Is the following atheist tactic good sportsmanship or not?

[idav]

Why should the myth be boycotted? Is it really that dangerous to the fabric of society, or is it only dangerous to the kerygma of the Atheist Movement?

It is just to say that that particular story is a myth and other religions may or may not agree with the Jesus birth. Really most people celebrate christmas for different reasons and it has become a huge materialistic thing which started more humbly. It is saying not to perpetuate that particular myth but personally I don't have problems with any myths. That sign is similar to someone putting up those "Jesus Saves" signs or "Got God" or whatever.

 

[Tristesse]

Yes I do! The billboard in the OP ridicules belief, which serves to dismiss it, which serves to silence it. When one puts a spin on religion such as is done in the Hitler poster, it does the same thing.
I'm not sure that the groups are explicitly trying to "silence religion," but that is implicitly what they're doing. And you have to admit that some groups do actively try to silence religion.

It does not ridicule belief. It was supposed to ridicule unfounded belief. Which, in my opinion is deserving of ridicule.

Some groups use that "aim" as a vehicle for "freedom from religion," which is not a constitutional tenet.

You cannot have freedom OF religion without also implementing freedom FROM religion. It's about having the freedom to choose your religion, but also having the freedom to choose none of the above.

I agree wholeheartedly. Religion shouldn't be above criticism. But you don't do that by dismissing the mythic claims out of hand (which is what the billboard does).
Yes it does. That's exactly what it implies. That may not be what the explicit goal is, but the actions do imply, "You're stupid -- shut up!"

If you read, "you're stupid -- shut up!" off of that billboard, then I think you're taking offense where none was intended. It's supposed to prevoke thought.

In considering the billboard in the OP: Perhaps a better, more conversational way of refutation might be: This myth is beautiful for some -- but not for all. Here's what we find special about the season: ---------

I don't think the billboad necessarilly negates the idea that the myth is beautiful. It simply states that it's a myth.

 

[Tristesse]

I don't believe that Jesus was born on Dec. 25, but the myth still has a lot of meaning for me, and I don't see why it should be dismissed out of hand.

It's not being dismissed. Particularly, since you yourself just said it's a myth, thats all the billboard was saying too. Again, I think you're reading way too much into this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes I do! The billboard in the OP ridicules belief, which serves to dismiss it, which serves to silence it.

The billboard calls out a ridiculous belief for being ridiculous. It doesn't say that religious people shouldn't speak; so far, the only person I see saying that anyone shouldn't speak is you.

When one puts a spin on religion such as is done in the Hitler poster, it does the same thing.

All that billboard did was point out that religion doesn't determine character, which is true. If you're going to claim that it implies that all religious people are like Hitler, then you ignore the billboard's explicit message.

I'm not sure that the groups are explicitly trying to "silence religion," but that is implicitly what they're doing. And you have to admit that some groups do actively try to silence religion.

No, I don't have to admit that, because I don't think it's true. The only religious expression I've seen silenced by any atheist group is ILLEGAL religious expression; violations of the First Amendment and such.

Some groups use that "aim" as a vehicle for "freedom from religion," which is not a constitutional tenet.

That depends on your point of view.

Obviously, the Constitution protects the rights of religious people to participate in society and government, but it does protect against official state sanction of religious activities. In that sense, "freedom from religion", as in "freedom from official governmental religion" is very much a constitutional tenet.

There's enough room for everyone without throwing elbows.

See... I'm not so sure of that. The "nice" atheist campaigns, that are full of positive messages get just as much pushback as the in-your-face ones. It's all got me to think that if atheists are going to have a voice and be seen as legitimate participants in society, it's going to involve conflict with the religious powers that be. Elbows will need to be thrown, because that's the best way of getting away from the Christian elbows that have been jabbing atheists in the gut for all of modern history.

I agree wholeheartedly. Religion shouldn't be above criticism. But you don't do that by dismissing the mythic claims out of hand (which is what the billboard does).

