1. Religion & Spirituality

Discuss in my forum

World Peace vs. Christmas: Save us from the Christian Savior by Boycotting Christmas and Christmas Celebrations
Image © Austin Cline
Original Poster
University of Georgia
Is Christmas at all contrary to world peace? That seems unlikely, but there are certainly good arguments for the idea that Christianity is a hinderance to world peace. Christians celebrate Christmas as the date of the birth of their savior, the focal point of their religion. In a sense, then, while Christmas is a date for Christians to celebrate the start of their religion, it may also be a date for non-Christians to mourn the loss to peace for the entire world.

 

Read Article: World Peace vs. Christmas: Save us from the Christian Savior by Boycotting Christmas and Christmas Celebrations

Comments
December 4, 2006 at 11:37 pm
(1) Frank Walton says:

Wow, what a day to celebrate Christmas. You actually want them to mourn on the special day? Well, if that’s the masochistic nature of some atheists so be it. Anyway, dear readers out there, trust this Christian. The more Christianity in the world the better it will be. There’s not denying the facts, and America is proof of it.

Frank

December 5, 2006 at 3:34 am
(2) Sarah says:

Frank, take a good look at the world now. You can thank religion for all the nonsense, from foreign to social policy.

December 5, 2006 at 6:37 am
(3) Austin Cline says:

America ranks behind every other western industrialized nation in social health; ahead of all the same nations in religiosity. Even within America, the regions where conservative evangelical Christianity is strongest are those regions where crime, divorce, income, and general social health are worst.

December 5, 2006 at 11:53 am
(4) John says:

Frank,

Did you read your own article? How about the part that notes, “…Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information…”?

December 6, 2006 at 9:33 am
(5) Janet says:

Austin,

I have had respect for you and your views as a Christian because I believe wholly in the concept that the government shall leave their nose out of people’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. That is something that we agree on. I have read your articles and have respected your views in the past.

But this article and series of pictures represents an idealogy of atheistic fundamentalism. I am surprised that you would let your emotions get the better of you in this manner, at least it seems that way.

Your views may be chasing Christians away that may want to understand and empathize with your situation a little more, and this is one Christian that is turned off.

Needless to say, I will not be posting on your forum anymore, due to these extreme points of view that are shown on your behalf.

Janet

December 6, 2006 at 10:23 am
(6) Austin Cline says:

But this article and series of pictures represents an idealogy of atheistic fundamentalism.

No, this image and series of images are satire, and are clearly marked as such on the index. They are satirizing the claims which conservative Christians make about atheists. I’m sorry if my satirizing of others’ extremist assumptions about atheists bothers you so much that you can’t bear to remain.

December 6, 2006 at 11:38 am
(7) Janet says:

Then I am surprised that, by you, being a visual artist can’t understand that there are points of view that will be against what you present, even if you stipulate what you intend them to be to begin with.

You are an artist and a good one, I’ll give you that, but art is open to interpretation. It is your point of view as the artist that it is satire, but to the general audience that is being presented to, it is another thing.

I really can’t bear to NOT remain, but I cannot be a part of a fundamentalist idealogy that you present even in a self proclaimed “satirically presented material”. For I will NOT support fundamentalism in any fashion, even as a Christian. I am standing by my principles and you are losing a long time member of your forum community.

Janet

December 6, 2006 at 12:02 pm
(8) Austin Cline says:

Then I am surprised that, by you, being a visual artist can’t understand that there are points of view that will be against what you present, even if you stipulate what you intend them to be to begin with.

If you mean that people will disagree with the points I am trying to make, I understand that. People disagreeing with my points doesn’t appear to be relevant, though.

You are an artist and a good one, I’ll give you that, but art is open to interpretation. It is your point of view as the artist that it is satire, but to the general audience that is being presented to, it is another thing.

If people misinterpret satire as serious, I can’t help that. People misinterpret satire all the time – there are a number of cases where articles from the satirical newspaper The Onion have been treated as genuine. I’m not going to refrain from doing satire simply because misinterpretation is possible, though. Art is always open to interpretation, but satire is not open to being legitimately interpreted as serious. If someone treats satire as serious, they are simply making a mistake. If may be an honest mistake if they are unaware of the satire, but it’s still an error on their part.

By treating satirical images as if they were genuine expressions of sincerely held beliefs on my part, you are making a mistake and misinterpreting the images.

I really can’t bear to NOT remain, but I cannot be a part of a fundamentalist idealogy that you present even in a self proclaimed “satirically presented material”.

Satirizing conservative Christian claims about what atheists think is not an expression of a “fundamentalist ideology.” It wouldn’t be satire if I (and other atheists generally) really held the opinions which the images convey. You are seeing something satirical, interpreting it as genuine, and then forming opinions about others on the basis of that misinterpretation.

I’m sorry that my satirization of others’ claims about what atheists believe makes you feel uncomfortable, but I find it a good way to counter those claims. No one creates images and arguments like these which are genuine. They are so over-the-top that they help prove that these are not things which atheists normally think. I find it difficult to believe that a “long time member” of the forum doesn’t realize this.

December 6, 2006 at 6:11 pm
(9) Janet aka andi03 says:

Evidently, you are not fathoming the complete message that I am trying to instill in my message. In my first post to you I mentioned the article, I should have noted plural, btw, and the artwork combined. Am I to think that you don’t have a fundamentalist streak about you when you declare this in the first picture in the gallery, in your article?

*****This seems an appropriate theme for this topic because the rhetoric of Christian Nationalists indicates that they consider attempts to deny them control over the public square to be much the same as Nazi repression.*****

The second picture, with article underneath, in the Gallery, your quote, note the Christian Nationalists term.

****In this context, however, it seemed an appropriate image to depict how Christian Nationalists seem to perceive the alleged threats to their treasured religious symbols.*****

Photo number four, in the article:

****For that reason, one of the best ways to fight Christian Nationalists in the War on Christmas is to encourage people to continue viewing it through the lens of economics.******

Whenever a person writes “satire” as your put it there is always a point that the author is trying to make and you did it very negatively to make your cause. In your responses you seem to be defending your art more than you do your words that you have written down. To me the words meant more than the visuals that were created as I judge more on words than I do the artwork that you have created. I am surprised that you could not separate the artwork critique from my critique of you as a person, as evidence by this quote from you in one of the prior messages:

*****If you mean that people will disagree with the points I am trying to make, I understand that. People disagreeing with my points doesn’t appear to be relevant, though.******

By you being a forum owner on the About.com system under the umbrella of the NYTimes I am very surprised to hear this coming from a logical person like yourself. A person that points out a position of relevance or not pertaining to a conversation wants to control the said conversation.

Whether or not you believe that I was a long term member of your forum, I am sorry that you feel that way. This means that you are not cognizant of the liberal Christians that visit your forum. That should be noted as past tense.

Good night and Good Luck,
andi03

December 6, 2006 at 6:39 pm
(10) Austin Cline says:

Am I to think that you don’t have a fundamentalist streak about you when you declare this in the first picture in the gallery, in your article?

*****This seems an appropriate theme for this topic because the rhetoric of Christian Nationalists indicates that they consider attempts to deny them control over the public square to be much the same as Nazi repression.*****

What’s “fundamentalist” about this quote or any of the quotes you cite?

Whenever a person writes “satire” as your put it there is always a point that the author is trying to make and you did it very negatively to make your cause.

What is negative about the ideas/arguments I presented, and why is that a bad thing?

In your responses you seem to be defending your art more than you do your words that you have written down.

The essays and the posters are expressing different things. The posters are expressing an extreme, hostile, aggressive, over-the-top viewpoint which some Christians claim that atheists have. The posters give visual expression to what those attitudes would be if atheists really did have them. The essays explore some of the issues which the images raise and whether there is anything valid behind it all.

