What Value Do Atheists Find In Celebrating Christmas?

katherine the great · December 26, 2011

And what are the implications of this if God is human? Are human traditions now Godly traditions?

Can you prove that God is human?

mfbukowski · December 26, 2011

Can you prove that God is human?

Of course not, but that is the LDS view after all. Believing that makes all this fall into place imo.

volgadon · December 26, 2011

<div>

G. Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city. An eyewitness account reports, “Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them and at the same time more amusing for spectators. They ran… amid Rome’s taunting shrieks and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily.”<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm#_ftn5" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">[5]</a> 
H. As part of the Saturnalia carnival throughout the 18th and 19th centuries CE, rabbis of the ghetto in Rome were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the city streets to the jeers of the crowd, pelted by a variety of missiles. When the Jewish community of Rome sent a petition in1836 to Pope Gregory XVI begging him to stop the annual Saturnalia abuse of the Jewish community, he responded, “It is not opportune to make any innovation.”<a class="bbc_url" href="http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/Christmas_TheRealStory.htm#_ftn6" rel="nofollow external" title="External link">[6]</a>

What do popular, medieval excesses against Jews during Carnival have to do with pagan origins of Christmas?

This is without going into the ways that your anonymous cut-n-paste has misrepresented some of its sources.

Edited December 26, 2011 by volgadon

katherine the great · December 26, 2011

Of course not, but that is the LDS view after all. Believing that makes all this fall into place imo.

I thought we were discussing the atheist viewpoint...what we believe is really irrelevant.

mfbukowski · December 27, 2011

I thought we were discussing the atheist viewpoint...what we believe is really irrelevant.

I am arguing that the way they ACT- not believe- is consistent with the what we believe. We believe it is rational to act in accordance with our feelings and though they protest that such things are "irrational", they do the same thing.

Of course we do not believe it is irrational, but that in fact it is the only way we can know certain things. They act on their feelings, and find that those feelings enhance their lives just as we do. But I think they hate to acknowledge that.

TAO · December 27, 2011

The value of it for Atheists would be simple, I think. Christmas teaches that to give is better than to receive. I think they don't mind that being taught, even if they don't believe in Christ and such. Plus, it's a fun tradition that kids like.

For us, it's a bit more personal, of course, because we believe in Christ, but I am sure there are many Atheists out there who participate for reasons like the one I mentioned above.

Edited December 27, 2011 by TAO

california boy · December 27, 2011

It's hard to believe that you don't understand that what we call "pagans" had what we call a "religion".
I mean what do you think it was that they were NOT worshiping with their solstice festivals?

You are right of course. I should have said that Christmas did not originate with Christians. They just pushed out one religion and replaced it with their own. So when athiests push Christ out of Christmas, they are doing just what Christians did to the pagan religions. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti Christ in Christmas. I just don't think that Christians can complain when other push out Christ from this holiday that was never theres to start with.

lachrymolotov · December 27, 2011

I think you are misunderstanding the OP. What I am saying is the converse of what you understood.
Let me make it more direct. If atheists accept celebrating Christmas for cultural and pragmatic reasons, why not accept religion for the same reasons?
Is that direct enough?

If everyone believed in Zeus, except you, would you begin to worship him for cultural and pragmatic reasons?

Brade · December 27, 2011

I am arguing that the way they ACT- not believe- is consistent with the what we believe. We believe it is rational to act in accordance with our feelings and though they protest that such things are "irrational", they do the same thing.
Of course we do not believe it is irrational, but that in fact it is the only way we can know certain things. They act on their feelings, and find that those feelings enhance their lives just as we do. But I think they hate to acknowledge that.

For my own part, I've never argued that it's never ok or rational to act in accordance with one's feelings. Additionally, I'm quite certain I've said on several occasions that having a strong feeling or mystical experience could very well be a good reason to behave, say, Mormonly, in the case those feelings and experiences are related to Mormonism in the right way, or Catholicly, or Buddhistly, or whateverly.

