Around 3500BC humans began celebrating the day the light became 'noticeably' longer, Dec 25th.

[Union Yes]

Noticeably longer to a human 5500 years ago. Humans that didn't have modern equipment to track precise times when the sun rose and set. Other than early sundials.

On this day of noticeably longer light, humans began throwing celebrations. Light signified life. The new growing season would soon be here etc.

These celebrations on this most important day gave birth to what many archaeologists now call mythological 'solar deities". The rest of us call it mythology.

Some examples of 'solar deity' pagan religions..

Horus- 1300BC "birthday" celebrated by the faithful on Dec 25th.

Dionysis- 900BC "birthday" celebrated on Dec 25th.

Mithra- 650BC "birthday" celebrated on Dec 25th.

Ancient history can be an eye opener.

Google 'solar deities' for an eye opening experience.

[Poll_Blind]

1. I watched a great little film that went through this- does anyone know the name?

?

PB

[Union Yes]

2. Zeitgeist is on youtube. nt

[1monster]

4. The original movie and the update are here:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[aquart]

3. Okay, you do realize there was NO December at the time?

NO Gregorian calendar?

You really need to provide a link if you're going to do calendar crap. As for asserting the year that the winter solstice began to be celebrated..........!

I think it's nifty that all these events happened in years that end in zero.

[Jim__]

16. The Roman Calendar did have a December, BUT.

The Roman calendar only had 304 days in a year. So, Decemebr 25 would not always be around the winter solstice.

[Berry Cool]

5. And your point is?

Post when you have something new to say.

Your "eye opener" is no news to me, and it's certainly not changing anything in my world.

[WolverineDG]

10. it's just another "Christians are stupid" post nt

[conscious evolution]

12. More like christians are brainwashed and indoctrinated

and woefully under educated as far as history is concerned.

[WolverineDG]

13. And atheists aren't brainwashed to believe that?

Riiiiight.

dg

[darkstar3]

14. Atheists are "brainwashed"?

[WolverineDG]

17. Yes

Anyone can indoctrinate & brainwash.

dg

[darkstar3]

18. As I said in another thread, and will repeat here,

it is impossible for someone without a doctrine to indoctrinate someone else.

[Igel]

19. This is one of those cases where taking the word to have the meaning you

get from the word's etymology isn't a fallacy.

You have a "teaching, body of teachings," you have "learning". Therefore you have something taught or to teach. That is a doctrine. A doctrine can be secular or religious, free-market or Communist. Or nearly anything else.

To indoctrinate is to imbue with a teaching or learning.

To teach your kids that there is no god is to indoctrinate them into atheism.

To do it underhandedly, deceitfully, or by force is a later addition. Some people are only familiar with the more recent connotation and assume that all usage must be that usage; others have seen the word used in a variety of contexts and understand that the word's core meaning is fairly stable while the connotation varies a bit by period and context.

[darkstar3]

21. There it is again.

Active denial of existence vs. lack of belief.

I lack belief. I have never said "there is no god." I have, however, said "I don't believe in god."

Do you see the difference? The first statement, the one you attribute to atheists and the one you suggest they force upon their children, is a statement of fact given without proof. That active denial of existence is a belief, which is why not a single atheist I've ever talked to or read about espouses that view or makes that statement.

There is no doctrine to atheism, as there is no belief and no active denial of existence. Without doctrine, there can be no indoctrination.

[WolverineDG]

22. Atheists have a doctrine & a belief system

and they do indoctrinate & brainwash their kids. Every time you tell your kids that anyone who believes in God is stupid &/or believes in a myth or fairytale, you are indoctrinating & brainwashing.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge that doesn't make it so.

dg

[darkstar3]

23. Show me one atheist

who tells their kids that anyone who believes in God is stupid &/or believes in a myth or fairytale
I'll wait right here until you bring proof for your little assumption...

