O Come All Ye faithless
Should atheists use the holiday season as a REASON to advocate for atheism?
Isn't it a little mean natured to want to diminish the celebrations of a group you are basically in opposition to by appropriating their holidays and celebrations and claiming they are a reason to celebrate your atheist beliefs as well?
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
44 visitors
I think atheists would be better served by making their displays either unrelated to the holiday of Christmas, or do it at a different time of the year.
Appropriating the religious or holiday terminology and imagery and using it to promote atheism strikes me as uncool. It comes off as mocking.
Personally I think most aggressive anti-religious displays are counterproductive. I do understand why some atheist organizations put up displays on public property to protest religious displays on public property. They are protesting nonsecular use of secular public grounds. I get that.
But in general, even though Christmas, Easter, etc. are religious holidays they are also baked into our culture. Christmas displays, 'Merry Christmas', Christmas carols, etc. do not offend me in the slightest. I wish others Merry Christmas, host the family Christmas parties, etc. If stores want to make Christmas displays, etc. then have at it.
We have far bigger problems to be offended by someone displaying a manger scene on their front lawn.
Christians are celebrating the pagan holiday of the solstice and blaming everyone else for telling them the truth about the origins of Christmas. Jesus was not born on December 25th.
Sorry , that argument is basically irrelevant. Christians are not celebrating a pagan holiday, they are celebrating the central figure in their religion. The fact that it is not done on the actual day of Jesus birth is also pretty irrelevant, since the actual day is unknown and thus a celebration on 364 dates out of the year would be the "wrong" one.
The fact that Jesus was not actually born on Dec 25th is not really important. Please don't tell me that you think it is.
There isn't much left of your supposed religious holiday of Christmas if you take away the decorated tree, holly, mistletoe, lights, the feasting, parties and the gift exchange that all have pagan roots.
People have been celebrating the solstice and the sun gods, Ra, Atum, Horas, Sol and others for over 6,000 years
always apparently between December 21st and December 25th building temples and stone henges around the world to mark the annual occasion.
The 25th is celebrated as the rebirth of the Sun, Sol Invictus.
Christmas as the birthday of Christ was started in th 4th century by various Catholic groups and adopted by the Romans who ruled most of Europe and the Mediterranean at that time.
It was convenient to roll all of the pagan celebrations into the current state approved religion of the Holy Roman Church to reinforce Roman nationalism.
You think you're lighting everyone's hair on fire with some scandal-breaking revelation, but you're not. We know very well what we are celebrating and we understand a lot more about our own history than you obviously think. Every time you announce some truth you think nobody but you is smart enough to know, you're not impressing anyone. It's silly. Or sad. Take your pick.
If you claim to know this then why is Christmas claimed to be a religious holiday when you admit that it has obvious pagan roots? Christians need to stop being outraged when people wish them Happy Holidays. and their fake war on Christmas.
The date is not the reason for the holiday. I can't believe that has to be explained to someone as smart as you.
You like to make proclamations about how other people should view the world and how they should feel. That's the kind of militant atheism I'm talking about.
A great majority of the rest of us will go ahead and celebrate Christmas, But it is still a free country, so you go right ahead and be the wet blanket!
don't people usually celebrate their " birthday " on the day of their actual birth ? or do we just get to pick a random day and call it our " birthday " now ?
this is rather interesting...
Well, yeah, if you leave out the focal point of all history, future history included. Jesus Christ. The man who would reunite God and man. You're probably not aware but it's considered kind of a big deal. Sort of the whole point kind of thing going on there. Some of us would even be happy if we lost some of the things you mention if it caused more focus on Jesus.
Most of Jesus is also a myth because there is no proof that your God exists.
Who or what is holding you back from doing that? Is that also part of the war on Christmas?
why thank you ! of course that wouldn't apply to businesses who give you free stuff on your actual birthday (when they check your license), would it ? i guess you could scam them (gee.... how fun ?). Could you tell me why the majority of people pick the actual day of their birth and celebrate it as their "birthday" ? (especially since they could just pick any old day to celebrate, right ?)
who said it mattered to me ? i never stated such a thing. I have many friends who are religious (especially with Christmas) - makes no difference to me (of course i won't pretend to ignore actual history as many of the religious tend to do and tend to turn a blind eye to their religion's past while still holding themselves higher than non believers), but does leave me with questions - perhaps you can be the one to explain it all since you are a believer.
why would i want to scam a business like that ? that doesn't make sense. Do you do it ?
i've already found the answers - i looked into factual history. I guess not everyone does that, huh ? oh, you forgot to answer this:
i figured i'd repost it since it's not a religious question - you should have no issues answering it. Thanks !
I will celebrate the solstice and Yule so I would expect nothing less from you and others. I have multiple candles lit and incense because of the solstice.
Like the hyper-capitalism. It can go fast. One thing about getting old. . .er, you begin to notice more and more how traditions are like walking on a treadmill.
It's just me and him this year so we are doing it easy. No tree and almost no decorations.
Why yes they do.
So in your line of thought if a baby is dropped anonymously off and adopted they can never celebrate there birthday because it wasn't documented....
As I said above It's a free country. Do whatever trips your trigger, as long as it is within reason...
I'm especially fond of mistletoe when combined with eggnog.
And a very pleasant solstice to you and yours.
Thank you. The same to you and your family.
gosh... is that a "usual" circumstance in your mind ? it also looks like you missed @1.3.15:
so is your scenario a "majority" with people being born ? gee..... any other inane pointless scenarios you wish to concoct in a weak defense of celebrating a birthday on the day of the actual birth ?
in response to me bringing it up you stated:
did you forget you wrote that ? why would i want to try it ?
yes, i found my "religious" answers so far - that's what we were referring to right ?
ah yes, an effort to avoid answering a non-religious question (i asked a non-religious question since you already stated you refuse to answer any religious questions). Here's the question again - since it's non-religious you should have no issues answering it:
Thanks ! and Happy Festivus to you as well !
just an example of when a birthday is used on the actual day of birth - like the majority of people celebrate it. I thought you knew that ? i'll remember to not overestimate you in the future.
well what's the answer ? it seems that the answer to the question might be a bit uncomfortable for you to express - especially when tying it back to the point of celebrating Christmas as the birth of Jesus etc.
i want to know what your answer is - as you keep deflecting and avoiding answering a very simple question. So let's try this again:
looks like you keep avoiding answering it since it's a seemingly uncomfortable answer...
let's see if you answer it this time or not
congrats ! tell me when the majority of people celebrate their birthday and why.
