debate the reasons. Believe it or not I've had some success. If you put enough cognitive dissonance in someones head, they will eventually realize how unjustified their beliefs are. Faith can justify any act no matter how horrendous. That makes it dangerous and irresponsible. Send me an email if you reconsider.
December 11, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
dcarr1- Why is faith irrational?
December 11, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabble_Rouser says...
If you didn't have faith how would you know you were loved? There is no proof that anyone loves you. They may say they do but how do you really know. Their actions may indicate they love you but how do you know for sure. The fact is you use faith and trust in your life all the time and so what is so wrong with faith.
December 11, 2009 at 4:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
Rabble,
You know you are loved because of the actions of the person who loves you. You can Prove that they love you based on evidence you can see, hear, touch, etc. You can't equivocate faith in something that can not be proven with love and trust.
December 11, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
I will throw this out.
Science also offers evidence for things not seen. This is true both at the very small scale--subatomic particles (perhaps you've followd the mishaps of the large hadron collider at CERN) as well as at the very large level--black holes, dark matter, dark energy, planets and galaxies. They infer the existence of things they CANNOT observe directly by their effects. They generate a narrative which is consistent with observation and indeed leads us to expect what we do observe. So the notion of evidence and reasons and justified belief, if it is to be in line with common scientific practice--must allow for beliefs to be justified by being part of simplest and most comprehensive narrative leading us to expect what we see.
December 11, 2009 at 4:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
renogirl says...
I'm beginning to understand the whole reason for this thread, the sign, the commentary, etc. which seems to be to begin a Christian/atheist debate. I'm sick of hearing how if you have faith you're weak. If I didn't have faith, I wouldn't be alive and neither would anyone else. You have to believe in something or you'll fall for anything. Faith is the belief in things unseen, true, but that doesn't mean it's stupid, ridiculous, or justifies actions that are not moral or correct. Taken out of context, however, you can justify just about anything. Glad the group got the press they were seeking, but I'll not be made to feel 'bad' because I choose to have faith in God, myself, my husband, my car, or any other aspect of my life. I know what works for me...if believing you're the biggest thing in the universe works for ya, then great. My beliefs are not unjustified, but a person with no faith cannot possibly understand the power of faith, since they evidently only believe what they can see. Sheesh! So much for love, kindness, and anything else decent - it's all faith-based!
December 11, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
I will throw this out.
In order for a scientific hypothesis to become accepted it has to be disprovable. That means that the hypothesis itself has to be able to be tested with the posibility of it being disproven. I will use subatomic particles as an example. Yes, it is true that you cannot see subatomic particles. So one day a scientist thinks 'hey I THINK there are these things I'm gonna call subatomic particles' then they form a way to TEST that hypothesis. The test once done many times could prove that no- there are no such things as subatomic particles, in which case the hypothesis would be Disproven. Or the test once done many times could prove that yes- there is such a thing as subatomic particles and we know this because of x, y, and z. Which I can now Show you and thus Prove it to you.
The problem with applying this to faith and religion is that there is no way to TEST any particular religion when it's tenants are grounded in faith not scientific fact.
December 11, 2009 at 5:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
renogirl,
I take offense to you assumptions that "love, kindness, and anything else decent" is all faith based. I love my family, I am kind to them, and to strangers, I donate to charity, participate in adopt-a-family for christmas, volunteer my time to others. And I do it not because I am told to by a preacher or a book but because I Know it is the right thing to do. It is offensive for you to suggest that someone without faith cannot be a good person. And yes I help other's celebrate at this time of year because Everyone should have a chance to celebrate however they see fit. Just because I don't believe in the same thing doesn't mean that I can't help others less fortunate than I by giving back and making Them, not myself, happy. "Be Good for Goodness Sake".
December 11, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Annie S.
I guess I don't see the difference. What is the TEST to prove subatomic particles exist?
December 11, 2009 at 5:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
I agree that subatomic particles exist becuase science infers their existance from indirect evidence, or scientific fact as your post says. You should allow the same concept to religion. If somethinga can be proved via indirect evidence it should not matter whether it's science, religion, etc.
December 11, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
rainy,
I'm not a particle physicist nor a nuclear physicist nor is there enough space in this comment box for me to give you the requisite knowledge required to Understand the "test" therefore I can't explain the test to you here. However, it is common knowledge that it has been Proven, without a doubt that they exist.
Here is a link if you would like a little background knowledge: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Now, the difference comes from the fact that subatomic particles have been Proven to exist through the study of atoms. That same thing cannot be done with religion. Let's take the example of god, there is no way to Prove that this being exists. I might also add that there is no way to Disprove that god exists, either. So since there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god one who chooses to believe in god must do so out of "faith". If something is untestable you must reject it or accept it with nothing to base that acceptance on.
December 11, 2009 at 5:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
But rainy, there is no indirect evidence that can used to prove religion. If there were don't you think it would have been done already? I applaud your effort but it's just a simple fact that there is no way to make the little pieces of "evidence" add up to something else.
December 11, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
I'll throw this out there taken from http://www.jesuswitness.com/FaithInJe...
Love Is The Power Of Faith: Therefore we must choose to listen to either of two competing voices, either the voice of the Holy Spirit seeking Gods will, or the thoughts of the natural man seeking our own will. John 7:17 Our choice is determined by who we love the most, either God or ourselves. John 14:15 Whoever has the Holy Spirit has the love of God Romans 5:5 and the power of God in his heart and is able to resist the power of the flesh. The strength of that power to obey depends on how close we are to God in Jesus, while the depth of our love for God determines how close we want to draw near to Him rather than ourselves, therefore love is the power of faith.... Galatians 5:16
December 11, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rabble_Rouser says...
AnnieS,
As I said "Their actions may indicate they love you but how do you know for sure." Are you a mind reader? Do you think Jose and Kitty Menendez thought their children loved them? Im sure they had evidence they could see, hear, touch, etc. that made them think they loved them.
December 11, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Annie.
Great post. I think we all agree that subatomic particles exist. My point is that there is no direct evidence they exist. The scientific fact is from indirect data. I have not tried to convince you there is a God...yet. I simply ask that you agree that scientists take things as fact without direct evidence.....i.e. subatomic particles. How about black holes? Has anyone ever seen one? Nope, but it is scientific fact they exist through indirect evidence.
December 11, 2009 at 6:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Annie,
Do you agree that if there was enough indirect evidence you would agree their is a God?
December 11, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rocketmom says...
So, do I have to read Atlas Shrugged to be in the club? It's a big book.
December 11, 2009 at 9:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryAllison says...
Don't bother. Here is the 113 word version. I blew a .92 in Sophomore lit.
Dystopian near-future. Communist New-World Order. Dagny and Hank, capitalist-minded industrialists, carry the blood-sucking bureaucrats on their shoulders [Like Atlas. Get it?] When questioned, Francisco shrugs his shoulders. He doesn't have a clue, but that is the plot point. No one has a clue. Who is John Galt? Read Part 1 Chapter 8. All the Cool People head to the Gulch. Dagny and Galt hook up. Galt gets busted. The Cool People rescue Jesus, I mean Galt, but not before he is tortured [read Part 2 Chapter 4, The Sanction of the Victim]. More "prime movers" disappear, Blood-suckers sure to fail. Galt makes a long speech: Ethical Objectivism good, state intervention in society bad. The End.
December 12, 2009 at 12:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
This has been my point....there IS no direct evidence to PROVE the existance of God, or to prove my beliefs and my faith.
However, there is also, and equally, no direct evidence to DISPROVE the existance of God, or to disprove my beliefs and my faith.
Sure, I believe, at least in part, because of the Bible. However, I have little or no proof that what is written there is factual, since even much of the historical writing is obscure, and, obviously, can't be backed up by currently living eye-witnesses.
Atheists and skeptics can't DISPROVE the Bible...and I can't prove it. Thus....faith!
What it comes down to is that the things we use as "proof", on both sides, requires us to either accept or deny their validity, on a personal level. Again, basically, both atheists, agnostic and skeptics live by faith just as surely as I.
December 12, 2009 at 8:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BartVanzetti says...
Yes, rocketmom, you certainly should read it. And if you don't laugh while reading, you have a heart of stone. It's almost as funny as the Book of Revelations and even has some of the same themes.
As for the intrepid Mr. Weston, this particular feature published on Wednesdays isn't his reporting gig, it's his "op/ed" column. If you're expecting factual journalism, it may be refracted around a little. Mr. Weston gets to express his opinions, reminisce of the clothing styles of his misspent youth, use his "Baghead" puppet for theatrical effect, and promote the Jazz Society (a fine organization which I give money to). But reportage? You're not going to find it here.
And Mr. Weston, a little personal note: if there is a Hell, I certainly hope they have a better newspaper than this one!
December 12, 2009 at 9:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
BartVanzetti,
Just wondering....do you have proof there is no hell? Heaven? Devoid of proof, your remarks are merely more expressions of faith...
December 12, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
There is an endless list of imaginary gods that have been claimed to exist since humanity evolved. There is no need to spend time trying to disprove beliefs, that is the responsibility of the person making the claim. Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.
The bible has been shown to be historically inaccurate. Of all the excavations in Egypt, there is still not a single shred of evidence that the Exodus ever took place. Not to mention Noah's arc, which is just absurd and cruel. You'd be better off interpreting that one as symbolic. These are just the classics.
There are millions of beliefs like this that have been claimed for which there is no evidence and believed with out good evidence.
There is this problem with people attributing faith inappropriately to things that we can witness in every day life. You would think they understood the meaning of having faith is to believe in a religious proposition for which there is not even a shred of evidence. How is that the same as the love, kindness or generosity that I have had the fortune to witness from the day I was born? I am kind to others and they are kind to me. Do I really need faith to expect the people that I care about not to change over night into monsters? Your being dishonest if you continue to make such absurd accounts of faith.