[WolverineDG]

24. All you have to do is do a search on DU

Sorry, not going to do your homework for you.

dg

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. No, you do it; I've never seen people saying they tell their kids that

I've seen people say "it's a fairy tale" here; but not that it's what they say to their kids.

[GliderGuider]

32. I have. See my post below. nt

[GliderGuider]

31. I hate to have to say this

I was a life-long strong atheist ("I believe there is no god"), and I acquired that belief precisely because that was what my father taught me. Now I call my self a secular mystic, and believe me it took just as much work to break my parental conditioning as it did for any of the people I've known who made the theist-to-atheist shift.

A weak atheist or agnostic may not indoctrinate their kids, but at least strong atheists do. My father did.

[darkstar3]

34. OK.

Did he indoctrinate you into atheism, or did he in fact indoctrinate you into something much more religious called anti-theism. Many people don't know the difference, but it's actually as plain as the rather large nose on my face.

Indoctrination requires a lot of work over a long period of time, and it only works if all of that work is coming from the same consistent starting point of a doctrine or dogma. So tell us about your father's doctrine. I have a very strong suspicion that doctrine will easily show itself as being anti-theist.

[GliderGuider]

35. Now the dancing begins.

Your original question was, "Show me one atheist who tells their kids that anyone who believes in God is stupid &/or believes in a myth or fairytale."

My father did precisely that. He was a strong atheist (aka "I believe there is no God). He also believed, and taught me, that "People who believe in God were stupid, weak-minded and superstitious." That's an exact quote, BTW.

You can try to move the goal-posts by dragging in the poorly defined and even more poorly accepted term "anti-theist", but the fact remains that my father did precisely what you claimed no atheist did.

[darkstar3]

36. 2 problems:

1. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.
If someone makes it a mission to deride theists and make sure that others do not join them, that's the added bonus of being an anti-theist. I know many people don't WANT to see a difference, but it IS there.

Atheist: "I don't believe in god."
Anti-theist: "No one should believe in god."

One of those statements is about the self, while the other is about controlling other people.

So here's the problem neither one of us wants to admit: We're both right. Your father lacked belief in a god, therefore he was an atheist. However, he also made it his mission to fight against other people's belief in gods, which makes him an anti-theist. So, an atheist indoctrinated you (you were right) into anti-theism (I was right).

I'll repeat it again, atheism has no doctrine, and it is therefore impossible to indoctrinate someone into it.

2. Anti-theism is not poorly defined.
It is in fact quite simple to understand by taking the root word and looking at the prefix. An anti-theist is someone who is against theism, or theistic believers. Here's a handy little spectrum for you.

Theists------atheists-----anti-theists

Of course, it's more like a Venn Diagram, but draw THAT on a message board. :)

BTW: Save your accusations of dancing and goal-post moving. You'll need them for people on this board more interested in deriding you than discussing things with you.

[GliderGuider]

38. The main problem as far as I can tell is

You asked a question;
I answered it;
You didn't like the answer.

Sure my father is anti-theistic, but that has nothing to do with the question you asked. Anti-theism was a post-facto introduction intended (as far as I can tell) to generate a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

[darkstar3]

39. Actually, the main problem

is that you and others are intent on accusing atheists of indoctrinating people and you can't even tell us what doctrine we would use to do that.

The only doctrine you've demonstrated thus far is one of anti-theism, not atheism.

Atheism. Has. No. Doctrine. You and your accusatory friends can either prove that statement wrong, or admit to using the term "indoctrination" incorrectly.

[GliderGuider]

40. Weak atheism has no doctrine, but strong atheism does.

That's the key. "I believe there is no God" is a doctrine.

However, what one person calls indoctrination, another just calls "teaching". As far as I was concerned, my father was simply teaching me his core values as fathers have done from the beginning of time. It worked too -- for 57 years I agreed with him lock, stock and barrel.

Atheists aren't saints, you know. We're human beings with the same vices and failings as everyone else. We just don't believe in the god that most other people do. Which is one point for our side.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Thinking anyone who believes in god is"stupid &/or believes in a myth or fairytale" isn't a doctrine

Nor is it atheism.

