What Value Do Atheists Find In Celebrating Christmas?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Nope. I think accepting religious clams based on feelings is the only appropriate way to accept them. I don't know where you got the idea that I didn't believe that.

My entire point is that atheists take action based on feelings just like religious people do, yet for some reason, will not acknowledge that. They pretend they act only on "evidence" which is blatantly untrue.

Got it now?

[Sethbag]

Ok, I just don't agree that this means anything. So some atheists like to have a good time at Christmas, or feel their life is enhanced by reading fiction, or whatever. So what? It looks like you're trying to manufacture a "gotcha", and IMHO coming up short.

[mfbukowski]

My goodness, you are getting testy aren't you? You are taking this all too seriously.

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

Whatever floats your boat. I didn't even know we were debating.

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.

Lol. I never said that "happiness" was the most ideal goal. In fact I think something akin to what we call "self-improvement" is. It is called "filling the measure of your creation and having joy therein".

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.

I'll take a pass on that one, thanks.

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?

Yep.

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?

Nope.

[mfbukowski]

Ok, I just don't agree that this means anything. So some atheists like to have a good time at Christmas, or feel their life is enhanced by reading fiction, or whatever. So what? It looks like you're trying to manufacture a "gotcha", and IMHO coming up short.

My entire point is that atheists take action based on feelings just like religious people do, yet for some reason, will not acknowledge that. They pretend they act only on "evidence" which is blatantly untrue.

I have no problem with the way people actually behave- just when they pretend they don't do something they do everyday of their lives. If that's a "nothing gotcha" then so be it

[lachrymolotov]

Why do you think the prescribed Mormon way of life is best? Does this way of life still work for the best if there is no God?

If you don't think people should believe in a lie, even if it makes their life better, why would you think it appropriate for atheists to adopt a theological perspective even if it is contrary to their beliefs?

[ERayR]

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.

The thing about symbolism is that it depends on the perspective of the user to receive its meaning. As with Christmas the symbols take on the meaning of those using them. Those symbools can be paganistic or they can be christian.

[mfbukowski]

Why do you think the prescribed Mormon way of life is best?

Works fine for me.

Does this way of life still work for the best if there is no God?

Sure, why not?

If you don't think people should believe in a lie, even if it makes their life better

If there is no God, I still think it's the "best" lifestyle.

To me, it's a contradiction to say that a lifestyle which makes someone's life "better" is a "lie". If it makes your life better, according to my definition of "better" (roughly the Kantian categorical imperative) it cannot be a "lie" since to me, such a life constitutes what I see as "living true principles".

why would you think it appropriate for atheists to adopt a theological perspective even if it is contrary to their beliefs?

I never said that. I just said that in my opinion, it was the best possible lifestyle. It's a free country. Do whatever you like- I don't care.

I think it's important to be consistent in one's beliefs, if some want to be inconsistent, that's their option.

Edited December 28, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Craig Paxton]

Cuz Christmas is fun...(note I even capitalized Christmas)...even though I doubt the existance of a man-god named Jesus...I still respect that others do hold to these beliefs. I love giving gifts and seeing my kids enjoy the magic that is found in the Christmas experience..

Gee I even read the Christmas story in Luke 2 Christmas eve...kinda like reading Twas the Night Before Christmas...they're both just part of the tradition...

[MorningStar]

My dad is an Atheist, but he loves Christmas - the music, food, family get togethers and traditions, decorations, etc. Last year he made a Festivus pole.

[Flyonthewall]

My dad is an Atheist, but he loves Christmas - the music, food, family get togethers and traditions, decorations, etc. Last year he made a Festivus pole.

ahh..Festivus ...airing of greivences, feats of strength....and George usually ends up crying...

[mfbukowski]

Cuz Christmas is fun...(note I even capitalized Christmas)...even though I doubt the existance of a man-god named Jesus...I still respect that others do hold to these beliefs. I love giving gifts and seeing my kids enjoy the magic that is found in the Christmas experience..

Gee I even read the Christmas story in Luke 2 Christmas eve...kinda like reading Twas the Night Before Christmas...they're both just part of the tradition...

But you are teaching them to be irrational and find joy in lies! What kind of an atheist is that?? What kind of a father is that?

For those sarcastically challenged, this is an example.

[Brade]

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

First, I don't think that follows from what I said. More like, it's sometimes ok to act Mormonly even when you don't believe that certain exclusively Mormon propositions are true. I might get along in my day to day life behaving as a Mormon who believes that all of the exclusive Mormon claims are true whilst not believing that any of them are true myself. I might, for example, hope, but not believe, that the Church's teachings are true and enjoy the experience of the community and the high moral ideals or whatever.

