Dan Barker and Neo-Pagan Atheism

FYI: this post has been moved here.


  1. d Happy upcoming Newtonmas to you, too!

  2. Bitch, Bitch, Bitch. I promise you that most atheists do not care, in the slightest, if and how you celebrate christmas. The only time this becomes an issue is in the case of state sponsored religious speech. Such as a nativity scene at the Wisconsin State Capital. You just happened to leave this part out of your story. I wonder why? I'll tell you why. It busts your whole argument.

    It shows that the atheists who put up this sign aren't trying to ruin your religious holiday, but simply reacting to, and showing the problem with, state sponsored religious displays. If the state allows one kind of religious display, it must allow them all, even speech that rejects religion. This is guaranteed to us by the First Amendment. Even you can agree with this.

    The solution would be to keep the government neutral in regards to religion. But for some reason, you think this is an attack on YOUR free speech. Very very odd and quite hypocritical.

    Next time, don't to be so intellectually dishonest and tell the whole story.

  3. Gosh, for 200 years, this country didn't have a problem with these so-called "state sponsored religious displays." (Hey, which part of the Constitution mentions that? I know there's a part about the government not establishing by law any one religion, but only ignorant, intolerant jerks who don't understand what "establishment by law" means think that applies to things like Christmas nativity displays.) Now all of a sudden the very fabric of our great nation is threatened by them. These clowns act as if these things don't stop today, we'll be living in a theocracy tomorrow. They are intolerant, hateful, paranoid nitwits.

  4. So, if an unconstitutional and discriminatory action has a long history then it is ok? Injustice is injustice no matter how long endured.
    Christians have enjoyed their privileged position for such a long time that they think treating others as second class is their right. Actually, that is not the case, the sense of privilege is so ingrained that they are unaware of how badly they are behaving until someone like Dan Barker rubs their nose in it - and even then the message is lost on many.

  5. "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell: please prove this positive assertion."

    These assertions are expressed in simple plain English and, as such, they should not be treated in the same way as philosophical assertion. In plain English it is totally acceptable to dispense with all of the caveats, weasel words and circumlocutions needed to make the statements absolutely true in a logically rigorous manner. The "proof" of the assertions about the supernatural is the same as the "proof" for the assertion that there are no space aliens flying around in saucers kidnapping people to give them anal probes.

  6. The first line of the sign is okay. The rest is awful and unchristmasy. FRFF needs a poet.
    Better, the State needs none of these displays. None. Zero. This will happen, quickly and with a minimum of fuss (except for the initial, very loud outburst of fuss) once the Satanists request and eventually receive permission for their own display. Failing that, "the gays" will get their own Special Revelation from a fabulous pink god, they'll request room for an equally fabulous pink display, etc. These solutions will also trickle down to the Ten Commandments displays that occasionally pop up on courthouse steps (except for that one where they managed to spell "adultery" wrong).

  7. Like it or not, most if not all of the "holidays" celebrated by christians were originally celebratory occasions from pagan religions or associated cultures. It appears fairly likely the entire "Christmas" extravaganza is a complete fabrication - no immaculate conception, no manger, no three wisemen, no messiah - certainly not in December.

    At any rate, if the theists hope for an end to "atheism", it will come when they cease branding those who don't believe as they do as "atheists". The term says nothing of who I am, only who I am not. It is term needed by theists and theists alone. If they want rid of it, they should stop using it.

    I am a man, a product of nature. I have faith in myself and myself above all and anyone else. If you want to know what I call myself, ask.

  8. jdhuey;
    Thanks for he comment but from whence did you derive your interpretation?


  9. ...from whence did you derive your interpretation?

    I'm not entirely clear about what you are asking me here. If you are asking me if I got this 'interpretation' from the FFRF, then no, I didn't. They may or may not have explicitly stated what I wrote - I don't know.

    If you are asking me about the English usage aspect, then I got that from my English teachers when they were trying to get me write simple clear sentences.

    If you are wanting more of the context of my statement, well, there is vast amount of discussion in the various atheist communities about making these type of simple unqualified declarative statements. Dawkins devotes a few pages to this topic in _The God Delusion_. It was also a topic of discussion wrt the wording of the bus advertisement campaign - many felt that using the word 'probably', while accurate, weakened the impact of the ad.

  10. Isn't it Annie Laurie Gaylor?

    I agree with a lot of this, though.

  11. Somehow ran across this. Very funny stuff. It was linked to me from antother Christmas article and I can't help wonder if the author is the same.


    I think you would agree that a magical, invisible 50 foot tall monkey doesn't live on your shoulders, but you can't prove it.

    I, as everyone does with at least 99.99999999% of things, believe only that which CAN BE PROVEN, not just in things I can't disprove. That would be foolish as I would have an infinite number of beliefs. I would believe in every logical thing. From 12 foot tall cockroaches that tap dance, to microscopic marching bands.

    You can't prove those things don't exists, but that's not a reason to believe in them is it.

    If some random guy put up a sign that said. "There are no invisible flying whales", you would be inclined to agree. But when that is changed to "there are no angels", you don't.

    Seems like you are dealing with quite a mighty double standard here. Appy the same skepticism that you use in every day life to religion and you might learn a thing or two about the real world.