The right side of atheism

[Sky Dancer]

ligious thought and we (of the western world) tend to fall short in knowledge.

I like having an honest discussion of politics with people I disagree with. We often become close friends, not really moving in our views, but at least understanding each other better. Sometimes we even find common ground, accidentally. We cannot do that if we hold tight to stereotypes about each other.

Buddhist concepts, like karma, have worked their way into popular American life, but they often don't mean the same thing to a Buddhist that they do to a non-buddhist.

That they have.
Me a Christian and a Jew were talking about karma just the other day.
It has the makings of a good joke.
But we were just talking.[/QUOTE]

The best way to take the subject is lightly with love and humor.

 

[spectrumc01]

No, it wasn't. Would it shock you to know that more than one holiday can exist at the same time of year without being the same holiday? Christmas has been a celebration of Christ's birth since its creation by Pope Julius I in the 4th century. It didn't exist before that. The only relation it has to the Roman festival of Saturnalia is that Pope Julius I deliberately set its date (because the actual birthdate of Christ is unknown) in order to replace and abolish any residual celebration of Saturnalia, or winter solstice festivals, for that matter. Replacing something is not the same as having been that something, understand?

Well there seems to be a difference of opinion. That might be how the christians see it as working, but the pagans see it much different. Maybe it was because of the chritian persecution of the pagans that gives them a different opinion. When a large group of people try to wipe you out if you don't convert, you tend to think differently.
From our point of view it goes like this. As the Christians expanded their empire they encountered a large Pagan population and in their zeal to convert them they tried to completely destroy their culture. They failed. Not only did the Christians place all of their holidays on pagan festival days in hopes of assimulation into christianity, they did many other things. One of these was the placement of churches and monastaries on Pagan holy sites, that Pagans would later be forced to worship in. Not only would they be forced into worship, they were forced to build the church as well. If you go to Europe and look at the oldest churches you will see pagan symbols and mythological creatures in the stained glass. The Pagans put them in there so they could follow christian law (to save their lives) yet follow their own faith and worship in those buildings.

I'm sure you aren't taught that in Christian schools, I know, I had 12 years of Catholic schooling. History according to the Catholic Church and Christians in general are usually two totaly different things. There is what actually happened and there is the Christian interpetation of what happened. The latter usually makes the Christians look as good as possible and this is what they stick with.

WHAT pagans? You see any ancient Romans dancin' around here, Sparkles? I don't think so. And what a bunch of neo-primitive wannabes decide to pick up on from some half-assed TV special or whatever and celebrate interests me not at all.

And yeah, placing churches over the holy sites of previous religions would be how one REPLACES a religion, which I believe is what I said before. "Christmas was dated in order to REPLACE Saturnalia; it isn't a continuation of Saturnalia." Did you not get that previously?

I find it fascinating how repeating and expanding on what I said is supposed to somehow contradict what I said. English must not be your first language.

You illustrate my point perfectly : as stated above
"History according to the Catholic Church and Christians in general are usually two totaly different things. There is what actually happened and there is the Christian interpetation of what happened. The latter usually makes the Christians look as good as possible and this is what they stick with."

Trying to replace and actually succedeing in replacing are two totaly different things. If your replacement of the pagans and their festivals had truly worked I would not be here pointing out your historical inaccuracies. The fact that I am doing so proves you and your belif that replacement worked is absoulutely false.

Also I am right again: check the hard proof in the oldest of christian churches in Europe which carry Pagan symbols in their stained glass.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well there seems to be a difference of opinion. That might be how the christians see it as working, but the pagans see it much different. Maybe it was because of the chritian persecution of the pagans that gives them a different opinion. When a large group of people try to wipe you out if you don't convert, you tend to think differently.
From our point of view it goes like this. As the Christians expanded their empire they encountered a large Pagan population and in their zeal to convert them they tried to completely destroy their culture. They failed. Not only did the Christians place all of their holidays on pagan festival days in hopes of assimulation into christianity, they did many other things. One of these was the placement of churches and monastaries on Pagan holy sites, that Pagans would later be forced to worship in. Not only would they be forced into worship, they were forced to build the church as well. If you go to Europe and look at the oldest churches you will see pagan symbols and mythological creatures in the stained glass. The Pagans put them in there so they could follow christian law (to save their lives) yet follow their own faith and worship in those buildings.

