quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The atheists want to celebrate the fact that they're not religious. Being non-religious is positive
No, dear, it is still a negative. Not meaning "bad", just meaning negative. it is "subtracting" something, rather than "adding" something.
In a symbolic emphasis kind of way.
twinky, of course. And I have acknowledged that. I would be delighted to hear about some more positive symbols in the display. I am tempted to suggest some...
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you don't mean negative to mean bad, then I have no problem with negative. The civil rights movement was largely a negative campaign in that it opposed the status quo and included a lot of "tearing down" of other people's ideas yet it's one that's almost universally regarded as a good thing.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here, let me try to explain it another way...
There is a difference between a group having, say, a hurrah for being Irish parade and celebrating that. It would, however, be kind of offensive if we had a "Hurrah for not being Italian" parade.
MrSquicky, haven't you heard that peace is not merely the absence of war?
MattP, the civil rights movement was not about tearing down white people, it was about raising up African American people. See the difference?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: MattP, the civil rights movement was not about tearing down white people, it was about raising up African American people. See the difference?
No. It was about tearing down the rules of the status quo. Not "white people", but the rules that had been set up by the white status quo.
Same thing with activist atheism. It's not about tearing down religious people. It's about tearing down what we view to be the negative aspects of religion.
And since we can't tear those things down, being the minority, (and not sure that those things should be teared down, as in outlawed, even if we were the majority) we can bring attention to ourselves and the issues. A season that happens to feature religious holidays seems to be a fitting time for it.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, in the civil rights movement, the tearing down of the status quo was a means to an end, not the end itself. Tearing down obstacles to something better. The end was a positive lifting up. The rhetoric was "justice for everybody" not "no more privilege for white people". At least the rhetoric that was effective in changing people's minds and hearts for the better instead of playing into the anger of people who already wanted change.
What is the better thing that we will get if you tear down religion. Celebrate that.
If you want to take away Christmas, what are you giving us that's better?
What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think this type of display will do that. Do you want to get people to think? Do you want to provide a rallying point for other people who are angry about religion? Do you just want to annoy people?
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, the tearing down of the status quo was a means to an end, not the end itself. The end was a positive lifting up. The rhetoric was "justice for everybody" not "no more privilege for white people". At least the rhetoric that was effective in changing people's minds and hearts for the better instead of playing into the anger of people who already wanted change.
What are you trying to accomplish? Do you think this type of display will do that. Do you want to get people to think? Do you want to provide a rallying point for other people who are angry about religion? Do you just want to annoy people?
(Not "you" specifically.)
Although I wouldn't want to compare atheists to African-Americans in how they are/were treated, it is similar.
"Justice for everybody" and "no more privilege for religious people" are two very worthy goals.
Part of the reason for this, and any vocal presentation, is to be vocal. Remaining silent can be seen as giving consent.
Last year (maybe two years ago now), there were two court cases dealing with ten commandment displays. One in Tennessee and one in Texas. They got rid of the one in Tennessee, which was only put in recently. The one in Texas stayed because the judge ruled something like "it's been there so long and nobody has complained about it until now."
So one of my goals as an atheist is to stop being silent about these things.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: There is a difference between a group having, say, a hurrah for being Irish parade and celebrating that. It would, however, be kind of offensive if we had a "Hurrah for not being Italian" parade.
Ah, I think I kind of get it. Let me work it out while bringing it back to America.
So the idea is that we should have constructive holidays such as a President's Day or a Thanksgiving Holiday.
However, it would just be offensive if we had a "Hurrah for not being British" day, a "Independence Day" if you will Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: MattP, why does "Truth" have to be over something? Why not just "Truth"?
Because the relationship is important. Many of the arguments against atheism are to the consequences of atheism rather than to the truth of it. "But if there's no God, then <insert horrible thing>!"
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Also, Javert did entitle the thread "Let the War on Christmas Begin!" which kind of signals hostile intent. I recognize it was probably a tongue-in-cheek reference to what he anticipates the response of us self-righteous religionists will be, but nonetheless, it is not particularly conducive to viewing the tree as a constructive symbol of atheism.
It's meant entirely tongue-in-cheek. Not in response to what I think you guys at Hatrack will say, but how the media will portray it.