[KevinG]

"What value do atheists find in celebrating Christmas?"

(4 pages and nobody states the obvious)

Duh. Presents.

[mfbukowski]

First, I don't think that follows from what I said. More like, it's sometimes ok to act Mormonly even when you don't believe that certain exclusively Mormon propositions are true. I might get along in my day to day life behaving as a Mormon who believes that all of the exclusive Mormon claims are true whilst not believing that any of them are true myself. I might, for example, hope, but not believe, that the Church's teachings are true and enjoy the experience of the community and the high moral ideals or whatever.

First let me say that I have no problem with that. The question becomes what do you really KNOW about what you think is "scientifically true"? How much of it do you KNOW is "true" and what does that mean anyway. The world is a very complex place and there are many philosophical ways of defining "truth"- do you KNOW with absolute certainty that your view this week is absolutely true?

Is it impossible that there is a God who did all the things the Mormon God allegedly does? Absolutely impossible? How do you KNOW with absolute certainty that it is impossible?

No one knows. So if it is possible..... hope is not out of the question.

But for me, it's not about propositions being true, it's about a lifestyle including beliefs being called "true" because it just plain works and is a great way to live. In a pragmatic theory of truth, in an anti-realist, social constructivist way of seeing, there are justified or warranted beliefs, there are not hard and fast "truths" which correspond to data.

Many many very rational brilliant and well trained philosophers ascribe to such a way of seeing things. In fact some of the most influential and powerful philosophers of our time- Wittgenstein, Rorty etc subscribed to this view. This position is totally rational by any measure of the word.

"Facts" exist in language and in a context. Pluto was a planet and no longer is one. An animal may be classified one way today and another tomorrow. Light may be a wave or a particle, depending on how you look at it. All this "truth" stuff to a pragmatist seems rather arbitrary and totally dependent on definitions and not much more. And when truth is dependent on definitions, it all starts to look tautologous. 1+1=2 is "true" because what I MEAN by 1 and by another 1, is that together, they make up what I call "two". Water doesn't boil at 100 celsius for any reason other than it's defined that way, and that becomes the reference point for everything. What would be a "light-year" if we didn't have 365 days days in an earth revolution? What would it be like to speak of "truth" if we were to see the world on in terms of string theory or the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle? Or see science as Kuhn does?

Is there room for "hope"? To me there most obviously is.

There ARE beliefs which always "work" and I think can be said to be "eternal verities" in some sense, like the golden rule for example. I think that no culture can exist without some form of the golden rule, since peaceful interaction is essential to getting things done in civilization.

So depending on how you want to speak about it, you can say that some "truths never change" or you can say that some beliefs always "work". It amounts to the same thing, in the same way that Pluto in one context (form of classification/category/language game) IS a planet and in another, is not.

The bottom line is that based on subjective experience of religious experience, and based on Alma 32 type "experimental verification", believing Mormon doctrine has become "sweet" to me and millions of others. We have subjective verifications through our experiences we call "testimonies" and taken all together we believe we can rationally say that "the church is true" and it is my belief that it can be said with a strong philosophical and perfectly rational conviction.

The entire notion of "Mormon truth claims" in the context of a correspondence theory, ie: the way you are using the phrase, just doesn't even make sense in this context.

[lachrymolotov]

While we cannot truly know anything with 100% certainty, we can still get pretty close. Science has taught us how to know which information is reliable and which is not. This is why scientific knowledge can be applied in every day life to solve problems by making disinfectants, antibiotics, or nuclear power plants. Do you think we should disregard all of this information that we do not know with 100% certainty because we are more like 99.9% sure?

For all intensive purposes, "knowing" something, in this day and age, means you can prove it. So, as usual, you can twist around definitions to serve your own arguments, but what you are doing is inherently dishonest.

If you cannot prove it, you don't know it, therefore, you do not know God exists. You just say it that way and feel that way because that is how you have been taught. Oddly enough, you include this double-standard all in the same post. You say we cannot be sure of science, because we can't actually know anything with certainty, yet you "know" the God of the Mormons is real and that is supposedly perfectly valid while accepting reasonable positions based on empiricism and research are suspect.

