Why are Atheist angry at believes?

Re: Re: Why are Atheist angry at believes?

Can't we all just get along? Really..

"Apparently the naivete of our Christian audience is inexhaustible."

You're not helping here. Be nice. Be fair. Be tolerant.

"When was the last time you saw a believer who understood and respected athiests?"

Nor here.

"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"

Or here.


-Who
 
Re: Re: Re: Why are Atheist angry at believes?

Whodini said:
Can't we all just get along? Really..

"Do you believe in Santa Claus?"
Actually, I thought this was a fair comparitive example, taking the context out of religion to a more neutral topic.
 
iankaplan said:
I am amazed at believers because they put fish on their cars without realizing it's an ancient pagan symbol for the vagina.

<sniff>

<sniff sniff>

I'm smelling something, and it sounds more like revisionist history than something that can be verified.

Can it be?
 
Hard to say.

A fable about some dork who got nailed to a stick and came back to life sounds a little revisionist, too.

If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs and trees withered by a word, and to coopt the holidays and holy places of their conquered victims, why not a little speculative history of the fish as a fertility symbol? Especially when fish do appear frequently in ancient religious symbols of various kinds.

After all, if it smells like a fish....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm
 
Apology

My comment about the fish symbol was merely unsubstantiated hearsay. "Someone once told me so" is about all I can say. I will try to refrain from such remarks in the future.
 
iankaplan said:
My comment about the fish symbol was merely unsubstantiated hearsay. "Someone once told me so" is about all I can say. I will try to refrain from such remarks in the future.

Thanks. No need to cut back on those sorts of things, just preface sharing them by noting it's anecdotal. I start of stuff I share with, "I saw this on TV once.." with no possible way to support it.

And Evildave, the fact that you turned my question around for yet another rabbit punch at the Christers smacks of exactly the same attitude the original poster was referring to.

Sorta...
 
Rabbit punch? Well, I don't mind taking the cheap shots here on occasion. It's recreational.
 
evildave said:
Hard to say.

A fable about some dork who got nailed to a stick and came back to life sounds a little revisionist, too.

If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs and trees withered by a word, and to coopt the holidays and holy places of their conquered victims, why not a little speculative history of the fish as a fertility symbol? Especially when fish do appear frequently in ancient religious symbols of various kinds.

After all, if it smells like a fish....

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_symb.htm
"dork who got nailed to a stick"... come on evildave. I believe the politically correct term to use is "tacked up on a 't'".
 
evildave said:




If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs and trees withered by a word, and to coopt the holidays and holy places of their conquered victims, why not a little speculative history of the fish as a fertility symbol? Especially when fish do appear frequently in ancient religious symbols of various kinds.

Well, if creators of Christian mythology are the kind of persons that you want to emulate, then feel free to do so.

But anyway, the argument on the web page is very weak and essentially it says "Pagans used fish. Christians used fish. Therefore, Christians copied fish from pagans." They quote B.G. Walker and write:
[Fish symbol] was so revered throughout the Roman empire that Christian authorities insisted on taking it over, with extensive revision of myths to deny its earlier female-genital meanings.
And what's the problem here, I hear you ask. Well, when Christians started to use fish as a recognition symbol, Christianity was a fringe cult and there weren't any "Christian authorities" at all. The fish was used already in the first century. Widespread Christian hijacking of pagan traditions began in the fourth century when the church got an official status. The Christians of the first century formed so miniscule proportion of the society that arguing that they were trying to eradicate the pagan meaning of the fish symbol sounds, well, quite fishy. And since none of the contemporary writers associate fertility rituals with early Christianity, I find it hard to believe that they would have used fish as a fertility symbol. I find independent creation much more proable hypothesis for the origins of the fish symbol.
 
LW, I have a thread in Banter about historical revisionism and one aspect I cover is feminist neo-paganism. This is exactly the sort of crap I was talking about.

The whole group A used rock as a building material, group B used rock as a building material, therefore group B stole rock as a building material from group A, just don't ask me to provide evidence to that fact - is the precisely the sort of creduloid action that skeptics should be fighting against...

...not embracing.
 
But after a fashion, much of archaeology and the anthropology based on it is speculation. We can come up with well documented cases for civilizations with a lot of surviving records. Egypt left a lot of stuff buried where wave upon wave of believers with hammers and matches didn't have access to it, so we discover they had a lot of gods, and even have information about what many of them were about. Other cultures which didn't have as many, or as durable records, we end up having to use records of other competing civilizations about, and get only the propaganda left over from the "winners" who survived, which are a touch biased.

For instance, just read up in the bible about the city states that were destroyed by God's holy rollers. Heathens and sinners and idolators to the last, and all killed for God's divine judgment, plan, chosen people, etc.

So, yes, the fish could be unrelated, and yes, the fish could be related. The evidence for womb/fish being 'the same word' (Delphos) in Greek (and Christianity has a lot of Greek influence), the presence of Greek gods and demigods predating the savior on a stick which have more or less the same story as him, the use of fish symbols in Roman pagan artifacts, and heavily used in Egyptian religion (which influenced the Greeks when they conquered Egypt 300 years before 'God Jr.') all of that (admittedly circumstantial) evidence could be totally unrelated to the 'fish' being adopted by Christians. Of course, all we have is "No it's not! How dare you even imply it?" as evidence from the Christians that the fish was uniquely and 'divinely' inspired to them.

Anyway, all comparisons between Christianity's symbols and other cults that used them provokes outrage, and really, provoking that sort of mindless outrage from an innocent little hypothesis is worth backing it up a little research to produce more comparisons, and it's unfortunate that so many sites don't cite where they did any of theirs, and yet more is in copyrighted/printed materials that are as yet still awkward or impossible to access on the internet.