The billboard doesn't dismiss myth; it just calls the Nativity story one. I think the billboard generated as much offense as it did because *Christians* dismiss myth. They were the ones who interpreted "it's a myth" as "it's worthless".

Yes it does. That's exactly what it implies. That may not be what the explicit goal is, but the actions do imply, "You're stupid -- shut up!"

I disagree. Challenging an idea doesn't silence the idea; it engages with it.

In considering the billboard in the OP: Perhaps a better, more conversational way of refutation might be: This myth is beautiful for some -- but not for all. Here's what we find special about the season: ---------

Why should we do that? Why should an atheist attach his ideas of virtue to Christian thought.

Also, you're asking a whole lot of a billboard. The general rule of thumb for a good billboard design is that it should have no more than seven words. A person should be able to take in and understand the billboard's message with a glance. This doesn't allow a lot of nuanced expression.

 

[sojourner]

It does not ridicule belief. It was supposed to ridicule unfounded belief. Which, in my opinion is deserving of ridicule.

How can something that fosters meaning be construed as "unfounded?"

You cannot have freedom OF religion without also implementing freedom FROM religion.

Oh? I disagree. Religion isn't an "all or nothing" proposition in post-modern culture. Religions (and no religion) are all parts of a huge puzzle, each part of which has to have space to fit. While each particular is distinct from each other particular, they are all interdependent and interconnected, because we are interdependent and interconnected.

It's about having the freedom to choose your religion, but also having the freedom to choose none of the above.

Exactly! but in order to have the freedom to choose no religion one doesn't have to dismiss the other voices.

If you read, "you're stupid -- shut up!" off of that billboard, then I think you're taking offense where none was intended. It's supposed to prevoke thought.

Nah. I don't believe that for a second. It's a reaction against the absolutist voice of the religious right, and if's pretending to be something else, then it's dishonest.

I don't think the billboad necessarilly negates the idea that the myth is beautiful. It simply states that it's a myth.

No it doesn't. It pits myth against reason. The implication is "reason is better than myth." It's a classic case of, "If you don't believe what I believe, you're nothing." One can espouse reason and myth at the same time. The billboard doesn't do that. It's an either/or proposition.

It's not being dismissed. Particularly, since you yourself just said it's a myth, thats all the billboard was saying too. Again, I think you're reading way too much into this.

See my response directly above. That's not "all the billboard is saying." It also says, "this season, celebreate reason," implying that myth need not be celebrated -- especially in light of what's written beneath: American Atheists -- reasonable since 1969. I'd be interested to know what they think is particularly unreasonable about finding meaning through myth?

 

[sojourner]

The billboard calls out a ridiculous belief for being ridiculous.

Case in point. Thank you. "Ridiculous" is dismissive and absolutist. Which, in itself, given the social climate, is ridiculous. What's so ridiculous about the myth of the Incarnation? (This ought to be good).

It doesn't say that religious people shouldn't speak; so far, the only person I see saying that anyone shouldn't speak is you.

No, it doesn't explicitly say that. I've already alluded to that fact, I believe. Let's not rehash it. What I said was that through its dismissive color, it serves to silence what it calls "ridiculous." Don't twist what I said.

All that billboard did was point out that religion doesn't determine character, which is true. If you're going to claim that it implies that all religious people are like Hitler, then you ignore the billboard's explicit message.

Yeah, but let's be honest. The "atheist agenda" seeks to dismiss all religious belief as ridiculous. I think that's the agenda behind this billboard. Atheism, to be honest, doesn't seek merely to coexist beside religion. It seeks to undermine religion by abusing reason. What I'm saying is: That absolutist agenda is no better than the absolutist agenda of fundigelicalism. Don't soft-pedal this by claiming that "atheism just wants its own voice." If that were the case, it wouldn't be using the tactic of ridicule.

No, I don't have to admit that, because I don't think it's true.

You've got your head in the sand.

The only religious expression I've seen silenced by any atheist group is ILLEGAL religious expression; violations of the First Amendment and such.

