Originally posted by L'organist:
postede by LeRoc
quote:Isn't the technical term for that 'doing a Redwood'?
Maybe Dawkins just mouths the words along but doesn't really sing.
[www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc]
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:Then you may be wrong.
Originally posted by Dog Dad:
So, if someone is an avowed atheist, I take it to mean that they eschew any religion or spiritual beliefs...
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
who celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday. Food, present giving. Ditto for Easter as a secular holiday. Party time! Thanksgiving has few religious connotations in Canada - it is purely a Harvest festival. Food is obligatory.
quote:I'm reasonably certain you're joking, but for those living outside the UK, a bank holiday is a day when you have a holiday from banking (i.e., the banks are closed on a day they're usually open) -- not a day to celebrate bankers. That would be bonkers.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Except possibly for Bank Holidays: I draw the line at celebrating bankers.
quote:I'm not sure I would call Dawkins a fundamentalist; he only claims to be 99% sure there is no god. A fundamentalist wouldn't admit to doubt. Now there are a few fundamentalist atheists out there; for some reason they were usually fundamentalist Christians (or other religion) before and they will eschew all the religious holidays they can. Most of the rest of us are live and let live. I'm looking forward to Thanksgiving, Christmas, latkes at the local UU church and maybe their yule festival.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I'm all for people of goodwill enjoying religious holidays of any faith. It's just the fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins I think should abstain on grounds of conscience.
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
As an atheist pagan hedonist, I will happily join the festivities of any god, prophet, guru, sage, emanation or ascended master you happen to have - seeing them not so much as aspects of the divine, but of humanity.
Except possibly for Bank Holidays: I draw the line at celebrating bankers.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:What he says and how he acts are 2 different things (at least it's not just Christians who are guilty of this). There is a translation of the word "believe" that says it means "to give your heart to" I'd say that's exactly what Dawkins has done and on his own admission
I'm not sure I would call Dawkins a fundamentalist; he only claims to be 99% sure there is no god. A fundamentalist wouldn't admit to doubt.
quote:
I've long suggested we keep Christmas and Easter as now but stop all other bank holidays. Instead we allow all employees to have extra days holiday when they can take when they wish...
quote:Well technically the New Year occurs at the time that the baby Jesus would have been circumcised, so it's related to Christianity.
Originally posted by Dog Dad:
New Year's Eve is fine, but even something like Thanksgiving could potentially be 'out'.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:For some British atheists, the fact that these Christian holidays have pagan origins means that Christians have no right to claim them as their exclusive property.
Originally posted by Dog Dad:
I think it is a matter of conscience....and aren't the pagan holidays that we have co-opted for Christmas and Easter religious holidays any way?
quote:But there are things that are specifically Christian about Christmas - the giving of gifts to mirror the gifts given to Jesus; all of the religious-oriented songs; attending a church service.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For some British atheists, the fact that these Christian holidays have pagan origins means that Christians have no right to claim them as their exclusive property.
quote:Because they don't want to, don't see any reason to, and rather enjoy doing it, just as I would if I woke up one day and decided all this religion stuff was a crock.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:But there are things that are specifically Christian about Christmas - the giving of gifts to mirror the gifts given to Jesus; all of the religious-oriented songs; attending a church service.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For some British atheists, the fact that these Christian holidays have pagan origins means that Christians have no right to claim them as their exclusive property.
So if an atheist is avoiding all of these things - then fine they can say they are celebrating the mid-winter solstice. Otherwise they are being slightly hypocritical.
Many non-Christians with strong faith manage to avoid celebrating Christmas so as not to cause problems with their own religious beliefs. I had Jewish and Hindu friends growing up whose parents refused their repeated pleas for Christmas trees and to join in carolling. Why atheists can't manage this strikes me as laziness.
quote:Few things. First he and for that matter me are opposed to government endorsement of particular religions. In other words to remove the societal privileges. This will mean removing government permission for nativity scenes on government property when such permission is not forthcoming for other groups; all atheists I know of have no trouble at all with such scenes on the publicly visible property of private people or of churches (though we may criticize some of it as being incredibly tacky, I'm sure ship crew and passengers can think of a few cringe worthy examples). Second tax exemption are problematic especially when it doesn't come with open books; how much in donations is channeled into the pockets of wealthy ministers; Mark Driscoll was taking a parsonage allowance of $200,000/year (for those outside the US that is tax free income for clergy as long as it is spent directly or indirectly on housing [a parsonage allowance or similar is not available to anyone who is not clergy {a military housing allowances is also exempt but it is government money in the first place}]). Tax exemptions for charitable purposes seems fine, but, I'm not sure paying for a prosperity gospel ministry's jet counts as charitable. Third, IIRC the example of religious education he equated with child abuse is telling a little child that their recently deceased friend is burning in hell because the friend was not Christian.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
“I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
He devotes an enormous amount of time and energy to trying to denounce religion and to remove its societal privileges. That's fundamentalism to me, he is so sure that he has the truth he is passionately devoted to spreading his truth to everyone and to making society live by his truth, eg abolishing tax exemption for churches, equating religious education to child abuse, so presumably not only would he ban it but also incarcerate those responsible. Some of hIs acolytes go about obstructing nativity scenes in public spaces and complaining about Christmas decorations (whether or not he is complicit is by Dawkins own logic irrelevant).
quote:They have the right to do whatever they want. And I have the right to point out the hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because they don't want to, don't see any reason to, and rather enjoy doing it, just as I would if I woke up one day and decided all this religion stuff was a crock.
quote:Oh, Im not so sure about that deeper meaning crack. Deeper is as deeper does. There are plenty of shallow Christians, plenty of profound atheists. What could be more important at this coming time of the year than the re-birth of the Sun? Christians acknowledge this, have hijacked the pagan festival, and changed the spelling, but we really are all in it together!
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Richard Dawkins has admitted to attending carol services at Christmas. Muslims and Hindus join in the Christmas festivities. (A Muslim pointed out to me, why wouldn't they want to celebrate Christmas since Jesus is a prophet of Islam.) Both Christmas snd Easter, as mid-winter and spring festivals have pagan roots. So I see no reason why our atheist friends should not enjoy the festival with us Christians; we just see a deeper meaning in it.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:It's hypocrisy if they say "don't celebrate Christmas" and then do so. They don't, so there's no hypocrisy. They don't celebrate a religious festival in which they do not believe; they celebrate the massive secular festival that has grown up around it. They seem exactly like your relatives in Muslim countries; they don't sacrifice a ram, and I doubt if you'll find many atheists receiving communion on Christmas morning, either.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:They have the right to do whatever they want. And I have the right to point out the hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because they don't want to, don't see any reason to, and rather enjoy doing it, just as I would if I woke up one day and decided all this religion stuff was a crock.
My Christian relatives who live in Muslim countries take the day off for the public holidays but you don't find them sacrificing rams alongside. Even if you get a really nice goat stew and a party afterwards.
quote:To be fair, though, I'm sure most clergy are only too glad to get the chance to minister to hypocritical atheists at Christmas carol services! Although maybe there are other ministers who get rather cynical about people who only turn up at Christmas.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:They have the right to do whatever they want. And I have the right to point out the hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Because they don't want to, don't see any reason to, and rather enjoy doing it, just as I would if I woke up one day and decided all this religion stuff was a crock.
My Christian relatives who live in Muslim countries take the day off for the public holidays but you don't find them sacrificing rams alongside. Even if you get a really nice goat stew and a party afterwards.
quote:They are also products of centuries of Christian domination of the default culture.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In other words, Christmas and Easter have been rapidly secularized.
quote:I seriously doubt that Dawkins', like most people's, Christmas is in any recognisable form a Christian holiday. It's mostly a big piss-up. He is in no way "doing" religion, and of all the things one could ding Dawkins for I don't see this as one.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I have no problem with non-believers coming to church at Christmas. I think it's great and indeed our church sees it as an opportunity for evangelism.
