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.

I think maybe where we differ most is that faith helps you to make sense of it. I havent found that, myself.

I suppose because I would hold god responsible, if he existed, so starting from there, it's very hard to make progress.

The mother I knew didn't hold god responsible at all. So her focus was on how her faith helped her feel supported and not alone. I didn't like to ask her come she didn't hold him responsible. She had a lot to cope with, and I didn't want to upset her. Also, I don't think she knew. She had a very strong traditional catholic upbringing in a country far away, and she was in any case not someone who spent a lot of time thinking about things from a theoretical point of view.

But the entire Bible is full of "anything your pagan Gods can do, I can do better" --- virgin births, resurrection, babies floating in wicker baskets are all the sort of things that older, particularly Egyptian gods got up to.

That's a bit of a negative way to see it IMHO. I'd rather see the overlap as a positive, of faiths interweaving and embracing each other's aspects, having things in common. And just because they have things in common it doesn't mean they didn't happen separately, to different people at different times. The language of copying, stealing, hijacking, trying to outdo etc. is all rather accusatory, so it's not surprising Christians get a bit defensive after a while.

All these mythologies are various metaphors for birth and death and other major human concerns (betrayal, vengeance, being rewarded/punished, fairness and unfairness). As human societies progress, it becomes obvious to a lot of people that some of the core tropes in these stories are in fact undesirable and should be set aside, whether that's the Bible's squeamishness about shellfish or fairy stories' continued emphasis on the awarding of women to men as 'prizes'.

I have observed over the years that the majority of people who have that particular inadequacy need for an imaginary friend tend to gravitate to one that most suits their personality: often though not always within their own cultural background. So people who are generous-hearted and open-minded pick an inclusive, charitably-inclined, supportive group to join (Quakers, perhaps?) and people who are malevolent, self-righteous and stupid are drawn to the restrictive and violent bigotry cults. And the people who beng on about Christians being 'persecuted' in the UK, by which they mean not being allowed special privileges to interfere with other people's lives, are neve a very good advert for their supposedly wonderful imaginary friend.

Solid I wouldn't put it quite like that. I think (and it has been shown again on this thread) that people don't consciously choose to believe in god. In fact, it's quite difficult to talk yourself into a faith, because all of the logical things pushing you away from it.

I think people believe because they can't help it. That point could be made in a nasty way, or in a way that recognises the strength of the instinct to believe.

I personally think, as an atheist, that it is to do with the way the brain is wired up. We do know that by stimulating an area near the bit that is associated with epilepsy, we can provoke religious experiences. But all that proves is we have found the pathway, and we have found an alternative explanation for these experiences that is nothing to do with a god. It doesn't prove definitively that the experience coming down that pathway is not real, though. We understand the pathway for pain, so if I break my leg, we could watch it hurt down a scan. It'll still be genuine pain, from a genuine injury.

Others may think it is to do with psychology of individuals, or group culture. There could be lots of reasons for it.

It does help me a bit, when believers are unable to explain how they reconcile the problem of suffering, if I recognise it isn't a logical, well-thought-out position: they are not believers because they reject all the questions I have. They are believers because they just are, and then they have to do the best they can to make sense of it all.

And the people who beng on about Christians being 'persecuted' in the UK, by which they mean not being allowed special privileges to interfere with other people's lives, are never a very good advert for their supposedly wonderful imaginary friend.

Christians at their finest.

BoB - OK, I take your point about the probability of differently-wired brains being the reason why some people feel the need to believe in a god/are convinced that a god exists. But I still maintain that the type of imaginary friend they ally themselves with says more about them than about any particular myth systems. So people can be Christians without turning into the Westboro Baptist Church, Muslims without insisting that women wear burquas (I have one friend who uses the label 'secular Muslim' to reflect his upbringing in a Muslim family but personal lack of belief), etc etc. Even people who were brought up in the more obnoxious subdivisions of the big brand mythologies tend to gravitate towards the ones more concerned with kindness, fairness etc and less about misogyny and homophobia if they are decent, relatively intelligent people.

I do know some people, though, whose religious choices have surprised me. Perhaps especially those who join evangelical churches which preach against gay love and recommend very traditional roles for men and women. I know some highly educated, I would have said personally liberal people who nonetheless go to such churches. So that can be a bit of a mystery.

