Atheist Fundamentalists

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I
I don't see the need for Xmas if people associate it with Christmas. Certainly the notion of it as a handy abbreviation or relating to Greek doesn't stand up. It seems quite clear to me that it's an attempt to secularise a Christian tradition.

There's a conspiracy theory forum for that sort of nonsense.

The use of Xmas comes down to laziness, and it has since it was first abbreviated by the Greeks. The same way you use "don't" instead of "do not" in your post.

Fanny Cradock

Sean_K wrote: »

There's a conspiracy theory forum for that sort of nonsense.

The use of Xmas comes down to laziness, and it has since it was first abbreviated by the Greeks. The same way you use "don't" instead of "do not" in your post.

Nonsense, eh?

Verb contractions are generally considered an acceptable use of English. In the case of my 'don't' it makes a sentence less formal. It has nothing to do with my unwillingness to type an extra character onto the screen.

Rev Hellfire

Sean_K wrote: »

The same way you use "don't" instead of "do not" in your post.

Thats because he's part of a conspiracy 2 shrtn englsh wrds. dnt u knw !

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Nonsense, eh?
It has nothing to do with my unwillingness to type an extra character onto the screen.

Well you can rest assured that for myself and, I would think, the majority of non-Christians (or would that be Xtians...), our unwillingness to type a few letters does not amount to a secret plot to secularize xmas.


Just laziness

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It seems quite clear to me that it's an attempt to secularise a Christian tradition.

Your fellow (better informed) Christians disagree.
http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html

Xmas has been used as an abbreviation for Christmas since the 15th century. And we all know that those 15th century people were all about secularisation :rolleyes:

People who actually want to secularise holidays of this time use "Happy holidays" or some other phrase.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Your fellow (better informed) Christians disagree.
http://www.crivoice.org/symbols/xmasorigin.html

Xmas has been used as an abbreviation for Christmas since the 15th century. And we all know that those 15th century people were all about secularisation :rolleyes:

People who actually want to secularise holidays of this time use "Happy holidays" or some other phrase.

Well done, you found a Christian who doesn't agree with me (and who is stating something I am already aware of). Case closed. If someone could prove to me that when people refer to Xmas they are aware of its Greek origins, I will drop the claims that Xmas is but one attempt to secularise Christmas.

Dades

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If someone could prove to me that when people refer to Xmas they are aware of its Greek origins, I will drop the claims that Xmas is but one attempt to secularise Christmas.

OR you could prove it's an attempt at secularisation - instead of what every secular-minded non-believer here seems to think - that it's just an abbreviation.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well done, you found a Christian who doesn't agree with me (and who is stating something I am already aware of). Case closed. If someone could prove to me that when people refer to Xmas they are aware of its Greek origins, I will drop the claims that Xmas is but one attempt to secularise Christmas.

Or (and this is just an idea) you could actually demonstrate evidence for the assertion you keep putting forward, rather than just saying that it is "clear" to you.

bleg

i think religious people should be prevented from celebrating the new year, it is a secular festival after all

Zillah

bleg wrote: »

i think religious people should be prevented from celebrating the new year, it is a secular festival after all

Actually, they're welcome to celebrate it, they're just not allowed have any other festivals on the same day. We own it.

daveharnett

bleg wrote: »

i think religious people should be prevented from celebrating the new year, it is a secular festival after all

Woah! New Year's is celebrating the arrival of the year 2008 Anno Domini! The use of the bastard term "AD" is an attempt by athiest fundamentalists to secularise this christian holiday.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

daveharnett wrote: »

Woah! New Year's is celebrating the arrival of the year 2008 Anno Domini! The use of the bastard term "AD" is an attempt by athiest fundamentalists to secularise this christian holiday.

No, it's celebrating the year 2008CE....duh!:p

pH

Another example of aggressive atheist fundamentalists who are against Christmas, Christians and crosses - and in the run up to Christmas too. Once again I'm shocked.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Sport/?id=1.0.1656550388

The fact that the Fenerbahce shirt had a star and crescent emblem isn't included in the complaint to UEFA, proving once again that us atheist fundamentalists only hate Christians.
http://www.subsidesports.com/uk/store/product_details.jsp?pid=144115188075864488&portal=af

Zillah

That last post confuses me deeply.

Ciaran500

pH wrote: »

Another example of aggressive atheist fundamentalists who are against Christmas, Christians and crosses - and in the run up to Christmas too. Once again I'm shocked.

They're not atheists

Ivan

pH wrote: »

Another example of aggressive atheist fundamentalists who are against Christmas, Christians and crosses - and in the run up to Christmas too. Once again I'm shocked.

http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Sport/?id=1.0.1656550388

The fact that the Fenerbahce shirt had a star and crescent emblem isn't included in the complaint to UEFA, proving once again that us atheist fundamentalists only hate Christians.
http://www.subsidesports.com/uk/store/product_details.jsp?pid=144115188075864488&portal=af

Uhmmm... correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to be coming from Islamic Fundamentalists...

And secondly, its a football team with a cross as a symbol. Religion shouldnt even enter into it, except for the problem that ye all seem to be completely mad.

Good luck with that.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

Ivan wrote: »

Uhmmm... correct me if I am wrong, but that seems to be coming from Islamic Fundamentalists...

