Atheists embrace scarlet

Read this article on the blaze (found here: ).

Very interesting. Here is a picture of the scarlet pendant:

Ok, the way I interpret it is this: Catholics and Christians wear a cross (or a crucifix or scapular.) The Jewish people will somtimes wear the star of David. So Athiests wanted an identifying physical article to identify themselves. Totally understandable.

BUT did the creator of this pendant read classic literature? The Scarlet Letter by Hawthorne tells the story of a young woman who wears the scarlet “A” as the sign of an adulturere and the letter then creates a non-physical barrier between her and society.

Why would members of the Athiests belief choose to wear a letter that classicly symbolizes seperation from society?

Would love to hear your thoughts!

Hester’s embrace of the letter led to her ability to free herself from the traditional beliefs and mores of her (Puritan) society. I could see where some atheists would identify with this symbol…

I predict this initiative will have as much success as the atheists who tried to get everyone to refer to them as “brights”. :stuck_out_tongue:

Hmm Atheists have group meetings weekly, they have their prophets (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris) they spend their time “de-evangelizing” and now they have a symbol…hmm and they still don’t consider themselves religion. :hmmm:

Some people, atheists especially, are blind to the obvious. :shrug:

Lol!!! And we theists were supposed to be called “dims”.

Too much generalizing, it’s not like all atheists agree on everything or even know who these people are or bother doing meetings, and perhaps the meetings these atheists make are a part of supporting themselves in what they experience daily in a world of religious craziness, like a release or something, maybe they work on changes too, it’s their right to be politically and socially active after all, ever thought of such a that thing? Gathering and promoting for some goals or ideas is not necessarly a religion.

True. If Christians can’t agree on everything, why should we expect that atheists do? :wink:

So if I’m understanding this correctly, they want people to see them and associate them with the A-word. And for most people, the A-word isn’t “atheism”. OK, I guess they know what they’re doing. :smiley:

I would like to hear more about this crazy world of religiosity, please.

Want to go more far?

If theists can’t agree on everything, why should we expect that atheists do? :wink:

Then go for it.

If I may offer an opinion, I think that the people who spend this much time thinking about their atheism are trying to convince themselves more than anyone else. Unlike theism, atheism is nothing to base your life around. I mean, to co-opt and invert one of their favorite analogies, you don’t see any groups of people going around organizing a community around a non-belief in fairies or unicorns. And this perception of theirs that religious believers see atheist as some kind of resident aliens, as one interviewee expressed in this sentiment:

“I am telling people I am willing to discuss this, that this is how I am and you have to accept this,” he told Winston. “I am essentially othering myself to show that normal people with normal lives and problems are atheists.”

Seriously, what sane person does not know that? As though believers think atheists are essentially different from other human beings? I dunno. Having been an atheist for most of my life in an extremely religious area of the south, I never felt the need to go out of my way to “discuss my atheism” with anybody and especially not to try to convert anyone. I typically got along just fine with everyone, and if the subject of my atheism came up it may have been met with an awkward silence or a few questions, but it never came to an uncivil confrontation, and certainly no one ever acted as if I were some kind of alien creature. The most “confrontational” it ever got was a Christian co-worker giving me a copy of Ray Comfort’s “Atheist Bible” for Christmas and jokingly telling me “Happy Atheist’s Day” on April 1, which I found pretty funny.

That’s what I don’t get about the whole new atheist campaign. At the root of it, you have these demagogues proclaiming that life is essentially meaningless, the universe has no purpose and that free will is an illusion. Then they take the utterly baffling and contradictory stance that a) scientific knowledge is of indispensable importance (how is anything important if life is meaningless?), that they believe in the supremacy of reason (of what value is reason if its subject is without purpose?) and that religion is detrimental to the well-being of man and they must try to convert as many people as possible (how can someone change if they have no free will? And again, given the meaninglessness of life, what is the well being of man? Why does it matter?)

Sorry for the rant. I just get rankled by the sheer inconsistency of this whole movement.

So, Atheists have many different sects and many interpret the rationalizations of their beliefs without regard to any exterior authority. You’re thinking there are no religions like this?

The fact that they are less unified than other religions isn’t surprising since they adhere to a belief in an origin from chaos and are very anti-establishment.

I have weekly group meetings? Are you talking about my Saturday brunch? Well, yeah, I’m pretty regular about that, but it isn’t an atheist thing, I promise. Heck, one of the couples is Lutheran! Dawkins is my prophet? Since when? I mean, he’s a brilliant biologist and sometimes an interesting read, but my prophet? Gee, I must either be off on my definition of prophet or Mr. Dawkins possesses powers that I’d never dreamed of. As far as symbols go I have a simple one that I use to sign my artwork, but that’s only because my name is unattractive. I swear it’s not a subversive, underground society bent on bringing down religion thing. Just a distinctive squiggle with a circle. As for de-evangelizing, I can’t remember the last time I knocked on someone’s door and asked “Have you heard the bad news?”

Ok, so maybe we can stop grouping all atheists together. I would very much doubt that even a majority of atheists read Dawkins or use silly symbols. It really is absurd to assume atheists agree on anything, even basic philosophy. The only thing many of us have in common is that we don’t believe in god. Heck, Christians have a fairly set doctrine and even they have big disagreements.

Um, nope. You made the claim. I’d like to know more about it from you.

Er, I have quite a few friends who are atheists. None of them goes to any sort of atheists’ meeting on a regular basis, none is evangelistic about their faith position, and none has any time for Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris.

Because they already feel separated from a society which they believe to be Christian? Because it allows them to identify with a persecuted figure? Because it is (potentially) shocking?

Cool take - I like it. Hadn’t thought about them identfying with Hester.

Umm…? :confused: whatever…

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit