NEWS: Atheists Are Good Without God (And It’s Not A War on Christmas)

CULTURE: Atheists Are Good Without God (And It’s Not A War on Christmas)

by Damon Martin

During the holiday season, atheists in America and Canada are letting everyone know they are still good without God. The message has been spread across buses and billboards throughout North America to send an alternative message during this normally oversaturated time of religious rejoice.

Groups like Secular Samaritan, American Humanist Association, and the Centre for Inquiry are responsible for the Christmas time ad buys. The gospel they’re trying to spread with these billboards is that goodness and morality are not in the exclusive domain of those that believe in a higher power.

Several secular and Atheist groups have done similar campaigns around the holidays before, with many Christians, especially in America, claiming such groups are declaring “War on Christmas.”



[Tekky Suicide in Steals Christmas]

One of the most prominent advertisements that set off such alarms this year was a billboard bought by the American Atheists on the New Jersey side of the Lincoln Tunnel just outside of New York City. The billboard says: “You know it’s a myth. This season celebrate reason.” The Catholic League promptly responded with a billboard of their own on the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel stating: “You know it’s real. This season celebrate Jesus.”

The Centre for Inquiry in Canada has purchased bus ads and transit signs that state: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Below this headline the group lists religious figures like Jesus Christ and Allah, mythical creatures like Bigfoot, leprechauns, and the tooth fairy, and practices such as prayer, astrology and ESP. The group will also be holding in-person educational events featuring expert speakers.

Meanwhile back in the United States, the Secular Samaritans, have purchased ads on buses servicing the campus of the University of Illinois that promote a particularly powerful message. The ads feature public figures such as Bill Gates. The slogan that runs alongside an image of the Microsoft founder says: “Second richest person in the world. Donated over $26 billion to charity. Bill Gates is good without God.” However it’s been reported that some religious folks in Illinois are outraged that the bus ads are allowed to run, regardless of the overwhelmingly positive message.

However such prejudice against the secular community is not uncommon. A poll done in 2006 by the University of Minnesota revealed that over 47% of people surveyed would disapprove of a family member marrying an atheist. Nearly 40% of people interviewed listed atheists as people they would identify with the least to share a vision of American society. Others interviewed saw atheists as “amoral” or involved in criminal behavior or drugs.

Given the religious community’s poor view of non-believers, it’s especially ironic that atheists and agnostics were shown to be the most knowledgeable about religion in a recent Pew Research Center poll. The results of a test which asked Americans what they knew about religion, were somewhat staggering – especially to those who profess to know better. Out of 32 questions posed, on average 16 correct answers were given. Atheists and agnostics scored the highest, just over half of the Catholics knew why they took communion, while Bible-belt Southerners scored the lowest of any identified group.

Some would argue that the billboards and ads are somehow combative and that atheists are trying to take away the religious aspects of the season. Atheists (myself included) are just following the lead of free thinkers like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris that say we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about our non-belief, even at this time of year. In the end, campaigns or not, atheists will continue to not believe in God, we will continue to believe in science, and, BTW, no one is declaring war. Well, unless you’re Daniel Baldwin.

***

If you’re an atheist and want to find like-minded souls, you might want to join SuicideGirls’ Atheist Group (for members only).

Further reading: The Evolution of Religion, Why Women Are Bound to Religion: An Evolutionary Perspective, and Filtering the Truth: Religion – Friend or Foe?.

No, we will not "continue to believe in science."

Great article, thanks for posting it. Long live free-thought and reason!

Of all the things the anti-religion groups need to really go after, they should just leave Christmas alone. Fight the calls for prayer in school, creationism education, etc. Society has turned Christmas from a religious celebration to a over-hyped commercial enterprise, that even non-practicing Christians are going to get their knickers in a knot over. They've got the right idea, just the wrong time to fight the battle. The religious right are going to spin this as an attack on Jesus and Christmas. If the atheists did this in the middle of July, there would probably be a lot less drama in the media. (I did say less, not none at all)

Yeah, I see Christmas as mostly a retail/do-something-nice-for-people holiday and most of the decorations have nothing to do with religion.

There are 364 other days of the year to squabble over beliefs.

Maybe It would work better as an attack on Santa. That Jolly Fat Man has had it to easy for two long.
Actually learning the truth about Santa is often a child's first lesson in Skepticism. My daughter faked it for a year fearing that knowing the truth, she would now get no presents.

I agree with that in principle, but doing it at this time of year gets a lot of media attention. If it was done in the middle of July let's say, it's doubtful the media would be putting as much of a spotlight on it as they do now.

That's my honest belief as to why the Atheist organizations choose to put it out there now

Oh, I get the strategy behind choosing the season/holiday. I just don't agree with it for another reason.

