An Atheist Christmas

[cleanhippie]

http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-chistmas.html


An atheist Christmas

We’ll all open presents, and cook a big dinner,
And share in traditions we learned long ago
But Christmas is different for this humble sinner,
No “birth of the saviour”, just people we know.

It has nothing to do with a babe in a manger
Or kings being led by a star up above,
But rather in family, friend, and in stranger,
In kindnesses done for the people we love.

A spirit of hope, and a spirit of giving,
A promise of peace in a troubling day,
A chance to examine the way we are living--
The courage to say what we’ve wanted to say.

You don’t need to think there’s a god up above you
To want to be good to your fellows on Earth.
To give to your friends, and to tell them “I love you”
Has nothing to do with some son of god’s birth.

For love, and for giving, we say “tis the season”
For caring, for kindness, for sharing good cheer
But why limit ourselves? I mean, what is the reason?
Why can’t we be giving the rest of the year?

This Christmas, my wish for each sister and brother,
To you, and to everyone you may hold dear;
Remember, this Christmas, to love one another—
Not only this season, but all through the year!


http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2007/12/atheist-chistmas.html

[Deep13]

1. It's hard to imagine an atheist describing himself as a "humble sinner" ...

...since without god there can be no sins.

[cleanhippie]

2. I saw that too, thought it may be "tongue in cheek"...

But the point was good, so I posted it.

[Newest Reality]

3. I am not an atheist or a theist,

but to err is human. I consider the word "sin" to be a now overloaded, emotion-packed, judgmental abstraction.

I go with the original definitions: to make a mistake or, better yet, to miss the mark. In that case, I'm OK with being a sinner ;)

[Deep13]

4. Well, a sin is specifically a divine error or offense.

A crime is against the state and a sin is against god. A mistake generic.

[pscot]

6. That leaves out offenses

against the public good and/or publicly acceptable standards of behaviour. Without some inate sense of sin or transgression, how do we explain the phenomenon of the guilty "conscience"? I'm an atheist, but absent god, we still need some other synthetic basis for public morality. Ethics is a sadly neglected branch of philosophy. It's a mistake to leave it in the hands of the TV preachers. People need and want to be told how to live.

[Deep13]

7. I'm sure there is a good, scientific explanation for the guilty conscience...

...that is consistent with Darwinian principles and I'm also sure it has nothing to do with god.

Regardless, we should never take it for granted that morality is synonymous with holiness.

[dmallind]

29. innate?

...learned by conditioning both intentional (teaching kids, punishing or rewarding etc) and experiential (steal from another kid, get slapped or otherwise told it's wrong by adverse reaction).

[cleanhippie]

5. So what are you?

Thiest means " a belief in a god", while atheist means "lack of a belief in a god". Is there another choice I am not seeing?

[Newest Reality]

11. Very good question!

I would note that I've been a theist, (at the start) then an agnostic, then an atheist, etc. I found that, for myself, entering into an abstract dichotomy, (exists/does not exist) became superfluous. I found that it was not necessary to invest myself in accepting or denying either aspect of a long, dualistic argument. Some enjoy that or benefit from thinking from either side. Yet, the proposition of an abstract A can incite vociferous denial and expense of energy when the A is, by nature, not a subject of proof or disproof. Is it prerequisite to be pro-Pookah or anti-Pookah? Culture likes to think so, and so participation is optional.

Even Science provides, via the methodology, not a fact, but a likelihood or probability based on repeatability. That leaves the process open-ended, as is essential in order to sort for new information.

I am fine with beliefs as we seem to function on our ability to believe or disbelieve a wide spectrum of ideas. Considering the difference between beliefs and knowledge and what context those two forms of understanding are used in, is a useful perspective.

To answer the question of what I am, well, the I and what it is relies on a nominalization, (freezing a process into a thing). Perhaps the label of Taoist might fit best, though. What I might be considered to believe is that words are always abstractions, (never what they represent) and that free thinking begins with that understanding ... yet, I would not impose that on anyone. That kind of freedom, (if one can consider such a ridiculous notion) would be the realization that, for the mind, there is nothing at all to be free from.

Well, you asked ;) Excuse my verbosity and lack of elegant brevity in my reply.

[darkstar3]

12. You fail to see the point he was trying to make.

You also fall for the frequent misconception that agnosticism is somewhere between theism and atheism. There is no between.

The lightswitch is on, or it is off. You can try to hold it at some position in between, but the light under its control will either receive power (on) or it will not (off).

Some things in life are actually dichotomous, and no amount of pooh-poohing duality will change that fact. Much like the on/off of the lightswitch, the theism/atheism dichotomy is controlled by one simple action: The answer to the question "do you, right now, believe in any deity or deities?"

[Newest Reality]

14. I am sorry that

I did not express myself well enough to make my points clear.

My understanding of agnosticism is not as an in-between, but a suspension of judgment on the matter with an open-minded approach to further evidence and the implication that the existence of a God is possible.

