Offended by Christmas in Oxford, England

[Musicology]

I was, she said, 'offending her sensibilities by imposing on them a festival to which she did not subscribe'.

This was the grounds of her complaint. Saying that Christmas, in Oxford, England, should not be celebrated by the town council as it has been for hundreds of years because it was wrong that she, as a non-Christian, should pay for the marking of an event at taxpayers expense which cannot be proved to have happened 2000 years ago. And, the complainant continued, 'Since my views are as important as those of Christian people, and since I am a resident of Oxford, like yourself, and since I pay taxes to this city, I here exercise my request not to pay for Christmas celebrations here in Oxford'.

The solution to which was as follows -

The lady was asked how much money she considered that she had paid in tax which she wished to be refunded. She answered that she had no idea.

A calculation was quickly made by the city accountant. She was entitled to 70 pence of English money. (The total costs of Christmas celebrations in Oxford divided by the population of Oxford). Which she was offered in the form of a cash payment.

This offer also offended the lady and she is now preparing a complaint against Oxford Council saying she wanted the Christmas festivities to be banned and was not looking for any cash refund.

And so the money (less in value than one US dollar) remains, till today, on the table of the council offices for her to collect at her convenience.

The latest news on this drama is that Oxford City Council are preparing a letter of complaint to the lady herself saying that she has still not collected her money, and this failure of hers is offensive to the secretary on whose desk the money now sits.

[Paulclem]

Some people are nuts. I know lots of Sikhs and Muslims in Coventry who have Christmas trees and presents who don't believe in the religious reasons, but join in. I join in too with my family, and we're not Christians.

[Maximilianus]

If I were this lady, I would have either taken the 70 pence or shut my mouth for good. But of course, if her ducklings are not walking in line, then she cannot do neither one nor the other :p Can anyone tell Oxford City Council that I could make some use of those 70 pence if she doesn't want them. I promise not to boycott any festivity :D

[JBI]

It's people like that who make people with legitimate complaints against Christian institution and religious bias get hammered - kind of sad how ridiculous the woman is - it's like me complaining that I don't want to pay for the patch of road in front of my neighbor's driveway to be plowed because I don't like him (which is true, I really don't).

[Haunted]

To protest having her tax money spent on decorations and then refused to take her refund check, people like that are just out to make trouble.

The whole PC thing has gone too far. They preach religious tolerance, but then they take away "Merry Christmas" from Christmas. So what's so tolerant about that if they can't tolerate the word Christmas?

And if the point is diversity, then it should also include Christmas.

[Virgil]

If I were the town I would not have offerred her the 70 pence. I would have said, feel free to move.

[Lokasenna]

To protest having her tax money spent on decorations and then refused to take her refund check, people like that are just out to make trouble.

The whole PC thing has gone too far. They preach religious tolerance, but then they take away "Merry Christmas" from Christmas. So what's so tolerant about that if they can't tolerate the word Christmas?

And if the point is diversity, then it should also include Christmas.

You're quite right. The mad cow was just out to cause trouble...

That said, a lot of PC town councils have changed the literature read "Winter Festival" rather than Christmas, and removed all the iconography.

The thing is, I have no problem with other festivals being celebrated in the same way... in fact, I think they should be! Go on, lets have lots of Ramadan, Hanukah and Divali celebrations - I will happily join into the spirit of things, and I think it would do a lot for inter-faith relations. Heck, if some mad aetheists want to oraganize some sort of festival around that (though I'm not quite sure how that would work?) then I'd be equally happy for my tax money to go to that - we need more festivals, not fewer!

[Taliesin]

Grinch reference coming in three, two,...

[Haunted]

If I were the town I would not have offerred her the 70 pence. I would have said, feel free to move.

To expedite things, I would take up a collection toward her moving expenses.

[1n50mn14]

Ridiculous. The meaning of tolerance and acceptance is destroyed by people like this. It's been a long, hard, uphill battle for many religions to be able to publicly celebrate their holidays, and those of us in countries with the freedom of religious choice need to recognize that this freedom applies to everybody... even the more widely celebrated and traditional holidays, such as Christmas.

For the sake of seventy pence...? Deal with it!

[Niamh]

what an idiot.

[JuniperWoolf]

Plus Chrismas is about as Christian as trick-or-treating (if it were re-dubbed "God-candy-day). A very old holiday with a new nametag. I love Christmas, the solstice holiday is a good time and belongs to everyone, silly misguided non-Christian woman.

[Virgil]

To expedite things, I would take up a collection toward her moving expenses.

And I would chip in too.

[Madame X]

This was the grounds of her complaint. Saying that Christmas, in Oxford, England, should not be celebrated by the town council as it has been for hundreds of years because it was wrong that she, as a non-Christian, should pay for the marking of an event at taxpayers expense which cannot be proved to have happened 2000 years ago. And, the complainant continued, 'Since my views are as important as those of Christian people, and since I am a resident of Oxford, like yourself, and since I pay taxes to this city, I here exercise my request not to pay for Christmas celebrations here in Oxford'.

Hmm, I like it. Quite Christian of her, too; persecution first, profit anon. Jesus would be proud. :thumbs_up

[andave_ya]

Just cause...

Grinch reference coming in three, two,...

Grinch! Oh Grinch! What a persnickety old lady! Grouchy Grinchy old killjoy! I hope Santa gives you a lump of coal!

[papayahed]

Does anyone else see the irony?

[Scheherazade]

Where was this piece of news taken from?

Could you please post the link?

[Babbalanja]

Where was this piece of news taken from?
:lol:

I call shenanigans.

Every year around this time, the Christian majority in America (and, it seems, elsewhere in the West) is abuzz with urban legends involving joyless PC crybabies trying to spoil everyone's Christmas cheer. These myths resonate in a population whose paranoia about marginalization is surprisingly resilient, given the plain fact of their dominance in this society. The threat of multiculturalism fans the flames of their delusion.

Oddly enough, it's not atheists who usually push the generic "holiday" agenda that gets blown out of proportion by Christians. It's people of different faiths, or those who have the audacity to be sensitive to their need for inclusion in the festive season. The notion of saying "Happy Holidays" might seem harmless to those of us without a persecution complex. But to the Christians in America, this unforgivable bastardization of the Christmas tradition is nothing less than blasphemy. No one seems to recall that this is a pagan solstice holiday anyway, so it's Christians who are guilty of hijacking a tradition and perverting it in their own interests.

Please, Christians, hang up your lights and sing your carols to your heart's content. And stop screaming like you're being led onto cattle cars by the godless multiculturalist SS. Welcome to the 21st century already.

Regards,

Istvan

[billl]

Good question Schezerezade. In case others haven't, I googled:

Oxford Christmas 70 pence

and

Oxford City Council Christmas 70 pence

and the quote

Since my views are as important as those of Christian people, and since I am a resident of Oxford, like yourself, and since I pay taxes to this city, I here exercise my request not to pay for Christmas celebrations here in Oxford

and THIS thread (this one here on litnet) is the first hit each time, with the quotation by the woman being discovered in this thread only. Maybe it is a misquote, or from an obscure newspaper or something? Is Oxford a big city where this sort of thing might get a bit more coverage (I of course am familiar with the university)?

[Virgil]

:Every year around this time, the Christian majority in America (and, it seems, elsewhere in the West) is abuzz with urban legends involving joyless PC crybabies trying to spoil everyone's Christmas cheer.

Please. There are an inifinte number of cases the ACLU brings up every year in the United States to stop Christmas celebrations in public places and in schools. Just look them up.

If anyone is the cry baby it's all the atheists who have so little confidence in their belief (and that word is used consciously) that they have to try to stop people of other religions from displaying their faiths.

[JuniperWoolf]

Woah, you're right bill! I searched high and low, using every word combination that I could think of, and I found absolutely nothing.
I feel so misled and gullible...
There's a lesson in this: never believe what you read on the forums without proof. I guess now I know.


Please. There are an inifinte number of cases the ACLU brings up every year in the United States to stop Christmas celebrations in public places and in schools. Just look them up..

Maybe so (and I'm not saying that you're right) but THIS story would seem to be a lie meant to inspire anti-atheist fervor (and it obviously did, just scroll through the previous posts. My own post was one of them, I'm so ashamed!). The use of lies and propaganda to manipulate how people think about a specific group is not okay, and saying "yeah but that really happens" doesn't excuse the behavior.


If anyone is the cry baby it's all the atheists who have so little confidence in their belief (and that word is used consciously) that they have to try to stop people of other religions from displaying their faiths.

Actually, Babbalanja is an atheist and if you'll look closely at his post (or maybe not so closely) you'll already see a response to this accusation:



Oddly enough, it's not atheists who usually push the generic "holiday" agenda that gets blown out of proportion by Christians. It's people of different faiths, or those who have the audacity to be sensitive to their need for inclusion in the festive season. The notion of saying "Happy Holidays" might seem harmless to those of us without a persecution complex. But to the Christians in America, this unforgivable bastardization of the Christmas tradition is nothing less than blasphemy. No one seems to recall that this is a pagan solstice holiday anyway, so it's Christians who are guilty of hijacking a tradition and perverting it in their own interests.


You also already know that I'm far from Christian, and I've already addressed the silly notion that anti-Christmas = anti-Christian in my previous post. Christmas in no way belongs to Christians, the only Christian thing about it is the new name. The winter solstice holiday is ancient and pagan. Nietzsche himself absolutely LOVED Christmas (and he's the uber-atheist).

[billl]

EDITED...

I just repeated a bit of Juniper's, and added that:

I'm with Lokasenna on this one. Keep the symbols and introduce new ones if necessary, be respectful, and have less fighting about it.

[Babbalanja]

Please. There are an inifinte number of cases the ACLU brings up every year in the United States to stop Christmas celebrations in public places and in schools. Just look them up. An infinite number. :rolleyes:

Actually, the American Civil Liberties Union has never brought a suit against anyone for religious displays or activities that weren't on government property or in a public school. There is that establishment clause in the Constitution, remember? Shouldn't the government stay out of people's religion or lack thereof?


If anyone is the cry baby it's all the atheists who have so little confidence in their belief (and that word is used consciously) that they have to try to stop people of other religions from displaying their faiths.And again, since there's no great big atheist conspiracy to stop you from displaying your faith, why don't you have some egg nog and lighten up, okay?

Regards,

Istvan

[billl]

Christmas in schools seems fine to me. You don't have to be explicitly Christian about it, like Juniper points out. Kids like Christmas, and as long as it isn't freaking non-Christian kids out with religious information, I think it is a mostly harmless part of the culture most places in the U.S.

[Haunted]

Woah, you're right bill! I searched high and low, using every word combination that I could think of, and I found absolutely nothing.
I feel so misled and gullible...
There's a lesson in this: never believe what you read on the forums without proof. I guess now I know.


Don't forget there's still such a thing as the print media. What would truly be gullible is to think that Google is the whole universe of everything that ever existed.

It is possible that there are small town newspapers which are still printed on a press and have zero Internet presence. Those articles would not have come up on Google.

Until the OP provides us with the source, let's not call Musicology a liar just because there's no electronically searchable version of the story.

[jocky]

You don't have to believe in Christmas festivals, or the Gods and there is no way anyone has to subscribe to given theological canons, but our kids love it, they believe in Santa and love Christmas Day. So maybe we should think twice before ruining their Xmas and telling them it is rubbish and then have the nerve to tell them that Dickens was a wonderful writer. I love their faces on the 25th, perhaps you dont!

[JuniperWoolf]

It is possible that there are small town newspapers which are still printed on a press and have zero Internet presence. Those articles would not have come up on Google.

Valid point, but really? A small town like Oxford (of 165 000 people)? Why would this story (in which the "city accountant" has gotten involved, and a woman is "preparing a complaint against Oxford City Council") be in a little independant printed newspaper, but not The Oxford Times (go ahead and look)?

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/



Until the OP provides us with the source, let's not call Musicology a liar just because there's no electronically searchable version of the story.

I didn't call her a liar. I eagerly await her defense.

[Haunted]

Valid point, but really? A small town like Oxford (of 165 000 people)? Why would this story be in a printed newspaper, but not The Oxford Times (go ahead and look)?

http://www.oxfordtimes.co.uk/



I didn't call her a liar. I eagerly await her defense.


Your reaction to the lack of electronic proof — "I feel so misled and gullible" — suggests that the poster made the story up.

Not every story is covered by The Oxford Times. It's up to the editors.

[JuniperWoolf]

Not every story is covered by The Oxford Times. It's up to the editors.

Uh huh. Again...



I eagerly await her defense.

[jocky]

Aint it pathetic, is this not the Literature Thread ? You can write about Machiavelli, Xenephon, Shakespeare and thousands of others. Why not write about the way you feel ? What is the point of knowing the end and beginning of a poem or a novel and arguing about meaning ? You have to assume that everyone in this thread is as well read as yourself. Just write !

[Mathor]

I haven't really bothered to get into this conversation as of yet, but in the original post it says nothing of a newspaper story or a 'news' story. It just says "the latest news on the drama". I think the OP is just saying the course of events that has happened and was using the word news, to mean more-so the news of his life. If such a thing has happened to this person, by the text that he wrote, it appears that the source he's gotten it from is the lady herself or from the oxford city council writing him a letter, or many of other firsthand sources.

[Dirtbag]

I think it raises a valid question. Should the government really be spending money on Christmas decorations? 70 pence from 165,000 people is a fair bit of money. Wouldn't it be more in the Christmas spirit to use it to benefit society in a less superficial way? Winter is an especially tough time for the homeless.

[Haunted]

{edit}

Unfortunately it seems that some people have already forgotten that the print and broadcast media are still around. News stories are covered by newspapers, magazines, as well as television. Unless every piece of broadcast news and printed article is archived online, it won't pop up on Google. But it doesn't mean these events never happened.

[Babbalanja]

I failed to see the connection. All it shows is the two posts share a religious angle. The Mozart post as "ample imagination" is your own characterization and reflects your personal skepticism.I don't see anything religious in the "Mozart myth." As I said, it's merely that Robert has demonstrated that he possesses a very exuberant imagination. We should read his posts not as truth, but as speculative fiction.


But skepticism can only go so far. It is not a tool to measure the legitimacy of anything.
It is, in fact, an approach to claims that establishes what we should and shouldn't consider legitimate. People on this very board evidently felt that the OP was describing something that literally happened. I mentioned before that I have heard such urban legends every year for a long time, so I wait for verification before automatically accepting them as fact.


Unless every piece of broadcast news and printed article is archived online, it won't pop up on Google. But it doesn't mean these events never happened.Point taken. But you can't use the lack of such evidence as proof that they did happen. And JuniperWoolf rightly indicated that since Oxford isn't exactly a remote backwater, it would not be completely unreasonable to expect that a report of such an event may be posted online.

