If you don't believe in Jesus Christ, do you still celebrate Christmas?

[leung1245]

Every Christian has their own opinions about Christmas because there are so many denominations and each church teaches different things about Christmas. My perspective is that I do NOT believe that Jesus was born on Dec 25 because it's in the history books that the Catholics made that day Christmas in accordance with a pagan sun god's birthday. Christmas tree has pagan history and connotations to it so I discourage using a tree, and I'm not really into decorating my apartment. But I do believe in giving away gifts because that is my way of showing my love to all the people that's close to me and that's dear to me. So basically, I only do the gift sharing, and nothing else really..

[JediJohnnie]

Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore,I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants to supply cause for a few posts.It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....

[falcon9]

**[/color]Yes, a D&D topic can be sparky and heated over view points, but when view points are not acknowledge right off at the start, but instead shut down because you always consider others' views as baseless, unsupported, circular, etc., they aren't being given fair opportunity to stand by their reasons, whether they make sense or not.  Why debate then, because you've closed them out.)

And yet, numerous posts exist which have the content of debating/challenging several different points of view.  Therefore, these viewpoints were not "shut-down", they were addressed and challenged.  Challenging assertions is consistent with the process of debate.


 

(You think it's a privilege to constantly badger others by not returning the favor of courteousness of respect for their opinions/beliefs/views? 

Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion.  There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied).

Debating is usually of differing views, but not constantly using the same words over and over and over to others because you deem any of theirs unsupported, baseless, specious, including not providing factual info for an opinion

What, you want more synonyms used when refuting the same points, (which often use the same words as well)?  There is no requirement in teh process of debate to use different words to make the same point.  I don't "deem" unsupported opinions as being unsupported when there is some substantiation for them.  

You are acting like it's your right to control these debates because your views are always accurate and correct and therefore there's no reason to tolerate anyone else who doesn't agree.) **

Your assessment is in error since I cannot control the content of what others post.  Neither have I overtly claimed that my views are "always accurate and correct", (although I do endeaver to achieve accuracy, unlike many of my opponents).  Nothing was stated about 'tolerating' opposing points of view except by you.  Are you implying that any point of view, (such as support of cannabilism, for instance), needs to be "tolerated"?


[/quote]
"A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk! ** [/quote]


That's what is states, alright.  Is any part of that unclear to you?

[falcon9]

Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore ...

I realize that it is largely a waste of effort to once again reiterate that "Falconeer02" and "falcon9" are two distinct FC members however, it would be refreshing were you to ignore what you cannot cognizantly reply to - that's your choice of course.

I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants ...

Speaking of "arrogant rants", I can't say as I've missed your xtian fanaticisms.  I just figured you'd been busy lately.

It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....
 

This was ironically-funny in that you've previously made it apparent that you are uninterested in reasonable conversation, ("enlightment" being a forlorn hope in your instance for that reason).

[jcribb16]

**[/color]Yes, a D&D topic can be sparky and heated over view points, but when view points are not acknowledge right off at the start, but instead shut down because you always consider others' views as baseless, unsupported, circular, etc., they aren't being given fair opportunity to stand by their reasons, whether they make sense or not.  Why debate then, because you've closed them out.)

And yet, numerous posts exist which have the content of debating/challenging several different points of view.  Therefore, these viewpoints were not "shut-down", they were addressed and challenged.  Challenging assertions is consistent with the process of debate.


 

(You think it's a privilege to constantly badger others by not returning the favor of courteousness of respect for their opinions/beliefs/views? 

Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion.  There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied).

Debating is usually of differing views, but not constantly using the same words over and over and over to others because you deem any of theirs unsupported, baseless, specious, including not providing factual info for an opinion

What, you want more synonyms used when refuting the same points, (which often use the same words as well)?  There is no requirement in teh process of debate to use different words to make the same point.  I don't "deem" unsupported opinions as being unsupported when there is some substantiation for them.  

You are acting like it's your right to control these debates because your views are always accurate and correct and therefore there's no reason to tolerate anyone else who doesn't agree.) **

Your assessment is in error since I cannot control the content of what others post.  Neither have I overtly claimed that my views are "always accurate and correct", (although I do endeaver to achieve accuracy, unlike many of my opponents).  Nothing was stated about 'tolerating' opposing points of view except by you.  Are you implying that any point of view, (such as support of cannabilism, for instance), needs to be "tolerated"?

"A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk! ** [/quote]


That's what is states, alright.  Is any part of that unclear to you?
[/quote]
That's why I put the red ** beside and behind it to draw your attention back up to the section also marked with red ** to make a certain point.  "Was any part of that unclear to you?"

This comment you made:
"Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion.  There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied)." is exactly what I am speaking of in your attitude towards anyone who makes any kind of statement or answering the poster who posted the question, when it doesn't pass your approval of correctness.

Your idea of "challenge" is to use your ever-circular words of baseless, unsupported, specious, among others.  Perhaps you could start providing information why you think your ideas are supported or factual - which at times you do; ask the others if they could provide info about their view, or whether or not it's a personal opinion; provide info back to them that either refutes theirs, supports yours, or makes you stop and think for a moment.  When posters are "challenged" at the start with your same words, things become offense/defense, with agitating starting, and nothing can come of that or make any sense. 