Regarding the switch on the light: I am considering the context or container of the binary choice offered where either you believe or you do not. Where is the light? For what purpose are we trying to darken or light-up that area? Who wants to do this operation?

My answer to that question you propose: I observe that there are beliefs in the existence of a deity or deities and so, my answer is the question, "What are beliefs? Are they an actuality that we know to exist a priori or outside our nervous systems and understanding?" I believe that my knowledge on that is inclusive, rather than exclusive of lights being on/off or in some Quantum state of probability.

God or gods may or may not exist and that may be purely relative to the beliefs of the observer. What is the prerequisite here for resorting to belief or disbelief? I don't see it as a requirement, nor do I see that as Agnosticism since I am not expecting a phenomena that will resolve the abstract relationships of ideas.

[darkstar3]

16. You contradict yourself.

You ask "What are beliefs?" and then follow that up shortly with a statement beginning with "I believe". You also conflate belief with knowledge..

In short you dodged the question, inartfully.

[Newest Reality]

17. Thanks for your perspective on that.

I find it interesting to note how you perceive it.

I though that my reference to my "belief" would call the nature of belief into question. Are you certain in your idea that my responses are inartful, (nice new word) dodges of your presentations?

If you feel that I conflate belief with knowledge, can you substantiate that and perhaps be more succinct about how you are reacting to my response? I don't know if we have to go into dictionary definitions here when I think my points are expressed well enough to satisfy your questions. I don't require agreement in this case.

Or, perhaps, relate how you know the difference between belief and knowledge and what grounds you base that on.

Or, just let it fly by and leave it to misunderstanding ... and thanks for responding ;)

[darkstar3]

20. Let's do this:

First, I'll restate the question:
"Do you, right now, believe in any deity or deities?"

Next, we'll need to agree that believing something, especially something with no scientific basis, has nothing to do with knowledge. That would be why "believe" and "know" are two totally separate words used in different contexts. Feel free to go OED on me if you like, but I am not particularly interested in your semantic wanderings.

You see, whether you admit it or not, there are only two answers to the question. You can define "deity" however you like, but that doesn't change the fact that the answer is either yes, or no. You reject that possibility because you believe that duality is an illusion, but in order to get to that rejection you had to divert attention away from the natural dichotomy I brought up before. I was talking about a lightswitch, trying to simply illustrate the reality of natural dichotomies, and you changed the topic. What light and dark mean, who wants to control them and why, and all the other existentialist drivel you brought up before is completely beside the point: the lightswitch exists as a natural dichotomy, and it is not alone.

Non-duality cannot apply to everything. When you ask yourself the question posed above, before you engage in the necessary self-delusion regarding the existence of actual duality in the real world, an answer pops into your head. I know it does, because that's the way the human mind works. Truthful answers occur to us almost as quickly as we can process the question that was asked. That's how cops and psychologists can tell if you're lying. So before you created an elaborate diversion in the form of discussions on light, or speculations about the meaning of every word in the dictionary, a truthful answer to this question has already been given. I'd be curious to know what it was before you so quickly stomped it out.

[Newest Reality]

23. I can appreciate your long and thoughtful response,

You appear to have some very articulate ideas on these subjects that you express quite well. So, you have done probably engaged in a lot of learning and thinking along these lines.

Having read your response over a few times, it occurs to me that your thinking there carries many assumptions and covert implications that really sound like mind reading, (as in assuming my intentions and meanings). Comparing your recent entry to what I've actually said, it seems that there are some significant overlays of your perspective on what you are interpreting. Perhaps you can see the places where your inquisitive nature and adherence to your own methods of inquiry are strewn with personality ordered presuppositions?

Since you are, right off, stating explicitly that you are not interested in my semantic wanderings and also exhibit a strong reaction to this discussion, I would wonder how much more you really need to know about what I was relating versus what you already passionately know and understand. If there is something in particular that you are defending, regardless of whether there is an attack or not, that would be useful.

For example, you infer from what I said that I believe duality is an illusion, correct? How do you know that? You have also obviously created a context where I am assumed by you to be creating elaborate diversions and, if you are actually, (and you may be) interested in finding out more and gathering information, then the climate and tone you are creating might be a bit more authoritarian and less open-minded than you imagined, perhaps? I don't know. Do you really think that what I said was so abhorrently improper or controversial that you require such a subjective setup to place me in during a discussion with so little information and facts at your disposal concerning my understanding? I mean that concerning the ratio of subjective assumptions verses straightforward questions and assertions.

Oh, and can we agree that the light switch was totally hypothetical or did you have a particular one in mind? I am speaking purely from opinion.

Preserver to the end! You may get what you want and I support your quest for validity and truth. You have a very good command of language and express yourself well, regardless of the embellished content.

[skepticscott]

24. You're going to fit in well here

You have the talent of dodging a simple, direct question with paragraphs of philosophical claptrap very well mastered. You'll find many kindred spirits on this board.

