And Another Thing…

Hopefully we can do away with ‘Seasons Greetings’ and ‘Happy Holidays’ next.

I sound like a right old nutjob, I just think they’re ugly phrases.

“Nutjob” is an offensive word and should not be used for fear of upsetting all the bampots out there.

Er why is this in my face?! I’m an Atheist and more than happy for people to call Christmas by it’s actual name.

Sounds a bit straw mannish if you ask me…

Just checked it, and Edinburgh “does” Christmas. In fact, for a miserable metropolitan council website, theirs looks quite jolly and inviting.

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet

Compare and contrast with Glasgow:

http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/

What an absolute shower! Winterfest! What utter a*seh*le thought that one up? not only does it rain all the time, the council likes to pi** on your cornflakes.

“Soak up the atmosphere in George Square” boasts the site. Yeah, and soak up the urine and sick while you are there.

You get your successes where you can Tom, we’ll win in the end.

I am personally planning to clone an army of Dawkinses (what is the collective noun?), to force your sort to to watch ‘the enemies of reason’ on an endless loop. You wont be so smug then.

Tom,

I like you.

That’s why I’m going to assume that, just as in newspapers, it was you who wrote the text of the blog and that some dastardly sub-editor wrote the headline.

I don’t know a single atheist (and most of my friends are atheists, as am I) who doesn’t celebrate Christmas. Most British children (other than Jews/Muslims/Hindus/Sikhs, etc) are brought up on the Christmas story and taught about Jesus. They sing carols and celebrate Christmas. Those who subsequently choose to become atheists don’t suddenly forget why Christmas exists. I may not celebrate Christmas as a religious occasion, but the principles behind it don’t change.

For me, Christmas is about family. It’s about giving and receiving presents. It’s about showing your love for family and partners. It’s about carols and Christmas trees. Christmas brings people together. You don’t need to be a Christian to enjoy these things.

Is Glasgow a Labour council then, as they are behind things like this.

“Success! In your face, atheists!”

What a wonderful illustration of Christian compassion that was Tom.

I, as an atheist, couldn’t give two hoots whether Glasgow use the word Christmas or not, in much the same way that I don’t get upset about being forced to worship the god Thor everytime I have to use describe the day bewteen Wednesday and Friday.

I don’t know a single other atheist bothered by the Christmas/Winterfest/Winterval/Saturnalia rubbish either. The only people who ever seem to get their knickers in a twist about it are the theists.

Thankyou for bolstering my stereotyped vision of miserable Christians, its very welcome at this joyous time of year.

The only people I know who object to the term Christmas being used to describe our annual midwinter blow out are Christians usually of the Presbyterian variety.

Tom may not remember Pastor Jack Glass and his crowd parading up and down outside Arnotts with placards saying “Santa is an anagram of Satan” but I do.

However, I’ll let you wear earplugs if you sign this.

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=39696&SESSION=903

To Leon, Andy and Mark – the headline was not intended to be taken seriously. But please fell free to take offence if you wish – it’s a free country, after all.

At least there’ll be no shortage of 10 Lords a Leaping this year

I’m an atheist but I abhor this removal of Christianity from Christmas. I insist on Christian postage stamps (when the Royal Mail can be arsed to produce them) and Christian cards, I shun the abbreviation of ‘x-mas’ and can’t get enough of Cliff’s ‘Saviours Day’.

So Merry Christmas Tom. Have a good one. And enjoy Doctor Who won’t you.

Used to be a free country.

Nobody takes offence quite like an ‘atheist’. They’ve got beliefs too, you know. Well, they haven’t, but…

Well, actually, they have. They believe in the miracle of abiogenesis; in sacrificing human beings to Gaia, if it will save the earth; in the feeding of the 5,000 delegates in Copenhagen (with Al Gore’s hot air); in the parable of molecules to man evolution and the miracle of turning chaos into order.

I for one think they are entitled to their beliefs without being ridiculed, no matter how silly they appear to the rest of us.

Who said anything about taking offence? I think its hilarious!

There is something patently absurd about militant aetheists. I don’t believe in Leprachauns and ghosts, but I don’t go on about it, or spend a lot of energy trying to prove they don’t exist.

Why not leave it? Why not just let us Christians get on with our beliefs? The truth is, God is incredibly real to us in a way you cannot even imagine. If this turns out to be a delusion, the only loser is me. So, please, in the most Christian way I can put it, F**k off and get a life, even if it is not an eternal one.

