Atheism and Christmas

[ninwa]

Every atheist is as atheistic as every other atheist. All it requires is lack of belief in god.

Not quite, remember this post?
http://vcenotes.com/forum/index.php/topic,27960.msg289418.html#msg289418

[/0]

I don't have a problem with celebrating christmas lol
To me christmas is simply a festive time where people can exchange good wishes and gifts. I don't care much for the birth of jesus but I don't mind it as a traditional story either.

Then again, some atheists might not want to celebrate christmas, and that's totally up to them. It's not like 'atheism' has a set of rules you have to follow, and I don't think you can generalise atheistic attitudes. There is no 'true' atheist in the same sense as a 'true' christian. Every atheist is as atheistic as every other atheist. All it requires is lack of belief in god.

Isn't atheism de facto an organized religion?
Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.

I like the way a youtube atheist puts it:

"
If atheism is a "religion",...
then Not Collecting Stamps is a "hobby".

If atheism is a "religion", ...
then Not Playing Football is a "sport".

If atheism is a "religion", ...
then 'OFF' is a "TV channel".

If atheism is a "religion", ...
then "Health" is a "disease".

If atheism is a "religion", ...
then "Dead" is a "lifestyle".

"


Agnosticism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with religion. It's simply a philosophy that you cannot know something for certain without proof.

Actually, perhaps I wasn't quite correct in my previous post, as there are, broadly, two kinds of atheists. The weak atheist does not believe in gods, while the strong atheist says there are no gods. While weak atheism is definitely not a religion, and I think it is the most reasonable stance, I guess you could argue strong atheism is pretty similar to religion in terms of its unsubstantiated belief.


EDIT: Thanks Ninwa... I made a mistake before.

I think what I mean is that weak atheists are all as atheistic as each other.

[m@tty]

I personally believe Jesus existed, having said that, just as a normal human being.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus existed at all. There are too many records from various sources of his life and death to plausibly refute his very existence.

With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.

I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.

( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )

[Yitzi_K]

With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.

I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.

( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )

I agree with you here. I don't understand it people when say 'well that wasn't a miracle, it was just nature'. For example, I read recently that scientists worked out that a strong wind could have caused the Reed Sea to split, hence there's no need to call it miracle. Maybe it was caused by natural causes, but the fact that it happened at that exact time is the miracle, as G-d manipulated nature to cause it to happen at the right time. Simirlarly, 'the walls of Jericho weren't brought down by G-d, it was an earthquake'. Well yeh, but Who caused the earthquake?

[QuantumJG]

didn't read the entire thread but i lul'd slightly

"to become an atheist" being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically, realising how rubbish religion is (to put it bluntly ) so you're not converting to be one, you are still the same person. it's a change in thought not a conversion... to me, christmas has no religion attached to it, it's just a family celebration type event whereby it is a time of giving and such.
so celebrate what you choose, let it be religious only if you decide it to be, otherwise it is not religious at all.
(agreeing to what Russ/binders said)
;P

Lol!

being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically,

You have just eliminated 3000 years of religious thought

What vexx said is true though. I'm bluntly going to say that the majority of people want to be told how to live their life. Religion is that algorithm, recipe, etc.

"waits for abusive replies"

[Cianyx]

I personally believe Jesus existed, having said that, just as a normal human being.

I don't think I've ever heard of anyone who doesn't believe that Jesus existed at all. There are too many records from various sources of his life and death to plausibly refute his very existence.

I would be interested in seeing said sources.

[Spreadbury]

I would be interested in seeing said sources.

I'm no expert, and this isn't a source, but to my knowledge several religions believe Jesus existed in some form. It would be strange for religions that seem against each other to agree upon the existence of one figure when they can't agree on anything else.

[zomgSEAN]

Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.

Do you contend that agnostics are unable or unwilling to form a position, and therefore perhaps simple-minded individuals?

Being agnostic myself, i would find this to be quite insulting.

I understand that 'God' can not logically exist, given the laws of physics etc which we have currently determined are appropriate for the world. In consideration of this mathematical reasoning, i can completely agree that God does not exist.

However, to restrict my 'religious' beliefs to such laws would undoubtedly prove me to be narrow-minded and unreasonable. For to follow such rules so strictly would suggest that no further breakthroughs can occur in this field of reasoning; breakthroughs that could potentially prove 'God's' existence.

I think it would be disrespectful to the progression of society and the potential of the human mind to dismiss the existence of 'God' because of such laws.

Be a little more considerate when defining the nature of those that do not commit themselves to either side of the religious debate.