There are plenty of examples of businesses telling employees that they can't hang religious symbols on their office walls, when they allow other personal items to be hung there. And examples of students being penalized for free speech during commencement exercises. And etc.

See... I'm not so sure of that. The "nice" atheist campaigns, that are full of positive messages get just as much pushback as the in-your-face ones. It's all got me to think that if atheists are going to have a voice and be seen as legitimate participants in society, it's going to involve conflict with the religious powers that be. Elbows will need to be thrown, because that's the best way of getting away from the Christian elbows that have been jabbing atheists in the gut for all of modern history.

If that's your stance, then all that's ever going to be accomplished is more tit-for-tat. a useless waste of time and energy, when we ought to be listening to each other.

The billboard doesn't dismiss myth; it just calls the Nativity story one. I think the billboard generated as much offense as it did because *Christians* dismiss myth. They were the ones who interpreted "it's a myth" as "it's worthless".

If that were the case, then why add the "celebrate the season with reason?" It pits reason against myth, which, in essence, dismisses myth, especially given the slogan at the bottom of the billboard. you're twisting the implication of the message.

disagree. Challenging an idea doesn't silence the idea; it engages with it.

There's a difference between "challenge" and "dismissal." The message is obviously the latter.

Why should we do that? Why should an atheist attach his ideas of virtue to Christian thought.

Because society can no longer afford to be a paradigm of "us vs. them." We have to foster a paradigm of "all of us together." Atheists should attach their ideas of virtue to Xian thought, because we're all in this mess together, and together fosters better life for all.

Also, you're asking a whole lot of a billboard.

So's the billboard renter. You won't solve anything spouting useless platitudes.

The general rule of thumb for a good billboard design is that it should have no more than seven words. A person should be able to take in and understand the billboard's message with a glance. This doesn't allow a lot of nuanced expression.

I agree. If the intent was to foster greater understanding and tolerance, why resort to such pandering? If, however, as I believe, the intent was to push an agenda, a billboard is the perfect venue -- which is what we have here.

What I'm saying in response to the OP question is this: Throwing cheap shots isn't going to get us anywhere, so why bother? And that goes for both sides!

 

[Tristesse]

How can something that fosters meaning be construed as "unfounded?"

If you believe jesus was born of a virgin on december 25, that belief has no basis in fact, and therefor is unfounded.

Oh? I disagree. Religion isn't an "all or nothing" proposition in post-modern culture. Religions (and no religion) are all parts of a huge puzzle, each part of which has to have space to fit. While each particular is distinct from each other particular, they are all interdependent and interconnected, because we are interdependent and interconnected.

Ok...

Exactly! but in order to have the freedom to choose no religion one doesn't have to dismiss the other voices.

No one in dismissing the other voices, they are exercising their voice to stand up for reason. Being dismissive of rediculous ideas is not necessarily a bad thing.

No it doesn't. It pits myth against reason. The implication is "reason is better than myth." It's a classic case of, "If you don't believe what I believe, you're nothing." One can espouse reason and myth at the same time. The billboard doesn't do that. It's an either/or proposition.

Reason is above myth. Explain how you get from, "reason is above myth" to "if you don't believe what I believe you're nothing?" Of course you can espouse reason and myth at the same time, but that isn't to say that they're viewed equally.

See my response directly above. That's not "all the billboard is saying." It also says, "this season, celebreate reason," implying that myth need not be celebrated -- especially in light of what's written beneath: American Atheists -- reasonable since 1969. I'd be interested to know what they think is particularly unreasonable about finding meaning through myth?

I think reason should be celebrated over myth. However, showing a preference is not to say that certain myths should not be celebrated either. But some people do not view the jesus story as myth, and thats what the billboard stands for.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Case in point. Thank you. "Ridiculous" is dismissive and absolutist. Which, in itself, given the social climate, is ridiculous. What's so ridiculous about the myth of the Incarnation? (This ought to be good).

Arrgh. It's not responding to the myth; it's responding to the claim that it's literally, factually true. It's not dismissing the myth; in fact, it proclaims the story as a myth.