I'm sure you aren't taught that in Christian schools, I know, I had 12 years of Catholic schooling. History according to the Catholic Church and Christians in general are usually two totaly different things. There is what actually happened and there is the Christian interpetation of what happened. The latter usually makes the Christians look as good as possible and this is what they stick with.

WHAT pagans? You see any ancient Romans dancin' around here, Sparkles? I don't think so. And what a bunch of neo-primitive wannabes decide to pick up on from some half-assed TV special or whatever and celebrate interests me not at all.

And yeah, placing churches over the holy sites of previous religions would be how one REPLACES a religion, which I believe is what I said before. "Christmas was dated in order to REPLACE Saturnalia; it isn't a continuation of Saturnalia." Did you not get that previously?

I find it fascinating how repeating and expanding on what I said is supposed to somehow contradict what I said. English must not be your first language.

You illustrate my point perfectly : as stated above
"History according to the Catholic Church and Christians in general are usually two totaly different things. There is what actually happened and there is the Christian interpetation of what happened. The latter usually makes the Christians look as good as possible and this is what they stick with."

Trying to replace and actually succedeing in replacing are two totaly different things. If your replacement of the pagans and their festivals had truly worked I would not be here pointing out your historical inaccuracies. The fact that I am doing so proves you and your belif that replacement worked is absoulutely false.

Also I am right again: check the hard proof in the oldest of christian churches in Europe which carry Pagan symbols in their stained glass.

Church History is one of the very few areas in which I can claim a wee bit of expertise. No honest Church historian, and most really are these days, makes any attempt to sugar coat or whitewash the corruption and excesses and wrong choices of the Church through the millenia. ("Church" in this context means ALL of Christianity and ALL of Christianity was not guilty of those excesses. The uncommendable stuff did happen nevertheless, most especially during the medieval period and up through the Renaissance when Monarchs teamed up with a corrupt Papacy and even when the first Christians arrived in America, they were not at all religiously tolerant. There have always been reformers in the background and around the perimeters, however, and the more level heads and those convicted by the message of Christ eventually won out almost everywhere.

As in all things, ALL the members of a group are not necessarily guilty of what some members of a group are guilty.

Cecile is absolutely correct that Christian festivals sometimes REPLACED the pagan festivals. Except for the converted Jews for the first 300 years of the Church, almost all of the new Christians were of course converted pagans and it seemed natural to replace their traditions with Christian ones at around the same time the pagan festivals had been celebrated.

Once Emperor Constantine (4th Century BC) adopted Chrsitianity as his own faith and ordered it to be the preferred and favored religion in the Roman Empire, Christianity began seriously replacing paganism as the norm until paganism was scarcely noticable any more. Paganism and Judaism and other ancient traditions were never outlawed, but were strongly outnumbered throughout the Empire by those who considered themselves Christian.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Atheism is based upon a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities. Nature simply exists.

The church teaches a contempt for earthly life and that to reach some imagined "heaven" is the main goal of life.

Atheists assert that man develops his mind and emotions, will, and conscience, and puts meaning and purpose into life. He does not closet himself in solitary prayer and dream of death as a door opening unto eternal bliss. He lives a full social life and is inspired by progressive ideals; he is concerned with the problems and joys of life, not death. He is deeply involved with shaping his life as a useful member of society and contributing what he can to its progress.

The ultimate object of the believer is to furnish evidence of the existence of "God." He lays great stress on moral questions, but the morality he preaches is one of meek submission, of passive acceptance, and thus, of justification of existing social evils. This morality substitutes prayer and appeals for divine assistance for struggle and protest against social injustice. The entire philosophy is contrived, with deliberateness, to bolster the status quo.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The history of atheism, depending on how one defines the term, can be dated to as early as the 6th century BC, or as recently as the late 18th century AD. The word atheism itself was not coined until the 16th century.