I really enjoy the Christmas season because in general, people seem to be less shitty to one another - regardless of their belief systems. Families make time to spend together (whether that's good and/or bad), and random strangers seem to greet others a little more frequently than other times of the year.

In a world with such a lack of unity, I appreciate the small window Christmas gives us where everyone whether Jewish, Christian, agnostic/atheist, Muslim, or whatever can say, "Hey, hope you are enjoying this time of year" in spite of the fact that the message may be said as, "Merry Christmas," "Happy Hanukkah," "Happy Kwanzaa," or "Happy Holidays."

I'd just rather not fuck that up and overshadowing it with a belief war.

Yes, atheists are "good" sometimes, like the rest of us. But it is mysterious where the concept of good came from. I imagine the radical Muslims who cut off people's hands for stealing think they are doing good. Even though they are doing what Westerners see as wrong, they honor the idea of good and try to abide by it. C. S. Lewis starts from this puzzle in one of his books in defense of religion. Read it; see what you think. The book is either "Surprised by Joy" or "Mere Christianity."

In parts of the world where winters are cold, people almost always have a festival at Equinox. Apparently, that festival serves an important emotional need. If you abolish Christmas to get rid of Christianity, you'd be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Yeah, commercial interests have attached themselves to Christmas, but it wasn't always so; and it will not always be so.

Perhaps you could do away with the false assumption that these groups wish to "abolish Christmas." For the most part, atheist groups also do not wish to "get rid of Christianity." For the most part, they just wish that Christians wouldn't attack them for things that are irrelevant, false, or illogically applied.

...and it's really not at all mysterious where the concept of "good" comes from. Humans evolved as social animals, needing each other and needing to do things for each other. Humans that engage in such behavior in a society (not stealing, feeding orphans, etc.) are considered "good," whereas humans that engage in behavior such as stealing are considered "bad."

Your off-the-cuff (yeah, right) example of "radical Muslims" is not, for the terms of your argument, people "doing good," but rather people exacting punishment against those who have done bad. Every society punishes those who do bad deeds, and it is entirely subjective (as you are attempting to argue around) from culture to culture exactly where "good" ends and "bad" begins.

All of this.

Why not go after Easter? It's way more bullshit than Christmas.

Does anyone really care about Easter, apart from the seriously Christian? In the UK it's pretty much just a double-size long weekend.

I love Easter. Halloween's candy is pretty good, but I can't get enough of those Cadbury eggs.

Personally, I can't stand Christmas anymore. The older I get the more of a facade it seems to be. I wouldn't abolish it, or anything, but I do everything I can to get away from it.

It's one thing to discuss one's atheism forthrightly when people ask you about it, make incorrect assumptions about it, or otherwise bring the discussion around to matters of faith or lack thereof. It's another matter to go around proselytizing, and I for one think it's uncalled for. The single most irritating thing a person of faith can do, in my book, is try to sell me on their faith unprompted, -especially- absent context, such as approaching me randomly at a bus stop and trying to give me pamphlets. I don't believe that atheists should stoop to such tactics, and I'd rate bus ads and billboards among them.

Babies are easier to attack than Zombies.

<<Every society punishes those who do bad deeds, and it is entirely subjective (as you are attempting to argue around) from culture to culture exactly where "good" ends and "bad" begins,>>

If good and bad are subjective, do you think infant sacrifice is not bad if a particular "culture" favors it? Do you think the former practice of purdah was good because the Indians subjectively felt it was? What about the Puritans and their witch burning? The Holocaust?

Infanticide,, to take one example, comes from social cooperation--the desire of a group to limit its population--so it is adaptive. Why then would someone see it as wrong? If we are the product of social cooperation, we would see it as right, right? But we don't. Why not? Is there something else going on?

Slavery still exists in parts of the world because certain groups find it useful to society. Are they "wrong"? You can't say it is wrong or evil if you say practices are okay based on the subjective judgments of cultures.

BTW, are you capable of disagreeing without adopting a snotty and accusatory tone? That weakens your persuasion.

This year, I plan on spreading the word of Krampus.

After all, it's just not a holiday without the threat of a yeti-like demon whipping you with rusty chains.

This is kinda a weird thread to be having this conversation in, but you already showed that good and bad are subjective by relating that cultures that cut off the hands of thieves believe that's a good thing to do.

I like this article it shows how insensitive the atheists are. People are happy with their beliefs in god and christ but the athiests want to stick a needle in the eye of christians by declaring how they do not believe. FINE WE GET IT YOU DO NOT BELIEVE.

I wonder why athiests choose to display their message of hate in December? Why not January or February?

Why? Because simply put they are at war with Christians they can deny it all they want. If this was about informing folks that they do not believe they could do it in a sensative way... That would be posting their hateful speech in January.

