atheists and religious holidays

[dragonstar57]

Agreed. You seem content to let all of your actions be viewed through their specific prism, whereas I'm trying to break down those walls and see the goodness as a human trait (not one limited to their worldview, and not one limited only to those who belief in a cosmic dictatorial sky pixie).

 

 

 

Don't you see how you're trying to force the entire concept of "goodness" to fit into your personal belief system anchored in Christ? I think your own concession makes clear that your view of being "Christian" differs from many who self-describe themselves that way. What I'm trying to point out is that the behaviors you associate with "christianity" are actually something we all share as humans. They are humanistic, not christian. They are humanistic, not muslim. They are humanistic, not hindu. Why must the goodness and compassion all be relegated to a bronze age belief system generated by people in a desert somewhere? I understand that your intentions are kind, and also that you think I'm caustic. Oh well. You're obviously missing a much broader point, and failing to see just how civil I am being while I seek ways to illuminate it for you.

 

 

 

Again, you're clearly missing the point, but I'll address you head-on this time. What if the entire concept of "Christ-like" is seen by that person as a bad thing? Christ is not all sunshine and rainbows and lollipops, my friend. Just because you choose to ignore the bad bits doesn't mean they are not there.

 

 

What would Jesus do?

 

 

 

 

 

It supplemented my point that it's not necessary to force kind actions through the narrow and misguided lens of religious belief. It was entirely relevant. What I am advocating is that good actions to be judged for what they are, and in context of the fact that we humans exist as a social species where kind acts better the species as a whole. I am advocating that the kindness of others be valued intrinsically, and not minimized by biblical mythologies or figureheads.

 

As I said previously:

Ibelieve it was their intent too point out that actions of the christians were less indicative of their beliefs than ia's actions. him an athiest following a christan view of morality better than christians is a paradox worthy of note

[iNow]

Ibelieve it was their intent too point out that actions of the christians were less indicative of their beliefs than ia's actions. him an athiest following a christan view of morality better than christians is a paradox worthy of note

Okay. I was absolutely clear on what was meant, and don't need it explained. I'm making a slightly different point. I'll try this once more. What is a "christian view of morality?" Why is this not just a hijacking of a more common humanistic trait shared by all of us, regardless of worldview, ideology, or theistic-bent?

[dragonstar57]

Okay. I was absolutely clear on what was meant, and don't need it explained. I'm making a slightly different point. I'll try this once more. What is a "christian view of morality?" Why is this not just a hijacking of a more common humanistic trait shared by all of us, regardless of worldview, ideology, or theistic-bent?

because different groups have slightly different moral codes. While a large portion of most moral codes is common ground there are still dif. Views

[iNow]

because different groups have slightly different moral codes. While a large portion of most moral codes is common ground there are still dif. Views

Okay, that seems fair, but I need your help to better understand. What is different in the moral views of Christ with the moral views of a non-believer? Please, be specific. You said there is great overlap, but still differences. So, what's different exactly?

[A Tripolation]

I'll try this once more. What is a "christian view of morality?" Why is this not just a hijacking of a more common humanistic trait shared by all of us, regardless of worldview, ideology, or theistic-bent?

 

Most people wouldn't agree that "love thine enemy" is a successful course. Or one they would take willingly. As with "turn thy cheek". Jesus' teaching run completely opposed to what has made us evolutionary successful beings. We are selfish, animistic beings only concerned with our own survival.

 

Don't you see how you're trying to force the entire concept of "goodness" to fit into your personal belief system anchored in Christ?

 

You still don't understand my post.

[iNow]

Most people wouldn't agree that "love thine enemy" is a successful course. Or one they would take willingly. As with "turn thy cheek". Jesus' teaching run completely opposed to what has made us evolutionary successful beings. We are selfish, animistic beings only concerned with our own survival.

Sometimes our own survival is enhanced by helping others, and forgiving trespass. This is not terribly complex.

 

You still don't understand my post.

I do, but I've been lumping it in with posts from others. Do you understand mine, or are we at some sort of unnecessary impasse?

 

Let me try another way... Assume for a moment that I hold Richard Dawkins to be some kind of spiritual leader worthy of respect, praise, and admiration (I respect him, but don't see him as a spiritual leader... Just go with me). If I told you that something you did was very "Dawkin's-like," it would not likely be perceived as positive. That's all I'm saying about commenting that something is christ-like.

[A Tripolation]

Sometimes our own survival is enhanced by helping others, and forgiving trespass. This is not terribly complex.

 

Helping others, yes. Forgiving trespass? No. What good comes from letting an enemy survive who will only try to kill you again?

 

I do, but I've been lumping it in with posts from others. Do you understand mine, or are we at some sort of unnecessary impasse?

 

Let me try another way... Assume for a moment that I hold Richard Dawkins to be some kind of spiritual leader worthy of respect, praise, and admiration (I respect him, but don't see him as a spiritual leader... Just go with me). If I told you that something you did was very "Dawkin's-like," it would not likely be perceived as positive. That's all I'm saying about commenting that something is christ-like.

 

You really don't understand it.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

That's where you're wrong. My reaction would be, "Wow. He thinks my actions were on par with a certain leader of his. That's just great. He even thinks I'm as smart as one of the great evolutionary biologists!"

 

This just seems to be an irreconcilable difference in our personalities.

[iNow]

So much for turning the other cheek.

 

(I might also suggest that if I thought of Hitler as some sort of leader, your "wow, he equates me with someone he thinks of as a leader!" argument would quickly fall apart).

[zapatos]

So much for turning the other cheek.

 

(I might also suggest that if I thought of Hitler as some sort of leader, your "wow, he equates me with someone he thinks of as a leader!" argument would quickly fall apart).

Is your objection that you are compared to Christ, or that you are compared at all. For example, if I said you made pie as good as my wife does, or your singing reminds me of Sinatra, would that be objectionable? If singing is a big part of my life I think high praise would be to compare you to someone I thought highly of. Are comparisons to religious figures different than comparisons to other figures?

[doG]

Sometimes our own survival is enhanced by helping others, and forgiving trespass. This is not terribly complex.

 

Helping others, yes. Forgiving trespass? No. What good comes from letting an enemy survive who will only try to kill you again?

 

Really. iNow said 'sometimes...' and you imply that trespass should never be forgiven? Is that what Jesus would advocate? I would not even assume that a trespasser is necessarily a killer. Why do you and does that assumption fall under the category of judging others?

[iNow]

Is your objection that you are compared to Christ, or that you are compared at all.

He said that IAs behaviors were more Christ-like than other activities like watching kids open high tech presents. I pointed out that being called Christ-like is not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment. Am I really being that unclear?

[zapatos]

He said that IAs behaviors were more Christ-like than other activities like watching kids open high tech presents. I pointed out that being called Christ-like is not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment. Am I really being that unclear?

Not at all, but I guess I am. Let me try again.

 

When commenting on someone's singing, is being called Sinatra-like not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment?

[iNow]

When commenting on someone's singing, is being called Sinatra-like not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment?

It's very possible, yes. Being called Sinatra-like is not by definition a good thing, but it's a false comparison anyway.

 

There is no debate about whether or not Sinatra actually existed, and there is no 2,000 year old set of mythologies rooted in the life of Frank Sinatra locking people into ignorance, triggering wars, forcing women to live in subjugation as second and even third-class citizens, preventing condoms from being distributed and used in HIV stricken lands, imprisoning men like Galileo for using evidence to display heliocentrism, standing in the way of the teaching of evolution to children, suggesting that nonbelievers will suffer eternal torment and burn in hell, that disobedient children should be killed, or any of the other ludicrous repugnant nonsense which comes from the mythology rooted in Jesus Christ.

[zapatos]

Ok, I get it.

