| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dgillesp" |
| Date: |
22 Oct 2005 07:19:14 PM |
| Object: |
Atheist Holy Days? |
Therion Ware wrote:
On the auspictious date of Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:58:25 -0400, dgillesp
said unto the multitude in message-id <435AC411.20000532@nospam.net>:
The etymology of "holidays" is self-evident.... "holy days." Since
atheists don't consider anything or anyone to be "holy." E.g., no "holy
days" for the atheist.
In the UK statutory holidays are known as bank holidays - bank holy
days by the above - the idea of which I have to admit I find slightly
disquieting.
You might also consider the hushed and reverential atmosphere of the
typical bank. Frivolity and light-heartedness are normally quite out of
place. In lots of small communities here in the US, the only new,
prominent, imposing and temple-like building is the First National.
At a bank closing when we were buying a home, seated at the table were
bank officials (the priesthood), lawyers (the scribes), and realtors
(the elders). It was a most solemn occasion, which I attempted to
lighten with a little humor that was taken as an affront, a sort of
sacrilege, and met with obvious displeasure. We were given to
understand that we were signing our souls away and the gravity of what
we were about to do was not to be tempered by any lack of seriousness.
I thought to myself, "The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth
keep silence before him." (Hab. 2.20) In this case, 'twas The Almighty
Dollar.
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception.
He too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred
and exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
--
Denny
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 07:15:26 AM |
|
|
The etymology of "holidays" is self-evident.... "holy days." Since
atheists don't consider anything or anyone to be "holy." E.g., no "holy
days" for the atheist.
In the UK statutory holidays are known as bank holidays - bank holy
days by the above - the idea of which I have to admit I find slightly
disquieting.
You might also consider the hushed and reverential atmosphere of the
typical bank. Frivolity and light-heartedness are normally quite out of
place.
[snip]
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception.
He too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred
and exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
How does an ATM fit in? Do people, having typed in a prayer, receive
according to the whims of the Account Almighty?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
22 Oct 2005 09:07:10 PM |
|
|
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://www.nola.com/
"FEMA email warned of disaster"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5332250C
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 03:18:59 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
You single out those theists who say either explicitly or more often by
example, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." Theism in principle
opposes said obsession, but there are always those who succumb.
On the other hand, does secularism even in principle oppose the modern
obsession with Money, Sex and Power? If so, on what legitimate basis?
--
Denny
"There cannot be a God because, If there were one, I would
not believe that I were not He." - Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 07:09:49 PM |
|
|
In <435BF033.7BE0AB20@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no
exception. He too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern
man's 'sacred and exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
You single out those theists who say either explicitly or more often by
example, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." Theism in principle opposes
said obsession, but there are always those who succumb.
On the other hand, does secularism even in principle oppose the modern
obsession with Money, Sex and Power? If so, on what legitimate basis?
I'm not singling out anybody. I see no reason to buy that theists have any
motives other than what any and all other humans have. Their behavior
makes it quite clear they are as concerned--if not more so--about the
material world than those of us considered "materialists."
Even Barna, a Christian poll taker, who desperately has tried for years to
detect some difference between believers and their secular neighbors can't
find anything significant.
I find the claims of theism to be without merit across the board.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"We're angry, Mr. President, and we'll be angry long
after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have
been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing.
Many who could have been were not. That's to the
government's shame."
http://www.nola.com/
"FEMA email warned of disaster"
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C5332250C
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
24 Oct 2005 06:21:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:18:59 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
You single out those theists who say either explicitly or more often by
example, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." Theism in principle
opposes said obsession, but there are always those who succumb.
On the other hand, does secularism even in principle oppose the modern
obsession with Money, Sex and Power? If so, on what legitimate basis?