Would it have been just as funny if you had said “In your face Jews!”?

The amount of abuse atheists take with no-one speaking up for them (apart from the whingers on here) is almost on a par with gingers.

Here’s what I do and it’s just a personal bratty thing, but around this time of year I simply scribe in large noticeable letters across all envelopes, Christmas cards or not, something like “Merry CHRIST-mas” in big enough letters to be unavoidable to the eye and thus force government workers and anyone in contact with the mail to handle and see “that word” – mainly to do with fighting this idea of Political Correctness – or speech and thought control.

If people are concerned, that is just one small suggestion of a way to fight back against Political Correctness, including during other seasonal times of the year adding other obvious phrases across your outgoing mail which is going to be handled by lots of Caeser’s thought and speech control representatives amongst the government worker class.

“please feel free to take offence if you wish – it’s a free country, after all.”

Not so sure about that with all of Labor’s legislation and super-injunctions left right and centre, but I can applaud the sentiment.

For the record, I will be celebrating 12 days of yuletide feasting, celebration and hope for the sun’s return and the year to come.
Mostly stuffing my face and trying to consume my own body weight in alcohol really. It’s nice us pagans can share some things at least with christians!

A Happy Yule to those who keep the original celebration, and to those of a more recent theological bent, a Merry Christmas. Now if you excuse me, I have some 10p “Reduced” 6-pack mince-pies to plough through here, courtesy of Tesco’s.

Well! That’s not a very christian attitude in your headline.

Stewart.

And there was me thinking all i believed in was that we were alone on a small rock going around a very large nuclear reactor a fast speeds.

And a happy Festivus to you too…

Atheists are a po-faced bunch aren’t they, judging by the comments on this page… except Jonathan Campbell, who is clearly an aberration amongst the miserablists.

I wouldn’t defend the obnoxious title of this post on the grounds that it’s “just a joke”. A racist joke is just a joke; what makes it a problem is the attitudes behind it. What attitude does the title of this post convey?

I don’t object to people referring to Christmas. But believe me the one thing which is going to make this non-Dawkinsite atheist turn into a raving anti-religion campaigner is if Christians go about trumpeting that they have scored a victory over the non-religious. Do you want to make it a fight? If not then you might be well advised to think again.

If you’re a very good boy, David, Santa might bring you a sense of humour this year. I know you were disappointed when it didn’t arrive last year.

What a pathetic response. I was explaining precisely why your previous response (which was along the same lines) was a very poor one. I find a good sense of humour goes well with a good sense of judgment and that’s what failed you here.

Remember it’s not atheists who go protesting at funny things like Jerry Springer: The Opera, Popetown, and Monty Python’s Life of Brian (officially voted the funniest film in Britain). That was Christians. It’s your lot that have no sense of humour.

Lets go back to Yule. Christmas is basically a semi-Christian celebration tacked onto the preceding pagan one. A flagon of mead (with a tot of whisky to sharpen it up a bit) and a bit of wassailing would go down a treat in my part of the SE.

Why do you refer to atheists in your title as an atheist I, along with many others, have no problem with Christmas, as it was a pagan festival that was utalised by early christianty to intice them. The avoidance of the word Christmas was thought up by little people with inflated egos hiding in offices, beliving (wrongly ) that non christian religions would take offence, based on their own dislike of non Christian festivals. So don’t try and pin these strange decisions made by local authorities on atheists we don’t care what you call your religious festivals because they are all based on much more fun pagan ones and I enjoy all of them for there non religious commercialism (oh and before you try and belittle me because of my spelling I am dyslexic and there is only so much a spellchecker can do)

Yanhadd, in more than 30,000 comments published since this blog started, I have never belittled anyone for their spelling. For their politics, yes, but their spelling, no.

Lord! Linda Smith (former Pres Br Humanist Assoc) may well be laughing on some architrave somewhere . . . .

This is great news. I really don’t mind if they keep the neon now.

I had no idea what winterfest was and why we were spending so much money celebrating it. But I’ve totally heard of Christmas – why don’t we celebrate that? Strong work, if indeed the new name will include the word ‘Christmas’.

