You’ve turned your back on him. Racine, Wisconsin has joined the heathen ranks of communities that have erected godless holiday displays in the public square. It’s cute and simple, a pyramid with atheist/secular quotations written on it.
The blog entry describing it is amusing in its feeble attempts to distance itself from the vulgar monument to unbelief. It reassures us that there are many, many churches in Racine, and the atheists are few in number, less than a dozen. We are too a devout and faithful community, please don’t smite us because of the evil minority, God!
The pitiful excuses won’t help. Jehovah has a reputation for overkill.
Read the comments.
Why is it that so many Christians think putting up a Nativity scene in the town square is a mere celebration of their ‘faith’ (and so shouldn’t offend anyone) but a pyramid displaying non-religious slogans is a ‘poke in the eye’?
Hypocritical fuckers.
Yeah well they are kinda not into the whole rational thought thing. I wouldn’t expect them to be aware of any conflict between those two sentiments.
It’s really quite depressing how many people pulled out that old canard, “it’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.”
That’s especially true when one looks at the interpretations of the constitution in court rulings.
I just got this message from a friend about sort of the opposite event that happened in Austin recently. Austin has a yearly festival in December called the “Trail of Lights,” in which a beloved park is turned into an orgy of Christmas lights & displays. (We used to live in the neighborhood, and it was a bitch getting home after work in December, so I was never too excited about it.)
My friend wrote, “A few years ago, believers were complaining about the Trail of Lights because no religious stuff was included. Now there is a crèche totally surrounded in both directions by characters that children understand are make believe, such as the cat-in-the-hat, the Little Mermaid, the Grinch, Beauty and the Beast, etc.
I’m not sure the folks who complained understand the implications… ”
I have to say I think this is the kind of thing that gives atheists a bad name. If you want to make a non-religious contribution to the holiday decorations, then yeah, sure, go ahead. But this pyramid isn’t non-religious, it’s anti-religious. It doesn’t wish people a happy holiday, it just says rude things about religion.
It’s one thing to want atheism represented, and to make it more visible: it’s another thing to hijack a community celebration to make cheap debating points. There are plenty of appropriate venues for being rude about religion; this doesn’t strike me as one of them. It’s mean-spirited and just plain bad manners, and the main statement it seems to be making is that atheists are dickheads.
As an atheist who tries not to be dickhead, this pisses me off.
I’m kind of curious about the use of a pyramid, since it had its origins as a religious symbol. It’s basically a monument for the afterlife.
It only took to the 5th or 6th comment down for someone to pull out the “atheism is religion” canard. GG.
I’m a little disturbed by the whole arms war of holiday displays…every group has to have it’s own display on the city hall lawn thing. I think government should be ignoring everyones holidays equally. My city spent thousands on wreaths, holiday trees, and big red bows to put around planters and stuff like that, obviously Christmas decorations.
The biggest problem I see with this approach to letting government recognize every religion equally is that it’s a lot like the good ol’ days of Rome, where there was one official religion, and lots of minor religions that Rome recognized and allowed (as long as you also gave tribute to the state religion…and there was the list of recognized/illegal religions(usually the ones that refused to give proper tribute(tax) to support the state religion).
Uh, community celebration? How many members of the community aren’t represented by this community love-in?
If this were on church grounds, I’d consider it incredibly offensive and rude. But it’s not. It’s on the town square.
The guy who put it up said, “We’re fighting against people who try to force their religion on others. The Nativity scene should be on church grounds. Why don’t they put it on their own property?”
And what about “The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” or “There was a time when religion ruled the world. It is known as the dark ages” is anti-religion? It’s not our fault reality leans that way.
I’d rather the Christians try a little harder not to be dickheads. However, since their belief requires that they try to convert the rest of us or watch us get tortured by their ‘Father’ for all eternity, I’m not holding my breath for that to happen.
Good for them for putting that up. I wouldn’t trumpet this Racine news too loudly, though… I’ve been to landfills that were cleaner and more inviting than Racine.
Well, it is Wisconsin…..
I’m kind of curious about the use of a pyramid, since it had its origins as a religious symbol. It’s basically a monument for the afterlife.
From the article:
“He chose the shape simply because it’s very stable (it has cement blocks inside to keep it in one place) and winds won’t knock it down.”
And isn’t that final remark about the choice of a pyramid so telling about the difference between atheism and religion? Sorenson didn’t look for some sort of atheist or historic symbol to put his message on; he just chose the shape that was the most practical, which wouldn’t be knocked down by wind.
No kidding. I believe the exact wording is:
“no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
I’m from the area, and it was clear watching the news last night that the newscasters were disappointed that a controversy wasn’t already ‘a stirring’, but it was also clear that the newscast went with this story in hopes of stirring things up. That’s what just burns me up nowadays, the news casts trying to make news instead of reporting it.