 

So from a practical standpoint, how should I deal with the risk of unintentionally insulting people when comparing them to others? Obviously if I know my audience well I don't much risk comparing them to someone they dislike. And it's probably low risk comparing people to famous singers or athletes, but maybe a good rule of thumb is to not compare someone to a religious figure (or politician, for that matter) unless I know them well.

 

Or to get to the point you were making, maybe I should just say they sing well and leave it at that.

[iNow]

Or to get to the point you were making, maybe I should just say they sing well and leave it at that.

Thank you. Let's recognize the behavior and praise it for what it is, not for how it compares to our personal idols.

 

.

 

 

 

 

And now for something completely different. On topic... sort of.

 

 

http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=6656

 

IT’S HARD TO even consider the possibility that Santa isn’t real. Everyone seems to believe he is. As a kid, I heard his name in songs and stories and saw him in movies with very high production values. My mom and dad seemed to believe, batted down my doubts, told me he wanted me to be good and that he always knew if I wasn’t. And what wonderful gifts I received! Except when they were crappy, which I always figured was my fault somehow. All in all, despite the multiple incredible improbabilities involved in believing he was real, I believed – until the day I decided I cared enough about the truth to ask serious questions, at which point the whole façade fell to pieces. Fortunately the good things I had credited him with kept coming, but now I knew they came from the people around me, whom I could now properly thank.

 

Now go back and read that paragraph again, changing the ninth word from Santa to God.

 

Santa Claus, my secular friends, is the greatest gift a rational worldview ever had. Our culture has constructed a ... <continue reading>

[dragonstar57]

Thank you. Let's recognize the behavior and praise it for what it is, not for how it compares to our personal idols.

 

.

 

 

 

 

And now for something completely different. On topic... sort of.

 

 

http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=6656

how can anyone say santa is good for a skeptical mind when its the first time, where one is taught blind faith?

[iNow]

how can anyone say santa is good for a skeptical mind when its the first time, where one is taught blind faith?

Read the article and find out.

[dragonstar57]

Read the article and find out.

i said that having read the article. i disagree that it is rational as it teaches blind faith and is the first experience in believing in something without proof. if that were never introduced then religion as we know it could not exist.

ps. this may strain the borders of the topic slightly... but i'm op so w/e lol

 

He said that IAs behaviors were more Christ-like than other activities like watching kids open high tech presents. I pointed out that being called Christ-like is not always necessarily seen as a good thing by the recipient of the comment. Am I really being that unclear?

fyi u did sound a little pious

 

Okay, that seems fair, but I need your help to better understand. What is different in the moral views of Christ with the moral views of a non-believer? Please, be specific. You said there is great overlap, but still differences. So, what's different exactly?

the current western atheist moral code (generalising horribly here) does not frown at what Christians would consider promiscuity as much.

christens tend to be homophobic and nationalistic which are traits largely absent from atheism

sexism and racism and other outdated generally considered evil theologies are noted in a positive light in the bible both old and new testament.

Edited December 21, 2011 by dragonstar57

[iNow]

i disagree that it is rational as it teaches blind faith and is the first experience in believing in something without proof.

That's one opinion. I tend to agree with the author of the article, and like how they used the opportunity to let the child find their own answer and come to an understanding without it being spoon fed to them. This will serve them well throughout life, and will extend their critical thinking capacity well beyond just the issues of Santa or Satan's existence.

 

fyi u did sound a little pious

I don't see how. Please clarify and be specific.

 

 

the current western atheist moral code (generalising horribly here) does not frown at what Christians would consider promiscuity as much.

christens tend to be homophobic and nationalistic which are traits largely absent from atheism

sexism and racism and other outdated generally considered evil theologies are noted in a positive light in the bible both old and new testament.

I think you're trying a bit too hard with that one. There is no such thing as a moral code rooted in atheism. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of theism... a lack of belief in god or gods. The morals are separate, and come from the fact that we are a social species who evolved in packs and have altruistic humanist tendencies. Atheism doesn't inform people's morality in the way you are suggesting.