What I have a problem with is people who say religion is for idiots and decry the existence of Christianity in the public sphere, except around Christmastime when they try to pretend they are celebrating a pagan ritual to get around the fact that they actually enjoy a Christian holiday.
quote:What about if they sit around feeling morose and overfed, wishing there was something decent on the telly and that their boring relatives would go home? Is that OK?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
What I have a problem with is people who say religion is for idiots and decry the existence of Christianity in the public sphere, except around Christmastime when they try to pretend they are celebrating a pagan ritual to get around the fact that they actually enjoy a Christian holiday.
quote:You don't think it's odd that Dawkins goes to carol services? You don't get "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" in those, you get Christian music.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They seem exactly like your relatives in Muslim countries; they don't sacrifice a ram, and I doubt if you'll find many atheists receiving communion on Christmas morning, either.
quote:New York Times
As a “cultural Anglican,” Mr. Dawkins continued, “I recoil from such secular carols as ‘White Christmas,’ ‘Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, and the loathsome ‘Jingle Bells,’ but I’m happy to sing real carols, and in the unlikely event that anyone wants me to read a lesson I’ll gladly oblige — only from the King James Version, of course.”
quote:Our parish is rammed to the rafters on Christmas Eve, and I'd hope every single person in attendance is at the very least mildly supportive of the church's ongoing existence. It would really irritate me to find that someone who thinks it's an outdated malevolent institution still wants to turn up for mince pies, mulled wine, and a bit of singing. You won't find me worshipping (yes that's what singing Christmas carols in a church is) with a group I malign the other 364 days of the year.
quote:Whoa. Not all atheists consider the church a malevolent institution (though some clearly do); I can't imagine what mince pie has to do with Jesus, or why I can't enjoy some while professing skepticism about the faith; and in the US, anyway, where the Christmas Muzak cranks up in every shopping mall beginning with Halloween, how can anybody be faulted for mindlessly humming along to the never-ending, omnipresent O Come All Ye Faithful?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Our parish is rammed to the rafters on Christmas Eve, and I'd hope every single person in attendance is at the very least mildly supportive of the church's ongoing existence. It would really irritate me to find that someone who thinks it's an outdated malevolent institution still wants to turn up for mince pies, mulled wine, and a bit of singing. You won't find me worshipping (yes that's what singing Christmas carols in a church is) with a group I malign the other 364 days of the year.
quote:And the type of atheist who is OK with the church - as I said "mildly supportive of its existence" - is not going to claim "I'm not celebrating Christmas, I'm celebrating the winter solstice, which the Christians stole." Because that's bollocks. Say you're celebrating Christmas because you like it and be honest.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Whoa. Not all atheists consider the church a malevolent institution (though some clearly do
quote:I think that's the crux of the matter.
Personally I think the whole thing would be a lot simpler if we just let people be.
quote:No, because:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You don't think it's odd that Dawkins goes to carol services?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They seem exactly like your relatives in Muslim countries; they don't sacrifice a ram, and I doubt if you'll find many atheists receiving communion on Christmas morning, either.
quote:People like singing Christmas Carols for all sorts of reasons. Many people who never darken a church door at other times do so. Dawkins at no point claims he believes any of it; unless somewhere he's said no-one should attend a church service for any reason at all, then the charge of hypocrisy doesn't stick.
Our parish is rammed to the rafters on Christmas Eve,
quote:Celebrating the seasons doesn't require belief in God. I can see where people are coming from when they say there can be ethics without a belief in God, although IMHO the existence of ethics is a strong argument that God also exists. It would be a tangent but I'll explain why if asked. However, the third one of those, "being thankful does not require a belief in a deity" is the one I don't get. Being thankful requires there being someone, or at least some entity, to thank.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Being thankful does not require a belief in a deity. Nor does celebrating the coming of spring, midwinter, etc.
IMO, the OP is similar to the argument that there can be no ethics without a belief in God.
quote:Thankfulness is reflection on one's situation and life and the thanks can be directed towards friends, family, your dog, whatever.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Celebrating the seasons doesn't require belief in God. I can see where people are coming from when they say there can be ethics without a belief in God, although IMHO the existence of ethics is a strong argument that God also exists. It would be a tangent but I'll explain why if asked. However, the third one of those, "being thankful does not require a belief in a deity" is the one I don't get. Being thankful requires there being someone, or at least some entity, to thank.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Being thankful does not require a belief in a deity. Nor does celebrating the coming of spring, midwinter, etc.
IMO, the OP is similar to the argument that there can be no ethics without a belief in God.
It would be gross conceit to be thanking oneself for all the good things of life. Much though many of the great tyrants of history, Nebuchadnezzar from the readings of the last few days, Uncle Jo, Adolf Hitler or the munificent state might want us to credit them with responsibility for all the good things of life, that's preposterous and we know it. To be thankful requires either a pantheon of assorted gods to thank or the one true one, and I know which of those I find the more convincing.
quote:I see no religious requirement there, nor mention of deity.
glad that something has happened or not happened, that something or someone exists, etc
quote:The Province of New Brunswick has observed Remembrance Day as a holiday for decades, along with 5 other provinces and 3 territories, and the federal Government is debating making it a National Holiday.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Ah, but for how many of you is November 11 a holiday of remembrance, as it is here?
quote:You seem to think you're telling me things I don't already know. I specifically said "public lands" so I don't know what you're on about, I never accused anybody of obstructing displays on private property. The aesthetics of such displays is irrelevant.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
quote:Few things. First he and for that matter me are opposed to government endorsement of particular religions. In other words to remove the societal privileges. This will mean removing government permission for nativity scenes on government property when such permission is not forthcoming for other groups; all atheists I know of have no trouble at all with such scenes on the publicly visible property of private people or of churches (though we may criticize some of it as being incredibly tacky, I'm sure ship crew and passengers can think of a few cringe worthy examples). Second tax exemption are problematic especially when it doesn't come with open books; how much in donations is channeled into the pockets of wealthy ministers; Mark Driscoll was taking a parsonage allowance of $200,000/year (for those outside the US that is tax free income for clergy as long as it is spent directly or indirectly on housing [a parsonage allowance or similar is not available to anyone who is not clergy {a military housing allowances is also exempt but it is government money in the first place}]). Tax exemptions for charitable purposes seems fine, but, I'm not sure paying for a prosperity gospel ministry's jet counts as charitable. Third, IIRC the example of religious education he equated with child abuse is telling a little child that their recently deceased friend is burning in hell because the friend was not Christian.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
“I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
He devotes an enormous amount of time and energy to trying to denounce religion and to remove its societal privileges. That's fundamentalism to me, he is so sure that he has the truth he is passionately devoted to spreading his truth to everyone and to making society live by his truth, eg abolishing tax exemption for churches, equating religious education to child abuse, so presumably not only would he ban it but also incarcerate those responsible. Some of hIs acolytes go about obstructing nativity scenes in public spaces and complaining about Christmas decorations (whether or not he is complicit is by Dawkins own logic irrelevant).
quote:I don't see any assumption in this thread that everyone who visits church once a year for carols is actually an atheist. They are mostly, from what I have seen, cultural Christians or lapsed Christians.
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
If you add up the numbers of all those who attend a church (any denomination) over Christmas for at least one service, they are still a minority of the population. Christmas must mean something to them, even if it is little more than a sense that Christmas is more than time off work for earring, drinking, shopping and generally overindulging.
quote:I have no idea what they're doing. It's the same reaction I had to the results of a survey that showed a percentage of atheists admit that they pray occasionally.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
What I don't get with your angle on this is what you really think Dawkins etc. are doing attending carol services. If you don't believe they are doing so completely non-religiously, what do you think they're doing?
quote:Participating in worship is not the same as admiring religious art.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's odd to say that because somebody doesn't believe in a body of ideas, or is critical of them, that thereby the associated art and music and literature is to be shunned. I'm sure many atheists like religious music and art - there is no contradiction here.
I like Aztec art, but I don't subscribe to their ideas or practices.
quote:But you're moving the goal-posts. Singing carols in a carol service does not mean that you are worshiping at all. I think carols are part of secular culture now.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Participating in worship is not the same as admiring religious art.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's odd to say that because somebody doesn't believe in a body of ideas, or is critical of them, that thereby the associated art and music and literature is to be shunned. I'm sure many atheists like religious music and art - there is no contradiction here.
I like Aztec art, but I don't subscribe to their ideas or practices.
If an atheist is going to call religion rubbish but then sing "Joy to the World" at their parish church, I'm within my rights to point out the hypocrisy. If you want the church to be there for you on Dec 25 then don't spend the rest of the year arguing that it ought not exist, or that Chrsitians ought not express their faith in public (as Dawkins does).
Again - this doesn't describe all atheists.
quote:You don't believe singing hymns in a church to be worship?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you're moving the goal-posts. Singing carols in a carol service does not mean that you are worshiping at all. I think carols are part of secular culture now.
quote:
You won't find me worshipping (yes that's what singing Christmas carols in a church is) with a group I malign the other 364 days of the year.
quote:Well, OK, you're defining singing carols as worship. I think that's highly debatable, and is subjective. For some people, it's not worship; OK, you think they're wrong. How satisfying.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You don't believe singing hymns in a church to be worship?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you're moving the goal-posts. Singing carols in a carol service does not mean that you are worshiping at all. I think carols are part of secular culture now.
I've maintained from the first page of the thread that if you go into a church to sing carols, that's participating in worship. I haven't moved anything.
quote:
You won't find me worshipping (yes that's what singing Christmas carols in a church is) with a group I malign the other 364 days of the year.
quote:For that matter lots of people read, enjoy and are genuinely moved the works of Classical writers without feeling the slightest need to pop out and sacrifice a ram to Zeus. It's entirely possible to be moved aesthetically and emotionally by parts of a religious tradition without signing up for the whole kit and kaboodle. More so, I guess, if that tradition is also tied up with one's childhood memories. Objecting to this is a bit like the law the Emperor Julian passed, forbidding Christians to teach Greek literature.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I remembered that I have atheist friends who sing in choirs, and adore the 'Messiah'. And the number of non-believing Jewish people who still say Kaddish and so on, seems quite large also.
quote:In practice it IS for kiddies. The fuss is mostly aimed at them, even in church.