I agree that it says a lot about the person as to what brand they believe, and indeed what they take out of each one as they are all so big and complicated.

I knew one guy who was borderline abusive to his children who chose to be all about respecting your elders and obeying thy father, and it fitted him perfectly. I've known one Catholic Priest who was all about guidance and good will, and even ran his abortion councelling service and allowed the local Muslim community to use his Church to pray as they had no Mosque in the town. Another took over the same Church and preached all about devine retribution and hellfire and such.

In the past, you can see how each religion was shaped by each cultures own moral standing. It's probably still true now, as our culture is based on freedom of choice and everyone being entitled to our own point of view (otherwise we wouldn't be debating this), and so people have a tendancy to chose one's that fit them better.

I'm a non-believer, but I still see how this is can be interpreted in two different ways. One is that no one religion has it completely right and is a variant of the same thing, so it might fit that there's an underlying theme that may be true. Another is that these myths have been copied and adjusted by each person/culture and reflect only peoples views. I belive the latter, but everyone is entitled to see it however they want.

Take something like the big bang, to see interpretation of the same evidence differently. Atheists say that it proves the universe could be formed without the aid of a deity. Theists have argued, on the other hand, that if the universe sprang into existence it proves it was created at some point and that it says to them that a divine power had a hand in it. Different interpretations of the same thing.

Theists have argued, on the other hand, that if the universe sprang into existence it proves it was created at some point and that it says to them that a divine power had a hand in it.

When asked where the divine power came from, they get rather shifty, however.

The physical arguments for and against god never seem terribly compelling to me. Provided that people accept the full canon of scientific discovery, I think they could still maintain that the system was set in motion by a divine being. Of course, believing that used to be the only option, and now it isn't. The system could have been set in motion randomly. It probably was in countless other planets and we are one of the very few where it resulted in something.

I can see it's a fight between two ways of thinking, of course.

But for me, it's the moral arguments and not the physical, which are the knock-out ones.

Provided that people accept the full canon of scientific discovery

Which a lot of Christians don't, of course. After a few hundred years they finally accepted heliocentrism, but young earth creationism is increasingly popular amongst them, together with all the insanity required to make it "work" in the face of overwhelming evidence. Because they're Christian they're OK about lying so long as it's on God's work, as Kitzmiller v Dover showed: the two main characteristics of the Christians who essentially bankrupted their school district were being dishonest and being as thick as shit. And it's not just America: a Scottish primary school was handing out books on creationism and then getting stroppy when parents complained (and, as in the US, lying about it too).

One difference is that the big bang is a theory (not proof) which we will discard if further study suggests otherwise. But most religious people know they are right because god has revealed it. Even when what they know conflicts with what other religious people know for certain.

So it's not two sides of a coin.

A moral arguement I've never understood is, why worship? Why does this being that can create and run a vast universe care if one of billions of people is actually worshipping him? I don't mean prayer and obeying the rules, I mean why would we be expected to sit there bowing and taking time and money out of the world he's created? Money that could be spent on feeding starving children is spent on gold lining for a temple or church? And people that could be helping someone or doing something good are just sitting there feeding this great enormous being's ego by telling him how awesome he is?

Agree- it's a fight between two ways of thinking. Just saying that for me the moral arguments against god are so compelling that I dont really ever think too much about the physical ones. And that this is different for other atheists, I know.

BackOnlyBriefly - The "it's just a theory" arguement is a very irritating one. A "theory" in scientific terms is not just some random idea that someone has that cannot be proved. That's a hypothesis, which must then be tested.

"Evidence" is examined and an explanation that fits this evidence is given, which is a theory. Even if the evidence is completely damning, it can only be labelled a theory because no one was there and it cannot be called an imperical fact.

For example, fact is that the background radiation level, the rate of the cooling in the universe and its expansion is consistent with a vast stellar event 14bn years ago. There are lots of other facts I don't fully understand. The "theory" isn't so much disproved as people like to say, but refined as more evidence is examined.

OSTM that in early religions, you worshipped because god was by no means benevolent, far from it. God was that scary mountain, or the sun/rain. Later on, god was a leader of tribes in battle and so forth. The lord thy god is a jealous god, and all that. So best to sacrifice animals, children, other precious stuff to placate the god. Just as you would offer a stronger tribe danegeld or other appeasement.

To be fair to christians, many would say that simple worship rather than gilded temples is the idea behind christianity- it marked the move to a personal worship, where thought and loyalty were enough and gold and oxen were not required. Though there is the odd abberation, like the precious ointment on the feet story- disciples saying, why pour ointment on his feet, you could have sold it, and given it to the poor. And jesus saying, you'll always have the poor, what about ME, good for her. (I paraphrase, but not much).

Expensive worship has always tended to be a mark of respect to the priest class as much as to the deity. Take the Bling Bishop, just suspended by the new Pope. He clearly felt that spending zillions on his comfort was to the greater glory etc. The new Pope equally clearly does not. And of course, in some cases, corruption and personal enrichment are common.

You still come back to- why does he need to be worshipped? Many would say, he deserves to be loved and that's all it is.

For me, I can't believe in any relationship with a god where that god would leave so many innocents to suffer, so it's a good example of why I think the idea of a personal relationship with a god is not a reality.

Also - regarding the Big Bang (and other cosmological matters), I have yet to come across any theistic argument that didn't use either horrendously flawed logic or display lack of understanding about the science involved.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause! (No it doesn't)

Or

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics proves God exists! (No it doesn't).

There's no equality in the arguments whatsoever. Maybe their god exists, who knows - but I do know that every single one of their arguments attempting to "prove" him are flat out wrong.

TheKnight Totally agree. Why would a perfect being give two hoots whether he's loved? What's the big deal? Yahweh sounds like he has serious self-esteem issues. "Love me.....or else!"

Well TheKnightsWhoSayNi, I'm on the side of science so I agree with you.

The important point to me is that we would discard it if it turned out to be wrong whereas religion can't as that would admit they never got their facts from god in the first place.

I think actually the religious viewpoint is more complex.

Not, clearly, the box-of-frogs creationists. But those who do accept that evolution and the scientific method are correct, slavery is wrong, inter-racial marriage is perfectly OK, stoning your child is best avoided, mixed fabrics are really quite useful, pearls are OK really, and prawn sandwiches are quite nice.

Those poor souls have to try to maintain their belief in selected passages while recognising that there is no reason to suppose that they are any more eternal than the rest.

I think it must be very difficult, if you believe in god, to square this with everything else you know.

Because all those festivals were nicked from the pagans, so nothing to do with Christianity or even religion to a degree unless of course you are a Christian

Sooooo YABVVU, cheeky, uneducated & greedy to boot

Hettie, I do agree with you. I've debated the concept of evolution greatly with creationists as it's something I know a lot more about than the physics behind the big bang (which is incredibly complex).

The arguements most of the arguements are basically, "I don't get it, and therefore it must be wrong." Trying to explain evolution to a creationist ends up being a complete waste of time. You get daft answers like, "I was never an ape," and you get bizar fall back answers like, "that's not what it says in the bible."

Arguements keep getting spat out, and perfectly good answers keep getting ignored. Like, "what use is half an eye, then? How does that evolve?" Actually, a half evolved eye is quite useful. As they say, in the land of the blind the blob with a little patch of light sensitive skin is king.

And anyway, why the hell did this all powerful being that is omnipresent need to be carried to Canaan in a bloody tabinarcle? What the hell is that all about?

Wow I have never debated with a creationist, I just don't meet any.

Are you in the US? I think it must be very different being an atheist there.

No I'm in the UK. But I used to live right next to a large Jahova's witness hall, and we had a lot of them near me. A lot of them genuingly believe that what the bible says is bonafied fact. As they lived so close, they used to come to my door a lot.

They'd debate with me that the creation myth was Truth. The easy way to get rid of them was to ask them where dinosaurs fitted in, but I'd occasionally debate a little bit more fully.

If I was feeling really mischievous, I'd make a point of trying to talk them out of their belief. Cruel, yes. But I only started doing that when some guy put his foot in my door and said, "If you don't start worshipping you'll go to hell and never see your family again!" I think it worked once when I pointed out that if a definition of sin is absolute selfishness, then worshipping for the purpose of afterlife and apparently survinvg the apoloypse that's always just around the corner is a selfish act and is therefore a sin and will dam them to hell. A paradox to which there was no answer.