 

I also can't accept your points about atheists not being homophobic or nationalistic or sexist or racist. There are (unfortunately) a great many people who lack belief in god or gods who are very homophobic, very nationalistic, very sexist, and even very racist. Your dichotomy is false.

 

.

 

 

A follow-up post to the one I linked above for anyone interested: http://parentingbeyondbelief.com/blog/?p=6665

[iNow]

[iNow]

In the spirit of sharing, here's another great one:

 

[Trurl]

I have been thinking since I have read this post. I know why some people don’t like Christmas. They feel that religion is being forced on them. We all have our own views of life; what it means and how it was created. Some people are easily offended when they feel the big event that is Christmas.

 

I could just say: believe whatever you want. But this debate is never going to end. It is so important that we have a religious forum on a science site.

 

A lot of the negative view of religion is due to misrepresentation. I have the privilege to belong to a good church. The church believes in decisions. As in the Bible, Man is always presented with a choice. The church is just there to teach and bring believers together.

 

I have learned many things about Jesus. First he wasn’t here to argue his point and convert everyone. He merely taught those who wanted to learn. Second, he is not weak. In my interpretation “turning the other check” means to have tolerance. It does not mean to just let wrong happen. I envision Jesus as striking down anyone, including a Priest, who harmed a child.

 

Whatever we believe we are all trying to answer the same question: Why am I here and why do I die? Where did I come from? What am I supposed to do? It seems like it should end there, but this question bothers people so much they will kill each other. Be thankful that we live in free Countries where we are free to believe what we decide on.

 

We could also say that religion has caused endless wars, but was it the religion or is it the same feeling that makes people curse at “Merry Christmas?” In many ways your beliefs and Faith define you. Are people upset that you give presents this time of year or is it just man’s fault that he targets his hatred to something for no other reason than he needs something to hate?

 

Obviously we all have biased. That includes Christians and Non-Christians alike. However we must determine if our rebellious attitudes are based on fact or a personal discrimination based on the darker side of Man; a side which people would kill each other for regardless if there were no religions.

[iNow]

Trurl, I think you have a misapprehension. It's not that people are "cursing" or "hating" Christmas. Christmas has become a largely secular holiday celebrated by people of all faiths and non-believers alike. It's a time of year where we collectively relax, spend time with loved ones, and if possible leave work for a few days.

 

The issue is about including others... People of different faiths... and even people who find faith to be a flawed approach to this life... and bringing people together to share in the festivities and celebrations and kindness toward our fellow beings.

 

There is no war or hatred or cursing of christmas, no matter how many times your preacher or Fox news says otherwise. There is mostly just a desire to move beyond outdated thinking, approach the world in a rational and coherent manner, and to include as many people into our "human family" as possible. Religion too often serves as a way to prevent people from coming together... It's too often yet another source of division, and too often a way to see people with different views as "others" who are not like "us." The point is that we should break down these divisions and include diverse people with different worldviews into the holiday.

 

What about that do you think is hateful? What about that do you think "curses" christmas?

Edited December 31, 2011 by iNow

[Sorcerer]

Any reason to celebrate is a good reason, just remember why ur celebrating! In this case ur celebrating nothing and its AOK!!!!

 

 

What I love about Christmas is the time I get to spend with my family, what I hate about Chirstmas is the expectation ur gonna spend money to make it good.

[njaohnt]

should atheists retain religious holidays/festivals just because they like them/want to and can they do so without compromising their opinion? and should atheists be offended by religious elements to religious holidays that they celebrate?

while i do not believe in god/ Jesus i have no problem hearing a song about the birth of Jesus around Christmas (quite possibly the best holiday ever).

Sure you should! You'll get a better understanding Christianity, and maybe you'll convert to Christianity, like, if you don't, you'll burn for eternity. So go ahead.