John 14:8-9:

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
 
Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.

John 8:57-58:

 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!”

Holly Day was the day in times gone past when people brought in holly in order to feast and make the spirits within the evergreen pleased with them.

No doubt it was Eregion’s national holiday.

Poseidon should be way above Jesus. At least Poseidon can swim.

Jesus doesn’t need to.

Yes, Christmas is at it heart a religious holiday, so you can simplisticly say any Christmas decoration is “religious”, but I’m not aware of any religions that incorporate strings of colored lights, christmas trees, candy canes and santas into their religious ceremonies or iconography.  As I see it, Christmas has been greatly secularized as a holiday to the point where that stuff has been mostly drained of religious meaning, particularly for the people who are actually practicing those religions.   From the outside it looks different perhaps, but I doubt most christians you ask would agree that santa is a religious symbol for them.

I grew up in a non-religious house, but I don’t completely identify with atheism nor have I chosen an absolutely theistic route; my interpretation is that it’s an active belief that there is no god and afterlife, which is probably true, but I feel it unwittingly denies the poetic symbolism and metaphor of religion (which is what most religious people might not be aware of too?) which is merely representative of that which is not (and can not?) be understood through conventional logic.

I figure the point of this commercial atheism is to lessen the power and abuse religion can have over societal structures to relieve the difficulties living within them, but I feel it will end up creating as fierce and dangerous mentality as that of the extreme theistic side. Through this process, a user’s attachment to a ‘brand’ (which is really what it is — maybe this article is somewhat related to what I mean: http://www.journals.marketingpower.com/doi/abs/10.1509/jmkg.75.4.35) and their relation to it can fortify the disdain for the other and does nothing for encouraging positive change when it’s being antagonistic in approach.

My personal approach to changing opinion would be more subversive and subtle: if people can’t have some obvious ‘martyr’ to rally for or against, then perhaps it would lessen the majority of knee-jerk reactionaries whose opinion is formed primarily from a rejection of someone else’s, and also of those following such opinionated ralliers.

Basically, I don’t see the purpose of fighting fire with fire when it just results in maintaining more fire.

Many atheists I talk with in atheist networking groups agree on certain things, regarding liberties to be atheists, equal access to government, and the freedom from fear of being burned alive by religious zealots. And not feeling guilty for wanting these things.

Aside from that commonality, a full half of them are grade-A assholes (and not the funny kind of asshole either).
 Then you have the Islamophobes, the racists-disguised-as-Islamophobes, the sanctimonious young urban professionals who started a philosophy club but don’t understand ad hominem is a fallacy, the one guy who is “atheist” but wants desperately to discuss the theological underpinnings of the doctrine of the Trinity,  the angry teenage males, the in-group of teenagers who found a ‘cool’ social niche and are sniggering at everyone else, the angsty aging goths, the unreasoning zealot libertarians and Galt-worshippers, and the self-hating government-employed attorneys. Oh, and the myriad of people with personality disorders that have them derive self-purpose and life-meaning from playing the role of victimised minority, or victimiser.

I don’t want to hang out with any of these people, because their attitudes all suck. The atheists I like to hang out with generally spend their time being human beings, and we hang out because we’re being human beings, not because we’re atheists.

Atheist organisations aren’t, generally speaking, social opportunities. They are political tools. This is not to say that there aren’t a great many awesome people in atheist organisations, and that it is impossible to make social connexions while participating in them.

This is exactly what sucks about atheists. You assume that you’re the only ones able to see reality clearly and that everyone else is deluded, or ignorant, or whatever.

Aw, come on.  How many theists assume that nonbelievers (or believers in the wrong flavor of religion) are ignorant, deluded, or whatever (which would include heretical, under the influence of Satan, unwashed, unenlightened, pagan, misled, or just plain evil)?  Why do missionaries exist?  To bring the Good News to the deluded and ignorant, right?

There are those who would say that this is exactly what sucks about theists.  In any event, it is not my experience that the minds with the greatest tolerance of opposing or differing points of view are commonly found among the faithful.  Kinda works at cross purposes to most sects, I’d say.

But no. It’s a lot more fun to walk around convinced that you’re the smart/enlightened ones, and everyone else is stupid, and it’s funny to insult the thing that your neighbour holds sacred.  

I will readily testify to my own existence.

further, and to get back on track. I’ve always considered Lutherans to be Catholics no longer interested in the Pope.

I definitely am not ok with the fact that being an atheist would prevent me from attaining political office.

To the forum: Allen is not just referring to the fact that atheists are unpopular candidates. Atheists are literally banned from office in Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/12/15/which-states-ban-atheists-from-holding-public-office/

The Texas law is particularly cute:

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

That’s right big of ‘em.

I definitely am not ok with the fact that being an atheist would prevent me from attaining political office.  I cringe whenever someone asserts that religion is necessary for for moral behavior.  I don’t let people get away with using religion as an appeal to authority in a debate.
So yeah, raising awareness about secular humanism, and looking for ways to correct the prejudice atheists face are part of what I would call a mature dialog.  This ad campaign doesn’t seem to be.

There are plenty of single-interest associations.

But very few “lack-of-interest” associations. People don’t play golf together because they have no interest in something else, they play golf (or go to church, or discuss books, or promote a political cause) together because they share a common belief system, interest or goal.

If you like the idea of hanging out with fellow non-believers and discussing all the deities and superstitions you don’t believe in then more power to you. I personally just never understood the appeal.