Philosophy Code of the Strong Atheist

[Index]

Godparents have a function though, its not just a purely religious thing. They are the ones who are supposed to look after you if your parents are unable to. Christmas and Easter, despite their religious origins, are occassions to spend time with your family, take part in traditions, so they have a purpose too. To give up such things on principle might be somewhat antisocial, or point out an inability to see beyond one dimension...

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I have always been very open about my opinion on religion. Whenever any of my friends have had children they know not to ask me about being a godparent. They know I will say no. I believe that christenings should be left until the individual is old enough to make the discission themselves. I never had the choice and have told my parents it is the one thing that I am annoyed at. To their defence, when I was born it was the normal thing to do.

You're lucky your friends are so understanding. I know Simon's family just wouldn't comprehend that I feel so strongly. His sister has had both her kids Christened Methodist, but she never goes to church and she drinks like a fish. I suppose you would call them 'weak Christians'. I am too afraid of the likely consequences to make my feelings known - not because I'm a wimp, but because I don't want to cause an argument unnecessarily.

I was Christened as a baby too, because as you say, it was the done thing. I don't feel bad about it, as I was brought up going to church, but my parents let me leave when I was old enough to decide for myself.

Christmas and Easter, despite their religious origins, are occassions to spend time with your family, take part in traditions, so they have a purpose too

True. I celebrate Christmas because it has its roots in winter solstice celebrations. That is certainly something an atheist can celebrate - the fact that the nights are starting to get shorter. And I celebrate Halloween because it's fun.

 

[Maciamo]

Regarding the Christening, I agree with Mycernius. I would never become godfather (in that sense at least ), because just the name and the idea to have to attend a Christian ceremony in a church freaks me out. I am not sure every Christian (or Catholic) country has the same tradition, but in my family, children are usually given their godparents' names as middle names.

Godparents have a function though, its not just a purely religious thing. They are the ones who are supposed to look after you if your parents are unable to.

The Japanese have no such tradition and it seems to be alright. Anyway, I have never heard of anybody being taken care of by their godparents rather than the real parents.

Christmas and Easter, despite their religious origins, are occassions to spend time with your family, take part in traditions, so they have a purpose too. To give up such things on principle might be somewhat antisocial, or point out an inability to see beyond one dimension...

I prefer being antisocial than go against my beliefs. I haven't attended any Xmas or Easter family events for years, and already reluctanctly went to them when my parents still had some sort of authority to forced me to attend (about until the age of 16). I don't mind New Year family gathering though - just to say that I do not reject my whole family. I still can't accept that some people in my family could never understand that I did/do not want to attend Xmas parties because in my eyes it celebrates the birth of one of the men whose life has caused the greatest number of violent deaths, tortures and sufferings in the world. I'd be more comfortable celebrating the birth of lesser demons like Hitler or Stalin than Christ (you can imagine that older people in my family are shocked when I tell them just that). If the can't understand that (even if they do not accept it personally), I don't need to meet them anymore. That would make us irreconciably different.

I am too afraid of the likely consequences to make my feelings known - not because I'm a wimp, but because I don't want to cause an argument unnecessarily.

I guess it's a matter of personality. I have always been outspoken to the point of putting myself in unnecessary troubles (e.g. at school for telling teachers what I thought of them, or pointing out their mistake in front of the whole class). Of course I am kinder with people I appreciate, and will even protect them (verbally) if I see they need help. We can choose our friends, but not our family...

I celebrate Christmas because it has its roots in winter solstice celebrations.

I don't mind having a sort of party of Xmas eve or Xmas day, as long as there is no baby Jesus and company, religious celebration, mass or anything related to Christianity. So it's just like any other day, and I can decide to go to the restaurant or cinema with my wife, meet some friends, or do nothing special, depending on my mood, just like any regular day off (if it is a day off, which isn't the case in Japan). The problem in my family is that it is almost unthinkable to have a Xmas party without a nativity scene.

Halloween also has (Celtic) pagan roots, which makes a bit more acceptable (like Carnival). Anyway, I haven't heard any direct reference to religion at Halloween (maybe that's because it was in Japan ?)

 

[Maciamo]

You must be very lonely in life. I genuinely feel sorry for you. I'm sorry, I have nothing more to say on this topic.

I suppose that this was directed to me. I don't know why you say that. There are over 6 billion people in the world. If only 1% of them were Atheists or compatible (Deists, Pantheists...), that would give me the opportunity to have 60 million people who share my views. In fact, there much more than that. Japan and China are both predominantly non-religious, and quite a lot of younger Europeans as well. You can see that only on this forum, which is composed mostly of Westerners (including a majority of Americans, known to be more religious than Europeans), about 50% are Atheists, Deists or Pantheists and about 19% Agnostics according to this poll, and 38.5% Atheists, Deists or Pantheists and 8% Agnostics according to this poll (a bit older, with more misleading questions).So the majority here is non-religious anyway.