Oh, by the way, hurray for the atheists who put the thing up, with the wonderful remark of “If that wasn’t there” (pointing to the nativity scene), “then that wouldn’t be there” (pointing to the pyramid).
Translation: We shouldn’t worry about theocrats hijacking the government to make cheap debating points, because making a stand for our rights by combating an injustice performed to maintain an air of intimidation would be rude.
We wouldn’t want to expose Christian bigotry and hypocrisy. It’s not polite.
The pitiful excuses won’t help. Jehovah has a reputation for overkill.
His aim tends to be pretty bad as well, which may explain the overkill.
They may need to have a discussion with their fellow theists who consider atheism to be a religion unto itself. By their own reasoning, we fit right into the freedom OF religion category quite nicely, thank you very much.
I’m not sure I prefer the atheist displays covered in rational phrases. I like how it stirs the pot, but it makes us look like curmudgeons who need to get laid.
I think I would prefer a nice Flying Spaghetti Monster nativity scene. Or perhaps a diorama of the bedroom scene with Joseph and Mary nine months before the supposed virgin birth.
This is much better than the CVA display. It doesn’t pretend to be some kind of solstice celebration. If someone says, “We’re going to put up a display promoting secular values and giving information about the winter solstice,” I expect as much.
This, though, is a protest, and doesn’t pretend to be anything else. The Racine atheists don’t need to be polite about it.
I’d like to see us take a light-hearted approach to all this. Perhaps poke a little fun at ourselves. How would it be if we appropriated the “God Rest Ye, Unitarians” spoof and put that on a display?
Glad tidings of reason and fact to you all! As the Klingons say,
(Peace on Earth, conditions permitting.)
That’s like a metaphor for the whole New Atheist movement. Atheist bullying my pasty white ass. Calling an atheist a bully is like screaming assault when you get a face full of pepper spray after trying to steal a purse.
Oh, come on, people. It’s like every single mention of an atheist christmas display means I have to drag out a dozen fainting couches to cope with the fallout. Who the hell cares if some deluded faith-head finds expression of atheist thought offensive? There’s absolutely nothing you can do to prevent that: your EXISTENCE is an offense unto the faithful. Look at that Tree of Knowledge display that went up near Philadelphia, and was conciliatory enough to include the bible in its ornaments — and good christians still whined about it.
A good, effective, honest atheist display is going to freak people out. And that’s good. So quit being so damned timid.
Everything is alright now; truthmachine is posting on the comments :)
At least I hope it’s the same person who posts under that moniker on here.
If the god(s) truly hate Racine, the Bears will win this Sunday. Of course god(s)really hates Bears fans, since we haven’t had a real quaterback since Jim McMahon, so who knows WHAT that dickhead god(s) is thinking?
Take the Packers and the points. DAMN You Yahweh!
Doug@ I think I would prefer a nice Flying Spaghetti Monster nativity scene. Or perhaps a diorama of the bedroom scene with Joseph and Mary nine months before the supposed virgin birth.
Well to be fair the Christians believe the Holy Spirit (and I quote the Bible) “came upon” Mary to begot Jesus. That should be an interesting public display; Mary receiving God’s golden shower of Love.
The “winds”, yessssss …
So that’s what they call it now …
Um, that’s not how babies are made.
Anywho, wouldn’t that depiction be child pornography, as well as a represetation of statutory rape (be it by Joseph or the Holy Spirit)?
Um … I’m pretty sure it’s not the golden shower that does the begatting.
Thanks, noncarborundum. I’ve been looking for a transcript of God Rest Ye, Unitarians.
Well, in fairness, if you tripped and fell on the pyramid in exactly the wrong way, it COULD poke you in the eye… but I’ll bet the nativity scene has dangerous pointy bits, too.
That explains why it’s “God’s Country.”
A number of years ago (’80s) we lived in Adelaide, Australia, and there used to be a brewery that put a huge animated display on the riverbank along their property every Christmas. It was beautifully maintained and quite entertaining. It seemed to mostly consist of cartoon, nursery rhyme or mythological characters. Some were riding amusement park rides and some were just posing. There was a giant spooky spider in a huge web and Vulcan hammering on his forge making thunder & lightning. I think I even remember seeing the Flintstones. There were some Christmassy items like a huge tree with presents under it and there might have been a nativity scene. There probably was but I don’t remember seeing it. We’d take our kids there at sundown and there were continuous streams of families walking along the riverbank in their pyjamas eating ice cream (you have to remember Christmas is the middle of summer down under).
There’s no real point to all this except maybe that there was such a mixture of cultural/commercial symbology all mixed up in this display and I don’t remember ever hearing anybody bitch about being offended by any of it.
I left in 1990, I wonder if it’s still there. (Click on my name to see a Google map view of the site.)
Really? I thought pyramids were used for sharpening razor blades.
The more signs atheists put up around holidays like this, the better. It tells Christians: you’re no longer going to dictate the broad cultural meaning of this season. There are going to be negative reactions against it: good. We want people to realize that secular, rational people exist in this country, we have a voice, and our voice matters.
I found some photos of the brewery riverbank display:
http://stillroundthecorner.blogspot.com/2006/12/barossa-valley-and-brewery-christmas.html
It’s a four-sided pyramid. Those heretics! Everyone knows a true(R) atheist pyramid should be three-sided.
Instead of a pyramid how about:
http://www.bsalert.com/news/1586/FSM_-_Flying_Spaghetti_Monster_Christmas_Lights.html
As one of the top five concern trolls, who strongly disliked the Connecticut Valley Athiest display (The trolls rave: “dishonest” –woozy, “confrontational”–ravin, “amatuerish”–sven) I’m okay with this one, even though it is directly confrontational. Well, I’m kind of okay.
The guy who put it up, put it up for a specifically controversial purpose and as a direct protest to nativity scenes. Thus he is distinctly honest about his intent and his reasons, unlike the dishonest CVA claiming the are putting up a soltice greeting (which as such it utterly failed). This is a work of confrontation and protest.
Now, as to whether I really think this is a worthwhile or positive act, I have my personal doubts [*] as an honest expression and valid argument with clarity… Kudos to this guy.
[*] Gad, I don’t know. I’m greatly offended by the assumption of the majority that we all celebrate Christmas and we all celebrate it in a properly christian way. And when nativity scenes go up without a murmer of thought as to the implication of it, or with the tacit admonition to “oh, lighten up” to any thought of protest, I bristle. Except I’ve reached a point where I kind of don’t care any more. Thing is (with the exception of the plastic Jesus wrapped in an american flag under the banner “one nation under god”) nativity scens tend to be relatively classy and aesthetically (when divorced from all religious meaning) pleasing. Certainly more so than plastic Santas and candy canes (bleah!) and snowmen in coastal california. This pyramid is kind of stark and minimalist and clashes with the ornate classism of the nativity scene, yet again one can easily say the ornate classism of the nativity scene clashes with the stark minimalism of the pyramid.
I guess if I’m forced to give an opinion it would be: Public moneys should never be spent on nativity scenes (I’ll never waver on that); public land can be given to private parties but must be equal and even still I’d be weary of such; and, personally, I’d prefer creative approaches to the issue with original and aesthetic and a-religious displays. I think the “Tree of Knowledge” was a *great* idea. Denver one year did a “How the Grinch Stole Christmas” theme which, although kinda plasticky a bit …. ahem … hoi-polloi … for my taste, demonstrated the ability for a community to come up with original and non-denomical themes. There is so much one can do other than a nativity scene.
I second that. In fact, I could for an entire animatronic scene that shows Joseph and Mary getting down in her parent’s bedrooms, then in the next scene when they realized she was pregnant, then when they came up with some story about an angel “coming on” Mary and she was to bear the savior of her people.
I’m so sick of the virgin birth. Not only because every frackin civilization seems to have a virgin birth in it somewhere, but come on, how hard do you really think it would be to lie your way out of trouble about screwing around with Joseph than to make up some story about an Angel and a savior, and tell that story to impoverished, hard working people that were probably looking for someone to save them in the first place. Mary probably would’ve been stoned to death for such an offense. I sure as shit would’ve thought up a good story to save my ass too. Just like when you’re a teenager and your parents find your condoms. (so careless, and yet so responsible)
@blondin — FSM lights — it looks like even I could make them. I don’t have time to put them together before the end of the year, but the FSM should be honored year-round.
Totally OT, but someone in our neighborhood put up what they thought was a peace sign in lights; however, they left out the middle bar, so it was a Mercedes logo instead.
But this pyramid isn’t non-religious, it’s anti-religious.
But that was its intent, honest and upfront. Now as to whether it’s appropriate to have an anti-religious buttinski on a “community celebration” is a point worth debating…
It’s one thing to want atheism represented, and to make it more visible:
I’m not sure we can make atheism represented without being “anti-religious”. One can easily represent judism non-religiously by gabbing it up with talk of latkahs, and menorahs, and Macabees and never mention God or any ideology. It’s more difficult to do the Christian Christmas thing cause you can’t really skirt the issue that that baby is Jesus, the son of God, whose death redeems … oops… religion. But toss in a few more shepards, words like “hope” and “peace” and “a time for good will” and, maybe, it can be done. That is, if acknowledgement that a religion exist, can pass as “non-religious”. But as for athiesm… what is athiesm other than “We don’t believe in God”, and how can “We don’t believe in God” be anything but anti-religious.
Of course, there are religious sentiments and athiest sentiments. The religious ones (which are acceptable to athiests as they are *not* the sole claim of thiests) are forgiveness, charity, lights (from heaven), and miracles. Athiest sentiments are rationality, humanity, diversity-slash-commonality of humankind, lights (from the sky), appreciation of nature and wonder. I think many of the so called “non-offensive” displays such as “the trail of lights” or “winter around the world” emphasize these positive athiestic traits. I think this is why religious wingnuts complain that they are PC pablum and bitch that there *isn’t* any nativity scenes which they don’t realize they have a right too.
In a way, we have already won. The law is on our side. No state-sponsered religion: it can’t be any clearer. Athiestic values (rationality, humanity, etc.) are *good* values and applicable to people of all religious beliefs. We just need to keep those nativity scenes out, and those “trail of lights” in.
====
Oh, and PZ. At the time you posted “Come on people” there was only *one* anti-pyramid and he wasn’t that wobbly-legged about the offence to the religiosity. Shouldn’t that have been “Come on, person”.
it’s another thing to hijack a community celebration to make cheap debating points.
They all have their place, but I personally prefer the more positive humanist displays like the “Tree of Knowledge” over the Debating Points displays on What’s Wrong With Religion. They’re more appropriate. I recognize that Al in Racine was going for a protest in this case, so okay. But if we’re trying to be included in a “public forum celebration” then we want happy, cheery outpourings of reason, love, freedom, science, nature, and human rights. Atheism isn’t always scary. Put it in plastic, stick on glitter, and light it up!
Sure, they’d still protest, but then they’d look like grinches, we gain some kudos from the peace-and-harmony crowd, and it just makes me feel more smug, snug, tingly, and warm inside.
I’m so sick of the virgin birth. Not only because every frackin civilization seems to have a virgin birth in it somewhere,
Do they? Most have some spontaneous generation but I’m not sure virgin birth is common nor significant in non-christianity. I’d be interested in knowing though.
but come on, how hard do you really think it would be to lie your way out of trouble about screwing around with Joseph than to make up some story about an Angel and a savior, and tell that story to impoverished, hard working people that were probably looking for someone to save them in the first place.
Amusing as the little fantasy of an ancient “I must have got it from a toilet seat” excuse is (And it is *very* amusing), Mary and Joseph never claimed it was a virgin birth; Luke and Mark (or was it Mathew) did. If there was a historical Jesus (what’s the latest theory, there was? there wasn’t?) I don’t think there is any evidence one way or another what the maritial status of his parents were nor what his parents or he ever claimed. Thus our amusing little fantasy has to be modified to a somewhat less amusing story of Luke and Mathew (or was it Mark) in a bar getting sloppy drunk and some rowdy saying “Yeah, well, how do you know this guy was the son of God”
Luke: Well, three days later his tomb was empty. wooooo.
Rowdy: Bah, grave robbers, or wild animals.
M: Well, he did miracles! Fish, wine.
Rowdy: So he catered a wedding and everyone got drunk and patted his back..
Luke: Um, his birth was foretold ….um, by a star …
M: and there were kings, and angels … and shephards.
Rowdy: grumble
M: …. and his mother was a virgin …
Luke: Dude!!!
M: … what?!
Luke: too far, man!
Rowdy: Wha… a virgin birth!
M: Yeah! A virgin birth. Announced by a holy spirit.
Luke: Yeah! A virgin birth, I saw the hymen myself.
Okay, old joke but I can’t resist:
Q: How do we know that Jesus was jewish?
A: His mother thought he was God, and he thought his mother was a virgin.
ta-daaah.
So Jesus walks into a hotel and gives the desk clerk two nails and says….
LaoTzu – Chinese mythology
Deganawida – Indian mythology
Dionysus – Greek Mythology
Quetzalcoatl – Aztec Mythology
Don’t forget muslims herald the virgin birth too. It’s not just christians.
I don’t really see how a mother giving birth to a child by spontaneous means is any more acceptable than a story about a virgin, and I don’t think it’s that big a stretch to lump the two into the same category. It may not be clear in other myths if the mother had ever known a man’s touch before, but it’s still the same run of the mill story about a child that wasn’t seeded by man, blah blah blah.
Yup, I get that. I still think that protesting against nativity scenes makes you look like a dickhead. Humourless, thin-skinned and aggressive is never a flattering look.
“I still think that protesting against nativity scenes makes you look like a dickhead”
And it still isn’t protesting nativity scenes. It’s protesting the privileged place xianity has in this country.
I can’t tell which group this is directed towards.
The myths concerning Jesus closely resembles the story of Mithras.
Both are born of a virgin, their birthday is December 25th, accomplish a couple of miraculous deeds and then ascend into the heavens.
OTOH, the ‘virgin’ actually is a mis-translation. The original scripture doesn’t say that Mary was a ‘virgin’ (as in “absence of sexual experience”) but a ‘virgin’ (from Latin ‘virgo’ == ‘young woman’). Given the fact that she was about 14 or 16 by the time she “came down,” that is pretty much correct.