The Nativity Story can be taken two main ways:

- as a description of actual events
- as a mythic account (which is not the same thing as declaring it to be worthless or invalid)

All this billboard does is to declare that the first interpretation - that the events of the Christmas story really, literally did happen - isn't the way to go. And I think there's a good chance that this is something that you might agree with yourself, so I don't see why you're getting yourself so worked up about it.

I've seen you complain about Biblical literalists too, so why is it such a big deal when an atheist does the exact same thing?

No, it doesn't explicitly say that. I've already alluded to that fact, I believe. Let's not rehash it. What I said was that through its dismissive color, it serves to silence what it calls "ridiculous." Don't twist what I said.

So... if one person speaks negatively about another person's ideas, this implies that the first person is "silencing" the second.

At the risk of making you think I'm trying to silence you, that's ridiculous.

Yeah, but let's be honest. The "atheist agenda" seeks to dismiss all religious belief as ridiculous.

No, it's not.

I think that's the agenda behind this billboard. Atheism, to be honest, doesn't seek merely to coexist beside religion. It seeks to undermine religion by abusing reason. What I'm saying is: That absolutist agenda is no better than the absolutist agenda of fundigelicalism. Don't soft-pedal this by claiming that "atheism just wants its own voice." If that were the case, it wouldn't be using the tactic of ridicule.

No, here's what I think is the message behind the billboard:

"All of us are joint participants in our common culture. If you want to impose ideas on me by making them part of the culture we share, fine, but this makes them fair game for my comment, positive or negative."

And I think the billboard uses an aggressive tone because this message just hasn't been getting through to many people.

You've got your head in the sand.
There are plenty of examples of businesses telling employees that they can't hang religious symbols on their office walls, when they allow other personal items to be hung there.

... all being perpetrated by some big, mean atheist conspiracy?

I'm fairly certain that to the extent that this happens, it's generally being done by other theists.

And examples of students being penalized for free speech during commencement exercises. And etc.

I have a feeling that you're trying to spin things here. Can you give an example? One that's not a case where a student was speaking in an official capacity for the school?

If that's your stance, then all that's ever going to be accomplished is more tit-for-tat. a useless waste of time and energy, when we ought to be listening to each other.

That all sounds fine and good, but the problem is that, IMO, the Christian community simply doesn't listen to atheists. And I don't see this changing until it feels a need to listen to atheists, which, IMO, won't happen until we're a loud enough voice that they can't ignore us.

If that were the case, then why add the "celebrate the season with reason?" It pits reason against myth, which, in essence, dismisses myth, especially given the slogan at the bottom of the billboard. you're twisting the implication of the message.

Actually, it doesn't "pit reason against myth". It pits reason against literalism, and implies that recognizing myth for what it is is compatible with reason.

But as for the "celebrate the season..." line, the fact of the matter is that anyone living in North America is going to have Christmas imposed upon them in many ways whether they like it or not, and we can respond to this in many ways. The billboard suggests one way to do this.

There's a difference between "challenge" and "dismissal." The message is obviously the latter.

Because society can no longer afford to be a paradigm of "us vs. them." We have to foster a paradigm of "all of us together." Atheists should attach their ideas of virtue to Xian thought, because we're all in this mess together, and together fosters better life for all.

I completely reject this. I see way too much objectionable baggage in Christian thought to want to attach my ideas to it any more than I have to.

When we attach our ideas of virtue to things that are decidedly unvirtuous, we end up with just a muddled mess.

So's the billboard renter. You won't solve anything spouting useless platitudes.

It's not a useless platitude; it's a letigimate point.

I agree. If the intent was to foster greater understanding and tolerance, why resort to such pandering? If, however, as I believe, the intent was to push an agenda, a billboard is the perfect venue -- which is what we have here.

So atheists shouldn't put up billboards at all, then?

Again: it seems to me that the only person trying to silence anyone here is you.

What I'm saying in response to the OP question is this: Throwing cheap shots isn't going to get us anywhere, so why bother? And that goes for both sides!

I've said before that I personally prefer the "nicer" campaigns (e.g. the "I'm good without God" billboards with a smiling atheist who - shockingly - looks like a normal person), and I do think the execution here fell short of the mark a bit, but I do agree with the underlying thought behind the billboard: religious ideas aren't on some special pedestal; it's as valid to question and challenge them as it is any idea.

 

[Photonic]

I think the billboard may be a slight be pretentious, but as far as sportsmanship? There is nothing wrong with it.

 

[sojourner]

If you believe jesus was born of a virgin on december 25, that belief has no basis in fact, and therefor is unfounded.

That the belief has no basis in fact is immaterial. It's myth -- and myth is a good thing, so long as it doesn't deteriorate into fact.

No one in dismissing the other voices, they are exercising their voice to stand up for reason. Being dismissive of rediculous ideas is not necessarily a bad thing.

Once again: In what way is the use of myth in order to foster meaning a "ridiculous idea?"
BTW: Stand up for reason? Great! But why do you feel that has to be done at the expense of myth? Both are important, yes?

Reason is above myth.

No it isn't. That's outdated, modernist thinking.

Of course you can espouse reason and myth at the same time, but that isn't to say that they're viewed equally.

This is the same kind of thinking that caused riots in Alabama in the 1960s. And it's patently WRONG. Both are important, both contribute to the human condition, and both, quite frankly, are needed. Equally.

I think reason should be celebrated over myth.

That's precisely the kind of absolutist thinking that keeps us in the dark ages.

some people do not view the jesus story as myth, and thats what the billboard stands for.

Why doesn't the billboard simply say that, then, if that's its aim?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why doesn't the billboard simply say that, then, if that's its aim?

It does, if you think about it at all.

It's a call to action - a call to change a position. It says "you know it's a myth", implying that recognizing the myth is the position that it's asking the reader to take. A call to change position to one you already hold makes no sense, so it stands to reason that it's directed to people who don't already hold it... IOW, people who consider the Nativity story not to be a myth.

I would think that this is fairly obvious. I mean, I don't look at billboards that say "stop smoking now!" and think that they're meant for me, a non-smoker.

 

[sojourner]

Arrgh. It's not responding to the myth; it's responding to the claim that it's literally, factually true. It's not dismissing the myth; in fact, it proclaims the story as a myth.

The Nativity Story can be taken two main ways:

- as a description of actual events
- as a mythic account (which is not the same thing as declaring it to be worthless or invalid)

All this billboard does is to declare that the first interpretation - that the events of the Christmas story really, literally did happen - isn't the way to go. And I think there's a good chance that this is something that you might agree with yourself, so I don't see why you're getting yourself so worked up about it.

I've seen you complain about Biblical literalists too, so why is it such a big deal when an atheist does the exact same thing?

Again, if that's what the billboard means, why doesn't it simply say that?! That's my whole argument. The billboard does no good because it's dishonest.

So... if one person speaks negatively about another person's ideas, this implies that the first person is "silencing" the second.

Again: There's a difference between challenge and dismissal. The billboard does the latter.

"All of us are joint participants in our common culture. If you want to impose ideas on me by making them part of the culture we share, fine, but this makes them fair game for my comment, positive or negative."

And I think the billboard uses an aggressive tone because this message just hasn't been getting through to many people.

And the message won't get through, so long as y'all continue to fight fire with fire.

I have a feeling that you're trying to spin things here. Can you give an example?

I've carried the political climate as far as I intend to here.

That all sounds fine and good, but the problem is that, IMO, the Christian community simply doesn't listen to atheists. And I don't see this changing until it feels a need to listen to atheists, which, IMO, won't happen until we're a loud enough voice that they can't ignore us.

I agree. We need to listen to you. Desperately. but I disagree that shouting is gonna get the job done. So long as you continue to dismiss our myths, we're simply not going to listen. When you begin to concede that there's room in the discussion for myth as well as reason, I bet you'd get a lot more takers. I hope so, at any rate.