But by all means, we should wait for Robert to provide his explanation of whether this happened to him, or where he found the story.

Regards,

Istvan

[kane 7417]

Personally I detest christmas. Coming from the U.S. it is a commercialised holiday as is a few others. Each person has their own outlooks on stuff, but the grouchy sore spirited person such as myself and others like me need to understand and respect the social wants of the cheerful majority

[Haunted]

Point taken. But you can't use the lack of such evidence as proof that they did happen.

Evidence...Like a story turning up on Google? That doesn't mean it happened either.

We instinctively search for sources on the Internet, forgetting other offline media. The irony is, just because something comes up on the Internet doesn't mean it's true. Internet hoaxes abound.

Anyway most of us are familiar with this story, just insert the name of a different town and year.

Just an hour ago I heard a 10 second TV news segment about some town with both Christmas and Menorah displays, and someone wanted the Nativity scene down. It happens every year and it's becoming so mundane and so expected, some news carriers don't even consider it newsworthy. The few that are covered each year may only get their 10 seconds of fame.

[Babbalanja]

Evidence...Like a story turning up on Google? That doesn't mean it happened either.

We instinctively search for sources on the Internet, forgetting other offline media. The irony is, just because something comes up on the Internet doesn't mean it's true. Internet hoaxes abound.
I'm confused as to what point you're making with all this. The OP related a story that people believed was true, and several of us expressed doubts as to its validity. You said the lack of a link to an actual news source isn't proof it didn't happen. Now you say even a link to a news source isn't persuasive evidence that it happened. So what are we supposed to believe about this story?


Anyway most of us are familiar with this story, just insert the name of a different town and year.

Just an hour ago I heard a 10 second TV news segment about some town with both Christmas and Menorah displays, and someone wanted the Nativity scene down. It happens every year and it's becoming so mundane and so expected, some news carriers don't even consider it newsworthy. The few that are covered each year may only get their 10 seconds of fame.
Since you didn't provide a link to this let's-assume-plausible story, I can't tell what the particulars are. I've said already that many urban legends circulate about the persecution of Christians who only want to display their faith in December.

I don't actually know of one case of people lobbying to have Christmas displays taken down except when it was on government property. And the point of such lobbying seems irrelevant to some Christians here, but it's important: the government should leave religious worship to the individuals and families in their community.

No one should complain if you put Christmas decorations on your front lawn, or if a church has a nativity scene out front. Is anyone actually complaining?

Again, if you'd like to show us one of these numerous instances where Christians are subjected to persecution by the heathen hordes, I'd be glad to listen.

Regards,

Istvan

[Haunted]

I'm confused as to what point you're making with all this. The OP related a story that people believed was true, and several of us expressed doubts as to its validity. You said the lack of a link to an actual news source isn't proof it didn't happen. Now you say even a link to a news source isn't persuasive evidence that it happened. So what are we supposed to believe about this story?

I was just commenting that, some think that if a story comes up on an Internet search, they automatically assumed its true. So when the OP's story didn't come up, they didn't believe it to have happened.

But the flipside is, even if a story appears on the Internet, that doesn't make it real either.

That's just a comment on sourcing stories, it has no bearing on the legitimacy of the OP's story one way or the other. Sorry for the confusion.



Since you didn't provide a link to this let's-assume-plausible story, I can't tell what the particulars are. I've said already that many urban legends circulate about the persecution of Christians who only want to display their faith in December.

That's the point I was making: for broadcast news, there may not be an online version of it.

The story I just saw was on the WCBS-New York station, 12 noon EST. That's the source.



Again, if you'd like to show us one of these numerous instances where Christians are subjected to persecution by the heathen hordes, I'd be glad to listen.

In one of my old neighborhoods there is a Christian cemetery with a statue of Mary. I don't think the cemetery is government land. However, the Jewish community found it offensive and wanted it taken down.

[OrphanPip]

In one of my old neighborhoods there is a Christian cemetery with a statue of Mary. I don't think the cemetery is government land. However, the Jewish community found it offensive and wanted it taken down.

The Jewish community or one loon from the Jewish community? The media has a tendency to take unrepresentative individuals from groups and hold them up as the models of the community they've attached to them.

[Haunted]

The Jewish community or one loon from the Jewish community? The media has a tendency to take unrepresentative individuals from groups and hold them up as the models of the community they've attached to them.

True, could just be one loon or two. I'm correcting it to "some members of the Jewish community".

[Babbalanja]

That's the point I was making: for broadcast news, there may not be an online version of it.

The story I just saw was on the WCBS-New York station, 12 noon EST. That's the source.
Well, the station's website (http://wcbstv.com/) even has links to a story about a window-blind recall, but not a word on this horrific incident involving the persecution of Christians.


In one of my old neighborhoods there is a Christian cemetery with a statue of Mary. I don't think the cemetery is government land. However, the Jewish community found it offensive and wanted it taken down.
Again, without a source where we can see the whole story, I'm inclined to say this is unlikely.

Regards,

Istvan

[Haunted]

Well, the station's website (http://wcbstv.com/) even has links to a story about a window-blind recall, but not a word on this horrific incident involving the persecution of Christians.

there have been stories and reports I saw there that's not on their website.

Again, back to what I had said. Just because you can't find it on a website doesn't mean it didn't happened. I feel like a broken record.

It may be an upcoming story. Tune in to the 5pm, 6pm, and 11pm news. I know what I hear.

[Virgil]

There's a lot here. I'm not sure I can address it all. Let me see.


Actually, Babbalanja is an atheist and if you'll look closely at his post (or maybe not so closely) you'll already see a response to this accusation:

I know he's an atheist {edit}.


An infinite number. :rolleyes:

Actually, the American Civil Liberties Union has never brought a suit against anyone for religious displays or activities that weren't on government property or in a public school. There is that establishment clause in the Constitution, remember? Shouldn't the government stay out of people's religion or lack thereof?

And again, since there's no great big atheist conspiracy to stop you from displaying your faith, why don't you have some egg nog and lighten up, okay?

Regards,

Istvan
Ok, I'll lighten up if you do too. :) Seriously.

Now as to the constitution clause, it refers to the federal gov't establishing a national religion. It says nothing about local governments displaying holiday items. For the first 175 years it was not a problem. Most towns were highly homogeneous, and so it was never an issue. With increasing diversity there has been a little infighting, but even there it was accomodated by displaying holiday religious items of all religions. I think the problem has come to a head when atheists refuse to accept any religious items. I'm for displaying items of all religions. If atheists don't have any then I'm afraid that's just whiney on their part, isn't it? ;) And by the way, if you go to Washington DC, you'll find religious references in many of the national monuments and buildings.

[Babbalanja]

Ok, I'll lighten up if you do too. :)
Virgil, happy birthday, by the way.

I'm not the one here that's fulminating against the atheist multiculturalist conspiracy that's trying to stamp out Christianity. This is a wild fantasy that gets trotted out every year, complete with sordid tales of hapless Christians getting persecuted for having creches in their yards or going around caroling. The truth is that the only time Christians get static is when they use government property or funds for their displays. Please acknowledge this crucial distinction.

I think it's so comical that Christians can consider themselves marginalized in this country. Any attempt to make people see how seeped we are in religiosity is considered an affront to people's faith.

A little perspective is in order. I'm glad I could provide it.

Happy Holidays!

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

Now as to the constitution clause, it refers to the federal gov't establishing a national religion. It says nothing about local governments displaying holiday items. For the first 175 years it was not a problem. Most towns were highly homogeneous, and so it was never an issue. With increasing diversity there has been a little infighting, but even there it was accomodated by displaying holiday religious items of all religions. I think the problem has come to a head when atheists refuse to accept any religious items. I'm for displaying items of all religions. If atheists don't have any then I'm afraid that's just whiney on their part, isn't it? ;) And by the way, if you go to Washington DC, you'll find religious references in many of the national monuments and buildings.

This is a great point, Virgil. I'm tired of people who don't want to believe in God getting their way by erasing and eradicating all references to God in those "public" places. That is as offensive to me as they claim that a nativity is to them. I don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, so I don't really put any emphasis the nativity for the holiday. Even though I know that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, it doesn't offend me in the slightest. I think the atheists just need to suck it up and ignore the displays.

[Virgil]

This is a great point, Virgil. I'm tired of people who don't want to believe in God getting their way by erasing and eradicating all references to God in those "public" places. That is as offensive to me as they claim that a nativity is to them. I don't celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday, so I don't really put any emphasis the nativity for the holiday. Even though I know that Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, it doesn't offend me in the slightest. I think the atheists just need to suck it up and ignore the displays.

Thanks Bien.

I want to make one other point about all the December 25th references and how it was mixed up with some pagan holiday. Sure no one quite knows exactly when Christ was born and if it got tangled up with some pagan holiday that no one today knows, so what? Who celebrates that pagan holiday today? NO ONE!!! The over two billion Christians worldwide (and growing!), one third of the entire planet celebrates the birth of Christ - the immaculate conception, the incarnation of God, the physical embodiment of love and compassion. What one third of the world celebrates is the following from the Gospel of Luke, chapter 2.


1 Now it happened that at this time Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be made of the whole inhabited world.
2 This census -- the first -- took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria,
3 and everyone went to be registered, each to his own town.
4 So Joseph set out from the town of Nazareth in Galilee for Judaea, to David's town called Bethlehem, since he was of David's House and line,
5 in order to be registered together with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
6 Now it happened that, while they were there, the time came for her to have her child,
7 and she gave birth to a son, her first-born. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the living-space.
8 In the countryside close by there were shepherds out in the fields keeping guard over their sheep during the watches of the night.
9 An angel of the Lord stood over them and the glory of the Lord shone round them. They were terrified,
10 but the angel said, 'Do not be afraid. Look, I bring you news of great joy, a joy to be shared by the whole people.

That's what I celebrate.

[1n50mn14]

I'd just like to ask what the majority of people celebrating Christmas are really celebrating: the birth of Christ, or their own family/traditions/gifts/whatever. Santa Clause and gift giving are not exactly, as somebody pointed out earlier, very religious. Christmas is hardly a religious holiday. It's an invalid point to argue as if it were.

[billl]

I think it is a religious holiday, at least for a lot of people. It has religious origins, certainly, and in fact has the name "Christ" in it. But that is a good thing to point out, about how in different families, the religious aspect can be more or less important than other aspects of the holiday, or is often even absent entirely.

[JuniperWoolf]

Again, back to what I had said. Just because you can't find it on a website doesn't mean it didn't happened. I feel like a broken record.

That's because you keep re-iterating points that Babbalanja has already addressed, over and over and over again.

This is getting old. I realize that this was bound to happen in a thread created for the purpose of attacking atheism, but why do all of our conversations have to end in a stupid religious debate (which is really just the same debate again and again)?


I think the atheists just need to suck it up and ignore the displays.

Bah! :brickwall
They do ignore them. We've already been over this (and this is the second time that I’ve used this quote):


Oddly enough, it's not atheists who usually push the generic "holiday" agenda that gets blown out of proportion by Christians. It's people of different faiths, or those who have the audacity to be sensitive to their need for inclusion in the festive season. The notion of saying "Happy Holidays" might seem harmless to those of us without a persecution complex. But to the Christians in America, this unforgivable bastardization of the Christmas tradition is nothing less than blasphemy. No one seems to recall that this is a pagan solstice holiday anyway, so it's Christians who are guilty of hijacking a tradition and perverting it in their own interests.



Ok, I'll lighten up if you do too. :)

Hear hear. Let’s all lighten up. This argument is going nowhere.


EDIT: The following is a little tangent that has nothing to do with the subject at hand, but one in which I have personal interest.


Who celebrates that pagan holiday today? NO ONE!!!

:( Aw, hey man! I do, and so does Dark Muse. I know a lot of people who've put some research into winter holidays and come to the conclusion that Yule is where it's at in a totally non-religious way... furthermore, people might not know that they're engaging in an ancient plant ritual whose roots (no pun intended) are embedded in paganism every year (like how people might not know that thanksgiving is a ritual sacrifice), but they are.

[TheFifthElement]

I want to make one other point about all the December 25th references and how it was mixed up with some pagan holiday. Sure no one quite knows exactly when Christ was born and if it got tangled up with some pagan holiday that no one today knows, so what? Who celebrates that pagan holiday today? NO ONE!!!

Actually plenty of people do Virgil. That's why lots of 'Christmas' cards refer to 'Yuletide' which is a pagan festival and which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule and it also coincides quite neatly with the winter solstice which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice

It's a bit hypocritical to say that people should stop trying to remove the religious element from Christmas, when Christmas itself supplanted itself over number of other religious views. What goes around comes around right? Perhaps Christianity is falling foul of not observing its own rules: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Perhaps this is just the next stage, who knows? Perhaps not. In my opinion there's room for all, I'd love there to be national celebrations of Eid and Hannukah, Diwali and the like. I might not believe in it, but I respect other's rights to their beliefs and disbeliefs.
Think about it this way: if you would be offended by athiest symbolism, as many Christians are - I recall the outrage when Richard Dawkins sponsored a campaign of posters stating there is no God - then appreciate that athiests are offended by Christian symbolism and respect that and honour their choice as you would expect them to honour yours.
You can read about the athiest campaigns here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/11/19/atheist-poster-campaign-launched-91466-25203006/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7818980.stm
http://www.humanism.org.uk/billboards

[kasie]

I'd just like to ask what the majority of people celebrating Christmas are really celebrating: the birth of Christ, or their own family/traditions/gifts/whatever. Santa Clause and gift giving are not exactly, as somebody pointed out earlier, very religious. Christmas is hardly a religious holiday. It's an invalid point to argue as if it were.

I used to read a Christmas story to my littlies in which Santa Claus featured - I think it was The Good Little Christmas Tree by Ursula Moray Williams - I forget the exact words but the gist of it was: 'Good Old Father Christmas, Santa Claus, Saint Nick - it doesn't matter what you call him, he is the Spirit of Loving Kindness.' The definition rung a bell for me and has stuck.

As for the 'Mrs Scrooge of Oxford' story - last night I was talking on the phone to my sister-in-law who lives in Oxford and she had never heard the story, neither had brother-in-law who is an Oxfordshire County (but not City) Councillor. They both had a good laugh over it and said it wouldn't surprise them if it were true, given the range of belief/unbelief in the area, but nothing they knew of had surfaced in the local press or on local tv.

As for the money being put to better use, I agree to a point but I worked out that 70p is something like less than 0.07% of my Council Tax and I can hardly grudge that for something that makes me (and a lot of other people) feel light-hearted in bleak, wet, windy December. I can think of a lot of other 'money-wasting' projects I'd rather axe - but I dare say someone somewhere has benefitted from those as well.

[Virgil]

:( Aw, hey man! I do, and so does Dark Muse. I know a lot of people who've put some research into winter holidays and come to the conclusion that Yule is where it's at in a totally non-religious way... furthermore, people might not know that they're engaging in an ancient plant ritual whose roots (no pun intended) are embedded in paganism every year (like how people might not know that thanksgiving is a ritual sacrifice), but they are.
Ok, when I said "no one" I didn't mean zero. Those that are celebrating some pagan holiday must be a fraction of a percent. But nonetheless i don't wish to disparage those that honestly embracing it. My apologies.


Actually plenty of people do Virgil. That's why lots of 'Christmas' cards refer to 'Yuletide' which is a pagan festival and which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yule and it also coincides quite neatly with the winter solstice which you can read about here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice

So you're saying that those who reference "yuletide" are celebrating an ancient Germanic holiday? I didn't think anyone still worshiped Thor and Oden. What you're confusing is a lingusitic adaptation (originating in that Germanic festival) with a time of year. I can't find the passage but Alfred tennyson in what amounts to a very Christian poem, In Memoriam, centered around three Christmases uses "yuletide" several times. Because someone says yuletide doesn't mean they are referencing that Germanic pagan holiday. I venture to say that most people wouldn't even know of it.


It's a bit hypocritical to say that people should stop trying to remove the religious element from Christmas, when Christmas itself supplanted itself over number of other religious views. What goes around comes around right?
First it wasn't exactly a democracy with civil rights then. I assume it is now. Second, Christians were persecuted quite extensively prior the Roman empire elite becoming Christian, and even when they did, while they made it hard on the pagans, they didn't persecute them. Nonetheless, what does that have to do with the 21st century?


Perhaps Christianity is falling foul of not observing its own rules: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Perhaps this is just the next stage, who knows? Perhaps not. In my opinion there's room for all, I'd love there to be national celebrations of Eid and Hannukah, Diwali and the like. I might not believe in it, but I respect other's rights to their beliefs and disbeliefs.
Think about it this way: if you would be offended by athiest symbolism, as many Christians are - I recall the outrage when Richard Dawkins sponsored a campaign of posters stating there is no God - then appreciate that athiests are offended by Christian symbolism and respect that and honour their choice as you would expect them to honour yours.
You can read about the athiest campaigns here: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/11/19/atheist-poster-campaign-launched-91466-25203006/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7818980.stm
http://www.humanism.org.uk/billboards
Those examples are advertising instances. I have no problem with anyone purchasing whatever advertising they wish, even the fundementalist atheists. But this is not what this thread is referring to. This thread is referring to public holiday displays and practices. Those advertising, whether they be religious or atheists, are acts of proseletising. I'm not referring to that. I'm talking about public celebrations. There is a difference. I said in my post above that I embrace all legitamate religions to join in a public display and celebration of their traditions. Even something like the pagans or kwawanza which frankly is vague and ambiguous. The problem is that the atheists don't have any, and so complain and whine about others and try to stop the others from celebrating. The problem is that atheists can't join in. They are essentially a vacuum, a void, a black hole of tradition and symbolism.

[billl]

I dashed off an email to the Oxford City Council on Monday, but no response yet. I used a Yahoo mailing address, so they might've ignored it, or maybe it'll just be another day or so or whatever.

I mentioned this is a respectable website, and we were having trouble finding a source for the story and wanted to know what's actually going on. Here's the email address if anyone else would like to help get their attention.

[email protected]

[Babbalanja]

I said in my post above that I embrace all legitamate religions to join in a public display and celebration of their traditions. Even something like the pagans or kwawanza which frankly is vague and ambiguous. The problem is that the atheists don't have any, and so complain and whine about others and try to stop the others from celebrating. The problem is that atheists can't join in. They are essentially a vacuum, a void, a black hole of tradition and symbolism.
I'm not sure whether the words other people post on this site are visible to you, but people have pointed out to you that the winter solstice isn't an exclusively religious event. As an atheist who loves having a Yule tree in the house during December, I don't want to assume that your opinion of atheists as 'a vacuum, a void, a black hole' is motivated by garden-variety prejudice, so I wonder what it stems from.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

I'm not sure whether the words other people post on this site are visible to you, but people have pointed out to you that the winter solstice isn't an exclusively religious event. As an atheist who loves having a Yule tree in the house during December, I don't want to assume that your opinion of atheists as 'a vacuum, a void, a black hole' is motivated by garden-variety prejudice, so I wonder what it stems from.

Regards,

Istvan

Atheists believe in nothing I take it other than the mechanical workings of the universe? You don't actually worship mechanical science, do you? The vacuum, void, black hole is an analogy to the absence of any transcendental belief or eternal life. Or do you believe in some form of divinity or individual eternity?

And you celebrate the winter solstice for what reason? And really would you have a "yule tree" if Christians didn't have Christmas trees in December?

So if we represent the yule tree in public displays, will atheists stop forcing lawsuits against others that believe in religions? I'll make that trade.

[Babbalanja]

Atheists believe in nothing I take it other than the mechanical workings of the universe? You don't actually worship mechanical science, do you?
No, I don't worship them. But the mechanical workings of the universe are worth a little bit of respect, don't you think?


And you celebrate the winter solstice for what reason? And really would you have a "yule tree" if Christians didn't have Christmas trees in December?Uh, actually, you wouldn't have one if it weren't for the pagans, okay?


So if we represent the yule tree in public displays, will atheists stop forcing lawsuits against others that believe in religions? I'll make that trade.I hope you'll acknowledge, after several requests to do so, that atheists aren't trying to stamp out your religion. But if you're determined to hold fast to your delusions, I understand.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

No, I don't worship them. But the mechanical workings of the universe are worth a little bit of respect, don't you think?


Oh yes. I'm a mechanical engineer, have been one for 24 years. I have a bachelor's in mechanical engineering. I'm involved in science every day. I love science. The more science i learn, the more I believe in God.


Uh, actually, you wouldn't have one if it weren't for the pagans, okay?
Ok, ok. Peace.


I hope you'll acknowledge, after several requests to do so, that atheists aren't trying to stamp out your religion. But if you're determined to hold fast to your delusions, I understand.
Ok, but we'll see. ;) Let's try to stop butting heads. :D

[Mathor]

Well, the station's website (http://wcbstv.com/) even has links to a story about a window-blind recall, but not a word on this horrific incident involving the persecution of Christians.


Again, without a source where we can see the whole story, I'm inclined to say this is unlikely.

Regards,

Istvan

Again, as I've said before, what makes you so certain this is based on an official news story? He said "the latest news", but it appears that he was referring moreso to anecdotal evidence provided to him by the woman or by another source about her being fined, and said "news" in the same way someone would say "so the latest news: I lost my job!". Why is it improbable that the entire story was like any anecdotal story posted on these threads, with no source whatsoever, and that it never made any sort of news. The OP never inferred that it made news, but you people blindly assume that it did, and he did not provide a source. If this is all that happened to him, then there is no need for a source, because the best source is the person providing the story.

Last time i checked the Oxford City Council is not a news station or news provider. It's a government agency that could have provided him or the woman in question with the information about her litigation in the form of a letter or similar document.

[TheFifthElement]

Nonetheless, what does that have to do with the 21st century?
Interesting point. One might question what a man who lived 2000 years ago has to do with the 21st Century ;)


Those advertising, whether they be religious or atheists, are acts of proselytising. I'm not referring to that. I'm talking about public celebrations. There is a difference.
I disagree. Religious festivals are a very effective way of proselytising. No one likes to be left out of a party, right?


So you're saying that those who reference "yuletide" are celebrating an ancient Germanic holiday? I didn't think anyone still worshiped Thor and Oden. What you're confusing is a lingusitic adaptation (originating in that Germanic festival) with a time of year. I can't find the passage but Alfred tennyson in what amounts to a very Christian poem, In Memoriam, centered around three Christmases uses "yuletide" several times. Because someone says yuletide doesn't mean they are referencing that Germanic pagan holiday. I venture to say that most people wouldn't even know of it.
Well I’d look at it slightly differently. People who celebrate the Christian Christmas are actually celebrating both Yuletide and winter solstice without realising it. I don’t know if you read the Wiki entry, but you might have noticed that the date of Yuletide was December 25th as was the winter solstice. A lot of the traditions in Christian festivals are actually pagan or secular in nature: gift giving, Christmas trees, card sending. Even Easter is the same: the Easter bunny, the giving of eggs. These are all pagan in origin, even the name is similar: Eostre. Yuletide does reference a Germanic pagan festival, whether it’s intended or not. Some of your Christian ‘traditions’ are not Christian at all. Just because people say Yuletide and mean Christmas, doesn’t change it’s meaning whether it’s Alfred Lord Tennyson or not ;)


Atheists believe in nothing I take it other than the mechanical workings of the universe? You don't actually worship mechanical science, do you? The vacuum, void, black hole is an analogy to the absence of any transcendental belief or eternal life. Or do you believe in some form of divinity or individual eternity?
Virgil, I think you’ve said before that people who don’t believe in God, religion, whatever don’t understand believers. You said that they think it’s a calculation. On the same vein, I think you make a lot of assumptions about atheism, from your statement above I’d say you think atheism reduces everything to a calculation. But this exposes, to me, the truth of your own statement turned on its head. People who believe in God cannot understand atheism or agnosticism. People approach things differently, they have different experiences, but my understanding is this: the only thing you can say for certainty that atheists don’t believe in is God. But they can believe in a whole host of other things: nature, science, humanism, kindness, love - life. Atheists still have, and embrace, tradition: tradition is not limited to religion. These things are not absent in atheists. They can believe in things they cannot see, but they do not, or can not in all honesty, worship a God. Perhaps worship is just a step too. Think about Buddhism. Buddhism is a secular religion, there is no concept of God within it. Yet it propagates kindness, understanding, gentleness and generosity. Life without belief in God may reduce everything to mechanics to you, but that only explains how it is to you. Perhaps God is a necessary part of your life, something you need and if it gives you joy and structure and meaning, and it helps you to focus on being a good person then it is a good thing. But because it is good for you doesn’t mean it’s good for everyone. Certainly it’s not my experience and I know many people who are athiests or agnostics and from my discussions with them it’s not their experience either. You also might not be aware that implying that a life without God is a life without meaning or richness could be quite insulting, just as it could be insulting to imply that a life with God is a life of delusion. Be careful of that. Tolerance and understanding are important regardless of which ‘side’ you’re on, and I believe that whether it’s a message preached by Christ, the Tooth Fairy or my Mum :)

[Haunted]

That's because you keep re-iterating points that Babbalanja has already addressed, over and over and over again.


If you want to re-read the aforementioned, you'll see that the poster appeared to have missed my point, so I found myself repeating it.

I had said: "For broadcast news, there may not be an online version of it."

Then right after I mentioned a TV news story, the poster went straight to the website for an online version. It's going in circles.

Stories are reported in many ways. If a person of law argued something can't be proven because he wasn't given an Internet link, he would be laughed out of court.

Here's another angle, thanks Mathor for more insight:


Again, as I've said before, what makes you so certain this is based on an official news story? He said "the latest news", but it appears that he was referring moreso to anecdotal evidence provided to him by the woman or by another source about her being fined, and said "news" in the same way someone would say "so the latest news: I lost my job!". Why is it improbable that the entire story was like any anecdotal story posted on these threads, with no source whatsoever, and that it never made any sort of news. The OP never inferred that it made news, but you people blindly assume that it did, and he did not provide a source. If this is all that happened to him, then there is no need for a source, because the best source is the person providing the story.

I came into the discussion when the direction of posts suddenly put the OP on trial based on one thing: No link! The dependence on one single source that is known to carry a lot of hoaxes is tunnel vision. And to use that as a stardard to pass judgement on one's credibility is preposterous.

[Babbalanja]

I came into the discussion when the direction of posts suddenly put the OP on trial based on one thing: No link! The dependence on one single source that is known to carry a lot of hoaxes is tunnel vision. And to use that as a stardard to pass judgement on one's credibility is preposterous.
I'm still at a loss as to what you expect us to believe here and why. If anything is preposterous, it's the way you've redefined this matter to be about unwarranted skepticism instead of unwarranted credulity.

The OP, I'm guessing, was meant as a joke, or an example of the unique 'speculative fiction' for which Robert is well known. If it did happen, it is an anecdote that doesn't seem to have any support from a source other than the person relating it. In other words, an urban legend.

I've heard many, many urban legends on various topics. I love hearing new ones, or old ones retold with unexpected variations. I don't believe any of these stories are literally true. But if someone posts a link to a news story with names and dates, that would at least increase the likelihood that the event actually happened.

Every year, as I say, I've heard stories about Christians being persecuted for displays of their faith. In the few instances in which the story actually happened, it turns out there are relevant details that change the gist of the event: the religious display was on government property, say, or the complaint was actually from people who want the community to respect the separation of church and state that we have in the USA. The marauding atheists intent on crushing all outward displays of Christian faith are, so far as we can tell, mythical enemies concocted by believers out of hatred and misunderstanding of nonbelievers.

Regards,

Istvan

[SleepyWitch]

I kinda agree with both Virgil and Fifth, if that is possible. I don't think any of the symbols we associate with Christmas are Christian (Christmas tree, presents; not even Santa Claus, despite his saintly name etc). I guess you could say that people unwittingly celebrate a pagan holiday. But as long as they are not aware of this and have come to associate these traditions with Christmas, then from their perspective, they are not celebrating the pagan feast.
As an atheist myself, I don't see why atheists should be offended by any religious symbols, be they originally pagan ones or 'proper' Christian ones like the crucifix. I work in a Catholic school and have to pray or sing at least twice a week and it doesn't bother me. Also, we have lots of crucifixes and some pictures of the pope at school. In private life, I'm less than enthusiastic about the pope. Seeing his pictures does slightly annoy me. But being annoyed and offended isn't the same. As for the crucifixes, they don't bother me at all. It's a case of 'if you don't like it, don't look at it'. I fail to see why some atheists feel offended by religious symbols. You can easily ignore them and find something more interesting to do than fell offended all the time.

[OrphanPip]

I came into the discussion when the direction of posts suddenly put the OP on trial based on one thing: No link! The dependence on one single source that is known to carry a lot of hoaxes is tunnel vision. And to use that as a stardard to pass judgement on one's credibility is preposterous.

{edit} Why should we believe some unsourced internet post over legitimate news sources like news papers. You seem to be suggesting that because you can't always trust news papers you must trust some unfounded post on an internet forum. Why should we trust musicology when we don't know anything about him/her, I don't even know where he/she lives.

The fact that there are no corroborating stories from any news source doesn't prove Music's story false, but it does justify credulity.

[Scheherazade]

I came into the discussion when the direction of posts suddenly put the OP on trial based on one thing: No link! The dependence on one single source that is known to carry a lot of hoaxes is tunnel vision. And to use that as a stardard to pass judgement on one's credibility is preposterous.Haunted,

The link question does not imply that OP is not reliable but only the piece of news itself.