Is there any reason why it should? (other than to excess, which
applies to most things) Having power means you can get things done
(or prevent things being done) which is not a bad thing in itself
since things need to be done. Greed is taking more than your fair
share thus depriving others. Gates is the richest man in the world
though massively overcharging for his product but we choose to buy it
when their are (albeit inferior) products available so is he being
greedy? People who employ people at low rates of pay knowing that
these people need the work are being greedy if he pays himself
excessive profits. During the Industrial Revolution Bradford had
more millionaires per square mile than anywhere else on earth but
the majority lived in abject poverty working long hours in their
mills. They were mostly non-conformist Christians preaching the
virtues of work and poverty. Their friends (and often relatives)
preached that from the pulpit offering their reward in heaven. At
least secular materialism is a little bit more honest.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
24 Oct 2005 09:22:01 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:21:49 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:18:59 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
You single out those theists who say either explicitly or more often by
example, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." Theism in principle
opposes said obsession, but there are always those who succumb.
On the other hand, does secularism even in principle oppose the modern
obsession with Money, Sex and Power? If so, on what legitimate basis?
Is there any reason why it should? (other than to excess, which
applies to most things) Having power means you can get things done
(or prevent things being done) which is not a bad thing in itself
since things need to be done. Greed is taking more than your fair
share thus depriving others. Gates is the richest man in the world
though massively overcharging for his product but we choose to buy it
when their are (albeit inferior) products available so is he being
greedy? People who employ people at low rates of pay knowing that
these people need the work are being greedy if he pays himself
excessive profits. During the Industrial Revolution Bradford had
more millionaires per square mile than anywhere else on earth but
the majority lived in abject poverty working long hours in their
mills. They were mostly non-conformist Christians preaching the
virtues of work and poverty. Their friends (and often relatives)
preached that from the pulpit offering their reward in heaven. At
least secular materialism is a little bit more honest.
Materialism is hardly a nonreligous trait. For one thing it's one of
the big rewards supposedly promised in heaven.
If Denny is asking whether the nonreligous think that power, sex and
greed is bad, you can only generalize to the point that humans in
general have morality.
Morality is based on our caring about others. We care about others
because we are a social animal. Greed and power are bad to the extent
that they affect negatively those you care about which varies.
Some people only care about their immediate family which appears to
be the libertarian group. Some people only care about those people
they personally know. Some people care about people in their greater
group - their country which appears to be the conservative group.
Some people only care about everyone in the human race. Some people
care about all living beings.
Sex is only bad in the way it negatively affects those groups and how.
Nobody sane thinks that sex is always bad, or that group would have
died off long ago.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
24 Oct 2005 11:07:15 AM |
|
|
On 24 Oct 2005 09:22:01 -0500, (Kate ) wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:21:49 +0100, Les Hellawell
<myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:18:59 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
You single out those theists who say either explicitly or more often by
example, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." Theism in principle
opposes said obsession, but there are always those who succumb.
On the other hand, does secularism even in principle oppose the modern
obsession with Money, Sex and Power? If so, on what legitimate basis?
Is there any reason why it should? (other than to excess, which
applies to most things) Having power means you can get things done
(or prevent things being done) which is not a bad thing in itself
since things need to be done. Greed is taking more than your fair
share thus depriving others. Gates is the richest man in the world
though massively overcharging for his product but we choose to buy it
when their are (albeit inferior) products available so is he being
greedy? People who employ people at low rates of pay knowing that
these people need the work are being greedy if he pays himself
excessive profits. During the Industrial Revolution Bradford had
more millionaires per square mile than anywhere else on earth but
the majority lived in abject poverty working long hours in their
mills. They were mostly non-conformist Christians preaching the
virtues of work and poverty. Their friends (and often relatives)
preached that from the pulpit offering their reward in heaven. At
least secular materialism is a little bit more honest.
Materialism is hardly a nonreligous trait. For one thing it's one of
the big rewards supposedly promised in heaven.
If Denny is asking whether the nonreligous think that power, sex and
greed is bad, you can only generalize to the point that humans in
general have morality.
Morality is based on our caring about others. We care about others
because we are a social animal. Greed and power are bad to the extent
that they affect negatively those you care about which varies.
Some people only care about their immediate family which appears to
be the libertarian group. Some people only care about those people
they personally know. Some people care about people in their greater
group - their country which appears to be the conservative group.
Some people only care about everyone in the human race. Some people
care about all living beings.
Sex is only bad in the way it negatively affects those groups and how.
Nobody sane thinks that sex is always bad, or that group would have
died off long ago.
Yes I agree with you, morality is indeed about caring for other by
doing the things you like to do without adversly affecting others.
Obviously a little-give and take is needed at times and we usually
manage to work out unspoken ways of doing it. We wait our turn
patiently on a first come first served basis. No laws to enforce it,
we just do it. I would never seek to intefere in the lives of others
just as long as they adhere to this principle. We need morality in
order to live together as a society in peace. A truly moral society in
my view would be entirely self-regulating without any need of laws or
external force. Of course many people are not moral or do not act in a
moral way so we have to compromise and have laws with the legal
force to impose them.
As for caring for others my over riding principle is, 'to each
according to need, from each according to ability'. For this
we need governmenst to determine needs and how to finance
them collectively. Our overseas aid budget for instance is per
capita on a par with world averages per country and rising. We
pay our fair share according to what we can afford.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 08:50:02 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:18:59 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
"Mark K. Bilbo" wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
You single out those theists who say either explicitly or more often by
example, "Don't do as I do, but do as I say." Theism in principle
opposes said obsession, but there are always those who succumb.
On the other hand, does secularism even in principle oppose the modern
obsession with Money, Sex and Power? If so, on what legitimate basis?
That's kind of like asking if baldness recommends a barber.
Secularism isn't about morality, it isn't about anything except that
it defines that which does not have to do with religion.
Morals exist before religion. Morals are secular. Morals are
subjective and dependent on a goal.
Only religion is not secular.
Sorry.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 07:49:19 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:07:10 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
<snort>
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
To be fair she did not exclude Christians or people of other religions
from her curious notion.
So here is another who thinks people worship human desires
and aspirations as gods. I always thought religion was a
belief systems regarding supernatural gods that required worship
now it seems human desires and emotions are also to be
considered as gods around which to build a religion. Religion just
gets ever more wierd.
Everything becomes temples with priests it seems. They used to
say the same when early computers could only be operated by
trained experts and had to be in special rooms. I guess they
must also regard TV studios as religious buildings as well with
camera operators and lighting men as priests and accolytes
as servants of the entertainment god. What about Parliaments and
Senates with chairmen as head priest and Constitutions as holy
texts (must agree the USA Constitution does seem to be regarded
with awe and without error) or telephone and internet exchanges
where you also need experts trained to operate them. They even have
rooms to work in that you need secret passess to enter. There is
an entire skyscraper (not far from the ex WTD) in NY that has no
windows and is fortified against attack (AT&T IIRC). Is that also a
temple to the communications god? I understand that it also
houses the primary DNS database without which the web would
collapse)
It used to be just the devil and a god called God but now..
... where will this fantasy of theirs go next I wonder?The
mind boggles.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 04:01:43 PM |
|
|
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:07:10 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
To be fair she did not exclude Christians or people of other religions
from her curious notion.
So here is another who thinks people worship human desires
and aspirations as gods.
Isn't that what theists have been criticized for all along? Our desires
and need for an "Invisible Friend" and aspirations going beyond the
physical world. So how is this any different from human desires and
aspirations that are shackled to money, sex and power? Nietzsche
appears to suggest as much. "There cannot be a God because, If there
were one, I would not believe that I were not He."
Everything becomes temples with priests it seems.
Hardly everything, but on the other hand, it could be almost anything to
which we make the conscious or an unacknowledged first and foremost
priority in life. When enough people with the same ultimate priority
get together around their common obsession, an institutional form begins
to develop--a temple of sorts. But, of course, everyone who has a bank
account is hardly obsessed with financial affluence or security. Money,
power and sex are normal and legitimate human concerns. But watch out
when any one of them becomes the dominant force in an individual or a
society's life.
It used to be just the devil and a god called God but now..
Basically, it still is. It's just that we now see more clearly the big
picture and it includes everything.
--
Denny
"Have you noticed how theists can never, never, never be right about
anything at all on this NG? Talk about Fox being 'fair and balanced.'
Sheesh!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Josef Balluch" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 08:49:29 PM |
|
|
In a message sent 'round the world, dgillesp poured fuel on the fire
with the following:
....
Isn't that what theists have been criticized for all along? Our desires
and need for an "Invisible Friend" and aspirations going beyond the
physical world. So how is this any different from human desires and
aspirations that are shackled to money, sex and power?
So once again you dredge up the chant of "it's all relative".
Nietzsche
appears to suggest as much. "There cannot be a God because, If there
were one, I would not believe that I were not He."
Not even close. Nietzsche recognized that gods are a projection of the
power within man himself.
....
Money,
power and sex are normal and legitimate human concerns. But watch out
when any one of them becomes the dominant force in an individual or a
society's life.
And as the Dark Ages and the Taliban showed, watch out when religion
becomes the dominant force.
It used to be just the devil and a god called God but now..
Basically, it still is. It's just that we now see more clearly the big
picture and it includes everything.
< chuckle! > It's still the same, but it's different. That's deep,
Denny.
Regards,
Josef
"Faith" means not wanting to know what is true.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
02 Dec 2005 04:50:20 PM |
|
|
In article <435BFA37.38BFCBA@nospam.net>, dgillesp said...
Everything becomes temples with priests it seems.
Hardly everything, but on the other hand, it could be almost
anything to which we make the conscious or an unacknowledged
first and foremost priority in life.
You're relying on a foolish equivocation: the centrality of God
in a believer's life on the one hand, and the idea that by
definition something must be of highest priority in a
nonbeliever's life on the other. These are not in fact
equivalent phenomenon.
My cousin Joe is ga-ga about baseball. He has the SuperDuper
satellite sports package, and he has receivers and TVs placed
throughout his house (and one at his business, too) so he can
keep up with the games. When he's not working, he's likely
watching baseball, and when he's not doing either, he's probably
talking baseball with another fan.
Now, I have another cousin, Mary, who doesn't give a damn about
sports. But if you prod her, she will tell you which sport she
likes more than others: tennis.
Now, in your scheme, you'd insist that because Mary has a
"favorite" sport, her enthusiasm and devotion to that sport must
be on par with Joe's mania about baseball.
Likewise, because you place God at the center of your worldview,
you assume that whatever sits at the center of a nonbeliever's
worldview (in the same default manner that Mary's feeble
fondness for tennis exceeds her liking for other sports) must be
as all consuming, all-important, hyper-devotional, life-shaking
as your approach to God.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
24 Oct 2005 06:46:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:01:43 -0400, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net>
wrote:
Les Hellawell wrote:
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:07:10 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:
In <435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net>, dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote:
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no exception. He
too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern man's 'sacred and
exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
As opposed to the theist obsession with Sex, Power, and Money.
To be fair she did not exclude Christians or people of other religions
from her curious notion.
So here is another who thinks people worship human desires
and aspirations as gods.
Isn't that what theists have been criticized for all along? Our desires
and need for an "Invisible Friend" and aspirations going beyond the
physical world. So how is this any different from human desires and
aspirations that are shackled to money, sex and power? Nietzsche
appears to suggest as much. "There cannot be a God because, If there
were one, I would not believe that I were not He."
Everything becomes temples with priests it seems.
Hardly everything,
No, just those that you choose to perceive that silly was from your
religious world view.
but on the other hand, it could be almost anything to
which we make the conscious or an unacknowledged first and foremost
priority in life. When enough people with the same ultimate priority
get together around their common obsession, an institutional form begins
to develop--a temple of sorts. But, of course, everyone who has a bank
account is hardly obsessed with financial affluence or security. Money,
power and sex are normal and legitimate human concerns. But watch out
when any one of them becomes the dominant force in an individual or a
society's life.
It used to be just the devil and a god called God but now..
Basically, it still is. It's just that we now see more clearly the big
picture and it includes everything.
Again from within your religious world
You are painting your own picture and seeing the world through
it.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Katt" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 05:45:01 AM |
|
|
http://www.darwinday.org/
K.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
22 Oct 2005 10:13:03 PM |
|
|
Once upon a time in alt.atheism, dear sweet dgillesp (dgillesp@nospam.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
You might also consider the hushed and reverential atmosphere of the
typical bank. Frivolity and light-heartedness are normally quite out of
place. In lots of small communities here in the US, the only new,
prominent, imposing and temple-like building is the First National.
Yes, right. And the people on their knees praying there is something left
in their checking accounts...
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Today's warm fuzzy example of Christian Love:
"I told you many times that you should thank Christian Americans that they
gave you a free place to live in Texas and a welfare so you could buy food
to eat you fucking filthy Jew !!!! If America did not give you billions of
dollars every year your fucking Jewishstan could be a history like it was
for a thousand years. Shame on you, you fucking dirty, ugly and barbaric
Jew !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Go to hell you shitted Jew." -- Andy
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
22 Oct 2005 08:16:31 PM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in
news:435AD702.C2D07C4D@nospam.net:
Therion Ware wrote:
On the auspictious date of Sat, 22 Oct 2005 18:58:25 -0400, dgillesp
said unto the multitude in message-id <435AC411.20000532@nospam.net>:
The etymology of "holidays" is self-evident.... "holy days." Since
atheists don't consider anything or anyone to be "holy." E.g., no
"holy days" for the atheist.
In the UK statutory holidays are known as bank holidays - bank holy
days by the above - the idea of which I have to admit I find slightly
disquieting.
You might also consider the hushed and reverential atmosphere of the
typical bank. Frivolity and light-heartedness are normally quite out
of place. In lots of small communities here in the US, the only new,
prominent, imposing and temple-like building is the First National.
At a bank closing when we were buying a home, seated at the table were
bank officials (the priesthood), lawyers (the scribes), and realtors
(the elders). It was a most solemn occasion, which I attempted to
lighten with a little humor that was taken as an affront, a sort of
sacrilege, and met with obvious displeasure. We were given to
understand that we were signing our souls away and the gravity of what
we were about to do was not to be tempered by any lack of seriousness.
I thought to myself, "The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the
earth keep silence before him." (Hab. 2.20) In this case, 'twas The
Almighty Dollar.
Man is inescapably a religious animal, and secular man is no
exception. He too worships, serves and toils at the altar of modern
man's 'sacred and exalted trinity': Money, Power and Sex.
And a Man may also stretch a metaphor beyond the limits of reason and
seriousness.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The next time someone on the left wants a date for
withdrawal from Iraq, ask them for a date to give
up on diplomacy with Iran. The Iraq date will be a month
after the Iran date which will be 1 day before Iran is invaded."
- Stehpinkeln
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Atheist Holy Days? |
23 Oct 2005 09:18:15 AM |
|
|
dgillesp <dgillesp@nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Therion Ware wrote:
dgillesp said unto the multitude
The etymology of "holidays" is self-evident.... "holy days." Since
atheists don't consider anything or anyone to be "holy." E.g., no "holy
days" for the atheist.
In the UK statutory holidays are known as bank holidays - bank holy
days by the above - the idea of which I have to admit I find slightly
disquieting.
You might also consider the hushed and reverential atmosphere of the
typical bank. Frivolity and light-heartedness are normally quite out of
place. In lots of small communities here in the US, the only new,
prominent, imposing and temple-like building is the First National.
At a bank closing when we were buying a home, seated at the table were
bank officials (the priesthood), lawyers (the scribes), and realtors
(the elders). It was a most solemn occasion, which I attempted to
lighten with a little humor that was taken as an affront, a sort of
sacrilege, and met with obvious displeasure. We were given to
understand that we were signing our souls away and the gravity of what
we were about to do was not to be tempered by any lack of seriousness.
I thought to myself, "The Lord is in his holy temple; let all the earth
keep silence before him." (Hab. 2.20) In this case, 'twas The Almighty
Dollar.
The Dollar with "In GOD we trust" on it? Maybe if that was taken off,
people would quit worshipping it?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
