I'm trying to think of a way to celebrate atheism that isn't going to offend people and I'm coming up blank.
The best equivalent posting I can come up with would be a big poster that goes back through history and gives a list of all the winter solstice celebrations that people have celebrated in the past. Give a paragraph or so explaining each one, maybe a picture or something. Then maybe have one at the bottom talking about today's Christmas, focusing on how it's a day to remind people to be nice to each other and how its date coincides with so many celebrations that civilizations have been having for thousands of years.
A nativity display is inherently pro-Christian, which is a religion that holds that it is the exclusive religious and moral truth. Even if someone puts up the display because they want to showcase the warm and fuzzy elements of the religion, the display still represents the elements that are not warm and fuzzy. Any sort of display like this is a message that the religion being displayed is, at the very least, acceptable.
Making these assumptions because say, the church claims that Christianity is the one and only truth, is silly because there are a lot of Christians who don't place a lot of importance on every part of the Bible or every thing that the Church has said in its long history.
You can't know the intentions of the people who put up this scene without asking them. Taking a guess based on what the Church thinks or the Bible says doesn't work because of how few people actually follow both of those things to the letter.
People can compartmentalize their views individually however they want. Even if they only believe 60% of what Jesus or the Bible says, putting up a display of Jesus is advocacy for Jesus. It's not a display that is a complex representation of their individualistic beliefs. A nativity scene very simply is a statement that Jesus is the son of God and was born to a virgin and that he and his views should be celebrated.
It saddens me to see other atheists try to needlessly cause trouble.
Can't you just accept that religion is a part of your history? I don't care about seeing religious imagery near government buildings. They're a part of our heritage. I'll even recite a prayer if it makes you happy. Why should it bother me? If i had a different religion, I might be offended, but I don't believe in god. None of this affects me.
Religion has been with mankind since the days of cavemen. You will not get rid of it. And to be honest, I don't think you should want to get rid of religion. I doubt that going through life while believing that you have no purpose and that you aren't special in any way would lift up everybody's spirit. I know that I find this thought to be depressing.
Besides, people make war on each other for a variety of reasons. They'll still be killing each other, even if we get rid of religion.
So I don't think attacking peaceful signs of belief is a good thing. Let these people be happy with their faith. As long as they don't cause trouble, there's nothing wrong with it.
No. It's not "their" messiah. It's the world's messiah, representative of the one true god, all that other bullshit. Christianity is an exclusive religion. Period. End of fucking story. If you believe if, you believe it at the exclusion of other religions, and displaying that belief isn't simply saying, "This is what I believe!" Because of the nature of Christianity, it's necessarily a statement of fact about the universe.
Now, Pony, the difference - and I can't believe I'm having to clarify this yet again - between politics and subjective tastes is that they aren't statements about ultimate reality. If god exists, god exists for everybody by almost all definitions. Comparing it to liking this album over that one or liking oranges over apples isn't valid because those are subjective god damned tastes that you aren't saying are true for everybody. If you are, you're an idiot. "Oranges are better than apples objectively" is a stupid statement, right? Religions necessarily make claims about objective reality.
You missed the point entirely.
Great work.
I have no reason to continue this line of conversation with you, your mind and heart is closed on this issue and you are too blinded by your own beliefs to see the viewpoints of anyone besides yourself.
That is unfortunate, because you do seem like an intelligent and rational individual, and it is saddening that it is quite likely some unfortunate circumstance has befallen you, likely by way of some religious prick or another, that has placed such a wobbly chip on your shoulder.
I find it extremely disappointing that this subject can't be addressed rationally without the standard "all religion is harmful" tripe getting tossed out there. As soon as that card gets played, the conversation is essentially over because the hardened atheists who refuse to see religion as a whole as anything but an elaborate scam to take people's freedom away will never concede any point.
This thread will go into the same attack spiral this subject always does on this forum, and I take my leave of it.
Hey Pony, you don't get to put words in my mouth and then wring your fucking hands of it. All I've said this entire fucking thread is that these religions are exlcusivistic. I haven't yet started on a rail about how harmful they are for society. I've said something that is utterly without controversy.
Christianity is exclusive. Hinduism is exclusive. Islam is exclusive. Most religions are exclusive.
Now show me how I'm wrong. Don't get on your holier-than-thou high horse. I am saying things that everybody should realize.
Hey Hippie? You're doing the same fucking thing to every religion on the planet, you know.
Sheesh. If a simple "I believe (X)", where X is a statement about how the universe is, offends you THAT badly- how do you get through the day? Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. Never has. "You're fundamentally wrong, but I can still deal with you as a person" is more like it.
Phoenix-D on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
No. It's not "their" messiah. It's the world's messiah, representative of the one true god, all that other bullshit. Christianity is an exclusive religion. Period. End of fucking story. If you believe if, you believe it at the exclusion of other religions, and displaying that belief isn't simply saying, "This is what I believe!" Because of the nature of Christianity, it's necessarily a statement of fact about the universe.
Now, Pony, the difference - and I can't believe I'm having to clarify this yet again - between politics and subjective tastes is that they aren't statements about ultimate reality. If god exists, god exists for everybody by almost all definitions. Comparing it to liking this album over that one or liking oranges over apples isn't valid because those are subjective god damned tastes that you aren't saying are true for everybody. If you are, you're an idiot. "Oranges are better than apples objectively" is a stupid statement, right? Religions necessarily make claims about objective reality.
