posted
Not really, I don't think. Especially since Christmas is less about Jesus' birthday then about the "spirit" of the holidays: being nice to people, giving gifts, etc.
posted
Both I and my girlfriend are atheists, but we celebrate Christmas. To us, Christmas is about Santa and presents and family... it doesn't matter if it's based on a Christian holiday or not. The Christians adapted it from earlier pagan holidays anyway. If we have kids we probably won't even mention Jesus...
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." --Phillip K. Dick
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
EdipisReks
Ex-Member
posted
my girlfriend and i celerbrate December 25th day every year. happy December 25th! happy birthday santa! ooh ooh! what did i get, what did i get!?!?
posted
There are about fifty billion holidays at that time of the year. Just celebrating a generic holiday season in December makes sense; it's just a universally traditional time to schedule holidays. But celebrating Christmas specifically is religious. If you try to celebrate Christmas as a purely secular holiday, you're just fooling yourself. It is called Christmas for a reason.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not really. Suppose we had such a non-descript holiday / festive season. Makes sense for it to have climaz, right? A name for that climax? Well, why not use a ready-provided one? "Christmas" seems to do just fine.
(Seriously, I appreciate the point, but I think that the "Christ" in "Christmas" has about as much meaning to Joe Average as the "liberty" in "liberal" does to Jerry Falwell. )
quote:Originally posted by TSN: There are about fifty billion holidays at that time of the year. Just celebrating a generic holiday season in December makes sense; it's just a universally traditional time to schedule holidays. But celebrating Christmas specifically is religious. If you try to celebrate Christmas as a purely secular holiday, you're just fooling yourself. It is called Christmas for a reason.
Thursday is named for the Norse thunder god Thor, but that doesn't mean I endorse worship of him when I say "I have a doctor's appointment on Thursday." Why invent a new name? We keep all of the trappings of modern Christmas.
posted
Hold on a second, there's a tree I have to show Omega...
1) Mesonychid (land version) - furry-four-legged animal 2) Mesonychid (slightly aquatic version) - furry four-legged with webbed feat and adaptations for swimming 3) Ambulocetus (transitional form) - sharper jaw, shorter, broader legs, semiaquatic 4) Rodhocetus (transitional form) - more beaked jaw, shorter hind legs, fluked tail, mostly aquatic. 5) Dorudon (transitional form) - whale-like body, only vestigial hind legs, front legs now flippers, entirely aquatic. 6) Whales.
Now, to get back to topic, kind of .
You want to celebrate a festive holiday time? Winter Solstice. Saturnalia. Yule. Mithras.
Take your pick.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
posted
Ryan: That's slihtly different. It wasn't called "Thursday" just because of Thor. The Romans called it "dies Jovis", the day of Jupiter. Jupiter and Thor were somewhat equivalent gods in the two mythologies. So, "Thursday" was actually based on both of those, and we only use one of them. We could just as easily have ended up calling it Joveday.
However, in the case of Christmas, its name means specifically that it is a celebration of the christ. If you celebrated Thursday, but claimed not to believe in Thor, then I would wonder what what wrong w/ you. So I don't have a problem w/ calling 25.Dec "Christmas" w/o believeing in the christ, but celebrating it is a different matter.
posted
Well, we call it 'Jueves', French call it 'Jeudi' and Italians call it 'Giovedi' for something.
And respecting Christmas, I think lots of holidays in history have lost its main purpose, and shifted, were twisted and accomodated into something else. For example: I don't think that the French, in their 5th Republic nowadays, celebrate their independence day in the same spirit they did near after the take of Le Bastille. Or the US American independence day: when did you start to lit fireworks during it? And why don't you do the same during Christmas, which is something usually done here (and in Mexico, IIRC).
Things change overtime, including holidays. And "paganization" (including atheists celebrating religious days) is one of the possible outcomes.
quote:Originally posted by EdipisReks: Ryan, thanks for making my argument better than i can. it's been a long time since i have studied biology, etc. Omega just proves even more thoroughly that it doesn't matter what you tell a creationist, they will always harp on the same points (even when they are dismissed logically) and will always stick with what they believe. that is the fundamental difference between those who believe in dogma and those who believe in science: the followers of science admit that they are wrong when they are wrong about something. it is the fundamental part of believing in science. instead of admitting faults, creationists invent far fetched theories to explain away problems (such as "that fossil is obviously a hoax [since it disagrees with my dogma]").
I take issue with what you posted. I am a creationist, insomuch that I believe God "created" the universe. Now, I am not sure how he created it, though the "Big Bang" theory sounds reasonable enough. Likewise, I do not know how man reached his present form but, as I posted before, my own Church grants that the theory of evolution is not contrary to its theology. Please be careful when labeling entire groups of people. To dismiss all "creationists" as ignorant idiots is no better than literal creationists who condemn all scientists to hell.
As for the holiday discussion, I do not think Christmas decorations are necessarily indicative of honoring the religious aspects of the holiday. I believe I once read that many of our Christmas "traditions" were born in Victorian England. Perhaps the "traditions" were kept, but the religious aspect of the holiday was dispensed with. Why would they celebrate such a holiday? Well, as others have already pointed out, the winter solstice (?) has been a popular event to celebrate for thousands of years. Of course, given the fact that "Enterprise" establishes the survival of religion into the 22nd century (or does it?), perhaps Picard's faux family really was celebrating Christian Christmas.
[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
posted
i never said they were ignorant idiots, i said that they don't admit to their mistakes. if you go to google and search for creation, creationists, creationism, and scientific creationsism, i think that you will find i am right on the mark. however, perhaps the label that you provided, "ignorant idiots", is better than the ones that i use. thank you for providing it.
posted
Perhaps you could keep insulting posts to the Flameboard, jacob?
As I said, I am a creationist; I believe God "created" the universe. I also said I find the "Big-Bang" theory and the theory of evolution to be reasonable, and the best explanations thus far on our scientific origins. You seem to say the same thing. Thus, what mistake have I made? What wrong must I admit? If I am wrong, then you, too, are wrong, unless you no longer believe in the big bang or evolution.
See what happens when you lump everybody into one category?
[ December 04, 2001: Message edited by: Raw Cadet ]
posted
On the other hand, it is an unfortunate reality that there is "creationism" and there is "creationism." All Christians are "creationists" in that they believe God created the universe. Some are "creationists" in that they believe that God created the universe in six days exactly as Genesis describes. There are many scientists that are Christians, and there is no real conflict between believing in God and believing in a scientific account of the universe's beginning. Both of my parents fall into this category. But as a general rule, when an atheist talks about "creationists," he or she is referring to those who accept an absolutely literal interpretation of Genesis. It's just a shame there isn't another word for it.
posted
I would just call her/him/them a literalist, as one of that ilk usually interprets the entire Bible literally. Unless of course a literal interpretation conflicts with their agenda.
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