Originally posted by L'organist:
The thing above all that riles me around Christmas is the foolish and oft-voiced nostrum that 'Christmas - its a time for kiddies, isn't it?': I confess I invariably make a tart rejoinder along the lines that Herod thought so too.
quote:I just think that many atheists aren't quite as rational and as logical as they claim, and sometimes they just want to do things out of nostalgia, aesthetic appreciation, or some other impulse that they can't define.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
If an atheist is going to call religion rubbish but then sing "Joy to the World" at their parish church, I'm within my rights to point out the hypocrisy. If you want the church to be there for you on Dec 25 then don't spend the rest of the year arguing that it ought not exist, or that Chrsitians ought not express their faith in public (as Dawkins does).
Again - this doesn't describe all atheists.
quote:Not where I go. We have stuff 'aimed' at all sorts of people and none. The only specific thing with exclusive child participation is the School Carol Service, which is organised by the school and held in church; everything else has participants across the age range from newborns to very elderly.
The thing above all that riles me around Christmas is the foolish and oft-voiced nostrum that 'Christmas - its a time for kiddies, isn't it?': I confess I invariably make a tart rejoinder along the lines that Herod thought so too.quote:
posted by Svitlana 2
In practice it IS for kiddies. The fuss is mostly aimed at them, even in church.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, you're defining singing carols as worship. I think that's highly debatable, and is subjective. For some people, it's not worship; OK, you think they're wrong. How satisfying.
quote:Not worship? Hmm...
Joy to the world! the Saviour reigns;
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.
quote:You're supporting my point. It would be considered an odd leap to go from reading Roman mythology to sacrificing rams to Zeus, which would be an act of worship.
Originally posted by Callan:
For that matter lots of people read, enjoy and are genuinely moved the works of Classical writers without feeling the slightest need to pop out and sacrifice a ram to Zeus.
quote:You have the most incredible knack for putting words in people's mouths. Truly.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
No, I think the equivalent thing to sacrificing rams is taking communion. Now if an atheist did that, I would certainly be intrigued to know why. But singing carols is quite different.
I guess you could put up a notice at carol services - 'nobody welcome here, who doesn't believe the words'.
quote:Only if you mean it to be. Do you really not accept that people sing these words because they know the carols from childhood without believing a word of it or meaning any of it as worship?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, you're defining singing carols as worship. I think that's highly debatable, and is subjective. For some people, it's not worship; OK, you think they're wrong. How satisfying.quote:Not worship? Hmm...
Joy to the world! the Saviour reigns;
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.
quote:Yes. Participating in a cultural practice. As a cultural practice. Not as an act of worship.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You're supporting my point. It would be considered an odd leap to go from reading Roman mythology to sacrificing rams to Zeus, which would be an act of worship.
Originally posted by Callan:
For that matter lots of people read, enjoy and are genuinely moved the works of Classical writers without feeling the slightest need to pop out and sacrifice a ram to Zeus.
In the same way, I think taking the step to go into a church and participate in Christian worship for a major Christian holiday, is beyond simply admiring a cultural practice. It's participating in it directly.
quote:I think that's the point. Some Christians are loath to accept that some aspects of Christianity have become a cultural practice, or in Larkin's words, a piece of moth-eaten brocade. It's like saying that it's an interesting and aesthetic relic. Ouch.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yes. Participating in a cultural practice. As a cultural practice. Not as an act of worship.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You're supporting my point. It would be considered an odd leap to go from reading Roman mythology to sacrificing rams to Zeus, which would be an act of worship.
Originally posted by Callan:
For that matter lots of people read, enjoy and are genuinely moved the works of Classical writers without feeling the slightest need to pop out and sacrifice a ram to Zeus.
In the same way, I think taking the step to go into a church and participate in Christian worship for a major Christian holiday, is beyond simply admiring a cultural practice. It's participating in it directly.
quote:Nutshell.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
People are pretty complicated.
quote:Isn't the technical term for that 'doing a Redwood'?
Maybe Dawkins just mouths the words along but doesn't really sing.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
postede by LeRocquote:Isn't the technical term for that 'doing a Redwood'?
Maybe Dawkins just mouths the words along but doesn't really sing.
[www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIwBvjoLyZc]
quote:Some of my Jewish friends did this in our school choir because their parents didn't like them singing the more traditional Christmas songs.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Maybe Dawkins just mouths the words along but doesn't really sing.
quote:If you are in a church, singing about Jesus, and you don't know that it's a religious worship activity, then you really ought to take a minute to become more aware of your surroundings. Maybe Google the words "church" and "Christmas." Familiarize yourself with that t-shaped symbol that's on the sign outside of the building.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Only if you mean it to be. Do you really not accept that people sing these words because they know the carols from childhood without believing a word of it or meaning any of it as worship?
quote:Reminds me of Alan Bennett's remark, delivered in his usual Eeyore-ish deadpan Yorkshire accent:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Dawkins has said that he loves the Church of England.
quote:I don't think I've ever sung that one as an act of worship - mind focused on the meaning of the words, heart focused on God. Great party tune, puts me in a party mood.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, you're defining singing carols as worship. I think that's highly debatable, and is subjective. For some people, it's not worship...quote:Not worship? Hmm...
Joy to the world! the Saviour reigns;
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.
quote:No. There's a "not meaning it and not intending it as worship" exemption going on, as always.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm still baffled as to how singing hymns in church is not an act of worship. Is there a Christmas exception being applied here?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Exactly! I've sung Fairytale of New York but it doesn't mean I have a junkie girlfriend I'm pissed off with. I've sung "Night of the 4th of May" but I'm not a former libertine. I've sung "Hen wlad fy nhadau" but I'm not Welsh. I've sung "Lucille", but I've never picked up women in a US bar...
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:I don't think I've ever sung that one as an act of worship - mind focused on the meaning of the words, heart focused on God. Great party tune, puts me in a party mood.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, OK, you're defining singing carols as worship. I think that's highly debatable, and is subjective. For some people, it's not worship...quote:Not worship? Hmm...
Joy to the world! the Saviour reigns;
Let men their songs employ;
While fields and floods, rocks, hills, and plains
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat the sounding joy,
Repeat, repeat the sounding joy.
Some secular songs I sometimes sing as prayer, at home.
I'm trying to put together a small "sing along to Messiah" gathering, I doubt anyone will regard the gathering as a worship event. Great music fun to sing.
But perhaps different people have different definitions of worship. To me it's a heart attitude, in or out of church. Sometimes that's where my heart is, sometimes it's not, in or out of church.
Or perhaps different people have different theories of how seriously casual singers mean the words they sing. Can a happily married person sing a Country and Western song about "you've left me alone and blue"? If so, why can't an atheist sing Joy to the World or He is Risen and not intend the words be taken seriously any more than the C&W singer intends the audience to think he has marriage problems?
quote:Why would someone go into a church to sing Christian music, which to the Christians in attendance is an act of worship, if they did not intend themselves to be participating in said act of worship?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:No. There's a "not meaning it and not intending it as worship" exemption going on, as always.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm still baffled as to how singing hymns in church is not an act of worship. Is there a Christmas exception being applied here?
quote:Maybe because they like singing these songs together.
seekingsister: Why would someone go into a church to sing Christian music, which to the Christians in attendance is an act of worship, if they did not intend themselves to be participating in said act of worship?
quote:Maybe because they actually do appreciate church and Christianity after all. Despite their bluster to the contrary for the rest of the year.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Maybe because they like singing these songs together.
seekingsister: Why would someone go into a church to sing Christian music, which to the Christians in attendance is an act of worship, if they did not intend themselves to be participating in said act of worship?
quote:I suppose the point is that people attend church for different reasons. Not everyone present will be a true believer. We've all heard of the CofE chorists who aren't believers but attend because they enjoy the singing.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm still baffled as to how singing hymns in church is not an act of worship. Is there a Christmas exception being applied here?
quote:One problem here, is that you are confusing yourself with other people. The fact that you didn't go to a carol service, as a non-believer, says nothing about what other people would do.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Why would someone go into a church to sing Christian music, which to the Christians in attendance is an act of worship, if they did not intend themselves to be participating in said act of worship?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:No. There's a "not meaning it and not intending it as worship" exemption going on, as always.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I'm still baffled as to how singing hymns in church is not an act of worship. Is there a Christmas exception being applied here?
I feel like you have some desire to rationalize behavior that is obviously irrational. Which, if my statements don't apply to you, I'm not sure why you are even bothering to do. If someone claims to be an atheist, and then goes into a church to sing Christmas hymns - there's something inconsistent there. In the years when I was not a Christian do you know how many times I went to a carol service? ZERO. I was only in church if forced by family members.
quote:I've read that in Harlem there used to be organised tourist trips to black churches. The tourists would stay for the music and leave before the (long) sermon. I don't know if that still goes on.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The 40 min sermons would be enough to put me off, Svit.
quote:It happened at a traditionally black Catholic church I visited in New Orleans that has a gospel choir and a jazz band. A flock of tourists disappeared as soon as the priest came out.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:I've read that in Harlem there used to be organised tourist trips to black churches. The tourists would stay for the music and leave before the (long) sermon. I don't know if that still goes on.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The 40 min sermons would be enough to put me off, Svit.
quote:Do they at least put something on the collection plate?