As an athiest, I can come up with some standards of what a good life should be, then find ways of measuring who has a good life and why. There are a variety of standards associated with quality of life and, while Mormons in Utah, generally, have a better quality of life than most, they are far from being #1 in the world. It originally seemed as if you were saying that these measurements, alone, would be reason enough to be Mormon. If they scored highest in every possible form of measuring quality of life, I might be inclined to agree with you... except for the part where everyone should believe in the Mormon god even if they are an atheist. Which you agreed with and disagreed with all in the same thread, so I don't know where you stand.

If you give me an example of what a good life should be, then perhaps we can find a subset of people somewhere that is the shining example and find the reasons behind the quality of their lives. You seemed to suggest that the prescribed Mormon way of life is the best one. Why? What about it makes it the best?

To me, quality of life mostly boils down to health and happiness. Things that promote health and happiness have value, which is why family get togethers at Christmas have value to me, as an atheist. I don't specifically need Christmas to show everyone who is important in my life that I appreciate them, but it is a convenient time to do it, since everyone is together and off of work.

[LeSellers]

As an athiest, I ...

Are you sure you're an athiest? Maybe you're only athier, or maybe just an athy.

It seems a tad arrogant to claim to be the most athy possible; there must be others who are more athy than you.

Lehi

[Brade]

First let me say that I have no problem with that. The question becomes what do you really KNOW about what you think is "scientifically true"?

I don't claim to know that the science I understand is true.

How much of it do you KNOW is "true" and what does that mean anyway.

Again, I don't claim to know that much of any of it is true.

The world is a very complex place and there are many philosophical ways of defining "truth"- do you KNOW with absolute certainty that your view this week is absolutely true?

No, I do not know with absolute certainty that my view this week is absolutely true.

Is it impossible that there is a God who did all the things the Mormon God allegedly does?

No.

Absolutely impossible?

No.

How do you KNOW with absolute certainty that it is impossible?

I don't claim to know with absolute certainty that it is impossible.

Many many very rational brilliant and well trained philosophers ascribe to such a way of seeing things. In fact some of the most influential and powerful philosophers of our time- Wittgenstein, Rorty etc subscribed to this view. This position is totally rational by any measure of the word.

And there are many very rational brilliant and well trained philosophers who do not ascribe to such a way of seeing things. Does that mean that I can say, as you have, that your view "just doesn't even make sense in this context"?

The bottom line is that based on subjective experience of religious experience, and based on Alma 32 type "experimental verification", believing Mormon doctrine has become "sweet" to me and millions of others. We have subjective verifications through our experiences we call "testimonies" and taken all together we believe we can rationally say that "the church is true" and it is my belief that it can be said with a strong philosophical and perfectly rational conviction.

Right, and based on subjective experience believing Mormon doctrine is not sweet to millions of people. Such people have subjective verifications through their experiences and taken all together they believe they can rationally say that the Church is not true and it is their belief that it can be said with a strong philosophical and perfectly rational conviction.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Brade

[lachrymolotov]

Are you sure you're an athiest? Maybe you're only athier, or maybe just an athy.

It seems a tad arrogant to claim to be the most athy possible; there must be others who are more athy than you.

Lehi

Did you have a point you were trying to make? or is this another way people on this board try and discredit someone they don't agree with?

[LeSellers]

Did you have a point you were trying to make? or is this another way people on this board try and discredit someone they don't agree with?

The word is atheist, not athiest. It's a quirk I picked up from an atheist associate.

Lehi

[CV75]

For all intensive purposes, "knowing" something, in this day and age, means you can prove it. So, as usual, you can twist around definitions to serve your own arguments, but what you are doing is inherently dishonest.

Like an eggcorn?

[TAO]

Brade, the difficulty is, if you believe anything at all beyond your own existence, you have to make at least one assumption that is not based off of fact, but is based off of preference. You can literally not prove or show the likeliness of any thing beyond 'I exist' until you make one assumption at least. And I believe that assumption is that your instincts are correct... or at least it is for me XD.

Edited December 29, 2011 by TAO

[mfbukowski]

While we cannot truly know anything with 100% certainty, we can still get pretty close.

You're not getting this.

The question is- close to WHAT?

There is nothing to get "close" to but experience and how we describe it. We are discussing this question over on the Correspondence Theory of Truth thread. I suggest you look at that one.

Edited December 29, 2011 by mfbukowski

[TAO]

While we cannot truly know anything with 100% certainty, we can still get pretty close. Science has taught us how to know which information is reliable and which is not. This is why scientific knowledge can be applied in every day life to solve problems by making disinfectants, antibiotics, or nuclear power plants. Do you think we should disregard all of this information that we do not know with 100% certainty because we are more like 99.9% sure?