[darkstar3]

25. I'll take that as a compliment.

After a fashion.

If I appear combative, it is simply because I enjoy debate, which is what I thought we were doing here. Argumentation on this forum, and even on the internet in general, may often seem like an old Monty Python sketch, but I try anyway.

There is another reason, I suppose, why I appear combative. I abhor the abuse of language in the pursuit of rhetorical points, especially when that abuse turns to the Orwellian redefinition of words or even the all out rejection of publicly accepted definitions. Communications are hard enough, especially on the internet, without someone deliberately trying to muddy the waters. Language is what it is because we as a society have accepted for generations what certain sounds and certain glyphs will mean, and to try to change those conventions mid-debate is nothing more than a maneuver to stifle your opponent. It's like when kids in a schoolyard are trying to play a game but one of them keeps changing the rules. Thus I despise parsing and semantic arguments, and respond aggressively when confronted with a post that questions the meaning of a word that has been well defined since before my father learned to speak, and was clearly used in a proper context.

:rant:

Now, as for the assumptions that I laid on you, I freely admit that they are assumptions. I assumed you believed that duality was an illusion because your writing suggests that you are a non-dualist, like another poster here who has stated that duality is an illusion. I assumed you were creating an elaborate diversion because I frankly see no other reason for you to go so far out of your way to avoid answering a simple question.

Cleanhippie started this little tangent by asking you whether you were a theist or an atheist. Your original response to him tried very hard to express that you occupy a middle ground. I have been trying to tell you since then that there is no such place. I am all for middle-grounds, shades of gray, and complexity, don't get me wrong, but in some cases there is no middle ground to be found. Trying to manufacture a middle ground where there is no room for one is a great way to find yourself redefining lots of words to fit your own rhetorical needs, and we find ourselves back on my above rant.

So, with that little distraction out of the way, will you choose to answer the question I posed to you earlier? Do you believe, right now, in any deity or deities? It's OK if you don't want to answer, because I won't bug you about it either way, but don't spend several paragraphs telling the rest of us we don't know what we're talking about and then act as though the posture of your debate opponent(s) is unexpected.

[Cuttlefish]

18. It's an accurate description...

The American Heritage Dictionary's #2 definition of "sinner" is "A scamp".

And what would you have rhyme with "dinner"?

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Thanks, I like it.

[Warpy]

9. It looks like the god squad unrecs everything with "atheist" in the title

Had they read the very nice sentiment in the poem, they might have thought a little differently.

Then again, maybe not.

[TZ]

10. Yeah, I'd like to know what is "unrec" worthy about

wanting to spend quality time with friends and family? OH NOES, horrible love thy neighbor sentimentality. Talk about taking Christ out of Christmas...:sarcasm:
Do you ever get the feeling Warpy that people like you and I actually embody the main principles spelled out in the Bible better than the religious folk?

[Skittles]

21. a lot of people who claim to have "faith"

actually seem to have very little faith - they are soooooo easily threatened

[laconicsax]

13. Whoever wrote this knows nothing of atheist rites for Christmas.

Where are the purges, the baby killings, the mass murders?

Where are the abducted Christians being tortured until they recant their belief in God and accept evolution as their Lord and Savior?

Where's the grand feast in Satan's honor? The communion wafers served with Christian pâté (Christianwurst) and the dipping sauce made from baby's blood is the high point of my year.

[struggle4progress]

15. The Story of Festivus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8g4Ztf7hIM

http://www.festivuspoles.com/pages/Festivuspoles.htm

[Cuttlefish]

19. More where that came from

Glad you liked it, cleanhippie--I have a few similar, many collected here:
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2010/11/one-stop-atheist-christmas.html

One thing--I'm new here, so it's a question for information's sake. It doesn't bother me, but is your opening post a violation of the DU rules on posting others' material? I only ask because I just, moments ago, read the user's agreement to get in to make my previous comment, and that rule was there.

[cleanhippie]

26. Hi

No, I don't think so. I gave credit to you with link at top and bottom.

Its too late for me to delete the post, you will have to ask the mods to do it. My apologies if you feel I posted unfairly or did not give you full credit. I was impressed with your writings and wanted to share it.

on edit: upon review, I should have started off with "Not mine, but found here..." or something similar. It won't happen again.

[Cuttlefish]

28. Oh, it was no problem at all!

I was quite serious--it does not bother me a bit, but I had just read the users' agreement, and was curious! I am glad you posted it here!

[Rob H.]

27. I think I've read some of your other works over on Pharyngula

if you're the same Cuttlefish, that is. Welcome to DU!:)

[Martin Eden]

22. You Atheist Sinner!

How dare you preach the love
Upon which Jesus expounded!
Don't you know this requires the church
That he founded?

You have to be a member
And put cash on the plate
To save your immortal soul
Hurry before it's too late!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

:sarcasm:

[Manifestor_of_Light]

30. Anybody up for a Saturnalia toga party?

:bounce: :bounce: :party: :party:

Wool togas, anyone???