If you read the posts up until the moment I raised the issue of link/source, everyone expressed a strong dismay at the attitudes of those who are not Christian or who do not celebrate Christmas mainly based on the OP. If a piece of news is to create such strong reaction from the readers, it is only natural that we should question its origin and, yes, credibility.

I am sure that Musicology was simply passing on a piece of news he had heard or maybe a chain email he had received but the implication of the piece is so strong that we cannot let it go without asking for some kind of validation before we carry on with the non-Christian bashing.

[MarkBastable]

Atheists believe in nothing I take it other than the mechanical workings of the universe?



Don't take it. It's not the case.

Your position seems to be 'if you ain't got God, you got nothing'.

That's not necessarily the atheist postion (and there are many atheist positions, because the lack of God opens up all sorts of possibilities).

However, as you ask (if that question mark isn't rhetorical) my atheist position is 'if you ain't got God, you've got practically everything'.

[Mathor]

Haunted,

The link question does not imply that OP is not reliable but only the piece of news itself.

If you read the posts up until the moment I raised the issue of link/source, everyone expressed a strong dismay at the attitudes of those who are not Christian or who do not celebrate Christmas mainly based on the OP. If a piece of news is to create such strong reaction from the readers, it is only natural that we should question its origin and, yes, credibility.

I am sure that Musicology was simply passing on a piece of news he had heard or maybe a chain email he had received but the implication of the piece is so strong that we cannot let it go without asking for some kind of validation before we carry on with the non-Christian bashing.

how is this thread any different than this thread

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48559

it is an argument of similar intent, from the opposite side of the argument.

[OrphanPip]

how is this thread any different than this thread

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48559

it is an argument of similar intent, from the opposite side of the argument.

I've seen that story on the news actually. Moreover, I've even seen video of it.

http://www.collegenews.com/index.php?/article/creationists_handing_out_modified_origin_of_the_sp ecies_1120200934887672/

They've been making tours of US universities for a while now, even TMZ covered it.

[Virgil]

I usually avoid these like the plague, but every so often i get roped into a religious argument. And there is nothing more fruitless than a religion versus atheist argument. *sigh* I guess I'm committed.


Interesting point. One might question what a man who lived 2000 years ago has to do with the 21st Century ;)

The two plus billion people in the world today who believe in Christ find He resonates in their life. And may I repeat, that 2+ billion people keeps increasing as the word spreads.


I disagree. Religious festivals are a very effective way of proselytising. No one likes to be left out of a party, right?
So we're not suppose to have religious festivals? Those are the options: either we celebrate everyones (which I'm willing to do) or we celebrate no one's. The atheists object to public celebrations and displays of religious holidays and given they don't have any to contribute there is no way to resolve this but either stop the celebrations and displays or screw them. I'd rather screw them. :D


Well I’d look at it slightly differently. People who celebrate the Christian Christmas are actually celebrating both Yuletide and winter solstice without realising it.
If they don't realize, then Sleepywitch is right, they aren't celebrating it. They are celebrating Christmas.


I don’t know if you read the Wiki entry, but you might have noticed that the date of Yuletide was December 25th as was the winter solstice. A lot of the traditions in Christian festivals are actually pagan or secular in nature: gift giving, Christmas trees, card sending. Even Easter is the same: the Easter bunny, the giving of eggs. These are all pagan in origin, even the name is similar: Eostre. Yuletide does reference a Germanic pagan festival, whether it’s intended or not. Some of your Christian ‘traditions’ are not Christian at all. Just because people say Yuletide and mean Christmas, doesn’t change it’s meaning whether it’s Alfred Lord Tennyson or not ;)
If people aren't acknowleging any unChristian association, then I fail to see what it means. Those things have been absorbed into the Christian tradition. I asked Babbalanja if he's really celebrating yule time and he failed to answer. I take it as no. Are you really celebrating yule time and to which of the ancient Germanic dieties are you praying to?


Virgil, I think you’ve said before that people who don’t believe in God, religion, whatever don’t understand believers. You said that they think it’s a calculation. On the same vein, I think you make a lot of assumptions about atheism, from your statement above I’d say you think atheism reduces everything to a calculation. But this exposes, to me, the truth of your own statement turned on its head. People who believe in God cannot understand atheism or agnosticism.
Keep in mind at one point in my life I was an atheist myself. So I understand first hand the scientific understanding of atheism, ala what is popular today in Richard Dawkins. Remember I have a scientific background.


People approach things differently, they have different experiences, but my understanding is this: the only thing you can say for certainty that atheists don’t believe in is God. But they can believe in a whole host of other things: nature, science, humanism, kindness, love - life.
Either the workings of the universe (nature, science, emotions such as kindness, love) are created by God or they are simply the mechanical workings of science, and biology being a subset of science. On this I think Babbalanja, The Atheist, and I and all others in this God/atheism argument would agree. If you believe there is a third option, please let us know. I have not heard of it.


Atheists still have, and embrace, tradition: tradition is not limited to religion. These things are not absent in atheists. They can believe in things they cannot see, but they do not, or can not in all honesty, worship a God. Perhaps worship is just a step too. Think about Buddhism. Buddhism is a secular religion, there is no concept of God within it. Yet it propagates kindness, understanding, gentleness and generosity. Life without belief in God may reduce everything to mechanics to you, but that only explains how it is to you. Perhaps God is a necessary part of your life, something you need and if it gives you joy and structure and meaning, and it helps you to focus on being a good person then it is a good thing. But because it is good for you doesn’t mean it’s good for everyone. Certainly it’s not my experience and I know many people who are athiests or agnostics and from my discussions with them it’s not their experience either. You also might not be aware that implying that a life without God is a life without meaning or richness could be quite insulting, just as it could be insulting to imply that a life with God is a life of delusion. Be careful of that. Tolerance and understanding are important regardless of which ‘side’ you’re on, and I believe that whether it’s a message preached by Christ, the Tooth Fairy or my Mum :)
Ok. I'm not here to proselytize. I don't support religious people who proslytize or atheists who proselytize. The only times i jump into these fruitless conversations is when I see the fundemetalist atheists (and don't tell me they're not here on lit net) proslytizing their beliefs. I know you don't do it.



Don't take it. It's not the case.

Your position seems to be 'if you ain't got God, you got nothing'.

That's not necessarily the atheist postion (and there are many atheist positions, because the lack of God opens up all sorts of possibilities).

However, as you ask (if that question mark isn't rhetorical) my atheist position is 'if you ain't got God, you've got practically everything'.
I was referring to the void in the the understanding of the universe and nature when it's all reduce to mechanics and biology. I was not implying a personal value system. So if humanity is not a mechanical being (from an atheist point of view), what is it? Do you consider yourself a mechaincal being no different a car, each with it's own working subsystems which makes the whole move? Or do you have some spark of divinity that makes you alive? Do you have a soul?

[JuniperWoolf]

If you want to re-read the aforementioned, you'll see that the poster appeared to have missed my point, so I found myself repeating it.

I had said: "For broadcast news, there may not be an online version of it."

Bah! We KNOW! The aforementioned post doesn't imply that he missed your point at all, and we've already talked this to death so I'm not going to go over the whole argument point by point again to prove it to you. I literally gave an exasperated sigh when I read this.

:brickwall :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall :brickwall

We have been made aware of your insight, quite a few times now.

We’ll know the truth soon enough, because bill has actually written to the city council of Oxford (which is what I call dedicated to truth in a debate, way to go bill).

You seem to be more intent on arguing about whether or not the story of this particular cranky atheist is true or not then discussing the root of the problem; the reason why the story was told (or made up) in the first place and why it was accused of falshood. In short, the point of the conversation. Whether this specific story is true or not pretty much doesn't matter. Atheists have complained about Christmas before. Christians have made up stories of atheists complaining about Christmas before to suit their own purposes. Since no one has so far been able to prove whether this story has happened or not (until bill gets a reply), there's no reason to keep saying "well, it might be true..."


Atheists believe in nothing I take it other than the mechanical workings of the universe? You don't actually worship mechanical science, do you? The vacuum, void, black hole is an analogy to the absence of any transcendental belief or eternal life. Or do you believe in some form of divinity or individual eternity?

And you celebrate the winter solstice for what reason? And really would you have a "yule tree" if Christians didn't have Christmas trees in December?

It’s because we’re not worshiping. We’re celebrating nature and the human spirit (which sounds so cheesy, I'm sorry about that). I’ve already explained it in pretty good detail in another thread, so I’ll just quote that here:


The pagans who became Christian (in Britain, brought by the Romans and then when they left Christianity remained) just decided to make their solstice feast a Christian feast... they didn't take religion as seriously as people do nowadays, there are some tablets that pray to both the Christian god AND Dionysus (which is so weird that it made me tilt my head like a dog when I first heard about it). They'd pray to whoever if they thought it would get them what they wanted. They didn't really care about continuity, they had other things to worry about (like not freezing or starving to death) and the tradition just happened to remain. They needed a solstice party because they were cold and depressed during the darkest time of year, and a nice yule feast on the longest night filled a void. Drinking, fresh meat, sex sex sex... When religion started to be used as a tool of control, the powers that be decided to made Christmas Jesus' birthday so that it wouldn't be just a drunken sin-filled party in the name of their lord.

That’s why we celebrate. Winter is cold and depressing, and Yule is a bright jolly old good time. We bring plants into the home (Christmas tree, poinsettia, holly, etc.) because they don’t grow in winter and we miss them; We give out gifts because they’re nice. So there’s the reasoning behind many atheist/agnostic/pantheist Christmas for you (and I say MANY because there are different beliefs within these different beliefs. There are no rules to atheism/agnosticism/pantheism). It’s really simple, I hope that you read what I’m saying because the whole concept makes a lot of sense and it’s a shame that you don’t understand it.



If they don't realize, then Sleepywitch is right, they aren't celebrating it. They are celebrating Christmas.


If people aren't acknowleging any unChristian association, then I fail to see what it means. Those things have been absorbed into the Christian tradition. I asked Babbalanja if he's really celebrating yule time and he failed to answer. I take it as no. Are you really celebrating yule time and to which of the ancient Germanic dieties are you praying to?

"Yule" and "Christmas" are just words. It is not the title, but the ideals of the celebration and the rituals that are practiced which define the holiday. If someone is celebrating a solstice holiday in basically the same way as a Christian but without the whole Jesus dogma and are identifying it under the umbrella-term “Christmas,” (because that’s the word that they’ve grown up with and have come to know and love), then yeah, they're having a good old Yule (because, quite simply, that’s just what Yule is. Christians took Yule, added Jesus and it became Christmas. Subtract Jesus, and presto! You have yule).

[billl]

...we’ll know the truth soon enough, because bill has actually written to the city council of Oxford (which is what I call dedicated to truth in a debate, way to go bill).

Yes, well no word yet--and I want to mention something about that.

I sent my inquiry (including a link to this thread and some background about the site and the discussion) via a Yahoo email account, instead of my normal account. I don't know if that will make them ignore it (I don't know if it will look like spam, or if perhaps my 'wacky' username will be in the "Sender" field in their INBOX...). I sent another email to explain that, but I don't know how much good that is going to do.

Frankly, I would be a bit surprised if they thought it were spam, and I think they might be busy, or don't care, or are ignoring it for some other reason.

I think it would be great if someone else (or more than one person) could also send an email to them about it. The address in my earlier post is apparently a "customer service" address, but if anyone can track down a council member's address, that might be better...

EDIT Ah, I just found the address for Councillor Bob Price: [email protected]
He is the current Chair of the Council.

[Virgil]

That’s why we celebrate. Winter is cold and depressing, and Yule is a bright jolly old good time. We bring plants into the home (Christmas tree, poinsettia, holly, etc.) because they don’t grow in winter and we miss them; We give out gifts because they’re nice. So there’s the reasoning behind many atheist/agnostic/pantheist Christmas for you (and I say MANY because there are different beliefs within these different beliefs. There are no rules to atheism/agnosticism/pantheism). It’s really simple, I hope that you read what I’m saying because the whole concept makes a lot of sense and it’s a shame that you don’t understand it.



"Yule" and "Christmas" are just words. It is not the title, but the ideals of the celebration and the rituals that are practiced which define the holiday. If someone is celebrating a solstice holiday in basically the same way as a Christian but without the whole Jesus dogma and are identifying it under the umbrella-term “Christmas,” (because that’s the word that they’ve grown up with and have come to know and love), then yeah, they're having a good old Yule (because, quite simply, that’s just what Yule is. Christians took Yule, added Jesus and it became Christmas. Subtract Jesus, and presto! You have yule).

Juniper, you keep blurring the concepts of "atheist/agnostic/pantheist" as if they all mean the same thing. They are very distinct from each other and do not share any common belief system. An atheist would never find anything sacred or holy in a physical event like the winter solstice. Note the definition of sacred: "entitled to veneration or religious respect by association with divinity or divine things; holy." If you are a pantheist pagan you find a sacred association in that event. Ask Atheist or Babbalanja. You can't blur those terms together.

If new Christians used elements of their previous religion, now reiterpreted through their new Christian understanding, I don't see this as any indication of people today holding on to some pre Christian notion. Let me isloate that idea embedded in that last sentence: Some cultures held onto to certain elements of their pre Christian culture, but now re-interpreted through their new Christian worldview. That does not make them any less Christian and by re-interpreting those elements through Christianity they absorbed them and made them new and we today carry forth those elements.

[JuniperWoolf]

Juniper, you keep blurring the concepts of "atheist/agnostic/pantheist" as if they all mean the same thing.

No, I'm not. The underlying philosophies of each are different from one another (indeed, the philosophies themselves are very different), but the way that (MANY OF THEM, and I stressed this part in my post) they celebrate the winter solstice is very similar in that they usually don't invoke any form of diety. This is a conversation about Christmas, not religious boundries (I am aware of the differences between agnosticism, atheism and pantheism).


An atheist would never find anything sacred or holy in a physical event like the winter solstice.

They don't have to find anything sacred or holy in it, the solstice festival has nothing to do with religion. :( Are you really reading my posts, or just skimming them? I hope that you're not arguing against me without taking the time to read what I say.


Let me isloate that idea embedded in that last sentence: Some cultures held onto to certain elements of their pre Christian culture, but now re-interpreted through their new Christian worldview. That does not make them any less Christian and by re-interpreting those elements through Christianity they absorbed them and made them new and we today carry forth those elements.

They are not Christian if they do not invoke Christ or Christianity in any way (but I've already said that).

[Virgil]

Juniper I'm not arguing. I've had enough of this religious stuff. I don't find these conversations fruitfull at all.

[BienvenuJDC]

Juniper I'm not arguing. I've had enough of this religious stuff. I don't find these conversations fruitfull at all.

