Things that don't help the reasonable athiests

[CriticalThought]

Apparently an athiest group, I believe called "Athiests America" but I can't remember at the moment, waited in line and was first to put in a request, specifically requesting that spot.

Wow, a confrontational political group of atheists didn't help atheists. Exactly how is this different from arguing the Westboro Baptist Church doesn't help Christians?

 

[Orion]

If the point of the OP was to let us know that some atheists make all atheists look bad, thanks for information that we already know. Atheists of America or whatever they're called are just as bad as mega churches that try to claim they represent "modern Christianity". (I only bring up Christianity as a reference to show that religion too has its detractors and scapegoats.)

It's also important to distinguish every day atheism from political atheism. The latter tends to be more active, confrontational, and authoritarian in its approach, just like highly political members of some religions tend to be.

 

[ARealConservative]

That's definitely kind of a dick move. Personally, I don't really understand the atheists who hate Christmas or feel the need to use it to make political points. I'm an atheist (or close enough) and Christmas is my absolute favorite time of year. I mean let's be honest here, 90% of the modern christmas traditions are not religious. They might have religious roots, but they've all become pretty secular at this point.

I've said it many times, and I'll say it again. People need to quit getting all offended about the way other people celebrate holidays.

thanks isn't enough, This is a truly great reply!

 

[Anarcho-fascist]

This is ridiculous. It wasn't a dick move, it was a completely reasonable move. If the Christians wanted the spot they should've shown up sooner.

 

[Zyphlin]

If the point of the OP was to let us know that some atheists make all atheists look bad, thanks for information that we already know.

Actually, it was more based off the fact some discussions I had seemed to give me the impression that some athiests believed they were regarded or treated so badly simply because people are offended or angered by the view point they hold. This was pointing out specific action, not a view point, that I think is the type of thing that plays more into why people may have a negative view towards it.

Secondly, other posters had mentioned how varied athiests are on the board and I was curious to see what the varied responses from the various types would be to this action.

Atheists of America or whatever they're called are just as bad as mega churches that try to claim they represent "modern Christianity". (I only bring up Christianity as a reference to show that religion too has its detractors and scapegoats.)

Yep, it absolutely does, and I figured they were likely someting like that. However, when you ask people who aren't highly religious their opinion on organize religion its not usually the church down the street that gave them a negative opinion on it, its usually pointing at things like mega churchs. Sadly, these extremely vocal minority tends to be what those who are not heavily involved either way see and begin to take as "the norm".

It's also important to distinguish every day atheism from political atheism. The latter tends to be more active, confrontational, and authoritarian in its approach, just like highly political members of some religions tend to be.

Absolutely and thank you for the distinction. While I know a few atheists in real life I would say the majority of my interactions with them are online at places such as this, which would unquestionably account for my erronious and slightly misguided view on the "typical" ones I've had in the past. However, back to my response to your first point, part of the interesting thing with this thread was seeing the different split between "everyday athiests" and those that are of the more political types on how they view this action.

 

[spud_meister]

This is ridiculous. It wasn't a dick move, it was a completely reasonable move. If the Christians wanted the spot they should've shown up sooner.

Nah, it's a dick move, it's pissing off a bunch of people just for a sense of petty superiority.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Again, is this a point about a specific poster? If so please identify it.

Why are you so determined to make this about a specific poster, rather than arguments we've all heard 6 million times from a large number of posters? Just curious.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Nah, it's a dick move, it's pissing off a bunch of people just for a sense of petty superiority.

Or, it's seizing a high traffic area open to any religious group that wants it, and using it to display their message, the same as any other group that won that corner. The fact is that the people who lost the corner, after having it for decades, are going to be resentful of the fact that this year, they didn't get it. Imagine how much worse it would be if the MUSLIMS had gotten it. It would be the goddamn mosque at the WTC all over again. This time, with baby Jesus pictures.

Seriously, y'all. I don't get my panties in a bunch that there are no fewer than 20 nativity scenes in my community, some on public land. That's fine. More power to them. But, extend to other people the tolerance that you want from us. I don't hate Christmas, and I'm not the grinch. But Christianity is not entitled to cultural dominance in the public sector. It is a set of beliefs that is no more true or important than anyone else's beliefs.

WHATEVER the atheists put on that corner would have offended y'all. At least be truthful about that. There is no sign that a group of Atheists could put up at Christmas on a corner traditionally claimed by Christians that wouldn't offend you.

This whole posturing about "dick moves" is just tired and worn out. It's a bitch move to act like a spoiled baby because you lost your corner, when you've essentially dominated it for decades. There are other corners. Grow up and act like adults.

DC has one of the highest homicide rates in the country. Based on annual stats, something like 28 people will die between now and Christmas in DC alone.

And y'all are fighting over a goddamn corner? Someone's priorities might be slightly out of whack.

 

[Zyphlin]

Why are you so determined to make this about a specific poster, rather than arguments we've all heard 6 million times from a large number of posters? Just curious.

I'm not, I'm trying to clarify if these comments that are ambiguous are just broad generalizations or if they're responding to people actually discussing in this thread. Because these "broad generalization" implications or derisions don't seem to apply to me, but yet they're in response to my thread with no indication of who they're aimed at so I'm trying to get a grasp of what they're supposed to be.

Without any kind of explanation, it just looks like a giant strawman as you're ignoring what's actually going on in the thread to instead beat up the other side based off this unspecific generalization that without specifics appears to be aimed at people in the thread.

 

[Zyphlin]

WHATEVER the atheists put on that corner would have offended y'all. At least be truthful about that. There is no sign that a group of Atheists could put up at Christmas on a corner traditionally claimed by Christians that wouldn't offend you.

Actually, I don't care that its an athiest or not. I think if ANYONE purposefully went for that spot in part specifically to knock out a long standing christmas presentation to push a political agenda I'd think it'd be a dick move, be it athiests, christians, or the NRA. I think the fact they did it specifically to say "This thing you're coming to see was wrong!" and using words like "Celebrate" to play off of the reason why people would generally be coming to that spot add's to the dickishness of it.

But yes Catz, god forbid, our priorities are out of whack because we're spending time on a message board talking about one out of dozens and dozens of topics. If only we were spending time talking about if a TV Comedian "Jumped the Shark", detailing the importance of "James Blount gay", or discussing if crossdressers need forgiveness. Perhaps we should move on to none "worn out" topics like is it okay to think that being gay is wrong.

I heard something interesting, I thought it'd be an interesting thing to talk about to see the views of various types of athiests, I discussed it on a message board. The couple minutes at times it takes me and others to make posts isn't going to make a huge difference in us focusing on other things. If your point is more about the media in general its amazing you pic only this thread to focus your anger on.


This whole posturing about "dick moves" is just tired and worn out. It's a bitch move to act like a spoiled baby because you lost your corner, when you've essentially dominated it for decades. There are other corners. Grow up and act like adults.

DC has one of the highest homicide rates in the country. Based on annual stats, something like 28 people will die between now and Christmas in DC alone.

And y'all are fighting over a goddamn corner? Someone's priorities might be slightly out of whack.[/QUOTE]

 

[digsbe]

I used to be an atheist, and when I was I was pretty "militant" in my beliefs (meaning I would be just like those who did what the OP said). I have no problem with atheists at all, but I find these people to be hypocrites. I'm sure they cry about "people shoving religion down my throat" while they attempt to spitefully shove their beliefs down other's throats. It's hypocrisy, but it technically isn't illegal and they have the right to do this. All it will do is fuel tensions.

 

[Cephus]

The atheist group went out of their way to take the spot that had been used for over a decade for a continual tradition on the town specifically to further make their political point in the midst of a holiday celebration. Having a good message in a generic sense doesn't trump the context of the how and why that message is being displayed

A tradition which was illegal to begin with and the town had no legal right to hold. Sorry, cry me a river. What's next? Complaining that someone won't let the south have slaves? But it's their tradition!

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Actually, I don't care that its an athiest or not. I think if ANYONE purposefully went for that spot in part specifically to knock out a long standing christmas presentation to push a political agenda I'd think it'd be a dick move, be it athiests, christians, or the NRA. I think the fact they did it specifically to say "This thing you're coming to see was wrong!" and using words like "Celebrate" to play off of the reason why people would generally be coming to that spot add's to the dickishness of it.

So, anything that removes the complete and total domination of Christianity over the cultural landscape is a "dick move."

Where would it be acceptable for atheists to hang their banner, Zyph? Because you know, if they buy ads on the Metro during the holiday season, advertising the separation of church and state, that's a "dick move." If they put up a banner across from a church, or down the street from the nativity, that's a "dick move." If they request equal space in front of city hall, and put their banner next to the nativity, that's a "dick move."

There's really no way for the atheists to win, except for them to just simply submit to the status quo and shut up, right?

 

[Zyphlin]

So, anything that removes the complete and total domination of Christianity over the cultural landscape is a "dick move."

Yeah, how about actually reading what I'm saying rather than making ignorant over generalizations. If this was a scene of Rudolph and Frosty that was in the same spot for more than a decade and was commonly visited by townsfolk and a christian fundamentalist group went in there specifically trying to remove that display for a nativity scene with a banner that said "Celebrate Christ for Christmas" I'd say it was a dick move too.

Its not a dick move because mean old athiests are taking things away from goody goody christians. Its a dick move that someone thinks thier political message is so important that they specifically attempt to spite a group they don't like and cause a tradition to move to then mock it in the midst of their political message. Who is doing it to who is not relevant to the overall point of it being a dick move.

Where would it be acceptable for atheists to hang their banner, Zyph?

I would say if they had put it up in the same spot as they had last year on the lawn of the location it wouldn't have been a dick move. I would say that if they hadn't purposefully attempted to get theirs in first specifically to take the spot from the nativity scene, but rather had no clue about the nativity scene and just picked that spot without knowledge of the history of it that it wouldn't be a dick move.

Because you know, if they buy ads on the Metro during the holiday season, advertising the separation of church and state, that's a "dick move."

Really? Whose saying that? Certainly I'M not saying that. Perhaps Mr. Scarecrow over there is? I think it'd be perfectly fine if not a bit pointless and stupid.

If they put up a banner across from a church, or down the street from the nativity, that's a "dick move."

Nope, I'd have no problem with that. Indeed, they actually did have a similar banner up last year near the nativity.

If they request equal space in front of city hall, and put their banner next to the nativity, that's a "dick move."

See above.

There's really no way for the atheists to win, except for them to just simply submit to the status quo and shut up, right?

I don't know, perhaps you should ask Mr. Scarecrow since it seems you're having a conversation with your strawman friend far more than you are with me.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Yeah, how about actually reading what I'm saying rather than making ignorant over generalizations. If this was a scene of Rudolph and Frosty that was in the same spot for more than a decade and was commonly visited by townsfolk and a christian fundamentalist group went in there specifically trying to remove that display for a nativity scene with a banner that said "Celebrate Christ for Christmas" I'd say it was a dick move too.

Its not a dick move because mean old athiests are taking things away from goody goody christians. Its a dick move that someone thinks thier political message is so important that they specifically attempt to spite a group they don't like and cause a tradition to move to then mock it in the midst of their political message. Who is doing it to who is not relevant to the overall point of it being a dick move.

I would say if they had put it up in the same spot as they had last year on the lawn of the location it wouldn't have been a dick move. I would say that if they hadn't purposefully attempted to get theirs in first specifically to take the spot from the nativity scene, but rather had no clue about the nativity scene and just picked that spot without knowledge of the history of it that it wouldn't be a dick move.

Really? Whose saying that? Certainly I'M not saying that. Perhaps Mr. Scarecrow over there is? I think it'd be perfectly fine if not a bit pointless and stupid.

Nope, I'd have no problem with that. Indeed, they actually did have a similar banner up last year near the nativity.

See above.

I don't know, perhaps you should ask Mr. Scarecrow since it seems you're having a conversation with your strawman friend far more than you are with me.

Fine, be all rational. The fact remains that every year, we get to fight the war on Christmas, and I've seen twenty million threads on this subject.

 

[Zyphlin]

Honestly, I wish I would've thought of the analogy I used in that post earlier cause it would've made my point simpler.

If Christians did this to a traditional "Secular" display that had been there for decades, specifically aiming to take the spot so that they couldn't have it AND specifically putting up something that thumbs their nose at the fact they managed to do it, I would be just as annoyed and say its one of those actions that doesn't help the reasonable Christian crowd.

The reactions of various people to this though has been amazingly enlightening as I try to better understand the variety of atheists on the board.

 

[rathi]

I really fail to see why anyone's winter decorations are soooo important they need to be displayed on public land. The only difference I can see that this year is that one self-important group of windbags managed to steal the spotlight from another.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Honestly, I wish I would've thought of the analogy I used in that post earlier cause it would've made my point simpler.

If Christians did this to a traditional "Secular" display that had been there for decades, specifically aiming to take the spot so that they couldn't have it AND specifically putting up something that thumbs their nose at the fact they managed to do it, I would be just as annoyed and say its one of those actions that doesn't help the reasonable Christian crowd.

The reactions of various people to this though has been amazingly enlightening as I try to better understand the variety of atheists on the board.

So Christians hogging the same spot to push their viewpoint for years is reasonable, but Atheists who behave once in that selfsame manner are unreasonable, rude, and thumbing their nose. I get you.

 

[Zyphlin]

So Christians hogging the same spot to push their viewpoint for years is reasonable, but Atheists who behave once in that selfsame manner are unreasonable, rude, and thumbing their nose. I get you.

If by get you you mean "Don't bother to read your posts and what little I read I'll completely misrepresent through the use of ridiculous statements an exaggerations" I agree, you totally get me.

 

[Mach]

Wow Zyph.

Christians who do X are neutral, Atheists who do X are jerks? You're really differentiating yourself here aren't you? I think that's why I enjoy the fact that atheists are discirminated against. It gives people an easy way to identify who is actually ethical, and who thinks they are but when tested, fail miserably. God bless those Christians.

Tommy plays with the PC every day during free-play at Christians'R'Us daycare. It's the only PC in the class.
One day little Susie, right as free-play starts, B-lines for the PC so she can have a turn.

WHAT A DICK MOVE SUSIE! Herp derp.

 

[Catz Part Deux]

 

[Zyphlin]

Wow Zyph.

Christians who do X are neutral, Atheists who do X are jerks?

Actually no...

Christians doing X is neutral, Athiests doing Y are jerks. If it was Secularists doing X it'd still be neutral, and Christians doing Y they'd still be jerks. If it was veterans doing x, and anti-war movement doing y, they'd be neutral x and dicks y. If it was an environmentalist group doing x, and an oil company doing y, they'd be neutral x and dicks y.

X being = Placing a display in accordance with an American Tradition for over a decade of years, becoming a traditional spot for a local town.

and

Y being = Purposefully attempting to get the spot that the other group used for X specifically to remove them and to further your political message, and to replace that display with a political message that doubly pokes at those it disposed of.

So someone putting up a nativity for over a decade that is a tradition in the town is neutral. Aathiest group then making it a point to bump that nativity group from its spot specifically to put up a sign pushing a political message and thumbing the nose at the thing they replaced and those that would be visiting to see it is a dick.

So someone putting up a Rudolph and Santa display for over a decade is neutral. A christian group then making it a point to bump that group from its spot specifically to stick to the secularlists to put up a nativity with a political message like "Celebrate CHRIST on CHRISTmas" would be dicks.

So someone putting up a display, stating to support the troops and wishing them luck in the wars abroad, in town on veterans day for over a decade at the same spot is neutral, an anti-war group going out of their way specifically to take that spot to then put up a banner stating "Embrace Peace, Reject Killers, No More War!" are being dicks.

So someone putting up a display in the same spot for over a decade on Earth Day promoting recycling, conservation, and clean energy is neutral. BP coming in and purposefully getting that spot to put up an ad about how much they're doing in the golf and to buy their oil would be a dick move.

Whether or not its athiests or christians or anyone doing it doesn't magically make it more or less of a dick move.

You're really differentiating yourself here aren't you?

I am to those that are actually honestly reading what I'm writing and not just seeing a few words and going "OMG HE'S ATTACKING ATHIESTS! GET HIM!"

I think that's why I enjoy the fact that atheists are discirminated against. It gives people an easy way to identify who is actually ethical, and who thinks they are but when tested, fail miserably. God bless those Christians.

What the hell does this have to do at all with whether or not someone is christian? How is anything being stated not "ethical" here? Are you also not noticing a number of athiests apparently agreeing with the person you're suggesting isn't ethical?

Tommy plays with the PC every day during free-play at Christians'R'Us daycare. It's the only PC in the class.
One day little Susie, right as free-play starts, B-lines for the PC so she can have a turn.

Congratulations, you prove you didn't take the time to read this at all objectively since your analogy doesn't make any sense.

Tommy hasn't been doing it for such a long time that it becomes tradition. Tommy's playing isn't something that many of the kids in class go out of their way to come watch. Tommy's on the ONLY PC in the class, where the correct analogy at best would be Tommy's on the best (and that's arguable) computer in class. Susie is given no motive as to why she's making a B-Line for the computer rather than making a B-Line to it SPECIFICALLY so that Tommy can't have it. Susie isn't getting on it and then turning and poking her tongue out at Tommy while she plays.

Seriously, you're analogy does nothing and proves nothing but the fact you didn't even bother to actually read the thread.

Herp derp.

Yes, herp derp indeed.

 

[DarkWizard12]

So Christians hogging the same spot to push their viewpoint for years is reasonable, but Atheists who behave once in that selfsame manner are unreasonable, rude, and thumbing their nose. I get you.

What viewpoint is pushed by a nativity scene?

 

[DarkWizard12]

Here, unreasonable atheists, this is clearly a case of atheist gone dickish for no other reason than to be dickish and troll christians. Quite frankly, a part of me hopes you defend this to the last drop because, it only makes your entire group look bad.

Here is what we "reasonable" people are getting at. If the same atheist group had gotten the same spot, but didn't want to be dickesh about it, they would have AT THE VERY LEAST, just placed a christmas tree, preferably a huge one. But some stupid minority atheist group gets offended at the "nativity scene" because they wanted be that bitchy, fine, no big deal, this christian has no problem with that, just put something secular like a christmas tree, so that NO ONE can possibly be offended. If they wanted to be true to their secularism, they would have done that. But no, they put a sign there that has no meaning to the american tradition of christmas, and do it simply to piss off christians, whereas christians only put up a nativity scene for absolutely no reason than to celebrate american traditions of christmas, and would have no clue that one atheist or another is "offended" at "christianity".

 

[Catz Part Deux]

Here is what we "reasonable" people are getting at. If the same atheist group had gotten the same spot, but didn't want to be dickesh about it, they would have AT THE VERY LEAST, just placed a christmas tree, preferably a huge one. .

WTF? The Atheists, to be reasonable, should use a Christmas symbol? This is where you claiming you are part of the reasonable people becomes rather hilarious.