AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Keeping the "Christ" in Christmas

63 10471
cddm95ace
offline
cddm95ace
165 posts
Nomad

Christmas is originally a Christian holiday to celebrate Jesus's birth. Now it mainly about Santa and presents. What could be done to recenter the holiday back on Christ?

  • 63 Replies
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

I think you'd have a hard time proving that christians did that to eliminate Santa.


Seeing how Santa is St. Nicholas (a Christian) I think it would be very hard to prove indeed.

Actually the way I have heard it it has been "Make this holiday more religious!".


Heard what now?

They're basically saying 'we're right, you're wrong - our beliefs are X and they are better than yours'.


Although the Catholic billboard is saying they are correct they aren't directly saying others are incorrect, the atheist board however is saying both.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

The ads in the links are referring specifically towards the holidays.


So? It is like your local stores using Santa Clause to advertise there product. They are just adding different ones playing off the holidays, there is also the "You know its a myth!" campaign,

http://www.goddiscussion.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/You-Know-Its-A-Myth.jpg

Once again, it is just a different way of saying what they usually say, I think the above is actually by the American Atheists or something to that effect, but its the same deal. Just search "Atheist adds" and you will get a large amount of non seasonal adds from several of different organizations.

I guess there's either a positive or negative way to look at it. I think you'd have a hard time proving that christians did that to eliminate Santa.


I mean they are attempting to make there religion the center of the holiday.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Although the Catholic billboard is saying they are correct they aren't directly saying others are incorrect, the atheist board however is saying both.


They might not be saying it directly but it's still implied quite heavily.

Also, what's wrong with calling the whole jesus-birth-story thing a myth? It's unproven and therefore deserving of the title 'mythological'.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Also, what's wrong with calling the whole jesus-birth-story thing a myth? It's unproven and therefore deserving of the title 'mythological'.


Because it's pointless? A billboard accomplishes nothing but pissing off religious people and wasting money, this is exactly why there's such a stigma against atheists.

Also, what's wrong with calling the whole jesus-birth-story thing a myth? It's unproven and therefore deserving of the title 'mythological'.


That it is, but again it's just a billboard and no reasonable person basis her faith, or lack there of, on a billboard.
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Because it's pointless? A billboard accomplishes nothing but pissing off religious people and wasting money, this is exactly why there's such a stigma against atheists.


I'm not condoning their actions but you can hardly blame them - they've got into a pissing-up-the-side-of-a-wall contest with all the religious billboard groups. However, it wasn't us that started it. Also, since when could you waste money, short of destroying or not using it? I hardly see how money can be wasted and specifically how they're wasting money.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Because it's pointless? A billboard accomplishes nothing but pissing off religious people and wasting money, this is exactly why there's such a stigma against atheists.


I thought they just hated us for existing...

That it is, but again it's just a billboard and no reasonable person basis her faith, or lack there of, on a billboard.


...Were you listening? I said it is mostly to get atheist to "Come out of the closet", not to change hard core Christians into atheists. To make people who are already atheists but just don't show it simply be public atheists.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

I'm not condoning their actions but you can hardly blame them - they've got into a pissing-up-the-side-of-a-wall contest with all the religious billboard groups.


What's wrong with a billboard saying Merry Christmas? Want a billboard that makes a statement but isn't overly offensive? Have one about supporting children in need, no need to even mention religion and you'll gain respect for your organization.

Also, since when could you waste money, short of destroying or not using it? I hardly see how money can be wasted and specifically how they're wasting money.


When the money could be put to a better use and still be used to further your cause. See above.

I thought they just hated us for existing...


Quite contrary, it's your own **** fault the religious hate you. The entire philosophy of new atheism is sickening and angers many people, even other atheists like myself.

To make people who are already atheists but just don't show it simply be public atheists.


Their spending money on that? Just make a website.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Quite contrary, it's your own **** fault the religious hate you. The entire philosophy of new atheism is sickening and angers many people, even other atheists like myself.


I thought you were still agnostic. What is so bad about saying "I don't believe in your god, that would be stupid"? In fact, we just learned in my psychology class a few days ago that the majority is far more likely to change it's views when faced with a vocal minority, the so called "New atheists" who have really been around for a while (Mark Twain anyone? How about some of the Greek philosophers?)

Their spending money on that? Just make a website.


They have a web sight, and how often do closet atheists go fishing threw the internet to find atheist sights?
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

So... You're criticizing them for 'wasting' money on a billboard and yet you're in full support of a billboard that basically says 'Merry Christmas'? That seems slightly absurd if not bordering on discrimination.

samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Well I typed a decent reply and then AG crashed, joy.

Mark Twain anyone?


Despite these views, he raised money to build a Presbyterian Church in Nevada in 1864

-Wikipedia

Doesn't exactly follow the new atheist philosophy.

I thought you were still agnostic.


Agnostic atheist.

They have a web sight, and how often do closet atheists go fishing threw the internet to find atheist sights?


If they want to learn all of them, if they don't then they're pointless anyway.