Best comment here yet...
We all can celebrate as we wish as long as we don't tell each other How and Why we are celebrating.

[JuniperWoolf]

I don't argue religion either (it's pointless to bicker about what nobody knows). I thought that this debate was about christmas. I hope that you absorbed what I said about Yule. I hate it when people say that atheists celebrate christmas without knowing or while ignoring the "true meaning."

[MarkBastable]

Do you have a soul?

No. At this time of night, I've barely even got a sense of humour.

[Mathor]

Either way it's tax evasion. She cannot announce to the city council "I refuse to pay for the christmas celebrations this year". You don't get to choose where your tax dollars are spent.

[OrphanPip]

Either way it's tax evasion. She cannot announce to the city council "I refuse to pay for the christmas celebrations this year". You don't get to choose where your tax dollars are spent.

It's not tax evasion, presumably she's already paid her taxes. In most democracies it is perfectly acceptable to object to the uses of our tax dollars and she can complain as much as she likes. Moreover, it is the duty of those elected officials to listen to their constituency.

[billl]

What I think is goofy is the idea that they might be writing a letter of complaint to this woman, on account of some change sitting on a secretary's desk.

[Scheherazade]

how is this thread any different than this thread

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48559

it is an argument of similar intent, from the opposite side of the argument.In the thread you mentioned, the poster mentioned something he experienced personally so the legitimacy of the source is not under question.

I would like to emphasise once again that we are not questioning the intentions or the credibility of the OP but the news itself because if it is not a first-hand experience or from a news source, it will not satisfy me.


R e m i n d e r

We are here to discuss the topic at hand, not each.

Post containing inflammatory comments or verging on bickering will be removed (as some have already been).

[billl]

My email to the Chair of the Oxford City Council (Councillor Bob Price) has been promptly answered. Here is the complete text of his response to my inquiry regarding the anecdote at the beginning of this thread, involving the woman and the 70 pence:


It is untrue

He didn't even have time for putting a period at the end, but I thanked him and am frankly flattered that he bothered to help sort this out.

[Dinkleberry2010]

What amazes me is the number of people who believe everything they read on the internet--they accept it as truth without question.

[Babbalanja]

What amazes me is the number of people who believe everything they read on the internet--they accept it as truth without question.
Why yes, it's practically, uh, religious.

This is why it's so difficult to have honest discourse between religious and nonreligious people. This story was never anything more than a dubious anecdote posted by a person known for his lack of acquaintance with responsible research (and who has not returned to this thread to reveal the anecdote's provenance). But many people had no problem believing the event described actually happened, because we've heard such strange urban legends numerous times before. One of our wise posters here reminded us that there are an "infinite" amount of instances where Christians are persecuted for their displays of faith. Despite the lack of evidence confirming any of these events, it has become part of our society's fabric of legends. We used to have stories of trolls living under bridges and abducting children, and now the imaginary villains are the soulless atheists out to destroy Christianity and persecute believers.

I've never personally objected to any religious holiday or display of faith. I often raise an objection, however, when Christians insist they're being persecuted or marginalized in this society. Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for believers, or maybe it doesn't afford them any rhetorical advantage to acknowledge it.

Someone's willingness to affirm an anecdote like the one in the OP indicates the difference between an approach to knowledge based on facts and evidence on the one hand, and an approach that simply allows the believer to affirm whatever he or she wants to believe on the other. I guess the illusion of persecution allows believers to assume that their beliefs have somehow been validated, and reinforces their bigotry against nonbelievers.

Regards,

Istvan

[Musicology]

Yes, in answer to various questions on this post, these things really happen these days in England. The word for it is 'Political Correctness' and there are lots of examples. Sometimes they are funny. Other times they are ridiculous.

A few days ago, in London, a woman I know was stopped by manager from walking down the stairs of an office in North London carrying a cup of coffee in a plastic cup. This on the grounds that carrying a cup of coffee down the stairs of the building was considered to be 'contrary to Health and Safety Regulations'. She asked if she should take the cup of coffee back up to her office and leave it there or drink it there (which was one floor higher). And was told yes.

When she pointed out the exit of the building was only one floor below (the same distance) and that her friend was waiting for her it was repeated that carrying cups of tea or coffee was breaking Health and Safety Regulations. She pointed out that it may break the same regulations to carry the cup back up the stairs if it broke them by carrying it downstairs.

And in another incident, (which was funny), a memo was sent round a large organisation ordering all staff to avoid calling the leader of office meetings a Chairman. Because the leader was sometimes a woman. They were, it said in the memo, to be called 'Chairpersons'.

Most people here laugh at these things !

[SleepyWitch]

A few days ago, in London, a woman I know was stopped by manager from walking down the stairs of an office in North London carrying a cup of coffee in a plastic cup. This on the grounds that carrying a cup of coffee down the stairs of the building was considered to be 'contrary to Health and Safety Regulations'. She asked if she should take the cup of coffee back up to her office and leave it there or drink it there (which was one floor higher). And was told yes.


I can confirm this. In my school, we (the teachers) are not allowed to carry hot drinks outside the staff room because of health and safety regulations.
Should we start a thread about silly regulations?

[OrphanPip]

That has to do with modern society being highly litigious rather than being PC though.

[Babbalanja]

Yes, in answer to various questions on this post, these things really happen these days in England.
Um, except for the one you described in the OP.

Which didn't happen.

Regards,

Istvan

[BienvenuJDC]

Um, except for the one you described in the OP.

Which didn't happen.

Regards,

Istvan

I think you need to let it go. It doesn't matter if Musicology can confirm that the story happened or not. You cannot confirm that it definitely did not happen. Since this is a literature forum, any writing can be offered (and should be without continued criticism). You have already offered your thoughts about the validity of this event. It is good enough to me to examine the writing as something that could have happened. Not only COULD it have happened, but in these days it is likely that it has happened, if not in Oxford, then somewhere else.

If you are so certain that it didn't happen, please offer proof. Actually, I take that back. For the purpose of discussion, it doesn't matter that you can't offer proof. The fact that people have expressed their opinions against the celebration of Christian gestures from governmental organizations is enough to discuss this topic. If you don't think that this event really happened, then regard this as a piece of literature demonstrating the REAL events that have occurred...and leave it at that.

[OrphanPip]

I think you need to let it go. It doesn't matter if Musicology can confirm that the story happened or not. You cannot confirm that it definitely did not happen. Since this is a literature forum, any writing can be offered (and should be without continued criticism). You have already offered your thoughts about the validity of this event. It is good enough to me to examine the writing as something that could have happened. Not only COULD it have happened, but in these days it is likely that it has happened, if not in Oxford, then somewhere else.

If you are so certain that it didn't happen, please offer proof. Actually, I take that back. For the purpose of discussion, it doesn't matter that you can't offer proof. The fact that people have expressed their opinions against the celebration of Christian gestures from governmental organizations is enough to discuss this topic. If you don't think that this event really happened, then regard this as a piece of literature demonstrating the REAL events that have occurred...and leave it at that.

Did you miss the fact that Bill sent an email to the Oxford City Council and they responded that it didn't happen? Moreover, we also have no other corroborating source on the subject. What are these "REAL" events anyway? How are we supposed to assess the situations when all we get are outraged second hand stories with the intent of simply bashing some constructed image of the nasty Christmas destroying atheist.

[BienvenuJDC]

Did you miss the fact that Bill sent an email to the Oxford City Council and they responded that it didn't happen? Moreover, we also have no other corroborating source on the subject. What are these "REAL" events anyway? How are we supposed to assess the situations when all we get are outraged second hand stories with the intent of simply bashing some constructed image of the nasty Christmas destroying atheist.

I personally have seen news story after news story of nativity scenes being banned from public properties due to the offense of just a few individuals. These are real events all over the US...possible even beyond the US borders. It doesn't matter though. It doesn't matter even if it happened in Oxford or not.

[Babbalanja]

It is good enough to me to examine the writing as something that could have happened. Not only COULD it have happened, but in these days it is likely that it has happened, if not in Oxford, then somewhere else. It sounds like you measure its likelihood by gauging how much it tells you what you want to hear. In the absence of any independent substantiation for the anecdote, you declare that the burden of proof is on the doubter to demonstrate that it didn't happen!

Personally, I think the fact that this particular story is pure fantasy should make you question your certainty that it COULD have happened. But that's a different matter.

Regards,

Istvan

[billl]

If you don't think that this event really happened, then regard this as a piece of literature demonstrating the REAL events that have occurred...and leave it at that.

Maybe you skipped over my post--the event described did not happen. This has been confirmed.

I think it is safe to say, however, that there have been cases where non-Christians have been opposed to religious symbols and decorations on government grounds. Personally, I support having these sorts of communal displays, as long as a variety of religious (or otherwise celebrating) groups can display their symbols, and as long as citizens (esp. children) are not exposed to religious discussion. However, I don't generally consider people crazy or aggressive if they prefer that religious "expression" not be supported by tax-payer funds, or not be carried out on public grounds. To me, looking at the U.S. Constitution, and having heard from a friend how they underwent an unnecessarily uncomfortable experience as a child, I can see defensible reasons for the position. And if we do allow various non-religious groups, where do we draw the line? Atheists can participate? What about college football fans? Klingon fanatics? It isn't as easy of a call as either side might want it, I think. People have to use "common sense" and that is going to vary person to person, community by community.

It's an interesting discussion, where important issues about public and private freedoms converge, but I think it could be finished here (with no resolution, perhaps) in maybe a page of posts or two.

What doesn't help is when a story is cooked up that paints the other side as some sort of caricature. It is something that we see a lot, and we will see such telling of tales in the future. The purpose of such a thing is to inflame. Pointing to an actual case and describing it without hyperbole would have been a better way to initiate this discussion.

I think it is right to remain open-minded about the validity or non-validity of an anonymous story. But to suggest that THIS story is just like real cases in the debate is to turn a blind eye to its propagandistic qualities. I don't think they typically involve 70 pence eventually sitting on a desk, to the offense of a secretary.

[Mathor]

I think you need to let it go. It doesn't matter if Musicology can confirm that the story happened or not. You cannot confirm that it definitely did not happen. Since this is a literature forum, any writing can be offered (and should be without continued criticism). You have already offered your thoughts about the validity of this event. It is good enough to me to examine the writing as something that could have happened. Not only COULD it have happened, but in these days it is likely that it has happened, if not in Oxford, then somewhere else.

If you are so certain that it didn't happen, please offer proof. Actually, I take that back. For the purpose of discussion, it doesn't matter that you can't offer proof. The fact that people have expressed their opinions against the celebration of Christian gestures from governmental organizations is enough to discuss this topic. If you don't think that this event really happened, then regard this as a piece of literature demonstrating the REAL events that have occurred...and leave it at that.

I'm going to go with the rest of these guys on this one. I usually try to root for the underdog in most arguments. The Christians had little to not argument going for them in this thread, so I tried to defend the idea that at least this idea could have happened. As has been proven by bill, it did not happen. So if anyone should "let it go", it would be the people who try to hold onto the notion that although it did not happen, we should continue talking as if it DID happen. That's not good debate or good conversation, it's just pure delusion and fantasy.

[BienvenuJDC]

Maybe you skipped over my post--the event described did not happen. This has been confirmed.

Yes, billl, I did miss that post. Thank you for your efforts.


I think it is safe to say, however, that there have been cases where non-Christians have been opposed to religious symbols and decorations on government grounds. Personally, I support having these sorts of communal displays, as long as a variety of religious (or otherwise celebrating) groups can display their symbols,

That is a variety represented by each community...and it should be up to the community, not any outsiders (like a federal mandate).


However, I don't generally consider people crazy or aggressive if they prefer that religious "expression" not be supported by tax-payer funds, or not be carried out on public grounds.

Anyone can have preferences, but the preferences of the few should not negate the preferences of the majority.

[billl]

Anyone can have preferences, but the preferences of the few should not negate the preferences of the majority.

You're right, I think, in this case. And I think this quote is also a good reminder that the preferences of the few shouldn't automatically negate the preferences of the majority.

There are other situations, of course, where the preferences of the few could be said to take precedence over the preferences of the majority (a lot of stuff from the Civil Rights movement, for example), but I think that allowing the presence of these symbols (to varying extents) in this case would be the best route for most communities, probably.

[TheFifthElement]

I usually avoid these like the plague, but every so often i get roped into a religious argument. And there is nothing more fruitless than a religion versus atheist argument. *sigh* I guess I'm committed.
Oh I agree Virgil, but it's the versus which is unproductive. I think, however, that it is fruitful to have an open discussion between those who believe in a deity or follow a religion, as the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and those who don't. Open discussion is the only route to understanding, or it is in my opinion anyway. Where the discussion falls down is when people desire to prove the other wrong, which in this debate is not possible, or where they try to convert the other's opinion. But if you avoid that then it can lead to greater tolerance and understanding. Well, that's been my experience anyway.


The two plus billion people in the world today who believe in Christ find He resonates in their life.
Exactly. Just because something is ancient doesn't mean it has no relevance. See, you answered your own question ;)


I kinda agree with both Virgil and Fifth, if that is possible. I don't think any of the symbols we associate with Christmas are Christian (Christmas tree, presents; not even Santa Claus, despite his saintly name etc). I guess you could say that people unwittingly celebrate a pagan holiday. But as long as they are not aware of this and have come to associate these traditions with Christmas, then from their perspective, they are not celebrating the pagan feast

Sleepy, bizarre as it sounds I agree with you and I agree with me and Virgil too! Partly I'm playing devil's advocate here, because there seems to me some inconsistency in that argument. Taking into account Virgil's comment here:


If people aren't acknowleging any unChristian association, then I fail to see what it means.

by definition, then, if people aren't acknowledging the Christian association then they're not celebrating Christmas either. They're celebrating something else, or nothing in fact. Celebrating because it's tradition, perhaps. Religion isn't a necessary element for public celebration. I know a great many people for which Christmas has nothing to do with Christ, but they celebrate it anyway.


Are you really celebrating yule time and to which of the ancient Germanic dieties are you praying to?

Paganism doesn't necessarily involve a deity. Winter solstice, for example, was a point which was easily measured in the calendar and which signified it was time to slaughter the livestock and hunker down for the long winter which they may not survive. It is, possibly, the origin of the traditional feast.



Those are the options: either we celebrate everyones (which I'm willing to do) or we celebrate no one's.
Oh Virgil, you are fond of your black & white options :) There is a third: religious festivals are celebrated privately.


Either the workings of the universe (nature, science, emotions such as kindness, love) are created by God or they are simply the mechanical workings of science, and biology being a subset of science. On this I think Babbalanja, The Atheist, and I and all others in this God/atheism argument would agree. If you believe there is a third option, please let us know. I have not heard of it.