In other news, although tone is not always successfully attached to written text, I think its sufficiently clear from the context of the blog that Tom was engaging in what I believe one would call a joke, in the subject line

Tom, I would very much appreciate a simple answer to a simple question: would you have felt safe and comfortable had you said “In your face Jews!” (or Muslims or Sikhs) rather than atheists?

If not then I would suggest you should not have written it.

Not that any atheist in the UK should be upset by it – makes no difference and they (we) should be insulated by the fact they (we) are probably right.

Sorry, I wrote that because the last time I wrote to a Labour MP I was told that if I couldn’t be bothered to spell properly that my point wasn’t valid.

What Forge said.

Another reason why Glasgow council are right to drop ‘Winterfest’ is because this neologism is a gift to the right-whinge press to do their PC gawn maaad, NuLab are stealing our Christmas type schtick.

As Leon says, no idea why you’re giving atheists stick. Most believers and non-believers prefer things to be called by their proper name and don’t much care for euphemisms such as ‘winterthingy’.

But well done in expressing your view (one I very much hare) to Mr Purcell, and one and a half cheers for him for what looks like a sort of possible change for next year.

‘(one I very much hare)’ – um I mean ‘share’ of course. I do rabbit on too much. . .

I don’t get why people see mention of Christmas as being somehow un-PC.

Christianity, just like Islam, is a middle eatern religion brought to Britain by immigrants.

What greater emblem of multi-culturalism can there be?

I don’t care what Tom and others believe. Father Christmas is real. There may be no scientific evidence to back up my belief. But I have an experience of him deep within me you simply cannot understand. And anyway, it wouldn’t be faith if there were evidence.

So let’s have less of this condescending attitude of rival believers, that their myths and legends are more believable than mine.

None of us can prove a thing. We just KNOW.

@Paul, “makes no difference and they (we) should be insulated by the fact they (we) are probably right.”

The good news is, since we’ll only find out when we’re dead, if we’re wrong, we’ll be none the wiser anyway.

@Simon

If only we could find out before we were dead then we could stop all the sectarian violence.

However, the key point of my comment was: Would Tom have felt fine saying Jew, Sikh or Muslim instead of atheist? If not then he shouldn’t have said it and apologise.

I actually don’t think it needs an apology regardless of the word used – it was a joke and people should take it as such, but Tom is a politician and I am pretty sure he would never have said “Success! In your face, Jews!”

Oh, that reminds me: Happy Christmas, Tom.

Well done, Sir! Result! Birmingham got rid of ‘Winterval’ a few years ago – and let’s hope that every other public authority

All we need know is our party leaders to produce Christmas cards which feature the word ‘Christmas’, like Boris Johnson has managed to do in London without upsetting anyone (well, maybe the King of Newts).

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of non-Muslims when wishing our Muslim fellow citizens a Happy Eid? No, and rightly so. If people don’t want to celebrate Christmas, or else feel offended at being wished a Merry Christmas, they can always fly off to somewhere warm, tolerant and inclusive. In the meantime, we can be left to enjoy the Saviour’s Birthday, however it is we want to celebrate it.

So Merry Christmas to you, Tom, and to all my fellow readers, and let’s hope that AD 2010 is considerably better than AD 2009!

Well done, Sir! Result! Birmingham got rid of ‘Winterval’ a few years ago – and let’s hope that every other public authority which has tried to get rid of ‘Christmas’ follows Glasgow’s lead.

All we need know is our party leaders to produce Christmas cards which feature the word ‘Christmas’, like Boris Johnson has managed to do in London without upsetting anyone (well, maybe the King of Newts).

What are they afraid of? Are they afraid of non-Muslims when wishing our Muslim fellow citizens a Happy Eid? No, and rightly so. If people don’t want to celebrate Christmas, or else feel offended at being wished a Merry Christmas, they can always fly off to somewhere warm, tolerant and inclusive. In the meantime, we can be left to enjoy the Saviour’s Birthday, however it is we want to celebrate it.

So Merry Christmas to you, Tom, and to all my fellow readers, and let’s hope that AD 2010 is considerably better than AD 2009!

I am personally planning to clone an army of Dawkinses (what is the collective noun?),

Dawkine.

I thought it would be “Dawkinsians”…

And Tom, you are a fibber. You made fun of me for saying “the People”. Although that’s grammar, not spelling. Or it might even be politics.

Oh, and whilst I applaud your idea Boudicca, mead should not be adulterated by whisky.
Get the stuff from the Highland Wine Company. It is spectacular.