On the other hand, I have protested against the view that those sorts of feelings or certain types of mystical experiences are good reason to believe that P is the case (where P is a certain type of religious proposition, claim, or statement).

stemelbow · December 27, 2011

On the other hand, I have protested against the view that those sorts of feelings or certain types of mystical experiences are good reason to believe that P is the case (where P is a certain type of religious proposition, claim, or statement).

why?

Storm Rider · December 27, 2011

I suspect that there are many that do not believe in Jesus Christ and yet celebrate Christmas. This holiday has become quite secular. The Malls in the middle east have Christmas trees from Egypt to Oman. I understand that they are found throughout Asia also. The holiday has become a cultural holiday that all can celebrate and yet never even think of Jesus Christ, his birth, his gospel, or anything else having to do with the Son of God.

Sethbag · December 27, 2011

And what value do you think I "ascribe to it"?
I'm not sure what you mean here. It seems you are here again ascribing beliefs to me that I may or may not have.

You asked "Is that an admission that certain "religious" practices have value in themselves?" The implication is that there may be value that even an atheist would recognize in a religious practice, but that you would recognize a superset of this. I don't know necessarily what value you would include, because it's a rather general question. I'm just saying that I would probably recognize some value, but not as much as the superset you would have in mind for any particular religious practice we might discuss.

For instance, I might concede some sort of value in prayer or meditation, but in addition to whatever value I agreed to, you'd probably assert the additional value of communing with an individual separate from ourselves who exists in a different realm than we do, and is able to hear our thoughts and do at least some of the things we request it to. But again, I was answering the question generally, not putting any specific claims in your mouth.

I suspect there is some presupposition here about what are usually termed "the truth claims of the LDS church" but I would like to put that aside for a bit if we can. In fact, these "truth claims" are usually seen by TBM's as secondary to the "enhancement " that spiritual feelings provide.

Your original question pretty much represented a general Christian viewpoint, and I answered it on that basis. Mormonism wasn't really addressed by me, or originally by you.

In fact I think most TBM's like me are little concerned about the alleged "truth claims" at all and find their veracity irrelevant. Those who are former Mormons on the other hand, I think, concentrate almost exclusively on the "data" in favor or against the church as they see it. I think the difference between the two groups almost becomes an issue of personality types more than anything else- hence the intransigence on both sides.

This is a response to more than I actually said in reply to what you originally posted, but it's your thread, so derail on! But yes, I took the truth claims of the LDS church extremely seriously, and when reality appeared to me to undercut them, it was devastating to my testimony. I concede that there are people who think more like you do, but I've had to try to understand that, because such understanding didn't come naturally to me. To me, your viewpoint is hard to understand because the LDS church traditionally claimed to offer truth that other churches didn't, and so finding out that these truths weren't really true was pretty tough for me to swallow. If the truth claims of the church weren't really true, then where was the credibility of the church on all these other claims?

How do these "good feelings" enhance your life?

I don't know the philosophical underpinnings of it, and won't attempt to get all pedantic about it. I'll just say that I'm generally an optimist, and that good feelings enhance my life because I generally prefer good feelings to bad ones, all other things being equal.

Why do you permit Christmas "good feelings" to enhance your life when the truth claims about Christmas are no better founded scientifically than other truth claims of the LDS church?

Why do I permit myself to be entertained and excited, and enthusiastic about participating in the American tradition of watching the Superbowl, when I'm not a "true believer" in football? I don't know, but it doesn't stop me from doing it.

Christmas is part of the culture I grew up in, and not just the Mormon culture. Almost everyone around me, in the entire country, celebrated Christmas in one way or another. Even the Grinch was eventually won over by Christmas. ;-) I don't think I have much explaining to do when I say that I enjoy participating in parties, good feelings, family feasts, cookie plates handed around the neighborhood, gifts given, and so forth.

I'm also not saying I would enjoy just any old mass celebration. I doubt I'd enjoy Ashurah, for instance. Christmas has evolved into a fun and enjoyable time of the year because that's what our society has made it into.