I am really liking all of your nice generalizations but I do not understand what they have to do with the real world, where people do not always conform to these generalizations. If you would like, I invite you to finish fabricating this fictional world you believe in so you might be able to use it in a hypothetical situation in order to argue your point. I personally dislike hypotheticals but you are welcome to them.
I'm not making a god damned generalization. That's what Christianity is. There is a way to heaven, it says it in the bible, it's an exclusive fucking religion. Period. Why do you people have such a hard time with this?
Because you are trying to assert that every Christian believes everything the Bible or Church says.
Or you are trying to assert that every Christian believes certain things the Bible or Church says that are convenient for your argument.
It's kind of a ridiculous claim.
Well, we have to assume that someone who labels themselves a Christian believes in the central teachings of Christianity. If you start picking and choosing, you're just . . . picking and choosing a moral framework, bereft of respect for the Word of God. If you doubt part of the book, you doubt it all, and if you keep part of the book after that, you're just making ethical choices as an agnostic.
Ah Christmas, you are but one of three hundred and sixty-five days on which atheists need to sit down and shut up while Christians smear Christianity all over the government and the media and the public sphere.
Are these particular atheists too shrill? Maybe! Is this the same disingenuous offended hand-wringing atheists get when they make any public statement of disbelief? Yes. Yawn.
Perhaps they get a knee-jerk negative reaction because most of the time, when they make a public statement, it's as ham-fistedly derogatory as this one.
Plus, what-the-fuck-ever. That sign in the OP is positively milquetoast compared to the crap Christians sling at atheists and sexual minorities every day. There is a serious double-standard with respect to religious speech in this country, and the extent to which atheists are required to tip-toe around "people of faith" is absolutely absurd.
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
I'm having a hard time believing that a nativity scene is just a bunch of people and a baby, instead of a statement about the only way to true peace being via a child born of immaculate conception. Maybe it's that way for some people, but it's pretty dickish to erect such a monument on public property, when there are all sorts of generic 'seasons greetings' messages that would be more considerate of the diverse beliefs of people who may have to use these public facilities.
See this is a lot better. It very clearly avoids singling out Christianity or Judaism or whatever, and is markedly less in-your-face than a lot of the jesus billboards I see around my town yet still does not pull punches
No, I'd say it's more like those "Accept Jesus as your saviour, and follow the true religion" signs that religious people put up on EVERYWHERE, from your mailbox, ringing your doorbell and trying to TELL YOU THAT and handing out leaflets when you are shopping or something.
That thing isn't particularly hateful or angry. It's offensive, but no more then any of those things I listed above.
Because you are trying to assert that every Christian believes everything the Bible or Church says.
Or you are trying to assert that every Christian believes certain things the Bible or Church says that are convenient for your argument.
It's kind of a ridiculous claim.
Does god exist y/n?
If y, does god exist for everybody else as well y/n?
That's why it's an exclusive claim. Nevermind the details, that's the big one, and the vast majority of Christians are going to answer yes to both of those questions. If they don't, they've created some meaningless, powerless deity to conform to reality, and might as well be deists.
Because you are trying to assert that every Christian believes everything the Bible or Church says.
Or you are trying to assert that every Christian believes certain things the Bible or Church says that are convenient for your argument.
It's kind of a ridiculous claim.
Does god exist y/n?
If y, does god exist for everybody else as well y/n?
That's why it's an exclusive claim. Nevermind the details, that's the big one, and the vast majority of Christians are going to answer yes to both of those questions. If they don't, they've created some meaningless, powerless deity to conform to reality, and might as well be deists.
And you're super offended by this why, again?
Phoenix-D on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
No. It's not "their" messiah. It's the world's messiah, representative of the one true god, all that other bullshit. Christianity is an exclusive religion. Period. End of fucking story. If you believe if, you believe it at the exclusion of other religions, and displaying that belief isn't simply saying, "This is what I believe!" Because of the nature of Christianity, it's necessarily a statement of fact about the universe.
Now, Pony, the difference - and I can't believe I'm having to clarify this yet again - between politics and subjective tastes is that they aren't statements about ultimate reality. If god exists, god exists for everybody by almost all definitions. Comparing it to liking this album over that one or liking oranges over apples isn't valid because those are subjective god damned tastes that you aren't saying are true for everybody. If you are, you're an idiot. "Oranges are better than apples objectively" is a stupid statement, right? Religions necessarily make claims about objective reality.
I am really liking all of your nice generalizations but I do not understand what they have to do with the real world, where people do not always conform to these generalizations. If you would like, I invite you to finish fabricating this fictional world you believe in so you might be able to use it in a hypothetical situation in order to argue your point. I personally dislike hypotheticals but you are welcome to them.
I'm not making a god damned generalization. That's what Christianity is. There is a way to heaven, it says it in the bible, it's an exclusive fucking religion. Period. Why do you people have such a hard time with this?
Because you are trying to assert that every Christian believes everything the Bible or Church says.
Or you are trying to assert that every Christian believes certain things the Bible or Church says that are convenient for your argument.
It's kind of a ridiculous claim.