Christmas itself was "appropriated" from a pagan Holiday. Everything from the yule log to the evergreen tree were all stolen from the Romans and their celebration of Saturnalia. So was it "uncool" for Christians to steal a holiday and its traditions? Why can't it be seen as the Atheists "stealing" Saturnalia? Then you don't have to feel bad at all since they're just stealing an ancient pagan Holiday.
Well, for one thing, O Come All Ye Faithful is not a pagan hymn.
We don't see atheists mock Santa Claus or Frosty The Snowman, we see them mock the manger, the Naivity story itself, the date of the celebration of Jesus birth, and in this instance as in the article, a Christian song about the Nativity.
It's rather obvious what the atheist objection to the "season" is.
From that sign you posted, all I can tell is that they wished you and everyone reading it a "Happy Holiday" and were inclusive by stating "No matter how you celebrate" and "Even Heathens Celebrate the Season" which is not mocking anything. It's merely acknowledging your holiday traditions and saying "Hey, even those of us without a belief in Christ can have fun celebrating the holiday, spending time with friends and family, enjoying a meal together and maybe even doing some generous gift giving". What is the harm in that?
Personally, I wouldn't attend such a party. I think trying to pretend to be a Christian and jumping through traditional hoops like every other Christian drone is not only pointless but actually obfuscates whatever supposed "true meaning of Christmas" there might have been in the past. Now it's all "must buy new toy" "must have tree in house" "must have lights everywhere" "must get panties in bunch if atheists have a party during the same time as we do...".
Which season? The song O Come All Ye Faithful refers to the birth of Jesus Christ. If the atheist group wanted to simply show they enjoy seasonal festivities why didn't they use a secular song like "Winter Wonderland" or "Jingle Bells" ?
Well we know why, don't we?
I think you're reading way to deep into that. I think they thought it was a tongue in cheek flip of a Christmas song line that made sense for them. I don't think any supposed "attack" or offense was meant just because you believe that song is somehow more sacred than other Holiday songs.
I'll like to suggest there are many theists and atheists that are positively blind to the spiritual and secular 'warfare,' raging all around us.
I think that there should be more songs about tragic mass ice skating disasters.
I'm not sure anyone celebrates Christmas as a totally holy season judging from the amount of commercialization
Or it could be, that when people start treating their religion like a sore elbow that they stick out at 90 deg angle with their hand in their front pocket, then walk into a crowd of people so they can explode in righteous wrath when someone bumps it.
Followed by hours of anguish and complaints about how they suffer and are being abused because they have a tender elbow, and how they get no respect for their pain. Then they find another crowd and do it again.
This article and the other similar ones I've read like it are just..sore elbows sticking out.
But have a wonderful Christmas, however you celebrate it, and may the New Year be good to you.
I actually do not participate in Christmas as the "masses" do. I think nearly all holidays (especially Christmas) are becoming trifling for me. What I can not tell is have holidays always been trivial and repetitive, or if it is a factor of me getting old,. .er?
Holidays seem so "treadmill-ish" anymore. O look, here comes New Year's Time Square "make a wish" confetti time again . . . . Don, I resist many aspects of Christmas—including its call to holiness (which should 'carryon' everyday) and its over-saturation of commercialism. And death, don't forget the injuries, death and dying which attend this year-end cycle people put themselves through!
That's what christens did with X-mas and Easter. They were originally Pagan holidays.
Not ion those days. Doing so would have been a death sentence at the hands of Christians.
Ask the pagans of the past. Nowadays, thanks to our constitution, Pagan's can celebrate and believe whatever they want, the same as any other religion.
And a prosperous Saturnalia to you.
That is their deliberate and willful intent.
Secular organizations have long flexed their First Amendment rights in December by placing non-religious holiday displays on courthouse lawns and in town squares, parks and capitol rotundas across the U.S.
Some of the displays are solemn and earnest, like a lighthouse-shaped obelisk that illustrates the power of light in a time of darkness. Others are purposefully irreverent ― like the exhibits appearing in several states this year that twist the traditional Christian nativity scene by placing the Bill of Rights in a manger.
"Even Heathens Celebrate The Season"
the banner reads, underneath a phrase that reads "O Come All Ye Faithless" which is a direct reference to a Christian Christmas carol.
In other words the message is that heathens "celebrate" the Christian holiday.
But they don't.
No, it means they celebrate the season.
Some like the positive aspects of Christmas - generosity, peace, goodwill, and so forth, all of which can be appreciated without religion.
Some like the winter season.
And some like the traditions Christmas had when it was Yule, instead.
The "season" is generally considered to consist of Thanksgiving, Hanukkah, Christmas and New Year's. Those who believe in the Twelve Days of Christmas extend the season until the feast of the Epiphany , January 6.
Sure atheists may celebrate the "holidays", but their objection is only about Christmas. Their public displays of this objection only object to the religious element of the holidays.
In the banner at the top it says that atheists celebrate "the season" . The phrase above that line directly refers to the Christian aspect of the season, so the conclusion is that the atheist group celebrates the Christian aspect of the season. Which constitutes a mocking of it.
Do atheists mock Santa Claus or Rudolph The Red Nose Reindeer ?
Consider why their objection might only be to the Christian holiday Which one is more prevalent in our society? Which one has followers who insist that folks not acknowledge the others with a "Happy Holidays" because acknowledging the existence of other religions' holidays is somehow a war on their own?