It doesn't really matter where the fish they tacked on their car came from. (A plastic mold in a factory, actually.) It only matters that it is such fun mentioning it to them and comparing them.

Here are a few of the sites I visited with background info.
(Cool fishy amulet for Hathor)
http://www.duke.edu/~jls26/egypt.html
(The Greek Pantheon)
http://www.theoi.com/Pantheon.htm
(An interesting article about surviving documents)
http://scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/rule.html
(Alexander the great - on a free encyclopedia)
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
(The holy database of all known gods! But apparently, their (beta) search engine is broken....)
http://www.godchecker.com/database/all_egyptian_gods.html
 
Why I call myself an Anti-theist and I do many anti-theism not against God because the whole idea is a human creation and a stupid, hateful, destructive idea. Beyond useless it is useful best as a way to hold man back...I do hate religion and religious thinking ( I hate the sin not the sinner--ok if the sinner does a really bad sin (9/11)-- I hate them too)

Religion is bad. It is anti-freedom, institutionally established arrogance, anti-reason, anti-man, anti-reality. It is a tyrrany over the mind of man. It is opiate for the masses (thank you Jefferson and Marx). IT has stood in the way of human development to its full potential.
Religion has been used to hold power over people not to free them. It dictates submission to higher power...submission to tradition not what works best but maintaining the status quo--these are the ideals--not independence, liberty, free thought--ideas whose by products are all the greatness man has achieved. In feudal times miserable peasants were kept in line by the promise of an eternal salvation that the promiser never had to pay off--no religion and those lords and kings would have been replaced far sooner in order to allow equal freedom and the Dark Ages could have been a lot shorter...who knows what a few hundred years headstart might have done for us now....it is tillused to today to keep the gullible in line for those willing to exploit the frailty of human reason.
Religion supposes that the world exists as you believe instead of as it must be proven...it is the ultimate in arrogance to suppose that something is true just based on you believing it to be so. It claims to be about love but evidence shows it is used to hate and destroy the OTHER non-believer time and again. Any claims to be about loving your fellow man are over-ridden that there is something more important than man--God...and since his existence is only in the head of the believer this allows the critical thinking (or lack thereof0 for all immoral behavior from the "troubles" of Ireland and the middle East- thru all Islamic terrorism, Christian atrocities (withchhunts, crusades, Inquisitions, etc, etc,)

It is such an insidious, ingrained and devious institution that it has taken over the very language we speak creating doublespeak to propigate and promote itself (to have faith= good, to rationalize = bad???!)

I cannot be a man in favor of our best and look at people who support such a system and not be angry.
 
evildave said:

If it's OK for the religiously afflicted to make up elaborate tales of babies born of virgins and demons driven into pigs


Evil,

I don't know if you are aware of this, so I thought I'd pass this on in case you never heard it:

In 70 AD, the Romans sacked Jerusalem. The Roman Legion [Legion - about 2000 men] that was stationed in Jerusalem after the fall had as their symbol - represented on their Unit Flags - a pig!

Mark 5:9
And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

5:10
And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.

5:11
Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding.

5:12
And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.

5:13
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.


This is one of the things that let us know Mark was written after 70 AD.
 
It's an interesting interpretation, but I recommend you tell the Southern Baptist convention about it. They believe the bible is the literal word of god.

Like the Jesus fish discussions in other topics, there's no way to conclusively prove the Romans had anything to do with the demon story, and it should be pointed out that demons were universally thought to be literally real until recent centuries.

Your interpretation best supports the case for 'Jesus' being a symbol of some political trouble-makers. Sort of like the many other characters invented for other fictions to act out the political fantasies of the now long-anonymous writer, and of course, anything that would reflect that has got to be pure heresy.
 
triadboy
triadboy said:
In 70 AD, the Romans sacked Jerusalem. The Roman Legion [Legion - about 2000 men] that was stationed in Jerusalem after the fall had as their symbol - represented on their Unit Flags - a pig!
Where did you get that figure (2000 men)? Any sources?
At the time of the Judaean revolt, the Roman Army consisted of 28 legions spread across the Empire, together with auxiliary units. Each legion was composed of about 5,500 men, all professional soldiers who signed on for terms lasting 25 years.
source

Liam
 
"Religion is bad. It is anti-freedom,"

What about freedom of religion? You might not like believing, but not everyone is you.

You might have religion confused with politics. Tell me, how do you differentiate?

-Who
 
Well, some people mix religion in with their politics, and other people mix politics in with their religion.

Quite the mish-mash. Once someone's pissed in the lemonade, just how do you get it out?
 
Liamo said:

Where did you get that figure (2000 men)? Any sources?


I'm sorry, I mis-wrote that. The 10th Legion was reduced to about 2000 men after Masada. This would have been the Legion that Mark wrote about.


"By 70 AD the Roman forces had taken all of Israel. Jerusalem was once again conquered by a foreign army, and the Temple was destroyed. In the end, all that remained was the rag-tag garrison atop Masada. Nevertheless, the Romans were about to find that the last hold-outs were not going to go down without a fight.

On paper, the outcome of the struggle would normally have seemed relatively certain - the Roman Tenth Legion of nearly 15,000 experienced troops (see Roman Legions), against less than 1,000 Jews, many just ordinary people with no military experience.

It took the Romans almost two years to conquer Masada, at the cost of many casualties, ..."
 
Okay, you've scared him off, woodguard hasn't been seen for four days, well done lads.
 

Back
Top Bottom