Well, we have to assume that someone who labels themselves a Christian believes in the central teachings of Christianity. If you start picking and choosing, you're just . . . picking and choosing a moral framework, bereft of respect for the Word of God. If you doubt part of the book, you doubt it all, and if you keep part of the book after that, you're just making ethical choices as an agnostic.
But Christians do this all of the time! They don't know the bible in its entirety and they pick and choose what they like. You think every Christian is totally into the idea that homosexuality is a sin?
And I can understand the argument to keep them away from official state buildings (though I have a hard time giving much of a shit one way or the other).
Why do you think that is?
Why do I think what is? Why do I think I don't give a shit? Because it's a very small issue that, in itself, affects virtually nothing but people's delicate sensibilities. It's in somewhat poor taste. I don't get my panties in a bunch for "somewhat poor taste".
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Well, we have to assume that someone who labels themselves a Christian believes in the central teachings of Christianity. If you start picking and choosing, you're just . . . picking and choosing a moral framework, bereft of respect for the Word of God. If you doubt part of the book, you doubt it all, and if you keep part of the book after that, you're just making ethical choices as an agnostic.
But Christians do this all of the time! They don't know the bible in its entirety and they pick and choose what they like. You think every Christian is totally into the idea that homosexuality is a sin?
Every Christian picks and chooses which parts to believe in.
Every. Last. One.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It saddens me to see other atheists try to needlessly cause trouble.
Can't you just accept that religion is a part of your history? I don't care about seeing religious imagery near government buildings. They're a part of our heritage.
So is slavery. That doesn't mean we should put slavery on a pedastal in public displays.
I'll even recite a prayer if it makes you happy. Why should it bother me? If i had a different religion, I might be offended, but I don't believe in god. None of this affects me.
Religion has been with mankind since the days of cavemen. You will not get rid of it. And to be honest, I don't think you should want to get rid of religion. I doubt that going through life while believing that you have no purpose and that you aren't special in any way would lift up everybody's spirit. I know that I find this thought to be depressing.
Besides, people make war on each other for a variety of reasons. They'll still be killing each other, even if we get rid of religion.
So I don't think attacking peaceful signs of belief is a good thing. Let these people be happy with their faith. As long as they don't cause trouble, there's nothing wrong with it.
It's cool that you want to keep your beliefs to yourself. It's cool that millions of Christians see their religion as entirely personal.
It's also cool that some Christians and atheists want to spread their messages and try to convince each other that they are wrong. If we didn't have these kind of exchanges of ideas then nothing would ever happen.
Yes, some of us grumpy atheists are trying to convince people that fairy tales that make them perfectly happy are fairy tales. You apparently think that maintaining happiness is better than trying to spread truth. I disagree. (And I think reasonable people can disagree on this point.)
No. It's not "their" messiah. It's the world's messiah, representative of the one true god, all that other bullshit. Christianity is an exclusive religion. Period. End of fucking story. If you believe if, you believe it at the exclusion of other religions, and displaying that belief isn't simply saying, "This is what I believe!" Because of the nature of Christianity, it's necessarily a statement of fact about the universe.
Now, Pony, the difference - and I can't believe I'm having to clarify this yet again - between politics and subjective tastes is that they aren't statements about ultimate reality. If god exists, god exists for everybody by almost all definitions. Comparing it to liking this album over that one or liking oranges over apples isn't valid because those are subjective god damned tastes that you aren't saying are true for everybody. If you are, you're an idiot. "Oranges are better than apples objectively" is a stupid statement, right? Religions necessarily make claims about objective reality.
I am really liking all of your nice generalizations but I do not understand what they have to do with the real world, where people do not always conform to these generalizations. If you would like, I invite you to finish fabricating this fictional world you believe in so you might be able to use it in a hypothetical situation in order to argue your point. I personally dislike hypotheticals but you are welcome to them.
I'm not making a god damned generalization. That's what Christianity is. There is a way to heaven, it says it in the bible, it's an exclusive fucking religion. Period. Why do you people have such a hard time with this?
Because you are trying to assert that every Christian believes everything the Bible or Church says.
Or you are trying to assert that every Christian believes certain things the Bible or Church says that are convenient for your argument.
It's kind of a ridiculous claim.
Well, we have to assume that someone who labels themselves a Christian believes in the central teachings of Christianity. If you start picking and choosing, you're just . . . picking and choosing a moral framework, bereft of respect for the Word of God. If you doubt part of the book, you doubt it all, and if you keep part of the book after that, you're just making ethical choices as an agnostic.
You seem to think like there is no shade of gray between black and white. However, the world is not just a big Boolean (I'm such a nerd -_-).
Many Christians believe the Bible to be full of stories. Fables, meant to inspire them to do good. They're still Christians.
It's like looking at the actions and beliefs of extreme atheists (because yes, some forms of atheism clearly cross the line and become almost religions) and generalizing to all atheists. I don't want religion to disappear, but I still don't believe in god, and in my book, that makes me an atheist.
I don't think you get to say that a nativity scene is secular because some secular people put one up. Plenty of people wear necklaces with crosses on them because they're pretty, but it'd be a stretch to say that a cross isn't a religious symbol.
Oh, I don't think a nativity scene is secular. And I can understand the argument to keep them away from official state buildings (though I have a hard time giving much of a shit one way or the other). I'm just arguing against the idea that they are necessarily a statement of anything.