Just because you're ignorant about this subject and refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make it so.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

26. +1 n/t

[PBS Poll-435]

6. Craehyzei - 320 BC "birthday" celebrated on Dec 25th.

Makes you wonder.

:shrug:

[Iggo]

7. "Crazy"? Yes. It does make me wonder.

Craehyzei :rofl:

[eShirl]

8. I don't buy that

I think it goes back much further than that.

Just my humble opinion.

[struggle4progress]

9. ... The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion which

The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. Information on the cult is based mainly on interpretations of monuments. These depict Mithras as born from a rock and sacrificing a bull. His worshippers had a complex system of 7 grades of initiation, with ritual meals. They met in underground temples. Little else is known for certain ... The mysteries of Mithras were not practiced until the 1st century A.D. The unique underground temples or Mithraea appear suddenly in the archaeology in the last quarter of the first century AD ... http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Mithraism

[eShirl]

30. I'm familiar with that,and that's not what I was referring to.

[msongs]

11. sunset = death, sunrise = resurrection. current religious cults are not promoting anything new nt

[Igel]

20. Dunno.

My church taught that Jesus died an hour or so before sundown.

It also taught that he was resurrected an hour or so before sundown.

I guess that if we kept Easter we'd have Easter sunset services. Knocks the "sunset = death, sunrise = resurrection" correlation right out of the ballpark though.

[omega minimo]

15. 21st

December 21st

"Humans that didn't have modern equipment to track precise times when the sun rose and set. Other than early sundials."

They used the landscape itself and eventually altered the landscape all over the planet (built stone circles and other monuments)

[DeSwiss]

27. K'd & R'd already.....

This Is What All
The Fuss Is About
http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">
(click)

[LAGC]

28. Saturnalia.

And who said Christianity was original?

[moobu2]

29. The Lascaux cave paintings are around 17,000 years old

The fantastic paintings appear to be elaborate star charts and the main gallery at Lascaux is illuminated by the sun through it's opening on the solstice. Other caves (over 100) in the area were chosen to be decorated with astrological symbolism because they had entrances orientated to to the sun on solstice and equinox events during the year.

In recent years new research has suggested that the Lascaux paintings may incorporate prehistoric star charts. Dr Michael Rappenglueck of the University of Munich argues that some of the non-figurative dot clusters and dots within some of the figurative images correlate with the constellations of Taurus, The Pleiades and the grouping known as the "Summer Triangle". Based on her own study of the astronomical significance of Bronze Age petroglyphs in the Vallée des Merveilles and her extensive survey of other prehistoric cave painting sites in the region — most of which appear to have been specifically selected because the interiors are illuminated by the setting sun on the day of the winter solstice — French researcher Chantal Jègues-Wolkiewiez has further proposed that the gallery of figurative images in the Great Hall represents an extensive star map and that key points on major figures in the group correspond to stars in the main constellations as they appeared in the Paleolithic

Wikipedia

[pokerfan]

33. For anyone interested in this sort of thing

I highly recommend:

Exploring Ancient Skies: An Encyclopedic Survey of Archaeoastronomy, by David H. Kelley, and Eugene F. Milone. 2004 XXVI, 614 p. 384 illus. 0-387-95310-8. Berlin: Springer, 2004. ISBN: 9780387953106



Exploring Ancient Skies uses modern science to examine ancient astronomy throughout the World, that is, to use the methods of archaeology and insights of modern astronomy explore how astronomy was practiced before the invention of the telescope. It thus reviews an enormous and growing body of literature on the cultures of the ancient Mediterranean, the Far East, and the New World, particularly Mesoamerica, putting the ancient astronomical materials into their archaeological and cultural contexts.

http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Ancient-Skies-Encyclopedic-Archaeoastronomy/dp/0387953108

Lascaux is covered on page 158 of my copy.