December 12, 2009 at 9:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Dcarr1,
My point is you insist these things are fictional...I believe they're real. You say the Bible is inaccurate...I disagree. You can't prove your beliefs any more than I can prove mine. Prove to me there is no God. Prove to me there is no hell or Heaven. Prove to me angels do not exist. Prove to me there is no life after this one.
You said it yourself....the responsibility of proof rests with the one making the claim. That's the reason I don't debate my faith...I refuse to be drawn into an argument over who's faith has more "proof"....when it's a fact that faith would no longer BE faith, if proof existed.
Faith, as defined by the Bible, is "The substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen.".
There are many things in this world I have't seen for myself. I have to accept their existance by faith....or by the effect those things have on me and my life. To me, God exists because I feel His effect on my life. You claim the things that I feel are evidentiary are cooincidence. Fine...you go ahead and believe that. I believe prayer is real conversation with God. You disagree. Go ahead...believe what you wish.
It's just as impossible to disprove my beliefs as it is for me to prove them. Even if I WERE able to show some "proof", I have little doubt you'd find some reason to doubt the validity of that "proof", claiming other explanations, cooincidence, or other explainable forces at work.
I don't denegrate your beliefs, sir. I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so to mine. THAT is where we differ. I respect your right to your beliefs. You use words like "absurd accounts of faith". That, sir, is merely your personal opinion....backed up by nothing but....faith.
There it is again...that pesky little word both of us have to accept...
December 12, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
****Of all the excavations in Egypt, there is still not a single shred of evidence that the Exodus ever took place****
Copy and paste this link from US News and World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/...
The more research we do the more the Bible is proven to be true. This find doesn't conclusively prove it but we are talking about thousands of years ago.
And then there's Pharaoh's chariot wheel they found at the bottom of the Red Sea.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?A...
December 12, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Agent_Provocateur says...
Here's a link to a picture believed to be the Ark:
http://www.mountararattrek.com/images...
This is on mount Ararat in Turkey. Fossils of marine animals are regularly found in mountain areas as well.
December 12, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
DCarr 1 said "The bible has been shown to be historically inaccurate"
I would like an example where it has been proven innacurate.
In fact, the bible was written over a long period of time and there and it never contradicts itself. There are many prophecies from the Old Testament that came true in the New Testament.
Also, since science will take things as fact through the use of indirect evidence and no direct evidence, will you?
December 12, 2009 at 11:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
One other thing....portions of the New Testament were writeen by the apostles themselves as direct witnesses. Aren't many a history fact taken as truth on much less evidence?
December 12, 2009 at 11:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
I think the point that dcarr1 is trying to make is that you can't prove your faith, therefore why would others (I'm not claiming that you feel this way) feel that they need to use the bible as a way to impose their beliefs on others. For example using faith and the bible to legislate and create laws that prevent two wonderful people who love each other from getting married or being able to have a family together. That's the point where "faith" goes too far. I believe that we are all entitled to our beliefs and I also think that everyone should have the right to express them, however, when that expression extends into others rights it is not acceptable.
December 12, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
http://www.jonsplace.org/rel/bible.htm
Archeological findings, especially in the 20th century, prove the Bible's accuracy. Not a single archeological find contradicts any part of the Bible that I have heard. Come on, show me one. In and around Jerusalem alone, dozens of buildings, walls, wells, pools, roads, tunnels, courts and more have been unearthed and positively identified in exactly the places the Bible said they would be, exactly as the Bible described them. King Hezekiah's Tunnel and his broad wall are now tourist attractions. Jericho is now recognized by mainstream archeologists as the oldest discovered city on earth.
December 12, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
http://www.jonsplace.org/rel/bible.htm
I hear this one a lot, "What about all those contradictions in the New Testament?" Nice try. Do they agree with each another in all respects? Nope. That's genuine eyewitness testimony for you. Ask any cop. Still, as that cop will tell you, if you can get enough eyewitnesses to talk to you, you can paint a pretty accurate overall picture of what really happened.
The order of some events is different from gospel to gospel. Some events are in one and not in another. Consider: Isn't that exactly how they should read if they are eyewitness accounts gathered by different authors at different times from different people who all saw the same events? Think about it.
Unfortunately for scholars eager to break them down, the gospels hold together so well it's hard to believe they're 2000 years old. They have differences only in degree or timing rather than substance. They complement each other. Taken together, the gospels paint a pretty good picture of Jesus' words and deeds for a few consecutive years - and how people of his day viewed his words and deeds.
December 12, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate...
The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20.
December 12, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
HenryAllison says...
Mr. BartVanzetti,
I was forced to read Atlas Shrugged "at the point of a gun" to turn one of Ms. Rand's phrases, so maybe a lot of the good times were sucked out knowing I would be forced to regurgitate most of the Objectivism philosophy into a Blue Book. I wonder if you have read a novel named Freehold by Michael Z. Williamson. For my money, a far more biting look at the state we find in our society. Of course Freehold was written in 2004, not 1957.
December 12, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
http://bible.org/article/how-accurate...
The Old and New Testaments make abundant references to nations, kings, battles, cities, mountains, rivers, buildings, treaties, customs, economics, politics, dates, etc. Because the historical narratives of the Bible are so specific, many of its details are open to archaeological investigation. While we cannot say that archaeology proves the authority of the Bible, it is fair to say that archaeological evidence has provided external confirmation of hundreds of biblical statements. Higher criticism in the 19th century made many damaging claims that would completely overthrow the integrity of the Bible, but the explosion of archaeological knowledge in the 20th century reversed almost all of these claims. Noted archaeologists such as William F. Albright, Nelson Glueck, and G. Ernest Wright developed a great respect for the historical accuracy of the Scriptures as a result of their work.
Out of the multitude of archaeological discoveries related to the Bible, consider a few examples to illustrate the remarkable external substantiation of biblical claims. Excavations at Nuzi (1925-41), Mari (discovered in 1933), and Alalakh (1937-39; 1946-49) provide helpful background information that fits well with the Genesis stories of the patriarchal period. The Nuzi tablets and Mari letters illustrate the patriarchal customs in great detail, and the Ras Shamra tablets discovered in ancient Ugarit in Syria shed much light on Hebrew prose and poetry and Canaanite culture. The Ebla tablets discovered recently in northern Syria also affirm the antiquity and accuracy of the Book of Genesis.
December 12, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
http://www.forumterrace.com/Questions...
The Bible is not a history book. Nonetheless, whenever God's Word incidentally touches on any aspect of history it is always accurate. "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history." (William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel, pp. 127,128). Merrill Unger wrote, "Old Testament archaeology has rediscovered whole nations, resurrected important peoples, and in a most astonishing manner filled in historical gaps, adding immeasurably to the knowledge of Biblical backgrounds." (Unger's Bible Dictionary, p. 15). "Archeology is a real help in understanding the Bible. It yields fascinating information which illustrates what might otherwise be obscured, and in some instances confirms what some might otherwise regard as doubtful." (Paul E. Little, Know Why You Believe, p. 88).
Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. More than 25,000 sites showing some connection with the Old Testament period have been located in Bible lands. Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, former professor of Semitic philology at Princeton Theological Seminary, said, "After forty-five years of scholarly research in Biblical textual studies and in language study. I have come now to the conviction that no man knows enough to assail the truthfulness of the Old Testament. Where there is sufficient documentary evidence to make an investigation, the statements of the Bible, in the original text, have stood the test." Furthermore, the noted Dr. J.O. Kinnaman said, "of the hundreds of thousands of artifacts found by other archaeologists, not one has ever been discovered that contradicts or denies one word, phrase, clause, or sentence of the bible, but always confirms and verifies the facts of the Biblical record." If one discards the Bible as being unreliable, then he must discard almost all literature of antiquity.
December 12, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
out2hunt says...
I just had a thought. Wait a minute - science can prove a thought so I guess I can't think. A thought can't be seen or proved so according to some on this post that means nobody can think. The longer this post goes on the skeptics show their true color. They aren't here on this post or did they put a sign at Krug except to cause controversy. It started out about a sign being stolen now they are trying to disprove my beliefs. Several post even state that they are NOT out to change anybodies beliefs but just want Christians to leave them alone to theirs. Now Christians are to scientifically prove theirs or if they can't it somehow proves the skeptics beliefs. Your sign at Krug Park was for one purpose and one purpose only. To get attention. No matter what other "holiday" coincides with Christmas, 99.9% of Americans know that Christians celebrate the birth of Christ on Dec. 25th, no matter what their beliefs. No matter what the sign said, when a group that denies everything about Christ puts up a sign at a Christmas display it is meant only for controversy. You got your attention. And the ire of the majority of the people. If you would have advertised your group any other time or place hardly anybody would have cared. OR NOTICED.
December 12, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Well put out2hunt.
There sign was placed right next to the "Reason for the Season" display with a lighted cross. I thought it was probably placed at that location for maximum controversy.
December 12, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I said I wouldn't attend a skeptics meeting, because I didn't feel it's necessary for me to debate my faith. I ALSO would not attend the meeting because Mr. Carr has sufficiently demonstrated the way those people of faith, who might be inclined to attend, might be treated. In just this thread, my beliefs were declared "absurd" by Mr. Carr, without so much as a shred of proof to back up the statement. Rather intolerant, wouldn't you say? Oh....I'm sure Mr. Carr, and the rest of the skpetics group THINK they have proof, but truly, their beliefs are just as much based on faith as mine.
I agree with the above...it's my opinion the sign was placed to generate controversy...and that it has. Mission accomplished. However, I'm not at all sure the St. Joseph Skeptic Society will be happy with the outcome.
December 12, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
out2hunt says...
By the ways - that was suppose to say "science can't prove a thought". Sorry for my mistype.