As for loneliness, in addition to some of the great people on this forum, I am married and have a few selected friends, who, if not atheists, are at least non religious enough for us to enjoy a good relationship. You can't have hundreds of friends, as only a few at a time can be real friends. When I was talking about my family before, I was especially referring to some of my numerous cousins (about 30 of them), and my uncles and aunts (I could also include my mother, but not my father in this regard). It's difficult to be lonely with a family of more than 50 people... It's even necessary to pick and choose those with whom you can get on, and those with whom it is probably too hard.

Anyway, in Japan I don't really have to worry about religion. But the Japanese often have other problems of compatibility (hypocritical racism, lack of interest in intellectual subjects...). Yet, it's always possible to find a few people with whom you get on and even agree on almost everything. They are rare everywhere, especially for someone who is in the minority both religiously and intellectually. But it's worth looking for them ! The Internet provides immense possibilities in this regard.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I still can't accept that some people in my family could never understand that I did/do not want to attend Xmas parties because in my eyes it celebrates the birth of one of the men whose life has caused the greatest number of violent deaths, tortures and sufferings in the world. I'd be more comfortable celebrating the birth of lesser demons like Hitler or Stalin than Christ

I think that's unfair. I don't think it is Jesus' life that has caused these things, but the twisting of his teachings by others - starting with Paul. There is a lot in the teachings of Jesus that even an atheist can appreciate. Would you demonise Nietzsche because the Nazis twisted his philosophy?

As for loneliness, in addition to some of the great people on this forum, I am married and have a few selected friends, who, if not atheists, are at least non religious enough for us to enjoy a good relationship

I agree with you on having only a few selected friends, but I can be friends with religious people. Out of the six people I would call good friends there is one evangelist Christian, two agnostics and three Wiccans. Although we disagree on spiritual matters, there is other stuff that we have in common. Even the things we disagree on can lead to some interesting discussions. All my atheist friends are online, and threads like this give me plenty of scope for talking with like-minded people, philosophically speaking.

The Internet provides immense possibilities in this regard.

I have more friends online than in real life. Is that healthy?:worried:

 

[Mycernius]

I think that's unfair. I don't think it is Jesus' life that has caused these things, but the twisting of his teachings by others - starting with Paul. There is a lot in the teachings of Jesus that even an atheist can appreciate. Would you demonise Nietzsche because the Nazis twisted his philosophy?

This is a very good point. Other people turned him into the object of worship he is today. When you take apart the religion and so called miracles from his life, his action was non-violent means to change the world for the better. Unfortunatly he never left any of his own words. All his life is written down by avid followers. I think he might have put things differently if he ever put down his thoughts. His life created a cult and he became more than mortal in his followers eyes. Mao Tse Tung and Hitler created a similar cult of personality during their lifetimes. In fact the cult of Mao is still strong in some people.

I agree with you on having only a few selected friends, but I can be friends with religious people. Out of the six people I would call good friends there is one evangelist Christian, two agnostics and three Wiccans. Although we disagree on spiritual matters, there is other stuff that we have in common. Even the things we disagree on can lead to some interesting discussions. All my atheist friends are online, and threads like this give me plenty of scope for talking with like-minded people, philosophically speaking.I have more friends online than in real life. Is that healthy?:worried:

I have a few religious friends. One of them is a born again Christian. Even his politics are different to mine. We just do not talk about these subjects. We respect each others views and do not try to convert each other, whether it is God or Labour verses Tory. My cousin, who I would once class as an agnostic come weak atheist, is now a commited Baptist. Even she doesn't get on at me about my views. Maybe I have a fairly open minded family when it comes to relgion. Her husband was shocked, though. He is Catholic from Italian background. He kept introducing to his friends as The Devil. I had to point out to him that the Devil is as real to me as God. He then changed to Satanist. Slightly better, as Satanist actually refers to anyone who doesn't worship, or is part of one of the Abrahamic religions. It's amazing how some people get slightly annoyed when trying to insult someone you point out flaws in their insults.

I don't mind having a sort of party of Xmas eve or Xmas day, as long as there is no baby Jesus and company, religious celebration, mass or anything related to Christianity. So it's just like any other day, and I can decide to go to the restaurant or cinema with my wife, meet some friends, or do nothing special, depending on my mood, just like any regular day off

Same here. I treat it as a typical day off, just with more food. I even go off to the pub with my father for a few pints. Maybe because England is a protestant country, we don't have the more religious overtones at Christmas. There are those that will have baby Jesus, shepherds, wisemen and the entire farmyard and friends, but I find most of them in the minority. Or I just don't notice it. As a whole the UK is not an overly religious country.