Take, for example, the “Santa = Satan” image. In that essay, I say “so much of any “religious” meaning has been drained from Christmas in modern America that perhaps it isn’t extreme to regard Santa — the symbol of modern Christmas — as a bit Satanic.” Do you really suppose that I personally believe that Santa is satanic? Of course I don’t – I’m exploring a viewpoint here which some Christians might hold. I do the same with many other images, like those that “promote” mass spending and consumerism on Christmas. The images advocate going into debt and buying lots; the essay discusses how consumerism has overtaken religion on the holiday.

To me the words meant more than the visuals that were created as I judge more on words than I do the artwork that you have created.

Well, you haven’t critiqued any of my words thus far. This is the first time you’ve actually mentioned any particular words you find problematic, but even so you don’t say what is problematic or “fundamentalist” about them. I’m sure that it must seem very clear and obvious to you, but it isn’t so to me and you do nothing to make any sort of case on behalf of your position.

I am surprised that you could not separate the artwork critique from my critique of you as a person, as evidence by this quote from you in one of the prior messages:

*****If you mean that people will disagree with the points I am trying to make, I understand that. People disagreeing with my points doesn’t appear to be relevant, though.******

I’m sorry, but I can’t figure out what this quote of mine has to do with your comment. I also don’t see anywhere that you have critiqued me “as a person,” so I’m not sure what there would be to separate.

A person that points out a position of relevance or not pertaining to a conversation wants to control the said conversation.

No, when a person says that something doesn’t appear to be relevant, it means that they aren’t seeing what you are apparently seeing. If you step back, take another look at it, and still think it’s relevant, it’s an opportunity for you to clarify your point. If you step back, take another look, and find that it wasn’t relevant after all, then you can switch to what you perhaps meant to say in the first place. I stand by what I said: that doesn’t appear to be relevant to your original claim.

Whether or not you believe that I was a long term member of your forum, I am sorry that you feel that way. This means that you are not cognizant of the liberal Christians that visit your forum. That should be noted as past tense.

No, I’m not cognizant of the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of all members of the forum. This is because those beliefs have no bearing on how I treat them. Whether a person is a liberal Christian, atheist, Muslim, or whatever isn’t particularly important to me. What matters is their behavior and the quality of their ideas.

December 6, 2006 at 7:06 pm
(11) Andi says:

Let’s start from a different angle.

Why did you do this series? The basic premise for satire is to create a stir or a fuss, if you will, to make a point. In writing and creating this artwork in it’s “satirical” form, as you call it, I have come to the conclusion that it does have fundamentalist overtones.

If I am not mistaken satire is to make a point to the reading audience that societal norms and mores need to be changed for the benefit of society, one that the author feels needs to be addressed. Assertively and ***not*** aggressively. This is satire in a negative form and will do the opposite that you intend it to do. It will make “your cause worse”.

If you created the artwork and authored the articles, how is a Christian NOT to take you as an atheist fundamentalist when the whole point of satire is to get your message across in an artform that does not appease the Christian’s eye, or your written words for that matter?

The best satire is one written in the form of humor and not total degradation of the ideaology that you seek to change.

Is that better for clarification? Thus, by degrading rather that utilizing humor the intent is lost as are forum members.

*****Whether a person is a liberal Christian, atheist, Muslim, or whatever isn’t particularly important to me. What matters is their behavior and the quality of their ideas.********

I am sorry that you don’t care what affiliation a person has with what sociological group that they proclaim themselves to be identified with. This may knock down some barriers as to whether or not you believe that you think that this derogatory satire is called for or not.

I am surprised that you would come up with this series is all that I am saying. You seemed a lot more tolerant and your artwork and articles in this series are showing intolerance. You believe that you are tolerant, but you are not. This is the crux of the message.

Andi

December 6, 2006 at 7:31 pm
(12) Austin Cline says:

Why did you do this series?

To make a joke about, and reveal the joke of, the claims that there is a war on Christmas. That’s often the purpose of satire: to make a joke about something that is a joke (or is: ridiculous, silly, absurd, etc.).

If I am not mistaken satire is to make a point to the reading audience that societal norms and mores need to be changed for the benefit of society, one that the author feels needs to be addressed.

I’m sure that that is the purpose of some satire, but broadly defined satire is simply the use is sarcasm, irony, ridicule, or something similar in order to reveal vice, folly, etc. You could create something satirical about me and which would not have anything to do with societal norms.

This is satire in a negative form and will do the opposite that you intend it to do. It will make “your cause worse”.

Well, since most people get the joke, the images seem to be doing just what I intend.

If you created the artwork and authored the articles, how is a Christian NOT to take you as an atheist fundamentalist when the whole point of satire is to get your message across in an artform that does not appease the Christian’s eye, or your written words for that matter?

I don’t write for the purpose of appeasing any Christians. Sometimes I address Christians and their concerns, and in fact some of the pieces in this series address Christian concerns.

I completely fail to see, though, how not trying to “appease the Christian’s eye” should lead anyone to think that I am an “atheist fundamentalist” (whatever that is).

The best satire is one written in the form of humor and not total degradation of the ideaology that you seek to change.

The only ideology which I am directly criticizing is Christian Nationalism (unless you consider the ‘war on Christmas’ movement to be an ideology itself, in which case that’s two). I am not expecting any Christian Nationalists to see my images and change their minds and did not create the images for that purpose. The purpose of the images is to give atheists, frequently accused of conducting a war on Christmas, something to smile about. The purpose of the essays is to then give them something to think about.

Thus far, this purpose appears to have been served quite well.

Is that better for clarification?

Somewhat. It’s better in that it shows that you have assumptions about the intention of the images that were not my actual intentions. It’s not better in that you still don’t explain what this “atheist fundamentalism” is or how it is being expressed in any of my words.

I am sorry that you don’t care what affiliation a person has with what sociological group that they proclaim themselves to be identified with.

I’m not. I prefer to treat people based on their behavior and statements, not their affiliations.

I am surprised that you would come up with this series is all that I am saying.

Given how atheists are blamed for a war on Christmas, and that not such war on Christmas exists, why wouldn’t I create something to criticize it?

You seemed a lot more tolerant and your artwork and articles in this series are showing intolerance.

That’s a pretty serious accusation. To whom am I “showing intolerance” and how? Is it intolerant to poke fun at accusations that atheists are waging a war on Christmas? Is it intolerant to criticize Christian Nationalism?

You believe that you are tolerant, but you are not. This is the crux of the message.

You believe that I am intolerant, but you do not explain how. Without such an explanation, I have no reason to prefer your interpretation of my words over my own intentions and purpose.

December 6, 2006 at 8:05 pm
(13) Andi says:

In order to come up with what you have come up with to write the satire that you have designed is aggressive and is hurting “your cause”, up until talking with you here, I had never heard of the term Christian Nationalism. Even you mentioning it give credence to the idea that there is fundamentalism even in atheism. Thank you for proving my point.

How can one NOT hold you to your satire when you penned it and created the work? Is a person NOT supposed to critique the author of an opinion? Especially the host of an electronic community? I am calling you on your intolerance that is displayed in the articles and the visual arts. **You** wrote the articles, **you** created the visual arts. In order to create something a person must feel a drive to let loose on the creativity that the person is feeling. So you wrote it to create a feeling for atheists to get mad about the “Christian Nationalists” taking over this time of year? How is that not a fundamentalist point of view? You want the atheists NOT to become complacent in their goings on this time of year? You want them to proclaim the goodness of godlessness? Aren’t the aformentioned qualities, only in reverse, what you proclaim the Christian Nationalists are doing and you don’t see how your ideas are not of a fundamental overtone, as displayed by your writings and art? Scratching my head on that one.

I would equally be mortified if I saw Christians penning the same articles and creating the images touting the “Christian Nationalism” that you seem to be “warring” against.

So the whole premise of this series of art and articles were to call the atheists and agnostics to rally against the “Christian Nationalists”, by displaying satire in an aggressive manner and aggressive articles?

Evidently, you like shock and awe and don’t like to convey your message through humorous satire. You can get more flies with honey than you can with vinegar.

In regards to your comment about the behavior of some of the posters, it’s not necessarily the behavior, you also have to listen to what is being said. Sure maybe you may think that the posters that agree with you are the good ones, but if you are going to write for yourself and draw for yourself alone than don’t show it to anyone.

You have an audience to maintain which encompasses a wide variety of backgrounds and to say that you only care about the behavior of the said posters and don’t really delve into what they are about you are missing on a wide audience. You have posters that have theists as spouses, you have posters that have children that are theists.

This is my last post, because nothing that I am saying to you seems to be making sense. And I am repeating it, every which way but loose and you seem not to see the forest through the trees in my point of view. But I am sure by watching you post in the 1.5 years that I have been on your forum that you WILL want to have the last word. As that is the way you are.

I hope that you have a joyous and prosperous life, you are a gifted and talented young man with a bright future ahead of you.

Peace.

December 6, 2006 at 8:48 pm
(14) Austin Cline says:

In order to come up with what you have come up with to write the satire that you have designed is aggressive and is hurting “your cause”

I fail to see how, and you haven’t explained how. My “cause” is to give atheists something amusing and, thus far, I’ve succeeded.

up until talking with you here, I had never heard of the term Christian Nationalism.

That’s not my fault – it’s used frequently by many, including many Christians. Do a search on Google and you’ll see. Look up “Christianism,” too, since that is sometimes used instead. I don’t personally like that term because it’s more awkward and (in my opinion) less descriptive of the extremist ideology in question.

Even you mentioning it give credence to the idea that there is fundamentalism even in atheism.

First, “atheist fundamentalism” is impossible because there are no “fundamentals” for atheists to be “fundamentalist” about.

Second, atheists aren’t the only ones who criticize Christian Nationalists. Liberal Christians do as well. Are they also “fundamentalists”? If a Jewish person criticizes Christian Nationalists, does that make them a fundamentalist?

Finally, if you have never heard the term, and presumably don’t know what it means, how can you draw any conclusions about its use? Maybe you are mistaken because you have an erroneous belief about what it refers to?

How can one NOT hold you to your satire when you penned it and created the work?

I don’t think that I’ve suggested that I not be “held to” my satire. What I’ve said is that people shouldn’t claim that the satire reflects any genuine expression of what I really believe. That would be like claiming that Stephen Colbert is expressing conservative opinions that he genuinely holds. Colbert is poking fun at things by magnifying them and taking them over the top; I’m doing the same (though not as well as he)..

I am calling you on your intolerance that is displayed in the articles and the visual arts.

Yes, I know, but you won’t explain what this “intolerance” is that you say is there. I’ve asked, but you don’t answer. If you think I am exhibiting intolerance, then presumably you would prefer if I changed. In order to change, then I must first recognize and acknowledge my error. It’s surely clear that I do not currently recognize what this “intolerance,” that’s why I ask for you to explain – but you don’t. You talk about me hurting my “cause,” but if your “cause” (here, for the moment, at least) is to show how I need to change, then aren’t you “hurting” it by not doing even the very minimal act of explaining where and how I have expressed intolerance?

In order to create something a person must feel a drive to let loose on the creativity that the person is feeling. So you wrote it to create a feeling for atheists to get mad about the “Christian Nationalists” taking over this time of year?

No, what I said was: “To make a joke about, and reveal the joke of, the claims that there is a war on Christmas.” Atheists, liberal Christians, and adherents of other religions are already annoyed at, if not mad at, Christians Nationalists — and with good reason.

How is that not a fundamentalist point of view?

How is it a “fundamentalist point of view”? You’ve asked this question several times, but expressing incredulity at how another doesn’t see what you see isn’t an argument that can support your claim as reasonable. Maybe you’re right and I’m completely wrong; then again maybe you’re wrong. How am I or anyone else to know if you don’t explain and support your accusations?

You want the atheists NOT to become complacent in their goings on this time of year?

I honestly don’t see how that’s relevant to this series of images or articles because, as I stated, it’s not their purpose.

You want them to proclaim the goodness of godlessness?

I honestly don’t see how that’s relevant to this series of images or articles because, as I stated, it’s not their purpose.

Aren’t the aformentioned qualities, only in reverse, what you proclaim the Christian Nationalists are doing and you don’t see how your ideas are not of a fundamental overtone, as displayed by your writings and art?

Absolutely not. Christian Nationalism isn’t about proclaiming the goodness of Chrstianity. Christian Nationalism is about transforming society, culture, government, and politics to conform strictly to a hyper-nationalistic American form of conservative evangelical Christianity. It’s a combination of Christian theocracy and American proto-fascism.

I have no problem with Christians who say that Christianity is good (though I disagree) or who say that Christians shouldn’t be complacent.

I would equally be mortified if I saw Christians penning the same articles and creating the images touting the “Christian Nationalism” that you seem to be “warring” against.

Well, liberal and moderate Christians are critical of Christian Nationalism on a regular basis. I find it curious that you don’t explain why this is a problem. I don’t think that I have written anything substantially different from the criticisms of liberal Christians. We all have the same complaints because neither atheists nor liberal Christians want to see an America run by hyper-nationalistic Christian theocrats.

So the whole premise of this series of art and articles were to call the atheists and agnostics to rally against the “Christian Nationalists”, by displaying satire in an aggressive manner and aggressive articles?

No, what I said was: “To make a joke about, and reveal the joke of, the claims that there is a war on Christmas.”

Evidently, you like shock and awe and don’t like to convey your message through humorous satire.

Ironically, a blog named “Shock and Awe” and written by a liberal Christian was the first place I saw discussion of “Christian Nationalism” (though he preferred the term Christianism).

You have posters that have theists as spouses, you have posters that have children that are theists.

My wife is a theist. She likes the images and she agrees with the essays I wrote. She’s as critical of Christian Nationalists as I am or as liberal Christians are.

This is my last post, because nothing that I am saying to you seems to be making sense.

I agree: what you are saying doesn’t make sense to me. I have asked repeatedly for you to explain and support your claims, but you never do. Simply repeating your claims isn’t good enough. Anyone can repeat a claim. What’s important is to be able to support and explain what you are claiming. You do not explain what “atheist fundamentalism” is. You do not explain what is “fundamentalist” about what I have written. You do not explain what is wrong with anything I have written.

I am sure by watching you post in the 1.5 years that I have been on your forum that you WILL want to have the last word. As that is the way you are.

Since I haven’t posted very often in the past year or two, I honestly don’t think you have seen me post enough to make any such conclusions.

This isn’t the “last word,” it’s the “last question.” I haven’t really made much of an argument here, I’ve been trying to ask questions in order to get you to explain what you mean. All my questions stand because they haven’t been answered.

December 3, 2007 at 4:46 pm
(15) tracieh says:

>I have had respect for you and your views as a Christian because I believe wholly in the concept that the government shall leave their nose out of people’s religious beliefs or lack thereof. That is something that we agree on. I have read your articles and have respected your views in the past.

>…Needless to say, I will not be posting on your forum anymore, due to these extreme points of view that are shown on your behalf.

I recognize that these posts are from last year. But I notice in the exchange that one thing that specifically stood out to me was never called out or questioned about the initial post that complained.

It seems that while Janet was totally cool while she agreed with what you posted, as soon as you posted something she didn’t agree with–she was immediately outta here.

I have posted on other atheist forums where, surprise of surprises, I don’t always agree with every other atheist there or the host. When that occurs, I don’t write in to say: “Since you posted something I strongly disagree with, I won’t be posting here any longer,” I say, “Hey, normally I agree with you–but this really doesn’t seem supportable.” And I post my arguments as to why I disagree, and an actual dialogue ensues where we bring out ideas and clarifications and conflicts out into the open and actually EXAMINE them together.

Opening up a dialogue is 9/10 of the goal at a forum–not “agreeing” with everything everyone (or the host) says. ESPECIALLY if I normally agree with the host and “respect” his views–that’s when I’m even MORE likely to not leave in a huff, but to ask further questions–in order to find out why the host and I, who normally share a similar paradigm, suddenly have a wide discrepancy in our views about this particular observation/claim.

What a boring planet if everyone agreed on everything all the time.

Unfortunately–true or not, one of the stereotypes of the Xian in the atheist community is that Xians often isolate themselves in environments surrounded by books and apologetics that support their beliefs, and don’t often look seriously and try to understand what it means when their beliefs are challenged.

I’d say that the posts above represent an embarrassing charicature of that very stereotype. That’s a shame for the honest Xians who actually are able to dialogue and exchange ideas–even with people they don’t always agree with.

December 4, 2007 at 1:20 am
(16) ChuckA says:

Pardon me, Austin, for making an already super long comment thread…even longer…as is my wont?
Yeah…my 2007 contribution to what seems to be on the verge of becoming…
a Holiday perennial? “Ho-Ho-Ho!”

As I’ve expressed elsewhere; I’m an old escapee from heavy duty…delusional…Faith-based childhood brainwashing. I finally, as an admitted atheist, was ‘converted’ to an…evidence-based…rational/scientific view of our “Little Blue Dot” existence in this unimaginably vast Cosmos.
As most of us atheists recognize…for Sky Daddy believers…belief always trumps reason; and even “under your nose” scientific evidence. Witness a huge portion of the current crop of US Presidential wannabes. “Double Oy Vey”!

My bottom line: I say to ANY religious believer…there is absolutely NO recognized scientific evidence, what-so-ever, for the existence of ANY God; or as we atheists call ‘It’…Sky Daddy. Yeah that essentially anthropomorphic…almighty, albeit psychopathic…Supreme Voyeur. Very much, indeed, similar to a mad Santa Clause. [Hmmm...substitute Santa into Sun Mythology...riding across the sky, with gifts for all of us earthly kiddies! Yeah...a bearded voyeur...North Pole...raindeers...WAIT!...OK, I need more research on sorting that out.]
As I commented on & linked here recently; the only obvious, metaphorical god-like being in the sky, would be our life giving “Sun”; which is, I think the Mythological source…or ‘jumping off’ point…for the current crop of delusional religions. Very much literalized, and used, of course, to keep people in line; especially from the time of Constantine’s tyrannical and deceptive baloney.

What attracts any mortal human, especially as an adult, to belief in ANY religion, is Fear.
Fear of death. Fear of not living in a never-ending “La-La land”. And, of course…Fear of Eternal Damnation and Punishment by a totally vicious, psychopathic deity. [REALLY read the Old Testicles for that madness!]

Which of course includes the outrageous injustice of the insidiously fabricated notion of Original Sin…or the ultimate…Blaming the Victim!

It’s all, as is also consistently demonstrated by the failure of the likes of the magical “Prayer” notion…more WISHFUL THINKING…with an overabundance of totally selfish…EGO.

Yeah…”Me, Lord…ME, ME, ME!”
Then of course the frightened sheeple desperately rush to the Doctor…ala SCIENCE, for REAL help.

Why I’m bringing this up, in this comment thread is tangentially motivated by just HOW far afield believers go in order to avoid the basic error of the faith-based “paradigm”…or if you will…Delusional Cosmology.
The above argument, from 2006, demonstrates just how much Xtians avoid, what is to NON-believers…so obvious! They, indeed, so easily get their “panties” in a twist about everything BUT the basic unproven premise…or foundation…underlying their precious ‘Fantasy Land Sand Castles’.

At least the ancient heathens, with their Sun Worshiping Mythology, had something ‘tangible’ and readily observable upon which to base their totally non-literal, METAPHORICAL paradigm.
[George Carlin's rant on religion comes to mind...again!]
Yeah…and the beat goes on! Yada, yada…ad infinitum.

December 4, 2007 at 1:23 pm
(17) Ron says:

ChuckA
I think I have it figured out why the believers and the non believers don’t Understand each other. It is an evolutional thing. The religious mind has not yet evolved to a level where it is able to comprehend the difference in the meaning of the words, “believe” and “know”. Before there can be an understanding, we must be patient and allow time to pass so that the process of evolution is more complete. Grin

December 4, 2007 at 3:30 pm
(18) ChuckA says:

Ron…You do seem to have an uncanny talent for “figuring”!
Yes…as I always insist…”Belief” is certainly NOT the same as “knowing”!
As far as having enough evolved patience for the believers to ‘catch up’…with time being of prime consideration…I’m afraid, none of us have nearly enough time left in our puny lives, to witness the desired results. Ummm…try..a Century?…Millennium?…Aeon?
I’m somehow reminded of that ancient saying :
“The wheels of the gods, grind exceedingly slow!” [Or something like that!]
Of course, using our ‘belief’ plus a bit of “poetic license”, I ‘know’ that that ancient saying needs revision!
Yeah Ron…I’ll leave it to youse; with that uncanny “figuring” talent of yours!
Wait!…Do I hear a grinding noise?
:shock:

December 4, 2007 at 7:33 pm
(19) 411314 says:

“…here are certainly good arguments for the idea that Christianity is a hindrance to world peace.”

Could you please give me some examples?

December 4, 2007 at 7:35 pm
(20) 411314 says:

Oops, I left of the “t” when I was quoting you, Austin. That “here” should be “there”.

December 5, 2007 at 5:56 am
(21) 411314 says:

Okay, I’m posting under the right article now. If this article briefly alludes to examples of how Christianity hinders world peace, they must be VERY brief, because I couldn’t find them. Could you please point them out to me?

December 4, 2008 at 6:26 pm
(22) Kelly says:

A question…I’ve been checking this site out…why does this site/forum that is supposed to talk about atheism seem to only target christianity? Last time I checked, there are many other religions/gods that are worshipped by U.S. citizens and worldwide (um, like maybe Islam, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, and a million tribal religions)
I’m not sure I’m an atheist or not, but I don’t see how my non-belief in gods turns me in to an anti-religious bigot…specifically toward christianity.
BTW, do you celebrate a secular hanukah, or ramadan? Didn’t think so…

December 4, 2008 at 6:40 pm
(23) Austin Cline says:

A question…I’ve been checking this site out…why does this site/forum that is supposed to talk about atheism seem to only target christianity?  

It doesn’t. But, since Christianity is the dominant religion in the West and the religion most atheists in the West have to contend with — as well as the religion that does the most to try and control politics, culture, and society — it’s the religion addressed most often.

Last time I checked, there are many other religions/gods that are worshipped by U.S. citizens and worldwide (um, like maybe Islam, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, and a million tribal religions)

Other religions get addressed as well. A simple search will reveal that

I’m not sure I’m an atheist or not, but I don’t see how my non-belief in gods turns me in to an anti-religious bigot…specifically toward christianity.  

It doesn’t, but if you wish to claim that I am an anti-religious bigot towards Christianity, you’re welcome to try to support that allegation.

You can be sure if you are an atheist or not by asking yourself if you believe in any gods. If not, you’re an atheist. If you do, you’re a theist. Those are the only two options.

BTW, do you celebrate a secular hanukah, or ramadan?  Didn’t think so…

Are Hannukah or Ramandan celebrated as secular, cultural holidays in the West? Didn’t think so.

December 17, 2008 at 9:17 pm
(24) DON Waters says:

I can only hope you have changed your mind either before you die or before the judgment day comes. Eternity is one hell of a long time to spend in place you do not like. I will, as any Christian should, pray for your soul. You will need all the prayer you can get.

Leave a Comment

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title="">, <b>, <i>, <strike>

©2014 About.com. All rights reserved.