It's not just that "you need us." We need you, too. We need each other in order to experience humanity in its fullness, and so long as Xy continues to hang onto mainly Western, male, white, imperialist, absolutist ideals, we're going to miss out on the rich input from the secular side. I just think that dismissive attitudes toward Xy are not the way to accomplish that. I think they only serve to hinder that objective.

Actually, it doesn't "pit reason against myth". It pits reason against literalism, and implies that recognizing myth for what it is is compatible with reason.

But as for the "celebrate the season..." line, the fact of the matter is that anyone living in North America is going to have Christmas imposed upon them in many ways whether they like it or not, and we can respond to this in many ways. The billboard suggests one way to do this.

Again: Why doesn't the billboard say that then?

I completely reject this. I see way too much objectionable baggage in Christian thought to want to attach my ideas to it any more than I have to.

When we attach our ideas of virtue to things that are decidedly unvirtuous, we end up with just a muddled mess.

Who died and put you in charge of deciding what's virtuous or not? This is precisely why we need each other: It keeps both sides honest. Pairing reason with myth produces reasonable myth. It's not the "Christian thought" that has the baggage. It's the unmerited ascription of absolute truth to the myth that has the baggage. A little reason keeps the myth from degenerating into absolute truth.

It's not a useless platitude; it's a letigimate point.

So's the myth of the birth narrative. It's not unreasonable.

So atheists shouldn't put up billboards at all, then?

I don't think Christians ought to put up billboards.

It's not that I'm trying to silence anyone. It's that I'm advocating for real conversation rather than cheap potshots on either side.

I do agree with the underlying thought behind the billboard: religious ideas aren't on some special pedestal; it's as valid to question and challenge them as it is any idea.

And that's a real good reason why we ought to be listening to each other, rather than talking at each other.

 

[sojourner]

It does, if you think about it at all.

It's a call to action - a call to change a position. It says "you know it's a myth", implying that recognizing the myth is the position that it's asking the reader to take. A call to change position to one you already hold makes no sense, so it stands to reason that it's directed to people who don't already hold it... IOW, people who consider the Nativity story not to be a myth.

I would think that this is fairly obvious. I mean, I don't look at billboards that say "stop smoking now!" and think that they're meant for me, a non-smoker.

But the overall message is to use reason over and above the myth. The message it's refuting is the one that myth is to be used over and above reason. It's tit-for-tat, which never works.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Again, if that's what the billboard means, why doesn't it simply say that?! That's my whole argument. The billboard does no good because it's dishonest.

It does say it. I think you're reading the rest into it. A lot of what you're interpreting the billboard to say simply isn't there. It doesn't say "myth is worthless", "myth is incompatible with reason", or "Christians should shut up".

I agree. We need to listen to you. Desperately. but I disagree that shouting is gonna get the job done.

Being quiet and polite hasn't done us much good, so maybe new tactics are worth trying.

So long as you continue to dismiss our myths, we're simply not going to listen. When you begin to concede that there's room in the discussion for myth as well as reason, I bet you'd get a lot more takers. I hope so, at any rate.

It's not just that "you need us." We need you, too. We need each other in order to experience humanity in its fullness, and so long as Xy continues to hang onto mainly Western, male, white, imperialist, absolutist ideals, we're going to miss out on the rich input from the secular side. I just think that dismissive attitudes toward Xy are not the way to accomplish that. I think they only serve to hinder that objective.

I don't care about that objective.

I'm all for dialogue and coming to common understanding, but I don't give a fig about enriching Christianity. If you care about it, fine, but don't expect me to.

Again: Why doesn't the billboard say that then?

It's a freakin' billboard. It doesn't need to inform every viewer of the cultural context they themselves are living in and know intimately.

It sounds like you wouldn't be happy with any atheist billboard unless it was written in exacting, explicit language like a legal contract and praised Christianity. I think this is unreasonable.

Who died and put you in charge of deciding what's virtuous or not?

I'm in charge of my own judgements of virtue. You're in charge of yours. If your idea of virtue is compatible with Christianity, go nuts with it. My idea of virtue is incompatible with the Christianity I've been exposed to.