The earliest possible examples of atheism involve Eastern religions such as Jainism, Buddhism and Taoism, which do not include a deity.
History of Atheism - Conservapedia

 

[spectrumc01]

WHAT pagans? You see any ancient Romans dancin' around here, Sparkles? I don't think so. And what a bunch of neo-primitive wannabes decide to pick up on from some half-assed TV special or whatever and celebrate interests me not at all.

And yeah, placing churches over the holy sites of previous religions would be how one REPLACES a religion, which I believe is what I said before. "Christmas was dated in order to REPLACE Saturnalia; it isn't a continuation of Saturnalia." Did you not get that previously?

I find it fascinating how repeating and expanding on what I said is supposed to somehow contradict what I said. English must not be your first language.

You illustrate my point perfectly : as stated above
"History according to the Catholic Church and Christians in general are usually two totaly different things. There is what actually happened and there is the Christian interpetation of what happened. The latter usually makes the Christians look as good as possible and this is what they stick with."

Trying to replace and actually succedeing in replacing are two totaly different things. If your replacement of the pagans and their festivals had truly worked I would not be here pointing out your historical inaccuracies. The fact that I am doing so proves you and your belif that replacement worked is absoulutely false.

Also I am right again: check the hard proof in the oldest of christian churches in Europe which carry Pagan symbols in their stained glass.

Church History is one of the very few areas in which I can claim a wee bit of expertise. No honest Church historian, and most really are these days, makes any attempt to sugar coat or whitewash the corruption and excesses and wrong choices of the Church through the millenia. ("Church" in this context means ALL of Christianity and ALL of Christianity was not guilty of those excesses. The uncommendable stuff did happen nevertheless, most especially during the medieval period and up through the Renaissance when Monarchs teamed up with a corrupt Papacy and even when the first Christians arrived in America, they were not at all religiously tolerant. There have always been reformers in the background and around the perimeters, however, and the more level heads and those convicted by the message of Christ eventually won out almost everywhere.

As in all things, ALL the members of a group are not necessarily guilty of what some members of a group are guilty.

Cecile is absolutely correct that Christian festivals sometimes REPLACED the pagan festivals. Except for the converted Jews for the first 300 years of the Church, almost all of the new Christians were of course converted pagans and it seemed natural to replace their traditions with Christian ones at around the same time the pagan festivals had been celebrated.

Once Emperor Constantine (4th Century BC) adopted Chrsitianity as his own faith and ordered it to be the preferred and favored religion in the Roman Empire, Christianity began seriously replacing paganism as the norm until paganism was scarcely noticable any more. Paganism and Judaism and other ancient traditions were never outlawed, but were strongly outnumbered throughout the Empire by those who considered themselves Christian.

Simply put : the winner writes the history. Facts mean nothing to them.

Imagine what history would have been written had the Nazi's won? (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point)

 

[Sky Dancer]

The Christmas tradition was influenced by the pagan holiday Solstice. The return to the light. December 25th was the date of the winter solstice in the calendar Julius Caesar devised for Rome in 46BC. Today the winter solstice usually occurs on December 21st.

The pagans celebrated the winter solstice as the Unconquered Sun. After this day, the Sun would begin to stay in the sky longer each day, and there would be less cold, and less night; the Sun would win the battle of night and day. There would be feasts, evergreens would be brought into the house to be decorated and lighted with candles to pay tribute to the Sun.

Prior to the fourth century, Christ’s birth had been associated with Three King’s Day on January 6. But the pagans and the newly converted were being a major problem to the church because they were still celebrating the Unconquered Sun. Nothing the church did or said made a difference; the winter solstice was just too important a festival.

What the Christians did in this dilemma, was execute a move seen over and over in history. If you can’t defeat them, and refuse to join them, at least make it appear that you defeated them. Sometime between AD 354 and 360 a few decades after Emperor Constantine’s conversion to Christianity, the celebration of Christmas was shifted to the day of the Unconquered Sun. But the tradition of the Sun god lived on a long time.

Both the Sun worshipers and the Christians saw the solstice/birthday as a transition from darkness to light. Christ conquered the darkness, as did the Sun. Since the theme was similar, the traditions of one blended well with the other.

People have still carried over these traditions, though their earlier pagan roots have mostly long been forgotten. "Christmas" trees are still brought into the house. Colored lights and candles light the darkness. The Yule Log is lit.

In some Christian churches, on Christmas eve, the electric lights are dimmed. In the semi- darkness, the Christmas story is told, and near the end, a single candle is lit. It signifies the movement out of the darkness.
Astronomy and Earth Science: Winter solstice and Christmas

 

[Foxfyre]

You illustrate my point perfectly : as stated above
"History according to the Catholic Church and Christians in general are usually two totaly different things. There is what actually happened and there is the Christian interpetation of what happened. The latter usually makes the Christians look as good as possible and this is what they stick with."

Trying to replace and actually succedeing in replacing are two totaly different things. If your replacement of the pagans and their festivals had truly worked I would not be here pointing out your historical inaccuracies. The fact that I am doing so proves you and your belif that replacement worked is absoulutely false.

Also I am right again: check the hard proof in the oldest of christian churches in Europe which carry Pagan symbols in their stained glass.

Church History is one of the very few areas in which I can claim a wee bit of expertise. No honest Church historian, and most really are these days, makes any attempt to sugar coat or whitewash the corruption and excesses and wrong choices of the Church through the millenia. ("Church" in this context means ALL of Christianity and ALL of Christianity was not guilty of those excesses. The uncommendable stuff did happen nevertheless, most especially during the medieval period and up through the Renaissance when Monarchs teamed up with a corrupt Papacy and even when the first Christians arrived in America, they were not at all religiously tolerant. There have always been reformers in the background and around the perimeters, however, and the more level heads and those convicted by the message of Christ eventually won out almost everywhere.

As in all things, ALL the members of a group are not necessarily guilty of what some members of a group are guilty.

Cecile is absolutely correct that Christian festivals sometimes REPLACED the pagan festivals. Except for the converted Jews for the first 300 years of the Church, almost all of the new Christians were of course converted pagans and it seemed natural to replace their traditions with Christian ones at around the same time the pagan festivals had been celebrated.

Once Emperor Constantine (4th Century BC) adopted Chrsitianity as his own faith and ordered it to be the preferred and favored religion in the Roman Empire, Christianity began seriously replacing paganism as the norm until paganism was scarcely noticable any more. Paganism and Judaism and other ancient traditions were never outlawed, but were strongly outnumbered throughout the Empire by those who considered themselves Christian.

Simply put : the winner writes the history. Facts mean nothing to them.

Imagine what history would have been written had the Nazi's won? (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point)

If that was the case we wouldn't know about all the excesses, the corrupt Papacy of the Medieval period, the corruption when the Monarchy teamed up with the Church, or the Crusades or the Inquisition or the sometimes manipulative stupidity of Church policy would we? But we do know about these things and honest teachers of Church history, of which I like to think am one, teach it right along with the advancement in Christian thought and practice. History is what it is. And the anti-Christians don't get to rewrite it to suit themselves any more than honest Church historians do.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Porphyry was a 3rd century philosopher who wrote a critique of Christianity, one apparently so incisive that Christian apologists were never able to adequately answer it. So after Christians gained control of the Roman government in the 4th century, they destroyed all copies of Porphyry's book--plus all copies of the apologists who had quoted Porphyry extensively in trying to refute his arguments.
The Murder and Resurrection of Paganism

 

[spectrumc01]

Church History is one of the very few areas in which I can claim a wee bit of expertise. No honest Church historian, and most really are these days, makes any attempt to sugar coat or whitewash the corruption and excesses and wrong choices of the Church through the millenia. ("Church" in this context means ALL of Christianity and ALL of Christianity was not guilty of those excesses. The uncommendable stuff did happen nevertheless, most especially during the medieval period and up through the Renaissance when Monarchs teamed up with a corrupt Papacy and even when the first Christians arrived in America, they were not at all religiously tolerant. There have always been reformers in the background and around the perimeters, however, and the more level heads and those convicted by the message of Christ eventually won out almost everywhere.

As in all things, ALL the members of a group are not necessarily guilty of what some members of a group are guilty.

Cecile is absolutely correct that Christian festivals sometimes REPLACED the pagan festivals. Except for the converted Jews for the first 300 years of the Church, almost all of the new Christians were of course converted pagans and it seemed natural to replace their traditions with Christian ones at around the same time the pagan festivals had been celebrated.

Once Emperor Constantine (4th Century BC) adopted Chrsitianity as his own faith and ordered it to be the preferred and favored religion in the Roman Empire, Christianity began seriously replacing paganism as the norm until paganism was scarcely noticable any more. Paganism and Judaism and other ancient traditions were never outlawed, but were strongly outnumbered throughout the Empire by those who considered themselves Christian.

Simply put : the winner writes the history. Facts mean nothing to them.

Imagine what history would have been written had the Nazi's won? (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point)

If that was the case we wouldn't know about all the excesses, the corrupt Papacy of the Medieval period, the corruption when the Monarchy teamed up with the Church, or the Crusades or the Inquisition or the sometimes manipulative stupidity of Church policy would we? But we do know about these things and honest teachers of Church history, of which I like to think am one, teach it right along with the advancement in Christian thought and practice. History is what it is. And the anti-Christians don't get to rewrite it to suit themselves any more than honest Church historians do.

I agree with you pure history is just that pure history. In order to completely rewrite history and get it to stick the genocide must be complete. Weather it is racial or religious genocide it must be complete, the inquisition was not complete, the crusades were not complete, and the final solution was not complete. (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point). Some of the American indians take on the role of victims as do some of the pagans, as do some of the Jews. This is how the other side gets to voice their side of history. I feel the victims side gets a significant slant as well. In order to preserve pure history the opposite view must be pointed out, Cecile tried to cite her opinion as an absolute fact, and it was not. In doing so she tried to devalue another religion and as I have stated in other posts of hers she gives Christians a bad name when doing such things.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I object to the practice of referring to atheists as "anti-christian". Atheism is a materialist philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but natural phenomena. There are no supernatural forces or entities. Nature simply exists. No target of opposing christians in the definition. Atheists oppose religion. They seek to be free of it.

It does seem that Christians stand in opposition to atheism. They are not alone.

 

[Sky Dancer]

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity. It is this which drives us to try and discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which man should not wish to learn."

— St. Augustine (354 - 430), one of the "great" church fathers, Confessions

 

[Sky Dancer]

"We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides."

— St. Ignatius Loyola, 1491 – 1556

 

[Sky Dancer]

"I do further promise and declare, that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do and to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither sex, age nor condition and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants' heads against the wall, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race."

— Pope Paul III, 1576

 

[Foxfyre]

Simply put : the winner writes the history. Facts mean nothing to them.

Imagine what history would have been written had the Nazi's won? (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point)

If that was the case we wouldn't know about all the excesses, the corrupt Papacy of the Medieval period, the corruption when the Monarchy teamed up with the Church, or the Crusades or the Inquisition or the sometimes manipulative stupidity of Church policy would we? But we do know about these things and honest teachers of Church history, of which I like to think am one, teach it right along with the advancement in Christian thought and practice. History is what it is. And the anti-Christians don't get to rewrite it to suit themselves any more than honest Church historians do.

I agree with you pure history is just that pure history. In order to completely rewrite history and get it to stick the genocide must be complete. Weather it is racial or religious genocide it must be complete, the inquisition was not complete, the crusades were not complete, and the final solution was not complete. (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point). Some of the American indians take on the role of victims as do some of the pagans, as do some of the Jews. This is how the other side gets to voice their side of history. I feel the victims side gets a significant slant as well. In order to preserve pure history the opposite view must be pointed out, Cecile tried to cite her opinion as an absolute fact, and it was not. In doing so she tried to devalue another religion and as I have stated in other posts of hers she gives Christians a bad name when doing such things.

Except that Cecile was correct. The Christian festivals WERE NOT a CONTINUATION of the pagan festivals. They replaced the pagan festivals with Christian festivals. That is a fact that I am quite confident in stating as fact. It does not demean pagans in any way shape or form to state an accurate fact of history any more than it demeans Christians to state an accurate fact of history. Christianity largely replaced paganism throughout the Roman Empire. That is a fact. That they accommodated the traditions and customs of the former pagans is not the same thing as continuing the traditions and customs of paganism.

 

[spectrumc01]

If that was the case we wouldn't know about all the excesses, the corrupt Papacy of the Medieval period, the corruption when the Monarchy teamed up with the Church, or the Crusades or the Inquisition or the sometimes manipulative stupidity of Church policy would we? But we do know about these things and honest teachers of Church history, of which I like to think am one, teach it right along with the advancement in Christian thought and practice. History is what it is. And the anti-Christians don't get to rewrite it to suit themselves any more than honest Church historians do.

I agree with you pure history is just that pure history. In order to completely rewrite history and get it to stick the genocide must be complete. Weather it is racial or religious genocide it must be complete, the inquisition was not complete, the crusades were not complete, and the final solution was not complete. (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point). Some of the American indians take on the role of victims as do some of the pagans, as do some of the Jews. This is how the other side gets to voice their side of history. I feel the victims side gets a significant slant as well. In order to preserve pure history the opposite view must be pointed out, Cecile tried to cite her opinion as an absolute fact, and it was not. In doing so she tried to devalue another religion and as I have stated in other posts of hers she gives Christians a bad name when doing such things.

Except that Cecile was correct. The Christian festivals WERE NOT a CONTINUATION of the pagan festivals. They replaced the pagan festivals with Christian festivals. That is a fact that I am quite confident in stating as fact. It does not demean pagans in any way shape or form to state an accurate fact of history any more than it demeans Christians to state an accurate fact of history. Christianity largely replaced paganism throughout the Roman Empire. That is a fact. That they accommodated the traditions and customs of the former pagans is not the same thing as continuing the traditions and customs of paganism.

Except the festivals were not replaced but merged as Christmas is not a completely christian festival nor is it a completly pagan festival. A perfect example of the merging principal is Hatti and the practice of Voodoo. Replacing and merging are different.

 

[Foxfyre]

I agree with you pure history is just that pure history. In order to completely rewrite history and get it to stick the genocide must be complete. Weather it is racial or religious genocide it must be complete, the inquisition was not complete, the crusades were not complete, and the final solution was not complete. (not comparing Nazi's to christians, just illustrating a point). Some of the American indians take on the role of victims as do some of the pagans, as do some of the Jews. This is how the other side gets to voice their side of history. I feel the victims side gets a significant slant as well. In order to preserve pure history the opposite view must be pointed out, Cecile tried to cite her opinion as an absolute fact, and it was not. In doing so she tried to devalue another religion and as I have stated in other posts of hers she gives Christians a bad name when doing such things.

Except that Cecile was correct. The Christian festivals WERE NOT a CONTINUATION of the pagan festivals. They replaced the pagan festivals with Christian festivals. That is a fact that I am quite confident in stating as fact. It does not demean pagans in any way shape or form to state an accurate fact of history any more than it demeans Christians to state an accurate fact of history. Christianity largely replaced paganism throughout the Roman Empire. That is a fact. That they accommodated the traditions and customs of the former pagans is not the same thing as continuing the traditions and customs of paganism.

Except the festivals were not replaced but merged as Christmas is not a completely christian festival nor is it a completly pagan festival. A perfect example of the merging principal is Hatti and the practice of Voodoo. Replacing and merging are different.

I know that is a popular theory of non-Christians and what you find a lot of written by non-Christians on the internet, most especially those who wish to discredit and/or demean Christianity, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that. In my opinion there was no 'merge' if you read the commentary on the major Councils and the writings of the early Church fathers as well as non-Christian historians of those early centuries. The Church leaders were meticulous in distancing themselves from the pagan religions which is why they REPLACED so many of the pagan festivals with Christian ones so that new converts would not be tempted to return to their old ways.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm completely enjoying this discussion of the right side of atheism. Atheism gets a lot of things right.

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

— Benjamin Franklin

 

[Sky Dancer]

Many fight against atheism. . .what we need is to do battle with the false faith inside each of us.

Notice what pleasure we derive in criticizing our opponent, even an ideological one.

My wish, my sense, is that we solve our own internal problems first in order to be able to truly benefit the world. Leave the atheists alone.

 

[alan1]

I'm completely enjoying this discussion of the right side of atheism. Atheism gets a lot of things right.

"Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

— Benjamin Franklin

Thanks Sky.
I've been enjoying reading what other people have to say.