There’s more to that story, though, however it doesn’t really belong here.
As an atheist who tries not to be dickhead,
Except on this occasion, eh? Your whole whine is extremely dickheaded.
P.S
“It doesn’t wish people a happy holiday”
Does a nativity scene “wish people a happy holiday”? If anyone “gives atheists a bad name”, it’s silly twits like you.
Yup, I get that. I still think that protesting against nativity scenes makes you look like a dickhead.
You’ve already made it clear that you’re an idiot, thank you.
Humourless, thin-skinned and aggressive is never a flattering look.
Um, who is humorless? They used jokes, moron. And it is clearly you and the xtian whiners who are “thin-skinned”. And assertive is a lot more flattering than your pathetic cravenness.
In the original script for Monty Python’s Life of Brian, there was a piece where a somewhat dim young girl is trying to convince her boyfriend that she got pregnant by someone calling themselves an angel, although by her description it is pretty clear that he was just hoodwinked by a clever Roman.
I notice that Harry has on his blog
Creationists plan British theme park | UK News | The Observer
I really worry sometimes that the forces of madness are winning; that we’ve entered the decline and fall, and the Dark Ages are just around the corner.
Isn’t he being a bit of a dickhead, complaining about creationists who just want to have fun?
Keep in mind that back in those days, screwing around and being found out (which probably will happen if you do get pregnant) would be a death sentence, literally.
Both would be condemned to being stoned unless willing to marry.
Problem here would be if the actual father was nowhere to be found, as would be the case with a Roman soldier… which is exactly what happened according to Celsus.
Some among the Christivores, Foreskinners, and 72 Raisinists are bound to be offended by even the most benign expression of Ungodliness.
I am not offended by nativity scenes. I am offended a bit when people place them on public property and thereby imply that their religious views speak for me. My support goes out to the atheists of Racine.
Holy bukake!
Holy bukake!
This wasn’t (or, at least, may not have been) just a mistake on their part. I can actually remember the 60’s, and a fair number of people used this “edited” version of the peace symbol because of various mistaken interpretations of the original version, such as that it was a desecration of the Christain cross and somehow represented Satanism or the Antichrist.
In fact it’s a combination of the semaphore positions for the letters “N” (the inverted “V”) and “D” (the vertical line), representing nuclear disarmament.
Not three?
Awww, I was hoping for a pyramid shaped Cthulhu, with FSM lights. Can we request that for next year?
I don’t really see how a mother giving birth to a child by spontaneous means is any more acceptable than a story about a virgin,
I’m not sure what you mean by “acceptable” but by spontaneous means I was thinking more of Minerva popping out fully armored from Zeus’ head, or Aphrodite born on a clam shell.
I guess I have/had a pet theory that no cultures have/value myths about virgin birth (although there are a heck of a lot about cuckolding and seducing/raping virgins!) and that the christianity Virgin Mary is a mistranslation or a psycho-sicko spin Paul came up with. I could be wrong.
LaoTzu – Chinese mythology
Deganawida – Indian mythology
Dionysus – Greek Mythology
Quetzalcoatl – Aztec Mythology
All virgin births, eh? Guess I’ll look into it. So much for my theory….
Anyway, I imagine there were loads of teenage pregnancies and loads of shotgun marriages (as well as wedding off of pre-menstrual girls). I doubt anyone would have the audacity of trying to pull off a “holy spirit” excuse and expect not to get stoned for blasphemy. Whatever the story about a virgin birth is, I’m nearly certain it was derived years if not centuries after Christ’s death, and had nothing whatsoever to do with Christ’s actual mother and father.
LaoTzu – Chinese mythology
Deganawida – Indian mythology
Dionysus – Greek Mythology
Quetzalcoatl – Aztec Mythology
Don’t forget muslims herald the virgin birth too. It’s not just christians.
I don’t really see how a mother giving birth to a child by spontaneous means is any more acceptable than a story about a virgin,
======
Yup, I get that. I still think that protesting against nativity scenes makes you look like a dickhead.
I’m not going to argue for or against that. All I’m saying is the guy is honest about his intent and consistant in his message. I mean …. okay, yeah, he’s a dickhead but, well so what? He’s not … ruining anyones christmas by … I dunno … tossing blood on the nativity scene. He’s basically saying “I’m a dickhead. You can ignore me or be offended by me. It’s your choice. But I’m not going to stop being a dickhead.” That’s honest, upfront, and within rights. I respect that! Even if he is a dickhead.
Does a nativity scene “wish people a happy holiday”?
I always assumed it was intended to. What else would be its (legitimate) purpose.
Seen on the comments at the linked blog, as a response to the “Atheism is a religion” claim:
I thought that was quite good, but maybe a bit too succinct. Anyone care to unpack it a bit?