December 12, 2009 at 3:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
RE: EVIDENCE, PROOF, AND JUSTIFICATION
TO ALL THE SKEPTICS ON THIS THREAD,
A friend of mine brought this thread to my attention since I'm a St. Joe native and Philosophy professor specializing in epistemology and philosophy of science and religion. For the record, I wasn't raised with any religion at all--though TV, movies, and music naturally imparted to me a secularist ideology. I had a "born again" experience in my late teens, worked in college ministry, served as Souther Baptist minister there in St. Joe, left that, became Episcopalian, and am now Catholic. So I've changed my mind several times on several important issues, and like to keep an open mind. I certainly don't want to keep believing all this inconvenient stuff if it's not true.
OK, now that aside, one of the things I'd most like to ask the skeptics on this thread is what their notions of "proof," "evidence," and "justified belief" are. It's the skeptics who have made the assertions using the terms and so *they* are the ones who owe an explanation of them since, as they ought to know, epistemologists have many different views about them.
In my experience, skeptics without any academic training in Epistemology tend to have extremely narrow definitions of these notions; too narrow, in fact, to allow standard scientific theories to count as justified. Yet, when the notion of evidence--or as I prefer, *confirmation*--is defined widely enough to allow for the more important scientific theories, God does just fine.
Looking forward to hearing from you.
December 12, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LDM1982 says...
This is indeed a lively conversation! I'm enjoying catching up on the new posts every time I come back to see what else is going on here. I'm not going to get too technical - but here's my 2 cents worth:
This "discussion" will never come to an end! In my opinion, it is not unlike the abortion debate. Those on one side know/believe in their hearts and minds, that life begins at conception, and are concerned for the lives of the unborn babies. Those on the other side, however, believe/know in their minds, that the woman must have control of her body and frankly don't believe it's a human until much later in the gestational process. See the difference? One side is concerned for the baby, the other side is only concerned for the woman. These two sides will NEVER come to an agreement! It's basically apples and oranges. Babies versus women.
I think I see the same situation here. Christians know/believe in their hearts and minds that there truly is a God, through the practice of their faith. No, it cannot be proven - period. The atheists, on the other hand, truly believe God does not exist. Again, cannot be proven. On this thread, at least, the 2 sides will never come to a meeting point. The people involved in this discussion, on both sides, feel VERY strongly about their stance(s), so frankly there's no point in carrying on this discussion! It's going to go on and on and on, with neither side giving any leeway.
I also think people tend to expose themselves more to literature/teachings that are in agreement with their way of thinking rather than that which is in opposition to their beliefs. Thus, I doubt the atheists have REALLY dug deep into studies which support the factualities of the Bible. And probably on the flip side, most Christians are equally guilty of not exposing themselves to teaching which may be in opposition to their belief system.
December 12, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
LMD1982,
If that were true, there'd be no converts. But there are converts. So it's not true.
Of course there will always be *someone* who disagrees, but that's hardly relevant. As witnessed in my various conversions mentioned above, people do change there hearts and their minds. Engaging, honest, informed, compassionate, human dialog is one great way for this to happen.
And approx. 50% of babies are female, and every woman was once a baby. Thus it's not apples and oranges.
December 12, 2009 at 6:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LDM1982 says...
Trent - You're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying one should refrain from sharing the faith!! I know first-hand of converts - - going both ways, unfortunately. I'm saying that this particular thread, will only go on and on, because those involved are so strong in their opposite beliefs. You may not have noticed, but there's nobody on here who is at all "wishy-washy" and searching for answers. Everyone is quite firm on their position, therefore, it's not going anywhere.
And it is apples and oranges. Each side of the abortion debate is concerned with something completely different from the other side. Yes, babies, when allowed to live, do become women. But pro-choicers don't care about what they believe to be only a "blob" of cells, until viable much later in the pregnancy. They only care about the woman. Therein lies the difference. They don't BELIEVE it's a baby, and of course pro-lifers are firm in their knowledge that it is indeed a human baby. The two sides are coming at the argument with completely opposite beliefs.
These are merely my observations of this thread. And just so you know, I am a life-long Christian, and exremely pro-life. Just sayin.
December 12, 2009 at 7:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
LDM, you made your point. What's getting lost is what I was trying to say....that I see skeptics/atheists/agnostics insist they are open-minded and willing to discuss religion with anyone, yet, in this very thread, one of the members of the local "open-minded and all-inclusive" Skeptics Society, made the assertion that what I believe is "absurd". Not all that open-minded. You won't find any of my posts being so insulting of their beliefs. In fact, you'll find quite the opposite. I complimented them on their sign, and defended their right to post it. Personally, I've bent over backward to be tolerant and open, and was met with intolerance, declarations and insults toward my chosen beliefs.
It's the intolerance I find offensive...not their lack of belief in God.
December 12, 2009 at 7:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LDM1982 says...
Pops - agreed. I read your earlier posts which in turn were responded to with animosity. In fact, that's generally been my experience when talking with non-believers. They are basically incredulous that we could believe such "nonsense" (in their opinion) and can be quite offensive with their views.
I admire and respect you for pressing on!
December 12, 2009 at 9:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Animosity is a two way street LDM, otherwise,there wouldn't be 150 comments on this single thread.
December 12, 2009 at 10:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LDM1982 says...
Not necessarily Digsy. There's no need for animosity if people would be repectful of other's beliefs and opinions, don't you agree?
December 12, 2009 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
pops,
If you don't mind I would appreciate if you could refrain from vilifying me and putting words in my mouth. Admittedly I said I believe the Noah's Arc story to be absurd, however I did not make any general declaration about the absurdity of Christianity. I obviously do not find the beliefs to be true, but that is not the same as what you are implying. Again I am more than willing to have a civilized debate with any takers by email, but I do not think this is the place. As much as I would like to spend my time reading all these post I can't. It's not feasible for me to try and respond to every criticism here.
rainy,
I appreciate all the links, but your sources are all biased. If you are looking for historical accuracy you need to look for consensus among historians in general rather than just Christian historians. For some reason I get the feeling none of those writings were published for their merit after being reviewed by peers. History is also a very scientific process. I don't claim to be an expert, but it's not hard to tell a good source from a bad one. If you can find me a single article published in a journal of history that refutes my previous claims I will repudiate them right here. I should have access through Missouri Western online.
December 13, 2009 at 12:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
Trent,
Are you claiming there is evidence for god?
It is always a good thing to clarify our definitions. However, you are asking about proof, evidence and justified belief as though they are three different things. I could be wrong but aren't they all synonymous for the same thing? I'm surprised your not more interested in how I define evidence, facts, and theories. I suppose we all have to determine our own standard of evidence, but I try as much as possible to lean toward the consensus of scholars on whatever subject I'm interested in. The standards of evidence I would think also depend very much on the subject being discussed.
Also, is it safe to assume that all of your changes in religious belief from sect to sect was solely based on your desire to know which was true? What are your standards of evidence? I would be interested to know how you reached the conclusion that all the others were incorrect.
December 13, 2009 at 12:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
apostate_rebel says...
"So, a skeptic will accept a moral lesson from Santa Claus, but not Jesus Christ?"
First of all, I would argue that the moral lesson of being good for goodness sake, does not come from the jolly old elf, but from the writers of 'Santa Claus Is Coming to Town' - J. Fred Coots and Haven Gillespie!
Secondly, skeptics (agnostic and atheist), probably don't have much of a problem with some of the things Jesus supposedly said. Most people agree that loving your neighbor as yourself, looking out for the welfare of others, caring for the poor and downtrodden of society is a good thing! I know that, myself, as an agnostic, who left the Christian faith, tries to live by these principles every day.
However, there are other things that Jesus supposedly said that I totally disagree with. His teaching on hell and judgment for starters, and, as for his miracles, no, I do not believe that he performed them. The evidence is not there! Surely if someone where performing great feats defying explanation, there would be a contemporary record from an outside source (other than the bible.) The Romans were methodical record keepers. BTW, eyewitness testimony has consistently proven to be the most unreliable form of testimony in the judicial process.
As far as the whole "War On Christmas" goes, I think it brings out the stupid in both sides of this ridiculous "war"! As an agnostic, I could care less if you put your religious themed ornaments and nativity scenes on your lawns. I love taking in the Christmas lights, and looking at various displays. I would go so far as to say that I have no problem with towns and cities nativity scenes, HOWEVER, if they are allowing believers to display their messages, they should also allow those with other opinions to display theirs as well, in a way that does not violate community standards. I fail to see how a sign stating, "Be Good For Goodness Sake" would offend any sane rational believer. I also fail to see how a holiday, albeit religious, where people display lights, decorations and nativity scenes would offend any rational unbeliever. Even though I no longer believe in Jesus, apart from recognizing that he was a man that taught some good moral lessons, and his followers deified him. I no longer feel the need to be good just because a 'god' will give me brownie points if I do, or, out of the fear I will go to hell if I'm not good. I like to be good because, A. It's the RIGHT thing to do; B. I can have a part in making this world a better place for myself and others; C. It benefits me in ways that go far beyond merely helping others, or being kind to others. It makes me feel good.
This Christmas, let's all recognize the wonderful diversity that makes us human, and, try to be good for goodness sake!!
Please, feel free to check out my new blog:
www.apostaterebel.wordpress.com
December 13, 2009 at 1:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Mr. Car,
You're not being totally honest. You said my accounts of faith are absurd...not only just the story of Noah's Ark (proper spelling, by the way). I'm not putting words in your mouth....you're saying them on your own. You've made it abundantly clear you feel what I believe, by faith, is absurd, and YOU said so. After the fact, you feign innocence, and attempt to put the blame on me. I've done nothing to you, or vilified you in any way. It's apparent you're intolerant of those who live by faith....your very posts prove the point.
December 13, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tydej says...