 

[Doc]

I love you guys!

There are four atheists that I respect the most on this forum and they are Mycernius, Kinsao, Tsuyoiko, and MikeCash. Why do I respect these four atheists the most? It is because they are all open minded and accepting people. In other words, they respect you whether you are an atheist or not. To that, my hat goes off to you people.

As for me, I would like to consider myself a Christian, but on a very liberal and open-minded scheme. I am not a huge fan of organized religion because of all the fundamentalism and misinterpretation of The Bible, and if I had to associate myself with any denomination, it would be with the Episcopalian (since it is the only church that is not into religious fundamentalism). Now that does not mean that some church goers are not fundamentalist in belief, but the church overall denounces such notations as being ignorant and close-minded. I agree that if the founding writers of the OT and especially Jesus saw the interpretation of their words today they would be absolutely shocked. It really is quite sad when people refuse to look at The Bible in a critical point of view (hell even the atheists in my class respect the OT a lot more when looking in that point of view). For me I mostly look at religion from a philosophical point of view rather than a theology point of view. To me it makes the most sense, and it is a hell of a lot more open-minded too.

I have nothing against atheists nor do I really care if they do not believe in intelligent design. I have respect for atheists just as much as I have respect for those who believe in some sort of religion. Everybody is entitled to their opinion on the matter and their belief. If you really get down to it, we really do not know what there was before the big bang. Sure, we can speculate, but all the science in the world can never truly understand what was there before. That is why it does not matter if you believe in intelligent design or not because we will never truly know. There is no right or wrong answer. This brings me to my next point. The only thing I cannot stand is loud-mouthed atheists who like to babble nonstop about how religion is evil and that atheism is the savior for humanity, and literally turns atheism into a freaking religion complete with a bible and all. They are just as bad if not worse than the morons who preach that The Bible will save humanity. If you cannot stand the fact that there is a lot unknown that we will never know through science, then do not even bother talking about. It shows that you are a closed-minded, loud-mouthed, hypocritical bastard in the end. So on that note, I salute to the four atheists that I mentioned earlier because you guys give humanity and open-minded thought a good name.

As a whole the UK is not an overly religious country.

Sorry my wookie friend, I could not resist! :evil:

Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%
Muslim 2.7%
Hindu 1%
other 1.6%
unspecified or none 23.1%

Doc :wave:

 

[kumo]

There are four atheists that I respect the most on this forum and they are Mycernius, Kinsao, Tsuyoiko, and MikeCash.

I don't think Kinsao and MikeCash are atheists...Actually, I'm pretty sure they are not.

As for me, I would like to consider myself a Christian, but on a very liberal and open-minded scheme. I am not a huge fan of organized religion because of all the fundamentalism and misinterpretation of The Bible, and if I had to associate myself with any denomination, it would be with the Episcopalian (since it is the only church that is not into religious fundamentalism). Now that does not mean that some church goers are not fundamentalist in belief, but the church overall denounces such notations as being ignorant and close-minded. I agree that if the founding writers of the OT and especially Jesus saw the interpretation of their words today they would be absolutely shocked. It really is quite sad when people refuse to look at The Bible in a critical point of view (hell even the atheists in my class respect the OT a lot more when looking in that point of view).

Don't you think that refusing to consider the idea that the writers of the bible actually intended a literal interpretation is closed minded too? Maybe they wrote such obvious myths because they simply didn't know any better.

If you really get down to it, we really do not know what there was before the big bang. Sure, we can speculate, but all the science in the world can never truly understand what was there before.

What was there before? Do you realize that to "before" exist it's necessary that time exists too, right? Time was created about 10^-6 seconds after the big bang if I remember correctly, so talking about what 'was there before' is utterly meaningless.

The only thing I cannot stand is loud-mouthed atheists who like to babble nonstop about how religion is evil and that atheism is the savior for humanity, and literally turns atheism into a freaking religion complete with a bible and all.

I've personally never met someone like that, not even in the internet. The term 'strawman' comes to mind... It seems you have a quite broader standard
for calling someone a fundamentalist when it comes to atheists.

Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%
Muslim 2.7%
Hindu 1%
other 1.6%
unspecified or none 23.1%

I think Mycernius was refering to the attitude towards religion in the UK, not the percentage of religious people. I can't speak from personal experience, but it seems to me that the sentiment towards religion in the UK is one of complete apathy. I wouldn't be surprised if half of these (cultural) christians were actually agnostics, since it seems that most people don't even care enough to think about what to call themselves.

 

[Maciamo]

I think that's unfair. I don't think it is Jesus' life that has caused these things, but the twisting of his teachings by others - starting with Paul. There is a lot in the teachings of Jesus that even an atheist can appreciate.

But Jesus did call himself the son of god (if he ever existed, at least). He also told people that his Father was the only god, that his laws were the only laws, and to spread his word throughout the world. This has given the grounds for an exclusive, intolerant and proselytising religion. It also caused tens of thousands of early Christians to be persecuted because they did not want to pay taxes to a non Christian state. Jesus claimed that people could turn wine and bread into holy blood and flesh, or that they would go to paradise if they believed in him, even if they had to die for their faith. Many true Christians have believed him for centuries, distorting their reality and endangering their lives. So, no I don't think I am being so unfair.

Is that healthy?:worried:

That's pretty normal I would say. It is physically much more difficult to meet people (esp. from so many countries) in real life than on the Net.

 

[bossel]

Who is an Atheist ?

I am.

- A Strong Atheist denies the possibility of the existence of any god or deity on grounds of reason, logics and/or philosophical thinking.

Which would make me a weak atheist, since I don't deny the possibility (to deny the possibility, you'd have to have much more knowledge than is available to mankind at the moment). The probability for the existence of some supernatural being is so low, though, that it's negligible.

- A Weak Atheist does not believe or worship any god or deity, but does not hold any particular opinion regarding their existence. They are devoid of religious beliefs.

Hmm? I am devoid, but hold a particular opinion. :?

Weak Atheists are potential targets for religious conversions - hence the appellation "weak" referring to their beliefs.

I don't have a belief (& don't seem to have the ability to believe), don't even know how that would work. How could I be converted?


[*] worshipping any god or deity.
- should be obvious

[*] financing, subsidizing or donating to any religious institution*.
- Hmm, don't have money, anyway.

[*] wearing any religious symbols (e.g. a cross-shaped pendant).
- Ooops, wearing a small jade Buddha round my neck. I'm a sinner! Do I need to repent?

[*] using religious exclamations such as "Oh my god !" (these can be replaced by alternatives like "Oh my goodness" without hampering the language).
- Ach, well, that's just a manner of speech not belief. There are so many religious items in everyday speech, it would be hard to eliminate them all (& it would definitely hamper your ability to communicate).

[*] participating in religious ceremonies or rites, including religious weddings and funerals.
- Never participate in such events, anyway.


[*] wishing to be buried/cremated in a religious fashion (e.g. in grounds belonging to a church, mosque or temple; in a tomb displaying religious symbols; having religious funerals).
- Don't care what happens to my body after death (I'll be dead, after all). Where does that fit in?

*(5) Festivals with no obvious religious implications (e.g. carnival) can be exempted.

What are "obvious religious implications"?

I'd be more comfortable celebrating the birth of lesser demons like Hitler or Stalin than Christ

Contrary to Jesus (see my response to Mycernius & Tsuyoiko), Hitler & Stalin are proven guilty.

Anyway, I haven't heard any direct reference to religion at Halloween

Direct reference? As with carnival, wearing masks is religious tradition, hence there is something obvious. But, really, if you don't believe in this crap, why not wear it just for fun?

I don't think it is Jesus' life that has caused these things, but the twisting of his teachings by others

Other people turned him into the object of worship he is today.

If he actually existed & if he said & taught what is in the NT, he was quite guilty of turning himself into an object of worship. Since we don't know if he existed & definitely don't know what he actually wanted, though, we can't blame him personally.

It really is quite sad when people refuse to look at The Bible in a critical point of view

I think, most atheists with a Christian environment do have a rather critical point of view here.

There is no right or wrong answer.

Of course there is. We only don't know yet.

If you cannot stand the fact that there is a lot unknown that we will never know through science

Is it a fact? Which fortune teller said so?

Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%
Muslim 2.7%
Hindu 1%
other 1.6%
unspecified or none 23.1%

That statistic doesn't really say that much, there are many people who are only nominally Christian.

 

[Maciamo]

Which would make me a weak atheist, since I don't deny the possibility (to deny the possibility, you'd have to have much more knowledge than is available to mankind at the moment). The probability for the existence of some supernatural being is so low, though, that it's negligible.

I see your point. I forgot to mention Agnostics... You are probably half-way between Strong Atheist and Agnosticist, although closer to the former (from what you say).

[*] wearing any religious symbols (e.g. a cross-shaped pendant).
- Ooops, wearing a small jade Buddha round my neck. I'm a sinner! Do I need to repent?

Buddha never called himself god, didn't pretend to be his messenger or anything of the sort. I would consider the "original Buddhism" as a form of Pantheism, or even Atheism. Buddhist gods only came later in the Mahayana branch of Buddhism (only).

[*] using religious exclamations such as "Oh my god !" (these can be replaced by alternatives like "Oh my goodness" without hampering the language).
- Ach, well, that's just a manner of speech not belief. There are so many religious items in everyday speech, it would be hard to eliminate them all (& it would definitely hamper your ability to communicate).

I see that many people disagree with me on that one...

- Don't care what happens to my body after death (I'll be dead, after all). Where does that fit in?

I feel the same way. I won't care once I am dead, but religious ceremonies and tombs cost a lot of money (count several millions yen in Japan). Who pays for that ? The family or heirs. As it's a waste of money and I didn't wish for it anyway, it's as well mention that you don't want that.

What are "obvious religious implications"?

Carrying a statue of the Virgin Mary through the streets (as in some festivals in Spain and Belgium), or such things...

Contrary to Jesus (see my response to Mycernius & Tsuyoiko), Hitler & Stalin are proven guilty.
...
If he actually existed & if he said & taught what is in the NT, he was quite guilty of turning himself into an object of worship. Since we don't know if he existed & definitely don't know what he actually wanted, though, we can't blame him personally.

Guilty or not guilty ? I would agree that if he existed he was guilty of turning himself into an object of worship. If he did not exist in real life, he is just an idea in our minds, so cannot be "guilty", but for sure is not to be celebrated at Xmas, for that idea of "Jesus" has caused many sufferings.

That statistic doesn't really say that much, there are many people who are only nominally Christian.

I completely agree. Some statistics show that Belgium is 98% Catholics. Among people of my generation (e.g. at school) and younger, I can only recall a few people being really Catholic, while most were Agnostic, Deist or Atheist (few Pantheist and Neo-pagans, interestingly, unlike in the UK).

 

[Maciamo]

I don't think Kinsao and MikeCash are atheists...Actually, I'm pretty sure they are not.

I am also pretty sure they are not Atheists, because they said so or implied it many times.

Don't you think that refusing to consider the idea that the writers of the bible actually intended a literal interpretation is closed minded too? Maybe they wrote such obvious myths because they simply didn't know any better.

I agree. We have seen that human societies have improved a lot over the centuries (with a few backwards step in medieval Europe). So how could people living 2000, 3000 or 4000 years ago have been more enlightened than us now ? If the writers of the OT were so "intelligent" as to write in riddles on which meaning billions of Christians over centuries have not yet agreed, how comes they lived in what we would now call "slums", and were so technologically and scientifically backwards ? (even for their time, compared to the Greeks and Romans, whose homeland wasn't much bigger).

What was there before? Do you realize that to "before" exist it's necessary that time exists too, right? Time was created about 10^-6 seconds after the big bang if I remember correctly, so talking about what 'was there before' is utterly meaningless.

If you believe that the Big Bang was indeed the beginning of the universe (what Christians call the "Creation"). It has been suggested that there had been many Big Bangs at different places in the universe, as some galaxies were shown to evolve in directions opposite to our Big Bang, and others were older than our Big Bang. I personally believe that neither time nor the universe were created. I see the universe as eternal in the past and future, because it doesn't make sense otherwise (nothing can appear out of nothing; and everything cannot disappear into nothing).

We humans, with limited life, limited intellectual capacities, living in a world where everything can be measured compared to our tiny existences, need to define a beginning and an end for everything. But the universe is an exception, as it represents all that exist (and is most probably infinite). "To create" something only means to change the properties of matter/energy. You can create a table out of wood, itself taken from a tree, that grew from minerals and water, maybe on the remains of other organic beings, etc. To create an idea in our mind is just creating some connections between neurons. To create the universe is a non-sense, as there is nothing bigger than the whole, and nothing that exist that cannot belong to existence, and all existence is the universe (by definition).

 

[Doc]

Mike is my hero. I love ya you wookie!!! Mac and Bossel you do realize I was just giving food for thought with those comments. You can take them for a grain of salt for all I care. Personally I find Carl Sagan facinating, as well as, many of the scientific theories proposed by him and other scientists, but I am a pragmatist, not an empiricist so my mode of thinking is a bit different than yours.

Doc :wave:

 

[Doc]

I am also pretty sure they are not Atheists, because they said so or implied it many times.

Hmm, that's odd because I believe MikeCash told me that he was indeed an atheist in another thread. Actually now that I think about it he did because him and jack2 were talking about being atheists and how atheists are more moral than theologists. As for Kinsao I do not think she has directly stated it, but the way she posts sounds like she is indeed an atheist. I may be wrong about her, but MikeCash I do believe is indeed an atheist if I remember our converstation that we had about a month before.

Doc :wave:

 

[Revenant]

Kinsao said she can't help not believing in God, even if she would actually like to be an atheist. Perhaps I'm agnostic or just a weak atheist. I find religions fascinating, but I am not for atheism nor am I against religions.