Nah, that isn't correct. You can't know anything beyond your own existence without making a single assumption at least. And because we can't determine the chances of that assumption, it is impossible to determine the chances of later assumptions based on that assumption.

I'm talking about a specific philosophical idea called 'The Brain in the Vat'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_the_vat

Essentially, you can't use proof to pass brain in the vat... instead you must use a reasoning in order to pass it.

For all intensive purposes, "knowing" something, in this day and age, means you can prove it. So, as usual, you can twist around definitions to serve your own arguments, but what you are doing is inherently dishonest.

Mmmmm... I disagree. Proof is a myth. There is no such thing, as in order to prove something, you would need a limited amount of space to work with. What we go off of isn't proof, but is inference to the best explanation. Naturally, people are likely to disagree on what a good inference is.

If you cannot prove it, you don't know it, therefore, you do not know God exists.

And how do you know your senses are accurate? You can't prove that either. And whether you believe it - or even use it - you have made an assumption there. We need to make this assumption, or else we cannot tell anything about reality beyond 'I exist'.

You just say it that way and feel that way because that is how you have been taught. Oddly enough, you include this double-standard all in the same post. You say we cannot be sure of science, because we can't actually know anything with certainty, yet you "know" the God of the Mormons is real and that is supposedly perfectly valid while accepting reasonable positions based on empiricism and research are suspect.

Mfb is trying to show you how scientific knowledge is no more different nor fallible than spiritual knowledge in the eyes of a person with no assumptions. That is why he used 'know'. Because he only knows that God exists as much as you know science works.

If you give me an example of what a good life should be, then perhaps we can find a subset of people somewhere that is the shining example and find the reasons behind the quality of their lives. You seemed to suggest that the prescribed Mormon way of life is the best one. Why? What about it makes it the best?

He is talking about his personal preference. People with different values and ideals... with a different view of lots of things... will naturally have some different personal preferences.

[mfbukowski]

And there are many very rational brilliant and well trained philosophers who do not ascribe to such a way of seeing things. Does that mean that I can say, as you have, that your view "just doesn't even make sense in this context"?

I apologize if that sounded argumentative.

What I meant was that in the context in which I was seeing things any other context didn't make sense.

So in context A, only statements made in context A make sense, whereas you were speaking in context B. That is kind of the point Wittgenstein makes in what he calls "language games" And yes, of course that implies that what I was saying also didn't make sense in your context either.

My point was merely that we choose our contexts. It is your choice to take on a pragmatic context or not, but regardless, you would have a well-founded philosophical basis on either side.

The choice depends on what works best for you- I would say it that way.

You would say the choice depends on what is "true", dependent on your definition of "truth". But my definition is not in some way better than yours nor is yours better than mine.

It's a matter of choice, as are all things in life.

Right, and based on subjective experience believing Mormon doctrine is not sweet to millions of people. Such people have subjective verifications through their experiences and taken all together they believe they can rationally say that the Church is not true and it is their belief that it can be said with a strong philosophical and perfectly rational conviction.

Fine. It's a free country. No one is putting a gun to their heads to make them believe in Pragmatism or join the church.

It seems that the only folks that bothers are the ones who believe in correspondence and that there is only one way of looking at this.

I think there are many ways to look at it- in fact as many ways as one can dream up a consistent theory which accounts for the data. All I am saying is that Pragmatism does that, but correspondence doesn't because correspondence cannot account for ethics or personal revelation and science all in one theory.

Pragmatism does. Just by Occam's razor, for me, clearly Pragmatism accounts for it all much better than correspondence.

[mfbukowski]

Mmmmm... I disagree. Proof is a myth. There is no such thing, as in order to prove something, you would need a limited amount of space to work with. What we go off of isn't proof, but is inference to the best explanation. Naturally, people are likely to disagree on what a good inference is.

And how do you know your senses are accurate? You can't prove that either. And whether you believe it - or even use it - you have made an assumption there. We need to make this assumption, or else we cannot tell anything about reality beyond 'I exist'.

Mfb is trying to show you how scientific knowledge is no more different nor fallible than spiritual knowledge in the eyes of a person with no assumptions. That is why he used 'know'. Because he only knows that God exists as much as you know science works.

He is talking about his personal preference. People with different values and ideals... with a different view of lots of things... will naturally have some different personal preferences.

Thanks for filling in some of the blanks! You've got what I am driving at!