Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheist or Anti-Christian?
Options
Comments
-
-
SilkySmooth wrote: »A fine example of the christianity-bashing that goes on in these boards-
Maybe you didn't realize you're on the atheist board. What do you expect?SilkySmooth wrote: »ridiculously over-generalizing as well.
Hardly - it's all right there in the holy bookSilkySmooth wrote: »sorry for the rant folks, but this kind of talk gets on my nerves.
Good, it's meant to.0 -
Personally I'm an atheist that didn't "celebrate" Christmas in any form until I met my wife and since then I spend the day with her and her family but it holds no "special meaning" to me as a day. That's probably because I was brought up in a family that never celebrated christmas so I have none of those "warm fuzzy" feelings from when I was a kid.
I can understand however someone who grew up in a house where christmas was a special day that held a certain amount of magic for them growing up feeling a certain desire to experience that at this time of year.
To my mind it's like this. If growing up you went fishing with your parent\parents regularly and this was an activity that you always enjoyed and held a special place in your memories then even if you develop an allergy to fish later in life you will always love the smell of fish or to spend time by the coast because it will trigger that emotional warmth.
When an atheist sees a christmas tree or heres a carol it's perfectly normal for this to trigger a desire to maintain that feeling in their lives and as they say, there's no reason not to given that if we're honest it's no longer thought of as a religious holiday by anyone but religious people.
To me the day means nothing at all but a bit of a well needed break from work and a time to watch movies, as I said earlier until I met my wife I never celebrated it at all (in fact I used to just get in a few beers, cook a frozen pizza and play my playstation for the day, it was my idea of a perfect day
)
So bringing this back to the point of the thread (:D) I think Atheists are as likely as anyone else to be influenced by their upbringing when it comes to this sort of thing.. If someone spent their life (in their eyes) being lied to by the church, they might just get resentful at the perpetuation of those (apparent) lies and try to (sometimes a bit too actively) argue their positions.. Personally I also think there's also a certain amount of religious style trying to "bring people to the light". I know for me personally discussing religion with the religious is like talking to an American Republican in 2002\2003 about what a disaster Bush was. No matter what you say they are blindly convinced that their guy is always right.. (And before someone else gets this in us atheists can be just as frustrating to talk to when we always describe religious people are drooling idiots, we'll get a lot further in our discussions when we realise that these are often intelligent people who have thought their positions out in great detail.. We just happen to disagree completely on the conclusions!)0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Oh it's actually interesting that you should say that because when I lived in Russia, we didn't celebrate Christmas but the New Year instead. And at the New Year you have the big meal and presents and "Dedushka Moroz" (Father Christmas) arrives! Although there is a smaller religious Christmas, it's the Russian Orthodox Christmas, but that takes place on January the 7th because it goes in accordance with the old Julian calender and not many people really celebrate it and it's not very big. But Russia is rather secular due to years of Communism. Although they have great parties!!!Jeremiah 16:1 wrote: »Well Christmas is almost a fully Capitalist/materialist festival now and has been for some time-are you going to celebrate it?:)
For me, it would sense to have a festival in Winter...many cultures on this latitude do it as a way of breaking up a cold dark season, and if you think about it, the solstice is a logical place in the calender to do it and bring in the new year. Imo, the new year should begin on the solstice...at least then, the calender year and astronomical year line up a bit closer.
0 -
-
-
Appeal to an unknown authority.
Sorry, I really have no idea what you mean by this.Your post depicts paganism in an utterly positive light. Most ridiculous of all you claim that paganism does not involve any supernatural beliefs. Is the belief that things like stones, trees and rabbits have their own spirits not supernatural?
I said no such thing. As I said before (to Brian I think), try rereading my post.
What I said is "you don't have to believe in anything supernatural to be a pagan."
Not that you mustn't, but that it isn't necessary. I would have hoped that even someone as wilfully contrary as you would be able to see the difference.
You wrongly characterize all pagans as sharing a single belief system. It isn't like that. There is a vast array of pagan beliefs, from - as you say - the belief that everything is inhabited by an individual spirit and sacrifices to appease angry deities at one extreme to a vague celebration of 'nature' usually involving some celebration marking the seasons and solar cycles at the other. And many, many shades in between.