It ain't Judaism. And it ain't paganism. It's (some) Christians who scream persecution about "Happy Holidays" and "Season's Greetings" and insist that their particular religion and its deity are the one and only "reason for the season".
They're getting pushback. Maybe if they weren't so tenacious in their insistence on their religion retaining privilege, they wouldn't get pushback. But they are, so they do.
"The cost of success." —Ask Microsoft and soon Facebook!
It's objectionable that appropriated traditions are being appropriated?
If you want to have an atheist holiday season, why don't you have it in, I don't know... May? and the weather will be nicer.
May is baseball season. I'm busy then.
John, the very traditions and images you claim atheists are appropriating were appropriated by Christians, for the most part. Right down to the date of the holiday.
It's not the same thing at all, particularly because you are referring to cultural changes that happened hundreds of years ago. The atheists today mock the Christian holiday in real time.
In other words, maybe the ancient pagans had a good argument for feeling that Christians 'stole' their traditions, but you don't.
Like I said, the banner in the article has a phrase that explicitly refers to a Christian song, and underneath the atheist group claims to "celebrate" that season. But they don't. It is a mocking in real time and I suggest it is mean spirited.
Actually Christianity was adopted by People who already had these traditions and the two were melded together.
No, it's not the same. You're right about that. Originally, Christians appropriated the traditions of other religions so that spreading their own would be easier to do. Why would they need to do that? Because theirs wasn't always welcome. They had to sugar-coat it.
Maybe the appropriation is a bit mean-spirited. But TBH, it comes across as "don't mock my religion's traditions that we stole fair and square!"
Voluntarily?
The Roman's did the same to the Greeks, so what's your point?
I don't hear them complaining about their traditions be re-appropriated.
And then there are these atheists: The Satanists (Hint: They are not a religious body at all.)
In other words, what these strategies and tactics can look like in practice is people 'busting' on other people's traditions.
That being said, and having gone through many, many, discussions with secularists who are so-called satanists on Newsvine, I agree-they have a freedom of speech right to be left alone and to have a POV. For me, it is my policy to build a "sweet-smelling potpourri' in this nation of ever greater acceptability through diversity!
If you look at history the beginning of Christianity were forced on most people.
And spread by the sword too.
It's objectionable that people feel it necessary to ruin other peoples' good time. The appropriation is not so they can celebrate or honor something they like. It's so they be hateful toward the culture they are appropriating.
How does the sign in the pic above ruin your good time? Did it burn your Christmas ham? Smash your gifts? Keep you from attending midnight Christmas Eve services? Scratch your "It's a Wonderful Life" DVD?
No. None of those.
For all you know, people attending the atheist celebration are inside drinking hot chocolate, wearing ugly Christmas sweaters, kissing under mistletoe, and remarking about how pretty the tree and lights are.
They're not hurting you, any more than Christians who insist that theirs is the only winter holiday that matters hurt Jewish people by insisting that they be wished a merry Christmas rather than a happy Hanukkah (not saying you're one of those, but there are plenty around).
I could make a career of unplugged their lights, swapping the delivered Amazon boxes with the neighbors and stealing their fruitcake.
Then I'll go home and put on my ugly sweater, drink hot chocolate and watch the Nutcracker...........
That's really for me to judge, isn't it? I'll bet that in just about any other context, you wouldn't demand that people of any other culture or ethnicity properly justify their outrage at a perceived offense. Consider it "hate speech." Maybe then you're support legislation to outlaw it, hmm?
Are they? Let's see some pics. Let's hear from some of them about what the season means to them.
Yes, I expect you would.
That doesn't seem to be stopping you.
Your wallet would be lighter.
It's not hate speech, and I've never supported legislation against hate speech. You're assigning to me views I've never expressed, and that's dishonest.
I will when you provide proof that they were up to anything hateful.
I realize I misread your "That's really for me to judge, isn't it?"
And my response - and? If your Christmas spirit is hurt by this sign, it was a fairly weak spirit to begin with. Much as nonbelievers are told to just ignore proselytizing Christians and get over it - well, get over it. Other people have different beliefs and traditions from you, and celebrate them differently. Your approval is not required.
Sticks and stones.
"Judge not lest ye be judged."
It's not for you to judge at all, it's for whoever put on the party to judge and decide for themselves whatever the fuck they want to do regardless of your perceived slight. Go ahead, cry yourself to sleep over some atheists having a Christmas party, that's your choice, but to condemn them for it is beyond shitty, it's actually the opposite of the supposed "spirit of Christmas".
Christmas dominates nearly three months of the year as the ads and music start even before Halloween now. It is everywhere and been injected into just about everything, so to suddenly pull back and say "No, that's ours! You can't celebrate the way we celebrate because you're not a believer!", that's what is "uncool".
Personally, I won't ever celebrate Christmas again and have no desire to pretend by going through the traditional motions for other peoples benefit. I don't really get why any atheists would want to emulate what Christmas has become, a commercialized holiday of unfulfilled expectations and unappreciated gifts teaching children to lie and to be greedy. But that's their right to celebrate whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, just like Christians.
[deleted]
Like what? As near as I can tell, these atheists sole belief or tradition involves being against someone else's belief. They're not for anything except whatever they're against. [deleted]
And I'd that's so, they're within their rights. You have no more idea than I do what this celebration involves, but you assume the worst and get worked up over it.
We actually know some things.
For one thing, we know that there is nothing about not believing in God that would specifically prompt a celebration at this time of year. It's pretty clear that the time of the celebration is a response to the Christmas celebration. When they speak of celebrating the season, I don't think they mean Fall or Winter. There's no reason I am aware of that would prompt an atheist to celebrate a change in the weather or the planet's orientation relative to the sun.
As an aside, I am aware that there is nothing about believing in Jesus that would prompt a celebration at this time of year, either. The best evidence indicates he was born at a different time. However, Christians chose to celebrate his birth at this time of year because other celebrations were already happening at this time. However, the point of those early Christmas celebrations was always primarily the celebration of Jesus' birth. It was not a group of people with no belief being angry about someone else's celebration. Aside over.
