Bah Humbug! Or have yourself an atheist holiday season

But atheism isn't a "belief", it's a lack of belief. Therefore, any attempt to "state" their beliefs would just be saying that everyone else's opinion is inferior. Unless, of course, an atheist comes to a church wielding a sign that says "I DON'T BELIEVE IN THIS BUT I RESPECT OTHERS WHO DO"

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:35:00 AM by Kexruct

Nope. It's not automatic. Maybe it's a good assumption, that they're saying that everybody elses belief is inferior to be honest, but you'd have to make the same assumption about anybody who has a form of belief (or non-belief)....if they didn't think other forms of belief were inferior, why would they have the belief (or non-belief) that they do in the first place? They'd switch to that other form!

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:36:23 AM by Karmakin

Christians do belive that other religions are true too?

But religious displays tend to be more along the lines of "This is what I believe" rather than "What you believe sucks."

@Kex: Except that by default, stating that you believe one thing over another is saying that those who believe otherwise "suck".

"There is no god, all gods are myths."

That is what I belive.

That is not an attack on people who are religious, that is what I belive.

Not true. Tell me, which seems more like an affront to a person's beliefs: "Christmas is based off of a myth" or a picture of Jesus being born?

Neither? They're the same thing.

Edit: Bah, well not really. One is a direct message and the other is a symbol. However, the symbol has a message behind it, and the message behind it is pretty much the same thing.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:43:01 AM by Karmakin

No, they're not. Atheistic displays are made specifically to say "What you believe is stupid." Religious displays are made to say "I believe what I believe."

Annnd what I believe is that you have to worship an authoritarian entity and if you don't you'll be punished and you won't know how to be a good person and you won't be accepted into society because everybody knows if you're not in our group you're not an accepted part of society so you deserve no friends go DIAF.

Not that I'm saying that's what you would mean. But that's all the baggage of the message that goes along with it.

Edit: So the question is..what's more offensive? That what you believe is a myth, or the message I wrote in the first paragraph?

Frankly, atheists are tame :p

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:46:11 AM by Karmakin

Kexruct

But it's not as if any and all religious symbols attack other beliefs! All they're doing is reinforcing a particular belief, not detracting from others, unlike 99% of atheist displays.

That's the point I've been trying to get across, too.

Karmakin

There were complaints about the FSM, because it brings up thoughts of mockery and other rude things. But it's the same way with a cross. It's not the cross itself that's problematic, it's all the baggage that potentially goes along with it, the ideas of exclusivism and domination.

Except that in the case of the FSM, Atheists have used it to mock and ridicule religion (Christianity in specific) with its imagery. For example, take the FSM logo that's deliberately designed to resemble the Christian "Jesus fish." It's just another piece of straw in the straw man.

Considering that a number of Christian theories of salvation contend that not believing in God doesn't automatically make you evil or bound for Hell, how did you come to the conclusion that a diorama of Jesus being born is automatically a condemnation of Atheists as evil?

Osmium

And Atheist do belive there is no god, to them the Christian god is a myth, like Zeus is a myth to a Christian. So expressing an Atheistic point of view includes the statement god does not exist and god is a myth.

If people are not able to deal with other peoples open statements concerning their belives without being offended, they should fight either all displays of religious point of views, including their own, or they should learn to be tolerant.

If you want nativity scenes on public ground, you have to live with atheist openly declaring their point of view next to them.

So you're saying that non-Atheists have to "learn to be tolerant" of Atheists committing aggressive, hateful acts of religious intolerance?

Has it ever occurred to you that it's possible to be an Atheist and have public displays without aggressively attacking the beliefs of others?

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:48:24 AM by TrevMUN

Okay, okay. Let's assume you are correct for a moment.

You are saying that atheist displays are okay, but that religious displays are not. But you also say that they are fundamentally equivalent in that they are both an affront to other's beliefs.

@ 309 I love how you avoid generalization...

A sign saying "There is no god" is not a bigger attack on other peoples belive than a sign saying "There is god" both are the statement of someones belive, and both include the message : "I belive I am right and others are wrong"

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:48:38 AM by Osmium

We go to war with the religious culture we have, not with the religious culture we wish we had. (To stylize from a very stupid man.. Donald Rumsfeld if you don't get the reference). The unfortunate reality is that those things are the prevalent memes/tropes from the Christian culture we have in our society.

The strawman is saying that these things don't exist.

Considering that the biggest outcry in terms of a widespread atheist campaign have been over signs that say "You can be good without God"...well...no. Because it's simply untrue. Mere atheism is offensive to people, because of religious privilege. Nothing we can do about that.

Eh. I think both are just looking to create trouble. I tend to be pretty non-confrontational myself so that's what I prefer. I do think both ARE offensive on their face, we just have to make a decision if these sorts of things are going to be socially acceptable or not. It's a you can't have your cake and eat it too type thing. Personally I don't really care which way it goes, to be honest. It's not a big deal for me. It's the double standard and the claiming of privilege that are big deals for me.

I do think that, again, being called "Evil" is worse than being called "Stupid" (It's not even "stupid" It's "Irrational")

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:54:34 AM by Karmakin

But Christians at least in my country have decided the two are one and the same.

But here's the thing- if you are offended by a religious display, that requires you make assumptions. Here's the thought process:

These people have something that shows what they believe==> These people don't believe what I believe==> Therefore, they think what they believe is superior to what I believe.

Not at all unreasonable, but here's the thought process behind taking offense to an atheist display:

They are saying that they believe something and that what I believe is stupid==> Therefore, they believe that what I believe is stupid.

Being offended by an atheist display requires basically no assumptions being made, therefore it is inherently more offensive.

^^ No. They. Haven't.

Jesus fuck, people. Stop generalizing. Treat people with some damn respect. Groups you disagree with aren't a massive hivemind.

This thread is making me omnicidal.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:52:22 AM by Pentadragon

@Pent

Er, yes they have

@Kex:You're still making an assumption between "Myth" and "stupid"

^^ All I see is a lobby group flipping out over an advertisement. They hardly represent every Christian in the United Kingdom.

Want to try again?

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:59:35 AM by Pentadragon

Atheist displays are inherently worse also because they aren't there to reinforce beliefs, because there is no belief to reinforce. Rather, they are created to detract from other beliefs. It could be argued that Theistic displays do the same thing, but they do it indirectly, which isn't as bad (but it still isn't good)

Karmakin

The strawman is saying that these things don't exist.

And just where did that particular straw man come from?

Kamarkin

Considering that the biggest outcry in terms of a widespread atheist campaign have been over signs that say "You can be good without God"...well...no. Because it's simply untrue. Mere atheism is offensive to people, because of religious privilege. Nothing we can do about that.

If people are going to be intolerant of passive "You can be good without God" signs, behaving like the WBC and attacking non-Atheists is not going to do any good, either. It's only going to make perceptions of Atheists worse, just as people are given to point to the WBC and similar-minded fundies as what they think of when they think of Christians

As someone who advocates religious tolerance, I find that mentality very appalling.

Karmakin

So the question is..what's more offensive? That what you believe is a myth, or the message I wrote in the first paragraph?

Frankly, atheists are tame :p

That's like a Christian asking "What's more offensive? That I say you're going to suffer eternal damnation for not believing what I do, or that I don't think you're going to be saved?"

Frankly, militant Atheists are no more tame than Christian fundies.

Osmium

A sign saying "There is no god" is not a bigger attack on other peoples belive than a sign saying "There is god" both are the statement of someones belive, and both include the message : "I belive I am right and others are wrong"

Except that's not what's happening.

I've said it many times in this thread; a sign like "No God? No Problem! Just be Good for Goodness' Sake!" is a passive and positive message compared to the other messages I've singled out.

What you really have there is a really good example of the theistic privilege. It's not even just religious privilege. It's that belief deserves the bigger standard than non-belief.

While non-belief logically, intellectually and philosophically isn't the same thing as belief, in terms of legal rights and social privileges, they should be looked at in the same light.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:01:16 AM by Karmakin

So then why are you saying that atheist displays are better than theists'?

Well, you brought it up earlier in the thread, not that it's a particularly uncommon thing in these sorts of discussions. If it's something I don't believe then nobody believes it, or that's theologically wrong so it doesn't counter.

I disagree with that. It's the wider culture that has the real-world effects and as such that's what is important. What individuals believe in these discussions is generally less relevant.

Sorry. But those signs tend to trigger just as much controversy as the "WBC-like" ones that you mentioned. Maybe you really do feel that way. But that's not been my experience.

In terms of moral/ethical scale, being called "stupid"...let's assume an atheist sign said "Believe in God? You're a moron"...bit of a strawman, but whatever..is less hurtful, at least to me, than being called evil, which is what frequently happens coming out of popular Christian (and other religions as well) culture.

It's possible that one crosses the line and the other doesn't. Could be. I don't think that's the case here however. I'm willing to say that they might be close enough. But, we need to make a cultural decision if these things are acceptable or not. And it has to be a pretty much blanket decision.

In short, any difference I have about the ethics of the two messages are blown away by desiring a lack of conflict.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:09:44 AM by Karmakin