“You made fun of me for saying “the People”. Although that’s grammar, not spelling.”

No, I made fun of you for being pompous.

And still no response to whether you would have said “Success! In your face, Hindus!”

Come on Tom, simple question with a simple answer.

@Paul,

While I think Tom can easily defend his own statement, the fact that you keep harping on about it means that I’m fed up and will answer.

It is not rascist, as “atheism” has no bearing on “race”. He could not have used “Jew”, as Israelites call themselves “jew” whether they are religious or not (AFAIK)

Also, since I would be quite happy for a homosexual person to write on their blog “Success! In your face, Heteros!” when winning some fight for homosexuality, there really is no need for all this whinging about it.

Now please stop moaning!

@Tom – Yay! Thank you. Now to move on to rid ourselves of “seasons greetings” and “happy holidays”

Paul – what Scott said.

You see, Tom, this is where your ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’ lead to: bad feeling. Everyone wants ‘rights’ and ‘respect’ for however they think or behave.

Can you see what it is yet? Divide and rule! Deliberately stirring people up so the elite can control us easier. Instead of banding together to fight them, our common enemy – the *real* foe – we squabble amongst each other instead. How they must be laughing at us.

I don’t even believe there is such a person as an ‘atheist’ anyway – i.e. one who is certain that there is no Creator God (even Dawkins admits to not being completely sure), but they seem to feel the need to ‘identify’ in matters spiritual (which is understandable) and in the process, increasing numbers have become the people they themselves hate most – intolerant religious zealots.

As Paul says, above, why didn’t you say “Jews” instead? He thinks of ‘atheism’ as a religion. He does well, because it is, complete with faith – faith in the scientists who manipulate data to ensure their continuing employment and enable government to make punitive laws and tax us to the hilt. It’s yet another parallel with religion – or at least the way the ‘atheist’ views religion – where the priests have all the power because the common people believe all their mumbo-jumbo.

Thanks Stewart

Scott and Tom: Racism??? I never mentioned racism, I was simply thinking that it seems okay to select this one minority but not others, a bit like the only group you can pick on and discriminate against in America are white Christian men (according to some).

What I was hoping was that Tom would come out and say he would have chosen any minority as each group has no right not to be offended. Ever the politician he decided not to say what he really thinks.

@Scott Speight

What a load of tosh. Complete double standards.
Also, since I would be quite happy for a homosexual person to write on their blog “Success! In your face, Heteros!”
Really? If that’s the case then the other way must be okay too: “Success! In your face, homosexuals!” would be okay? Double entendres aside, if one is wrong both are – it’s an all or nothing thing.

Paul,

To clarify, I wasn’t suggesting that Tom used “Jews,” although it kind of reads that way. I was looking at it from your point of view because you want respect for your religion too. I am glad to see that you admit ‘atheism’ is a belief system, rather than go along with the myth that it is a philosophy of non-belief.

@Stewart, no I don’t want respect, just the opposite, I want no set of beliefs to be given respect, I want them all to be open to criticism and scrutiny.

And atheism is not a belief system, it is simply a lack of belief in the idea that a supernatural agent made the universe and cares about what humans do.

Paul,

If you deny the Almighty, then you need other reasons to explain why life, the universe and everything are realities. This involves *belief* in the theories of others. I wrote my first comment to help explain the fact that we are relying on miracles whichever worldview we believe in.

Of course, you could say, “I don’t know, but I’d like to find out for sure one way or the other.”

Stewart Cowan: If you deny the Almighty, then you need other reasons to explain why life, the universe and everything are realities.

No, an explanation is not necessary. We try to find one because we are pattern seeking primates and also because it helps us understand other things that are useful.

But all that is required is to accept as a reasonable working hypothesis that your senses are not deceiving you and build on that.

A miracle is something supernatural. Science thinks that nothing exists outside the natural as there is no evidence. As a working hypothesis it has been remarkably good at explaining the seemingly inexplicable, from the ‘design’ of the human eye to the age of the earth and even universe. We may reach a point that is either outside our realm of understanding or beyond the universe, but even then unless there is evidence for it to be an entity that cares about humans then why would we even posit it being a ‘god’ of any of our religions?

There is a huge difference between a reasonable working hypothesis (the universe is purely natural) which will change as evidence is brought forward, and having a belief/faith that the universe was created by a God and not only that but the God cares about some species of ape that evolved after 13.7 billion years on one planet out of billions in one galaxy out of billions. Not only that, but you know what that God wants you to do and he has written a book that tells you how to farm (since debunked), what to wear (since ignored), who you can sleep with and how to act. Not only that, but God had a son to a virgin (why she had to be a virgin is never quite explained) who was at once God but also primate, and that son would accept all the sins of mankind onto his shoulders and be punished on their behalf, and if you don’t accept that this happened then you will suffer for eternity in a place called hell.

Does that about sum up your view Stewart?

@Paul
Quite agree with the summary, though it’s worth pointing out that gods coming down and impregnating females is one of the oldest tales, with all kind of examples from Greek, Norse and Roman mythology.

The Christian one is just another in a very long chain.

The reason the birth had to be virgin was that virgins were much prized, particularly in marriage bartering in that era…as they still are in many Middle Eastern, Asian and African cultures.

The reason the birth had to be virgin was that virgins were much prized, particularly in marriage bartering in that era…as they still are in many Middle Eastern, Asian and African cultures.

As Frankie Boyle said “72 virgins? Offer them 5 dirty slappers instead. Or two women from Dundee.”

Paul,

You display the pride of man as you seek to set yourself on the moral high ground, above the Creator!

No wonder pride leads to destruction.

“But all that is required is to accept as a reasonable working hypothesis that your senses are not deceiving you and build on that.”

And this is the very reason that we believe. We have faith that our senses are not deceiving us. In fact to *not* believe would be to deny our very senses.

“Science thinks that nothing exists outside the natural as there is no evidence.”

Do you let ‘science’ do all your thinking? You’d have believed Piltdown Man was real, wouldn’t you? Because it was ‘science’.

What about Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis)? Believe this ‘missing link’?

The terrible irony is that the pride of man makes him think he can do without God, when all he is capable of doing by himself is signing his own death warrant.

@Stewart Cowan
Everything you said about science that ended up being wrong was shown by science to be wrong. It is an area that constantly challenges itself, puts forward falsifiable claims and then tries (for the most part) to prove itself wrong.

Does any religion do that? Does the Bible (Luke something or other) not say “do not test your God”?

Can you seriously not see the difference between a working hypothesis and a faith based claim?

Where is the arrogance in considering myself a relation to a monkey (and every living thing) that has no special place and nothing to do after my brain ceases to function (generally after the work Christmas party)? What about your arrogance in assuming the whole universe was made for your benefit?

@Paul

You’ve been warned before about attempting to disprove magic with reason.

Desist.

Paul,

I have just written a response to this piece on the Huffington Post, which I think is also a good reply to your last posting and might also help Liberanos and others understand….

If it’s hubris you’re looking for, you’ll have had your fill after reading this from Jeff Schweitzer.

The green men won’t be appearing, but the Saviour will be, and I don’t mean Obama or Al Gore. Hubris and pride lead to destruction and perhaps the greatest hubris, as demonstrated by Jeff Schweitzer, is when you think you can mock the Almighty and His Creation and get away with it.

God created something rather larger than is popularly imagined.

He didn’t fully describe it either.

Otherwise preoccupied I imagine.

Sorry Liberanos but…

Stewart, if we discovered that Neanderthals created and worshipped idols of their ‘creator’, would the refutation of this:
Of all visible creatures only man is able to know and love his creator. make you change your beliefs? Or would the fact it wasn’t Christ that they worshipped make their belief false and so make the statement true?

As to green men… What we would require is for a species to have developed to a level where they were broadcasting indiscriminitely in a narrow band of the EM spectrum, trong enough that our receivers could pick it up and at exactly the right point in time that we happened to be looking. The odds of that are, literally (pun intended) astronomical. Further, you make an implicit assumption that the ‘aim’ of evolution is intelligence – that is completely untrue. The ‘aim’ of evolution is the reproduction of reproducible parts. Anything that improves either the efficiency or efficacy of this will become prevalent and carried over the generations, be it simple chemicals or complicated multi-cellular organisms.

Why am I even writing to someone who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, a figure derived from adding up all the ages of the characters in Dickens’ novels.

[...] country. It’s everywhere – Christmas celebrations in Glasgow having to be called “Winterfest” so as to be more inclusive, the ‘Three Little Pigs’ fairytale being frowned upon [...]