Originally posted by rwingettYou are mistaken as well...
So I repeat: All newborns are atheists, not pagans. They are taught to become pagans or monotheists later.
Newborns are not atheists.
They cannot disbelieve or deny the existence of a God, or supreme
intelligent Being, They simply don't have the ability to believe anything.
i.e. rocks are atheists.
Originally posted by xsAtheism is not in any way restricted to "disbelieving or denying" the existence of god. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in a god for whatever reason.
You are mistaken as well...
Newborns are not atheists.
They cannot disbelieve or deny the existence of a God, or supreme
intelligent Being, They simply don't have the ability to believe anything.
i.e. rocks are atheists.
Someone who has never heard of god, or who is unable to conceptualize god, is an atheist. Albeit they are what is known as "implicit atheists", because their atheism is not the result of any choice on thier part. Someone who was familiar with the conception of god, but who did not believe it, would be an "explicit atheist."
As rocks will never be capable of believing anything, it is nonsensical to say that they are atheists. Newborns, by contrast, will grow up to have beliefs of some sort. But if they were raised in an environment that included no mention of god at all, they would remain implicit atheists. All religious beliefs are socialized beliefs. They are either actively or passively taught to newborns in societies which culturally reinforce those beliefs.
Originally posted by rwingettA few things struck me as noteworthy.
Atheism is not in any way restricted to "disbelieving or denying" the existence of god.
1. As per the underpinings of Western civilization dating back now hundreds of years, you refer your answer, and defer the authority to arbitrate the issue, to a book. Interesting.
2. While you may not wish to restrict 'atheism,' by nature, words themselves are as restrictive as they are illustrative. As such, 'atheism' was formed as a word describing a specific denial of the existence of God. Infants, rocks, et al, are equally unable to recognize self, let alone form an opinion of God. That being said...
3. 'Pagan,' as the word relates to 'heathen,' accurately describes anyone with the potential of self-awareness, who has either not formed an opinion of God's existence, or has remained steadfast in their refusal to acquiesce.
4. While admittedly 'pagan' these days is more akin to Wiccanism, the traditional meanings are more near and dear to my heart.
Originally posted by HayVeeGeeTheism is the belief in a god or gods. Atheism is to be without theism, or without a belief in any gods (a=without, theism=belief in god(s)). Anyone who lacks a belief in gods is an atheist whether it is a concious decision or not. In other words, everyone who is not a theist is an atheist.
A few things struck me as noteworthy.
1. As per the underpinings of Western civilization dating back now hundreds of years, you refer your answer, and defer the authority to arbitrate the issue, to a book. Interesting.
2. While you may not wish to restrict 'atheism,' by nature, words themselves are as restrictive as they are illustrative. As such, ...[text shortened]... ese days is more akin to Wiccanism, the traditional meanings are more near and dear to my heart.
Pagan, as the word applies to 'heathen,' represents the narrow, christian bias against paganism. That traditional definition is hopelessly obsolete. Anyone using the term these days is referring to Wiccans, or some other related nature based spirituality. Anyone who doggedly clings to the obsolete christian definition of paganism as 'having no religion', is nothing more than a hopeless anachronism themselves, regardless of how near and dear that definition may be to their heart.
It's a pity that the real meaning of the letter got lost in the conversation. I wonder if there are still people who celebrate Christmas just for the meaning of the day, or if everything became just a matter of buying presents. There are SO many people who just don't have the money to buy presents for each other and who are afraid to appear in church because they will be looked at as if they don't belong there. Can you imagine to see the happiness of such a person's face when you give him/her some old clothes, something nice to eat, or just even a smile?
Julia
P.S. but feel free to squabble with each other.
Originally posted by lionessIn your initial post you were prattling on about Jesus. Jesus this and Jesus that. Just what, in your opinion, is the meaning of Christmas? To be nice to people, or to worship Jesus? Or both? Now, being an atheist, I am perfectly capable of being nice to people without invoking the name of Jesus.
It's a pity that the real meaning of the letter got lost in the conversation. I wonder if there are still people who celebrate Christmas just for the meaning of the day, or if everything became just a matter of buying presents. There are SO many people who just don't have the money to buy presents for each other and who are afraid to appear in church bec ...[text shortened]... g nice to eat, or just even a smile?
Julia
P.S. but feel free to squabble with each other.
So if your post was about the secularization of Christmas, then I disagree with you. I think it's a good thing. I would be in favor of dumping Jesus altogether and renaming the holiday "Yuletide" or something. If your post was about the growing commercialization of Christmas, then I agree you have a point.
For me, Christmas is a time for family togetherness, peace and harmony. The presents are nice, but not as much of a raison d'etre for the holiday as they used to be. So on Christmas, we'll all gather at my parents house, open a few presents, have a nice meal, and not once will the grim visage of Jesus enter our thoughts.