I have a better question why was this message of hate not posted say right around Ramadan? I know they fear beheadings.

The fact is they like to punch christians in the face and upset them because they dislike anyone who would DARE to believe in a higher power then themselves.

I am an athiest and that is my choice. I am not offended by christians because simply put.. THEY CAN BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT.

I do not need to gut punch you with my beliefs to make my point of spirituality. I simply say that a person should be happy with who they are.

If the athiests out there want to really prove how above other people they are. I suggest that they go to afganistan and preach their hateful words.

Me... I do not neest to jump up and down and say how I do not believe anymore. I simply enjoy the smiles and warmth that people who are enjoying the season have and give.

So do not say its not a war on Christmas it is, by a few people who want to push their beliefs on others. The verbal and hateful athiests out there want to be right.. need to be right and they want to force you to be an athiets to or... ruin your celebratation.. why? Because unlike myself they just have a heart of hate for anything religious. They do not see the good it does only the supposed bad.

Whatever...

I am an athiest and I say to you MERRY CHRISTMAS!

First of all, lose the ad hominem. I only addressed the points that you made, and said nothing about your tone, which, it turns out, actually sounded pretty snotty and accusatory to me. (See what I did there?)

Second, another user has already pointed out that we're saying the same thing; morality is subjective, with respect to the culture whose morality one is observing--or judging. You judge the mutilation of thieves as "bad," whereas the culture that you are judging views the act of thievery (which I will assume you also find to be "bad") as "bad" enough to require a brutal punishment. You see, you still haven't addressed the fact that your made-up Muslim culture (yes, I know there exist Muslim cultures that punish thieves in such a way; one of my many problems with your post is that you just said "radical Muslims" as if that is a meaningful category for a debate like ours) doesn't see the chopping off of hands as "good," per se, but rather they feel in their culture, just as we do in ours, that thievery is "bad." I find it very intellectually dishonest to equate the punishment of "bad" things (which actually ends up being a point of congress between two distinct cultures) with "good" things. Consider that your so-called "radical Muslims" also find that feeding orphan and caring for widows is "good." Is it "good" that people are locked away from their family, friends, and former life when they are put in prison for theft? You seem to have hopelessly confused the concept of cultural mores with cultural responses to crime. They aren't the same thing, and your point isn't at all well-served, even ignoring the fact that you're making a point by agreeing with me that "good/bad" in a society is subjective from culture to culture.

You have already said it yourself; our (western industrialized society) culture feels that slavery and infanticide are "bad." As you have pointed out, other cultures do not. Nothing is proven or disproven (or, really, even suggested) by the fact that there is no universal agreement at the fringe ends of "bad/good" amongst world cultures. The vast majority of "bad/good" across all human cultures is in accord. We generally don't kill, steal, or have sex with family members. We generally observe some level of the concept of "property" and respect the property of others. All of this is very general, but encompassing enough to suggest that it's all, as I pointed out earlier, the product of an evolution towards helping ourselves by helping others. This type of strategy gave rise to society. Distance and time separated humans into distinct societies and, eventually, distinct cultures. I think it's far more interesting to study what we have in common than to point at what we don't have in common and breathlessly conclude "well, that just must mean that God gave us good and bad!"

...and Merry Christmas to you. I say it, too.

However, I think you're extremely wrong-headed to conclude that this is a war on Christmas, that it is an attempt at any kind of proselytizing effort, or that these atheist groups are in any way "pushing their beliefs" on anybody. (Give us a shred of evidence of the last one, for example. Billboards don't count, sorry.)

The reality is that non-believers get treated like scum by the same cry-baby organizations that are so quick to cry foul when their viewpoint is somehow maligned or left unsaid. It's tiresome to get the same old non-points about morality over and over again. (See my conversation with Stanhope.) Ethical behavior arises from awareness of contemporary social mores and one's level of engagement with those mores. Many people feel as if the fact that human societies have a range (albeit a pretty narrow one, when it comes down to it) of ethical behavior suggests the existence of some external locus of so-called "morality," but there just isn't any reason in any context to think that the evidence we have suggests such an existence.

Finally, if one's firmly-held beliefs (the ones that guide their life and every action, remember; it's that important to them) are such weak armor that something like a billboard can actually cause them to become angry about it, then those beliefs either suffer from an inherent weakness, or the psyche of the believer does. On the other hand, being considered a scumbag or "evil" person simply because one chooses to use evidence to assess claims, well, don't you agree that's quite a bit worse (and more reflective of reality) than your projected examples of people "sticking it in the eye" of Christianity? (As a side note, many atheists and atheist groups also focus on Jewish and Muslim holidays. Not that this part of your point really held much water anyhow.)