Atheist advertising

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Then you should have looked for it.

According to who?

Of course. You'd have to go out of your way to see it; which you had.

Or you're going out of your way to ignore it, which you are.

If you say so, but again, you have to deviate from the cartoonist's message.

Oh, and artists are god-beings that shall dictate forth exactly what everyone should think about their work? Seeing as how you bring up opposing viewpoints later on this seems more than a little erroneous. Tell me, if opposing viewpoints on what the spirit of Christmas should be treated equally, shouldn't differing viewpoints concerning the meaning of an image also be treated equally? or are you just grasping at straws?

What? It's never stopped you before!

Again, you imply that I'm ignoring things in the same breath you use to accuse me of noticing too much. Would it kill you to make up your mind? Are different opinions valid or just one? Am I over-scrutinizing or under-scrutinizing? Pick one.

No, it really is about the consumerism of Xmas. Don't fart and point.

Than why the stack of presents? If the whole point of the joke is that this guy isn't living up to the 'spirit of Christmas' why include that? Either the artist meant to add that dimension to it, or let it happen by accident. Either way it's there and I'm not going to ignore it because the artist, much less someone deducing meaning from the artist, tells me to.

It's not difficult to see that when confronted with a cartoon that opposes your point of view and that you have to go out of your way to misinterpret it and poke holes in trivial and non-existent elements and offer a convoluted explanation that it all adds up to: someone who hates to have his POV challenged.

I don't recall once saying that I think people should always agree or never disagree. Disagreement is part of the world. I do, however, have a problem with people acting smug about it as well as people who seem all too happy to fan the flames. The fact that fights happen whether you want them too or not is no reason to start one.

Or, C: you've done enough needless word swapping of your own.

-10 points if you don't show your working. Point out where I've substituted one word for another in order to twist meaning, please, or are you content to just sit there and throw out a dozen baseless accusations? I mean, is this going to be a debate or a slap-fight? I'm down for either but, the debate's so much more interesting.

It's easier than that: you're reading too much into it.

Again, or you're ignoring too much. Which would be easier as it requires no effort, although I guess that never stopped you.

Non-atheists tend to think that there's a difference and have to establish one.

Again, here you seem to imply that there's only one answer and not multiple viewpoints. Pick a lane.

Like blowing up churches? Pissing on Nativity scenes? Shooting Salvation Army ringers? (Hmmm...) Trouble is, the atheists are not that excitable. If they were to "actually fucking do something", then the Xtians and others would have even louder hissy fits and that just wouldn't do. No, no!

You do know what peace on earth means, right? It certainly doesn't mean 'there can be only one'. It means living together, acknowledging and maybe disagreeing with each other, but living together none-the-less. The solution to differing viewpoints is not driving a wedge between them any more than it is to set the others on fire. If you want to bridge the gap, bridge the gap or at least refrain from widening or highlighting it.

So, Xtians feel that they hold a monopoly on said sentiment? I've heard that before, as well as other sentiments, morals, etc.

If you don't believe in the birth of Jesus, not only shouldn't you care how people celebrate his supposed birthday you also have no authority to make judgments either way. No one has a monopoly on any sentiment but Christians do have a monopoly on what sentiments = Xmas. That is, unless you acknowledge that Xmas has become something different for most everyone, in which case it's again not your business to criticize others any more than it is their business to criticize you.

Who had based it on earlier depictions which had evolved from pagan traditions. Not the first time the Xtians had to steal from the pagans.

If they intended to borrow from something they wouldn't be wearing that specific outfit. True, it borrowed heavily from a number of places but these people aren't borrowing in turn, they're outright replicating.

They didn't provoke you. Oh, yes they did. They offered you an opposing viewpoint.

Anyone who invites me to help them create a better world by being less like myself and more like them deserves much more than a "Fuck you too." Again, opposing viewpoints is fine, shitting all over the others whilst offering yours isn't.

But not the only shot.

Come up with any others? If you have, great, we'll do all of them, if not, please refrain from burning down the house.

Like rampages.

A rampage is a spree of wanton violence, if disagreeing with you constitutes a rampage I guess that makes me a serial killer.

[Ipecac Drano]

According to who?

Everybody who isn't you...

Or you're going out of your way to ignore it, which you are.

See next point...

Oh, and artists are god-beings that shall dictate forth exactly what everyone should think about their work?

Minus that "god-beings" bit, yes. But if you really feel that way, based on what you had written and how I interpret it, you agree with everything I say. Thank you.

Again, you imply that I'm ignoring things in the same breath you use to accuse me of noticing too much. Would it kill you to make up your mind? Are different opinions valid or just one? Am I over-scrutinizing or under-scrutinizing? Pick one.

Set logic doesn't work here. Sorry.

Than why the stack of presents? If the whole point of the joke is that this guy isn't living up to the 'spirit of Christmas' why include that? Either the artist meant to add that dimension to it, or let it happen by accident. Either way it's there and I'm not going to ignore it because the artist, much less someone deducing meaning from the artist, tells me to.

It ain't.

I don't recall once saying that I think people should always agree or never disagree. Disagreement is part of the world. I do, however, have a problem with people acting smug about it as well as people who seem all too happy to fan the flames. The fact that fights happen whether you want them too or not is no reason to start one.

No, you didn't say it...

-10 points if you don't show your working. Point out where I've substituted one word for another in order to twist meaning, please, or are you content to just sit there and throw out a dozen baseless accusations? I mean, is this going to be a debate or a slap-fight? I'm down for either but, the debate's so much more interesting.

Are you being a literalist?

Again, or you're ignoring too much. Which would be easier as it requires no effort, although I guess that never stopped you.

I can't ignore something that isn't there.

Again, here you seem to imply that there's only one answer and not multiple viewpoints. Pick a lane.

If I believed in only one answer, I wouldn't have to "pick a lane", would I?

You do know what peace on earth means, right? It certainly doesn't mean 'there can be only one'. It means living together, acknowledging and maybe disagreeing with each other, but living together none-the-less. The solution to differing viewpoints is not driving a wedge between them any more than it is to set the others on fire. If you want to bridge the gap, bridge the gap or at least refrain from widening or highlighting it.

Which is what they are already doing.

If you don't believe in the birth of Jesus, not only shouldn't you care how people celebrate his supposed birthday you also have no authority to make judgments either way. No one has a monopoly on any sentiment but Christians do have a monopoly on what sentiments = Xmas. That is, unless you acknowledge that Xmas has become something different for most everyone, in which case it's again not your business to criticize others any more than it is their business to criticize you.

Nice how you think that Xmas is a sentiment. +100 for me!

If they intended to borrow from something they wouldn't be wearing that specific outfit. True, it borrowed heavily from a number of places but these people aren't borrowing in turn, they're outright replicating.

Streeeeeeeettttcccccchhhhiinnngggg.

Anyone who invites me to help them create a better world by being less like myself and more like them deserves much more than a "Fuck you too." Again, opposing viewpoints is fine, shitting all over the others whilst offering yours isn't.

Quick question: are you the guy holding the presents in the pic?

Come up with any others? If you have, great, we'll do all of them, if not, please refrain from burning down the house.

Only if you don't soak it with fuel, first.

A rampage is a spree of wanton violence, if disagreeing with you constitutes a rampage I guess that makes me a serial killer.

You do seem angry. BTW, not all serial killers go on wanton killing sprees nor is a guy firing a high-powered rifle at a McDonald's during lunchtime a serial murderer. Something else to look up...

[Andara Bledin]

Everybody who isn't you...

That's really funny, considering that I'm the one who brought it up in the first place.

Seriously, you and Ghel are so patently offensive in your treatment of anyone who isn't an atheist or who might support that atheism isn't "the one true way" that it's stifled any other form of religious debate to be found on this forum.

And I'm not the only person that feels that way.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

It's interesting that you say that Easter gets more reverence when the Xtians I had questioned say that Xmas is the most important Xtian holiday. (Yes, I ask them, "What do you think is the most important day on the Xtian calendar?" or "What's the most important Xtian holiday?".)

Of course, religion has to be fun: waiting for Santa, drinking eggnog (spiked or not), giving gifts, getting gifts, watching football, etc. That does beat the heck out of sitting in church for a couple of hours, lighting candles, singing a couple of hymns, eating a meal slightly larger than usual and waiting for the sun to rise on Epiphany.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone waiting for the sun to rise on Epiphany

There is a difference, in perception if nothing else, between "most important" and "most reverent." If you were to try asking the other way, you might get a different answer. Or you might not, of course.

But as I said, you can't really separate the two anyway. Without the birth, there could be no death and resurrection; without the resurrection, the birth loses its importance.

Wait, there was a cartoon?

One of my coworkers, in particular, does it on purpose. She is very confrontational (not just with me, though) and says things about her religion to me and around me *specifically *because she knows I'm an atheist. She even went so far as to tell me, "It wouldn't hurt you to get some church in you," because I declined to go to an event that just happened to be held at a church. I wasn't interested in the event; I didn't care if it was at a church.

Understood... and agreed! (I've never been an atheist, but have run into, on occasion, people who get that way if you're not interested in *their* church, because none of the others count. Never, so far, had to work with one though.)

I brought it up because, when I hear something that can be taken in what I see as more than one way, and the difference is relevant, I never am quite sure whether the person who said it meant one, the other, or both, or possibly doesn't recognize that there's a distinction to be made. Which I know can sometimes come across like I think people are idiots, etc., but *not* clearing it up can make things worse too. A conversation along the lines of

"So, what did you do last night?"
"Oh, we had choir practice and prayer meeting"
"Did you ever find a new minister of music?", etc

is vastly different than
"Hey, Ghel, you HAVE to come to our church! No, really, one of these days I'm going to tie you up and drag you there and get some JESUS into you!"

The latter would have me running faster than being handed a snake. And I LIKE Jesus.
(sorry, I had "Smokey Mountain Rattlesnake Retreat" stuck in my head earlier today)

... whilst wearing the santa suit as designed by Hayden Sunbloom for the Coka Cola corporation.

While trying to ignore that whole branch of the thread, I have to point out that that look did not originate with those ads for The Coca-Cola Company, though they certainly helped seal it as the definitive Santa costume. (By the way, one of my favorite bits of trivia is that not only is the "The" actually part of the company's name, but without it the product would probably not even exist today.)

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Everybody who isn't you...

Speaking of superior attitude... how about a little proof? Any basis for your point of view whatsoever, or does your entire idea of argument boil down to 'because I said so'?

Minus that "god-beings" bit, yes. But if you really feel that way, based on what you had written and how I interpret it, you agree with everything I say. Thank you.

Tick another under column "It's true because I say so." Your arguments are getting laughably repetitive. They've been empty all along, but one would think you'd come up with something else to bring to the table by now.

Set logic doesn't work here. Sorry.

Why not? Because you say so?

It ain't.

See above.

No, you didn't say it...

If that's the case than you have no business deducing anything as, according to you, only the intended meaning matters.

Are you being a literalist?

That's the default position, yes, but if you have other examples or some kind of alternative basis for your argument I'll accept that too, just haven't seen any yet.

I can't ignore something that isn't there.

From the inside ignoring something and something not existing are the same thing, all the more reason to take other people's observations into account and not just your own.

If I believed in only one answer, I wouldn't have to "pick a lane", would I?

Yes, you would, because there would be one correct and all the rest would be incorrect. If you've got a correct answer, prove it, if there can be many, prove that yours is and mine isn't.

Which is what they are already doing.