If anyone is actually trying to wage a war on Christmas, they're either joking or confused. Either way, I wouldn't support them.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, I would never ask you to be silent. I was on your side about the Ten Commandment displays.
I just don't think that trying to spoil people's holidays is either inclusive, free, or particularly effective.
Mucus, I think you are getting it. For Independence Day we have enough of our own to celebrate that our celebrations aren't all about how stupid British people are.
It is about emphasis.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Javert, I would never ask you to be silent. I was on your side about the Ten Commandment displays.
I just don't think that trying to spoil people's holidays is either inclusive, free, or particularly effective.
I never thought you weren't on my side.
That being said...how does this spoil anyone's holiday? It's a tree. They aren't standing around it and shouting out of bullhorns, as far as I know. They may be giving out fliers, but so what? Lots of people do that and are effectively ignored by everyone.
Does the fact that there's an atheist tree there really ruin the holiday for anyone else?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know? It, for me, would depend on the display. And I don't know enough about it to judge. It could be quite lovely and an inclusive addition to holiday celebrations. But even liberal little Kate might get annoyed at a big (entirely hypothetical), "Ten Reasons Christmas is Stupid" sign blocking the pretty lights.
I am urging you toward the former type of display not no display at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't know? It, for me, would depend on the display. And I don't know enough about it to judge. It could be quite lovely and an inclusive addition to holiday celebrations. But even liberal little Kate might get annoyed at a big (entirely hypothetical), "Ten Reasons Christmas is Stupid" sign blocking the pretty lights.
I am urging you toward the former type of display not no display at all.
From what I know, it's smaller than the Christmas tree. It's not blocking it, and if you didn't know better it would just look like a smaller Christmas tree. Frankly, I think the pagans should get a tree there as well...if they wanted it, of course.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
MattP, that's because atheism is all about denial of any God. And denial is hard to prove or disprove. It's like when Hermione says in Deathly Hallows that she knew the Hallows didn't exist, but she couldn't check every stone in the world to prove it. So opponents of atheism tend to avoid trying to prove anything, because it will never satisfy anyone, including themselves. So go for the societal implications.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: MattP, that's because atheism is all about denial of any God. And denial is hard to prove or disprove. It's like when Hermione says in Deathly Hallows that she knew the Hallows didn't exist, but she couldn't check every stone in the world to prove it. So opponents of atheism tend to avoid trying to prove anything, because it will never satisfy anyone, including themselves. So go for the societal implications.
For what I hope will be the last time, it's not denial, it's lack of belief.
If you think you can prove it, by all means prove it. I will listen, and if you show good evidence, I'll believe you.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Atheism has a problem in general when trying to kind any kind of symbol that represents it. The American Atheists symbol is an image of a lithium atom, with only one shell. It makes no sense at all. What does an atom have to do with atheism?
On alt.atheism from time to time people would suggest a symbol, but a lot of them were satanic, which implies belief in a deity. (Don't get me started on Anton LaVey). Other suggestions included the IPU and probably the FSM more recently, but they don't really make much sense either. How do you symbolize the lack of a thing? I've suggested the number zero, or a series of concentric circles (which coincidentally looks like a target, which sometimes feels appropriate).
quote: MattP, that's because atheism is all about denial of any God. And denial is hard to prove or disprove. It's like when Hermione says in Deathly Hallows that she knew the Hallows didn't exist, but she couldn't check every stone in the world to prove it. So opponents of atheism tend to avoid trying to prove anything, because it will never satisfy anyone, including themselves. So go for the societal implications.
This argument is a little twisted version of Antony Flew's argument on burden of proof. The burden of proof falls to the side making a positive assertion. It is unreasonable for a theist to demand that an atheist prove that there is no god because the atheist would be forced to argue to exhaustion (or ad infinitum). But if a theist insists that there is a god, it is very reasonable for an atheist to demand proof that that god exists before engaging in further debate on the characteristics of that god.
In any case, atheism is only about denial if there is a god to deny. Since there is no god (from this perspective), calling it denial makes no sense.
There is a controversy near me involving an attempt at compromise on the holiday display issue. I'm not clear on all the details, but the city used to provide assistance setting up a menorah on private property, but this year, they said that they couldn't use city workers to set up a religious symbol on private property, but offered to set it up on public property as part of a multiethnic display that included a creche, and some other religious holiday displays.