Again, why only two options? There are a multitude of possibilities, but there's no point in me posting them as you'll probably scoff at them all because in a question to which there is no answer we still fall under the cuff of the common view. But, to me, the possibilities are limited only by our imaginations as in this is a question, the answer to which we are only guessing at. There is no proof either way, it is a matter of belief. But I'll give you a quick third option Virgil, one that many agnostics (which apparently you've never heard of ;) ) may appreciate which is this:

the universe is a mystery which is beyond our understanding.

There are countless billions of people that have gone before me who have lived and died and understood little or nothing of the workings of the universe. What makes me any different? It is a question I think will still be asked long after I'm dead. Doesn't mean that the attempt to understand is misguided or fruitless, we may still learn something along the way, but it's all guesswork.

But it seems to me that even as a deist or an atheist the question is much more complex that reducing it to a 'there is/there isn't' choice. Both systems fall foul of the same problems; they're two sides of the same coin. Neither can prove the existence of or non-existence of God. Both require origin, and neither can explain the origin of the origin. If God created the universe, who created God? If the universe began with the Big Bang, what began the Big Bang? Both theories go so far and then run out of answers. If God is infinite then the universe can be infinite because if you entertain one infinity then infinity is possible in other guises. What does 'God' mean? If you ask 10 people you'll get 10 different answers and it's an important point. If one person believes that God is an omnipotent being that created the universe, and in fact the universe was created by a being, but not an omnipotent one then saying there is no God is true because their envisioning of God doesn't match the actuality of God. Many people believe in intelligent design, but what if it was an accident? An error? Not a design at all, but a mistake? Does that mean that God isn't God? What if there is more than one God? And so on and so forth. It all depends on what you believe in. All these questions are beyond me; I'm guessing on guessing on guessing, and none of my guesses will change what is. What is will go on being what it is despite all my gropings in the dark (take that how you will ;) ).

That's how I think about it. I don't expect that anyone else will necessarily understand, and I certainly don't expect anyone to agree, but I think this is a question which is approached simplistically when it is very complex. And I don't say that to sway your opinion or to say that people are wrong in believing what they believe or disbelieve. I think we all find a path that works for us and we stick to it and we treasure and protect it. And that's okay. I remember once having a discussion with one of my Christian friends and he told me that everyone has a 'God shaped hole' in their lives and it takes God to fill it. When I looked inside I didn't find that God shaped hole, but what it made me realise is that if God went out of his life he would have a God shaped hole in it. It made me appreciate what a terribly cruel thing it would be to try and take that away from somebody, but at the same time it made me realise that it would be equally cruel to force a hole in someone's life where there wasn't one before. I understood him and his belief better, and it made me respect it. I was glad we had the discussion. I didn't believe what he believed, and there was a point where language fell down and it was impossible to describe to each other what we actually meant, but I think at the end of it we understood each other better, where our boundaries lay and how we could accept each other without having to believe the same things. I was glad for that conversation.


Keep in mind at one point in my life I was an atheist myself. So I understand first hand the scientific understanding of atheism, ala what is popular today in Richard Dawkins. Remember I have a scientific background.
Well you may be an engineer and a former athiest, so perhaps it is little wonder that in the absence of God the world is reduced to mechanics to you. But I am a former Christian and an insurance underwriter, so perhaps it is little wonder that I inspect every little clause for flaws ;) We all drive our understanding of the world based on our own experience and many things feed into that experience. The only way we understand what Christianity or atheism or agnosticism or Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever actually mean to each other is by talking and, more importantly, listening :)

[MarkBastable]

What amazes me is the number of people who believe everything they read on the internet--they accept it as truth without question.

Of course they do. The internet is the Word of God. It may look like it was written by a various bunch of people, some of whom were well-intentioned, some of whom were grinding axes, and some of whom didn't even know that what they wrote was going to end up in a sacred text - but those people were all tools in the Hand of the Amighty, who was directing them to produce a vast body of work within which All the Answers May Be Found.

And if that isn't a good enough reason to believe all you read on the internet, I don't know what is.

[Virgil]

Oh I agree Virgil, but it's the versus which is unproductive. I think, however, that it is fruitful to have an open discussion between those who believe in a deity or follow a religion, as the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and those who don't. Open discussion is the only route to understanding, or it is in my opinion anyway. Where the discussion falls down is when people desire to prove the other wrong, which in this debate is not possible, or where they try to convert the other's opinion. But if you avoid that then it can lead to greater tolerance and understanding. Well, that's been my experience anyway.

Like I said, I don't try to convert anyone. I'm hardly ever in these and only when I see some fundementalsit atheist trying to proselitize or insult people of religion, and that goes for any religion. I defend Islam as well as Christianity. You can ask the mulsims if they see me as sympathetic.


Exactly. Just because something is ancient doesn't mean it has no relevance. See, you answered your own question ;)
Huh? Christianity resonates to 2+ billion people today. I doubt there's two thousand people worldwide find the yule tree in the same significance as the ancient Germanic pagans. In fact i bet none. Even today's pagans are not finding any spiritual significance in it.


The ancient pagans, Druids, Egyptians, Chinese, and Hebrews celebrated the Winter Solstice, (Dec. 21st), the day of the year that the Sun begins its ascent in the sky thereby ushering a fertile time of planting and bountiful harvests. Hence, the evergreen tree represented eternal life and the promise of replenishment during the cold winter solstice.
I really doubt any significant number of the pagans are really depending on a supernatural power of yule tree to usher in a fertile planting season.

Like I said above, whatever associations pre christian Germanic culture had with a yule tree has been absorbed into Christianity and has been reinterpreted.


According to Christian lore, the Christmas tree is associated with St Boniface and the German town of Geismar. Sometime in St Boniface's lifetime (c. 672-754) when he cut down the tree of Thor in order to disprove the legitimacy of the Norse gods to the local German tribe. St. Boniface saw a fir tree growing in the roots of the old Oak. Taking this as a sign of the Christian faith, he said "...let Christ be at the center of your households..." using the fir tree as a symbol of Christianity. [4].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree


Sleepy, bizarre as it sounds I agree with you and I agree with me and Virgil too! Partly I'm playing devil's advocate here, because there seems to me some inconsistency in that argument. Taking into account Virgil's comment here:
You just want to argue with me. :lol:


by definition, then, if people aren't acknowledging the Christian association then they're not celebrating Christmas either. They're celebrating something else, or nothing in fact. Celebrating because it's tradition, perhaps. Religion isn't a necessary element for public celebration. I know a great many people for which Christmas has nothing to do with Christ, but they celebrate it anyway.
Ok, I guess that works vice versa. So are atheists who celebrate Christmas hypocrites? :p


Paganism doesn't necessarily involve a deity. Winter solstice, for example, was a point which was easily measured in the calendar and which signified it was time to slaughter the livestock and hunker down for the long winter which they may not survive. It is, possibly, the origin of the traditional feast.
Perhaps it doesn't necessarily involve a deity (not exactly sure) but it does involve the conception of supernatural power to affect the physical world.


Oh Virgil, you are fond of your black & white options :) There is a third: religious festivals are celebrated privately.
Of course they are, but the debate here in this entire thread has been about public celebrations. So that quote from me is in reference to whether we accept government paid for decorations and celebrations, either in schools or public places. So my quote still holds and should be reiterated:

Those are the options: either we celebrate everyones (which I'm willing to do) or we celebrate no one's.


Again, why only two options? There are a multitude of possibilities,
As far as I am aware, and this goes back to the 18th century debates, all arguments of atheism versus some form of deism brakes down to how we perceive science and the workings of the universe. Is it purely mechanical or is there some supranatural element to it, either at creation of the unverse or in its continuous functionings. Is life a purely bio-chemical set of functions or is there some divine element to it?


but there's no point in me posting them as you'll probably scoff at them all because in a question to which there is no answer we still fall under the cuff of the common view. But, to me, the possibilities are limited only by our imaginations as in this is a question, the answer to which we are only guessing at.
No, frankly I would be interested. I would be very interested in an argument either for or against the notion of God that is not within the science paradigm. I don't know it and I would love to hear it. Seriously.


There is no proof either way, it is a matter of belief. But I'll give you a quick third option Virgil, one that many agnostics (which apparently you've never heard of ;) ) may appreciate which is this:

the universe is a mystery which is beyond our understanding.
I absolutely agree with that. :) I have simplified this by taking out the agnostic side, but as I see it they are a neutral position, unable to verify either, but still within the science/God paradigm. I don't really see a third position there, other than they can't come to a conclusion. And don't get me wrong, that's a fair position. I too was an agnostic at one time. I went over to a believer because I was convinced I could see proof of God. Now that doesn't mean there's proof of Christianity. I beleive in Christianity, but I know there's God.


There are countless billions of people that have gone before me who have lived and died and understood little or nothing of the workings of the universe. What makes me any different? It is a question I think will still be asked long after I'm dead. Doesn't mean that the attempt to understand is misguided or fruitless, we may still learn something along the way, but it's all guesswork.
Sure. I don't have any ill feelings to those who are atheists or agnostics. I understand.


But it seems to me that even as a deist or an atheist the question is much more complex that reducing it to a 'there is/there isn't' choice. Both systems fall foul of the same problems; they're two sides of the same coin. Neither can prove the existence of or non-existence of God. Both require origin, and neither can explain the origin of the origin. If God created the universe, who created God? If the universe began with the Big Bang, what began the Big Bang? Both theories go so far and then run out of answers. If God is infinite then the universe can be infinite because if you entertain one infinity then infinity is possible in other guises. What does 'God' mean? If you ask 10 people you'll get 10 different answers and it's an important point. If one person believes that God is an omnipotent being that created the universe, and in fact the universe was created by a being, but not an omnipotent one then saying there is no God is true because their envisioning of God doesn't match the actuality of God. Many people believe in intelligent design, but what if it was an accident? An error? Not a design at all, but a mistake? Does that mean that God isn't God? What if there is more than one God? And so on and so forth. It all depends on what you believe in. All these questions are beyond me; I'm guessing on guessing on guessing, and none of my guesses will change what is. What is will go on being what it is despite all my gropings in the dark (take that how you will ;) )
There's a lot of wisdom in that paragraph Fifth. Nothing in there I see I would dispute.


That's how I think about it. I don't expect that anyone else will necessarily understand, and I certainly don't expect anyone to agree, but I think this is a question which is approached simplistically when it is very complex. And I don't say that to sway your opinion or to say that people are wrong in believing what they believe or disbelieve. I think we all find a path that works for us and we stick to it and we treasure and protect it. And that's okay. I remember once having a discussion with one of my Christian friends and he told me that everyone has a 'God shaped hole' in their lives and it takes God to fill it. When I looked inside I didn't find that God shaped hole, but what it made me realise is that if God went out of his life he would have a God shaped hole in it. It made me appreciate what a terribly cruel thing it would be to try and take that away from somebody, but at the same time it made me realise that it would be equally cruel to force a hole in someone's life where there wasn't one before. I understood him and his belief better, and it made me respect it. I was glad we had the discussion. I didn't believe what he believed, and there was a point where language fell down and it was impossible to describe to each other what we actually meant, but I think at the end of it we understood each other better, where our boundaries lay and how we could accept each other without having to believe the same things. I was glad for that conversation.
And even more wisdom there.


Well you may be an engineer and a former athiest, so perhaps it is little wonder that in the absence of God the world is reduced to mechanics to you. But I am a former Christian and an insurance underwriter, so perhaps it is little wonder that I inspect every little clause for flaws ;) We all drive our understanding of the world based on our own experience and many things feed into that experience. The only way we understand what Christianity or atheism or agnosticism or Buddhism or Hinduism or whatever actually mean to each other is by talking and, more importantly, listening :)
It's not just that I'm an engineer. The philosophic debates break along the control and functionings of the universe and life, like I said above. If there is any other framework for a philosophic debate i would love to hear it.

[Babbalanja]

I'm hardly ever in these and only when I see some fundementalsit (sic) atheist trying to proselitize or insult people of religion, and that goes for any religion.:rolleyes:

Nothing demonstrates the bankruptcy of an argument more succinctly than the accusation of fundamentalist atheism. Like the little old Oxford lady demanding her tax refund, the fundamentalist atheist is a convenient bogeyman that doesn't exist except in the overheated imaginations of paranoid believers.

Fundamentalists are a subset of religious believers who put their scripture above any analysis of facts and evidence. They make a "leap of faith" from any rational or humanistic approach to knowledge into the void of superstition and obscurantism. The Bible is God's word, say the fundamentalists, and the fear of God is both the beginning of wisdom and its end.

How this approach to knowledge can be applied to a nonbeliever is something only the most blinkered religious believer could fathom. Only by changing the definition of every word in our discourse on religion can a nonbeliever be accused of the same level of delusion and bigotry as a fundamentalist religious person.

Atheists simply have a worldview that doesn't include any deities. They have no scripture, no ecclesiastical hierarchy, and no systematized belief beyond the absence of supernatural beings. By any realistic standard, skepticism of religious claims based on lack of evidence is the exact opposite of religious fundamentalism.

Perhaps it amuses the most immature of religious fundamentalists to accuse nonbelievers of credulity. However, the perceived rhetorical value of such a ridiculous accusation does not make it any less desperate or erroneous.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

Nothing demonstrates the bankruptcy of an argument more succinctly than the accusation of fundamentalist atheism. Like the little old Oxford lady demanding her tax refund, the fundamentalist atheist is a convenient bogeyman that doesn't exist except in the overheated imaginations of paranoid believers.

Please. All one has to do is look across the internet at all the Richard Dawkins disciples, apostles, and devotees who join forums and just turn every thread into a discussion of atheism. I won't mention any names but there are a few people here who 90% of their posts have in some way to do with atheism. And this is a literature forum. That's fanaticism.


Fundamentalists are a subset of religious believers who put their scripture above any analysis of facts and evidence. They make a "leap of faith"
Exactly! Fundementalist atheists. Ask around if the term fits. It's catching on. I expect it to make the next edition of Websters.

[Babbalanja]

Exactly! Fundementalist atheists.
Virgil, would you mind explaining how demanding facts and evidence for claims can be compared to unquestioning adherence to Holy Scripture? It may appear to an objective observer that you're just calling anyone who criticizes fundamentalism a fundamentalist, more out of the urge to antagonize and insult than a responsible analysis of the debate.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

I think I've explained several times. When someone is so fanatical that 90% of their posts in a literature forum are about atheism, that's fundamentalism, at least by analogy. I asume Dawkin's collected books are the bible.

[Babbalanja]

I think I've explained several times. When someone is so fanatical that 90% of their posts in a literature forum are about atheism, that's fundamentalism, at least by analogy.
And a bad analogy it is. Discussing a subject constitutes fundamentalism?


I asume Dawkin's collected books are the bible.
Another bizarre analogy. If someone appreciates an author's works, that's the same thing as declaring a book God's incontrovertible and immutable truth?