So... You're criticizing them for 'wasting' money on a billboard and yet you're in full support of a billboard that basically says 'Merry Christmas'? That seems slightly absurd if not bordering on discrimination.


Actually not at all, both groups could use the money in better ways. All I said was that of the two groups I supported the Catholics more simply because they didn't start it. I don't support either group's decisions.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Doesn't exactly follow the new atheist philosophy.


You haven't defined what a "Gnu Atheist" is... I have just used the Rational Wiki definition of

New Atheism refers to a recent movement of outspoken atheists as authors and speakers. The underlying philosophies and arguments for the New Atheists are generally consistent with their predecessors, and so the label of "new" is often considered to refer to a difference in style, or level of outspokenness only. Many anti-religious authors have gathered much media attention, particularly since around the year 2000, and indeed some prefer to call New Atheism a media trend rather than a real organized movement.


Samuel wrote "Letters from the Earth" which officially classifies him as a "New atheist" by that definition.

If they want to learn all of them, if they don't then they're pointless anyway.


I would assume that much of the time people don't randomly get a thought to randomly "come out of the closet" themselves- many wish to know that there are others that share the same views as you- religiously- a kind of community.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Non-biased Wikipedia definition

They and other supporters of the New Atheism movement are hard-line critics of religion. They state that atheism, backed by recent scientific advancement, has reached the point where it is time to take a far less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religion-based fanaticism than had been extended by moderate atheists, secularists, and some secular scientists. According to CNN, "What the New Atheists share is a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[4]


From what I know about Twain he isn't that militant. To claim that they were consistent with previous atheists is a fallacy seeing as how many weren't as outspoken or critical of religion and even if they were most were smart enough to claim god could be proven true or false by science.

I would assume that much of the time people don't randomly get a thought to randomly "come out of the closet" themselves


I think they can make that decision themselves.

the same views as you- religiously- a kind of community.


Not ironic at all that atheists want a religious sort of community, not at all.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

From what I know about Twain he isn't that militant. To claim that they were consistent with previous atheists is a fallacy seeing as how many weren't as outspoken or critical of religion and even if they were most were smart enough to claim god could be proven true or false by science.


First, if there was a god science should easily be able to see that there was one. But since there is no god, and you can't prove a negative, you are making no since.

He was reasonably militant, plenty vocal about being an atheist, and such. Donating to a church makes you not a militant atheist? I heard the FFRF once donated to a religious organization, there, they are not militant by your standards.

I think they can make that decision themselves.


Not at random. You do know what an advertisement is, correct? Lets say this was a Mac Donald's advertisement. Are you going to say "Meh, they can make the decision for themselves, who needs to advertise?". I would hope not. Sure, there is a chance that you will go to the restaurant at random, but it is more likely if you see an advertisement for there establishment.

Not ironic at all that atheists want a religious sort of community, not at all.


I don't recall making a blanket statement like that, but there are some people who admit to staying in there religion simply for the since of community.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

First, if there was a god science should easily be able to see that there was one. But since there is no god, and you can't prove a negative, you are making no since.


First, it's sense. Second gods as described by most religious are super or hyper natural as science only concerns itself with the natural it's ignorant of what science is to claim that god could be proven true or false by it.

He was reasonably militant, plenty vocal about being an atheist, and such.


Militant means being an unintelligible *** about your beliefs which he thoroughly wasn't, although he stated what he believed he was insulating of the organization and some beliefs then religion as a whole which again, is a major part of new atheism. This is pointless though, not only is this a new philosophy but it's impossible to prove what someone believed religiously without direct from them statements on the matter.

I heard the FFRF once donated to a religious organization, there, they are not militant by your standards.


Citation?

Sure, there is a chance that you will go to the restaurant at random, but it is more likely if you see an advertisement for there establishment.


Uhh, yeah this analogy makes no sense. You can't compare coming out about religious beliefs and going to a restaurant one has huge weight on your life the other has almost none. Also advertising for a corporation is expected while advertising for a religion is simply odd.

but there are some people who admit to staying in there religion simply for the since of community.


Sense. And obviously, seeing as how that's the draw of religion in the first place.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

First, it's sense. Second gods as described by most religious are super or hyper natural as science only concerns itself with the natural it's ignorant of what science is to claim that god could be proven true or false by it.


Or your ignorant about what science is. For example, testing prayer would be a scientific test (So far all tests have failed). Proving your god exists in any way, shape, or form would be science. If this god exists, he would not be apart from science, he would, in fact, be science.

Citation?


I heard it some months ago on the blog blog- it would take me all knight to find it.

Uhh, yeah this analogy makes no sense. You can't compare coming out about religious beliefs and going to a restaurant one has huge weight on your life the other has almost none. Also advertising for a corporation is expected while advertising for a religion is simply odd.


Not really- the "huge impact" is meant to be lessened by the rest of the atheist community, and once more it is going for the "closet atheist" who do not believe in the Christian god. And are you kidding? I see Christian adds all the time... They just don't get vandalized nearly as often.

Sense. And obviously, seeing as how that's the draw of religion in the first place.


Great, so why did you argue with me in the first place on this point?
Showing 31-45 of 63