The sign also speaks of the "faithless" and "heathens." Those are clearly references to religious belief and specifically inviting people who lack the beliefs of those celebrating Christmas. If this wasn't a reaction to Christmas, you could simply invite people who share whatever positive trait an atheist might have. Although I'm not sure what that might be. Atheism by definition is a negative ideology in that it is a lack of belief.
So, it's pretty clear that this event is happening not as some independent celebration of empiricism or something. It's a direct reaction to Christmas. For celebrations celebrating empiricism, we have science conferences where you can go felt up by Neil deGrasse Tyson. (j/k!) They're held year round and never reference other people's religious celebrations.
To be most charitable (i.e. not assume the worst) we might guess that perhaps they feel left out of the fun. That would be a shame because, of course, because all are welcome to take part in Christmas celebrations. But the ubiquity of Christmas makes me believe they know that already. Therefore, it's hard not to ignore the conclusion that this event could actually be intended to be hostile to Christmas and encourage more hostility.
Tacos! Without "confirming" your message necessarily, I do want to make note of how well-written your comment is!
Thanks. I am honored.
from the World Book Encyclopedia
entry - CHRISTMAS
Julian versus Gregorian calendars...
Of course it is. But it's consistent with their ideology. A pure atheist (a-theist) simply lacks belief in God, but the militant strain of atheism is not content with that. This archetypal militant atheist is not simply waiting for more information or inspiration, he's actually an enemy of others' belief. As a Christian, I'm content to let atheists go right on being atheists. They've made their choice. But so many atheists go out of their way to attack expressions of Christianity or ridicule Christians - particularly at Christmas - because their entire focus is rooted in hostility to faith. Honestly, it strikes me as a pretty sad way to be, with your whole focus being on fighting against other people's beliefs.
And of course my saying so will inspire angry responses from atheists in 3, 2, 1 . . .
What a hilarious and ridiculous statement. You might be content to let atheists "go right on being atheists" but the vast majority of Christians can't help but try and push their faith on others. There are many who will openly acknowledge they are trying to spread Christianity and convert people. So, in your mind it's okay to convert people to Christianity but it's not okay to convert them from Christianity? Why the double standard?
The fact is atheists are NOT out en masse trying to convert Christians, but Christians are out trying to convert atheists. Atheists aren't ramming their Holiday down everyone else's throats, Christians are. So this whole bullshit imagined victim-hood by Christians is ridiculous. You're not under attack, your holiday is as impossible to avoid as it ever was. If you're stopping to imagine a perceived slight because some atheists are having a Christmas party then that's on you, not on them.
I would disagree with that conclusion. The vast majority of Christians do not proselytize.
While the "vast majority" aren't out knocking on doors, most Christians proselytize by osmosis. If you've ever worked or been friends with a Christian while not being a believer yourself you know what I mean. Most simply can't help but almost daily point out what they claim are "flaws" with being a non-believer and try to point out everything they imagine as evidence of their Gods majesty. The natural response to this from non-believers is to counter by pointing out logical flaws in the proffered faith. It's that reflexive push back that many Christians then perceive as atheists trying to force their non-belief on Christians.
I know a lot of Catholics and don't know a single one who tries to convert other people to Catholicism or Christianity. There are missionaries but it is not a large part of how Catholics behave. In 1600 maybe, but not today.
In the 1600's it was forced conversions. But I'll agree that most of the Christians who have tried to get me to "repent" and come back to the faith and can't help but challenge my non-belief every chance they get are not Catholic but of one protestant denomination or another. I think Catholicism has become more like Judaism where it's more passed on from one generation to the next as a family faith but doesn't encompass their lives like religion does evangelicals. With evangelicals, everyone is expected to be an ambassador of their faith while with Catholics, they leave that to their priests.
Sharing what someone thinks of as "good news" is wildly different from mocking people for their beliefs and trying to silence them.
If you think that, then you are ignoring many many facts available to you. I find interesting that so much energy is put into arguing against the reality of a war on Christmas, and that energy is always manifested in the form of hostile mockery that seeks to demonize and ridicule the people who complain, rather than as an expression of tolerance and love. The very hostility of the defense only confirms the battle.
The fact that Christmas remains very popular has nothing to do with the fact that some people do everything they can to fight it. And if you're not attacking Christmas, then what are you here to argue about?
I wasn't aware that the use of logic was mocking people. Do you feel that you are being mocked in this thread?
Nobody is trying to silence anyone, unless you have examples of such actions?
Not sure why I should be concerned about what you're aware of.
Frankly, in my experience, you don't respond well to examples. I'm pretty sure if I copy/pasted quotes, you would pronounce my opinion as "emotional" or otherwise irrational, and your opposite conclusion you would present as indisputable fact. I see no point in wasting our time with it.
You were the person who made an issue of it. I am asking for a clarification.
How can you possibly be silenced in the US by another person? You can be criticized but you cannot be silenced. If we couldn't be criticized then out free speech rights would not be intact.
Your use of "logic" as you see it is one thing. Using logic while being obnoxious and possibly insulting is quite another...
How is the use of logic being obnoxious and insulting? It is almost as if some people think that using logic to reveal the faults/fallacy of religious belief should be limited because it is insulting to those who believe?
Can I safely assume that my use of sarcasm and satire is also insulting?
Using unproved religion and fantasy to smugly look down your nose at non-believers, contemptuously imagining us burning in hell because we don't share your faith, then rubbing a commercialized religious holiday in our faces as if only Christians can understand the "reason for the season" during a holiday people have traditionally spent time with friends and family long before Christianity was even invented, and then crying crocodile tears over anyone trying to enjoy the Holiday without your approval, now that's being obnoxious and insulting...
Satire no, sarcasm yes. But you already know that don't you?
Thank you very much for proving my point. Merry Christmas to you.
