Atheists cross the line, become infantile like Christians

[Drake Dun]

http://midwestatheist.blogspot.com/2...s-tree-of.html

I think I liked being an oppressed minority better.

Drake

[gothicusmaximus]

I don't view what they did to be infantile at all. Although I doubt they were entirely motivated by a desire to participate in the celebration of the winter season despite their secular beliefs, a generally innocuous reaction to the manner in which the celebration of what should be a private religious holiday totally saturates our society during this season is hardly condemnable in my opinion. They didn't put their display in front of a church, or light a nativity scene on fire, they erected a secular exhibit town square, which should be a secular community center anyway. Though their decision may well have been motivated by frustration, they way in which they carried it out was quite mature and in no way hateful towards theists- they even hung the bible on their tree.
In the future, if you want to make the case that a group is juvenile or unreasonable, you probably shouldn't support your idea with a clip of that group on Fox (re: Faux) News, in which environment even a 5 year old who thinks he's a ninja turtle would seem to be an exceptionally intelligent, well-adjusted and grounded individual.

[Linen]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Good for them!

I must correct the Pastor, though. The "Christmas" Tree was not originally a Christian symbol, but a Pagan symbol. Thus, decorating a tree has nothing to do with Jesus unless you make it about that.

If anyone is allowed to display their religious decorations in the town square, than ANYONE should be allowed to do so. It's an all-or-none kind of situation.

[Drake Dun]

Don't get me wrong. It's not a question of rights. That goes without saying. I still think it was infantile, for a couple of reasons. I can't help but go on and on about it, but I'll try to keep this at least a little concise.

First, the clear intent was to aggravate people (really think about the choice of content and forum), or at best to sell an ideological message in another guise. In other words, either belligerent or disingenuous.

Worse, the whole gesture has a whiny, self-pitying tone to it. The "tree of knowledge" schtick is embarassingly ham-handed, and unwittingly self-effacing. It reminds me of some kind of hubris addled post-modern artist swinging at the fence of popular culture by sodomizing himself with a Paris Hilton action figure. Confident philosophy does not look to pick up points by sheepishly dogging the shadows of monumental nonsense. It stands serene.

Second, the lady in that interview is totally full of shit, like almost everybody else on Faux (or T.V. in general, really). The same bogus smile and strained cheeriness. The same way of answering simple questions with discursive polemics. The same eagerness to talk over the other party. And most of all, the same flagrant dishonesty about her motivations.

Still, you have made me feel a little guilty for choosing such strong language. It's not like it's really a big deal or anything. I just had this moment of horror in which I realized that atheism going mainstream means that it becomes the province of T.V. commentators, interest groups, "community leaders", etc. Read: "bullshit artists".

The silver lining - a good reminder of why not to hang one's self image on an ism.

Originally Posted by gothicusmaximus

In the future, if you want to make the case that a group is juvenile or unreasonable, you probably shouldn't support your idea with a clip of that group on Fox (re: Faux) News, in which environment even a 5 year old who thinks he's a ninja turtle would seem to be an exceptionally intelligent, well-adjusted and grounded individual.

I don't appreciate you doing injury to five-year olds or the ninja turtles by way of such comparisons.

Drake

[Drake Dun]

Oh, and yes, the whole Christmas tree as a Christian tradition bit was annoying. I wish she had had the presence of mind to point out that the only reason we think of the Christmas tree as a Christian thing is because of the nasty Christian penchant for violently co-opting the time honored traditions of other cultures.

And then allowed the comment to linger momentarily, to see if anyone picked up the unspoken irony. With that gaggle of simians, I bet you nobody would have.

Drake

[heavilyrxmedicated]

Ahh... Good 'ol Fox News... I haven't yet seen one interview on it that hasn't turned into an infantile shouting match... And does anyone else notice that they start with politics, bring pastors onto the "news" program, and turn it into a religious argument?

"IT'S OUR TIME OF YEAR! THE ATHEISTS CAN'T TAKE IT FROM US!!!"

[spoon!]

I felt embarrassed for both sides.

[Godslayer Jillian]

The idea was not infantile at all.
'The clear intent was to aggravate people'? I fail to see how that is bad or infantile. One of the best moves in '68 was nominating a pig for president, and that aggravated many liberals.
The best move of the '67 was declaring the death of the hippie on a parade, and that still aggravates many hippie wannabes today.
This idea was something I have already thought about a lot, and the fuckers beat me to it.
Only I do see a problem.
It doesn't aggravate people enough!
Look at the tree and the woman's explanation. They are too self-righteous and condescending. They're the typical reformist that doesn't dare do something genuinely radical because etiquette and civility is too important to them.
And 'tree of knowledge'? The first thing that comes to my mind with that is Genesis.
If they had wanted to make a point, they should have hanged iPods and toys and put a dollar sign on the top of the tree.

[Rosie]

In my opinion, people are all too fucking quick with the "OOH YOU'VE BECOME WHAT YOU HATE!" gun. Stop looking for reasons why progressive party X is somehow as bad as backward conservative party Y. Falling under the same umbrella as X doesn't excuse you either.

[TopHaggardDoll]

I just see something blown out of proportion.

[Renatus]

Why do atheists need a religious organization and buildings to show how much they don't believe in anything? It's not like their faith demands they build churches or anything of the sort. Donate it all to charity, if there is no such thing as miracles shouldn't they spend that money to make their own miracles in the lives of others? What is it with American religious organizations(athiest included) and wasting money?

[Drake Dun]

Atheism is not a religion or a "faith". Repeatedly insinuating the contrary has not caused that reality to change thus far, and it isn't going to work heading into the future, either. Thank you for playing.

Drake

[Renatus]

I'm not saying they are a faith I'm saying they demand the same things as a faith, why do Athiests need buildings and money to discuss how they don't believe in anything?

[Delkaetre]

They do the same things as faiths generally to highlight themselves as an alternative to religion and to debunk parts of various religions.
Secular and atheistic people often want to gather in much the same way as people in a religion get comfort ffrom a gathering. It's part of the human instinct, to gather into groups and herds. It feels safer, more comfortable, to delineate oneself as part of a group so that you have somewhere to belong.

[Crying_Crimson_Tears]

Originally Posted by TopHaggardDoll

I just see something blown out of proportion.

That's what I see. I do see that the Atheists themselves just wanted to celebrate this season and this time of year as well. I actually think it's a good idea and that they should keep right on with it because this year is a time to celebrate and everyone needs something to celebrate.

I can see they're proud of this tree and their beliefs and I think that's great. Many people are not all that comfortable sometimes when it comes to what they believe in.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Renatus

I'm not saying they are a faith I'm saying they demand the same things as a faith, why do Athiests need buildings and money to discuss how they don't believe in anything?

Good question. I can think of two answers. The first is that the more outspoken an atheist is, the more likely that person is to also be an "anti-theist", which is to say, a person who proactively wants other people to become atheists. Obviously, it helps to have organizations and so forth for that. And as long as they're up front about their objectives, I think that's fine. I have sympathies for the position, myself.

The second reason is that atheists are still a relatively silent minority. Speaking from personal experience, it's nice to run into other atheists. Atheism itself is merely a position, or actually a non-position, on the reality of certain supernatural entities, but it tends to go hand in hand with a particular range of personality types. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it tends to go hand in hand with intelligent personalities.

When the entire culture that you live in is permeated by cultish devotion to barely lucid myths, and even the most basic public events are kicked off with ritual obeisances to supernatural progenitors of terrific and cruel character, it's nice to find those islands of sanity.

I suppose that if you believe in YHWH, it's difficult to understand how alienating it is living in a religious culture. It's natural that atheists in America form into little groups like this.

Drake

[prophecyofdoom]

Goodness that woman's smile was irritating... It just radiated "haha, I'm pissing you off!" I found myself sympathising with the preists position, which seemed to be, essentially, that there are people in this world with actual fucking problems, not just "atheisists feel left out at Christmas".

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by prophecyofdoom

Goodness that woman's smile was irritating... It just radiated "haha, I'm pissing you off!"

Thank you. I was starting to think that I was alone on my mountain. Again.

Drake

[Godslayer Jillian]

I think everyone will agree about her smile. I saw her and I immediately thought 'Miss Ratched'

[jestercel85]

In response to the OP that wasn't in any way infantile. I actually commend them in a way, though I don't like how they handled this. I personally am a Satanist and would have probably gone all out for it. Made something truly worth getting all up in arms about. Hey if they can why can't I? In any case because none of this matters in any real sense I don't see the point in bothering. Until our society wakes up and places religion back into the PRIVATE places it needs to be in we won't make any headway. I don't see the point in doing things like this, they don't get you anywhere.

[prophecyofdoom]

Religion, and nonreligion too apparantly, is largely about sharing it with your community... So I am in favor of any and every religion/nonreligion being able to make displays in public places. Being surrounded by another faith's imagery would not offend me, on the contrary I would regard it with keen interest... I like learning about how other folks think.. However, a group of people setting up a rival display with the EXPRESS PURPOSE to detract from something that other people hold sacred is really just RUDE. They ought to choose another time or a different place.

[Dark Clarissa]

I just found the whole thing made me cringe unbearably. I couldn't watch very much of it, because they both seemed to take great delight in trying to out-smug the other...I don't get what the big deal was...I'm seriously confused about why anyone should get pissed off by what someone else did to decorate part of their town...wtf!?!?!??