The Onion (via Friendly Atheist)
‘Comic referenced by AC Grayling’ by Don Addis - comic strip artist - RichardDawkins.net
This one has been around a while, but it’s once again relevant after Sunday’s debate where Grayling referenced the comic.
Here is a lovely email a reader received today in her inbox. I don’t think this is who they meant for her to pass is on to :)
(Thanks Anthea)
I had this exact email sent to me about two weeks ago, except mine also asked, “If you agree, pass this on, if not, simply delete it.” Now, I’m not about to let that go, so below is my response.
The poem operates under the faulty premise that December 25th is primarily derived from a Christian holiday. While that might be the current majority of celebratory reasoning, historians will largely disagree with the claim that most of the practices are of Christian origin. Check pretty much anywhere on Google for this. I found this site, which is pretty succinct: http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm.
You and I won’t disagree at being appalled with the rampant consumerism - it probably annoys me more so than the average theist, and for similar, though less religious reasons. The commercial bastardization of a holiday that we revere is unacceptable regardless of the reasons we hold respect for it.
There’s a really good book I’m reading at the moment which you might enjoy if you can get a copy (I could only find it on the Kindle) called The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas. Mostly written in humor, it’s got a bunch of really interesting perspectives on the holiday from nonbelievers, but the general consensus is that the holiday has special meaning regardless of your belief or non-belief (it’s not an argument against theism, it’s forty-two nonbelievers answering the question, “What does Christmas mean to you?”). For me personally, it represents family, friends, and celebrating the relationships we have. The inclusion of gifts is a manifestation of that closeness and support we have for one another.
The poem makes two points at the same time that I have to say something about, however. First is a statement against the separation of church and state, the second is against the trend towards diversity from private institutions.
The first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. “ In this regard, the public support of religion in general, and specifically the Christian god, is explicitly unconstitutional, and even theists will disagree with items on our currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance on this point, especially if they are of another religion entirely.
To the second point, it’s completely within every private institution’s rights to support any religion it sees fit, and it proves rather profitable for companies to appear supportive of as many demographics as they can. In this regard, it’s unsurprising that companies such as Gap outwardly express the celebration of even Kwanzaa, a holiday with suspiciously recent origins. If a Christian company wanted to shout, “Merry Christmas!” in its marketing rather than a more secular message, that’s their right, and no one should begrudge them of that. Conversely, I don’t believe anyone should be appalled at secular-toned holiday messaging for exactly the same reasons.
Personally, I’ll almost always tell someone, “Merry Christmas!”, but that’s not because it has religious meaning to me. It’s the name of the holiday as I know it, plain and simple.
Oh, and I’m sure you’re aware by now, but if you’re going to forward this kind of thing to me, you ought to expect a response ;). Please don’t take it as an attack, because this is all said out of love and respect for you, and my intent is merely to provide a perspective as someone with vastly different views on the topic.
Here’s the Intelligence Squared debate on “Atheism is the new Fundamentalism” starring Richard Dawkins, Anthony Grayling, Richard Harries, and Charles Moore. Dawkins and Grayling do a fantastic job of handling the tired and ad hominem “arguments” from the theists.
Online results from the Intelligence Squared debate on “Is Atheism the new Fundamentalism?”. I didn’t catch the “in attendance” numbers, but the “disagree” vote captured nearly ALL of the undecided vote.
Some pre-debate poll results for the Intelligence Squared debate on Atheism is the new fundamentalism with Richard Dawkins
Live Streaming available at
http://www.intelligencesquared.com/live
Come to this page at 6:45 pm GMT on Sunday November 29th to participate in the first Live Online Intelligence Squared debate:
“Atheism is the new fundamentalism” - including Richard Dawkins
Event Information:
Does God exist? Has atheism replaced religion as the new faith of the secular age? Are today’s atheists as blinkered and dogmatic as they claim religious believers to be?
Wellington Squared is a new partnership between Wellington College, one of the country’s most innovative schools, and Intelligence Squared, the world’s leading forum for debate. We’ll be bringing the greatest authorities to Wellington to battle it out over the crucial issues of the day and you’ll get the chance to cast your vote at the end of the evening.
For further information please contact David James at: daj@wellingtoncollege.org.uk
For the first time, Intelligence Squared will be live-streaming a debate. In partnership with livestation.com, from 6.45pm (GMT) on Sunday 29th November, you will be able to watch online as Richard Dawkins takes on Richard Harries, the former bishop of Oxford, at this event.
The debate will take place at: Wellington College, Crowthorne, Berkshire.
Doors open at 6:00 pm. The debate starts at 7:00 pm and finishes at 8:30 pm.
Speakers for the motion:
Richard Harries Former Bishop of Oxford.
Charles Moore Former editor of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator.
Speakers against the motion:
Richard Dawkins Professor Emeritus at Oxford University and best-selling author of ‘The God Delusion’.
A C Grayling Professor of Philosophy at the University of London.
Chair:
Dr Anthony Seldon Master of Wellington College.
(via RichardDawkins.net)
That’s 6:45pm GMT, so like 10:45am for us on the west coast US.
…In this regard, I am troubled by recent claims, strewn over articles, blogs, and other sites on the internet, that “atheist fundamentalists” are now directing policy at CFI. To begin, exactly what is “an atheist fundamentalist”? A religious fundamentalist, as most of you know, is someone who adamantly adheres to a key set of beliefs — regardless of the evidence. For example, Christian fundamentalists accept as dogma the bodily resurrection of Jesus, his virgin birth, the inerrancy of scripture, and so forth. But that is one problem with the term “atheist fundamentalist.” All atheists I know demand evidence for their beliefs. They do not accept doctrines blindly.
Well put, and definitely an article worth a read.
I consistently struggle with people in my personal life whenever I have to explain to them the two schools of thought on atheism: strong and weak.
Of course, there will always be strong atheists, or people who believe, without a doubt, that there cannot be and has never been a god, regardless of what evidence may present itself. However, most atheists as I know them are weak atheists, and though some would much like to be able to be a strong atheist (since no evidence for a god exists), their rationality leaves them with the probability that gods do not and have not existed.
It would not be surprising to me if this population of weak atheists, and self-proclaimed agnostics (many of whom I personally think just haven’t come to terms with actually being an atheist) makes up a vast majority of nonbelievers as a whole, and that strong atheists only contribute a sliver of that pie, yet nonbelievers are constantly treated as if they require some sort of faith to be atheist, which could not be further from the truth.