[Falconer02]

Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore,I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants to supply cause for a few posts.It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....

How can one expect to have an enlightening conversation with a Jedi who cowardly runs from arguments or just posts uneducated lies and then folds their arms like they've made a point? You constantly do this. Grow up.

[falcon9]

"A place to have political, religious, and other divisive discussions. Enter at your own risk!" **

That's what is states, alright.  Is any part of that unclear to you? [/quote]


That's why I put the red ** beside and behind it to draw your attention back up to the section also marked with red ** to make a certain point.  "Was any part of that unclear to you?" [/quote]



No, I speak and understand the English language.

This comment you made:
"Your characterization of challenging specious claims/assertions as 'badgering' is an unsupported opinion.  There is no requirement to "respect" a baseless opinion since the freedom to hold baseless opinions remains undiminished, (unless reason is applied)."

is exactly what I am speaking of in your attitude towards anyone who makes any kind of statement or answering the poster who posted the question, when it doesn't pass your approval of correctness.

No one is under any obligation to passively-accept specious assertions - especially in the D+D forum.  The ability to hold and post unsupported opinions remains unabated, regardless of any dissent to them.

Your idea of "challenge" is to use your ever-circular ...

Speaking of repeating the same "ever-circular", (e.g., responses which fail to address the context of the replies), your objection appears to be to the use of logic.  No "circular" uses of logic were employed; the same method of reasoning remained consistent however.  Your objection seems to be that when specious/unsupported/baseless/unsubstantiated assertions/claims are made, differnent refutations should be made, (because the poster of specious/unsupported/baseless/unsubstantiated comments should be 'allowed' to have them go unchallenged and not be required to back up anything they assert).

Perhaps you could start providing information why you think your ideas are supported or factual - which at times you do

Indeed, I have done so - thanks for noticing.

ask the others if they could provide info about their view, or whether or not it's a personal opinion; provide info back to them that either refutes theirs, supports yours, or makes you stop and think for a moment. 

I have done so and am often met with various forms of irrationality, ratehr than a reasoned response.  Were I to speculate the reason for that, I'd estimate that there either isn't a reasoned response, or that the poster is unable to provide one.

When posters are "challenged" at the start with your same words, things become offense/defense, with agitating starting, and nothing can come of that or make any sense. 

As you no doubt may recall, 95% of my challenges begin with a response to a claim/assertion made and a request for supporting evidence, (if any).  If the assertion ends up being an empty opinion, (e.g., one without substantive basis), then I consider the matter settled.  The holders of the empty opinions often do not consider the matetr settled and begin making false accusations, specious subjective perceptions and other irrational behaviours.  I understand this to be a common occurance, (hence my forum signature).

[falcon9]

Personally,as tempted as I am to put Falcon & Falcon Jr on ignore,I realize they too serve a purpose.If I'm ever having trouble finding something to post about,I can always count on one of their arrogant rants to supply cause for a few posts.It's not that I expect that I can have an enlightened conversation with them,of course.Like others have learned,that ship sailed loooong ago.....

How can one expect to have an enlightening conversation with a Jedi who cowardly runs from arguments or just posts uneducated lies and then folds their arms like they've made a point? You constantly do this. Grow up.

According to his self-declaration, that would be something along the lines of "jedi for jesus".  There is little liklihood of such fundamentalism changing in the near future.  "Enlightment" will forever evade such a closed mind.

[Falconer02]

Yep.

[falcon9]

Yep.

You pagan, you. (was going to post "*bleep* Vikings!" ala Python at first and it ended being 'at second').

[queenofnines]

Gaahhh!  People, please learn to quote responsibily.  Not being able to distinguish your text from the quoted post, quoting huge and unecesssary chunks...are both no-no's when it comes to getting your point across in a clear and concise way.

If you don't know how to wade through the BB Code, then quote the old-fashioned way: good ol' copy 'n' paste and a pair of these ---> " "

Thanks!

[racer80cc]

Do those who do not believe in God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Bible still celebrate Christmas with gifts, decorations, and all of the festivities?  I'm sure they enjoy the day off with pay if they are blessed with a job that gives holiday pay!  It seems like a lot of money is spent and a lot of festivites enjoyed if the true reason for the celebration is omitted.
[/quote
***They say(historians) that Jesus was really born in the Spring months and since the Winter Saustice was at this time(dec 25) - they decided to celebrate it then! This was a Pagan fest so amybe giving gifts is ok then! I seem to know weird little stories seldom heard - watch a lot of PBC/National Geographic/Nature channel etc...
sorry!!!

[kgeneral55]

No you do not celebrate Christmas if you are not a Christian. Fact is Christian have no means to celebrate no holidays considering Jesus never promoted one nor did he urge anyone to name a religion after his name. I could explain all night but this site shall fair better....http://av1611.com/kjbp/ridiculous-kjv-bible-corrections/Christmas-Trees.html....Hope this isn't offense but its the truth.

[falcon9]

No you do not celebrate Christmas if you are not a Christian.

What, you're really a satanist if you're celebrating the mass, (death), of christ? 

[Brooke92]

For the most part even atheist celebrate christmas, because it's not really associated with god anymore and it wasn't really a holiday meant to celebrate jesus's birth anyway. Christmas was originally a pagan holiday called Yule.