It seems to me you're making irresponsible accusations without the least cause, and defining terms however you see fit. Fundamentalist religious belief is based on credulity, and atheism is based on skepticism of religious claims. They are not the same thing.

Regards,

Istvan

[Virgil]

I think the term sticks. I'm not the first to use it. It's around. Boy this seems to have hit a nerve. If the shoe doesn't fit, why are you so upset about it? I think it fits well, that's why you're upset.

[Babbalanja]

I think the term sticks. I'm not the first to use it. It's around. And it's been criticized before, for its lack of coherence and its appeal for the immature. No one seems able to describe how atheists can be fundamentalists, but certain believers like the way it gets a rise out of people. Present company excepted, of course.


Boy this seems to have hit a nerve. If the shoe doesn't fit, why are you so upset about it? I think it fits well, that's why you're upset.
So now you've defined an atheist fundamentalist as anyone who raises polite, patient, and rational objections to the term? How very convenient.

You may have forgotten that this very thread was started to incite hatred against intolerant nonbelievers, whether or not such believers even exist. I questioned the veracity of the story in the OP, and as a result I was told that the matter of whether the story is true or not is irrelevant. It seems that certain believers love having their paranoia reinforced, and can't bear to have their delusions pointed out for what they are.

Regards,

Istvan

[Haunted]

I think I've explained several times.

Virgil, I almost burst out laughing when I saw this. It happened to me earlier on, I found myself explaining the same thing over and over and over. We need to face reality. If it doesn't sink in, it doesn't sink in. Spinning the wheel and going nowhere is a waste of gas.

[BienvenuJDC]

Virgil, I almost burst out laughing when I saw this. It happened to me earlier on, I found myself explaining the same thing over and over and over. We need to face reality. If it doesn't sink in, it doesn't sink in. Spinning the wheel and going nowhere is a waste of gas.

Agreed...

[Babbalanja]

It's unfortunate that this has devolved into a back-slapping exercise, when I'm still waiting for clarification on the definition of an atheist fundamentalist. It seems that the label is merely meant as a vague insult to people that believers hold in contempt, and it has simply become another of the beliefs that Christians never feel the need to examine objectively.

Fundamentalism is an approach to knowledge that never has to define its terms in a coherent, consistent way or present evidence supporting its claims. That's actually the exact opposite of the approach that skeptics and atheists favor. I'm not even saying one approach is better than another. All I'm saying is that the two are different, and I'm asking (to no avail) for clarification as to how atheists can be fundamentalists.

Considering that this very thread was started simply to demonize intolerant, irrational atheists whether they actually exist or not, I suppose I should expect it to end the same way.

Regards,

Istvan

[TheFifthElement]

Huh? Christianity resonates to 2+ billion people today. I doubt there's two thousand people worldwide find the yule tree in the same significance as the ancient Germanic pagans. In fact i bet none. Even today's pagans are not finding any spiritual significance in it.
Yule tree? There's a Yule Log, but I'm not aware of a Yule tree. The origin of the 'Christmas' tree appears to be in Saturnalia rather than Yule. However, the point I was getting to was that it is the tradition, as opposed to spiritualism, which continues today. It still has significance. Certainly the celebrations I, and many others like me who do not believe in Christ, have at this time of year more closely resemble the pagan festivals of Yule and Winter Solstice than they do Christianity. Perhaps they even more closely resemble whatever it was that pre-dated Yule? Who knows?

What is interesting to me, regardless of whether you call the festival Yule or Christmas or or Saturnalia or whatever, is that the traditions seem to survive, whereas the deity doesn't. What will be worshipped, if anything, on Dec 25th in 1000 years? I wish I could be there to see it :D


Ok, I guess that works vice versa. So are atheists who celebrate Christmas hypocrites? :p
Only as hypocritical as Christians who cultivate the myth of Father Christmas/Santa Claus/St. Nicholas/Kris Kringle, and give gifts and put up a tree and lights, kiss under the mistletoe and eat roast turkey on Christmas Day. None of these things have anything to do with the worship of Christ. As I said before, there's a consistent thread of tradition, but the religious significance is in flux.



Perhaps it doesn't necessarily involve a deity (not exactly sure) but it does involve the conception of supernatural power to affect the physical world.
Not necessarily. Not all religious/spiritual practices involve a deity or a supernatural power. How would you define Sun worship? The Sun is not a supernatural power, and it does affect the physical world. Buddhism, again, is a case in point - it is a religion, but has no deity or supernatural being or power in its ideology. Neither is there any worship. Equally, the Winter Solstice celebration doesn't appear to have anything to do with supernatural powers. It appears to be more practical than that:

In temperate climates, the midwinter festival was the last feast celebration, before deep winter began. Most cattle were slaughtered so they would not have to be fed during the winter, so it was almost the only time of year when a supply of fresh meat was available. The majority of wine and beer made during the year was finally fermented and ready for drinking at this time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice


I have simplified this by taking out the agnostic side, but as I see it they are a neutral position, unable to verify either, but still within the science/God paradigm. I don't really see a third position there, other than they can't come to a conclusion.
I think agnosticism is about more than the question of deity or none. It is possible there is a God, it is possible there is not. It is equally possible that the universe was created from a giant snarg's fart. Anything is possible, anything at all. But human beings are pattern seekers, we see patterns in everything. We see patterns where there are none: constellations, for example. And we're unable to see beyond them. We're tied to the limits of our perception, but believe that how we perceive things is all that there is. I believe that's a mistake. I believe that there's much more to the universe, but that we can't, because we don't have the ability to, access. I believe that the deist/athiest argument falls foul of this, it is the limit of human imagination: there is a pattern therefore it can only be explained by God (design) or science (mechanics). I believe we need to think beyond that, but admit that I'm not visionary enough to do it myself :p


I beleive in Christianity, but I know there's God.
That's a big statement. What kind of God? Is your kind of God the same as my kind of God or your neighbour's kind of God? I don't doubt that you believe that you know there is a God, but that's not quite the same thing. Prove it to me, then I'll believe you ;)

[Virgil]

Yule tree? There's a Yule Log, but I'm not aware of a Yule tree. The origin of the 'Christmas' tree appears to be in Saturnalia rather than Yule. However, the point I was getting to was that it is the tradition, as opposed to spiritualism, which continues today. It still has significance. Certainly the celebrations I, and many others like me who do not believe in Christ, have at this time of year more closely resemble the pagan festivals of Yule and Winter Solstice than they do Christianity. Perhaps they even more closely resemble whatever it was that pre-dated Yule? Who knows?

What is interesting to me, regardless of whether you call the festival Yule or Christmas or or Saturnalia or whatever, is that the traditions seem to survive, whereas the deity doesn't. What will be worshipped, if anything, on Dec 25th in 1000 years? I wish I could be there to see it :D


Christianity. :D


Only as hypocritical as Christians who cultivate the myth of Father Christmas/Santa Claus/St. Nicholas/Kris Kringle, and give gifts and put up a tree and lights, kiss under the mistletoe and eat roast turkey on Christmas Day. None of these things have anything to do with the worship of Christ. As I said before, there's a consistent thread of tradition, but the religious significance is in flux.
Slight philosophic difference there. Any religion that absorbs those elements reinterprets them and absorbs them into their tradition and world view. but an atheist doesn't believe in any religious significance, and so whatever may be in flux stops. Anyway, we're just going in circles here on that.


Not necessarily. Not all religious/spiritual practices involve a deity or a supernatural power. How would you define Sun worship? The Sun is not a supernatural power, and it does affect the physical world. Buddhism, again, is a case in point - it is a religion, but has no deity or supernatural being or power in its ideology. Neither is there any worship. Equally, the Winter Solstice celebration doesn't appear to have anything to do with supernatural powers. It appears to be more practical than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_solstice
Wait a second. You failed to quote that whole link. Above what you qoted is this:

The solstice itself may have been a special moment of the annual cycle of the year even during neolithic times. Astronomical events, which during ancient times controlled the mating of animals, sowing of crops and metering of winter reserves between harvests, show how various cultural mythologies and traditions have arisen. This is attested by physical remains in the layouts of late Neolithic and Bronze Age archaeological sites such as Stonehenge in Britain and New Grange in Ireland. The primary axes of both of these monuments seem to have been carefully aligned on a sight-line pointing to the winter solstice sunrise (New Grange) and the winter solstice sunset (Stonehenge).
and blow what you quote is this:

Since the event is seen as the reversal of the Sun's ebbing presence in the sky, concepts of the birth or rebirth of sun gods have been common and, in cultures using winter solstitially based cyclic calendars, the year as reborn has been celebrated with regard to life-death-rebirth deities or new beginnings such as Hogmanay's redding, a New Year cleaning tradition. In Greek mythology, the gods and goddesses met on the winter and summer solstice, and Hades was permitted on Mount Olympus. Also reversal is another usual theme as in Saturnalia's slave and master reversals.
So there was definitely religious significance and supernatural power to the Winter Solstice.

Oh by the way, you just reminded me of a great DH lawrence short story that uses the winter solstice, "The Woman Who Rode Away." Do check it out, it's a great read.


I think agnosticism is about more than the question of deity or none. It is possible there is a God, it is possible there is not. It is equally possible that the universe was created from a giant snarg's fart. Anything is possible, anything at all. But human beings are pattern seekers, we see patterns in everything. We see patterns where there are none: constellations, for example. And we're unable to see beyond them. We're tied to the limits of our perception, but believe that how we perceive things is all that there is. I believe that's a mistake. I believe that there's much more to the universe, but that we can't, because we don't have the ability to, access. I believe that the deist/athiest argument falls foul of this, it is the limit of human imagination: there is a pattern therefore it can only be explained by God (design) or science (mechanics). I believe we need to think beyond that, but admit that I'm not visionary enough to do it myself :p


That's a big statement. What kind of God? Is your kind of God the same as my kind of God or your neighbour's kind of God? I don't doubt that you believe that you know there is a God, but that's not quite the same thing. Prove it to me, then I'll believe you ;)
I have very little knowledge on the nature of God. All I can resolve is that he exists. Everything else is based on faith. That's a relatively complicated proof and fairly scientific. All I can say is that there is very little order in pure randomness and given the high level of structure and order (you'll have to understand the concept of entropy) from a post big bang explosion (order in the sense of atomic structure, molecular structure, planetary structure, human and life structures (just think of the complexity of DNA that has to form to create life on a single planet that can support life just at the moment when that planet can support life) that when you start to tabulate and apporoximate the probabilities of it all coming together on its own is so incredibly remote that it is impossible to be random. Explosions don't produce order, they destroy it, or better said, accelerate randomness. Plus I've asked this several times and no one seems to want to answer it. Do you think you're just a mechanical being of biological parts or do you think humanity (and all life) has the spark of the divine?

[Jozanny]

I once had an online give and take with a Jewish writer who asked me how it was possible to be Jewish American during the Christmas season in the US, and the way he asked it struck a chord with me, in the sense that American pluralism is not all it is cracked up to be.

Still, the best I can do is observe, as an atheist but primarily humanist Catholic. Some on my mother's side are staunch defenders of the faith, and I just avoid the issue entirely in real world terms. I have lost interest in writing defenses of atheism for atheist publications, and if I could get a byline in Commonweal I'd take it, meaning I am a crass opportunist.

Religions aren't going to die out simply because I think they are stupid and humans fail to live up to them most of the time. Judaism values its exceptionalism. Catholicism values authoritarianism. Protestantism wavers between these two poles with perhaps an emphasis on personal relation to the divine. Atheism likes being smug, parsed down to its basics, and Islamic and Eastern forms have their norms too.

I seem to prefer standing aside, but if I can make any money out of that, as a writer, I'll take it.

[JuniperWoolf]

Virgil, I almost burst out laughing when I saw this. It happened to me earlier on, I found myself explaining the same thing over and over and over. We need to face reality. If it doesn't sink in, it doesn't sink in. Spinning the wheel and going nowhere is a waste of gas.

Isn't it weird that both sides feel exactly the same? I feel like we're hammering the obvious truth into your heads and you're just not getting it. It's weird, eh? How we can all be given the exact same information and come to completely different conclusions. I wonder why that is. It's a bit irritating, but I guess that's what species deviation is all about.

[MarkBastable]

. Plus I've asked this several times and no one seems to want to answer it.

Er - excuse me. I did. Scroll back a couple of dozen posts.


Do you think you're just a mechanical being of biological parts or do you think humanity (and all life) has the spark of the divine?

Actually, I'll save you the trouble. No and no.

To break that down....

Do you think you're just a mechanical being of biological parts?


For a start there's no 'just' about it. It's a pretty amazing idea.

Secondly, I don't know what that 'mechanical' is doing there. There's a difference between machines and living things - though I can see a whole new thread starting on that one.

But if you had said, "Do you think that you are the product of biological processes?" then yes.


Do you think humanity (and all life) has the spark of the divine?


No. With no God, there's no divinity, and so the idea doesn't come up for consideration.


In fact, given that there's no God, one could say that the very fact that we're all walking around would indicate that divinity is not necessary for life. But - if I were you, Virgil - I'd point out that that's a circular argument, because it has to assume a lack of God in order to conclude he's not necessary for life.

But then I'd say the same about any argument that required God for the existence of life.

Different premises, and all that.

[Virgil]

You are either one of the other, or you're philosophically flawed. Without God, you're just mechanism.

[MarkBastable]

You are either one of the other, or you're philosophically flawed. Without God, you're just mechanism.


I think you'd have to define 'mechanism'. If your definition is 'anything animated that's not divine' then, yeah, okay. But I don't think that's the generally-agreed definition.

So without getting into the semantics of that word, what do you say characterises the mechanical, apart from the lack of the divine?

[OrphanPip]

I have very little knowledge on the nature of God. All I can resolve is that he exists. Everything else is based on faith. That's a relatively complicated proof and fairly scientific. All I can say is that there is very little order in pure randomness and given the high level of structure and order (you'll have to understand the concept of entropy) from a post big bang explosion (order in the sense of atomic structure, molecular structure, planetary structure, human and life structures (just think of the complexity of DNA that has to form to create life on a single planet that can support life just at the moment when that planet can support life) that when you start to tabulate and apporoximate the probabilities of it all coming together on its own is so incredibly remote that it is impossible to be random. Explosions don't produce order, they destroy it, or better said, accelerate randomness. Plus I've asked this several times and no one seems to want to answer it. Do you think you're just a mechanical being of biological parts or do you think humanity (and all life) has the spark of the divine?

Thus, argument from incredulity...

There is nothing scientific about this "proof", you can't prove anything from negative reasoning. Even something highly improbable can happen, and by us being here, must have happened.

As to "mechanical beings" of course we are. Even someone who believes in the spirit must admit that who we are can be changed by physical alteration of the brain. There is nothing mysterious about human behavior that can't be explained naturalistically.