The rabbi of the synagogue who owns the menorah still want the menorah set up on the private property, but somehow it became the city's fault that they refused to set it up. In the meantime, the city had already come and picked up the menorah, but since the rabbi didn't want it on the public property, they wound up putting in in storage, which means that if the rabbi finds private help to put in up on private property, it will be extra work to go get it from where it's stored.
I thought maybe I should offer to help set it up., but I'm afraid to get in the middle of things.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read the article, how did I miss this:
quote: As there was last year, there is also a Chamber of Commerce tree - 32 feet high - meant to attract shoppers, as well as a Christian creche and a Jewish menorah.
When told of the Freethought display, Colin Hanna, a former county commissioner whose organization - Pennsylvania Pastors Network - is sponsoring the creche, said, "Their intention is to use the courthouse to make a political statement?
"That seems to me a pretty fundamental perversion of the purpose of holiday displays . . ."
Should atheists be allowed a tree? Sure. Should any religion that's represented in theh town be allowed a symbol? Sure. No skin off my nose - have the symbolic "happy" however you'd like.
But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the titles selected for the tree were not inflammatory. And let's not delude ourselves that they mean anything more than the words on the cover to the average passerby - and if you think atheists are dumb enough to believe that everyone will think about the deeper message rather than the title, you have a pretty low view of the intelligence of most atheists.
Strider has the right of it - put up positive symbols, titles that uplift. If a real Christian Christmas tree decked itself out in "Why I'm not Jewish" or "Why I'm not Muslim" signs, it would be pretty gauche.
Say what's good about your thing, not what's bad about other things. While others are saying "Yay, Christmas tree!" and "Yay, Menorah!" the atheists could be saying "Yay, Science!" or "Yay, Logical Reasoning!". Strider's suggestions would have been great.
Instead, to go with "Why I'm not..." instead of "Why I am..." is pushing a negative, not a positive.
Just a poor choice, to me.
But, still, the whole thing is silly. As an agnostic (or atheist, depending on your definition) who enjoys both Christmas and Channukah, I don't see what the big deal is.
Maybe they should have installed a Festivus pole.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Atheism has a problem in general when trying to kind any kind of symbol that represents it. The American Atheists symbol is an image of a lithium atom, with only one shell. It makes no sense at all. What does an atom have to do with atheism?
Not that I'm on their side, or anything, but I'd think it's fairly obvious. Their view is that they're looking at the world from a scientific POV, rather than a religious one (as though the two were necessarily mutually contradictory), and an image of an atom does represent "scientific" to most people.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think an Atheist tree is fine, but i would've been more interested in a Humanist tree, not the least because it would have been more interesting to look at. I'm a self-identified atheist, but there's nothing inherently "atheistic" that I would consider aesthetically pleasing to look at on a Christmas tree.
And being, as I also am, particularly enamored of Christmas decorations, the idea of book covers of any kind being used on a tree in place of pretty, shiny things is inherently displeasing to my sensibilities.
I protest the tree on the grounds of unprettiness!!
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Say what's good about your thing, not what's bad about other things. While others are saying "Yay, Christmas tree!" and "Yay, Menorah!" the atheists could be saying "Yay, Science!" or "Yay, Logical Reasoning!". Strider's suggestions would have been great.
I very partially agree, except for the menorah. A symbol celebrating a historical bloodbath is just weird, weirder than an inflammatory but relatively toothless "Yay! Why I am not a Christian" book or even a "Chamber of Commerce" tree Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah. It's the holiday that celebrates the bloodbath. The menorah (it's actually a hanukkiah) celebrates the miracle of the oil burning for 8 days.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a shame that there aren't more beautiful metaphors representing a World Without A God. Perhaps a giant glass crystal shape, or a stalagmite, or a tree with symbols of learning and science and wonder all over it.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A miracle that is interpreted as support/approval for the bloodbath.
Really? You think the primary thought occurring to people who look at a menorah is "Yay, bloodbath!"?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, because an Atheist has no problem with anyone's sexuality that isn't destructive. Many people of many religions do.
You don't have to be Atheist to be Gay, but you have to look hard to find an Atheist who would criticize you for your sexuality.
And note, that was number 10--the least important symbol I could come up with. Well behind the dollar signs already in use by the Chamber of Commerce.