[Cianyx]

Hardly surprising considering they are all Abrahamic faiths

Hmmm, ham

[Eriny]

In relation to the OP's question, I think Christmas is more of a cultural thing than a religious thing as such. After all, Christmas came from pagan rituals anyway (which are awesome): http://www.essortment.com/all/christmaspagan_rece.htm

[Chavi]

being an atheist just means you've discovered you can actually think about the world logically,

You have just eliminated 3000 years of religious thought

What vexx said is true though. I'm bluntly going to say that the majority of people want to be told how to live their life. Religion is that algorithm, recipe, etc.

"waits for abusive replies"

I wouldn't be so quick to rule out religion as illogical. But it's funny to see that in your 17/18 years of erudite experience in theology, you're able to do so. And ye - organized religion is essentially a way of life, an "algorithm", a set of laws. How does that detract from the veracity of certain religions? The American constitution was heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thought.

Also a side note - if you logically decide to convert/discover a religion for yourself does that mean that "you can't actually think about the world logically?"

[Chavi]

Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.

Do you contend that agnostics are unable or unwilling to form a position, and therefore perhaps simple-minded individuals?

Being agnostic myself, i would find this to be quite insulting.

I understand that 'God' can not logically exist, given the laws of physics etc which we have currently determined are appropriate for the world. In consideration of this mathematical reasoning, i can completely agree that God does not exist.

However, to restrict my 'religious' beliefs to such laws would undoubtedly prove me to be narrow-minded and unreasonable. For to follow such rules so strictly would suggest that no further breakthroughs can occur in this field of reasoning; breakthroughs that could potentially prove 'God's' existence.

I think it would be disrespectful to the progression of society and the potential of the human mind to dismiss the existence of 'God' because of such laws.

Be a little more considerate when defining the nature of those that do not commit themselves to either side of the religious debate.

I was merely stating the definition.

ag·nos·ti·cism-  /ægˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/ [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm]
1. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
2. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

ir·re·li·gion- /ˌɪrɪˈlɪdʒən/[ir-i-lij-uhn]
–noun
1. lack of religion.
2. hostility or indifference to religion; impiety.

[MuggedByReality]

With regards to the star seen at his birth, scientists predict the gigantic star was actually the light from a supanova that had reached earth long after it actually went supernova.

I don't see the point of this? How does the fact that the light was from a natural source detract from the act itself? God orchestrated it, utilising the universe he created. Just because there is a natural explanation for something does not exclude any sentient involvement.

( Cue massive debate? .. I hope not, can't be bothered xD )

I agree with you here. I don't understand it people when say 'well that wasn't a miracle, it was just nature'. For example, I read recently that scientists worked out that a strong wind could have caused the Reed Sea to split, hence there's no need to call it miracle. Maybe it was caused by natural causes, but the fact that it happened at that exact time is the miracle, as G-d manipulated nature to cause it to happen at the right time. Simirlarly, 'the walls of Jericho weren't brought down by G-d, it was an earthquake'. Well yeh, but Who caused the earthquake?

 How rare an event was the parting on its own though? Did the Hebrews really see choppy waves give way to wet sand in a flash? Or was the drying-up a slower, less exceptional (and possibly cyclical) phenomenon?

[Russ]

But it's funny to see that in your 17/18 years of erudite experience in theology, you're able to do so.

Pot, kettle, ad hominem etc.

He's saying that religion can prescribe things for people to accept unquestioningly, which isn't compatible with logical and independent thought, not that all religions are nonsense.

[ninwa]

Agnosticism or Irreligion is the blanket to describe those who don't know and don't care.

Do you contend that agnostics are unable or unwilling to form a position, and therefore perhaps simple-minded individuals?

Being agnostic myself, i would find this to be quite insulting.

I understand that 'God' can not logically exist, given the laws of physics etc which we have currently determined are appropriate for the world. In consideration of this mathematical reasoning, i can completely agree that God does not exist.

However, to restrict my 'religious' beliefs to such laws would undoubtedly prove me to be narrow-minded and unreasonable. For to follow such rules so strictly would suggest that no further breakthroughs can occur in this field of reasoning; breakthroughs that could potentially prove 'God's' existence.

I think it would be disrespectful to the progression of society and the potential of the human mind to dismiss the existence of 'God' because of such laws.

Be a little more considerate when defining the nature of those that do not commit themselves to either side of the religious debate.

I was merely stating the definition.

ag·nos·ti·cism-  /ægˈnɒstəˌsɪzəm/ [ag-nos-tuh-siz-uhm]
1. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
2. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

ir·re·li·gion- /ˌɪrɪˈlɪdʒən/[ir-i-lij-uhn]
–noun
1. lack of religion.
2. hostility or indifference to religion; impiety.

I believe he was taking issue with your contention that all agnostics "don't care".