And secondly, its a football team with a cross as a symbol. Religion shouldnt even enter into it, except for the problem that ye all seem to be completely mad.

Good luck with that.

I may be wrong but I think the poster was being deliberately ironic.

Zillah

Either way, could one not argue that a red cross on a white background is to Turks as the swastika is to the Jews?

There's certainly a greater period of time since the crusades but they were truly horrible.

pH

Zillah wrote: »

Either way, could one not argue that a red cross on a white background is to Turks as the swastika is to the Jews?

There's certainly a greater period of time since the crusades but they were truly horrible.

St George's cross:


Red Cross:


Oh and have a look at the flag of Milan (this was Inter Milan, playing at home in Milan)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Milan

As for the confusion, I thought we'd established from the OP and through various arguments brought forth by Fanny and the like that attempt to ask Christians to tone down their public displays of symbols and rituals is a result of aggressive atheist fundamentalist militants, all religions get on together in perfect harmony and would never criticise each other for their symbols or rituals? So how could this be anything else than an example of the aggressive secular agenda again?

oh and every Alfa Romeo sold is a slap in the face to a Muslim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_Romeo

Dades

Ivan wrote: »

And secondly, its a football team with a cross as a symbol. Religion shouldnt even enter into it, except for the problem that ye all seem to be completely mad.

Indeed.
We Muslim fundamentalists should really stop creating a fuss.

eoin5

Beware, these crosses and symbols are powerful Sigil Magick.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

Either way, could one not argue that a red cross on a white background is to Turks as the swastika is to the Jews?

Don't get me started on people being offended by swastikas and calling for them to be removed from things. The swastika was a symbol for thousands of years before Hitler came along, it was a major symbol in Indian and European culture.

http://pd-theeastlondonlocal.blogspot.com/2007/11/swastika-bag.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Abroad/0,,2-1225-1243_2187873,00.html

Zillah

Wicknight wrote: »

Don't get me started on people being offended by swastikas and calling for them to be removed from things. The swastika was a symbol for thousands of years before Hitler came along, it was a major symbol in Indian and European culture.

http://pd-theeastlondonlocal.blogspot.com/2007/11/swastika-bag.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/Entertainment/Abroad/0,,2-1225-1243_2187873,00.html

I'm well aware of that. However, its history does not negate the fact that it is now a symbol of overwhelming murder and despotism to millions of people.

Don't get me wrong, I think a person should be able to walk down the street with a swashtika on their car roof if they like. I was just wondering how much of the protest on the Turkish things was on libertarian grounds and how much was due to the fact that it was Muslims against a Christian symbol.

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

I'm well aware of that. However, its history does not negate the fact that it is now a symbol of overwhelming murder and despotism to millions of people.

It's history does negate though the idea that when ever it is used it must be referencing the holocaust.

TBH it reminds me of the man in Washington who was reprimanded (revoked swiftly afterwards) for using the word "niggardly" in front of a black woman.

"N1gger" is certainly a racial slur word. That doesn't mean that the word niggardly shouldn't be used because it is associated (incorrectly, due to it similar sound) with racism and slavery.

Same again with the terminology "Master/Slave" used in computer hard drives that was recently caused controversy in California where a public official said it was an inappropriate terminology to use because of the history of slavery in the US.

I have no problem with "Political Correctness" when it is going after genuine ignorance and racism. My problem is when people, due to ignorance, believe something that simply isn't the case.

Zillah wrote: »

I was just wondering how much of the protest on the Turkish things was on libertarian grounds and how much was due to the fact that it was Muslims against a Christian symbol.

Well I don't know the details too much, but again it seems to be a nonsense association, complaining about the red cross because it kinda looks like the red cross of England which hundreds of years ago was used during the Crusades that sort of had a negative effect on Turkey.

Its stretching to find something to be offended by TBH.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote: »

Well I don't know the details too much, but again it seems to be a nonsense association, complaining about the red cross because it kinda looks like the red cross of England which hundreds of years ago was used during the Crusades that sort of had a negative effect on Turkey.

To be fair, the Crusades were absolutely a good thing for Turkey. The Byzantine Empire never entirely recovered from its conquest and dismemberment by the 4th Crusade, making it a lot easier for the Ottomans to snap it up bit by bit.

cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Here's another article from the London Times a couple of days ago from a clergyman.

Beware the dark side of the new moral consensus

Far worse than the threat from international terrorism is the aggressive process of secularisation that has gripped our country, and most of Europe, and which is becoming ever more frenzied.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3211588.ece

Far worse than international terrorism? Gay rights, control of our own reproductive systems and separation of church and state are worse than crashing airliners into buildings and kidnapping people and beheading them?

FFS.

Dades

Thank you pH for ruining my morning!!

This is atheism by decree, for the only perspective from which one can teach about all religions is the secular perspective. So our children are not brought to a sense of holiness and awe, but are merely taught the meanings of religious terms as sociological descriptions. This deprivation of the spiritual is a form of child abuse

Another ten thousand spoons, right there.

The Rev Dr Peter Mullen is chaplain to the Stock Exchange

LOL! A den of ethics if ever there was one!

CerebralCortex

By the universe, he has a low opinion of peoples nature. Especially the smart people like us atheists