Exactly, they were already driving the gap as far apart as they could under the guise of building a bridge. It's like when you're reaching for something but manage only to push it further away, anyone with a functioning brain realizes to try something else.

Nice how you think that Xmas is a sentiment. +100 for me!

Nice how you think that sentiments and events are the same thing +200 for me!

See? I can come up with vacuous one-liners too!

Streeeeeeeettttcccccchhhhiinnngggg.

Proooove it!

Seriously, how much of a stretch is it from wearing a costume to endorsing that which the costume represents? If someone wears a Spider Man costume, they're endorsing Spider Man and his creators, or does the idea of connecting one idea to another, related idea bring forth 40 years of darkness?

Quick question: are you the guy holding the presents in the pic?

I'm a capitalist, presents = symbol of capitalism in Xmas, so yes, through the implementation of symbolism, I am the "offending" party.

Only if you don't soak it with fuel, first.

Where I come from we build houses out of wood, ain't no more an invitation to fire than printing books on paper.

You do seem angry. BTW, not all serial killers go on wanton killing sprees nor is a guy firing a high-powered rifle at a McDonald's during lunchtime a serial murderer. Something else to look up...

Serial Killers are defined as anyone who kills 3 or more people, therefore any multiple murderer is a serial killer. And just there I've given forth more proof for one sentence of mine than you have in several posts, this is seriously disappointing. As much as I, and I'm sure you, enjoy ego masturbation, this is supposed to be a debate.

[Eisa]

*blink blink* Honestly, after reading the last 2 pages, I'm starting to agree with Andara....I'm not an atheist, but I'm not really a Christian either. At this point, I have no idea what I am.

But I can see Wingate's point, even if I think they did think a little hard to get what they did out of it.

Also, I don't see how Christians getting something out of pagan traditions matters for atheism if you don't believe in it anyway?


Edit: Also, yes serial killer is defined as anyone who kills 3 or more people [sometimes 2 or more], and generally over a longer period than just one time. A spree killer is someone who starts killing people and keeps going over a relatively brief period of time. Like, say, Charles Starkweather.

[Ipecac Drano]

That's really funny, considering that I'm the one who brought it up in the first place.

Two people.

Seriously, you and Ghel are so patently offensive in your treatment of anyone who isn't an atheist or who might support that atheism isn't "the one true way" that it's stifled any other form of religious debate to be found on this forum.

Yeah, right.

And I'm not the only person that feels that way.

So, that makes your POV more correct?

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone waiting for the sun to rise on Epiphany

Of course not! I was merely offering an alternative. Most people I talk to had never even heard of Epiphany, though it is when Xmas ends.

There is a difference, in perception if nothing else, between "most important" and "most reverent." If you were to try asking the other way, you might get a different answer. Or you might not, of course.

But as I said, you can't really separate the two anyway. Without the birth, there could be no death and resurrection; without the resurrection, the birth loses its importance.

Just for the helluvit, I'll rephrase my question when I ask it.

As for Wingates, when I had posted an opinion, it is based on feeling and therefore cannot be proven nor disproven.

Serial Killers are defined as anyone who kills 3 or more people, therefore any multiple murderer is a serial killer. And just there I've given forth more proof for one sentence of mine than you have in several posts, this is seriously disappointing.

The sad thing is that your "proof" in that sentence is just as slipshod as the rest of your other "proofs". You might look up the differences between a serial killer and a mass murderer:

A serial killer is typically defined as a person who murders three or more people over a period of more than 30 days, with a "cooling off" period between each murder, and whose motivation for killing is largely based on psychological gratification. Other sources define the term as "a series of two or more murders, committed as separate events, usually, but not always, by one offender acting alone" or, including the vital characteristics, a minimum of at least two murders. Often, a sexual element is involved with the killings, but the FBI states that motives for serial murder include "anger, thrill, financial gain, and attention seeking." The murders may have been attempted or completed in a similar fashion and the victims may have had something in common; for example, occupation, race, appearance, sex, or age group.