In my time discussing religions on the net, I have found two groups of people a little annoying at times. The highly fundamentalist Christians and some of the strong atheists. Both would argue their side to the end, stubbornly refusing to see another side.

 

[Index]

The Japanese have no such tradition and it seems to be alright. Anyway, I have never heard of anybody being taken care of by their godparents rather than the real parents.

So are you suggesting that you and Japan are the sum total of knowledge and cultural authority (respectively) that exists? Leads to a bit of a paradox, doesn't it, especially in light of how many things about Japan annoy you

Anyway, godparents look after children when the parents are unable to, if they die for example. That is the practical purpose of that custom/tradition/ritual.

I did/do not want to attend Xmas parties because in my eyes it celebrates the birth of one of the men whose life has caused the greatest number of violent deaths, tortures and sufferings in the world.

That's a bit one sided don't you think? There are many followers of Jesus who try to be open-minded, understanding, constructive. In any case, I find it suprising that you would use such an argument considering your level of politial awareness. I'm sure it's not news to you that religion has been used as a toolby politicians and leaders to justify or motivate war. If the concept of religion was not available there would no doubt be other concepts that could be drawn on to justify war. I hope you don't think the current problems related to Iraq or "fundamentalis terrorism" are based in religion. I might be tempted to buy that argument from anyone els but you Maciamo.

I don't mind New Year family gathering though - just to say that I do not reject my whole family.

Arguably such events as Christmas or Easter have the purpose of bringing cohesion to family units or social groups. Don't you acknowledge this? To say that these are celebrations of "Jesus' evil influence" or something like that is too one dimensional anyway. It depends on your interpretation of Christianity's teachings. If your religion was science or "rationality", you could just as easily identify aspects of it which have led to human suffering (one example is Mengele's scientific/medical experiments in Ausczwitz). The point is that you are the one who constructs your own version of reality by determining in your mind and through your speech which aspects of Christmas you might be celebrating.

 

[Revenant]

Reading through this thread more carefully, I would like to touch on a couple of points.

First, there are scholars who going back to the first known manuscripts have put forth an argument that Jesus actually never claimed to be the messiah. He used words like, 'I am the truth, the way, and the life', but that isn't very different from some of the words that the Buddha used, and the Buddha never claimed to be a diety, but just a savior of sorts.

Also, according to one scholar of religion, that being Karen Armstrong, she put forth a very strong argument that the Jews did use myths intentionally. She in her autobiography stated that she was very surprised that after some people listened to her radio program arguing that the Jews used myths intentionally, that these people thanked her for saying so, and that they felt alright in going to church again (a response she never expected).

And wait, one more thing. The Christians according to Armstrong were accepted as just another sect of Judaism up until about 80 AD, when the Jews and Christians had a falling out. The Christians were also very broad in the spectrum of their beliefs, right up until the time of the Nicene council. Although, I would like to know more details about this theory than what she has in her book.

 

[Sensuikan San]

Hi folks!

Well ... since most of you are now in bed (... I confess - in my enthusiasm, I forgot about that one!:blush: ... but a feeble excuse! Surely a really good Jref member would get up every couple of hours or so to check what's going down ....? .... ) - I can take my time over a really long post!

(It's all right for you lot in Europe! But by the time I get to sit down and do this, I have about thirty bloody posts :bawling: to sift through and digest!)

Now ... where was I ... ? Aaaah! Yes!

In my eyes, marriage is not really necessary. My wife wanted it (because Japanese women are still quite traditional in this regard), but otherwise we would not have got married. I didn't have any religious ceremony and don't wear a ring; people can get divorced in 5min in Japan, and there is also no fiscal advantage in Japan; so, what is really marriage but a piece of paper and a party ? What would be the difference with a couple living together and having a party to celebrate their long-lasting relationship, apart from the paperwork ? Marriage has no power to stop people cheating. This is a problem that only the couple can deal with, married or not (hence the absurdity of the wedding ring).

With regard to the Religious Ceremony - I agree with you absolutely. What a waste of energy and money that all is! With regard to the Legal Contract - I would like to agree ... but can't.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the contract of marriage is indeed a contract. Hence the paper. It bestows upon each partner certain obligations, certain responsibilities, and certain rights. (Hence, perhaps... the party?) Fortunately, in many (and most western) countries the state of "common-law" marriage is now granted most if not all of those rights. But when it comes to a civil action between partners, and a jury is involved ... you can't always guarantee that "12 good atheists and true" ... are there to form an opinion! Sadly - that paper can carry a little clout!

Marriage is a form of insurance, 'tis all. A lifebelt. Padding. But really necessary?... perhaps not.