This is precisely why we need each other: It keeps both sides honest. Pairing reason with myth produces reasonable myth. It's not the "Christian thought" that has the baggage. It's the unmerited ascription of absolute truth to the myth that has the baggage. A little reason keeps the myth from degenerating into absolute truth.

So we can make it mythic negative baggage instead of literal negative baggage. I'll still pass, thanks.

So's the myth of the birth narrative. It's not unreasonable.

Nobody said that it is unreasonable. The thing that the billboard dismissed as unreasonable is treating the myth as something else.

I don't think Christians ought to put up billboards.

It's not that I'm trying to silence anyone. It's that I'm advocating for real conversation rather than cheap potshots on either side.

Setting aside your characterization of this billboard as a "cheap potshot", I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive. Billboards don't prevent people from talking to each other.

And that's a real good reason why we ought to be listening to each other, rather than talking at each other.

Frankly, I'd like to see some of what you preach on this. You seem to be more interested in finding something to be offended by than actually listening to what people are saying.

Edit: the billboard had exactly two messages:

- the Nativity story is a myth.
- people should be encouraged to exercise reason

Do you disagree with either of these?

Everything beyond that - including all the stuff you're getting offended by - comes from you reading stuff into the message that's not actually there.

 

[Skwim]

It's shorthand...m'kay?

I'm sure you don't, which is why you appear to subscribe to the more two-dimensional thinking of the typical "pragmatist." You seriously don't see that myth invites deeper thinking and a more holistic approach to wrapping our heads around our reality, involving not only the head but the heart? how sad...

I think you're confusing myth with parable. Of course as a fiction, myth may form part of an ideology, but in an ideology already understood its mythic fiction is nothing more than window dressing. And in an ununderstood (yes, there is such a word) ideology it comes across as foolishness.

 

[Tristesse]

But the overall message is to use reason over and above the myth. The message it's refuting is the one that myth is to be used over and above reason. It's tit-for-tat, which never works.

Some myths have some insight and value to them, but if you don't exercise reason how can you call it a myth? Using reason is the way we discover that it's a myth, but discovering that it's a myth doesn't necessarilly take away the value of the myth.

 

[sojourner]

It does say it. I think you're reading the rest into it. A lot of what you're interpreting the billboard to say simply isn't there. It doesn't say "myth is worthless", "myth is incompatible with reason", or "Christians should shut up".

We're gonna have to agree to disagree, because I think it's fairly obvious that a group, billing itself as "reasonable," posting a billboard in which a common theme is labeled as "myth," over against the statement, "celebrate the season with reason," is implying what one poster said recently, to wit: Reason is above myth.

Being quiet and polite hasn't done us much good, so maybe new tactics are worth trying.

I don't think its tactical so much as it is relational.

I don't care about that objective.

I'm all for dialogue and coming to common understanding, but I don't give a fig about enriching Christianity. If you care about it, fine, but don't expect me to.

The objective is a fuller humanity, not a "richer Xy."

It's a freakin' billboard. It doesn't need to inform every viewer of the cultural context they themselves are living in and know intimately.

It sounds like you wouldn't be happy with any atheist billboard unless it was written in exacting, explicit language like a legal contract and praised Christianity. I think this is unreasonable.

What I'm not happy with is bathos presented as serious discourse. It's like those frustratingly inane "Jesus is the reason for the season" signs you see. Bathos.

My idea of virtue is incompatible with the Christianity I've been exposed to.

But why take the low road and overgeneralize?

So we can make it mythic negative baggage instead of literal negative baggage. I'll still pass, thanks.

You'd rather just dismiss, on the grounds that Xy does the same...
This isn't going to get us anywhere, which was my whole point. Thank you for illustrating it so well.

Nobody said that it is unreasonable. The thing that the billboard dismissed as unreasonable is treating the myth as something else.

I don't see that take on it. You and I are both sensible, intelligent chaps. If we're confused as to what it means, maybe, just maybe, the billboard, as I opined in my opening statement, is presenting a very bad argument...

Setting aside your characterization of this billboard as a "cheap potshot", I don't think these two things are mutually exclusive. Billboards don't prevent people from talking to each other.

They do when they present the issue as "us vs. them" rather than a more "both/and" approach.

Frankly, I'd like to see some of what you preach on this. You seem to be more interested in finding something to be offended by than actually listening to what people are saying.

Edit: the billboard had exactly two messages:

- the Nativity story is a myth.
- people should be encouraged to exercise reason

Do you disagree with either of these?

Everything beyond that - including all the stuff you're getting offended by - comes from you reading stuff into the message that's not actually there.

I agree, but not when

- the Nativity story is a myth.
- people should be encouraged to exercise reason

is presented as it is. Yes. Both should be employed. Not one over another (as another poster said).

 

[sojourner]

in an ideology already understood its mythic fiction is nothing more than window dressing. And in an ununderstood (yes, there is such a word) ideology it comes across as foolishness.

I'm not confusing myth with parable. I'm well aware of the distinctions. I disagree with your take. Myth is more than simple "window dressing, for the simple reality that we are more than our constituent parts; our wold is more than its constituent facts. Even scientists realize this.

 

[sojourner]

Some myths have some insight and value to them, but if you don't exercise reason how can you call it a myth? Using reason is the way we discover that it's a myth, but discovering that it's a myth doesn't necessarilly take away the value of the myth.

Right, which means that reason is not "above" myth. We need both. Myths engender more than "some" insight and contain more than "some" value. They are the soul of humanity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We're gonna have to agree to disagree, because I think it's fairly obvious that a group, billing itself as "reasonable," posting a billboard in which a common theme is labeled as "myth," over against the statement, "celebrate the season with reason," is implying what one poster said recently, to wit: Reason is above myth.

Which is still different from saying "myth is incompatible with reason"

The objective is a fuller humanity, not a "richer Xy."

I'm all for a fuller humanity, but I think that this is better accomplished outside a Christian framework than within it.

We can't have a discussion on equal terms if you insist that it happen on your turf.

What I'm not happy with is bathos presented as serious discourse. It's like those frustratingly inane "Jesus is the reason for the season" signs you see. Bathos.

Again: it's a freakin' billboard. It's not making itself out to be a philosophical treatise. Its intent is to give you a little snippet to think about as you go whizzing by on the highway.

But why take the low road and overgeneralize?

I don't think I'm overgeneralizing. I've read the Bible and explored many forms of Christianity; I've found objectionable things in all of them.

Which isn't to say that I've found nothing good, but I'd rather stay outside and pick out the good bits as I please, not take up the whole belief system.

You'd rather just dismiss, on the grounds that Xy does the same...
This isn't going to get us anywhere, which was my whole point. Thank you for illustrating it so well.

What are you talking about? I've examined Christianity in as much depth as I think anyone has any right to demand of me, and I found it lacking. I gave it the best shot I could and it didn't cut it for me. I don't think this makes me unreasonable.

I don't see that take on it. You and I are both sensible, intelligent chaps. If we're confused as to what it means, maybe, just maybe, the billboard, as I opined in my opening statement, is presenting a very bad argument...

I think the argument you've inferred from it is a bad one, but I also think that it's not the argument that the billboard's actually making.

They do when they present the issue as "us vs. them" rather than a more "both/and" approach.

I think that "us vs. them" is a fair description of the situation that atheists find themselves immersed in, but largely as the result of choices by theists. I don't think it's fair of you to judge a group that's been put on the defensive to begin with for not acting co-operatively. People tend not to be co-operative with their attackers.

I agree, but not when

is presented as it is. Yes. Both should be employed. Not one over another (as another poster said).

That other poster is also making inferences. The billboard itself says nothing about the relative importance of reason vs. myth. All it said is that reason is important - which you say you agree with - and that the Nativity story is a myth - which you also say you agree with. I really don't see the source of your offense.