You can really feel the Christian love from the commenters there:
. . . two nails . . .
Not three?
I thought that the moment I hit send, but figured no-one needs to be picky. (Ya know, It was going to be two boards and four nails but we talked him into crossing his legs..)
Okay then: Jesus walks into a hotel and hands the desk clerk three nails and says….
Way off tangent joke:
The two nail makers, Hymie and Wymie, decide to purchase a billboard. “Make something bold, Wymie” says Hymie to his brother. “I will” says Wymie. So the next day, Hymie walks to the store and sees a huge billboard with a picture of a man nailed to a cross. The billboard declared: “THEY USED HYMIE AND WYMIE NAILS!”
Hymie runs into the store, “Wymie! My God! We can’t have that on the billboard! The Goyem will kill us!” “Okay,” says Wymie, “I’ve good a better idea.” So the next morning Hymie walks to the store and sees the huge billoard of cross will a crumpled body slumped on the ground. The billboard declared: “THEY SHOULD HAVE USED HYMIE AND WYMIE NAILS!”
Way, way, way, WAY off tangent.
I am an atheist and have been an atheist since I was ten years old. However, I am not in opposition to religion. I feel a powerful sense of religion in my life. This feeling is the opposite of the common self-description by many as “Spiritual but not Religious”. My beliefs are not Spiritual. My religion is not based on “Spirits” or “Fairies”, the belief that the universe is run by & populated with magical creatures.
My religion is A-theist, but Atheism is not my religion.
My religion is science; a process for the systematic examination of the material world which we all share. My faith is statistical: I have faith that the sun will appear to rise in the east at a specific time tomorrow. This is quite different from “Faith”; the belief that “Fairies” intervene in the behavior of the world.
The problem with rejecting the word “religion” is that it is an appropriate term to describe any person’s relationship to reality.
The word religion comes from the Latin: _ re_{prefix-backwards} _ lig_{verb-to bind} _ ion_ {suffix-making previous verb a noun}. Related to _lig_ are the root words _lex_{law, legal} and _legio_{levy}. The word legion referred to a form of Roman military organization, a cohort of large & variable number under formal discipline. When Roman citizens served in the army, as most men did during many years of Roman history, they were bound into legions (as well as smaller divisions) where everyone knew their place & task. So religion has three important components: first, it is what connects/binds us to the past; second, it reflects our understanding of our connections within society & with the external world; and third, it implies large & perhaps uncountable numbers.
Simply, religion is what connects us to existence, past & present, and to our peers; to all that is and has been. (And through the minor influence of our actions, to what will be.) Science fulfills all those requirements for being a religion.
For most people Religion is bondage to dogma.
I have a powerful sense of awe, based on my limited but coherent understanding of the universe. I am awestruck by the absurdity, arrogance & willful ignorance of the beliefs of “Fairy Worshippers”.
Religion must not be limited to irrational beliefs. There is great value in understanding something about one’s place in the world, even if that understanding is limited & provisional.
.
I think Jaycubed has a point. We know there are religions that are basically atheist, while still being religions. Most people here tend to project their rejection of all kinds of woo onto the description of atheism, which they shouldn’t. Yes, some of us are 95% a-religious and 100% a-theist. Some might be 100% atheist and only 20% a-religious. Conflating the two concepts is exactly the kind of useless BS that religious people do when ever they try to claim that Stalin, Mao, or others where murders *because* of their atheism. No, they may have been atheist, but they where not a-religious, non-violent, pro-rational, truly secular, or any of a wide range of other things what we stupidly try to insist *define* modern atheism. They don’t. Its possible to not believe in any gods, but be a complete lunatic, who uses astrology to determine who to torture, and when, in order to generate magic energy to try to conquer the world, or just about any other insane bullshit they might be deranged enough to believe in. By comparison to what it is *possible* for someone who rejects gods, but fails to grasp, accept or apply anything else we as a group value, people like Stalin where a fracking Vulcans. Compared to how we actually do think though, he is more like a Romulan general, illogical, irrational, rejecting some of the most basic principles of discipline, self control and reason, in favor of personal greed, power and authoritarian control. I.e., in favor of all the secondary things we reject as dangerous, immoral and just plain stupid, while just happening to agree with us about the whole issue of if gods exist.