I don't think saying Happy Hoildays is bad. Looking just from the Christian side the are two holidays within a week of each other, one religious one not so much; Christmas and New Years. Also in our diverse community there can be 3 major religions celebrating Holy days, along with a community driven holiday plus New Years. By saying Happy Holidays one is being inclusive of all these days or two of them. Christmas Cards have said Happy Hoildays for many years. Stores and restrauants say it because they know not all people are Christian and want to make all of their customers happy. People need to slow down and realise that December is not important to one group of people or just one religion. We need to try and be respectful of one another and enjoy the spirt of the season, reguardless of spirituality. I have my own personal beliefs and respect that others have theirs. Just because I may not see eye to eye with some folks dosenst make me any more right or wrong about how I feel, it's just how I feel. That said, Happy Holidays to all.
December 13, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tydej says...
mm...Are you being a bit to sensitive. All I said was that by saying Happy Holidays bussines and regular folks were being a bit more inclusive to others. I never said you couldn't say Merry Christmas or whatever you want to say. I just think we should all be able to celebrate the spirit of the season reguardless of what one's religion is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Pagen or if you partake in Kawanza. We can all learn from one another. I glad we live in a country where we can openly celebrate holidays of diffrent religions without being thrown in jail or put to death for our personal beliefs.
December 13, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Liberty,
The Krug Park display is 100% funded through donations.
December 13, 2009 at 12:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
LIberty said.
"I find it amusing that one group is accused of "pushing their beliefs in others faces" when they put a small sign in a giant display that does just that in a much, much larger way."
Then why was the diaplay put right next to a Christian religous display? I'm assuming that the group put the display where they wanted.
December 13, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
pops,
"Beliefs are just that....beliefs, and without concrete evidence to back up those beliefs, my beliefs...yours, too...are based solely on faith."
I think you know what I was trying to say, however you are insistent in proposing that I am obviously an awful person who would, if in the presence of a religious person, tell them how dumb their beliefs are. All I said was that "your" accounts of faith are absurd. You are implying that everyone on the planet has to life by your version of faith. I don't believe that, and I find it insulting. There may be instances where you could say my decisions aren't completely supported by evidence. In that instance I could be making a guess or taking a risk. However, I'm not counting on everything in my life to work out, because it won't(fact of life). In what way does it make sense to say that every time something like this occurs it's because I have faith? If that is the case it sounds like your version of faith is a coin toss. If so, I have quarters for that and that doesn't explain your decision unless you decide based on geographic location. Either way, many of these situations can be explained by heuristics. Subconsciously we all make decisions with limited knowledge, but that does not mean we don't use the knowledge we have.
Is this making sense? I think your mixing definitions of faith. If the faith your talking about is religious by nature, then it is a support for your belief in religious propositions for which there are no evidence(Jesus was conceived by a virgin). However, if you are saying that all skeptics have to have faith, maybe you could give me an example.
As for the continued comments that our entire groups goal was to upset every religious person in town. It is the same as Mr. Weston's comment and others about us stealing our own sign for publicity. There are apparently so few people willing to take responsibility for the most reasonable explanation that they blame the victims. I find this extremely insulting as the victim.
The goal of our group is to gather people like ourselves. It can be difficult when the majority of your family and friends disown you for your opinions, so forgive me for being a little short with you. Right from the beginning people complained because we put an add in the paper. Ever since that have complained about everything else we have done too. All we want are the same rights that are guaranteed to us as they are to you. According to you however, we shouldn't have wanted that because of peoples reaction to us. I suppose gay's shouldn't struggle for equal rights, because their cause is really only for attention right? I'm not going to be sorry our views aren't in line with the mainstream, because our views have just as much a right to be in the public square especially on public property!
December 13, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
Enough of the stuff about our sign being next to the religious displays. I was there! The parks manager directed us to follow him all the way up to the top of the hill and told us where to put our display. We did not choose it! If you have a problem, or want to dispute it you can call him. Jeff Atkins is the parks manager. Either way, that is not justification for thievery. Perhaps we should be offended that their displays were put next to ours. You don't hear us wining.
December 13, 2009 at 1:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
By the way, the park itself is funded by my tax money. If you want to dispute our right to be there, you are disputing the rights of any of us to be there. Remember that separation of church and state thing? Think about it.
December 13, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Dcarr said:
"I suppose gay's shouldn't struggle for equal rights, because their cause is really only for attention right?"
A gay person has the exact same rights that I do. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say the struggle for equal rights. Discrimination in the work place?
Dcarr said:
By the way, the park itself is funded by my tax money. If you want to dispute our right to be there, you are disputing the rights of any of us to be there. Remember that separation of church and state thing? Think about it.
I have no problem with your right to be there. I simply don't want to have your sign next to a religous display.
December 13, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Discrimination in the work place? Really? How about the simple act of getting married and divorced. When was the last time a straight couple you knew had to campaign/vote on legislation just to be able to get married?
And if you really have a problem with the placement of the sign, then contact the park director and the optimists club so you can make a segregated section of Holiday Park for those not pre-disposed to Christ.
December 13, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
Who sought out the first story saying the sign was stolen? Did the group go to the News-Press with the news?
Who contacted who first in this article?
December 13, 2009 at 2:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
I'm guessing between the News Press and the local news station constantly monitoring police reports, any sign stolen from the park would likely get some attention. Would it matter to you if they did contact reporters/journalists?
December 13, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Digsy December 13, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal) Discrimination in the work place? Really? How about the simple act of getting married and divorced. When was the last time a straight couple you knew had to campaign/vote on legislation just to be able to get married?
A gay man cannot marry a man, neither can I. Those rights seem equal to me.
December 13, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Like I said above, I assumed they picked their own spot. I will take DCarr's word that they did not. So I will say that it was poor placement by the Parks dept. The Optimist club's do not have anything to do with the placement of the displays.
December 13, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
Dcarr1,
0a. "Evidence for god" is ungrammatical, for it lacks the required indefinite article. The correct question is either whether I think there is evidence for a god or for God. "God" with a capital 'G' is used as both a title term--like President--and a proper name--like Barack Obama. My 2yr old son, if asked what his Daddy's name is will say, in a tone of voice that suggests "of course" "Daddy." My name is Daddy and I am his Daddy. "God" functions just like this. Traditionally, in English, the small 'g' "god" refers to a finite being whereas "God" refers to the being who is God if there is a being who is God. So the question of whether there's a god is like the question of whether there's a platypus whereas the question whether there is a God or whether God exists is like whether there is a King of France or whether Barack Obama exists.
0b. Yes I think there is evidence for the existence of God, enough to make one justified in belief if one is aware of that evidence and thinks about it rightly.
1a. Proof, evidence, and justified belief are clearly very different things. Some people use "proof" in such a way that it entails certainty or something very much like certainty. Since I don't think anyone has any right to be certain about anything (at all), I think that if "proof" is used this way then no one has any proof of anything. So then the demand for proof would be unreasonable.
1b. Some people use "evidence" in such a way that only what is reported by the five senses counts as evidence. On this kind of radical empiricism, not much in the sciences has much by way of evidence for it.
1c. Some people use "justification" for belief in such a way that only what is very nearly certain and only via a narrow version of evidence counts as justified. On this kind of usage, not much in the sciences is justified.
December 13, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
CONT
2a. What facts are is obvious: they are true propositions. Nothing exciting or controversial there.
2b. There are different theories of theories, but surely the most helpful notion is simply a hypothesis meant to explain some observation (broadly construed). As such, theories are also just propositions. Correct theories are true propositions--facts.
2c. I don't think we can subjectively determine a standard of evidence. I think when one proposition is evidence for another and to what degree is an objective fact.
3a. The consensus of scholarship can be evidence as long as there is evidence that the scholarship is conducted in the right sort of way. There are also matters of commonsense about which there is no clear body of experts other than the ordinary person.
3b. The strong consensus of professional philosophers in top-tier schools is that there is a God.
4a. Indeed, as far as I can tell my sole desire in all those transitions was to discern the truth (at any cost, and indeed it was of great cost, for the people at that Baptist church are no longer speaking with me, and some were friends for many, many years).
4b. I asked you first.
4c. Perhaps in due time.
December 13, 2009 at 3:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
LMD 1982,
You have said no more than that they disagree, and, well, that's true of all disagreements, nothing special about the abortion debate there. Obviously, in every disagreement there is something one side thinks is true that the other side thinks is false. How else could they disagree.
December 13, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
Dcarr1, RE: FAITH
I think quoting Twain of faith is utterly irrelevant. In the Christian tradition, indeed in the English language as such, faith means trust. When you deposit money in a "Bank and Trust" they have certain "fiduciary" responsibilities--from "fide" Latin for "faith."
Faith is rational or irrational depending on whether the object of that trust is trustworthy or not. To trust thin ice is irrational faith. Not to trust, say, the EPA in an ordinary matter, is to irrationally lack faith. To trust, say, your doctor is rational faith.
Thus faith is not intrinsically irrational. This is so wether it's religious faith or not (and I'd like to hear how you define "religious"--you throw a lot of terms around rather carelessly it seems to me).
The Stalinists had faith in Stalin and Stalinism. That justified the world's worst atrocities. That was irrational and dangerous faith. I think it was "religioius" faith, but it certainly was atheistic faith. It was irrational and dangerous. It cuts both ways.
December 13, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
royaldiam says...
I tried to read everyones comments but it gave me a headache. I do like alot of your comments though pops. I know one word that i have a problem with is "religion." It can mean anything and it causes alot of arguments. I myself believe in god. But i am not religeous. If someone wants to talk about Jesus i am more than happy to do so. I dont put down their beliefs and expect the same from them. Our pastor once said that church is full of sinners. I agree. I go there for myself..and to talk to others. I have been hurt and offended by some of those in the church that profess to be "christians" They like to talk the talk and pretend to walk the walk in front of those that they think matter. They wear all of the right clothes and say all of the right words. That is ok...the only thing that i can do is forgive them. And not let them hurt me again. We are all just human. We all think we have the answer. The best thing we can do is listen to each other. You never know, you may learn something.
December 13, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tydej says...