SvitlanaV2: I've read that in Harlem there used to be organised tourist trips to black churches. The tourists would stay for the music and leave before the (long) sermon. I don't know if that still goes on.
quote:This just shows, doesn't it, that people often like religious music without particularly wanting the religion itself.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:It happened at a traditionally black Catholic church I visited in New Orleans that has a gospel choir and a jazz band. A flock of tourists disappeared as soon as the priest came out.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I've read that in Harlem there used to be organised tourist trips to black churches. The tourists would stay for the music and leave before the (long) sermon. I don't know if that still goes on.
quote:Well, this is when I make myself unpopular again. It was very distracting and borderline offensive the way these people treated a Sunday church service like a tourist attraction. Particularly in the way some of the women were dressed and dancing to the music.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
This just shows, doesn't it, that people often like religious music without particularly wanting the religion itself.
quote:I welcome them. Pointing out "Hey you say you don't believe in God, but here you are at church. How does that work?" might be the start of a conversation that leads in the direction of faith. Or not. But ignoring it because "Well I'm sure they just like the tradition" doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You'd think that Christians would welcome atheists to carol services, or indeed, other services. You never know, that fragment of moth-eaten brocade might engender some interest in the whole tapestry.
quote:Well, that sounds an improvement on calling them hypocrites.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I welcome them. Pointing out "Hey you say you don't believe in God, but here you are at church. How does that work?" might be the start of a conversation that leads in the direction of faith. Or not. But ignoring it because "Well I'm sure they just like the tradition" doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You'd think that Christians would welcome atheists to carol services, or indeed, other services. You never know, that fragment of moth-eaten brocade might engender some interest in the whole tapestry.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:This just shows, doesn't it, that people often like religious music without particularly wanting the religion itself.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
[qb] It happened at a traditionally black Catholic church I visited in New Orleans that has a gospel choir and a jazz band. A flock of tourists disappeared as soon as the priest came out.
quote:I'm not going to argue about that! I did get the impression that some of these tourists weren't very respectful.
Well, this is when I make myself unpopular again. It was very distracting and borderline offensive the way these people treated a Sunday church service like a tourist attraction. Particularly in the way some of the women were dressed and dancing to the music.
quote:Quite. Loads of people who don't normally darken the doors of the church said "Amen" this Sunday during the Act of Remembrance. I, on the other hand 'did a Redwood' at the words of 'I Vow To Thee My Country' and declined to say 'Amen' at the end of the 'Flanders Field' poem. The difference being, I think, that I was concerned not to commit idolatry and that the people who were there for cultural reasons were concerned not to give offence. Most non-believers who turn up to Remembrance, Carol Services and whatever are more concerned to be polite than they are not to offend a deity in which they don't believe. There is an asymmetry, if you like, between attitudes.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:Yes. Participating in a cultural practice. As a cultural practice. Not as an act of worship.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You're supporting my point. It would be considered an odd leap to go from reading Roman mythology to sacrificing rams to Zeus, which would be an act of worship.
Originally posted by Callan:
For that matter lots of people read, enjoy and are genuinely moved the works of Classical writers without feeling the slightest need to pop out and sacrifice a ram to Zeus.
In the same way, I think taking the step to go into a church and participate in Christian worship for a major Christian holiday, is beyond simply admiring a cultural practice. It's participating in it directly.
quote:Not sure what sort of service you were at!
Quite. Loads of people who don't normally darken the doors of the church said "Amen" this Sunday during the Act of Remembrance. I, on the other hand 'did a Redwood' at the words of 'I Vow To Thee My Country' and declined to say 'Amen' at the end of the 'Flanders Field' poem. The difference being, I think, that I was concerned not to commit idolatry and that the people who were there for cultural reasons were concerned not to give offence. Most non-believers who turn up to Remembrance, Carol Services and whatever are more concerned to be polite than they are not to offend a deity in which they don't believe. There is an asymmetry, if you like, between attitudes.
quote:I just don't understand this.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The shopping malls around here have a habit of having various singing groups come in and sing carols during the Christmas shopping season. It puts the shoppers in a better mood to buy stuff.
Is this an act of worship or desecration. I think most of the people who hear the endless performance of Carols and other Christmas music (especially those classics written by Jewish composers) aren't seeing listening as an act of worship.
Many of them aren't going to do a context switch and say "oh if it's performed in a church it's an act of worship, like going to bingo."
quote:This question brings to mind the phrase 'Belonging before Believing', and highlights it's problematic quality.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Because hymns are sometimes sung outside of church, hearing them in church is so confusing to non-Christians that they don't know its worship?
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Well, this is when I make myself unpopular again. It was very distracting and borderline offensive the way these people treated a Sunday church service like a tourist attraction. Particularly in the way some of the women were dressed and dancing to the music.
quote:Seekingsister, I grow increasingly confused by your responses.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
________________________________________
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You'd think that Christians would welcome atheists to carol services, or indeed, other services. You never know, that fragment of moth-eaten brocade might engender some interest in the whole tapestry.
________________________________________
I welcome them. Pointing out "Hey you say you don't believe in God, but here you are at church. How does that work?" might be the start of a conversation that leads in the direction of faith. Or not. But ignoring it because "Well I'm sure they just like the tradition" doesn't make sense to me, sorry.
quote:Many Christians aren't in church to worship on any particular Sunday!
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I just don't understand this.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Many of them aren't going to do a context switch and say "oh if it's performed in a church it's an act of worship, like going to bingo."
Because hymns are sometimes sung outside of church, hearing them in church is so confusing to non-Christians that they don't know it's worship?
quote:Wow! That's unnecessarily austere!
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Callanquote:Not sure what sort of service you were at!
Quite. Loads of people who don't normally darken the doors of the church said "Amen" this Sunday during the Act of Remembrance. I, on the other hand 'did a Redwood' at the words of 'I Vow To Thee My Country' and declined to say 'Amen' at the end of the 'Flanders Field' poem. The difference being, I think, that I was concerned not to commit idolatry and that the people who were there for cultural reasons were concerned not to give offence. Most non-believers who turn up to Remembrance, Carol Services and whatever are more concerned to be polite than they are not to offend a deity in which they don't believe. There is an asymmetry, if you like, between attitudes.
The response to the Act of Remembrance (They shall grow not old ...) is We will remember them.
If the McCrae poem was read out then it required no response - certainly not Amen.
As for I vow to thee my country: I can see your objection to the first verse but the second refers to the heavenly kingdom so what's objectionable about that?
Sounds like you need better Orders of Service with the right words, and better choice of hymns!
quote:Was that it, or was it in the middle of another service?
Wow! That's unnecessarily austere!
Our Act of Remembrance consisted of:
A prayer at the beginning (hence the Amen) The reading of the names They shall not grow old (we will remember them) The last post Two minutes silence The revilie (sp?) The final prayer (another Amen)
Clearly Minimailism hasn't reached our part of the world yet.
quote:It's only worship if that's what the person doing it intends it to be.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:You don't believe singing hymns in a church to be worship?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you're moving the goal-posts. Singing carols in a carol service does not mean that you are worshiping at all. I think carols are part of secular culture now.
I've maintained from the first page of the thread that if you go into a church to sing carols, that's participating in worship. I haven't moved anything.
quote:
You won't find me worshipping (yes that's what singing Christmas carols in a church is) with a group I malign the other 364 days of the year.
quote:Again, this presupposes that people are very stupid, because they are not aware they are singing lyrics about souls finding their worth through the birth of the Messiah. Same as bingo to them.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The point about bingo is that a church has many activities, some are worship and others are not. Those that also appear in a secular setting outside of Church may be seen as non-worship.
quote:They know what the words mean. They just don't believe them. They sing them because they are part of their culture.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Again, this presupposes that people are very stupid, because they are not aware they are singing lyrics about souls finding their worth through the birth of the Messiah. Same as bingo to them.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
The point about bingo is that a church has many activities, some are worship and others are not. Those that also appear in a secular setting outside of Church may be seen as non-worship.
quote:The hard part is you and others claiming that they don't know singing Christian songs in church is worship.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They know what the words mean. They just don't believe them. They sing them because they are part of their culture.
I'm really wondering why this is so hard for you SS.
quote:That is not my claim. My claim is that when these people do it they are not doing it as worship.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:The hard part is you and others claiming that they don't know singing Christian songs in church is worship.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
They know what the words mean. They just don't believe them. They sing them because they are part of their culture.
I'm really wondering why this is so hard for you SS.
quote:Who are you to tell them what it's OK for them to sing and what it's not? They can sing what they bloody well like and you need to mind your own business, quite frankly.
They know, and they do it anyway, and then they come up with odd excuses about why it's OK to sing those songs even though they don't believe.
quote:Exaggerate much? Dawkins thinks religion in the sense of actually believing its truth claims is silly, and doesn't approve of special privileges and influence being granted to it. I'll let you know when he starts wanting it "snuffed out". You make it sound like he's calling for making Christianity illegal.
If you enjoy singing carols then don't poo-poo Christianity during the rest of the year, the church is the reason that those carols exist in the first place and they speak to its faith.
Any non-believer who supports the church's existence and presence in public life is A-OK with me when it comes to celebrating Christmas. Someone like Dawkins, who treats my religion like a cultural activity when it suits him but as a menace to be snuffed out when it doesn't, I have no time for.
quote:I said they should be willing to acknowledge the inconsistency between claiming not to believe in a god, and then attending a service that sings praises to that god. I leave them to deal with which lyrics they sing and which they don't. As mentioned I knew many non-Christians who did not sing lyrics that contradicted their faith in the school choir.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This thread is becoming daft. To say that people should not sing something, whose words they don't believe, is truly absurd.