You're mad about something you don't even believe in?
No one is rubbing anything in your face. You are not forced to believe or take part. And I see no reason why you should care if other people commercialize a tradition you don't believe in.
That's not what Christians are doing at Christmas. But even if it were, it's silly to object that religious people think they are right about something and others are wrong. The very nature of belief is that a person adheres to one opinion while rejecting others. If your position is that multiple opinions are correct then you don't actually "believe" anything.
Christmas decorations don't say "everyone else's celebrations are wrong." The point of them is not to stand in contrast to some other celebration. Christmas celebrations, unlike militant atheism, are about celebrating what Christians believe, not tearing down or publicly attacking what others believe.
Why is my sarcasm offensive to you but satire is not?
This is just my opinion but it seems that many conservatives feel that my logic and sarcasm are progressive party tricks that should not be mentioned in mixed company.
just some food for thought here and it really applies to no one even with what I highlighted but it does raise a question , is something satire ? or sarcasm? sometimes its known right up front which is being presented , sometimes not
The issue can be compared to the discussion is something pornography or is it art ? and like the judge that was asked , its hard to make a distinction and a definition at times that everyone can agree on , but himself he knew the difference when he saw it , and that is the same with satire or sarcasm , each individual uses what they know to make that distinction for themselves. and everyone uses their own definitions and distinctions of when the lines are crossed.
Satire is generally considered to be humorous. Sarcasm indicates a clear disrespect for somebody else's views and is generally considered offensive by many people. But again, you already know this.
"I see no point in wasting our time with it."
Well said.
This entire seed is about how Atheists, who wish you a Happy Holiday and try to be inclusive of all during a time of year many people from many religions traditionally gather and celebrate, are being accused by Christians of "mis-appropriating Christmas".
So it's not atheists who can't stand anyone talking about God within earshot, it's Christians butt hurt over atheists attempting to have a good time during "their" Holiday. That seems not only obnoxious but rather sad and humiliating, like a petulant selfish child complaining he didn't get as many gifts this year as he did last.
Man I feel really sorry for you. I'm sure glad I don't have people daily trying to convert me to their faith.
It seems you totally missed the point of the seed though. It is about people mocking the Christian faith.
In my observations it seems the people who need to always mock Christianity are the one who need it the most. Maybe that is what makes them insecure?
And before you go assuming shit, I am not a Christian.
[deleted]
I see no reason to believe that if everyone were atheist the world would be a better place.
No one knows whether or not belief in God is a fairy tale. No one knows and basically we cannot know.
Some atheists appear to worship science. Science can certainly benefit the human race, but can also destroy it.
There is good and bad in both religion and in lack of religion.
Simply saying something is a fairy tale and therefore I am justified in mocking it is not a reasonable argument.
Why can't we mock God believers for their belief in cave-man myths? Hell, I don't mind if godders mock my acceptance of evolution, which is well-established science with mountains of evidence backing it up. Mock away, it just makes the mocker look like an idiot anyway.
Ludicrous, superstitious beliefs SHOULD be mocked in my opinion, and convincing children to believe the obvious lie of God existence is a form of child abuse.
Merry Christmas to you and yours JR.
Science is going to lead us to the so called "singularity" when artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence. This will be a scientific "achievement" which will end humanity as we know it.
Is that an accomplishment? I am not sure science is a worthy God.
Certainly not. Worshiping science would be irrational. Thinking that scientific aficionados worship science would be a fundamental misunderstanding of both science and those who support science.
Actually there is not a mountain of evidence to back it up. There is allot of supposition and guess work. There is is some circoms circumstantial evidence but that is all. No one has ever seen a lower life form evolve into a higher form .No one has seen one species become another. While evolution is more than likely true, there is no real hard evidence
Looking at the seed, it seems it is less about atheists trying to be "inclusive" and more about atheists being "included". If there is a less relevant group than atheists, belief wise, during this particular time of year, I wouldn't know who they would be. This just comes across as some sort of sad effort at relevance during a season that doesn't really have anything to do with atheism.
Actually, there is. And nothing to discredit it.
Nope. There is actual evidence.
That statement shows you do not fully understand evolution.
There's plenty of "hard" evidence. Evolution is such a near certainty, that it is considered factually true.
Visions of Skynet or the Matrix aside, developing true AI will certainly be an achievement.
Science doesn't deal with god or the supernatural. Neither is science a religion to have worship.
I see no reason to believe that if everyone were an atheist, the world would not be a better place.
It's as much a 'fairy tale" as belief in Santa, the Easter bunny, or the Tooth Fairy. Although, "fairy tale" may not be the proper term. I'd say it's more irrational.
Then there's no reason to assume god/s exist.
More like atheists understand and accept science. There's no need to worship it.
So can religion.
If there's a claim of some mythological or unknown entity without evidence to support such claims, then labeling it as a fairy tale is not unreasonable.
This is true.
And yet you give no example of any. Your saying does not make it so.
If you actually understand the theory of evolution then you would know that those actions happen over 10,000 of years. It doesn't happen in 2 generations or 20 generations.
The evidence is in the DNA but that cannot be seen with the naked eye.
DNA, the fossil record, anatomical morphology, geographical distribution of species. Shall I continue?
No, but actual scientists who have actual empirical evidence to support evolution do.
The militants that are refered to as atheists are actually Misotheists.
How can a person hate god when their stance as an atheist is that there is no proof that a god exists? Logically, you cannot hate what does not exist. First, you must prove that your god exists before someone would or could hate him. That idea that you believe that a god exists isn't shared by others.
No, actually I think it is more that many atheists hate the idea that someone else believes in something that atheists insist dies not exist...
No Ed, most atheists simply shake their heads in utter disbelief that so many people are gullible and simple enough to buy the 'God' fairy tale. I mean, you may as well believe in Peter Pan.
For me, religion is a catalyst for hate and a cover for evil. People blindly pledge their devotion and faith even though their children are raped and molested. Divorces can be overlooked for a little money, domestic violence can be silenced with counseling and shaming.