[Virgil]

I don't get into these religious/atheism arguments. I've said my piece. Nothing will convince anyone. I don't intend to pursue it further. I stand by what i said.

[MarkBastable]

I don't get into these religious/atheism arguments. I've said my piece. Nothing will convince anyone. I don't intend to pursue it further. I stand by what i said.

I knew you'd say that, you machine, you.

[OrphanPip]

I don't get into these religious/atheism arguments. I've said my piece. Nothing will convince anyone. I don't intend to pursue it further. I stand by what i said.

That's fine, I just think the existence of a god is a matter of faith equally as much as belief in a particular religion.

[Virgil]

That's fine, I just think the existence of a god is a matter of faith equally as much as belief in a particular religion.

Next time you hit a hundred lotterries in a row, let me know, because that's what it takes for it all to happen by chance, if not even higher odds. But that's not the full extent of the argument, anyway. It's more complicated and i'm not getting into it. The fact that the resulting pattern fits into mathematical equations is supporting justification.

[billl]

I'm pretty sure Virgil is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Sometimes used by supporters of Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Fine-tuned_Universe), as well as by Cosmologists arguing for the possibility of a Multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Anthropic_principle).

[Jozanny]

Virgil, the development of life is actually thought to be a common process on viable planets--not rare as once believed. Just because we do not fully understand how particles organize and interact does not mean the odds are astronomical--you're plugging in your own wish fulfillment.

It must be easy for believers to constantly offend people like me by shoveling it online. Whatever happened to practice what you preach? Religious adage has nothing about posting.

[TheFifthElement]

Christianity. :D
:lol: I guess I walked into that one.


Slight philosophic difference there. Any religion that absorbs those elements reinterprets them and absorbs them into their tradition and world view. but an atheist doesn't believe in any religious significance, and so whatever may be in flux stops.
Assuming that religious significance is what keeps it going, perhaps. But, playing devils advocate again here, it could be argued that Christianity was absorbed into the pagan tradition.Certainly it seems that the historically pagan elements dominate the festival ;)


So there was definitely religious significance and supernatural power to the Winter Solstice.
Not exactly. If you read what I said, I said not necessarily. On the first quote that you quoted, it mentions nothing about religious significance. The reference to Stonehenge and New Grange relates to one of their supposed functions as a marker in the calendar, a giant sized alarm clock: beep-beep-beep, 'gerrup' - time to slaughter the cattle :D

I don't deny that winter solstice has, in some respects, carried spiritual significance, but the second quote is confused because it refers to multiple other festivals: Saturnalia (Roman), Hogmanay (Celtic), as well as Greek traditions. This is a common problem when referring to paganism as it encompasses a mutitude of different traditions, some of which are spiritual and some of which are naturalistic or even rationalistic in nature. Wicca, Druidism, Shamanism as well as the polytheistic religions are generally lumped together under the term 'Paganism' and we understand very little about them because their nature has often been perverted by historical prejudice. So in some respects the winter solstice has spiritual significance, and in others it doesn't. The spiritual element is well known, but often people overlook the non-religious origins of our traditional festivals. That's what I was drawing attention to.


Oh by the way, you just reminded me of a great DH lawrence short story that uses the winter solstice, "The Woman Who Rode Away." Do check it out, it's a great read.
Thanks, I'll check it out.



All I can say is that there is very little order in pure randomness and given the high level of structure and order (you'll have to understand the concept of entropy) from a post big bang explosion (order in the sense of atomic structure, molecular structure, planetary structure, human and life structures (just think of the complexity of DNA that has to form to create life on a single planet that can support life just at the moment when that planet can support life) that when you start to tabulate and apporoximate the probabilities of it all coming together on its own is so incredibly remote that it is impossible to be random. Explosions don't produce order, they destroy it, or better said, accelerate randomness.
That's one way of looking at it. It could also be argued that the universe has made and unmade itself billions upon billions upon billions of times and this time happens to be one in which life was formed and we can only question the randomness of it because we are here to do it and haven't got the perceptual skills to offer any other explanation. It'd be kind of like expecting a pixel on the letter 'p' on page 142 of War and Peace to figure out it's place in the context of the novel.

Besides, it's not exclusively the case that explosions produce disorder or randomness even in our own limited perception of the universe.The IRA blew up my old ugly work building and now there's a shiny new Marks & Spencers there ;) On a more serious note, Nebulae, for example, may be formed from supernovas and then go on to form new stars, thereby suggesting a move to order order out of chaos. So there are pockets of 'order' on the route to 'disorder'. Perhaps we are just one of those pockets. That also assumes that our concept of 'order' is correct and not another one of those things that is purely driven by the human pattern-seeking compulsion. Plus there's a heavy three-dimensional matter-bias to human theories of the universe, again because of our perceptual bias, which may well be way off the mark. The problem is that we can't perceive it any other way. But just because our perception is limited, doesn't mean the universe is.


Do you think you're just a mechanical being of biological parts or do you think humanity (and all life) has the spark of the divine?
I think I already answered this. I don't accept that those are the only two options. Both are driven by the pattern-seeking nature of human perception. In the context of our limitations we try to explain something which is beyond us and call it 'God' (outside our control and understanding) or 'science' (within our control and understanding). Both ignore the massive amorphous grey area in between.

[billl]

Jozanny, I'm pretty sure Virgil is making a different point (one that pops up in respectable modern popularizations of science/cosmology, and is not limited to the Creationist/Intelligent Design position). I posted a link to it right above yours.

[Virgil]

I'm pretty sure Virgil is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Sometimes used by supporters of Intelligent Design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design#Fine-tuned_Universe), as well as by Cosmologists arguing for the possibility of a Multiverse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Anthropic_principle).


Virgil, the development of life is actually thought to be a common process on viable planets--not rare as once believed. Just because we do not fully understand how particles organize and interact does not mean the odds are astronomical--you're plugging in your own wish fulfillment.

It must be easy for believers to constantly offend people like me by shoveling it online. Whatever happened to practice what you preach? Religious adage has nothing about posting.

What are you guys talking about? I've never even heard of Anthropic principle and I've never said that life couldn't exist on other planets. If life were found on other planets I think that would confirm God. In no way is it possible to have such astronomical odds come to fruition multple times by just chance.

[billl]

Jeez, that'll teach me. :(
Sorry, Virgil,
Sorry, Jozanny.

[Virgil]

I guess that's why we have such a debate. I don't believe such order happens by accident, and that such order follows mathematical equations.

[QUOTE]Besides, it's not exclusively the case that explosions produce disorder or randomness even in our own limited perception of the universe.The IRA blew up my old ugly work building and now there's a shiny new Marks & Spencers there ;)
That proves exactly my point. It took rational, thinking creative force to erect an ordered structure. It didn't get built by accident. Next time someone blows up a bomb, do the fragments form a a thing? No. Next time you dig a hole randomly, do you think you'll find a jet engine randomly put together by nature bringing metals together? And look at something extremely simple as this nest. Do you think that pure random blowing of twigs could have put this nest together?

http://chiotsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/robins-nest.jpg

It takes a a creative force to organize into form.

[Jozanny]

No need to apologize bill. I am in post-fever attack wind down and my mood is not on the easiest terms, and I am worried about the continuation or not of my writing life/writing career. Let me put this another way: I track, without being an expert in, the study of religious systems, and when I can get away with it, use such knowledge in my articles. Same goes for layman's articles on physics.

But these constant tug of wars online between the veracity of theism and the veracity of material explanation no longer hold much interest for me, with one caveat: The pressure of religious majorities can and still does cause harm to the minority, which is why I thought of my former Jewish writer acquaintance, as his appeal, at the time, felt poignant.

[Poetess]

Some people are nuts. I know lots of Sikhs and Muslims in Coventry who have Christmas trees and presents who don't believe in the religious reasons, but join in. I join in too with my family, and we're not Christians.

Right. We have a tree to take care of every Christmas. We as well bring gifts since we believe that Jesus was born anyway!!!?
This women is a sample of those who actually give a total bad reputation of Muslims.

She didn`t take the money, I mean hell she gave up on her right after fighting for it :crash: those people seriously drive me crazy.

[OrphanPip]

Right. We have a tree to take care of every Christmas. We as well bring gifts since we believe that Jesus was born anyway!!!?
This women is a sample of those who actually give a total bad reputation of Muslims.

She didn`t take the money, I mean hell she gave up on her right after fighting for it :crash: those people seriously drive me crazy.

We actually found out that this woman didn't exist. Also, interestingly enough it was unspecified if she were an atheist, muslim, jew, or whatever. It makes her a very versatile bogeyman when she can fill in for your least favorite group.

[TheFifthElement]

I guess that's why we have such a debate. I don't believe such order happens by accident, and that such order follows mathematical equations.
But you're ignoring the possibility of infinite time. With infinite time everything is equally possible; totally messes up your statistics. And you're also ignoring the possibility that our mathematics fits the order that we observe, as opposed to the other way around.


That proves exactly my point. It took rational, thinking creative force to erect an ordered structure. It didn't get built by accident. Next time someone blows up a bomb, do the fragments form a a thing? No. Next time you dig a hole randomly, do you think you'll find a jet engine randomly put together by nature bringing metals together? And look at something extremely simple as this nest. Do you think that pure random blowing of twigs could have put this nest together?
Oh I see, you choose to comment on my joke example and ingore the serious one ;) You're still in the range of human perceptual limits: because humans have a propensity to build, everything must be built. But you're cheating with your example, because in both the examples I can observe the process. And you're thinking very small. Was the Earth exercising its creative intelligence when it built this:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/himalayas.jpg or this? http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/belfast_GiantsCauseway.jpg or this? http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/volcano.jpg

Was water exercising its creative intelligence when it built this:
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/cloud-5.jpg or this? http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/snowflake2.jpg

Was the universe exercising its creative intelligence when it built this?
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd68/TheFifthElement_photos/OrionNebula_M42_m.gif

And if everything that has 'order' or 'form', by human definition, must have been built, what built God? And what built the thing that built God? And so on and so forth.

[Virgil]

And if everything that has 'order' or 'form', by human definition, must have been built, what built God? And what built the thing that built God? And so on and so forth.
I do not know. I don't think there is anything but speculation as to pre big bang. As to infinite time, the big bang occured less than 14 billion years ago. When you figure how astronomical the odss are, 14 billion is not that long ago. And you are just thinking life developing. But the sub atmomic processes of electrons and protons and other elemental order had to have been formed correctly the instant of the big bang, the very first time. And let me just go back to life forming. If life forms so easily, how come even on earth, where life is supposedly ideal, why has it only initiated once, everything being an evolution from that first time? You would think that the earth would have had parallel life strains (not sure what the proper term is) rather than a string from one branch.

[Babbalanja]

And let me just go back to life forming. :lol:

Am I the only one who notices desperation in the air? How far back in the universe's history are we supposed to go before we see evidence of the Big Magic Guy, anyway?

What we know about the universe is that we see inexorable material functionality on one level, and bleak uncertainty on the other. Since neither of these facts indicates the presence of a deity, believers want us to go back literally billions of years, to staggeringly unlikely events whose origins are by definition speculative, in order to squeeze God into the picture.

Why this appeal to ignorance? Is it because we understand the material causes of such things as disease, lightning, earthquakes, seasons, heredity, floods, magnetism, the orbit of the planets, species diversity, and plenty of other natural phenomena that were once thought to indicate the workings of the Almighty? Do we have any reason to assume that the origin of biotic life or the origin of the universe is any different from any other natural phenomenon, except that we don't currently know exactly how they happened?

Never let it be said that contemporary religion is based on what we know about our universe, or our place in it. Believers can only point to what we don't know to make their case, and that speaks volumes about the nature of faith.

Regards,

Istvan

[OrphanPip]

And let me just go back to life forming. If life forms so easily, how come even on earth, where life is supposedly ideal, why has it only initiated once, everything being an evolution from that first time? You would think that the earth would have had parallel life strains (not sure what the proper term is) rather than a string from one branch.

Not necessarily, the emergence of life need only be rare enough that it can occur relatively frequently every few 100 million years or so. That way life can emerge and go extinct a few times without us being able to investigate it. Moreover, once life already exists in an environment it will consume any complex organic substances and prevent more life from emerging anyway. Or panspermia happened ;), but I don't actually believe that one.

[Janine]

Am I the only one who notices desperation in the air? How far back in the universe's history are we supposed to go before we see evidence of the Big Magic Guy, anyway?

Wow, I have been reading along on this thread for sometime and not posting; but now I think this statement is very disrespectful for people who do believe in God. I take it you are calling God "the Big Magic Guy". I can't believe how low this forum has come. It seems this thread about a woman protesting that she will not pay taxes, because a town is decorating for Christmas, has instead turned into another one of those 'Christianity verses non-Christianity' threads. I am sorry, but this is getting sickening and quite tiresome. I thought, when I joined here, this was a forum about discussing literature.

[Babbalanja]

I take it you are calling God "the Big Magic Guy". No, actually, Janine, the Christians in this thread are doing so: they assert that the universe itself and biotic life are incapable of forming without being catalyzed by a cosmic magician, a worker of rare and inexplicable miracles involving laws of physics and amino acid formation. If there were any more boring, mechanistic view of transcendent reality, I couldn't describe it.

Janine, if God to you is the demand to live fully and ethically, to feel pain along with the most unfortunate of His creatures, and to keep your courage in the face of the vast indifference of our universe, I commend you. However, if your God is the cheap magician who was only necessary to spin molecules and arrange subatomic particles in the distant past, I feel my scorn is warranted.

Regards,

Istvan

[Janine]

No, actually, Janine, the Christians in this thread are doing so: they assert that the universe itself and biotic life are incapable of forming without being catalyzed by a cosmic magician, a worker of rare and inexplicable miracles involving laws of physics and amino acid formation. If there were any more boring, mechanistic view of transcendent reality, I couldn't describe it.

Janine, if God to you is the demand to live fully and ethically, to feel pain along with the most unfortunate of His creatures, and to keep your courage in the face of the vast indifference of our universe, I commend you. However, if your God is the cheap magician who was only necessary to spin molecules and arrange subatomic particles in the distant past, I feel my scorn is warranted.

Regards,

Istvan

I am sorry, but I am confused now. It seems you are putting thoughts and words into my mouth. I said very little in my last post. I didn't go into my own belief system; but merely observed that I felt that remark a bit over-the-top. I don't like these discussions and rarely make a comment in ones like this one and others; to me they get downright snide and nasty. To me, this is a literature forum and I am not here to evaluate the standards of other's religious beliefs.

[Scheherazade]

It seems this thread about a woman protesting that she will not pay taxes, because a town is decorating for Christmas, has instead turned into another one of those 'Christianity verses non-Christianity' threads.


I agree with Janine that this thread has strayed too far from the OP and will now be closed.