It shows a weird kind of Christian imperialism - this carol means X, and you are not allowed to disbelieve that, not in my church anyway. Give me strength.
quote:Isn't it because it demonstrates the decline of Christianity? We're not really talking about Dawkins. We're also talking about many people who might go to a carol service, but don't believe a word of it literally.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't see the point. Even if you think Dawkins is inconsistent, so fecking what? What are you going to do? I mean, he's a pretty strong atheist so it's not like you don't disapprove of him and what he thinks anyway. What's the point of getting all het up about this little foible of his, if he's the religion destroying monster he's portrayed?
Storm in a teacup. Big deal. Move on.
quote:I'm calling him out for being hypocritical.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't see the point. Even if you think Dawkins is inconsistent, so fecking what? What are you going to do? I mean, he's a pretty strong atheist so it's not like you don't disapprove of him and what he thinks anyway. What's the point of getting all het up about this little foible of his, if he's the religion destroying monster he's portrayed?
Storm in a teacup. Big deal. Move on.
quote:Why do you assume that atheists slag off Christianity?
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And they need to realize that if they slag off the church for the rest of the year, pretty soon there won't be anywhere nice for them to sing at Christmas except the Royal Albert Hall which charges upwards of £25 per person for the privilege.
quote:I don't.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why do you assume that atheists slag off Christianity?
quote:No you're not. You're whining about it here. Why not call him out if you're so bothered by it - somewhere where he might see it.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:I'm calling him out for being hypocritical.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I don't see the point. Even if you think Dawkins is inconsistent, so fecking what? What are you going to do? I mean, he's a pretty strong atheist so it's not like you don't disapprove of him and what he thinks anyway. What's the point of getting all het up about this little foible of his, if he's the religion destroying monster he's portrayed?
Storm in a teacup. Big deal. Move on.
quote:Yeah, but this one's particularly pointless.
And I'm here to discuss, it's a discussion forum. You don't like what I'm saying - you can move on. This whole website is based on storms in teacups.
quote:Patheos
Fellow atheist here. If your not Christian, and you don't honestly believe that you are celebrating the birth of your savior, then my question is this: what the hell are you celebrating? And yes, you can be Christian and celebrate Easter because it is just like Christmas. It has been Christianized.
I know some people like to remind us that these holidays were just pagan celebrations once too, but I don't celebrate the solstice any more than Christmas. Because I am not pagan. I don't practice Hanukah, and I don't observe Ramadan.
My family is Christian, and they sure celebrate it but I don't. I haven't since I became an atheist. It doesn't matter to me if it has been traditionally regarded by my kin or not. It seems like there are only two reasons an atheist practices religious holidays... because they are chained down by some arbitrary sense of tradition, or because they are stuck in the psycho/social clutches of a system that makes them feel like an outsider for not participating in some way. I think the practice of atheist-Christmas is almost compulsory for those who do it.
And of course, as an atheist, I don't need a special day to be nice. I give gifts randomly and when I feel like it. I gather for merry making often, and without regard for what particular day of the year it is. That said though, if my very Christian family happens to buy me a gift, or invite me over, I will not be rude... but I have made it apparent to them that they don't need to, and I am happy to come to dinner without needing to participate in the religious aspects.
quote:He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Dawkins doesn't slag off the Church of England all year - he is always saying how fond he is of it. Inconsistent? I don't care really, as I know how inconsistent I am about tons of things. It's called being human.
quote:And I've already said there is so much secular stuff about Christmas that for an atheist to also go into church for carols is going well beyond just seeing it as a public holiday.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just find it odd to say that atheists having a Christmas holiday is odd. Hint: Christmas is a secular holiday for many people. Big meal, prezzies, tons of booze and telly - not a hint of baby Jesus.
quote:Correct. Which is why it's perfectly consistent and non-hypocritical of him to attend carol services to belt out carols.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Dawkins doesn't slag off the Church of England all year - he is always saying how fond he is of it. Inconsistent? I don't care really, as I know how inconsistent I am about tons of things. It's called being human.
quote:Obviously Karl. That's why we're even having a debate. You see things one way, I see it another.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's how he feels. Other people feel differently. Perhaps very differently. If he, like you, can't imagine how other people think, then that really is irrelevant.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:I think the problem is that you don't seem to accept Dawkins' own explanation of how he thinks.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Obviously Karl. That's why we're even having a debate. You see things one way, I see it another.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's how he feels. Other people feel differently. Perhaps very differently. If he, like you, can't imagine how other people think, then that really is irrelevant.
I'm not trying to tell anyone what to think. I'm telling you what I think. And being told "seekingsister, you shouldn't think that way." So who's the person who isn't respective of differing opinions, exactly?
quote:Neither do I, if a church has advertised a carol service or remembrance service etc far and wide, leafleting etc. They clearly want all comers to come. To then wham them between the eyes with an evangelical message is rude imo.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
quote:It's "rude" to evangelize in a church?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Neither do I, if a church has advertised a carol service or remembrance service etc far and wide, leafleting etc. They clearly want all comers to come. To then wham them between the eyes with an evangelical message is rude imo.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
He's OK with it so far as it has pretty buildings and nice music. He doesn't like it when it attempts to actually preach the Gospel.
quote:Rude perhaps not, but I do tend to avoid churches where they do this. And I'm a Christian.
seekingsister: It's "rude" to evangelize in a church?
quote:No - it's rude to invite people on one premise then hit them with another, it doesn't get people in. It puts them off, big style.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
It's "rude" to evangelize in a church?
Wow, no wonder Christianity is in decline in Europe.
quote:Exactly. You don't need to believe what you read or sing. I hate the sentiments of 'My Way' but will warble it with the best of 'em!
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I cheerfully sing songs about Santa Claus, about his flying reindeer, about you have to be nice instead of naughty if you want Christmas gifts. I go to parties where we all sing these songs, I don't believed a word of it, but it's fun to get together with other people and sing familiar songs.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Of course it's perfectly possible to give an evangelistic message in a carol service which is appropriately and sensitively done, and NOT to guilt-trip people. Evangelistic does not have to equate to being obnoxious. Nor should it. But Christmas does have a loose connection to, you know, Christ.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Neither do I, if a church has advertised a carol service or remembrance service etc far and wide, leafleting etc. They clearly want all comers to come. To then wham them between the eyes with an evangelical message is rude imo.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:So far, we've been talking about walking up to a newcomer after the service is over, with the aim of evangelising.
Laurelin: I've visited synaogogues, mosques, Sikh and Hindu temples: none of those people watered down their faith just because a bunch of Christians were present, and I wouldn't expect them to. Why would anyone expect Christians to water down their faith?
quote:Drop it q - I never said I plan to identify atheists at church and shout "HYPOCRITE" in their faces.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you mean by 'evangelize'. If that means being called a hypocrite, I think I'd slowly tip-toe out of there.
quote:Plenty of children do
Originally posted by Enoch:
By the way, the equation with singing about Santa Claus and reindeer doesn't work. Nobody believes in them.
quote:Many churches were built on the back of tithes paid by the whole community whether they wanted to or not. They are now maintained partly through tax exemptions and by appeals to the outside community to pay into the giant thermometers next to the door. They're not just yours.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
they shelter you in the building they and their predecessors have built and maintained,
quote:They're in church to little Xanthe dressed as an angel, to see Milo in caftan and tea-towel playing a shepherd and laugh at little Phoebe sending all the other sheep into fits of laughter.
They are welcome in my church or any church, as long as they are willing to engage if the question is asked, why are you here if you don't believe?
quote:The trouble is, these two perspectives don't sit easily with each other. It's a bit contradictory to promote a worship service 'for everyone', hoping that some might even come to faith through the experience, if you also take the view that only thoroughly respectful and worshipful people ought to attend.
Originally posted by Enoch:
By her standards, I'm probably a bit staid, but I'm with Seeking Sister on this one. I also agree with Laurelin. I can't see why any unbeliever, whether Dawkins or anyone else feels they have any grounds for complaint whatsoever, if they go to a church, claiming they are just there for the music or a gooey feeling, and when they get there somebody preaches a sermon calling them to repent and believe. We aren't in the business of providing music or a nice gooey feeling unless that draws people towards faith in Jesus.
On the other hand, there's always the thought that Dawkins might go to a carol service and have an experience like St Paul's on the road to Damascus. Wouldn't that be wonderful.
quote:He seeks to destroy that which he loves, perhaps he really IS the antichrist.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dawkins also says that he loves the church of England, and he is a cultural Christian. Complicated man - but who isn't?
quote:Dawkins thinks parents teaching children about their religion is child abuse. Teaching children about religion is one of the prime purposes for churches. He's a hypocrite.
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If Dawkins wants all churches torn down so he never passes a reminder that some people did or do believe in God, then it doesn't make sense to me if he goes to one to sing carols. But if he is merely against the power of the church to tap the wallets of the general public through the tax system and against any church influence on education or public discourse, I see no conflict.
quote:Particularly since presumably he thinks it should be compulsory to teach children the sort of unbelief he stands for, probably also with his particular version of natural selection as against any of the others.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dawkins thinks parents teaching children about their religion is child abuse. Teaching children about religion is one of the prime purposes for churches. He's a hypocrite.
quote:Not at all, and I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. My purpose is to counter the notion that he's just a nice man who likes the occasional Christmas carol. He is a sworn enemy of Christianity and a foul hypocrite, and the poster child for Arseholes R Us. People need to stop trying to portray him as the atheist Mr. Rogers.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dawkins is a hypocrite. But are you proposing booting all hypocrites from the premises? That might be a bit more problematic.....
quote:Exactly MT!!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Not at all, and I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. My purpose is to counter the notion that he's just a nice man who likes the occasional Christmas carol. He is a sworn enemy of Christianity and a foul hypocrite, and the poster child for Arseholes R Us. People need to stop trying to portray him as the atheist Mr. Rogers.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dawkins is a hypocrite. But are you proposing booting all hypocrites from the premises? That might be a bit more problematic.....
quote:Oh, I am not defending Dawkins. Don't like the man. It is more that I think Christianity faces more internal problems that from tossers like him.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Not at all, and I'm not sure how you got that from what I said. My purpose is to counter the notion that he's just a nice man who likes the occasional Christmas carol. He is a sworn enemy of Christianity and a foul hypocrite, and the poster child for Arseholes R Us. People need to stop trying to portray him as the atheist Mr. Rogers.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dawkins is a hypocrite. But are you proposing booting all hypocrites from the premises? That might be a bit more problematic.....
quote:No argument here. He is a biting fly with short teeth, and will be long dead while Christianity lives on, cf. Voltaire.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, I am not defending Dawkins. Don't like the man. It is more that I think Christianity faces more internal problems that from tossers like him.
quote:An odd comparison.
Originally posted by mousethief:
No argument here. He is a biting fly with short teeth, and will be long dead while Christianity lives on, cf. Voltaire.
quote:However, being an optimist, I think that the balance of numbers of adherents will hswing in favour of atheism!
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Barring disasters like rapid cataclysmic climate change or nuclear war both Atheism and Christianity will live on long after everyone now alive is dead. If that gives you comfort; enjoy the thought.
quote:I don't think the idea of memes really took off. For one thing, comparing them with genes is a mistake; for another thing, the people in semiotics pointed out that they have been using ideas such as 'signs', 'symbols' and 'icons' for a long time, and the notion of memes doesn't add very much.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Anyone who founds part of his argument on a notion that the 'memes' that he doesn't like have a life of their own, without being able to see that this is incompatible with any form of materialism, and is dependent on positing the existence of some sort of spiritual or non-material realm unnameable to scientific observation, even is he is hesitant to describe what it's like, lacks any intellectual respectability whatsoever.
He should not be taken seriously. This should be pointed out at every opportunity.
quote:He also reads superbly. His voice has all the right qualities for a talking book. It doesn't matter how good the book is, if the voice is wrong, it's just impossible to listen to the contents.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Dawkins is taken seriously as a popularizer of science, which he is very good at. For example, his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' is a clear exposition of some complicated ideas about evolution. The section on the evolution of the eye is very clear.
He also writes beautifully, and in fact, lyrically at times;
quote:I suspect both will be around for many generations. There will also be new belief practices and variations which will change relative populations.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However, being an optimist, I think that the balance of numbers of adherents will hswing in favour of atheism!
quote:Yeah and Mark Driscoll was taken seriously as a "populariser" of the gospel, I accord them about the same respect.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Dawkins is taken seriously as a popularizer of science, which he is very good at. For example, his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' is a clear exposition of some complicated ideas about evolution. The section on the evolution of the eye is very clear.
He also writes beautifully, and in fact, lyrically at times; for example, here is he describing soldier ants, who guard the queen: 'they guard the master copies of the very instructions that made them do the guarding. They were guarding the wisdom of their ancestors, the Ark of the Covenant'.
Going off topic, really.
quote:That's just stupid. And doubly absurd on his thread -- When the thread is about atheists celebrating the holidays, and we know the world's most famous atheist gleefully celebrates Christmas by going to carol services, it's hardly off-topic to bring him in. Cheap shot.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
quote:But it had the effect of turning the bulk of the thread into a discussion just of Dawkins, not the larger question (well, except for the delightful excusion courtesy of SeekingSister). That's my reason for raising the comaparison between Godwin's Law and the "Dawkins Corollary"--the discussion then is completely derailed into the endless arguments about Dawkins.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That's just stupid. And doubly absurd on his thread -- When the thread is about atheists celebrating the holidays, and we know the world's most famous atheist gleefully celebrates Christmas by going to carol services, it's hardly off-topic to bring him in. Cheap shot.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
quote:I'm a bit puzzled by your first remark. Are you saying that 'The Blind Watchmaker' is not a very good book?
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:Yeah and Mark Driscoll was taken seriously as a "populariser" of the gospel, I accord them about the same respect.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Dawkins is taken seriously as a popularizer of science, which he is very good at. For example, his book 'The Blind Watchmaker' is a clear exposition of some complicated ideas about evolution. The section on the evolution of the eye is very clear.
He also writes beautifully, and in fact, lyrically at times; for example, here is he describing soldier ants, who guard the queen: 'they guard the master copies of the very instructions that made them do the guarding. They were guarding the wisdom of their ancestors, the Ark of the Covenant'.
Going off topic, really.
<tongue in cheek> he can bugga off acquiring religious images and concepts too, go find his own atheist equivalent of the ark of the covenant.<end tongue in cheek>
[code]
quote:So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:But it had the effect of turning the bulk of the thread into a discussion just of Dawkins, not the larger question (well, except for the delightful excusion courtesy of SeekingSister). That's my reason for raising the comaparison between Godwin's Law and the "Dawkins Corollary"--the discussion then is completely derailed into the endless arguments about Dawkins.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That's just stupid. And doubly absurd on his thread -- When the thread is about atheists celebrating the holidays, and we know the world's most famous atheist gleefully celebrates Christmas by going to carol services, it's hardly off-topic to bring him in. Cheap shot.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
quote:i originally used the example of Dawkins to differentiate his brand of muscular atheism from the common "live and let live" brand. It was completely relevant to a discussion of whether atheists should celebrate religious holidays. His defenders did get rather personal about defending "the man" which led to a bit of derailment which continues....
Originally posted by Siegfried:
quote:But it had the effect of turning the bulk of the thread into a discussion just of Dawkins, not the larger question (well, except for the delightful excusion courtesy of SeekingSister). That's my reason for raising the comaparison between Godwin's Law and the "Dawkins Corollary"--the discussion then is completely derailed into the endless arguments about Dawkins.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That's just stupid. And doubly absurd on his thread -- When the thread is about atheists celebrating the holidays, and we know the world's most famous atheist gleefully celebrates Christmas by going to carol services, it's hardly off-topic to bring him in. Cheap shot.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Maybe there should be a corollary to Godwin's Law that says anytime Dawkins is brought up in a discussion about atheism (where something he said/wrote wasn't the original basis), then the argument is lost.
quote:That depends on whether you are trying to make a point about Dawkins personally or atheists in general. He may be an example of an atheist, but he is by no means representative of most other atheists.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
quote:I don't think anybody here has claimed otherwise.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:That depends on whether you are trying to make a point about Dawkins personally or atheists in general. He may be an example of an atheist, but he is by no means representative of most other atheists.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
quote:Could be. But that's irrelevant on this thread because that hasn't happened here.
I would interpret Siegfried's suggestion as meaning that, if you have to use Dawkins as an example of the beliefs or actions of atheists in general then your arguments are on pretty dubious footing to start with.
quote:What MT said!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I don't think anybody here has claimed otherwise.
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:That depends on whether you are trying to make a point about Dawkins personally or atheists in general. He may be an example of an atheist, but he is by no means representative of most other atheists.
Originally posted by mousethief:
So we should not talk about any examples, lest it derail the thread, and speak only in generalities?
quote:Could be. But that's irrelevant on this thread because that hasn't happened here.
I would interpret Siegfried's suggestion as meaning that, if you have to use Dawkins as an example of the beliefs or actions of atheists in general then your arguments are on pretty dubious footing to start with.
quote:Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
quote:If Christmas didn't come along with gifts and a nice meal, I don't think the majority of atheists who celebrate it would be interested in doing so.
Many atheists even celebrate the pagan festival of winter solstice. Why do they need to celebrate a Pagan festival? It is true that many rituals of modern Christmas celebrations are pagan. But this is not a good reason to celebrate Christmas or Solstice. Atheists are neither pagan nor Christian. They don’t uphold ancient pagan superstitions, so why do so with those which happen to be popular at Christmas time? There’s nothing about ancient paganism which is any more rational than modern Christianity.
quote:I suggest you go to any football ground on Boxing Day, and you'll hear exactly that.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The strong appeal of the carol tunes is a part of so many lives, well, my life anyway. I think it would be lovely to have new, strong, inspiring, powerful , but non-religious words to replace the ones so familiar and memorised unforgettably by so many, particularly people in my age group.
quote:Except WAAAAAY back on the first page you were questioning how one could be thankful without a belief in God. You're trying to have it both ways now.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Coming from the US, we have Thanksgiving which is the big secular cross-religion feast holiday. So an atheist can do Thanksgiving and not celebrate Christmas, and pretty much still have a nice holiday season. In the UK/Europe Christmas is the main event, so it would be more of a sacrifice not to participate in it.
quote:It was not me! I will quote to prove it.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Except WAAAAAY back on the first page you were questioning how one could be thankful without a belief in God. You're trying to have it both ways now.
quote:Apologies will be accepted
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:Well technically the New Year occurs at the time that the baby Jesus would have been circumcised, so it's related to Christianity.
Originally posted by Dog Dad:
New Year's Eve is fine, but even something like Thanksgiving could potentially be 'out'.
Thanksgiving is not religious at all, I don't see how being atheist would disqualify one from celebrating it. Surely the apocryphal feast between the pilgrims and the Native Americans meant (at least) two different religious groups were at the first one.
quote:As a tolerably attentive reader of Dawkins, it's news to me that he holds either of those opinions.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Particularly since presumably he thinks it should be compulsory to teach children the sort of unbelief he stands for, probably also with his particular version of natural selection as against any of the others.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dawkins thinks parents teaching children about their religion is child abuse. Teaching children about religion is one of the prime purposes for churches. He's a hypocrite.
quote:Christmas is arguably a time when many Christians feel more confident about discussing their faith and religious activities, because it's more culturally acceptable to do so than at other times of the year. So the participation of atheists like Dawkins at this time of the year doesn't help Christians to think logically about the folly of religion, but probably gives religion an annual boost.
Originally posted by Eliab:
Where [Dawkins] differs from most believers is that he doesn't just condemn the worst excesses of religion (we pretty much all do that) but thinks that 'moderate' religion is dangerous because it provides space and support for the more horrible manifestations of faith.
[...]
He's an enemy of Christianity, certainly, but a friend of truth, and for that reason alone I won't be begrudging him his carols at Christmas.
quote:Interesting that he quptes Christian scholars - Metzger on Jesus existing, Dunn on miracles or 'something out of the ordinary' being possible.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
There are lots of opinions on the topic from atheists as well as Christians. Here are a few:
Dos and Don'ts for Atheists at Christmas
Which says it's a good time to engage Christians on why you don't believe - but still don't be a jerk about it.
Why do atheists need to celebrate Christmas? written by an atheist who disagrees with celebrating it..
quote:Rather than saying simply that it is "secular," I would say Thanksgiving isn't necessarily religious and can be celebrated in a totally secular way. But many (including me) do consider it a religious or semi-religous holiday—or, if you will, a civil holiday with strong religious (but not sectarian) overtones that can be embraced or ignored by those celebrating.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Coming from the US, we have Thanksgiving which is the big secular cross-religion feast holiday. So an atheist can do Thanksgiving and not celebrate Christmas, and pretty much still have a nice holiday season.
quote:Yes, I was puzzled by those comments. I'm not aware that Dawkins has ever argued that children should be taught that atheism is correct; he would certainly not want children to be taught that religion is! Critical thinking is where it's at.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:As a tolerably attentive reader of Dawkins, it's news to me that he holds either of those opinions.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Particularly since presumably he thinks it should be compulsory to teach children the sort of unbelief he stands for, probably also with his particular version of natural selection as against any of the others.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dawkins thinks parents teaching children about their religion is child abuse. Teaching children about religion is one of the prime purposes for churches. He's a hypocrite.
As far as I am aware he's in favour of teaching about religion, and I think has said that you can't understand, for example, European history or English literature without knowing about Christianity. He famously objects to children being labelled as members of the religions of their parents before they can make up their own minds. His comments on religion and child abuse are probably the least well-judged of his career, but really are not all that extreme or outrageous. What he despises (and considers outright abusive) is traumatising children with unnecesary guilt, fear and hate on the basis of bad or non-existent evidence. Where he differs from most believers is that he doesn't just condemn the worst excesses of religion (we pretty much all do that) but thinks that 'moderate' religion is dangerous because it provides space and support for the more horrible manifestations of faith.
I don't think he's ever advocated teaching unbelief. Critical, evidence-based thinking, perhaps, but not unbelief. I'm not sure where he stands on teaching children his particular take on natural selection as opposed to any alternative version - my guess is that he would be unspeakably delighted if science education in Britain reached the point where the average child could appreciate the distinction.
He's an enemy of Christianity, certainly, but a friend of truth, and for that reason alone I won't be begrudging him his carols at Christmas.
quote:Hmm, everything I've read on the origin of Thanksgiving, both American and Canadian, mentions the thanking of God as part of the festivities. Both Washington's first official American Thanksgiving speech and Lincoln's in establishing it as a national day, reference God. And Canada's Parliment mentions thanking God as a reason for the day at least once.
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Thanksgiving is not religious at all, I don't see how being atheist would disqualify one from celebrating it. Surely the apocryphal feast between the pilgrims and the Native Americans meant (at least) two different religious groups were at the first one.
quote:I think that was me. My point, which no one has successfully dissuaded me from, is that to be thankful, one has to have someone to thank.
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Except WAAAAAY back on the first page you were questioning how one could be thankful without a belief in God. You're trying to have it both ways now.
quote:You're a retired lawyer, right? Did you have to retire because your brain's shit?
Originally posted by Enoch:
My point, which no one has successfully dissuaded me from, is that to be thankful, one has to have someone to thank.
quote:Did my post even mention God? Holster your weapon until you learn to aim.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
You can thank your community for helping you make a good harvest. That community may or may not include one or more gods.
Next your going to tell me the banks need Christ to close for Christmas.
quote:I did a quick google to find something "linkable" about Dawkins and his claims that parents bringing children up in their religion is child abuse and found something from the Daily Wail (yeah I know not the best source but it's succinct and I have no reason to believe they misquoted Dawkins"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Yes, I was puzzled by those comments. I'm not aware that Dawkins has ever argued that children should be taught that atheism is correct; he would certainly not want children to be taught that religion is! Critical thinking is where it's at.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:As a tolerably attentive reader of Dawkins, it's news to me that he holds either of those opinions.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Particularly since presumably he thinks it should be compulsory to teach children the sort of unbelief he stands for, probably also with his particular version of natural selection as against any of the others.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Dawkins thinks parents teaching children about their religion is child abuse. Teaching children about religion is one of the prime purposes for churches. He's a hypocrite.
As far as I am aware he's in favour of teaching about religion, and I think has said that you can't understand, for example, European history or English literature without knowing about Christianity. He famously objects to children being labelled as members of the religions of their parents before they can make up their own minds. His comments on religion and child abuse are probably the least well-judged of his career, but really are not all that extreme or outrageous. What he despises (and considers outright abusive) is traumatising children with unnecesary guilt, fear and hate on the basis of bad or non-existent evidence. Where he differs from most believers is that he doesn't just condemn the worst excesses of religion (we pretty much all do that) but thinks that 'moderate' religion is dangerous because it provides space and support for the more horrible manifestations of faith.
I don't think he's ever advocated teaching unbelief. Critical, evidence-based thinking, perhaps, but not unbelief. I'm not sure where he stands on teaching children his particular take on natural selection as opposed to any alternative version - my guess is that he would be unspeakably delighted if science education in Britain reached the point where the average child could appreciate the distinction.
He's an enemy of Christianity, certainly, but a friend of truth, and for that reason alone I won't be begrudging him his carols at Christmas.
On 'his version of natural selection', again, I've never seen him say this. He has been involved in a number of controversies, particularly with Gould, on topics such as gene selection, group selection, the role of mass extinctions, punctuated equilibrium (and the Cambrian explosion), convergent evolution, and so on.
Interesting that the Christian paleontologist, Simon Conway Morris, has used convergent evolution to argue that it is predictable.
I doubt if Dawkins would argue that children should be taught his side of these controversies, although I suppose older ones might find some of the controversy interesting.
There is a Wiki entry 'Dawkins vs. Gould', which summarizes some of it.
quote:Sounds like teaching atheism to me!!
Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.
quote:
In remarks to Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera, he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’
Interviewer Mehdi Hasan asked: ‘You believe that being bought up as a Catholic is worse than being abused by a priest?’.
Professor Dawkins replied: ‘There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.
‘At the same time a friend of hers, also seven, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to Hell and will be roasting in Hell forever.
‘She told me of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky but she got over it.
‘But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.’
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2312813/Richard-Dawkins-Forcing-religion-children-child-abuse-claims-atheist-professo r.html#ixzz3JUgixX4I
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
quote:So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
quote:I think it eminently likely that the journalist's report of what Dawkins said, which doesn't even include a "quote", bears only a passing resemblance to what he actually said.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
quote:Namely her Protestant friend roasted in hell
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:So are you asserting Dawkins was misrepresented in the article?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So we have some indirect speech ("Dawkins said that:") where we don't even have a journalists' "quote", much less his actual words, and his report of someone telling him that an aspect of their Catholic upbringing was worse than sexual abuse.
Your point?
quote:Sure. But that linguistic object can be unreal or conceptual, as in I thank my lucky stars!, or thank goodness for that!, or even thank fuck!.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless, after the insult is decanted, there is still a point left in the bottle: "Thank" is a transitive verb, and that implies an object. I can thank my mom for a Christmas present, I can thank my wife for marrying me, but I can't just thank. Thanking requires a thankee.
quote:Shouldn't atheists be thankful for the Earth and its resources that provide the basis for most of what we have? Our intellect and opposable thumbs would be little use without that.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
quote:You've never felt a sense of undefined or unfocused gratitude? The sort of feeling that you might get when something you thought was going to be a disaster, by some fluke actually turns out quite well and you feel very relieved and thankful, but have no clear idea who or what to attribute that to?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something
quote:Nah, I thank God whenever I'm feeling fortunate. It's pithy.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Shouldn't atheists be thankful for the Earth and its resources that provide the basis for most of what we have? Our intellect and opposable thumbs would be little use without that.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
Theists have it easy of course: we thank God or the gods. Any day.
quote:There is actually no supporting quote from Dawkins in the article on the “scorn” point. The quotes that do appear suggest that he thinks it essential to teach children about religion, but wrong to indoctrinate them with it. Which is what I said.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
amongst other things Dawins says
quote:Sounds like teaching atheism to me!!
Professor Dawkins said at the festival that children should be taught religion but scorn should be poured on its claims.
quote:I think it’s generally foolish to compare anything to child abuse. The emotional connotations that the mention of child abuse raises are so powerful as to swamp anything else.
He also belittles child abuse in a way that, quite rightly would be decried if a representative of the church did so
quote:I hadn't forgotten your question; I just had to dig some books out of their depository - in other words, I'd lost them.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
quote:sigh
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
quote:I never said otherwise.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Sure. But that linguistic object can be unreal or conceptual, as in I thank my lucky stars!, or thank goodness for that!, or even thank fuck!.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nevertheless, after the insult is decanted, there is still a point left in the bottle: "Thank" is a transitive verb, and that implies an object. I can thank my mom for a Christmas present, I can thank my wife for marrying me, but I can't just thank. Thanking requires a thankee.
quote:I never said otherwise.
One need not believe in lucky stars or gods to thank them, nor need they exist. Gods and lucky stars are very similar like that.
quote:But you explicitly agreed with what I said. "Thank" takes a direct object. You added bullshit to it that I never said -- if you thank God that proves he exists. THAT is the real bullshit here. Not what I said.
Sorry, SS. I was trying to appear clever. I should just have replied to mousethief's nonsense with "Bullshit".
quote:Maybe I'm being thick here. Please bear with me while I try to get this right (and I apologise to anyone who finds this tangential or just plain silly).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:sigh
Originally posted by Yorick:
Nope, sorry. You cannot be thankful unless you're thankful to something, and, if you thank god, logic states that god must exist. Da-daa! The the existence of gods was so much easier to prove than everyone thought!
The definition for thank is "Express gratitude to"
mt is correct. People are misusing the word when thanks are not directed towards something.
Perhaps if Alanis Morrisette wrote a song about thanks, this would be more clear.
quote:Not at all, but in addition to being thankful for something, theists have someone or something they can be thankful to.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Happy or relieved do not describe the feeling of gratitude that comes over me when I feel glad to be alive, and that I so easily couldn't be. It's thankful. Nothing else.
Isn't this just one of those cases in which theists claim a monopoly on something that is in fact universal?
quote:You are making Dawkins point for him. If you read around page 113. What he is doing is turning the intelligent designer argument of improbability being an argument FOR god into an argument against god. If probability does not apply to god it also undermines its use in favor of god's existence. If it can be used for, it can be used against.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:I hadn't forgotten your question; I just had to dig some books out of their depository - in other words, I'd lost them.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Can you give an example? (she asks in a very mild, non-challenging voice!)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I do think that Dawkins' approach to religion is often sloppy, especially when he attempts to discuss more philosophical issues.
One of the themes running through 'The God Delusion' is the improbability of God; Dawkins refers to it as the 'ultimate Boeing 747'. This refers to Fred Hoyle's analogy of a hurricane sweeping through a junk-yard, and producing a 747, in other words, something extremely improbable. The analogy was not about God but the existence of life on earth, but Dawkins borrows it.
OK, he makes this interesting comment: 'however statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable' (TGD, p. 138, Black Swan ed.).
I feel that this argument is vitiated however, since while Boeings are material things, God is not. In fact, I would say that you can't use probability estimates about non-natural or supernatural entities.
So in this case, I think Dawkins is equivocating like mad about probability, and also the nature of God. I don't think that the supernatural is probable or improbable. Some people go so far as to argue that theism is not truth-apt; hmm, well, pass on that.
quote:This is why we can't have a decent language.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Happy or relieved do not describe the feeling of gratitude that comes over me when I feel glad to be alive, and that I so easily couldn't be. It's thankful. Nothing else.
Isn't this just one of those cases in which theists claim a monopoly on something that is in fact universal?
quote:Agreed
Originally posted by Yorick:
The OP is full of this sort of presumptuous rubbish. Atheists are not only entitled to and logically coherent in celebrating religious festivals,
quote:Yeah, but I still say a different word would be better. Not because theists own the word, but because it just doesn't mean what you are using it for. Now, this is very likely because belief in something more has been the default for longer than the language has existed.
Originally posted by Yorick:
but they are also capable of feeling thankful for the exact same kinds of things as theists.
quote:Good Gods, I hope not.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Clue: we're all the fucking same.
quote:What you seem to be saying is that atheists have to co-opt God in order to have a secular culture or to have an object for their secular gratitude, etc.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Thanksgiving has its roots in religious and cultural traditions and has long been celebrated as a secular manner as well.
Christmas is part of a secular tradition as well, along with its carols and other religious symbols. It doesn't intrinsically harm your celebration because others enjoy it as well.
[...]
I think we all feel this sense of gratitude for good things that we experience. It's probably one of the main reasons people invent gods and lucky stars and heavens and all that- to function as objects of their gratitude (and the same goes for fear, awe and all the other superstitious feelings we have hardwired in our natural fabric).
quote:Dawkins spends most of chapter one in talking about other definitions of God and about why he is targeting this one. He is arguing against an "interventionist, miracle wreaking, thought reading, sin-punishing, prayer answering God" .
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ikkyu wrote:
You are making Dawkins point for him. If you read around page 113. What he is doing is turning the intelligent designer argument of improbability being an argument FOR god into an argument against god. If probability does not apply to god it also undermines its use in favor of god's existence. If it can be used for, it can be used against.
Well, I was going to go on and point out that references to a 'designer' show that Dawkins is mainly targeting creationists.
None the less, it struck me that D does actually argue that God is improbable, since he/it/she must be complex, if it designed complex things.
Well, you can use that argument vis a vis creationism, but not other forms of theism, since in many Christian formulations God is simple and not material, and is not a designer, (secondary causes come in here, and so on). Most Christians are not occasionalists, but perhaps many Muslims are.
Thus, this kind of probability estimate is simply not apt for most kinds of Christian theism.
I don't blame Dawkins for aiming at creationism, but I think it produces a kind of blurred effect, as if arguments against that, also hold against theism in general; I don't think they do.
quote:Sorry for the confusion: my above post was aimed more at the argument about atheists and the celebration of Christmas rather than atheists and the problem of thankfulness.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Svetlana
I'm not saying atheists need to co-opt anything. Just that that the word thankful has a thanked in its definition. One could be thankful to a parent or a friend.
quote:I believe we agree more than we disagree, but secondary causation is not what is usually taught to children or preached from pulpits.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ikkyu
Well, to really go into this, you would have to discuss the development of the idea of secondary causes among medieval philosophers, which removed God as a direct cause. OK, TGD is a popular book, and a chapter on that would have sunk its sales!
But the notion of secondary causation probably helped the development of science, so it is an interesting aspect of these medieval discussions.
quote:Better? For whom?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yeah, but I still say a different word would be better.
Originally posted by Yorick:
but they are also capable of feeling thankful for the exact same kinds of things as theists.
quote:Apparently that's not good enough. One must be able to use a transitive verb as if it were intransitive.
Originally posted by Gwai:
I think that in the same situation I would say I was so glad I was alive.
quote:Who said this is wrong??
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And what's wrong with my thanking the community gathered together at the feast? When did they turn into an unworthy recipient of my thanks?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Who said this is wrong??
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
And what's wrong with my thanking the community gathered together at the feast? When did they turn into an unworthy recipient of my thanks?
quote:
Originally posted by Dog Dad:
So, if someone is an avowed atheist, I take it to mean that they eschew any religion or spiritual beliefs. Therefore, would that lack of belief mean that aside from Patriotic holidays, they really should not celebrate any holidays that invoke any deity....New Year's Eve is fine, but even something like Thanksgiving could potentially be 'out'. Is anyone so devoutly 'undevout' that nothing is celebrated (Leaving out the Jehovahs' Witnesses, of course- who celebrate nothing!)
quote:Give. How interesting.
Originally posted by mousethief:
Apparently that's not good enough. One must be able to use a transitive verb as if it were intransitive.
It's like arguing, "I'm not saying I give anything to anyone. There is no thing given, and there is no recipient. I just give. Why must you theists insist on hogging this word to yourself?"
