And it is your prerogative to do precisely that...

But it is downright silly of you to expect Christians to abandon their foremost holy day (even more so than Easter), simply because pagans celebrate the very same day, albeit for a different reason; and because the latter began celebrating the day first.

Moreover, Christmas is Christians' "own celebration"; and that, irrespective of the date's coinciding with a pagan festival.

I don't consider Christmas a pagan belief or holiday.

Atheists in Seattle, WA have an organization where the city buses allow signs denouncing Christians.

I have never been to the Illinois Capital but a similiar incident happened last Christmas at our Capital in Olympia, WA.

Hateful bunch of people, they are.

__________________
"I will always lend a helping hand when asked".
-----------------------------------
My avatar is my youngest daughter!

I have found that the term "ideology" (or any varient thereof) is consistently used in a derogatory sense. (When, for instance, was the last time you described your own views as a matter of "ideology"?)

And if you seriously believe that a desire for common courtesy is badly "displaced" whenever it is attached to the use of a political forum, then we have very different views as regarding the proper relationship between political debate and civility.

It is certainly true that some (only a small minority, in my opinion) who are immersed in faith may may be deficient in reasoning skills; but it is also true that some anti-theists are far less than proficient in the matter of critical-thinking skills, also.

In other words, there is no evidence (to my knowledge, anyway) that faith and reason exist in inverse proportion to each other.

If "proselytising evangelicals" come knocking on your door, you certainly have every right to deny them entry. Problem solved.

But many (probably most) who engage in this sort of thing--as well as those who sponsor the billboards that apparently give you offense--are sincere Christians, who simply believe that they are (a) doing God's work; and (b) are potentially saving souls from an eternity of misery. And given this predicate, it is probably best for one not to respond in a churlish manner.

__________________
Farewell my beautiful Gracie Baby:
15th Jan 1997- 18 Jul 2009

Mak's Blog - Updated 12/3/10

They are not at all the same thing. Or even remotely similar.

Original Sin teaches that all humans are born into sin, and are therefore guilty of Eve's sin (yes, the doctrine treates Adam and Eve as real, historical figures), by way of inheritance. An unbaptized infant (ex hypothesi) is eternally doomed, should he or she die in this "sinful" state.

What the apostle Paul appears to teach, on the other hand, is that no human (other than Jesus) has ever led a life of absolute perfection, at every moment, and in every conceivable way. Which is a very long way from the doctrine of moral impurity, by way of inheritance (i.e. Original Sin).

Of course it doesn't.

But the wishes of the majority should generally be respected, in my opinion, just as long as those wishes do not intrude unreasonably upon the preferences of others.

Actually, the doctrine of Original Sin is accepted principally by (1) Catholics; and (2) Calvinists. (In fact, it is an indispensable part of five-point Calvinism.)

If you truly believe that all Christians who are neither Catholics nor Calvinists comprise an insignificant minority of Christians, you might find it useful to research the matter a bit...

False alternative.

There is no contradiction between the two statements, so far as I can see.

Jesus appears to be asserting that His followers shoud refrain from judging others promiscuously; but that they should judge in a "righteous" manner only.

You ASSume too much. You ASSumed everyone else should be as political correct as you, but you ASSumed wrong.

__________________
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts
"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
"Did you know that Republicans are stupid and evil?" -Bill O'Reilly, Feb 2010

My original statement on this matter (which you quoted) was as follows:

"You appear to be saying that the parents have a moral obligation to instill in their children the values that you cherish, rather than the values to which they adhere..."

You have just now declared that religion is "very destructive." Presumably, therefore, parents should not instill religious values in their own children, if I am reading you correctly.

Rather, parents should confine themselves to teaching their own children "certain values that most everyone can agree are positive"; and that "are not based in any religion and are not rigid moral systems."

Sounds to me like you believe that the State should decide what values children should have instilled in them, rather than their respective parents having that authority.

Sure sounds like typical tuquoque reasoning to me...

I teach children no such thing.

Well, the Merriam-Webster online dictionary offers "COURTESY" and "POLITENESS" (caps in original) as synonyms for "civility."

Would you say that the sign in question was polite and courteous to Christians and other theists?

This reads much more like a rant than like a dispassionate and analytical piece of reasoning.

And, as such, it advances my central thesis, viz., that those who defend this hate-filled sign tend to be shrill anti-theists, rather than benign atheists.

I am not in favor of the State deciding such matters. They are purely personal. All I am doing is suggesting that healthy morality is not rigid and is not based on beliefs which have no evidence behind them.


Yet mainstream Christianity teaches individuals(including vulnerable children) that they have a "sinful" nature, when this is not true. There is a clear scientific explanation which can clearly do away with the concept of sin. The concept of sin also unjustly instills, as mentioned earlier, fear of an imaginary place and unnecessary guilt into a child which they will grow up with.

Not necessarily, but nor are religious displays to atheists. I do not believe in being politically correct in many situations either.

Religion offends me because it promotes irrationality and has provoked countless acts of violence against innocent civilians. It also offends me because of the indoctrination of children into beliefs they cannot fathom at their age, yet they are pumped with it incessantly.

I am indeed opposed to personal religion. I am not hate-filled, but I certain am passionately against Christianity and Islam. While I do respect the followers of every faith, I do not agree with the faiths themselves.

__________________
Support the secularization of America, join Americans for a Secular Nation.

and I agree, I'm just making the point I have every right to celebrate the way I choose just as any christian does...

we've been persecuted and killed by christians for centuries so sad for you if you're unable to tolerate our standing up for ourselves, we'll be bullied no longer...