--
As far as getting things positive, I see Atheism's main benefit is not a lack of guidance, lack of morality, or lack of God. I find it as an assault on Superstition. I would suggest some anti-Superstition symbols, but ones that aren't blatantly somebody else's religion.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hanukkah, O Hanukka The festival of light The flames of our fanaticism Still are burning bright ... Hanukkah, O Hanukkah A savage celebration Of blood and death and war That saved the soul of our nation
But seriously, of course I don't. I just said I found it weird given the historical context. Its one thing to celebrate a book with a title such as "Why I am not a Christian", I figure that the writer was probably just happy about their freedom. That someone later went and *maybe* used just the title to poke someone doesn't really ruin it for me. Edit to add: The original event is also relatively toothless in terms of consequences
However, to use a symbol that was originally associated with a celebration about war and death and then bring that into a modern celebration while forgetting about the historical context, I just find that weird. (Alternatively, if you don't forget about the historical context, all power to you )
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think instead of a tree, they should have erected 30 foot Atheist Magnifying Glass, and in very small script in the center of the lens: "There is no God."
Posts: 349 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Saephon: I think instead of a tree, they should have erected 30 foot Atheist Magnifying Glass, and in very small script in the center of the lens: "There is no God."
I would lean it towards the other displays, so they know they are under scrutiny.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Flying Dracula Hair: Why put up an Atheist Tree? Why pull this kind of thing on Christmas?
Well, putting up an atheist tree in a time where people generally don't put up trees might be weird.
The whole "Tree of Knowledge" thing and with all that's hanging off of it just seems so goofy to me, it's out of an Onion article.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus, the transformation of symbols to mean something better or bigger is not unique to the menorah. There is a certain sect, for example, that uses an instrument of torture and execution for an inspirational symbol.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: Your assumption is that I don't find celebrating with a symbol of torture and execution a bit weird. Although I suppose the weirdness is helped a little by the fact that the subject in question was able to respawn after being fragged No such consolation exists for those that were killed in the bloodbath leading to the menorah.
In the case of the sect, I suspect many already actually feel this on a gut-level and thus either place more abstract versions of the cross on a tree or leave it out entirely in favour of Santa or an angel. They leave the more explicit versions with the nails and blood for more somber occasions.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Christmas tends to more specifically celebrate the Incarnation rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus, so that is true.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like the giant magnifying glass idea. The atheists could aim it at their tree, and try to catch it on fire, while having the Christians pray that God burn their tree instead (no cheating with faulty wiring of the lights).
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait... are you saying the Christians pray that the Christmas tree catch fire of its own accord? Or are you saying that the Christians pray that the magnifying glass catch fire of its own accord?
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Festival of Trees that charity groups in town sponsor had a "literacy tree" this year from a pro-literacy group decorated with miniture books. I'm told it was quite lovely. (I didn't see it myself, but I know someone who bid on it.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a couple of miniature books on my Christmas tree. If anyone knows where I can get an itsy bitsy copy of The Origin of Species* , I would be delighted to hand it on my tree.
posted
Since Christmas (and many of the other holidays associated with this season) have roots in ancient winter solstice celebrations, I would think that the science of astronomy and perhaps space exploration would be an appropriate rallying point for athiests during this season.
Wouldn't it be fun to see a tree decorated with pictures of famous astronomers like Galileo, Copernicus and Kepler who challenged the religious view of the solar system. Add in a few planets, some celestial maps, some model telescopes, satellites, maybe even some rockets and you could have a very festive tree celebrating what secular humanist have contributed to human understanding of the winter solstice.
Unfortunately I've found that the breed of people who join groups like the Athiest Alliance are
A. Not representative of most athiests/secularists I've known.
B. More interested in slamming religion than in celebrating rationalism and humanism.
And I find those things to be a real pitty since there is a great deal to celebrate in the contributions of rationalism, science and humanism and furthermore most athiests I've known who are over 30 are very respectful to religion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Lisa, because an Atheist has no problem with anyone's sexuality that isn't destructive. Many people of many religions do.
You don't have to be Atheist to be Gay, but you have to look hard to find an Atheist who would criticize you for your sexuality.
If you were gay, I suspect you'd think otherwise. I've run into any number of homophobic atheists.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