Only a fool would claim all forms of paganism were uniformly positive, and of course - not being a fool - I haven't done so. My post was intended to point out the many ways in which paganism is more acceptable to many people than christianity, not to provide an exhaustive overview of pagan practices. I must say this discussion would be easier if you would take issue with specific points in my post rather than seeking to condemn the entire thing in one fell sweep. What exactly don't you like about it? Is it just that I haven't pointed out that some pagans have historically engaged in behaviour that's unpalatable to modern sensibilities, just as some christians have? If so then you can relax - I freely acknowledge that. And if it makes you feel any better, I've had plenty of heated discussions with pagans over supernatural beliefs.I don't see the virtue in not evangelising (by which I mean proclaiming beliefs, not forcing them). If pagans do not do this, then there are two possibilities that I can see:
1. they do not want to help other people to be happier
2. they do not really believe in their religion as an explanation or description for reality
I think this comment demonstrates only that you see things from a deeply christian perspective. As far as I know, pagans (at least not all of them) don't believe in what they believe in to make them happier, nor do they necessarily think such beliefs would be any sort of panacea for others. Do you think the only purpose of religion/belief is to make people happy? (Well, yes, you might be right, it isn't called the opium of the people for nothing.)
It sounds from your post as though you start out by assuming that we're all entitled to happiness and that the point of religion is to bestow it upon us. By and large it's a christian trait to think the world was put here solely for our benefit and that we're the most important things on it. I suspect that many pagans, like atheists, see the universe as rather more indifferent to us than that, with a much better sense of our insignificance within it.
Besides, evangelism says more about the evangelizer than the target. There's no virtue at all, it seems to me, in evangelizing when it comes from a place of thinking that there's nothing to learn from people who believe or think differently to oneself. There's great virtue - if you want to put it that way - in discussion, the exchange of ideas, debate... but when you're closed to the possibility that your answers and beliefs might be incorrect, such discussion becomes a little meaningless, not to mention somewhat patronizing and arrogant.
How, as a christian, can you be open to any non-christian's ideas or approach them as an equal when you've already decided before you hear what they've got to say that you're right and they're wrong?0 -
Oh it's actually interesting that you should say that because when I lived in Russia, we didn't celebrate Christmas but the New Year instead. And at the New Year you have the big meal and presents and "Dedushka Moroz" (Father Christmas) arrives! Although there is a smaller religious Christmas, it's the Russian Orthodox Christmas, but that takes place on January the 7th because it goes in accordance with the old Julian calender and not many people really celebrate it and it's not very big. But Russia is rather secular due to years of Communism. Although they have great parties!!!
Bestrioba! (sp?):p0 -
Advertisement
-
Maybe you didn't realize you're on the atheist board. What do you expect?
I realized perfectly well. I was talking about boards in general, but why should an atheist discussion have to descend into bashing Christianity? you can explain coherently and politely what you dislike / disagree with- you don't have to make unfair generalizations about those who practice it. I enjoy reading the many insightful discussions here from atheists and agnostics explaining their views in a thoughtful manner without going down the road of bashing Christianity.
Pagans don't proselytize. Their pantheism leaves plenty of room for all sorts of other beliefs. They don't claim to have the absolute truth. They don't tell people what to believe, how to think or how to act. They don't claim that people who think or act differently are evil/sinful/deserving of punishment. They don't try to subvert public policy to suit their own moral agenda. Their beliefs are rooted in respect for nature, unlike the human-centric arrogance of christianity.
You weren't talking about the 'good book' though were you? Correct me if i'm wrong, but you were generalizing Christians.That's how it came across anyway. Believe it or not, not all Christians 'claim to have absolute truth' or say people who don't agree with them are 'evil'. Of course, you get some nutty ones shoving their views on others, but you can't tar them all with the same brush.
Good, it's meant to.
So (again, correct me if i'm wrong) your aim is to rile up religious people? Very nice.
Now I remember why I don't post much in here.brianthebard wrote: »
Lolz that's the sort of thing I'm talking about. Its quite funny to see people defending one faith but putting down another. To be ok with paganism because of pantheism but not Christianity, and to suggest that there aren't as many rules in paganism so therefore its ok for atheists (who I am led to believe don't believe in any god, and don't accept religion as a valid idea) just shows a complete double standard and a need to bash christianity which is put before a need to reject religion, which I thought was the more important element of atheism.
I agree. 0 -
-
-
Appeal to some authority on pagan beliefs who the rest of us don't know.
Sorry, I really have no idea what you mean by this.
But I expect the vast majority of pagans do believe in supernatural things, for instance the presence of spirits in stones, or claiming that particular places have greater spiritual importance than others. If a pagan does not believe in anything supernatural at all, what is the difference between a pagan and a romantic naturalist?I said no such thing. As I said before (to Brian I think), try rereading my post.