It's a joke, a racket, a con game.
There may very well be a God but I doubt he would be a part of how he's been packaged for profit and manipulation.
Exactly, even if there is an all-powerful creator of the universe, there is no reason to think this being has anything to do with any of man's religions
No that isn't the situation for me. My stance as an atheist is about utter disbelief based purely on logic and my knowledge of the Christian religion. I may be an atheist now but I was raised in a very conservative Roman Catholic family. I always had doubts about the church even as a child because them more questions that you ask the more holes appear in the official story. In college, I took a critical religious survey course as part of my philosophy minor and the entire teaching of the Catholic church was exposed as a charade. Couple that with my logic courses and the pedophile scandal which led me to leave the church in 1990. I sent a formal letter to the Cleveland diocese in 1991 or '92 telling them that I was no longer a member of the church and I wanted my name to be removed from the membership roster. I was subject to many guilt phone calls and letters about hell, but after about 6 months they relented. I am still the black sheep of my very Catholic family and I have been blacklisted from many of my relatives because I left the church.
I felt like I needed to belong to some church and I joined a pagan group, but I never fit in there either. It was then to a Deist group but that also didn't feel right. I discovered the Unitarian Universalist chuch in 2002 during the anti-war rallies and that led me to the secular Humanists that I am now a member of. We are very much the stray cats of religion.
For many, yes, that is definitely true.
If that were true, atheists would not be working so hard to find and then try to shut down/remove as many (primarily) Christian displays as they can throughout the US. Atheists spend a tremendous amount of time and money to remove a " 'God' fairy tale"!
You're mistaken if you think all people come to atheism in the same way. This misotheism is an example of that.
I've seen it many times myself and heard about it many more from others. The pattern I see is that it's either a believer who has had some trauma in their life, or sees suffering in others' lives; or it's a non-believer who looks around and sees the difficulties of life.
Anger at this leads them to anger at God. Maybe they tell themselves God would never allow such suffering or he can't exist if this is going on - something along those lines.
But I think it's more of a cognitive dissonance than anything else. Their own feelings and reasoning, on their own, would lead them to accept the existence of God, but their assumptions about God (or how they would run things if they were God) aren't reconciled with what they see. It's difficult to reconcile the notion of a loving God with existence of suffering and this is how some people respond.
However, I have seen many people open up about these feelings, get back into scripture, and prayer and make peace with this conflict and with God.
I agree, MUVA.
There are 'bad apples' in every barrel, even if the worms appears over time. We can not keep suggesting doing away with apples, or oranges, or lemons, or . . . do you see my point? What you do is 'self-correct' —pick the worms out and set them aside!
Furthermore, the ultimate outcome of rationalism operating alone in the minds of people is there will still exist "good apples," "bad apples," and worms! Good genius and bad genius. As mankind will "discover" something is lacking in itself, others, "alien-civilizations" on future worlds, and seek to excise that, respectively.
Another word for such an outcome (extreme) is: totalitarianism.
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Dear One!
Atheists are not angry at God. Atheists are people who are not convinced a god exists. You are waaaaay overthinking a very simple, very obvious notion.
If you find an ‘atheist’ who is angry at God, you really have a theist claiming to be an atheist.
If we are to believe in God then we must accept that all of life and its possibilities are ingredients "baked-in." For God wields the power to change the hearts of a "pharoah," a "Job," and a "Jezebel" simply through a spiritual meeting of the minds!
And you are waaaaay oversimplifying what Tacos! is talking about. You are simply trying to speak of one definition of the word "atheist", while Tacos! is talking about how atheism is expressed in the lives and actions of some atheists.
To claim that atheists seek to cleanse the image of religion from public view is utter nonsense. Nobody is trying to shut down all Christian or any other religious display. We want the separation of church and state obeyed, so there is no religious displays on government-owned property. Move those same religious displays to private property, such as the church lawn, a business or a private residence, where they are constitutionally protected and they belong.
Anyone who claims that atheists desire to remove all religious imagery doesn't understand the constitutional concept of strict separation of church and state. Do you think that atheists would give another religion a pass where a Christian display was forbidden to exist?
The situation isn't about a possible conversion. I can attend a Catholic mass and not fear of being Catholic again. I paid my respects to two relatives who passed away this year and I never feared being converted when I did so. It is about obeying the separation of church and state and the state endorsement of religious belief. There is a constitutional precedent of keeping the state neutral on all religion.
You would not want the state to open the door to making Islam a state religion or enforcing Islamic beliefs as secular law, so why would you also want the state to support Christian beliefs as secular law or endorse the Christian religion over other sects or non-belief? This is the very same reason why teacher-led or supported prayer in forbidden in public school.
No, I don't hate that possibility. There is zero proof that God exists outside your imagination, just like the 2000+ other gods that have been claimed to exist over 5000+ years of human society.
Why do you believe that your god exists while you declare that other people's gods are myths? I feel the same way about all gods because the evidence of them existing is all equally zero. Gods and theistic religion are creations of man to explain phenomena around him that he didn't understand as well as to control people.
In spite of what you might think, you don't actually speak for all atheists. I wrote based on my personal experience with many people - something you know nothing about. Apparently your mind is closed to the experiences of people who have been through things you have not.
Because no true Scotsman would ever . . .
In this case, he can speak for me and probably epistte too.
The funny thing about personal experiences is, they tend to be subjective and anecdotal.
Oh then I see we have covered all the bases! /s
Are you serious when you write this stuff?
Yes. They are. So what? That doesn't make them any less true.
A claim made by people incapable of defining what proof of God would look like.
I doubt epistte is saying that. She said there is zero proof of any god/s. That statement is true. But that is not the same as saying there is no god with absolute certainty. Declaring there is or is not a god with absolute certainty is logically indefensible. But without proof or even empirical evidence for a god, there is no logical or rational reason to assume one actually exists.
What "bases" would that be? That doesn't make any sense. I made a simple declaration and nothing more.
That doesn't make them any more true either. Perceptions can affect how one interprets the "experience."
Something objective and empirical. It doesn't even have to be proof. Evidence will do too. But theists make the claim for a god and are incapable of providing any proof or evidence whatsoever.
As of now, there is unequivocally zero evidence that god exists. If somehow there is evidence that any god does exist then I will reexamine my atheistic views, but as of now, a supernatural religious creator does not exist.
I cannot speak for him but I very serious when I write this.
It would require some evidence that could not be explained by any scientific method and it would need to be reproducible.
Where is the evidence for god? The Bible is an unproven claim and largely plagiarized myth so it cannot also be cited as proof of the Abrahamic god without being circular logic. There must be 3rd part objective evidence of God's existence and as of now, there is none.
Religious belief is emotional and subjective, so it is also not proof, despite the fact that billions of people may agree with it.
That is not a proper interpretation of the rich heritage of religion and faith in governance, and separation of church and state. The idea that religion should cede its public power and influence to logic alone is looking for a wrong solution for a problem. For that to happen would require people of faith to leave government altogether to secularists. What probability of happening do you give that occurring? In your lifetime and/or beyond it?
I don't need anyone to bail me out. If you have a question for me then you ask me. I am more than capable of taking care of myself in any discussion.
I'll take that as a compliment.
Bailed out of what exactly? Epistte is more than capable of taking care of herself and handling a discussion.
Actually, it is. The Founding Fathers were quite clear that religion and government should not mix, and for good reason.
Logic is the best way to determine a solution to a problem.
That would be nice. But as long as politicians do not establish law or public policy based on faith or religion, then that is sufficient.
Hard to say. But that's why watching the government for religious mixing is necessary.
If I knew your account I would transfer a few Bitcoin to you for that compliment. I'd normally say the check is in the mail but I am trying to keep up with the times.
I only say it because it's true. But you are too kind.
Call me old fashioned, but I still pay by check. I prefer it that way.
Epistte did answer, in her post 7.2.28 above. perhaps you failed to notice?
Thanks again for the compliment. You flatter me. I guess the old saying is true: great minds think alike.
I pay monthly bills by check but I love my debit card for shopping. I only pay for gas by cash because I hate the $100 account freezes.
I keep my Amex and VISA for traveling.
I do the same. Although, I might use my credit card rather than debit, depending on the purchase or location.
I usually use credit. But cash works better too.
Nobody wants a twin of me, not even myself. Trust me on this. The song Don't let me get me by PINK in my theme song. Listen to the lyrics.
I have had this same brain for 40+ years and there are many days when I wish that I could get a replacement because of my anxiety and depression. I'm just glad that my BF finds me attractive and amusing.
I wouldn't mind being your twin.
Which means it must be filled with knowledge and experience.
He's not the only one.
What a lot of wind about basically nothing. I take "Seasons Greetings" and "Happy holidays" in the spirit at which they were given. What season is it? the holiday season, containing such hits as Thanksgiving and News Years as well as Christmas. It's supposed to be a happy, kind, good will season so "seasons greetings" is just wishing you the happiness of the season. What's so tough? "Happy Holidays" is much the same, hope you thanksgiving is/was good, and your Christmas is/was good and your New Year is/was good and everything in between was good on into the New Year.
What terrible things to wish on someone. All that goodwill a challenge to Christmas, is it?
Everything else seems to be of just so much air. Nobody is trying to kill Christmas for you, go to church as many times as you like, just don't try to force everybody to support YOUR religious views. It's the Holiday Season. Besides, it's only partly (and a smaller part) of Christmas, it's now the Capitalist's Holliday in the new 'Merika. Buy that stuff, as much as you can, spend your money afford it or not, but people still enjoy it and will continue to celebrate the holidays even if some people don't think they're religious enough to. Besides Christians stole the winter festival (the 21st of dec I think) to force them to celebrate Christmas. To make it softer, they kept the party with all it paganism and rituals and religion just had it stolen or bought out in turn.
But this "war on Christmas" stuff is people rushing to defend something that isn't under attack.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, everyone.
Stellar Christmases and New Years to you too, Nightwalker!
I would, too but I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to say "Merry Christmas." I don't think we substitute generic terms for any other holiday. We say "Happy New Year," "Happy 4th of July," "Happy Halloween," and "Happy Thanksgiving," so we should try to say Merry (or Happy) Christmas.
Now, I know not everyone celebrates Christmas, but believe it or not, not everyone celebrated those other holidays either.
I think if you don't know what someone celebrates and you want to cover your bases (or if you're trying to include New Year's along with Christmas), then by all means go for "Happy Holidays." Better to wish something than nothing. But we shouldn't run from saying the word "Christmas." For example, some Christmas trees in public spaces have been called "Holiday trees" in response to absurd hysteria over separation of church and state issues.
If someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, of course I wish them Merry Christmas back, I'm just saying it's not some attack on Christmas if someone wishes someone a Happy Holidays or Seasons Greetings. Hell, I even appreciate a nice "good luck!" now and again, myself.
True, other holidays each have their own titles, but Thanksgiving (when we way over eat and may have one too many drinks) Christmas (where we eat too much and may have more than one drink too many) and New Years (Where we don't eat near enough to blot up the amount of alcohol we drink) all happen within a 30+ change number of days and all three are very major, popular holidays so they overlap a bit anyway especially Christmas and New Years.
And, additional enhancement to the point is that these holidays 'happen' during the coldest, dreariest, and darkiest part of our calendar. These holidays 'warm' the spirit and give people a reason to look in on their neighbor. In olden days, a neighbor could be 'housed' miles away too!
Very good points, CB.
thanx
Happy Solstice, Everyone!
Thanks.
Happy Solstice, TG!!!
Happy Solstice, Trout to you and Mr. Giggles, with a many a happy returns tacked on the end.
Good to see somebody celebrates the old, old-fashioned Christmas!