And then ... kids come into the picture ... and here ... I really agree with Maciamo (and several others)!

Like Mycernius - I was Christened - presumably for the same reasons. (Oh my Gawd! ... I'm a Christi.......?)

Personally ... I find the process repulsive. And I don't give a damn what religion is involved - indoctrinating and introducing a child into any belief is intolerable for me!

We never had our son Christened. I wanted him to look at religion, examine it, learn of its roots, look at his own beliefs and "need" ... and make up his own mind as he matured. (He has! ... he is a weak atheist ... but leaning towards Odinism! Which alarms me! ... but ... it's his life!)

With regard to celebration of the religious festivals/holidays ... heck! Any excuse for a party! That's how most of 'em started, isn't it?

As has been pointed out ... the Christians "Hijacked" Christmas! I don't think Jesus was even born in December! (BTW - I do believe in the existance of Jesus "the man". I'm not sure, but I believe that the Romans did have to deal with a pain in the butt political figure in Palestine then ... how the heck he got his Spanish name ..... I dunno!) So, yes, we do celebrate a midwinter "fest" - but you won't find an angel at the top of our tree. (We did,once, many years ago, horrify visitors by displaying a star ... a red one! But that's another story ...!)

I could go on ... but, in short I think it's starting to become pretty obvious that ... I don't take religion ... or atheism for that matter, too seriously.

I am undoubtedly atheist, but I don't particularly wish to convert anyone else to my (non) beliefs. I don't try to impress my view, I simply let folk know how I feel - as necessary or until provoked or pressed. I want to be left alone with my views. That's all. I do wish that so many fundamentalist Christians, devout Catholics, Muslems, Jews ( Yeah! ... One or two.), Wiccamists, Satanists, Moonies, etc. etc. etc. would have the same grace. (Curiously - I haven't met many "pushy" Buddhists!)

But I do find it just a teeny weeny bit scary when I see "one of my own" ... becoming, perhaps ...

Maciamo you are a fundamentalist atheist!

....well, see what I mean?

We don't need a "code" - just take life as it is. We'd all get along much better if we all did!

?W????

 

[Maciamo]

So are you suggesting that you and Japan are the sum total of knowledge and cultural authority (respectively) that exists? Leads to a bit of a paradox, doesn't it, especially in light of how many things about Japan annoy you

What are you saying there ? I meant that people can live happily without having the godparents system. I didn't speak of cultural auhority. Just the need for old fashioned traditions.

Anyway, godparents look after children when the parents are unable to, if they die for example. That is the practical purpose of that custom/tradition/ritual.

What about other people ? (friends, family members...) Why should there be only 2 priviledged people aside from the parents to care after a child ? (especially if they live far away or don't really care about their godchild) More importantly, why should parents decide for their children what religion's rites they are to follow before the children are old enough to decide by themselves . I wasn't asked if I wanted to be baptised. I objected to doing my "communion" at 6 years old, but was forced too. I successfully resisted the "confirmation" at 12. I still bear a grudge against my mother (and my father for not opposing her) for forcing me to go to the catechism, go to church, then celebrate Xmas or Easter against my will. That's again one of the fundamental human rights : freedom of thought, opinion and religion. But of course children are just children and don't have such rights. Big mistake ! Children are the most impressionable and most likely to be shocked for life if you force them to do something they don't want repeatedly.

[qoute]That's a bit one sided don't you think? There are many followers of Jesus who try to be open-minded, understanding, constructive. In any case, I find it suprising that you would use such an argument considering your level of politial awareness. I'm sure it's not news to you that religion has been used as a toolby politicians and leaders to justify or motivate war. If the concept of religion was not available there would no doubt be other concepts that could be drawn on to justify war. I hope you don't think the current problems related to Iraq or "fundamentalis terrorism" are based in religion. I might be tempted to buy that argument from anyone els but you Maciamo. [/quote]

Well, maybe your level of understanding has not reached mine. You could as well say that many fascists or communists tried to be open-minded, understanding, constructive. Some were even idealists. But communists share in common with Christian and Muslim that they want to "convert" everyone (in the world if possible) to their system and want everyone to obey their rules. Non-fundamentalist Christians are among the most hypocritical people on earth. They claim that they can be tolerant of other religions, but that is against the most basic values of Christianity. The pillar of Judeo-Christian religions is the Ten Commandments, which start with :

1. "I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt..."
2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."
3. "You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord..."

This is reinforced many times in the Bible, and by Jesus himself, saying that there is only one God, and anybody who says otherwise is wrong. So, a true Christian who believes in what is written in the Bible cannot be tolerant of other gods or atheism. Judaism and Islam are ok for them, as it is supposedly the same god of Abraham and Moses.

Furthermore, true Christians cannot deny anything in the Bible. Nowadays, too many Christians have taken out or "forgotten" about the passages of the Bible that have been proven wrong. Or worse, they claim that the Bible should not be understood literally, because those who wrote it were so intelligent that they spoke in riddles so that we still don't know what they means 2000 or 3000 years later ! Very clear example of "bad faith" (without pun intended ). That's too easy and very hypocritical. You cannot call yourself a Christian if you don't believe half of what's in the Bible. Therefore Christians must believe that :

- the world was created by god in 7 days and the earth is the centre of the universe, around which everything revolves
- Adam & Eve were the 2 first humans, created by god (and therefore evolution is scientifically false)
- Jewish people are the chosen people of god (= God is partial with humans)
- Christians truly drink and eat the blood and flesh of Jesus in church
- God created men, knows all their thought and has the power to solve conflicts on earth, but doesn't.
- Jesus was god, and therefore omniscient. He is thus responsible for the crimes committed in his name, or for not choosing more reliable people to spread his true message , or for not delivering the message in written by himself, and in all the languages in the world to avoid favouring speakers of one language that would have a more accurate version.

There are many more things, including the ability to reconcile the angry, tyranical god of the OT with the loving and charitable one of the NT.

If you don't believe in one or several of these things, you are not a true Christian. Let's say such people customize their own belief system based on elements of Christianity (and maybe from other religions, philosophies or their own thoughts). I call such people followers of "free religions" (i.e. customizable to their taste). That's why I don't know many true Christians, but they were certainly numerous in past centuries. From the crusaders to the inquisitors, it was mostly true Christians who killed in the name of god. People with a bit of intelligence would doubt numerous elements of the Bible. I feel that all those "self-styled Christians" mostly don't care about the Old Testament.

 

[Index]

What about other people ? (friends, family members...) Why should there be only 2 priviledged people aside from the parents to care after a child ? (especially if they live far away or don't really care about their godchild) More importantly, why should parents decide for their children what religion's rites they are to follow before the children are old enough to decide by themselves .

Other people are of course available, but godparents agree to take the role on behalf of the parents-that is what the role entails. It is like a contract, and you would only agree to become a godparent if you were willing to take responsibility for the child in case of anything happening. It is not a form of imposition of religion on to the child. Moreover, parents determining a child's religion has nothing to do with my point, which is that religious traditions can have a number of pragmatic objectives embedded in them. Perhaps linking the responsbility of being a godparent to religion gave the promise more weight and was more binding, particularly if there were no appropriate legal instruments available that could be applied.

You could as well say that many fascists or communists tried to be open-minded, understanding, constructive

If you can find a fascist or communist who was constructive and a "good" person, then why not? I know plenty of Christians who are intelligent, considerate, non-imposing. My point is that it is YOU who determines for what reasons you would be celebrating Christmas-whether to glorify God, spend time with your family, whatever.

They claim that they can be tolerant of other religions, but that is against the most basic values of Christianity

That is just your interpretation.

2. "You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above..."

It says that YOU shall have no other Gods, not that you cannot be tolerant of others who may have a different religion.

Or worse, they claim that the Bible should not be understood literally, because those who wrote it were so intelligent that they spoke in riddles so that we still don't know what they means 2000 or 3000 years later

It is exactly fundamentalists who are not able to see the metaphors written in to the bible or other religious texts such as the Koran. What's more, it has nothing to do with writing in riddles-it is the very nature of language. Don't you use methaphors, similes or idioms in your speech? Surely you do not think that words have absolute meanings that are understood in the same way by all?

If you don't believe in one or several of these things, you are not a true Christian

Can you verify this statement or is it your opinion? I think you need to provide a reputable reference (ie. not Wikipedia) if you are planning on making such controversial statements. You are describing a fundamentalist with your definitions.

That's why I don't know many true Christians, but they were certainly numerous in past centuries. From the crusaders to the inquisitors, it was mostly true Christians who killed in the name of god. People with a bit of intelligence would doubt numerous elements of the Bible. I feel that all those "self-styled Christians" mostly don't care about the Old Testament.

By whose definition are you calling them "true" Christians? Are you a theologist to have the authority to say such things? Don't you think you are being a little presumptious claiming to be able to determine who is a true Christian and who is not? I dare say you are stepping outside the norm in declaring Inquisitors or Crusaders true Christians. I'd suggest they were either fanatical fundamentalists or political manipulators, depending on their position.

As an aside (and serious question) would you say Wahabism is true Islam ?

I'm glad you are an atheist Maciamo, because if you were a Christian (or any religion for that matter) we'd all be in for some serious repentance and penance...the kind that is done on a rack, or whilst tied between four horses.