Serial killers are not the same as mass murderers, who commit multiple murders at one time; nor are they spree killers, who commit murders in two or more locations with virtually no break in between.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_killer

Ergo, that guy in the McDonald's scenario is not a serial killer just because he got off three kills there.

[AdminAssistant]

I really don't get why the cartoon is offensive; I thought it was funny. First of all, a lot of the people who get all pissy about the 'proper' celebration of Christmas are *Christians*. Those are the ones you see bitching about the difference between "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holiday." Those are the ones you see bitching about commercialism in one breath and knocking out a lady for the latest new toy with the next. I've never heard of an atheist charity throwing away donated Harry Potter toys instead of giving them to poor children because they aren't "Christian enough" (same charity was happily giving away plastic M-16s). The poster the atheists are putting up should be the true 'reason for the season.' Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men and women. How is that bad?

[Ipecac Drano]

I really don't get why the cartoon is offensive; I thought it was funny. First of all, a lot of the people who get all pissy about the 'proper' celebration of Christmas are *Christians*. Those are the ones you see bitching about the difference between "Merry Christmas" and "Happy Holiday." Those are the ones you see bitching about commercialism in one breath and knocking out a lady for the latest new toy with the next. I've never heard of an atheist charity throwing away donated Harry Potter toys instead of giving them to poor children because they aren't "Christian enough" (same charity was happily giving away plastic M-16s). The poster the atheists are putting up should be the true 'reason for the season.' Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men and women. How is that bad?

Thank you, AA!

Have a Happy [take your pick]!

[Andara Bledin]

I really don't get why the cartoon is offensive; I thought it was funny.

I find the idea behind the cartoon to be amusing, just think it could have been executed to appeal to a much broader group of people as opposed to being aimed almost exclusively at news-watching atheists. It's that part that detracts for me.

^-.-^

[Rebel]

I'm an atheist and I've celebrated Xmas my whole life. The only thing is, as since my whole family had no belief in a god, we never celebrated Xmas as the birth of Jesus. Instead the day was about family and friends spending time together and showing our love for each other with gifts (be they bought or hand-made).
Yes, we still had the Xmas tree and decorated our house (though sparingly because my family was lazy in regards to that). When we were younger we went to 'Carols by Candlelight'. And yes, we all knew the story of the virgin birth and the wise men.

The only difference between my family and a Christian family celebrating Xmas was that we took the story of Jesus Christ about as seriously as that of 'Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer'.

This didn't make us bad or evil. It also didn't take away our right to celebrate Xmas either, especially since we didn't see it as a religious holiday at all.

As to advertising done by atheists during this season, I see nothing wrong with it.

Right now, I can walk down the street and before I've even gone 4 blocks I would have gone past a church with it's outside sign proclaiming God as the only way to lead a good and fulfilled life, as well as a bus-stop seat with advertising that says that allowing God into your life is the only way to avoid going to hell.

I can sometimes feel offended by these signs, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't, but most of the time they make me giggle because the things they are saying just seem so ridiculous to me. But I know some people take them seriously and live their life according to the things they say. And that's who the signs are aimed at, not me or other atheists.

With atheist advertising, they are aimed towards...Atheists!
So these signs will point out what atheists believe. They will talk to the atheists who read them. Mostly, they talk about how you're not evil for being who you are (Good without God); how you don't need a God to have morals and be a good person; and how you're not alone, even though it can sometimes feel that way.

How can these signs be seen as bad?

I find the idea behind the cartoon to be amusing, just think it could have been executed to appeal to a much broader group of people as opposed to being aimed almost exclusively at news-watching atheists. It's that part that detracts for me.

But that's who the cartoon is aimed towards. It's a social commentary from the atheist viewpoint on recent events surrounding atheists adverts and the Christians that are offended by them.