What I said is "you don't have to believe in anything supernatural to be a pagan."
Not that you mustn't, but that it isn't necessary. I would have hoped that even someone as wilfully contrary as you would be able to see the difference.
Actually you did by writing three paragraphs about pagan beliefs. I'm well aware of the fundamental diversity of pagan beliefs (one of the hazards of their geocentrism) but we are both presumably talking about the beliefs that unite all pagans that let them be defined as such.You wrongly characterize all pagans as sharing a single belief system. It isn't like that.
The most annoying thing about your post was its lack of sources for its claims. When you make outrageously generalising and partisan claims like pagans don't condemn others (my cousin went out with a Druid once who liked nothing better than a bitter rant against evil Christians), that they don't try to subvert public policy to suit their own moral agenda (many pagans were involved in the anti-M3 protest, and I also opposed that motorway for other reasons), that they start from respect for nature (although of course many pagan beliefs just impose human personalities on nature).My post was intended to point out the many ways in which paganism is more acceptable to many people than christianity, not to provide an exhaustive overview of pagan practices. I must say this discussion would be easier if you would take issue with specific points in my post rather than seeking to condemn the entire thing in one fell sweep. What exactly don't you like about it?
We can agree that condemning others is bad, subverting the right to self-determination is bad, and that disrespect for nature is bad, and that telling people what to think rather than letting them decide for themselves is also bad. The fact that you firmly place Christianity on the bad side of these norms, and paganism on the good side, is also unfair and offensive.
That's why I put in "that I can see", because I knew there were probably points that I had not thought of.I think this comment demonstrates only that you see things from a deeply christian perspective.
No, the purpose of religion is to provide a true narrative for the universe and in some cases to help the adherent to enter a relationship with God, which is about happiness. If I believed religion was only about happiness and comfort then I would not have made point (2).As far as I know, pagans (at least not all of them) don't believe in what they believe in to make them happier, nor do they necessarily think such beliefs would be any sort of panacea for others. Do you think the only purpose of religion/belief is to make people happy? (Well, yes, you might be right, it isn't called the opium of the people for nothing.)
However, the motive for evangelising is often to make people happier.
As I have said that is one of the important purposes of religion. Given that religion is merely a narrative of the universe, and not the universe itself, it is a narrative that exists to be understood from a human pov. It does not imply thatIt sounds from your post as though you start out by assuming that we're all entitled to happiness and that the point of religion is to bestow it upon us.
That idea does not come from the Bible, rather from a misinterpretation of Aristotle, who was indeed very influential on medieval Christian thought.By and large it's a christian trait to think the world was put here solely for our benefit and that we're the most important things on it.
As your deliberately offensive generalising about Christians has been widely criticised in this thread I won't get much more into it than by saying that anthropocentrism to this degree is no longer a majority view among Christians, and it is debatable whether it ever was.
Yes, this is true.I suspect that many pagans, like atheists, see the universe as rather more indifferent to us than that, with a much better sense of our insignificance within it.
Most evangelism in the real world is not the nasty stereotype that you present, but rather it is more like open discussion among friends.Besides, evangelism says more about the evangelizer than the target. There's no virtue at all, it seems to me, in evangelizing when it comes from a place of thinking that there's nothing to learn from people who believe or think differently to oneself.
There's great virtue - if you want to put it that way - in discussion, the exchange of ideas, debate... but when you're closed to the possibility that your answers and beliefs might be incorrect, such discussion becomes a little meaningless, not to mention somewhat patronizing and arrogant.
Because I have not decided that I must be right and they must be wrong, perhaps? It says a lot about you that I supposedly must think like this because I'm a Christian!How, as a christian, can you be open to any non-christian's ideas or approach them as an equal when you've already decided before you hear what they've got to say that you're right and they're wrong?0 -
SilkySmooth wrote: »I realized perfectly well. I was talking about boards in general, but why should an atheist discussion have to descend into bashing Christianity? you can explain coherently and politely what you dislike / disagree with
Which is exactly what I thought I had done when everybody jumped on my back.SilkySmooth wrote: »- you don't have to make unfair generalizations about those who practice it. I enjoy reading the many insightful discussions here from atheists and agnostics explaining their views in a thoughtful manner without going down the road of bashing Christianity.
Well, sorry if I upset you. I didn't think I had generalized about christians, but the reality is that there are genuinely good reasons to 'bash christianity' as you put it. I know you won't want to hear that, and I know that the general social consensus is that we all ought to pretend we're all very PC and respect each other's beliefs. But I honestly think there is something dark and wring at the heart of christianity, that this has been responsible over millenia for many of the problems our society faces today, and that this problem is at the very heart of 'christian values' as depicted in the bible.
What do you want me to do? pretend I don't think these things? I can't really express an honest opinion without being perceived to be 'bashing christianity' can I?
None of this is a personal criticism of individual christians, many of whom I'm sure are genuinely lovely people. But that won't stop me from saying I think there's something deeply flawed at the heart of your faith.SilkySmooth wrote: »You weren't talking about the 'good book' though were you? Correct me if i'm wrong, but you were generalizing Christians.That's how it came across anyway. Believe it or not, not all Christians 'claim to have absolute truth' or say people who don't agree with them are 'evil'. Of course, you get some nutty ones shoving their views on others, but you can't tar them all with the same brush.
Of course not. But I am talking about what you call the 'good book', yes. I think it's one of the most twisted and damaging works in literature.SilkySmooth wrote: »So (again, correct me if i'm wrong) your aim is to rile up religious people? Very nice.
Now I remember why I don't post much in here.
Sorry again, was just feeling particularly wound up with everybody getting on my case based on a total misrepresentation of what I'm actually saying...SilkySmooth wrote: »I agree.
...which is exactly what you've just done all over again.0 -
Appeal to some authority on pagan beliefs who the rest of us don't know
I can't do much about that I'm afraid - invite you round to meet them?But I expect the vast majority of pagans do believe in supernatural things, for instance the presence of spirits in stones, or claiming that particular places have greater spiritual importance than others. If a pagan does not believe in anything supernatural at all, what is the difference between a pagan and a romantic naturalist?
Very little in that case. But it's irrelevant. The important point is that supernatural belief is not a requirement. The other important point is that, at least in their modern incarnations, pagan beliefs tend to be personal between the individual pagan and the natural world rather than codified into systems which adherents are required to accept. If you doubt this, why don't you pop over to the pagan forum and ask them?claims like pagans don't condemn others (my cousin went out with a Druid once who liked nothing better than a bitter rant against evil Christians)
Deliberate distortion. You know very well that I meant that pagan beliefs do contain the condemnation of non-believers based on their different faith as part of their intrinsic value system. Not that individual pagans don't disagree with the beliefs/values of other individuals.that they don't try to subvert public policy to suit their own moral agenda (many pagans were involved in the anti-M3 protest, and I also opposed that motorway for other reasons),
Was the anti-M3 protest a moral issue?that they start from respect for nature (although of course many pagan beliefs just impose human personalities on nature).
Ah, come on, pagan beliefs are rooted in an intimate relationship with the natural world. This as much as anything is probably the unifying feature of pagan beliefs.We can agree that condemning others is bad, subverting the right to self-determination is bad, and that disrespect for nature is bad, and that telling people what to think rather than letting them decide for themselves is also bad.
We can agree on all of thisThe fact that you firmly place Christianity on the bad side of these norms, and paganism on the good side, is also unfair and offensive.
I think there is a problem with these norms at the heart of christianity. A conflict of interest, if you will. I'm not saying individual christians don't hold these values, but that doing so puts them in conflict with their faith as outlined in the bible whether or not they recognize this.That idea does not come from the Bible, rather from a misinterpretation of Aristotle, who was indeed very influential on medieval Christian thought.
Not really. The whole biblical view of the earth is a pyramid with man at the pinnacle. Without even getting into interpreting dominion we can see that the idea of god's creation of man being his crowning achievement encourages a view of man as superior to rather than equal with the rest of the natural world. I'm glad that modern christians have started to question these assumptions but I still regard this as a deep flaw at the heart of the christian belief system that is unlikely to be fully overcome because it's central to the christian paradigm.As your deliberately offensive generalising about Christians has been widely criticised in this thread I won't get much more into it than by saying that anthropocentrism to this degree is no longer a majority view among Christians, and it is debatable whether it ever was.
Such criticism has been almost entirely based on misrepresentations of what I've actually said. No one has yet acknowledged this or retracted any of the criticsm. Please understand that I'm attacking what I perceive to be issues of the christian faith, not individual christians.Because I have not decided that I must be right and they must be wrong, perhaps? It says a lot about you that I supposedly must think like this because I'm a Christian!
I'm not being smart - I honestly don't understand how you can't think like this and call yourself a christian. Doesn't your faith require you to have absolute faith, that there is only one true god - yours - and that all other religions are wrong? Please humour me here by explaining how those requirements can be squared with a genuinely open mind to people who believe differently to you?0
Advertisement