I just want the religion out of the holiday season because I would like it to be a time of the year that brings all people of the earth together. Religions are nothing if not divisive. Sunnis and Shiites believe 99.99% the same and kill each other over the .01% difference. I don't want to celebrate 'atheism,' whatever that is. If you're not superstitious, you're not superstitious, simple, it doesn't make you any kind of 'ist,' nor is it anything to celebrate.
Funny, isn't it? Recently, I hear about it pervasively: people are scared and so they look for reasons to further divide themselves. Schisms can be deadly to the human spirit and ethos.
Don't you think we celebrate Christmas because of religion? When I was little I'm sure I believed in Santa not because of any religious aspect though. You had to go to boring church all of two times a year, X-mas and Easter Sunday. But it was always about the gifts and now family time. But I don't let the religious aspect of the Holiday season bother me even though I'm a atheist. I'm not scared of being exposed to something that isn't going to hurt me.
In theory you could have a holiday season bookended by Thanksgiving and New Years, without Christmas. But Thanksgiving is not a global holiday so there goes your dream of world participation.
There is no "holiday" season without Christmas, but you can try and organize a new one if you want.
If Christianity had never been invented (and it is an invention), we’d all still be celebrating this time of year, and there’d still be decorated trees and gifts. The only misappropriation here is the usurping of that celebration by Christians (who typically act nothing like the fictional character they are attributing the holiday to), to celebrate a fictitious birth that doesn’t even coincide with that date. I don’t know why any Christian would deny any of that.
We might have this :
Okay, "football head" Stewie-boy is imagining a 'perfected' world where he gets drawn a neck? And how about the great many developments which it took faith to drive man forward to accomplish? If we do away with faith, how does man span the 'bridge' to science?
Also, do place in the frame of highly developed scientific and technological achievements other frames existing where "football head" Stewie-boy, and others like him, are carrying on as evil-geniuses, totalitarians, and the self-interesteds!
Hallelujah!
First off, Stewie & Brian traveled to another dimension. They didn't imagine anything. Second, science doesn't go by faith. Third, you are over thinking this way too much.
How annoying. Can't even enjoy lunch in peace. This is why I don't go to mall food courts.
Good for them. I would probably just leave. I don't go to food courts for dinner and a show.
This the best Christmas flash mob ever, HA. The people in the food court looked like they enjoyed it! Thanks for posting.
Sooooo, what about a "parallel" neck and cosmetic head-reshaping? No comment?
Science does not go by faith: got it! Care to take a *crack* at explaining why Stewie-boy bothers with any of this?
Moi over-thinking it? I am simply a 'lowly' commenter about it. I'd say Seth McFarlane over-thunk this one. Since Seth has all the money and the franchise to boot I am sure he will get all the laurels, nevertheless.
And how about the great many developments which it took faith to drive mankind forward to accomplish? If we do away with faith, how does man span the 'bridge' to science?
How unemotional of you, Gordy! (Smile.)
I will say this, only because it is in the 'corner' of my mind. And, it keeps disturbingly pushing its way forward. . . .
As I watch the first lady start singing, the second, and a series of pop-ups, it occurs to me just how vulnerable we are to good and bad behavior when we are out in public. Only the chorales singers know who they are and what their purpose is for the "innocent" audience they are intermingled with. Now then, . . .if this was something dark about to occur. . . . Horrors!
Thankfully, it is a delightful song about joy, which leads to a happy set of emotions spreading through the court! Moreover, a good time is felt by nearly all! (Didn't wish to end with sad imagery!)
I really could not care less.
Sure, here :
I somehow doubt that.
Faith and science are completely separate things. Man's thirst for knowledge and desire to understand his reality is what drove scientific progress.
Thank you. I try.
Aside from a possible public disturbance, I don't think there is any sinister intentions. Unless the intention was to get me to try and stab my eardrums out, Lol
I couldn't even get that far.
Nope. I'm not really into Metallica.
1. Too funny, "Ha-ha!"
2, Well, considering science and faith are not intersectional, why does "Bro. McFarlane" even strain to make a statement about it? Not funny.
3. See 2 above.
4. Have another cup of logic on me.
5. I agree, there is no sinister intentions from chorale singers. But the imagery of "pop-ups" which can be on the order of disturbing does come to my mind. Just picture, a shoo— . That's enough of that now!
Indeed.
Ask him. I suspect it was for comedic effect. And yes, it was funny.
I can never seem to have enough.
Ooo-kay.
The order of society exists in the perpetuation of myths and fictions. Nationality and religion are critical parts of the order of society. It doesn't make much of a difference whether you believe or don't believe in the myths you hold dear. Those myths contribute to the fabric of your society and have value to the believer. I am personally not an adherent of Christianity {or any other religion}, yet I can enjoy the trappings of the holidays for those who believe. There are many other dates and opportunities to debate the wisdom of incorporating myths. Let the decorations, the traditions, the gifts and all of the other trappings of religion have their due. We can all enjoy them and move on.
One of the few things I find myself in agreement with you on for the most part. I believe in Christianity, but I keep my beliefs to myself and any worshiping I may or may not do I also keep to myself. Nobody's business but mine, just as others beliefs are theirs.I respect their right to believe as they will and ask the same in return. Sorry, I digressed somewhat.
Even though most of refer to "it" as mythology, "it" is embedded throughout our languages, religions and holidays.
"We" have been worshiping the Sun, the Solstices, seasons, harvest for at least 6,000 years.
English seems like it's here to stay, so simple things like the names of the days of the week
will likely remain unchanged and constant reminders of when "we" worshiped theUn, Moon, Tyr, Odin, Thor, Frigg and Saturn.
Sun's-day, Moon's-day, Tyr's day, Wodin's-day, Thor's-day, Frigg's-day and Saturn's-day.
All Olde English/Viking and Roman leftovers from ancient religions.
Chinese is Greek to me,
!
Does that mean Greek is Chinese to you?