[Ghel]

With atheist advertising, they are aimed towards...Atheists!
So these signs will point out what atheists believe. They will talk to the atheists who read them. Mostly, they talk about how you're not evil for being who you are (Good without God); how you don't need a God to have morals and be a good person; and how you're not alone, even though it can sometimes feel that way.

How can these signs be seen as bad?

Exactly. The advertising is saying to Christians that not everybody agrees with their beliefs, and they're saying to atheists that they're not alone. How could anybody consider that offensive?

I find the idea behind the cartoon to be amusing, just think it could have been executed to appeal to a much broader group of people as opposed to being aimed almost exclusively at news-watching atheists.

If you look at the tag at the bottom of the cartoon, you'll see it was originally posted on a site of cartoons by atheists, for atheists. It's not intended to have a broader appeal.

The poster the atheists are putting up should be the true 'reason for the season.' Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men and women. How is that bad?

Hear, hear!

Seriously, you and Ghel are so patently offensive in your treatment of anyone who isn't an atheist or who might support that atheism isn't "the one true way" that it's stifled any other form of religious debate to be found on this forum.

Please demonstrate this. All I have done is point out that not everyone agrees with your (and other believers') superstitions and ask that you provide evidence for your claims. If your beliefs have any basis in reality, that shouldn't be offensive.

But what particularly annoys me here is that the Atheists there pictured are cashing in on the 'peace on earth' message and caring not a whit for the way in which they do it or the effect it will actually have...

"Cashing in"? Christianity didn't come up with the concepts of peace and goodwill. Humans did, and they incorporated these concepts into their religion.

I think atheists have a pretty good idea of what kind of reaction the advertisements will get before they put them up, since (at least here in the US) the majority of atheists were brought up in Christian households before they lost their faith. But again, the intended audience for most of the advertisements is atheists. Any message received by Christians is secondary. Granted, the holiday advertisements, such as "Be good for goodness' sake" are intended for a broader audience.

... given that the best way to get something you want is not to just say it, instead, maybe you should actually fucking do it.

Do? I think they're doing plenty, between giving atheists a sense of community that many find lacking since their defection from religion, funding lobbies to prevent theists from pushing through legislation that would either give unfair advantage to religious organizations or limit freedom of religion and speech, and promoting secular charities who demonstrate their fitness to be non-profit.

1) Atheists making commentary on the sentiment of something derived from a religious event they don't believe happened.

So, just because it's fiction means nobody is allowed to quote it? That makes no sense.

3) If they really wanted peace and love on earth, provoking people is probably not the best course of action.

"Provoking people"? This is the kind of twisted logic that religion gives us. How can promoting peace and goodwill possibly be considered provoking anyone? That makes no sense.

[Gravekeeper]

I find some of the adverts to be kind of funny, but the sniping back and forth is kind of tacky, yes. A few of them go a tad too far to be honest by aiming directly at the other side.

As for Christmas, Christmas is basically 70% Yule, a pagan festival, 20% Dickens ( He's the one that popularized "Merry Christmas" ) and 10% Jesus, heh.

Christmas has long since evolved beyond Christ, and I find the whole "War on Christmas" thing that pops up in the States each year to be profoundedly absurd. I mean really, its the one day we're all suppose to get along regardless of race or creed. Shut it already. >.>

I don't care if you say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays to me, you mean me well either way. That's good enough for me.

[HYHYBT]

That's it exactly for me. I may be puzzled a moment if it's something I'm not used to hearing, and especially if it's something I didn't know existed or didn't realize was now, but if you tell me "Happy _____" then I assume you're wishing me well. Why people like taking offense at being wished well in words other than their personal favorites I do not, and do not wish to, understand.

[Hyena Dandy]

So, that makes your POV more correct?

Since the matter at hand is 'stifling religious debate' I think if more people feel stifled than not-stifled, then yes, that does make the point of view more correct. Some things should not be defined by consensus. But 'are people feeling offended and frustrated talking here' is one that should.