Of course it's a statement. It just might be a statement of "I think this is pretty" or "My religious parents are coming for the holidays and I don't want them to complain at me and my godless lifestyle" instead of a religious statement. However, the symbol itself is religious, and shouldn't be on state buildings.
And I think you probably don't give a shit either because you're easy-going (which is fine, but not universal) or you're religious yourself. It's a lot like white guys not really being upset about racist characters in media; of course it doesn't bother you, because it doesn't directly affect you and it can easily blend into the rest of your worldview. For someone of a different religion or an atheist, it's as jarring and exclusionary as that sign is to you.
No, I'd say it's more like those "Accept Jesus as your saviour, and follow the true religion" signs that religious people put up on EVERYWHERE, from your mailbox, ringing your doorbell and trying to TELL YOU THAT and handing out leaflets when you are shopping or something.
That thing isn't particularly hateful or angry. It's offensive, but no more then any of those things I listed above.
It isn't even particularly offensive, until you hit the last few lines. Annd then it goes over the top. Not quite as a bad as "all you nonbelivers will burn", but its up there.
Not necessarily. It actually makes some sense for them to set up something like this in favor of a generic "Non-theism yay!" sign. A small symbol of positive atheism could be largely ignored. If this sign actively angers the religious who see it, then it succeeded. It motivates people to get it removed, which leads to the realization that they can't get it removed without removing all religious symbols in the capital. Ideally, the believers consider losing the nativity at the capitol is a necessary sacrifice to get rid of the sign. It won't win over public opinion, but that hasn't exactly been too likely for non-theists in this country anyway, so protection through legal measures is the best we/they have, and any loopholes have to get closed to prevent further infringement.
That being said, if they wanted to go that route, they would have been better off finding some actual Satanists.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Ah Christmas, you are but one of three hundred and sixty-five days on which atheists need to sit down and shut up while Christians smear Christianity all over the government and the media and the public sphere.
Are these particular atheists too shrill? Maybe! Is this the same disingenuous offended hand-wringing atheists get when they make any public statement of disbelief? Yes. Yawn.
Perhaps they get a knee-jerk negative reaction because most of the time, when they make a public statement, it's as ham-fistedly derogatory as this one.
Plus, what-the-fuck-ever. That sign in the OP is positively milquetoast compared to the crap Christians sling at atheists and sexual minorities every day. There is a serious double-standard with respect to religious speech in this country, and the extent to which atheists are required to tip-toe around "people of faith" is absolutely absurd.
While I absolutely agree that there is an immense double-standard, I don't think that makes the OP plaque acceptable. 'But he did it first' is rarely an acceptable rationale for any action.
The mere fact that people referred to that bus ad in the Fox story as 'grinch' and 'stupid' and 'offensive' pretty much enrages me. It basically preaches the most important aspect of atheism to me, that you don't need religion to be moral. Then this guy goes ahead and says 'how do you define goodness without the Bible' as if people don't know not to be assholes to each other without the Good Book to tell them so.
I mean yes, this is Fox, but this guy was saying this stuff regardless of it being published by Fair and Balanced folks or not.
See this is a lot better. It very clearly avoids singling out Christianity or Judaism or whatever, and is markedly less in-your-face than a lot of the jesus billboards I see around my town yet still does not pull punches
Hey Hippie? You're doing the same fucking thing to every religion on the planet, you know.
Sheesh. If a simple "I believe (X)", where X is a statement about how the universe is, offends you THAT badly- how do you get through the day? Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. Never has. "You're fundamentally wrong, but I can still deal with you as a person" is more like it.
The only thing I've ever advocated for is some accountability for what (X) is, and rigorous standards of evidence for that belief. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about me from now on, thanks.
A nativity display is inherently pro-Christian, which is a religion that holds that it is the exclusive religious and moral truth. Even if someone puts up the display because they want to showcase the warm and fuzzy elements of the religion, the display still represents the elements that are not warm and fuzzy. Any sort of display like this is a message that the religion being displayed is, at the very least, acceptable.
are you really saying that a piece represents the whole? so because i have a friend from alabama, i am friends with the racist part of alabama as well?
To answer your questions: often, and of course not.
Having a friend from Alabama means that, on the whole, you find that person to be worthwhile (taking into account the good and the bad). If he's a racist and you are friends with him, then it means that you think that the good sides of his personality outweigh the bad.
To apply this to Christianity, if you are putting forth a pro-Christian message, you are saying that the good parts of Christianity outweigh the bad. On the whole, Christianity is good. So the aspects of it that you may think are bad or wrong are not really bad enough or important enough to outweigh the parts that you like. I don't want to Godwin, but if you wear a Nazi swastika, you can't just say that you think the Nazi had good economic beliefs and that you don't agree with their views on Jews. You have to also say that their economic beliefs outweigh their beliefs about Jews to the extent that Nazism as a whole is worth advocating.
To relate this back to Christianity again, a nativity scene says that Christianity on the whole is good. If you only want to emphasize a part of it, then you can have a display that says, "the meek shall inherit the earth" or something. This is a display that is very different, since it only says that a certain aspect of Christianity is good, not that Christianity itself is good.
This may be controversial, but I can't respond for a few hours.
Can I point out that I know a lot of pretty secular people who stick up nativity scenes because they're pretty?