Sethbag · December 27, 2011

I do find it ironic when Christians talk about the war on Christmas to take the religious meaning out of Christmas by the commerciaization of the holiday when in fact, it is the Christians that stole the holiday and made it a religious one.

If all holidays are inventions of the human mind, can we really say that a religion can be stolen? It would be more correct to call Christmas a derived work, with extensive modification. ;-)

Sethbag · December 27, 2011

Let me make it more direct. If atheists accept celebrating Christmas for cultural and pragmatic reasons, why not accept religion for the same reasons?
Is that direct enough?

I probably wouldn't accept Christmas if I had to pay some organization that claims to represent it 10% of my income, spend three hours a week at Christmas buildings feasting on milquetoast Christmas theology, and consume, or not consume, various substances commanded by the Christmasians as some sort of test of whether I'll be obedient to them. I probably would reject celebrating Christmas if it was un-fun, and if I were made to feel guilt in my life for various dumb reasons related to Christmas dogma, or made to feel like I had to prove myself to Old Saint Nick so that when I die I can join him in an eternal afterlife of bliss and happiness - or burn in Christmas Hell if I don't.

I'm honestly surprised that you're making us come out and say all of this. How is having fun at Christmastime, despite the lack of evidence for any of the theological backstory of Christmas, anything like submitting oneself to the governance in all aspects of one's life by a church whose claims aren't demonstrably sound, that is asked of the followers of most religions?

mfbukowski · December 27, 2011

If everyone believed in Zeus, except you, would you begin to worship him for cultural and pragmatic reasons?

I would probably think "Oh- that's just a different name for "Eloheim"- and continue with my personal understanding of "Zeus" appearing to Joseph Smith.

Sethbag · December 27, 2011

Good point.
So if church was fun we'd have more "believers"?

Go ask the megachurch pastors. I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes to this one. Some churches throw on a veritable rock concert, mingled with scripture. I've been to some. If I wasn't as focused on the accuracy of the truth claims as I am, I might get sucked in too. I had a pretty good time other than the Old Testament historical nonsense that came up during the homily, or whatever they would call it.

mfbukowski · December 27, 2011

For my own part, I've never argued that it's never ok or rational to act in accordance with one's feelings. Additionally, I'm quite certain I've said on several occasions that having a strong feeling or mystical experience could very well be a good reason to behave, say, Mormonly, in the case those feelings and experiences are related to Mormonism in the right way, or Catholicly, or Buddhistly, or whateverly.
On the other hand, I have protested against the view that those sorts of feelings or certain types of mystical experiences are good reason to believe that P is the case (where P is a certain type of religious proposition, claim, or statement).

So it's ok to act that way as long as you DON'T believe it??

Sethbag · December 27, 2011

I am arguing that the way they ACT- not believe- is consistent with the what we believe. We believe it is rational to act in accordance with our feelings and though they protest that such things are "irrational", they do the same thing.

Do you imagine that "atheist" is just code for "Mr. Spock"?

Of course we do not believe it is irrational, but that in fact it is the only way we can know certain things. They act on their feelings, and find that those feelings enhance their lives just as we do. But I think they hate to acknowledge that.

Not at all. I can play Santa at Christmas without believing that Santa actually exists, and I'm sure you can too. But I can't stand up at the podium at Fast and Testimony meeting anymore and tell you that I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet of a God who really exists, or that the Book of Mormon is the authentic, ancient record of people who really existed. I reject the premise that comparison of celebrating holidays common in one's culture with acceptance of non-proven religious dogma is valid.

mfbukowski · December 27, 2011

Do you imagine that "atheist" is just code for "Mr. Spock"?...
...I reject the premise that comparison of celebrating holidays common in one's culture with acceptance of non-proven religious dogma is valid.

Like Mr. Spock?

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm not making that comparison.

What I'm saying is that accepting Christmas as "enhancing one's life" based on unprovable evidence is inconsistent with rejecting the church based on unprovable evidence when both admittedly give one a "good feeling".