That said, I don’t like Jaycubed’s projection of religion onto science. The fundamental thing that makes it “not” a religion is its methodology, ability to self challenge or be challenged, etc. When a church finds itself in a court, over some issue like if its willing to pay some poor fool his pension, the courts throw out the case based ***solely*** on the idea that its an internal issue in how the religion defines itself, and therefor the courts **cannot** step in and demand payment, or even allow the suit to continue. Try the same thing at a research facility and your precious lab will have its ass handed to you on a plate, along with the lawyers bills. Even suggest, just in jest, that its the same things as religion, and instead of the wall breaking between the church and the state on **legal** issues, those things will still remain untouchable. What will happen instead is that any wacko, lunatic or nutcase with a made up theory about how science should work would open their own, “church of true science”, they would becomes as untouchable as existing churches, and instead of competing with a handful of morons that don’t know what the rules are in the secular world, we would have *no* secular world, and millions of idiots to contend with. And worse, at some point the wall would have to be removed entirely, since once you define, “Facts based on repeated evidence”, as the same as, “I just made it up last week and applied for a religious license.”, the only way the courts could deal with *any* issue would be either to a) throw 99.9% of all cases out of court on the basis of conflict with the establishment clause, or abolish that clause, in favor of mob rule, where justice, and just what the hell rules are applied in a case, become a matter of who you stock the jury with, rather than any sort of clear, “These things we hold to not be religious and to be truthful, so it is these that are laws, verdicts and actions will be based.” When everything is a religion, tolerance means no one can ever do anything wrong, as long as you can find enough people stupid, or crazy, enough to insist that its OK under “their” religion, and, any challenge to that definition must be rejected, either as a breach of the states authority to define what someone’s “religion” is, and if its valid, or on the grounds that “all” religions must be valid, so the state has no grounds to judge which ones should apply.
Well, there is one other solution. Force everyone to follow the rules of “one” single religion, that way there is no conflict between the state’s definitions and the courts rulings about if you broke the rules of that faith. Since both conditions, i.e. a) all religions, including secular ones, are untouchable by the state, or b) all religions are valid, so application of them is up for grabs, are unstable conditions, the third condition is the inevitable result. And its kind of a toss up if our version of reality would win the fist fight you inevitably get when trying to win the fight over whose “faith” gets to decide what the rules are, and which aspects of basic reality to totally ignore, in favor of more acceptable, and entirely delusional, ideas.
Basically, even if you could, and I don’t think you can, define science as religion, only someone very naive, or very stupid, would want that to happen.
yay! a reason to be happy to go visit my parents for the holidays! Usually I’m dying of boredom every time that I have to spend too much time in Racine. I’ll have to go check that out.
The problem with rejecting the word “religion” is that it is an appropriate term to describe any person’s relationship to reality.
No, it isn’t. You might mean “metaphysics”, but science isn’t that — many scientists are theists. But you may well mean naturalism rather than science — try on “my metaphysics is naturalism”. In any case, there is no “problem” with rejecting the word religion — your ignorance about word meaning, philosophy, etc. isn’t our problem.
The word religion comes from the Latin
Irrelevant; etymology is not meaning.
We know there are religions that are basically atheist, while still being religions.
They are still religions because they are mired in dogma.
That said, I don’t like Jaycubed’s projection of religion onto science.
Wisely.
And the anal-retentive word-fog artist has arrived!
#51 in regards to virgo and Mithras, I think you have a few mistaken ideas
First of the two nativity stories in the New Testament, Luke is very clear that Mary is a virgin in the modern sense of the word. Matthew is a bit more vague, the angel tells Joseph that the child is of the Holy Spirit and the narrator then goes on to state this is to fulfill a prophecy about a virgin giving birth. Note that the New Testament’s original language is Greek not Latin so wouldn’t have used virgo anyway. The confusion is with the Tanakh (aka Christian Old Testament) prophecy. In the original Hebrew the word used was ‘Almah’ which means young woman and said that something would take place by the time the child the woman was bearing was old enough to know good from evil. The Greek translation of it used a word which more strongly implies a woman who has never had intercourse. The gospel writers of Luke and Matthew or their sources quite likely did not know the Hebrew text of the Tanakh but did know the Greek translation. They hunted for useful prophecy, found one, and created a story that sort of fit it (that the prophecy read in context was suppose to take place within the decade of it being given was ignored).
Second we really don’t know much about the Mithras’ myths that the Romans believed in. This seems to have been a case of two religions. The first was based in Persia and worshiped among others, but apparently only as a minor deity, Mithra; the second was based in the Roman empire and though it might have claimed to be Persian and took some bits from them, it seems to have been quite different (the distinctive worship places for Mithras are not found in Iran and relatively rare in the Asian provinces of the Roman Empire). A bit like some modern New Age religions claiming to be ancient religions but not really that similar. Among other things we don’t know what his birth date was considered to be (December 25 was celebrated as a birth date for Sol Invictus and Invictus was a title that Mithras might have had but Sol Invictus was a name for a different god entirely; we have no records of Dec. 25 being directly connected to Mithras). We also don’t know whether Mithras/Mithra was considered to have been born of a virgin. The guesses have been based on interpretations of pictures that have been preserved not on written records (the pictures btw seem to indicate Mithras being born/emerging from a rock). Perhaps the virgin birth and/or December 25 were associated with Mithra (the Persian deity) or even Mitra (the Sanskrit deity)?