Also, I'm one of these people. My family is christian, I'm atheist, but I don't really give a crap. It's a nice story in my opinion...one of the few nice stories in Bible, actually. Jesus was a pretty cool guy.
I'm having a hard time believing that a nativity scene is just a bunch of people and a baby, instead of a statement about the only way to true peace being via a child born of immaculate conception. Maybe it's that way for some people, but it's pretty dickish to erect such a monument on public property, when there are all sorts of generic 'seasons greetings' messages that would be more considerate of the diverse beliefs of people who may have to use these public facilities.
thats because you already know the meaning behind the scene.
when you guys (who see all this symbology in a nativity scene) look at the back of a one dollar bill do you get all offended about the word under god? or the free mason symbology? does the sun rising every day state that the ever powerful RA is watching over you?
Because you are trying to assert that every Christian believes everything the Bible or Church says.
Or you are trying to assert that every Christian believes certain things the Bible or Church says that are convenient for your argument.
It's kind of a ridiculous claim.
Does god exist y/n?
If y, does god exist for everybody else as well y/n?
That's why it's an exclusive claim. Nevermind the details, that's the big one, and the vast majority of Christians are going to answer yes to both of those questions. If they don't, they've created some meaningless, powerless deity to conform to reality, and might as well be deists.
So if I'm to understand this, you are saying that any expression of your religious beliefs, ever, is terrible and oppressive, right? If I ever mention my religious beliefs offhand, this is an unambiguous statement that everyone who disagrees with me can go suck a dick? Because that's how you're coming off.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Can I point out that I know a lot of pretty secular people who stick up nativity scenes because they're pretty?
Also, I'm one of these people. My family is christian, I'm atheist, but I don't really give a crap. It's a nice story in my opinion...one of the few nice stories in Bible, actually. Jesus was a pretty cool guy.
I'm an atheist and my grandmother is most likely going to leave her tabletop nativity scene to me when she dies. I'll probably put it up every Christmas, in her memory.
Sarksus on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
Well, we have to assume that someone who labels themselves a Christian believes in the central teachings of Christianity. If you start picking and choosing, you're just . . . picking and choosing a moral framework, bereft of respect for the Word of God. If you doubt part of the book, you doubt it all, and if you keep part of the book after that, you're just making ethical choices as an agnostic.
But Christians do this all of the time! They don't know the bible in its entirety and they pick and choose what they like. You think every Christian is totally into the idea that homosexuality is a sin?
Every Christian picks and chooses which parts to believe in.
Why do I think what is? Why do I think I don't give a shit? Because it's a very small issue that, in itself, affects virtually nothing but people's delicate sensibilities. It's in somewhat poor taste. I don't get my panties in a bunch for "somewhat poor taste".
What makes you think that someone's sensibilities must be delicate if they're bothered by that?
It saddens me to see other atheists try to needlessly cause trouble.
Can't you just accept that religion is a part of your history? I don't care about seeing religious imagery near government buildings. They're a part of our heritage.
So is slavery. That doesn't mean we should put slavery on a pedastal in public displays.
I'll even recite a prayer if it makes you happy. Why should it bother me? If i had a different religion, I might be offended, but I don't believe in god. None of this affects me.
Religion has been with mankind since the days of cavemen. You will not get rid of it. And to be honest, I don't think you should want to get rid of religion. I doubt that going through life while believing that you have no purpose and that you aren't special in any way would lift up everybody's spirit. I know that I find this thought to be depressing.
Besides, people make war on each other for a variety of reasons. They'll still be killing each other, even if we get rid of religion.
So I don't think attacking peaceful signs of belief is a good thing. Let these people be happy with their faith. As long as they don't cause trouble, there's nothing wrong with it.
It's cool that you want to keep your beliefs to yourself. It's cool that millions of Christians see their religion as entirely personal.
It's also cool that some Christians and atheists want to spread their messages and try to convince each other that they are wrong. If we didn't have these kind of exchanges of ideas then nothing would ever happen.
Yes, some of us grumpy atheists are trying to convince people that fairy tales that make them perfectly happy are fairy tales. You apparently think that maintaining happiness is better than trying to spread truth. I disagree. (And I think reasonable people can disagree on this point.)
That kind of exchange between intellectuals is to be encouraged, but I doubt the general population can face reality. I know that I don't want to let myself be entertained by illusions, and it seems like other intellectuals think the same, but if you ask around, you're likely to have a lot of people tell you that they wouldn't mind living in the Matrix.
Let them have their god. I'd rather them believe than be depressed. I think depression is enough of an issue in modern society, we don't need to make matters worse.
Korlash on
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
I find the sign offensive and I'm an atheist. I'm not saying it should be censored, but it seems designed specifically to offend and anger particular people. I don't think Christmas trees or menorahs are meant to be offensive.
Hey Hippie? You're doing the same fucking thing to every religion on the planet, you know.
Sheesh. If a simple "I believe (X)", where X is a statement about how the universe is, offends you THAT badly- how do you get through the day? Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. Never has. "You're fundamentally wrong, but I can still deal with you as a person" is more like it.
The only thing I've ever advocated for is some accountability for what (X) is, and rigorous standards of evidence for that belief. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about me from now on, thanks.
See ElJeffe's post. You're coming across as someone who fumes any time religion comes up, ever. If not, fine.
Religion is just one of many irrational, poorly or NOT proven beliefs people have. If you blow a cork anytime someone does anything irrational, you'll be doing it all day every day.
Can I point out that I know a lot of pretty secular people who stick up nativity scenes because they're pretty?
Also, I'm one of these people. My family is christian, I'm atheist, but I don't really give a crap. It's a nice story in my opinion...one of the few nice stories in Bible, actually. Jesus was a pretty cool guy.
It's a bullshit story added by Luke to tie in the myth of Christianity to the paganism of the time (the magi).
And Jesus was an asshole. "You're either with me or against me." "Ditch your families to follow me—let the dead bury the dead." The constant threats of hellfire. Have you actually read the man's parables? They are bare-toothed threats against unbelievers: "The master is going to come home and totally kill all the bad slaves!"
He was a doomsday cult leader. Fuck Jesus and the donkey he rode in on.
I'm having a hard time believing that a nativity scene is just a bunch of people and a baby, instead of a statement about the only way to true peace being via a child born of immaculate conception. Maybe it's that way for some people, but it's pretty dickish to erect such a monument on public property, when there are all sorts of generic 'seasons greetings' messages that would be more considerate of the diverse beliefs of people who may have to use these public facilities.
thats because you already know the meaning behind the scene.
when you guys (who see all this symbology in a nativity scene) look at the back of a one dollar bill do you get all offended about the word under god? or the free mason symbology? does the sun rising every day state that the ever powerful RA is watching over you?
Offended? No. But "under god" shouldn't be on money, and the freemason symbology shouldn't be on money. I'd be glad if they were removed and would vote that way if I ever got the chance, but it probably won't happen.
Because you are trying to assert that every Christian believes everything the Bible or Church says.
Or you are trying to assert that every Christian believes certain things the Bible or Church says that are convenient for your argument.
It's kind of a ridiculous claim.
Does god exist y/n?
If y, does god exist for everybody else as well y/n?
That's why it's an exclusive claim. Nevermind the details, that's the big one, and the vast majority of Christians are going to answer yes to both of those questions. If they don't, they've created some meaningless, powerless deity to conform to reality, and might as well be deists.
So if I'm to understand this, you are saying that any expression of your religious beliefs, ever, is terrible and oppressive, right? If I ever mention my religious beliefs offhand, this is an unambiguous statement that everyone who disagrees with me can go suck a dick? Because that's how you're coming off.
Oh hoo-fucking-ray, more context-shifting.
When it's put up in front of a government building? Yeah, it's pretty fucking oppressive. All I've said, though, is that saying that necessarily excludes other systems of belief. That's exactly what it does, and I don't care if that's what your intention is or not, you can't help but be exclusivistic about it under most deifinitions of god. Other systems of belief are not compatible. Simple fact.
Now how many more times do I have to restate a completely uncontroversial statement before people will stop putting words in my mouth?
Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.
Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.
It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?
A nativity scene is not necessarily saying "God absolutely exists", it's just a show of faith.
A show of faith is saying "God exists." Sorry.
MikeMan on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
Well, we have to assume that someone who labels themselves a Christian believes in the central teachings of Christianity. If you start picking and choosing, you're just . . . picking and choosing a moral framework, bereft of respect for the Word of God. If you doubt part of the book, you doubt it all, and if you keep part of the book after that, you're just making ethical choices as an agnostic.
But Christians do this all of the time! They don't know the bible in its entirety and they pick and choose what they like. You think every Christian is totally into the idea that homosexuality is a sin?
Every Christian picks and chooses which parts to believe in.
Yeah but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're arguing. We're not arguing whether or not Christianity is irrational, we're arguing whether or not a religious scene is offensive due to whether or not a religion's followers, as a whole, are all intolerant belligerents who want to feast on the thought of you burning in Hell. You can't hold every Christian to the same standard because they don't even hold themselves to the same standard.
Edit: MikeMan, I clarified my position later on. I shouldn't have stopped it that short.
I find the sign offensive and I'm an atheist. I'm not saying it should be censored, but it seems designed specifically to offend and anger particular people. I don't think Christmas trees or menorahs are meant to be offensive.
I agree. I find extremist atheists to be much more offensive than peaceful believers.
Posts
When Obama holds the White House Easter Egg hunt next year, is he publicly demonstrating his belief in rabbits who crap candy once a year?
The best equivalent posting I can come up with would be a big poster that goes back through history and gives a list of all the winter solstice celebrations that people have celebrated in the past. Give a paragraph or so explaining each one, maybe a picture or something. Then maybe have one at the bottom talking about today's Christmas, focusing on how it's a day to remind people to be nice to each other and how its date coincides with so many celebrations that civilizations have been having for thousands of years.
People can compartmentalize their views individually however they want. Even if they only believe 60% of what Jesus or the Bible says, putting up a display of Jesus is advocacy for Jesus. It's not a display that is a complex representation of their individualistic beliefs. A nativity scene very simply is a statement that Jesus is the son of God and was born to a virgin and that he and his views should be celebrated.
Can't you just accept that religion is a part of your history? I don't care about seeing religious imagery near government buildings. They're a part of our heritage. I'll even recite a prayer if it makes you happy. Why should it bother me? If i had a different religion, I might be offended, but I don't believe in god. None of this affects me.
Religion has been with mankind since the days of cavemen. You will not get rid of it. And to be honest, I don't think you should want to get rid of religion. I doubt that going through life while believing that you have no purpose and that you aren't special in any way would lift up everybody's spirit. I know that I find this thought to be depressing.
Besides, people make war on each other for a variety of reasons. They'll still be killing each other, even if we get rid of religion.
So I don't think attacking peaceful signs of belief is a good thing. Let these people be happy with their faith. As long as they don't cause trouble, there's nothing wrong with it.
Hey Pony, you don't get to put words in my mouth and then wring your fucking hands of it. All I've said this entire fucking thread is that these religions are exlcusivistic. I haven't yet started on a rail about how harmful they are for society. I've said something that is utterly without controversy.
Christianity is exclusive. Hinduism is exclusive. Islam is exclusive. Most religions are exclusive.
Now show me how I'm wrong. Don't get on your holier-than-thou high horse. I am saying things that everybody should realize.
Sheesh. If a simple "I believe (X)", where X is a statement about how the universe is, offends you THAT badly- how do you get through the day? Tolerance doesn't mean acceptance. Never has. "You're fundamentally wrong, but I can still deal with you as a person" is more like it.
Well, we have to assume that someone who labels themselves a Christian believes in the central teachings of Christianity. If you start picking and choosing, you're just . . . picking and choosing a moral framework, bereft of respect for the Word of God. If you doubt part of the book, you doubt it all, and if you keep part of the book after that, you're just making ethical choices as an agnostic.
I host a podcast about movies.
Nah. Did you see this one? Pretty tame, right? Outrage!
Plus, what-the-fuck-ever. That sign in the OP is positively milquetoast compared to the crap Christians sling at atheists and sexual minorities every day. There is a serious double-standard with respect to religious speech in this country, and the extent to which atheists are required to tip-toe around "people of faith" is absolutely absurd.
where is this from
No, I'd say it's more like those "Accept Jesus as your saviour, and follow the true religion" signs that religious people put up on EVERYWHERE, from your mailbox, ringing your doorbell and trying to TELL YOU THAT and handing out leaflets when you are shopping or something.
That thing isn't particularly hateful or angry. It's offensive, but no more then any of those things I listed above.
Does god exist y/n?
If y, does god exist for everybody else as well y/n?
That's why it's an exclusive claim. Nevermind the details, that's the big one, and the vast majority of Christians are going to answer yes to both of those questions. If they don't, they've created some meaningless, powerless deity to conform to reality, and might as well be deists.
And you're super offended by this why, again?
But Christians do this all of the time! They don't know the bible in its entirety and they pick and choose what they like. You think every Christian is totally into the idea that homosexuality is a sin?
Why do I think what is? Why do I think I don't give a shit? Because it's a very small issue that, in itself, affects virtually nothing but people's delicate sensibilities. It's in somewhat poor taste. I don't get my panties in a bunch for "somewhat poor taste".
Every Christian picks and chooses which parts to believe in.
Every. Last. One.
It's cool that you want to keep your beliefs to yourself. It's cool that millions of Christians see their religion as entirely personal.
It's also cool that some Christians and atheists want to spread their messages and try to convince each other that they are wrong. If we didn't have these kind of exchanges of ideas then nothing would ever happen.
Yes, some of us grumpy atheists are trying to convince people that fairy tales that make them perfectly happy are fairy tales. You apparently think that maintaining happiness is better than trying to spread truth. I disagree. (And I think reasonable people can disagree on this point.)
You seem to think like there is no shade of gray between black and white. However, the world is not just a big Boolean (I'm such a nerd -_-).
Many Christians believe the Bible to be full of stories. Fables, meant to inspire them to do good. They're still Christians.
It's like looking at the actions and beliefs of extreme atheists (because yes, some forms of atheism clearly cross the line and become almost religions) and generalizing to all atheists. I don't want religion to disappear, but I still don't believe in god, and in my book, that makes me an atheist.
Of course it's a statement. It just might be a statement of "I think this is pretty" or "My religious parents are coming for the holidays and I don't want them to complain at me and my godless lifestyle" instead of a religious statement. However, the symbol itself is religious, and shouldn't be on state buildings.
And I think you probably don't give a shit either because you're easy-going (which is fine, but not universal) or you're religious yourself. It's a lot like white guys not really being upset about racist characters in media; of course it doesn't bother you, because it doesn't directly affect you and it can easily blend into the rest of your worldview. For someone of a different religion or an atheist, it's as jarring and exclusionary as that sign is to you.
It isn't even particularly offensive, until you hit the last few lines. Annd then it goes over the top. Not quite as a bad as "all you nonbelivers will burn", but its up there.
Not necessarily. It actually makes some sense for them to set up something like this in favor of a generic "Non-theism yay!" sign. A small symbol of positive atheism could be largely ignored. If this sign actively angers the religious who see it, then it succeeded. It motivates people to get it removed, which leads to the realization that they can't get it removed without removing all religious symbols in the capital. Ideally, the believers consider losing the nativity at the capitol is a necessary sacrifice to get rid of the sign. It won't win over public opinion, but that hasn't exactly been too likely for non-theists in this country anyway, so protection through legal measures is the best we/they have, and any loopholes have to get closed to prevent further infringement.
That being said, if they wanted to go that route, they would have been better off finding some actual Satanists.
The mere fact that people referred to that bus ad in the Fox story as 'grinch' and 'stupid' and 'offensive' pretty much enrages me. It basically preaches the most important aspect of atheism to me, that you don't need religion to be moral. Then this guy goes ahead and says 'how do you define goodness without the Bible' as if people don't know not to be assholes to each other without the Good Book to tell them so.
I mean yes, this is Fox, but this guy was saying this stuff regardless of it being published by Fair and Balanced folks or not.
I like it mostly because of the font.
The only thing I've ever advocated for is some accountability for what (X) is, and rigorous standards of evidence for that belief. I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about me from now on, thanks.
To answer your questions: often, and of course not.
Having a friend from Alabama means that, on the whole, you find that person to be worthwhile (taking into account the good and the bad). If he's a racist and you are friends with him, then it means that you think that the good sides of his personality outweigh the bad.
To apply this to Christianity, if you are putting forth a pro-Christian message, you are saying that the good parts of Christianity outweigh the bad. On the whole, Christianity is good. So the aspects of it that you may think are bad or wrong are not really bad enough or important enough to outweigh the parts that you like. I don't want to Godwin, but if you wear a Nazi swastika, you can't just say that you think the Nazi had good economic beliefs and that you don't agree with their views on Jews. You have to also say that their economic beliefs outweigh their beliefs about Jews to the extent that Nazism as a whole is worth advocating.
To relate this back to Christianity again, a nativity scene says that Christianity on the whole is good. If you only want to emphasize a part of it, then you can have a display that says, "the meek shall inherit the earth" or something. This is a display that is very different, since it only says that a certain aspect of Christianity is good, not that Christianity itself is good.
This may be controversial, but I can't respond for a few hours.
Also, I'm one of these people. My family is christian, I'm atheist, but I don't really give a crap. It's a nice story in my opinion...one of the few nice stories in Bible, actually. Jesus was a pretty cool guy.
thats because you already know the meaning behind the scene.
when you guys (who see all this symbology in a nativity scene) look at the back of a one dollar bill do you get all offended about the word under god? or the free mason symbology? does the sun rising every day state that the ever powerful RA is watching over you?
So if I'm to understand this, you are saying that any expression of your religious beliefs, ever, is terrible and oppressive, right? If I ever mention my religious beliefs offhand, this is an unambiguous statement that everyone who disagrees with me can go suck a dick? Because that's how you're coming off.
I'm an atheist and my grandmother is most likely going to leave her tabletop nativity scene to me when she dies. I'll probably put it up every Christmas, in her memory.
Yeah. I. Know. That's. What. Makes. The. Whole. Thing. Stupid. Because. If. You. Carry. That. to. its. logical. end. Atheists. Are. Just. Christians. That. Don't. Believe. The. Supernatural. Parts.
That's my point.
I host a podcast about movies.
What makes you think that someone's sensibilities must be delicate if they're bothered by that?
That kind of exchange between intellectuals is to be encouraged, but I doubt the general population can face reality. I know that I don't want to let myself be entertained by illusions, and it seems like other intellectuals think the same, but if you ask around, you're likely to have a lot of people tell you that they wouldn't mind living in the Matrix.
Let them have their god. I'd rather them believe than be depressed. I think depression is enough of an issue in modern society, we don't need to make matters worse.
See ElJeffe's post. You're coming across as someone who fumes any time religion comes up, ever. If not, fine.
Religion is just one of many irrational, poorly or NOT proven beliefs people have. If you blow a cork anytime someone does anything irrational, you'll be doing it all day every day.
And Jesus was an asshole. "You're either with me or against me." "Ditch your families to follow me—let the dead bury the dead." The constant threats of hellfire. Have you actually read the man's parables? They are bare-toothed threats against unbelievers: "The master is going to come home and totally kill all the bad slaves!"
He was a doomsday cult leader. Fuck Jesus and the donkey he rode in on.
Offended? No. But "under god" shouldn't be on money, and the freemason symbology shouldn't be on money. I'd be glad if they were removed and would vote that way if I ever got the chance, but it probably won't happen.
Oh hoo-fucking-ray, more context-shifting.
When it's put up in front of a government building? Yeah, it's pretty fucking oppressive. All I've said, though, is that saying that necessarily excludes other systems of belief. That's exactly what it does, and I don't care if that's what your intention is or not, you can't help but be exclusivistic about it under most deifinitions of god. Other systems of belief are not compatible. Simple fact.
Now how many more times do I have to restate a completely uncontroversial statement before people will stop putting words in my mouth?
A show of faith is saying "God exists." Sorry.
Yeah but that doesn't have anything to do with what we're arguing. We're not arguing whether or not Christianity is irrational, we're arguing whether or not a religious scene is offensive due to whether or not a religion's followers, as a whole, are all intolerant belligerents who want to feast on the thought of you burning in Hell. You can't hold every Christian to the same standard because they don't even hold themselves to the same standard.
Edit: MikeMan, I clarified my position later on. I shouldn't have stopped it that short.
I agree. I find extremist atheists to be much more offensive than peaceful believers.
By the way, the quote in your sig is awesome.