You know, kinda like this:

I think that the "magic of Christmas" is about as valid as any "Spirit", but OK. Sure, I get a good feeling. I feel like my life is enhanced in some way.

Edited December 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

Sethbag · December 28, 2011

What I'm saying is that accepting Christmas as "enhancing one's life" based on unprovable evidence is inconsistent with rejecting the church based on unprovable evidence when both admittedly give one a "good feeling".

I believe that my life was enhanced by the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy movies. That doesn't mean I should submit my life to Tolkein, or even worse, to the current executor of his estate.

I don't think you've met the burden of proof to show that submitting to a church is comparable to deciding whether to celebrate a holiday widespread in one's culture, and which crosses over between the religious and the secular.

mfbukowski · December 28, 2011

I believe that my life was enhanced by the extended Lord of the Rings trilogy movies. That doesn't mean I should submit my life to Tolkein, or even worse, to the current executor of his estate.
I don't think you've met the burden of proof to show that submitting to a church is comparable to deciding whether to celebrate a holiday widespread in one's culture, and which crosses over between the religious and the secular.

I wasn't trying to prove anything like that.

All I am trying to show is that atheists live their lives based on feelings which have nothing to do with evidence, just as everyone else does.

What counts as "evidence" is one thing, and the strength of the evidence is another. You have subjective evidence that Lord of the Rings enhances your life, it is just weak evidence. It doesn't matter much to you.

If Tolkien appeared to you, and told you to write stories he was going to dictate to you, it might well change your life a bit more and constitute stronger evidence for how your life was about to be "enhanced", and you might well decide to devote your life to channeling Tolkien.

Scott Barton · December 28, 2011

"What value do atheists find in celebrating Christmas?"

I think Tim Minchin's song serves as a nice enough answer to this question.

mfbukowski · December 28, 2011

"What value do atheists find in celebrating Christmas?"
I think Tim Minchin's song serves as a nice enough answer to this question.

Great stuff.

But only based on sentimentality and no evidence justifying any of it whatsoever.

Edited December 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

Sethbag · December 28, 2011

MFB, you have stated that there is an inconsistency between making some life decisions based on emotions, while believing that accepting religious claims just based on emotions is not a really good thing. In order to establish an inconsistency, you really should show that the two are comparable. If you aren't going to show how they are comparable, then I don't think you can justify continuing to claim that there is an inconsistency.

lachrymolotov · December 28, 2011

I would probably think "Oh- that's just a different name for "Eloheim"- and continue with my personal understanding of "Zeus" appearing to Joseph Smith.

Sophistry. Pretending to miss the point. Deflecting. I'll interpret that to mean you concede.

The reality is that some aspects of different cultures are better for people than others. The gangsta culture of South Dallas probably isn't as healthy or happy as the Mormon culture in Utah. That being said, the Mormon culture isn't the healthiest or happiest in the world and, by your own standard, you should immediately start giving up the less desirable facets of Mormon culture.

Have you ever read about the Maasai and how they are a happier people than most others in the world? Maybe it is time for us to all start worshiping Ngai.

The methods and understanding in which we apply and measure how people are happy has, like all facets of science, moved along quite nicely. Do you think the Mormon way of living is really the best prescription for everyone in the world, long-term?

Do you think that people should believe something, even if it is false, if it makes their life better? Do you think society, as a whole, is better off perpetuating "feel-good" lies for the greater good?

Edited December 28, 2011 by lachrymolotov

Sign In

What Value Do Atheists Find In Celebrating Christmas?

Recommended Posts

katherine the great

mfbukowski

volgadon

katherine the great

mfbukowski

TAO

california boy

lachrymolotov

Brade

stemelbow

Storm Rider

Sethbag

Sethbag

Sethbag

mfbukowski

Sethbag

mfbukowski

Sethbag

mfbukowski

Sethbag

mfbukowski

Scott Barton

mfbukowski

Sethbag

lachrymolotov

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse