To wonder why people who appear to dislike religion enjoy Christian celebrations

[Cupcake1985]

I know that most people enjoy Christmas, Easter etc with no regard for the actual Christian basis and meaning of the celebration, but aibu to think that those people should then not get all offended by the religious aspects and sometimes be downright rude about it?? The nativity play, spreading the word of god through carol singing etc..... Dare I mention operation Christmas child?! If you enjoy Christmas then at least try to accept it is actually about the birth of Christ or at least respect that others will celebrate this fact and may try to share that with those around them with the best intentions.

Basically cheer up, be accepting, be kind.

Rhonda - but not all Christians label atheists as "militant atheists" - personally, when it comes to public prayer at a council meeting I'd much rather something along the line of "We're all here to try to achieve something so lets respect each other's strengths and weakness and find a way forwards" etc etc etc than a prayer that may at best be meaningless to some and at worst offensive.

Stereotyping helps no-one at all. Also, I'm married to an agnostic we get along wonderfully, my father is an atheist and I have a Wiccan friend - there's plenty of room for everyone as far as I'm concerned.

Stravy It's actually in The Holly Bears a Berry

frustrated and neither do all atheists label Christians as all the same.

I like your idea for what to say before a council meeting, but I don't think Eric Pickles would. As he says, this is a Christian country and so we should say Christian prayers, even councillors of other religions or none. And if someone doesn't like it, they can't wait outside until the prayers are over. That's right, elected councillors being made to wait outside their own meeting because people don't have the sense to say the prayers quietly beforehand.

Talk about arrogant

Friday you are in danger of sounding abut like the anti Islamic brigade . You simply can not label all Christians the same. My mum is a right on lefty socialist and a Christian. She has been on gay pride marches ...she is so far removed from what you feel is Christianity its in true.

People ate entitled to have faith without that being belittled

People ate entitled to have faith without that being belittled

No they aren't. They're entitled to that faith. But they are not entitled to have others remain quiet about it. The Bulls are homophobic bigots. That they claim that are homophobic bigots as a consequence of their faith doesn't give them a shield from being called bigots.

I'm a hypocrite because I celebrate Xmas and i'm a dyed in the wool atheist...i'd celebrate Diwali if there was booze involved and was given time off etc..

Long may these archaic traditions continue if only for the way they are catalysts for an excuse to have a knees up and family reunions.

Friday, I think was Gordy meant was that you using the article about the Bulls and naming it "what Christianity is" is vastly unfair and belittling to people who are practising Christians who ALSO think the Bulls re homophobic bigots. By using the label "Christianity as it really is" you are in danger of merely being on the opposite side of the coin you so rightfully dislike. You're saying all Christians are homophobic bigots, just as those asshats in the article are saying Gays and/or unmarried couples are wrong and undeserving of equal treatment...surely you can see that?

Rhonda - Mr Pickles does indeed appear to be an arrogant twit.

I'm not sure exactly what gets celebrated on 25 December, but it doesn't look much like Christmas any more. It doesn't strike me as particularly Christian, in the traditional sense.

Now, doubtlessly someone will come out with some guff about how Christianity "hijacked" Christmas, as if back in 500 AD cross bearded druids had to write cross letters to the editor, and now it is being reclaimed by the people. The better view is that Christmas is just an excuse to splurge money and have a drink: nice enough in itself, but hardly anything of any significance.

Easter is even worse.

My eye was caught by all the links at the side of the article about the B&B owners. Several were about Christianity supposedly being "under attack" or "marginalised". And yet the publication seemed to have no qualms about placing these articles next to ones about people actually being killed or hurt because of their religious beliefs.

Is is really appropriate to equate being killed for your faith with not being allowed to discriminate against gay people?

Have some perspective, please!

frustrated, no, he actually is an arrogant twit. No "appears to be" about it

Even if Christmas had no connection to pagan traditions whatsoever and had developed entirely out of Christianity, it wouldn't make it a religious festival for most British people now. As Christianity has been in this country for at least 1000 years, Christmas is part of the culture of Britain. As most British people are not Christian believers, they have turned it into a secular cultural tradition. Even if everybody stopped being a Christian, we would probably still call it Christmas because that is the tradition we have. Christian believers don't have any more right to Christian traditions than anyone else brought up in Britain has.

Toad the "guff" you speak about, also knows as "facts", has been extensively discussed on this thread as well as the other thread the OP tried to derail.

No one's ever been able to adequately explain to me what a "militant atheist" is even supposed to be.

How can you be "militant" about something you don't believe in? I don't believe in flying teapots orbiting Mars, but I don't feel particularly "militant" about it.

No, what David Cameron is talking about is secularism. I suppose you could, at a push, be militant about that, since it's a belief, not just the absence of one - but I don't know anyone who is.

I think what people really mean when they use that term is: "Those atheists who keep embarrassing us with their annoying logic & facts. It's just not faiiiiiiiiiirr. Make them stop!"

(That wasn't aimed at you, frustrated but those many, many people who do prattle on about militant atheism).

Then they will be pulled up for being homophobic bigots ...but you wouldn't label all nylons terrorists Friday - I know you wouldn't . So please don't label the bulls as representative of all Christians

You may feel people with faith believe fairy stories but they still should be allowed their faith and I think calling it a fairy tale IS belittling

By being so anti faith some atheists become in danger of being equally bigoted

Muslims not decking nylons !!

I hate my phone

I happen to think all nylons are terrorists, gordy, especially the cheap ones from Tesco

Be fair to gordy. We must accept that Christianity is a broad church and that there are many very decent Christians who do not share homophobic beliefs, not the aggressive pro-life agenda we see in parts of the US, to take another example.

Gordy, what non-believers like me would wish to see, is the church being clearer about this. It is frustrating, for example, to see the CofE pandering to homophobic agendas- so far as I can see, out of a wish to keep the commonwealth communion intact by not offending the African churches. It was also frustrating to see the lay synod being allowed to hijack the issue of women bishops. The only reason I worry, of course, is because of the position of the establilshed church in our legal and constitutional system. If there were no bishops in the House of Lords reviewing new legislation and demanding changes to fit this agenda- or at most, one Christian faith leader, one Muslim, one Jewish , etc- then it would be an entirely private matter between memebers of that faith. but it's not. So the CofE does have a responisbility not to treat its agenda as an entirely private matter.

And on the fairy stories thing- I think that is also a red herring.

I do feel it is fair to ask those who try to convert me how they can explain the suffering of profoundly disabled children. I have never heard a decent explanation. So it's not the fantasy element of faith that disturbs me in people, it's the ability to get past this particular issue. I think it is fair enough to have an opinion on whether people can do this.

You may feel people with faith believe fairy stories but they still should be allowed their faith and I think calling it a fairy tale IS belittling

People can believe what they want. It's still perfectly reasonable to laugh at it when they present it as fact. For example, there are rather a lot of Christians who believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs co-existed with man up until the great flood. They sometimes, unsurprisingly, turn out to often be liars and perjurers when they promote this idea. "The inescapable truth is that both [Alan] Bonsell and [William] Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions. ... Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner. ... Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony." I think people who believe that the earth is only 6000 years old and then dishonestly attempt to force that idea into schools as scientific fact merit laughter, scorn and mockery. What do you think should be my response? Which part of Genesis isn't a fairy tale?

You're right Friday - some of the stuff some Christians believe is unbelievable....still doesn't mean it's okay for you to say that Christianity are a bunch of people with hateful homophobic beliefs...Christianity is far broader than that. You have your New Earth Creationists who believe what you have highlighted (which I agree is utterly ridiculous) and then you have way over on the other end of the spectrum where Christians do not prance about claiming to have all the answers and smug self-assuredness and attempt at every turn to convert you into some sort of robot...and then everything else in between.

still doesn't mean it's okay for you to say that Christianity are a bunch of people with hateful homophobic beliefs

Could you name the denomination which was not violently opposed to same-sex marriage, and didn't attempt to block it not just for their own buildings, but for everyone else? Before you do, I can: the Quakers (and indeed, if you're calibrating your moral compass, "what would the Quakers do?" is a pretty good first approximation). But I think you'd agree they are hardly mainstream, and indeed there are Quakers who wouldn't identify as Christians and Christians who wouldn't accept Quakers as being members of the same religion, so they're about as marginal as you can get without being a Unitarian or a Mormon.

There are a lot of us out there that do not belong to a denomination. I tend to ignore denominations because in general I do not like being part of an organised church - for the very reasons you probably seem to think all Christians are haters.

But ok, you feel it is fine to lump each and every Christian into the "bigoted holier than thous" unfortunately by doing so you are labelling yourself too.

calling it a fairy tale IS belittling Nothing wrong with fairies. Just as many of them as there are angels. People see them all the time.

On the subject of Nylons I'm on the fence.

Toadinthehole you think it's guff that Christianity "hijacked" Christmas? Where have you been that you didn't know that? Read some books on history. Ask your priest about pre-christian festivals and ask him when jesus was born. It's not a new idea that someone just came up with, but part of our history.

Cupcake you were the one claiming ownership of christmas and still are in this thread. It's not yours - get over it.

Oh and if Jesus cares he can come and say so. He knows where I live. :)

The term 'evangelical atheist' has become a shame-term used much in the way that people will also use words like shrill, hysterical, shrieking, etc., to describe any woman who isn't a twee, mimsy, fainting Victorian debutante and actually speaks her mind, however politely, rationally, reasonably and factually. These words are deliberately used to undermine what the person is saying, to make them feel ashamed of themselves, to try to censor them, and above all, to put off others from speaking out in a similar matter about similar things.

Shame-terms are used most when the person shamed is making a good point, or stating facts, that make the person doing the shaming feel uncomfortable. ie Talking about the abuse of women in porn, say, or pointing out that it is offensive and wrong to presumptively claim morality is linked with religion (which is a very common mistake people make).
So when someone uses a shame-term, it does, at least, serve a decent purpose in letting you know you're hitting the nail on the head.

frustratedandfailing, you are right about not lumping all Christian together, I agree, but unfortunately, you've highlighted an error that Christians always make when appealing to others not to judge them as one generic faith group: describing certain Christian beliefs as 'bonkers' or whatever, and others as more reasonable. To an Atheist, believing in God, full stop, is just as bonkers as believing in creationism. There's no hierarchy of how 'bonkers' a belief is to Atheists, when it involves the supernatural. Believing in God, to me, is as bonkers as being a Scientologist, believing in the Tooth Fairy, believing in alien abduction, believing that a tiny chocolate pig called Henry made the Earth by farting wellies out of his ears. This is why religion doesn't appeal to non-believers. It all seems so ludicrous.

And then certain things like love, peace and tolerance are claimed as specifically Christian messages - as though anyone of any other belief, or lack of belief, doesn't manage to feel, embody and support those beliefs perfectly well without an ounce of Christian input! It's so offensive, never mind so ridiculous to say these are Christian things. Especially when Christianity has been the basis for more hatred, intolerance, violence and war than any other belief/non-belief system in the history of mankind!