Rainy I love how you say you say they can put a sign in the park just not next to the religious ones. It's same mentality our nation saw in the 50's & 60's; blacks can have an education just not in the same school as whites. Equal but seperate is not equal. Why is it so offending to everyone that some groups is advocating for people to be nice and do the right thing? The simple message of "Be Good for Goodness Sake" seems apporate for whatever religion you believe or don't believe in. The group has done nothing wrong yet they are being treated as though they are evil persons bcause they don't have the same beliefs as many who celebrate Christmas. Seems like many need to ask themselfs.....What Would Jesus do?
December 13, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
tydej,
Good post but I think a bit on the exreme side. I fully support their right to put a sign up in the park. I have not problem with the message on the sign.Out of respect, I don't think it should have been put next to a display about Jesus Christ. It would have been better off anywhere else.
If the skeptics were to open an exhibit at the mall with information on their beliefs and I wanted to setup an exhibit about religion I would not setup next to them out or respect. I would give them their proper space.
December 13, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Oops for the above grammar errors. I type to fast and this program needs a spell check.
December 13, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Liberty,
You are certainly entitiled to your opinion.
I conceded that the group did not control placement of the sign (3:19 post). I was giving an example why I thought it should not have been placed there and responded to a posteer who thought I wanted a segregated park. I never assumed anyone's intentions. You, however have seemed to assume my intentions.
I would like for you to point out one failed argument or act of foolishness that is not your opionion.
While I don't agree with your opinion, I don't think you are foolish. I think what you call "foolish", I call my opinion.
Is it my statement that gay's have equal rights that is my opinion.
Is it my belief that God is real and the bible is an accurate book? I would hardly call anyone who believe this foolish.
December 13, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Hey....I found a spell check program for Explorer! Woohoo!
December 13, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Trent,
"...change there hearts and their minds..."
We've taken this thread so far as to point out grammatical and spelling errors to discredit the posters on this thread.
Rainy,
I don't disagree with your stance on opinions, though I have to point out that gays don't have equal rights. If they did, then my sister wouldn't have had to go to another state to get married to her loving wife. And for the person who points out that gays don't have to get married to express love, then I would be glad in joining EVERY American couple in passing legislation to discredit and outlaw marriage between anyone, gay or straight.
Religion, faith, theology, philosophy, the etymology of the words holiday and christmas...this is getting rediculous.
The majority of us disagree on one level or another. We will NEVER see eye to eye.
I feel trapped here. It's tough watching a group of people, (whom I would like to join), display their beliefs in public and be met with such hostility. They didn't put up a sign saying "We don't believe in god, and we think you are retarded for doing so...come join up!"...they put up a sign with a line from a holiday song that was written to be blatantly open-ended, so that no single group can claim it. They put up their website on the sign so that people would have the chance to look them up if they wanted to.
So far, no one is mad at all the construction companies, banks and other organizations for putting up their name, keeping in mind you can look in the phone book to find contact info for them, this is a form of advertising for them too. You won't find the Skeptics Society in the Yellow Pages.
If a sign put up by a skeptical group makes you uncomfortable or think they are trying to test the faithful, then you don't have much faith.
E.T. said it best, "Be Good." No pressure to get there one way or the other, just be good. The Skeptics Society wants you to be good for goodness' sake. The theistic groups want you to be good for god. However you get there, I just hope everyone is good.
Enjoy your Holiday everybody, I know in my atheist's heart I will fully. Spend it with your friends and family, give "Seasons' Greetings", send out cards, and be thankful that you are all still here to enjoy the simple things in life. Like contributing anonymously to the St. Joe News site, and puppies. Telling your elders you care about them, asking them for advice, volunteering at a soup kitchen, buying presents for those less fortunate, signing up for the Adopt a Family program. If everyone here takes the fire they put into their postings, and applies it in an effort to make someone's day brighter for at least a moment, then you have been good. So, whatever your "opinion" And good on you.
December 13, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
I now wait for someone to rebut me...I will check back in a bit to see how wrong my thinking is.
December 13, 2009 at 6:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Great post digsy.
I have expressed no hostility.
"If a sign put up by a skeptical group makes you uncomfortable or think they are trying to test the faithful, then you don't have much faith."
I'm not the least bit uncomfortable with the sign. In my opinion it is welcome in the park. I simply ask it not be right next to the lighted cross.
I've had my sources discredited with no alternative furnished. I've been called foolish. No name calling here.
I disagree with your thoughts on gay marriage. Any straight woman would also have to go to another state to get married to another woman. Notice I haven't said anything on my stance on gay marriage. I simply believe they ask for a special right. Apparently 71% of Missourians agree with me.
I agree with you on the signs. I would prefer no advertising. I also understand that it costs money to run the park and sometimes the donations don't cover all of the costs.
Question for the skeptics: Where and how are your weddings conducted?
December 13, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
One other thing.....
Digsy, if you don't mind me asking, why are you an atheist? If you don't want to share your reason it's OK. I'm just trying to understand your line of thought.
December 13, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
LDM1982 says...
Trent - I don't appreciate you splitting hairs with me. Indeed, there are varying degrees of disagreement! This happens to be the type where each side is miles from the other, and coming at the discussion from completely opposite viewpoints. Other disagreements are not so far apart, and therefore, the two parties may actually come to some sense of understanding each other.
Face it - faith is exactly that. As far as the existence of God is concerned, one must rely entirely on faith. Granted, you or I may have personal experiences whereby we are convinced beyond question of His existence, but that is not true for the majority of the population. Likewise, an atheist, whether they admit it or not, cannot know positively, 100%, that there is no God. Science can only take you so far, then it's a matter of accepting that it can go no further.
Now then, Trent, if you would kindly refrain from involving me further in this discussion, I would appreciate it. I was merely throwing in my 2 cents worth (literally), and have no desire to join the debate.
December 13, 2009 at 7:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
royaldiam,
You know, you and I are 100% together on this one. I agree with you totally.
Mr. Carr....I'm only referring to your use of the word "absurd" as it applies to my beliefs and my faith. I never said one word about you and your beliefs/faith being absurd, or anything else. In fact, I've complimented you on your idea for the sign. I don't even care that it was in the park, and didn't care WHERE it was in the park. I've SAID that, too. I've also attempted to indicate that WHOEVER stole it was a dirtbag!
Digsy,
I don't see much hostility here. Sure, you have SOME folks who don't appreicate the sign, but I think, with a little time and conversation, we could all agree that the freedom of speech applies to us all. I discount the idea that "Christians have had their way too long" and that it's time to step aside. I DO feel Christians need to be respectful of other beliefs, and allow them to express themselves, too, but too much of the time, it's Christians that are muzzled, while other belief systems are allowed free rein. That, my friends, is discrimination.
December 13, 2009 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Well, many skeptics are forced to have weddings in churches. It's VERY hard to find someone outside of a judge at an impersonal courthouse to officiate a godless marriage. As the majority of officiants are requuired to be an ordained minister, it kind of throws kinks into the mix. Especially if said officiant refuses to leave out referenced to god.
Lucky me, my brother-in-law is an ordained minister, though he's agnostic. I myself am an ordained minister withe the First Atheist Church. Yes, Atheist Minister! See, in a place where, as you point out, nearly 70% of the population leans toward the existence of God, you have to be real about your options.
So, when you question why I belong to a church and don't believe in god, the answer is simple. My "religious" views are that God doesn't exist. And by standard definition I belong to a group of people called Atheists. So, a church of Atheism is only called so because of the necessity of the religion biased marital requirements set by different states. Basically, we found a way around the loophole requiring you to go to an organized religious group or to a judge, we have a religious subtext by definition.
As to where, anywhere on earth. I've been through two traditional handfasting ceremonies with my wife now. The first time in the traditional mindset, (no paperwork required), the second time under close scrutiny of the California government. First in my wife's grandmother's backyard, and the second time in the woods in St Joseph near an old cemetary. Both times were beautiful. And both times we tied a knot around our hands. Hence the modern term, tying the knot.
December 13, 2009 at 10:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Pops, please don't quote someone else when speaking directly to or about me without clarifying the source, it makes me sound small minded. I don't use that kind of brush.
December 13, 2009 at 10:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Why am I an atheist? Great question. Not enough room to give the why of digsy, but I'll give you a brief synopsis.
I am an atheist because I don't believe in the existence of a god.
I was a church-goer from the time of birth. I went to Sunday school, church camp, was baptised at 13, and stayed active in the church until I was 20. I have read, and since forgotten, most of the bible. I prayed at dinner, watched my language, and avoided sinning when I could. I lived my life completely believing the teachings of my elders, parents included.
In all the years I believed in God and Jesus, I met many people with like minds and similar views. In all the activities and time I gave, I felt like I was doing good for God. I listened to my pastors and preachers and even a few priests, and took away many good lessons, but even more questions. A few pastors told me it was ok to have questions and that asking them to God was the only way to get real answers. As the pastors told me "only god can show you his way, I can only give you guidance. Ask Him to tell you His way, and He will show you...." After years of asking, I never got answers. For quite a long period, nearly two years, I went to bed scared because I thought I was being a bad child to God. I went through a lot of turmoil, and in turn asked God more and more to show me His will so that I could understand. Asking for a sign like, make the next song on the radio something by Tom Petty, really silly things the more desperate for answers I became. Then I finally began doubting the truth to the stories I had been told all my childhood and after a few months of being really scared I would be struck down by Him, it all stopped. I literally equated it to Santa Claus and bedtime stories. Only this didn't apply to impressionable children, it applied to everyone. If the law and society don't keep people from doing bad things, why doesn't God? God is a metaphor. In a world where so many bad things happen to good people, and good people do bad things, it made sense that there was someone at the end of the line to punish them for their wrongdoings. That's pretty comforting. But when I realized that the moral of the story was more important than the story itself, it all became clear. I don't need a God to be a great person, I need ME for me to be a great person.
I no longer need the bedtime stories of God to be a good person, but some do. Many people NEED their faith and cling to it like a safety blanket. Some people just plain believe. I would never try to take God away from anyone else because there was a time when I needed Him. I just don't anymore.
December 13, 2009 at 10:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
Trent,
In regards to Stalin's Atheistic faith, I think a better descriptive term could be dogma. I like the word, and the movie of course. When people become convinced of the truth of a creed, and consider it unforgivable to question it, things get nasty. Question everything, that's my philosophy.
In sum, I agree for the most part with your notions of the terms proof and evidence. I don't really get your idea of justified belief though.
"1c. Some people use "justification" for belief in such a way that only what is very nearly certain and only via a narrow version of evidence counts as justified. On this kind of usage, not much in the sciences is justified."
What use is this as a standard if science isn't justified? Science is our best tool to understand the natural world, as well as the most strict in standards of evidence.
I am interested in what standard you use to prove the existence of "God" though. I'm assuming you don't settle for the Intelligent Design argument.
December 14, 2009 at 2:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momoffour says...
I didn't have a problem with the Skeptic's sign. "Be good for goodness sake" is a line from one of my favorite Christmas songs as a child. It is also something my mother has said to me over the years, whether I was going outside to play, or moving halfway across the continent. I do have a problem with the publicity the theft of the sign has created and that makes me skeptical as to who the thief was!
I do try to be good for goodness sake, and to me, God is goodness! I won't apologize for my belief or my faith. I have never seen God, but I feel His presence in my life daily.
I would rather live my life believing in God and His goodness, than to live as if there is no god and die and find out there is.
Merry Christmas!
December 14, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Digsy,
Thanks for sharing your personal info.
December 14, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Digsy,
Let me clarify my earlier number. The 71% refers to the amount that voted for the MO Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
A quick google indicates that 92% of Americans believe in God.
December 14, 2009 at 9:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
DCarr1,
You mentioned that you believe that Jesus was a person but not the Son of God. If you don't mind me asking, what evidence are you using that Jesus existed as a person?
Thanks.
December 14, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
My mistake, only 71% of the MO population is bigoted enough to force their views on a non-violent group of people.
If jesus did exist, then at least one the 40 or so scholars and poets of the time should have heard of him and written about this man who boasted to be the son of god. Who, after making water into wine, throwing people around, raising people from the dead, someone must have at least heard of him and written down one of the amazing stories. Not the case. Outside the bible there is NO EVIDENCE that jesus ever lived. The only writer from the time to mention the idea of a savior made a loose reference to a messiah, but no one in specific.
December 14, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
I have no facts to back this up but I wonder how much history is taken as fact based on one artifact? If you applied the same standards the you put on the Bible to other books, manuscripts, etc. we would have to delete a lot of history.
Well, my belief that a marriage is between a man and a woman is not based on whether the group is violent. I think it should a the right of every state to decide this issue.
From wikipedia:
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
A prejudice is a preconceived belief, opinion, or judgment toward a group of people or a single person because of race, social class, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, age, disability, political beliefs , religion, line of work or other personal characteristics. It also means a priori beliefs (without knowledge of the facts) and includes "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence.
You probably won't recognize this argument but I'm not limiting my argument to gay people. Of course, I realize that straight people probably wouldn't want to marry someone from the same sex, but I'm sure someone would want t do it.
December 14, 2009 at 10:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Digsy says...
Your logic perplexes me.
December 14, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Digsy,
Wonder how you're FORCED to use a church for a wedding? Can you provide me any evidence where you, or anyone else, had their arm twisted or forced at gunpoint to have your wedding in a church or other religious facility?
I didn't attribute that "quote" to you...just mentioning that it's been said, and was talking to you. Sorry if that offended your delicate sensitivities.
It would appear to me that the atheists/agnostics/skeptics in these posts are looking more and more intolerant...
December 14, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
Digsy -
Sometimes we are not listening in the right place, sometimes our timetables are not God's timetables.
Keep an open mind and keep listening. :-)
December 14, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
wow. the comments here also perplex me. I like how a lot of the people on this post who have declared themselves to belive in god are going to extreme lengths to twist words of the skeptics into "name calling".
December 14, 2009 at 11:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Just for the record, I never accused any of the skeptics of "name calling" but they HAVE made the point they feel religious accounts of faith and beliefs are "absurd". It's also been stated that "faith is irrational". Both statements are intolerant of those who do believe. I don't see me subjecting the atheists, agnostics, or skeptics to such labels....
December 14, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
suzyQ says...
"ordained aethiest minister"
On whose authority?
December 14, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
I never said that you did mm1967 did though.
I think you are protesting a little too much. I've already said that I think you have been very reasonable in your views here. So I don't understand why you are going to such lengths to pick a fight now. Especially when dcarr1 has gone out the way to try to further explain what the intent was of the comments that you found so offensive.
So to clear the air for you here is what dcarr1 was refering to in the first place: Rabble_Rouser made a post in response to one of mine equating faith in the supernatural to faith in common place events:
"As I said "Their actions may indicate they love you but how do you know for sure." Are you a mind reader? Do you think Jose and Kitty Menendez thought their children loved them? Im sure they had evidence they could see, hear, touch, etc. that made them think they loved them."
Then dcarr1 responded:
"Do I really need faith to expect the people that I care about not to change over night into monsters? Your being dishonest if you continue to make such absurd accounts of faith."
If you read through the comments in the order they were made I know you will see this.
December 14, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
Dcarr1,
1a. "dogma," "faith," "creed" whatever. You seem to accept my claim that they exist in both theistic and atheistic forms.
1b. In general, I find Christians no less open to questioning their faith than atheists. I've been asked to speak across the country and around the world by Christians wanting to query their faith. I teach at one of the largest Christian universities in the world and I find students eager to learn.
2. "What use is this as a standard if science isn't justified?" That's my whole point: none. So we should drop the certainty standard based on deductive logic and instead use the actual standards of good science: inference to the best explanation (and, as I see it, the explication of it in terms of probability theory, Bayes's Theorem in particular).
3a. I am too experienced at this sort of discussion to let you turn it around on me. You are the one that has the burden of proof, not me. Theists stand with Aristotle, Plato, Anselm, Maimonides, Al Gazali, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Pascal, Locke, Berkely, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Newton, Jefferson, Einstein, and most people in the world. Now we'd need to narrow things down a bit to get a specific religion, but that's Stage 2. The fact is that these are the greatest minds of philosophy and science--the list was just off the top of my head--and they all agree that atheism is bunk. They all affirm the existence of something more than Nature (Spinoza and Einstein seems to be panentheists, but the point still holds). This is an *amazingly* diverse group of people holding little else in common. That there is a God is, in fact, one of the few things upon which they agree! The fact is that most people who are most knowledgeable in BOTH religion and science are theists (John Polkinhorne is a preeminent example, so is his colleague Alistair McGrath (they've both given Dawkins a well-deserved pounding)).
December 14, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
3b. And it's not use at all protesting this as an argument from authority, for you yourself believe 99% of everything you do believe on the basis of authority. You haven't done the scientific experiments yourself and you probably couldn't put together a decent argument for common ancestry (it's actually quite complicated, though I endeavor to do it in a forthcoming book). We *all* depend on a community for our knowledge. *None* of us do all the labor ourselves. So if you want to disagree with those guys, then you go ahead and make your case. There is no comparable atheistic list (and don't cry about history books and winners: there are deists on that list and deists were *more* despised than atheists). You have Lucretius maybe, perhaps Hobbes, then mostly poets like Shelley before Freud (who knew next to nothing about religion). So, no, we don't decide truth by popular vote, but we lead most of our lives by expert testimony. Think of it this way: Suppose someone says "There is no Saturn." If they mean the *god* Saturn, then they do not bear the burden of proof because nobody thinks there is such a god. But if they mean Saturn the planet, then their *denial* of existence *does* bear the burden of proof because it is the consensus of relevant experts do believe in the planet. You said above, I think, that you go with the consensus of relevant experts. So do I (when there's no proper conspiracy theory) and the consensus of experts is in when it comes to science and religion: There is a God. If you demur from the consensus, let's see your arguments.
December 14, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
No28301016 says...
Let's pause for a minute and give some credit to Alonzo who can draw more people into a conversation than all the others at the Press. Let's now combine a couple of those conversations, school and religion. "Can a school teach religion rationally?" Egan has stated that rational arguments usually don't persuade religious people; otherwise, there wouldn't be religious people. I don't quite agree after reading about a very rational scientist, Kurt Wise who "volunteers that even if all the evidence in the universe flatly contradicted scripture, and even if he had reached the point of admitting this to himself, he would still take his stand on scripture and deny the evidence".
Within the process of learning, parents, childhood indoctrination, schools are all involved: Can we teach kids rationally about religion? Si, teach religion by giving honest answers to our children.
"Skepticism is related to the question of whether certain knowledge is possible. Skeptics argue that the belief in something does not necessarily justify an assertion of knowledge of it."
Rather than beating that wiki quote to death with a stick, let's think about giving honest answers to our children or the future may be very dark indeed.
December 14, 2009 at 1:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
For those who would like to see some good sources making the case that that a personal supernatural being is the best explanation for the existence and nature of the world, here are some good ones written by some friends of mine. I'm not a big fan of the Discovery Institute, but the author is good. To read about the second author see this link: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~orie0087/ He's probably the most well-educated man I know.
http://www.discovery.org/a/91
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth09...
Here's the other guy I mentioned who is one of the most well-qualified to speak on this subject.
December 14, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AnnieS,
I'm only protesting about the terms used to describe faith. "Absurd" and "irrational" are personal opinions, and they certainly wouldn't like it if I used the same terms to describe THEIR beliefs. Also, I'm trying very hard to make it clear how intolerant they really are....and all the while they insist their group is all-inclusive, open-minded and they're willing to discuss ANY viewpoint. I'm trying to show that's really not the case....
Other than that, I agree with you...I think I've been VERY reasonable. However, just because they don't respond in those negative ways directly to me doesn't mean their responses don't affect me, or my beliefs. If they're really going to be tolerant, they shouldn't use such intolerant references to other people's faith expressions.
December 14, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
Digsy's comments on the historical Jesus are absurd. No serious scholar doubts it, it's silly to even talk about it. When I was studying Classics at Mizzou, if someone had suggested that Jesus never existed they'd have been laughed out of the room. How this stuff gets perpetuated is beyond me.
Still, because people still can't get over it, my friend Gary Habermas has written a number of books on the subject showing what nonsense claims of the form Digsy makes are.
December 14, 2009 at 1:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
It's finally out the skeptics are gay. 92% of Americans believe in GOD, 71% of Missourians are against gay marriage. The majority rules so you lose. I agree with mm you have had your five minutes and to me that's five to many. The only reason you placed the sign and it looks to me as you are the ones that took it, is to get you further exposure. If you choose to not believe in GOD or choose to be gay keep it to yourself. It's time to celebrate the holidays so Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to the believers.
December 14, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
Pops, shoot me an email. I've got the same username as my name here @Baylor.edu. You've shown remarkable patience at responding to some seriously bad arguments that don't even get off the ground, I'd like to know more about you.
Cheers.
December 14, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
wow, Trent, Actually there are a lot of sources that doubt the existence of Jesus as a man.
Anyway here's my list: Einstein (yes he was agnostic), Darwin, Brahams, Susan Anthony, Marie Curie, Fredrick Douglass, David Hume, Nietzsche, Carl Sagen, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger...the list goes on and on.
December 14, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AnnieS,
Funny thing....they're ALL avowed atheists, agnostics and non-believers. They have a vested interest in spreading the word that Jesus didn't exist.
With many of them, and many today, they wouldn't believe even if you had newspaper articles from that time frame...or TV footage of His activities, or cell phone records, or internet access records. Even if someone came up with a birth certificate or a Social Security number of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, they wouldn't believe. Unfortunately, none of those things existed in those days.
Here's an idea....I accept the existance of Jesus Christ, based on what historical data DOES exist, and on the Bible. Mostly, though I accept His existance by faith. Can you tell me what proof you have He did NOT exist? I'd submit your NON-BELIEF is based solely on faith!!
December 14, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Pops
+1
December 14, 2009 at 2:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
um, yes, that was the point, here is Trent's list:
"Theists stand with Aristotle, Plato, Anselm, Maimonides, Al Gazali, Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Pascal, Locke, Berkely, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Newton, Jefferson, Einstein, and most people in the world. Now we'd need to narrow things down a bit to get a specific religion, but that's Stage 2. The fact is that these are the greatest minds of philosophy and science--the list was just off the top of my head--and they all agree that atheism is bunk. They all affirm the existence of something more than Nature (Spinoza and Einstein seems to be panentheists, but the point still holds).
Here is my list:
Einstein (yes he was agnostic), Darwin, Brahams, Susan Anthony, Marie Curie, Fredrick Douglass, David Hume, Nietzsche, Carl Sagen, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Margaret Sanger... All of These people felt that atheism (using what ever terms that used to define a lack of belief in the supernatural) was NOT bunk. One could also argue that Jefferson could go on this list as well because of the Jefferson bible.
December 14, 2009 at 3:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Don't care....bottom line, not one person on your list can prove, definitively, that Jesus did NOT exist. The absence of evidence FOR His existance is not evidence of His NON-EXISTANCE. Both sides MUST accept their beliefs by faith. THAT is my point.
December 14, 2009 at 3:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Dude says...
I can't trace my family tree back 200 years that doesn't mean they didn't exist.
December 14, 2009 at 4:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
If were going to get into semantics, I will throw my two cents in. Not believing in something based on lack of evidence doesn't require faith. I'm getting a little tired of the word "faith" being thrown around as a catch all, and as a way to discredit those of us who rely on facts before believing in anything.
By definition an atheist does not have a belief in gods. Therefore, my lack of belief does not equate to a belief in lack of belief. (Confusing enough?)
Further, according to the Encarta Dictonary "faith" is defined as:
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
2. religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. trust in god: belief in and devotion to God
4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something
According to the definition of "faith", no, I do not have to have faith in my lack of belief. I may be able to apply the word "faith" to other areas of my life, like my irrational belief that my cat loves me and not just the fact that I feed him, but not my lack of faith.
December 14, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
AnnieS,
I, too, grow tired of explaining this. Without concrete evidence to PROVE something, one MUST accept, or not accept, based on....FAITH!! Atheists have FAITH that God does not exist...that the Bible is false, and that there is no heaven or hell. They have no proof to discredit ANY of those beliefs....only their own belief system. Without concrete PROOF...and you don't have to like the word...THEY LIVE BY FAITH!! As far as I'm concerned, they're no better than the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, etc. that they disparage for having faith.
As for your cat...you have NO idea whether your favorite feline "loves" you. Not unless you have a way to read animal emotions. You may "interpret" actions, outward appearances, etc. and CALL it love, but certainly, you can't prove that.
In conclusion, I'd encourage you to re-read your own definition...items 1, 4 and 5. Those directly apply to atheists, agnostics and skeptics.
December 14, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
pops,
The point you make about the cat is Exactly the same as what I said.
Now, I am not going to go on about this anymore, this is my last word on the subject. I am mearly trying to point out that you are using the word faith out of context here. You say that everyone lives by faith, which implies that skeptics are faithful to their lack of beliefs, which just sounds silly to me. NOT believing in something is not in itself a "belief system".
You also seem to imply that skeptics have the burden of proof, instead of those that believe in a religion. I assure you it is not my job to discount every belief in the world. Do You care to discredit the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I don't think so.
December 14, 2009 at 5:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
I disagree, AnnieS....it's the skeptics, atheists and agnostics that have made the claim "there is no god". It was the skeptics, locally, who insist that my beliefs are "absurd" and "irrational". I have no beef with them....and as far as I'm concerned, they have every right to their beliefs/non-beliefs. I haven't said one word about my feelings toward their "belief system"....and that's EXACTLY what it is, regardless how you feel about it!
Why can't you see that definitions 1, 4 and 5 apply just as much to those who don't believe in a god as it does to those who do?
What interests me is how the local skeptics society have indicated their meetings are open to all, and that everyone's beliefs are welcome....when it's been very clearly shown, just in these threads, that isn't the case. I'm SURE, were I, or some other Christian to attend their meeting, and express our opinions, we'd be told our beliefs are "absurd" and "irrational"....just as we have been HERE.
The non-believer arguments in this thread are self-serving and illogical.
As for attempting to disprove someone else's beliefs, whether it's the Speghetti Monster or Pink Unicorn...I don't do that. It's no up to me to attempt to disprove someone else's beliefs. If you wish to believe in those things, that's your business. As a Christian, I share my beliefs. They're either accepted or not. I don't care. It's not up to me. I'm not responsible for what other people believe. My responsibility is between me and God, and I'm to share my faith, openly, with others. If they choose not to believe, that, too, is between them and God.
December 14, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
Well pops, I disagree that's my personal opinion. I can guarantee you that if you show up at a meeting you will be welcomed as a guest. I'm not sure what you're envisioning happening but I can assure you you will be treated with respect.
What interests ME is that you have taken the words of a couple of people here and used them (however justified or not) to claim that we are all "self-serving", "illogical", and liars.
What makes your name calling different from that which you have claimed others on this site have done?
December 14, 2009 at 7:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Where did I say anyone was a "liar"? As for the terms "self-serving" and "illogical", those aren't really "name-calling", at least not in my opinion. I'm also not saying anyone has called ME a name. I merely objected to the terms "absurd" and "irrational" as it applies to my beliefs. I only applied similar, yet equally descriptive terms to those beliefs held by you and others. Guess you now know how I feel?
December 14, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
When you say I'd be treated with respect, does that include being told my beliefs are illogical and absurd?
December 14, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GrannyKK says...
Why is it ok? It's the truth.
Why do we "bear no burden". Because we know the truth.
"And the truth shall set you free."
"Cast all your burdens upon him for he cares (carries) for you."
December 15, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
LOD,
I've freely admitted that my beliefs are based on faith...not fact. Therefore, if the skeptics insist there is no god...as a fact, they must bear the burden of proof. Their alternative is to admit their beliefs are also faith-based.
I'd have thought someone with even a modicum of intelligence would see that....
December 15, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
out2hunt says...
The skeptics still have NOT answered one question. Why, when almost everybody knows Dec.25th is when Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, did they choose to put up a sign in a Christmas display? They beleive that Christ does not exist so why did they choose this time and place to put up a sign. And lets not get into santa and snowmen. That is part of the commercialization of Christmas AND they don't "not" beleive in Christ. You're out for attention and you got it. Problem is it's all bad attention. If you wanted to put up your sign at any other time or display except for Easter I would not care. Yes it is your constitutional rights. That does not make it right though. (In my opinion). The longer this goes on and the more attention you get over a stolen atheist sign in a Christian holiday display the more I agree with Alonzo. And I usually don't agree with him on much. At first, I thought it wasn't someone from your group, but now it is looking much more likely. Over 200 post and two newspress articles? Looks more like a well thought out plan.
December 15, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
out2hunt,
I will attempt to answer your questions. First it may be helpful if you go back and read the articles again. The reason the sign was placed in the Holiday Park is because Holiday Park is designed to celebrate all holidays at this time of year, christmas, and hanukkah, being the most prominent. Monday December 21st is the winter solstice which is celebrated by many people including some skeptics. (I actually know a lot of skeptics who still celebrate christmas on the 25th but without the religious connotations). And yes,holiday park is filled with the commercial aspects of christmas, which everyone, including skeptics love. Also some of the posts at the beginning of this thread go into the tradition of christmas as a pagen holiday that was celebrated in many cultures and religions before the advent of christianity. I hope this answers your question as to why the display was placed in holiday park. You may not like it, but those are the facts. Also, many similar groups around the country are doing the same thing for the same reasons. Here's an article from the Kansas City Star: http://www.kansascity.com/437/story/1...