Now I could be wrong about the above so if you or anyone has a scholarly source citing primary sources or making a good argument from the known iconography or other evidence, I would be interested. Most of what I’ve seen citing December 25 or a Virgin birth for Mithras are tertiary sources at best.
Oh and a good squidmas to everyone.
yay! a reason to be happy to go visit my parents for the holidays! Usually I’m dying of boredom every time that I have to spend too much time in Racine.
Wow! Apparantly so if seeing a small pyramid can exite you so much!
First of the two nativity stories in … Mithras are tertiary sources at best.
Cool! Sounds like a muddled case of “hamstering”*
* I’m trying to make “hamstering” a common term much as “Groundhog’s day” and “holodeck” are. I want “hamstering” to mean the confussion of origin and adaptation in etymology. I read somewhere (I think it was a Scientific America post Martin Gardner recreational column) that an etymologist that hamsters are named for their habit of stuffing nuts in their cheeks for which there is a german verb “hamstern”. To which the column writer said “Do we call fish ‘fish’ because they are peculiar?”
It seems like just about all serious talk of christianity is a huge muddle of hamstering.
Sigh. Guess no-one’s in the mood for questionable tasting and very stale jokes. Maybe one of these days I will make a jelly mold of Jesus.
One of my sister’s favorite physical jokes is “Why are christians glad that Jesus was crucified rather than stoned to death?” “Because now they only have to do this < makes gesture of genuflection > instead of this < beats chest with fists >” (It’s one of those jokes you have to see to find funny, I guess.)
My favorite bit of physical jokes is doing an impression of a jelly mold of Jesus. Actually, it being the holidays and all an actual jelly mold of Jesus would be darned festive.
Yes, but it was a rock that had not known man.
And the anal-retentive word-fog artist has arrived!
Shoo, troll.
Yes, but it was a rock that had not known man.
Ah, but I know of many births by women who have not known rock. Or hamsters. Course you can’t be the messiah because your mama knew rocks, and hamsters, and all sorts of nasty things. woooo.
@ #74
If my memory serves right, Luke uses the word ‘parthenos’ to describe Mary, meaning ‘marriageable maiden’ which implies having had no sex.
WRT Mithra(s), I guess it is safe to assume all three are related, or at least based upon each other. There are too many similarities to just be coincidences.
The point I was trying to make was basically, that there indeed are several cultures with virgin-born deities.
Keep in mind that early Christianity popped up, when there was a plethora of old and new, aspiring cults popping up left and right. They desperately needed something to distinguish itself from all others. Making Jesus the son of a virgin wasn’t a new concept (since a lot of Judaism is pretty much stolen from religions all around as well) but surely something to make sheeple ponder.
The thing that surpised me was the ages of the people behind this, one was 80+, other was in their 70’s. It’s not a bunch of young punks trying to give a middle finger to Christianity, these are people who have been around and seen religious fuckery for years.
I’m from Racine, now in Milwaukee. Racine is a shithole, but wisconsin is a blue state. The majority here gets it, do you?
Luke has Mary saying.
Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no
husband?”
This also implies virgin as people then were aware that it does take a man and not just a husband.
I don’t disagree that Jesus being the son of a virgin wasn’t an old idea though usually the god in question was a bit more carnal in action. The Greeks certainly had some; however, we don’t have evidence beyond that of modern speculators that Mithras was one of them.
“The word religion comes from the Latin
Irrelevant; etymology is not meaning.
Posted by: truth machine ”
Etymology is the scientific process of understanding the meanings (plural) of a word by examining its history.
It is only irrelevant to a pedant.
.
Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, since I have no
husband?”
This also implies virgin as people then were aware that it does take a man and not just a husband.
Welp, we pretty much have to go to the source for this. Who knows what the original said. It probably means I have no husband and I’m not the type to fuck around so I am a virgin. It could be a mistranslation that, I have no man in my life and haven’t fucked anyone lately (but I sure have in the past) but I really doubt it. Or it could mean how can we do this thing when I have no husband; the neighbors will talk– I’m profectly willing to conceive (pun originally unintended but what the heck) of the idea of being knocked-up by the studly spook and I’m your gal for that (virgin or not; it’s none of your business) but how are we going to get away with it when I have no husband– if this involves fast flying stones tossed by my uptight neighbors then the deal’s off.
After all the wording is, according to you– I haven’t bothered looking it up.
How shall it be, not how can this be.
Etymology is the scientific process of understanding the meanings (plural) of a word by examining its history.
That’s a stupid and ignorant claim. As Wikipedia says, “Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time”.
It is only irrelevant to a pedant.
That’s even stupider. It’s was your specific appeal to etymology that was irrelevant to the point at hand, not etymology generally. And etymology is not irrelevant to pedants.