Originally posted by rwingettForgive me for having to instruct you again, but the definition and even use of, words are determined by popular use, not one person claiming something as 'hopelessly obsolete.' As meaning for a word gains momentum, its currency value increases, and the opposite obviously holds true.
That traditional definition is hopelessly obsolete... Anyone who doggedly clings to the obsolete christian definition of paganism as 'having no religion', is nothing more than a hopeless anachronism themselves
Apparently, the first definition of pagan, to which I referred, is and was the correct usage.
Try as you might to erase Christ's impact on the world, your efforts will fall even shorter than did Voltaire's.
Anachronism? Sure, when truth is wiped out, I'll be out of style. Until then, it is those who are attempting to make all things relative that are out of step.
Originally posted by rwingettGrowing commercialization? When man was primarily in the agricultural-based economy, somehow that was when holidays were pure?
the growing commercialization of Christmas, then I agree you have a point.
Merchants have always sold their wares, farmers have always brought their produce to market, politicians have always lied for the greater good.
Who among us would deny any of those mentioned their harvests' rewards?
Originally posted by rwingettThe post was about growing commercialization and how people behave totally in contrast with the Xmass idea. The letter written in a 'I, Jezus' form is only a carrier, and is not meant at 'converting' anyone towards (or away from) any religion.
In your initial post you were prattling on about Jesus. Jesus this and Jesus that. Just what, in your opinion, is the meaning of Christmas? To be nice to people, or to worship Jesus? Or both? Now, being an atheist, I am perfectly capable of being nice to people without invoking the name of Jesus.
So if your post was about the secularization of Christmas ...[text shortened]... a few presents, have a nice meal, and not once will the grim visage of Jesus enter our thoughts.
But you seem to be very religious about being an atheist😵
Julia
Originally posted by lionessIsn't he tho! So much so in fact, that he
But you seem to be very religious about being an atheist😵
Julia
verifys everone elses definition of atheists.
Bah, humbug?
Even the sinner will run over you, if necessary in order to celebrate his
Christmas. The season brings out the inner curmudgeon in some, and
the inner child in others. You could be happy with the fact that a holiday
with a Christian name, is one most loved of all seasons of the year.
Rec the halls
Originally posted by xsThe point of the original post was that, for the vast majority of
You could be happy with the fact that a holiday
with a Christian name, is one most loved of all seasons of the year.
people -- even so-called Christians -- the only connection between
Christmas and religion is the fact that the word 'Christ' appears in
the holiday, and not the theological import that the season ought to
carry.
Nemesio
Originally posted by xsI refuse to let non-atheists' politically motivated definitions of atheism to go unchallenged. I, being the only dues paying member of American Atheists on this site (to the best of my knowledge}, will be the sole agent to define what atheism is and what it is not. All others will thereafter kowtow to my correct definition. Dissenters will be mercilessly subjected to my wrath.
Isn't he tho! So much so in fact, that he
verifys everone elses definition of atheists.
Bah, humbug?
Even the sinner will run over you, if necessary in order to celebrate his
Christmas. The season brings out the inner curmudgeon in some, and
the inner child in others. You could be happy with the fact that a holiday
with a Christian name, is one most loved of all seasons of the year.
Rec the halls
Henceforth, the definition of atheism to be used throughout these forums will be a broad one. Specifically, non-theism will be synonymous with atheism. That is to say: all people who are not theists are atheists. If you are not one, you are the other. Agnostics shall be treated as sub-categories within theism or atheism, e.g. agnostic theist, agnostic atheist.
This ruling shall be binding as of 2:00 EST, December 4, 2005. This matter is now closed to further discussion.
Originally posted by HayVeeGeeOKay okay, but i never saw a balance for measuring the mass of the soul. Now, I'd reccommend that you don't take me up on this argument, trust me, I'm seriously outgunning you here. You have no definitive measurements or recordings, it cannot be seen, or felt or touched.
By whatever proofs you use for the physical world, I will use for the proof of eternal life.
The only single plausible defense you can use is 'cogito, ergo sum'. I think therefore I am. Although this neither proves neither the existance of the universe or anything else of course. Within the framework of the universe that we understand to exist, your afterlife idea has no scientific creedance.
Originally posted by rwingettAmen ? The weakest authority of all is the self-proclaimed one.
I refuse to let non-atheists' politically motivated definitions of atheism to go unchallenged. I, being the only dues paying member of [b]American Atheists on this site (to the best of my knowledge}, will be the sole agent to define what atheism is and what it is not. All others will thereafter kowtow to my correct definition. Dissenters will be mercil ...[text shortened]... ll be binding as of 2:00 EST, December 4, 2005. This matter is now closed to further discussion.[/b]