And for those of you who have said that any other sign being stolen would not be cause for press coverage, here is the link for a story about an Olathe family having decorations stolen: http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaki...
they got just as much coverage as the skeptics sign has.
Also, I can't imagine that after paying the money it took to make the sign in the first place that anyone who chipped in would then steal it, requiring yet again more money for a new one to be made. (None of us are rich and we are a small group, and we still have presents to buy - solstice ones for those who celebrate the solstice and, ones to give on dec. 25th for our families who still celebrate christmas.) Also, why would anyone steal a sign in anticipation of the press coverage it will get? As far as I know skeptics are not psychic and cannot predict those types of things.
I'm just trying to answer your questions since you say no skeptic has yet to answer them.
Also if you read through this thread again (you may need a few hours) you will see that these questions have already been addressed. Happy Holidays : )
December 15, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
No28301016 says...
Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits. Dan Barker said that.
Jesus was probably a skeptical Jewish Alternative-Socialist authoritarian and Santa looks like a happy Chinese-style capitalist factory owner. Where are those Elves from anyway? I ask that.
Off to read the wizard michaelshermer.com and all the happy elves at skeptic.com
I'm looking for an animal that isn't Merry because it looks like the sun is coming back longer during the day, and especially a human animal that hasn't scribbled a Story around that winter solstice, that fact, that no one has a proprietary claim to.
December 15, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GrannyKK says...
Oh, wow......... interesting "stuff". OK, I've got a quesetion, if you don't believe in the birth of Jesus, are you working December 25th? If you're not working December 25th, tell Jesus thank you........ :-)
December 15, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
AnnieS,
You're kidding, right? I mean, this is a joke, isn't it? Please tell me, seriously, that you are not serious. ***facepalm***
http://www.amazon.com/Gary-R.-Haberma...
Pops,
No need for fideism my friend, the sources are on your side. The evidence is in. And it's in your camp. Use it.
December 15, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
The skeptics got what they wanted attention for the gays in town. Although i believe it is bad attention it did not help their cause. I agree with Alonzo they put up the sign to get attention and they stole it to get more attention. 71% of Missourians are against gay marriage it will not be legal nor should it be.
December 15, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
what is a joke trent?
December 15, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
terrebatu says...
The joke is on all of you. Cant you see you are all being played by the News Press? Doesn't anyone else see what is going on here?
Hey NEWS PRESS why don't you actually print some NEWS instead of this garbage? All they are doing is printing stories they know will generate traffic onto this website. This isn't news. How many stories are they going to print about this?
Creating tension and division is not a function of the press. You are supposed to EDUCATE and INFORM.
December 15, 2009 at 1:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rainy says...
Terrebatu, great post. I've thought that for awhile...yet I was sucked right in!
December 15, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
Trent, do you have any sources that are unbiased? I don't think Gary Habermas counts.
December 15, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
out2hunt says...
AnnieS - Sorry but I don't beleive it. You say Krug is decorated for many different holidays. I don't beleive that either. It is called holiday park for political correctness. You throw out all these other holidays from ancient times that nobody has ever heard of. Winter Solstice a holiday? Never heard it called a holiday before this blog. It is the start of winter - nothing more(in my mind). Maybe we can get Congress to call it a national holiday and I could get another day off. Krug park is decorated for Christmas. Do you truly beleive that it would be decorated if not for Christmas? Has the skeptic society ever posted a sign anywhere else? At any other time? No? They put it there for maximum exposure and they got it. There is nothing you or any other skeptic can say that will change my mind, or many others about why the sign was placed when and where it was. As for me, I will NOT be giving you anymore attention. Thats what you skeptics are after and I will not participate any more. IN MY OPINION there is alot of truth that is missing in your explanations. Sorry - just the way I feel.
December 15, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ufc08 says...
Thumbs up to out2hunt i couldn't have said it better.
December 15, 2009 at 3:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AnnieS says...
out2hunt,
I answered your questions, which is what you wanted. If you don't want to accept the facts and continue to live in your narrow version of the world you're free to do so.
If you don't want answers why did you ask in the first place?
And one more answer for you. The skeptic group is realtively new, it started mid December last year so this was the first opportunity to put up a sign. I'm not holding out hope for you to belive me. Don't ask me any more questions you don't really want to have answers for.
December 15, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
See, AnnieS...that's what we're talking about. You declare out2hunt has a "narrow view". That's merely YOUR opinion, but you make it a declaration. You also instruct out2hut to not ask questions he/she doesn't "really want answers for". What you, Mr. Carr, and others have very clearing indicated is that you intend to "put down" anyone who doesn't agree with you or who demonstrates/declares their faith. Someone even mentioned "faith is a cop-out".
You non-believers are FAR from tolerant.
December 15, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
out2hunt says...
My narrow veiw? Facts? HA HA HA. The group is a year old. And this is the first opportunity? What about the first day of spring? Summer? Fall? Your next "oportunity" going to be Easter? Come on - come clean. Maximum exposure and a statement. A Christian holiday and an anti Christian group puts up a sign and I'm suppose to beleive it's for winter solstice? Sorry - I can't and won't beleive that. I don't have a problem with your groups non beleif. To each his own - I can't change you and you can't change me. We are are own person. I do have a problem with society and certain sects trying to take Christ out of Christmas. And that is exactly what your group is trying to do. We are trying to be told by a very very small group that Christmas is not about Christ - it is a pagan holiday, winter solstice.....Bull! Why don't you accept these facts? Because they are my opinions? But yours are facts? Way too many holes - sorry. I'm not that gullible and neither are the majority of the people. I know the reason for the season!!! MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!
December 15, 2009 at 3:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
out2hunt:
'applauding loudly!!'
December 15, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Trent_Dougherty says...
AnnieS,
You continue to amaze me and so this will be the last time I will respond to you.
1. Your list is absurd in so many ways. I gave you a list of the greatest philosophers of history who all competently considered the question of God's existence. You gave me a motley crew--none of whom were competent to address the question: no historians and it's an historical question--consisting mostly of social reformers and malcontents including founder of Planned Parenthood, a genocidal maniac (that really qualifies you to make historical judgments)--and the list wasn't even accurate to begin with. It's embarrassing. It's honestly embarrassing. You are embarrassing yourself.
2. The notion of "bias" is a total red-herring and, indeed, incoherent. I cover this in the first week of my Freshman Intro to Philosophy classes. Consider. For any person P and theory T, P is either (i) a believer of T, (ii) a disbeliever of T, or (iii) agnostic about T. Now if (iii) then P cannot provide testimony either in support of T or against T. So if P is going to provide testimony concerning T, then P will satisfy either (i) or (ii). But if holding a position on the matter makes one "biased" in the sense of disqualifying their testimony, then if P satisfies either (i) or (ii) with respect to T then there is no possible circumstance in which any person P could provide support for any theory T. But that's absurd. And this easily generalizes for probabilistic cases.
The fact is that "bias" is a cop-out. Read the books, consider the evidence, give me a break. In fact, punting to "bias" to avoid arguments is known in logic texts as the "genetic fallacy" because it focuses on the *source* of the argument rather than the arguments themselves.
I'm out. Merry Christmas to all, and to all a goodnight! Farewell.
December 15, 2009 at 5:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
pops,
Maybe if you make general claims about the intolerance of all skeptics one more time it will come true.
December 15, 2009 at 11:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
Trent,
Since everyone in the world(according to you) agrees with you, I guess there is no discussion to be had. Your much to scholarly for me, claiming that I could never understand what your attempting to write books about. I think your the smartest person in the whole world, well... maybe not the smartest. However, if you plug how elite and prestigious you are in all ways a little more, it will come true along with the claims of intolerance from pops. Didn't Jesus say something about being humble?
Is it my turn to start posting my academic transcript and brag about my GPA?
Concerning what you actually argue, rather than your reputation. You seem to have claimed many people that believed in a supernatural being for your side. However, I have read their positions on religion and you have accidentally 'I'm sure' forgotten to mention it.
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Two for god is nature, not more than nature but equivalent.
Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Pascal is really on your list. Anyone who has read Pascals Wager can reasonably say he was mistaken in his reasoning in regard to Christianity.- very sad argument
I believe if there is a God he values honestly more than fear. Pascal believed because he thought it was better than risking the chance that God doesn't exist. The obvious flaw being which God you decide to chose. If he followed his logic he must have believed in every religion that threatens with an eternity of suffering for simply not believing in it. An evil idea itself if I do say so myself.
To add to AnnieS's list,
Steven Pinker, Thomas Henry Huxley(My cats name), Ayn Rand, Bertrand Russell, Noam Chomsky(also known as the most quoted person alive, and argued as the most important intellectual alive by the New York Times), Francis Crick, Richard Feynman, Stephen Jay Gould, Ivan Pavlov, Carl Sagan, James D. Watson, Steven Weinberg, Stephen Hawking
Need we go on?
December 16, 2009 at 12:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
dcarr1 says...
I suppose much like Annies's list, these don't count for you, but you will have to take them anyway. Your claims of knowledge concern science, and therefore scientists count. Your going to tell me the the disproportion of Nobel winning laureates in science don't have a say on the existence of god?
I wash my hands of this weirdness.
Good Day Sir!
December 16, 2009 at 1:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
pops says...
Thing is Mr. Carr....you STARTED the weirdness with the sign. Although it is absolutely your right to place it, and make the statement, you have 11 other months of the year to post your sign in the park, without any reaction. Posting it during this season indicates two things:
1. You have little respect for people who believe in God and celebrate Christmas as the birth of Christ
2. You intended to create a stir
I've been thinking about posting a sign outside the door of the meeting room where the St. Joe Skeptic Society meets, on the evenings WHEN they meet, that reads "Bible Study".
December 16, 2009 at 7:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )