Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

[Rrose Selavy]

Perhaps then he's hoping for a Christmas TV Special of "The God Delusion"....
-

Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.
The comments came after Tory MP Mark Pritchard accused "politically correct" people of undermining Christmas. Professor Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, added that he liked "singing Carols along with everybody else".
This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"So, yes, I like singing Carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. "If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists

-
More here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

[NeilC]

Sounds fair enough to me. I kind of feel the same.

I get annoyed when I read stories about traditions tied up with Xtianity (like Christmas etc) are under threat because of "offence" to other religions.

[Wildy]

Sounds fair. Even when you consider that Christmas has meanings beyond a religious sense. Like presents, or food, or Jesus' valiant sacrifice in Iraq to save Santa from the Iraqi interrogators.

[H3LL]

The "cultural Christian" bit is what I find most nauseating.

The constant low-level background noise of Christianity passes unnoticed by many and IMHO is only thrown into sharp relief when one has lived away from it and returned.

Not until then is its pervasive, mad dribblings an annoyance akin to water-torture.

I will not be truly happy until all religions are consigned to the realm of interesting, latter-day irrelevance or curiosity for study or entertainment, that ancient Norse/Greek/Roman mythologies share.

.

[NeilC]

The "cultural Christian" bit is what I find most nauseating.

The low-level background noise of Christianity passes unnoticed by many and IMHO is only thrown into sharp relief when one has lived away from it and returned.

Not until then is its pervasive, mad dribblings an annoyance akin to water-torture.

I will not be truly happy until all religions are consigned to the realm of interesting, latter-day irrelevance or curiosity for study or entertainment, that Norse/Greek/Roman mythologies share.

.

In the meantime, would you be happy to see Christian traditions pushed aside whilst those of other religions expand?

[H3LL]

In the meantime, would you be happy to see Christian traditions pushed aside whilst those of other religions expand?

I did say all religions.

And by Christian traditions I expect that you mean Victorian Christian Values as opposed to the slaves, stonings and killing of your own children traditions...or as Jesus calls them..."Laws"?

.

[NeilC]

I didn't mention values. I mentioned traditions - xmas, easter etc.

[JoeEllison]

The less religion stuffed down my throat the better. I'm a Cultural Atheist. :D

[NeilC]

Really? So you don't celebrate christmas? Do you go as far as saying "happy winterval"?

I'm going to my son's first nativity play on Wed and very much looking forward to it, as are his friends' parents, one of whom is a sikh.

[Fnord]

Dawkins' attempt at pandering is as transparent as was the "Compassionate Conservatism" of a few years back.

Until he publicly proclaims Jesus the Christ as his own, personal Lord and Saviour, then he is no Christian of any kind.

[NeilC]

Since he defined Cultural Christian in such a way to include himself then he is indeed a Cultural Christian.

[Beerina]

"Happy Winter Solstice, or whatever holiday your inaccurate, ancient, tribal cosmology has overlain this natural event."

[H3LL]

I didn't mention values. I mentioned traditions - xmas, easter etc.

I know...I did.

As most of those "Christian traditions" as practised today owe more to the Victorians than to anything biblical.

[Darat]

If other religions have as good holydays* as Christmas I really, really want them to become mainstream.


*Excuse to senselessly consume food and anything else to excess, an excuse to just be extra nice to anyone, two days public holidays and so on. A good summer one would be appreciated.

[patrick767]

I don't think he's pandering. His remark sounds very accurate and could describe a great many of us.

[NeilC]

I know...I did.

As most of those "Christian traditions" as practised today owe more to the Victorians than to anything biblical.

Yes you conflated them when you said "And by Christian traditions I expect that you mean Victorian Christian Values". Which I didn't. Of course Christianity in it's ever changing form has had a major role to play in the UK in which I find myself today and it's culture and values and so I have to recognise that too.

Personally I don't really care where traditions like Christmas came from. I enjoy some of them and wouldn't want to see them go anytime soon.

[ImaginalDisc]

Dawkins' attempt at pandering is as transparent as was the "Compassionate Conservatism" of a few years back.

Until he publicly proclaims Jesus the Christ as his own, personal Lord and Saviour, then he is no Christian of any kind.

Maybe he read the Bible.

. . .But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father, who sees in secret, will repay you.”

Matthew 6.6

[rob_hebert]

I could consider myself "culturally Roman Catholic" in that I was raised RC and my grandparents still remain so, and I think that it can be a useful description for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that it's easier to highlight the absurdity of a point of view when you have been raised with it ("Justin, you're culturally Jewish--who the hell are the Maccabees?").

Like H3LL, I too would love it if all religions passed into the irrelevance we associate with Norse and Greek mythology, but I have the sneaking suspicion most of humanity would latch on to something else (i.e., faith-based belief systems based on interaction with aliens, as in Scientology). Either way, one thing I like about some of the holidays that Christians consider "Christian" is that they are so obviously pagan in origin that they are religiously toothless. I recognize that most people (myself included) need certain rituals around which to order their lives, times when they have excuses to visit family and eat fatty food, maybe exchange presents; and Christmas works for me because everyone I know gets December 25th off.

I also understand the fear that many Christians feel over the secularization of "their" holidays when people say X-mas, Rabbit Day, or Turkey Day. I think this fear is well-founded; whenever I hear someone say that "Season's Greetings" isn't secularizing the Christmas season, I say ************, that's why I use the phrase "Season's Greetings." Maybe in fifty years, X-mas will be as X-ian as Halloween (in fact, I think many of them boycott Halloween). That would be kind of nice. I'll take people dressed up as sexy santa's over crucifixes and mangers any day of the year.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My wife makes all us atheists look like dithering romantics, but she sings religious music in two choruses for the holidays (not just Christian music). It's fun, it's beautiful, and it's really quite easy to enjoy even though the corner of my mouth may be upturned in a slight smirk when contemplating the deep meaning of the music. There are still strong feelings from my childhood, a kind of melancholy hope that it all could be true, a pleasure in seeing people brought together for the love of music rather than political or economic reasons, memories of people I have loved for whom religious ideas were important, and even fond feelings for our philosophical arguments here.

I don't believe in a god, or even that the idea is particularly coherent. It's a simple lack of belief. But the cultural trappings do me no harm.

~~ Paul

[dogjones]

I did say all religions.

And by Christian traditions I expect that you mean Victorian Christian Values as opposed to the slaves, stonings and killing of your own children traditions...or as Jesus calls them..."Laws"?

.

Please advise where in the bible Jesus advocates stoning, slavery, killing of children etc? This will help me greatly in an ongoing debate I'm having with a friend of mine who's flirting with Xtianity.

[ImaginalDisc]

Please advise where in the bible Jesus advocates stoning, slavery, killing of children etc? This will help me greatly in an ongoing debate I'm having with a friend of mine who's flirting with Xtianity.

Here you go:

For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Matt 5:18

Ergo, all of the OT will apply, including wiping out neighboring villages that worship other gods and murdering unruly children, "until all is accomplished."

[A Christian Sceptic]

Here you go:



Matt 5:18

Ergo, all of the OT will apply, including wiping out neighboring villages that worship other gods and murdering unruly children, "until all is accomplished."

You should probably read that verse in context - specifically the verses after number 18.

[ImaginalDisc]

You should probably read that verse in context - specifically the verses after number 18.

You mean Matt 5:19? That only makes it worse.

Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

What are "least commandments?"

Deuteronomy 22:12 which forbids the very clothes you are probably wearing now?

You shall make yourself tassels on the four corners of your garment with which you cover yourself.

Lev 21:16-23 which forbids letting handicapped people in the temple?

The LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God. He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.

[Moochie]

Where would the economy be without Christmas?

M.

[rob_hebert]

For dogjones:
In regards to Jesus' views on stoning, child abuse, and slavery, what is most interesting is not what he says, but the fact that he says almost nothing. It's certainly obvious that the Old Testament condones all these things (binding of Isaac, the tale of Jephtah's daughter (Judges 11:28), Solomon's progressive views on child-rearing (Proverbs 23:13-14), etc.), and as a good Jew in the first century, Jesus would have known all this stuff was in the Torah. Yet, he didn't say "By the way, you know how Moses said that you can have slaves as long as they aren't Jewish? Well, slavery's bad all-around, guys. Don't do it, 'kay?"
You can explain this away by saying that he was a product of his time, but I think that a man meant to be a complete, eternal moral guide should cover day one stuff like slavery and rape. I've found that showing the incompleteness of Jesus' moral understanding is more useful than cherry picking quotes from the Bible.

But my favorite is still the part where Jesus talks about throwing people into a furnace at the end of the world in Matthew 13:41,42.

[Skeptic Guy]

My wife makes all us atheists look like dithering romantics, but she sings religious music in two choruses for the holidays (not just Christian music). It's fun, it's beautiful, and it's really quite easy to enjoy even though the corner of my mouth may be upturned in a slight smirk when contemplating the deep meaning of the music. There are still strong feelings from my childhood, a kind of melancholy hope that it all could be true, a pleasure in seeing people brought together for the love of music rather than political or economic reasons, memories of people I have loved for whom religious ideas were important, and even fond feelings for our philosophical arguments here.

I don't believe in a god, or even that the idea is particularly coherent. It's a simple lack of belief. But the cultural trappings do me no harm.

~~ Paul

Speaking, too, as an Atheist, Handel's Mesiah is wonderful. A friend of ours sings in a choir and that's the only way they get me in a church.

[rob_hebert]

Plus, if it wasn't for Christmas music, we wouldn't have Trans-Siberian Orchestra or Mannheim Steamroller. I wouldn't want to live in such a world.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You mean Matt 5:19? That only makes it worse.


I said verses. How about Matt 5:27-48 wher he specifically talks about different Old Testament laws. It doesn't seem like he's treating these Old Testament laws as unchanging or even accurate.

My point is - whatever you may take these teachings as meaning - simply taking one sentence out of context is bad scholarship.

You are welcome to do whatever you want, of course. :)

[Big Les]

Dawkins' attempt at pandering is as transparent as was the "Compassionate Conservatism" of a few years back.

Nonsense. You're reading that into what's being said. Would you say the same of a "cultural" Jew? It's perfectly possible to respect and enjoy traditions without actively practising or even condoning the religion that inspired (or co-opted) it.

[ImaginalDisc]

I said verses. How about Matt 5:27-48 wher he specifically talks about different Old Testament laws. It doesn't seem like he's treating these Old Testament laws as unchanging or even accurate.

My point is - whatever you may take these teachings as meaning - simply taking one sentence out of context is bad scholarship.

You are welcome to do whatever you want, of course. :)

You're making it even worse. Those sections specifically contradict the earlier passage admonishing us to adhere strictly to "the least commandments." The Bible is a horrible moral guide. Matt 27-48 prescribe self-mutilation to prevent thoughts of adultery, forbids divorce, forbids reciprocity in the face of violence which would completely invalidate any ideas of self-defense or justice, and culminate with the commandment to:

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Sorry, but if our ephemeral sky daddy is perfect, he should at least be able to write a clear moral guide devoid of blatant self-contradiction.

[dogjones]

All this is rather Matthew based - is there anything in the other gospels? Like the point about the moral incompleteness though.

[A Christian Sceptic]

You're making it even worse. Those sections specifically contradict the earlier passage admonishing us to adhere strictly to "the least commandments."

My point exactly.


The Bible is a horrible moral guide. Matt 27-48 prescribe self-mutilation to prevent thoughts of adultery, forbids divorce, forbids reciprocity in the face of violence which would completely invalidate any ideas of self-defense or justice, and culminate with the commandment to:


You might want to look up the definition of Hyperbole.

It's a good thing you don't believe Matt:27-48 the way you interpret - you'd be bound to hurt yourself. :)

[ImaginalDisc]

My point exactly.



You might want to look up the definition of Hyperbole.

No, you should look up the definition of "perfect." A perfect god would not write such a travesty of a moral guide.

It's a good thing you don't believe Matt:27-48 the way you interpret - you'd be bound to hurt yourself. :)

I don't believe in any part of the Bible at all. It's rubbish.

[Abe_the_Man]

I agree with Dawkins completely. I'm an atheist who grew up surrounded by Christianity and am thus a cultural Christian. Christmas was and still is my favourite time of year. I already have my tree up and the house is decorated top to bottom. I even plan on doing some christmas baking later this week. I love christmas carols and stories about Santa. I even love hearing the story of Jesus' birth every year as it brings back many many fond memories of my childhood. Just because you don't believe in god or Jesus doesn't mean you can't hope for 'peace on earth and good will to men'

[Mobyseven]

If other religions have as good holydays* as Christmas I really, really want them to become mainstream.


*Excuse to senselessly consume food and anything else to excess, an excuse to just be extra nice to anyone, two days public holidays and so on. A good summer one would be appreciated.

Judaism, Darat. Darat, Judaism.

You two get yourselves acquianted now. I think you're going to like Purim...

[Big Les]

I see secular celebration of Christmas as a transition toward some other midwinter festival that may one day replace it, just as Christmas replaced Saturnalia and other festivals. It has to happen naturally though for me - none of this contrived "festivus" nonsense. Until that happens (and if doesn't) I'm fine with celebrating my culturally inherited christmas traditions as an atheist, with my pagan girlfriend.

We're always being told by Christians how the trappings and commercialism of Christmas are not the real meaning of it. Well, that's fine. You guys have the meaning, we'll have the presents and the fun.

[Bikewer]

The late Isaac Asimov wrote frequently of the fact that though he was a committed atheist, he observed a variety of Jewish traditions as the cultural artifacts they were.
He saw no great contradiction in this.

[NeilC]

Just to broaden this out of Christmas and Easter celebrations - does Culturally Christian have a wider meaning?

Can we say that the effect of Christianity, it's way of looking at the world, it's traditions, it's heritage etc have created the culture we, who live in ostensibly Christian countries, benefit from?

For instance the "christian west" is on the whole more democratic and less harsh on offenders than much of the East. I wonder how much of that is down to christianity?

[JoeEllison]

I wonder how much of that is down to christianity?None of it... it is DESPITE Christianity.

[Alice Shortcake]

...Can we say that the effect of Christianity, it's way of looking at the world, it's traditions, it's heritage etc have created the culture we, who live in ostensibly Christian countries, benefit from?

For instance the "christian west" is on the whole more democratic and less harsh on offenders than much of the East. I wonder how much of that is down to christianity?

I would suggest that this state of affairs is due to the fact that the Christian West experienced the Enlightenment and the East did not. Five hundred years ago in Europe witches were burned, traitors were dismembered, thieves had their hands cut off, women were treated as inferior beings - all with the blessing of the Christian church.

[NeilC]

None of it... it is DESPITE Christianity.

evidence? reasoning?

[linusrichard]

Dawkins' attempt at pandering is as transparent as was the "Compassionate Conservatism" of a few years back.

Typical Dawkins, trying not to offend anyone with his comments... :confused::confused::confused:

Until he publicly proclaims Jesus the Christ as his own, personal Lord and Saviour, then he is no Christian of any kind.

I don't know where you're pulling this requirement of a public proclamation, but I agree with your basic point - Dawkins is no Christian.

The thing is, I don't think he's claiming to be a Christian. He's claiming to be a cultural Christian, and I don't think it makes sense to consider a "Cultural Christian" to be a type of Christian, and while I obviously can't speak for Dawkins, based on the article quoted, I don't think he'd disagree.

I (also no Christian) certainly consider myself to be a cultural Christian as well. I'm guessing a lot of atheists who were raised in the Christian West would agree.

Merry Christmas!

[linusrichard]

I also understand the fear that many Christians feel over the secularization of "their" holidays when people say X-mas, Rabbit Day, or Turkey Day. I think this fear is well-founded; whenever I hear someone say that "Season's Greetings" isn't secularizing the Christmas season, I say ************, that's why I use the phrase "Season's Greetings." Maybe in fifty years, X-mas will be as X-ian as Halloween (in fact, I think many of them boycott Halloween). That would be kind of nice. I'll take people dressed up as sexy santa's over crucifixes and mangers any day of the year.

Well, with respect to Christmas and Easter, it's a little hypocritical for the Christians to be whining about it. The holidays currently known as Christmas and Easter are a lot older than Christianity. Christians took them and twisted them around, and now the secularists are doing the same thing. Sauce for the gander. Hell, they (the English-speaking ones) didn't even bother to rename Easter - it's still named after a pagan goddess! So while each winter we have to put up with Christians whining, "keep the Christ in Christmas," I look forward to the spring and telling people to "keep the Eostre in Easter."

As for Thanksgiving, I never considered it a religious holiday. I realize that it has religious roots, unfortunately, but one thing I've always loved about it is that there's no reason it can't be completely secular. I have no problem feeling thankful for the good things in my life without having some Deity to thank.

[JoeEllison]

evidence? reasoning?

The evidence of history. Things like the Enlightenment advanced freedom, not Christianity. Christianity has stood in the way of progress... and then dishonest Christians take credit for the progress, in their arrogance and cultural bigotry.

[NeilC]

You can't cite "history" as evidence!

[JoeEllison]

You can't cite "history" as evidence!

If you'd like to start a new thread on it, feel free. I'm done with my hijack of this thread. Sorry everyone. ;)

[NeilC]

I don't think discussing what christian culture actually might be is particularly off-topic given the title of the thread.

It's a bit limiting if all we are talking about is the name for Christmas.

[Big Les]

I don't think you can say all cultural benefits gleaned in the last 1500 years or so are despite Christianity. Religion has been an inextricable part of the human experience since before the beginning of history - at least some of the good we have today is down to people who were at least in part inspired by their faith, no matter how misguided we perceive that today. Sure, the motivation could have been humanism or anything else, but it wasn't (in those cases). Call it historical accident if you like, but those people were christians, and their faith was part of how they saw the world. IOW, what happened happened, and it happened in some part because of Christianity.

This is not to say that we can't (or haven't already begun to) replace it with something as good in terms of positive cultural contributions.

[H3LL]

I don't think you can say all cultural benefits gleaned in the last 1500 years or so are despite Christianity.


Maybe not all, but...

In the British Isles (Dawkins' home), the decline of authoritarian institutions such as the church is, IMHO, the very essence of our cultural heritage.

Casting off of Papal power and the ushering in of enlightenment, reason, science and open atheism didn't occur since the 17th century by accident and were demonstrably despite the desires and efforts of religious powers.

There are key events in our history; the reformation, decline of feudalism, agricultural revolution, industrial revolution, parliamentary reform, age of reason, rise of atheism.

Each one of them charts its battle with the established power of religion.

Each one of them has its iconic example of attempts, by religion, to prevent its expansion.

Those key events, and others represent my cultural history.

The church and religion represent opposition to progress all along the way and a sick ability to claim responsibility and ride the band-waggon when inevitable change is established.

I disagree with Dawkins, on this point, quite strongly.

If he was in a modern Muslim theocracy, yes, he could claim to be a "cultural Muslim" as their history and culture, for the last several hundred years, is dominated by religious culture and the repression of all else.

That is demonstrably NOT the case in the British Isles.



Pretty songs, nice art and festivals usurped from indigenous cultures do not excuse in any way.

The Christians have taught us well how to usurp cultural and religious identity and masquerade it as their own.

Maybe now it is time for religion to taste the bitter pill of its own teachings with all national festivals becoming secular and open to all. Any religious identity stripped away.

.

[Darth Rotor]

I know...I did.

As most of those "Christian traditions" as practised today owe more to the Victorians than to anything biblical.

Even in Germany?

How is St Niklaus a Victorian trope?

Even in Russia? How is Babushka a Victorian trope?

I will hazard a guess: your comment is Brit centric, given you and Dawkins both being Brits. Am I close?

DR

[H3LL]

Even in Germany?

How is St Niklaus a Victorian trope?

Even in Russia? How is Babushka a Victorian trope?

I will hazard a guess: your comment is Brit centric, given you and Dawkins both being Brits. Am I close?

DR

Is Dawkins a German or a Russian?

Is the OP about Dawkins' words or Hans Petrovsky's?

Is Dawkins' culture likely to be Russian, German or British?

Victorian relates to a time period. You can buy American Victorian furniture in New York. Was Victoria Queen of the USA?

"New Yankee Workshop" often teaches us how to make "traditional New England Victorian furniture". Is Norm Abram ignorant of American furniture history?

I'll match your word spaghetti with my knowledgeable noodles.

.

[rob_hebert]

To answer NeilC, I think there is a lot more to being culturally [insert religion here] than just what you call holidays. It gets a bit hairy since religions can be just as amorphous as other institutions, and their effects on the greater culture can be hard to pin down.

I would give as one example the fact that for most of history, and obviously right now, Christianity relied heavily on conversion of non-believers (either peacefully or by the sword). Perhaps this had something to do with the imperialist actions of (Christianized) Britain and other countries? Maybe not, since Persia wasn't Christian, and neither was Greece. Neither was Rome, for that matter, until after they had basically taken over the world. I don't think it's as simple as assigning characteristics to Christianity or other religions and then seeing where they predominate. That might lead to circular logic.

I'm probably more cynical than some on this topic, since I think many of the injustices of Christianity, for example, would have been carried out under another banner had the Church not been around. Human suffering certainly predates the common era, although that shouldn't give anyone a "pass" on some the messed up stuff that's gone down. Either way, it's difficult to determine causality in matters of history and culture.

Anyway, to get back to your question, I think a good example might be the civil rights movement in 20th century America. It started in the Baptist churches of the south, and drew heavily on the story of Moses' deliverance of the Jews from Egypt. Now, I'm the first to say that anyone who critically reads the Bible will see a book that is distinctively pro-slavery. But that specific story was a rallying point for many black Americans, since it was a shared myth that many could relate to. I firmly believe the ideals of the civil rights movement are not Biblical, but that doesn't mean the trappings of the Bible culture of the time weren't useful toward very noble ends. So I don't think it would be fair to say that the civil rights succeeded because of the Christian culture, but it definitely succeeded with its aid. I think this is a good example of a nonreligious or secular idea (civil rights) coming out, in part, of a specifically Biblical culture.

note: I'm sure I'll have to clarify some of this, but the post is already pretty long.

[T'ai Chi]

I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. "If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists


Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh? ;)

Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

[joobz]

I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. "If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh? ;) Hi T'ai, thank you for this example, because it perfectly illustrates his point.

American Government was established with the concept of a seperation of church and state. I could go through all of the examples of this being the case, but it is quite obvious when you read the constitution.

However, during the Mccarthy era red scare, christian legislatures felt the need to replace the rather socialist sounding motto, "E Pluribus Unum" to "In god we trust." Indeed, your point is a perfect example of a religion attempting to purge our nation of one of it's primary tenents, keeping religion and government seperate.

[Big Les]

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh? ;)

Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

Even if he wanted to cast off all references to Christianity in his life (which would be rather difficult), he doesn't have any choice in what he describes as "cultural christianity". Christianity is our state religion, its artefacts and traditions are still embedded just about everywhere we look. The only way to reject one's inherited cultural religious baggage would be refuse to participate in every majority celebration or commemoration.

It's perfectly possible to have a christmas tree and open presents with your family, whether or not any of them are christians, and still be an atheist. That's all he seems to be saying. In fact, in a way he's acknowledging what the christians often cry - "this is a christian country!". Acknowledging, but not believing, and not giving religious belief and dogma itself any quarter in his articles, books, lectures and TV shows. Sounds consistent enough to me.

Consider ecclesiastical architecture - one can visit and appreciate the beauty of a cathedral and the history behind it, and also wish that it continues to be maintained, without actually worshipping in it.

[linusrichard]

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh? ;)
Is that motto on UK currency as well? That's surprising. In any event, the people doing that in the US are not trying to "purge our country of its Christian history," but remove theism from its inappropriate place in government. Even if you oppose the latter, it's dishonest to pretend people are doing the former.

ETA: And, as Joobz has helpfully pointed out - we've had more history without "In God We Trust" than we've had with it. Rather than purging history, think of the atheists as trying to restore it.
Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.
Okay - do you understand what Dawkins is talking about? Two things, if you do: (1) What do you think would be a better word or phrase to describe what Dawkins is talking about than "Cultural Christian," and (2) what ought the phrase "Cultural Christian" mean, if not what Dawkins is talking about?

I could swear I had heard the phrase "Cultural Jew" before, and the meaning was instantly obvious to me: someone who doesn't necessarily hold any Jewish religious beliefs, but was raised immersed in a Jewish culture, which has had some influence on traditions, values, tastes, etc. Are you (along with Fnord, I'd wager) simply annoyed that someone who does not believe on the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has the gall to describe himself with a phrase of the form "[modifier] Christian"? If so, get over it - Christians have done such a good job inflicting Christianity on most of the West that now it's become a cultural background noise, and non-Christian Cultural Christians do exist, despite your protestations. Dawkins is one and I'm one. Merry Christmas.

[T'ai Chi]

Is that motto on UK currency as well? That's surprising.


The comment refers to Newdown or whatever his name is in the US. You do know there are atheists in the US, right?

But, from Wikipedia


All current [UK] coins include the Latin inscription ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR in abbreviated form, which means "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith", with Elizabeth II facing to the right.


So yeah, it is related. Moving on. :)


In any event, the people doing that in the US are not trying to "purge our country of its Christian history," but remove theism from its inappropriate place in government.


You're really telling me that putting a message on coins (that is based on our heritage) inflicts harm on people? Better give away all your money then! ;)

Why isn't Newdown or whatever his name is winning his cases? Must be some conspiracy.


And, as Joobz has helpfully pointed out - we've had more history without "In God We Trust" than we've had with it. Rather than purging history, think of the atheists as trying to restore it.


Well this argument doesn't make much sense, in fact, it seems to say 'hey, don't make any progress at all'. There's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center, and probably no time in history of the world where atheists have been a majority. How can they be "restoring history" when those facts are staring them in the face? :)


Okay - do you understand what Dawkins is talking about? Two things, if you do: (1) What do you think would be a better word or phrase to describe what Dawkins is talking about than "Cultural Christian," and (2) what ought the phrase "Cultural Christian" mean, if not what Dawkins is talking about?


I'm not sure you really get his argument. I mean, he's an atheist saying he is some type of Christian, but only to mean 'I like some of the things you Christians like'. It is talking out of both sides of his mouth, like to not lose a possible fan base or something.

From Wiki, the term means


Cultural Christian is a broad term describing individuals who identify themselves as Christian, but who generally would not be described by other, more religious Christians, as active in their faith.

But hey, maybe he is: http://richarddawkins.net/images/atheistsForJesus.jpg

Biologists should stick to biology. Outside of their sphere they get a lil' lost. ;)

[joobz]

T'ai, you give an example that proves Dawkin's point and when presented this information you say:Well this argument doesn't make much sense, in fact, it seems to say 'hey, don't make any progress at all'. There's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center, and probably no time in history of the world where atheists have been a majority. How can they be "restoring history" when those facts are staring them in the face? :)Please attempt at writing a lucid statement next time. THere is no coherent argument here. The only thing here is a obvious attempt at trying to stir the atheist pot as it were.

DO you actually have any argument that will counter the claim that the change of our national motto in the 1950s from "E Pluribus Unum" to "In god we trust" wasn't an example of religion attempting to encroach onto a territory it wasn't supposed to be (the U.S government)?



I'm not sure you really get his argument. I mean, he's an atheist saying he is some type of Christian, but only to mean 'I like some of the things you Christians like'. It is talking out of both sides of his mouth, like to not lose a possible fan base or something.
I do not think you get his argument. In fact, I know you don't understand his point at all.

Religion is an expression of the culture that it sprang from. Have you ever noticed how you'll have Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Romanian orthodox, Albanian Orthodox, Bulgarian orthodox, macedonian orthodox...
Why do they have a country/cultural designation before each one?
Ever see a Roman catholic philippine wedding, or a Roman Catholic American wedding? There are many differences that exist between them that are culturally determined and have nothing to do with the religion. If that is possible, why couldn't the reverse be possible? That you partake in the cultural trappinigs that the religion has but don't actually believe in the religion.

Your only (rather transparent) argument here is that you dislike Dawkins and will attempt to ridicule every statement he makes. If your goal is to find fault with Dawkins, I suggest holding your peace until he actually says something that can be made fun of*.


*please note that I'm not really a dawkins fan. I simply don't see anything wrong with what he said in this instance.

[Big Les]

T'ai seems to be choosing not to understand a very simple concept and attributing it a significance that it doesn't deserve. Let's try again;

"Cultural" means of or pertaining to culture.
"Christian" refers to the religion of that name.

Because religion is historically and contemporaneously pretty all-pervading, most cultures are still imbued with a lot of history and tradition from whichever are their state religion(s). Therefore no matter how fervently you or I may wish it were otherwise, the MAJORITY of people born in the UK are "cultural" Christians by default. Dawkins is simply acknowledging this state of affairs, and saying that taking part in celebrations that have most recently been influenced by christianity, is perfectly consistent with his atheism.

What is so hard to understand?

[Henners]

Well, except for atheists trying to remove 'In God We Trust' from currency, eh? ;)

Dawkins is a cultural Christian... Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

I think that you'll find that Dawkins uses currency that claims (DEF) that his monarch is the Head of the Church, God's representative on the planet, and that representatives of that church have votes in his parliament.

The poor bugger is a "Cultural Christian" whether he likes it or not, and there are a heck of a lot of us.

[linusrichard]

The comment refers to Newdown or whatever his name is in the US. You do know there are atheists in the US, right?
1. His name is Newdow.
2. I don't think he's trying to get "In God We Trust" back off U.S. money. That's certainly not what he's known for. He's known for trying to get "under god" back out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. I do know there are atheists in the US, but I also know that Dawkins, subject of this thread, is not one.

But, from Wikipedia
All current [UK] coins include the Latin inscription ELIZABETH II DEI GRATIA REGINA FIDEI DEFENSOR in abbreviated form, which means "Elizabeth II, by the grace of God, Queen and Defender of the Faith", with Elizabeth II facing to the right.
So yeah, it is related. Moving on. :)
Yes - somewhat related. UK has God-talk on money. Is Dawkins working to get rid of that?

You're really telling me that putting a message on coins (that is based on our heritage) inflicts harm on people? Better give away all your money then! ;)
Har har har no. I didn't say "inflicts harm" or anything close to it. Just that it's inappropriate for our secular government to put a religious message on its money. That's the second time you've done that -- is it really that hard to simply disagree with someone without having to misrepresent their position?
Why isn't Newdown or whatever his name is winning his cases? Must be some conspiracy.
Newdow lost at the Supreme Court because a majority found that he did not have standing to bring the case. The substantive issue he brought before the Court was not decided. What this has to do with "In God We Trust" on money, or Dawkins, or cultural Christianity, I'm not sure.

Well this argument doesn't make much sense, in fact, it seems to say 'hey, don't make any progress at all'. There's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center, and probably no time in history of the world where atheists have been a majority. How can they be "restoring history" when those facts are staring them in the face? :)
Putting "In God We Trust" on money isn't progress. The point is not that the U.S. ever had atheism as its center, or that it ever had an atheist majority. The point is that it was set up to have a secular (not (necessarily) atheist) government - the people can have as much or as little God as they like, but the government is going to stay out of all that. We got along fine with godless money and godless Pledge of Allegiance until the 50s. The history I'm talking about restoring is not an imaginary history when most Americans were atheists, and we had an atheism-centered culture. It's a real-life history, when the money had the appropriate amount of God-talk on it.

I'm not sure you really get his argument. I mean, he's an atheist saying he is some type of Christian, but only to mean 'I like some of the things you Christians like'. It is talking out of both sides of his mouth, like to not lose a possible fan base or something.
I don't agree. I don't think I said it to you, but I said it further up in the thread. It doesn't make sense to think of a "Cultural Christian" as a type of Christian. Peanut butter isn't butter. The Golfer's Bible isn't a Bible. A void contract isn't a contract. Indian summer isn't summer. A cultural Christian is not necessarily a Christian (although one person can be both). (As a side note, it's also weird to accuse Dawkins, who as far as I can tell is one of the most abrasive, insensitive, and divisive characters around, of pandering.)

From Wiki, the term means
Cultural Christian is a broad term describing individuals who identify themselves as Christian, but who generally would not be described by other, more religious Christians, as active in their faith.
That's fine. His definition is different from wikisomebody's definition. I like his definition better; you like wikisomebody's definition better. If you can show me an actual dictionary definition that conflicts with Dawkins', then I'll concede that he should maybe pick a better term. But the whole argument still boils down to semantics - you're not accusing him of not being what he defines "cultural Christian" to be, I don't think. If he said, I'm an Eacita, and an Eacita is this, I'm guessing you wouldn't argue. You're miffed, as far as I can tell, because he used a word that you think belongs to you.
But hey, maybe he is: http://richarddawkins.net/images/atheistsForJesus.jpg
Atheists for Jesus are not Christians, in the sense that you or I would use the word.
Biologists should stick to biology. Outside of their sphere they get a lil' lost. ;)
He's discussing his own personal beliefs, culture, and values. That's certainly within his sphere, even if he is a biologist. It's within anyone's sphere to talk about that kind of personal stuff.


You didn't answer my other question - assuming you understand what Dawkins is talking about, what word or phrase would you consider best to describe what he's talking about? And don't say Eacita.

[Cuddles]

I'm about as strongly atheistic as they come, but I agree with Dawkins here. Like it or not, Christianity is a major part of our history and our culture. Whatever holidays were called thousands of years ago, they are called Christmas and Easter now. Whatever happens in the future, Christianity is the official religion now (although fortunately only in England, and possibly Scotland, not the UK). While Britain tends to the "Sunday morning Christian" end of things, rather than the more evangelical US style, the majority of peple still describe themselves as Christians. The influence of Christianity is declining, and hopefully will continue to do so, but there is no point denying that it is still there, and more importantly that it was there in the past and has helped shape pretty much all of our history.

I believe all Dawkins was trying to say is that he acknowledges all this. He's not pandering to anyone, he's just saying that he isn't trying to get everyone to throw out traditions that the majority of people, Chrisitian or otherwise, enjoy. It doesn't matter if you call it Christmas or Saturnalia, to most people it's just a good excuse to have a few days off work, eat and drink too much and watch some TV that you would never admit to watching any other time. It doesn't matter if you're singing about angels or about flourescent reindeer, it's the singing that people enjoy.

I am all for getting rid of Christianity, and all other religions, but that doesn't mean we have to throw out our entire culture just because it was influenced by Christianity. That is all Dawkins is saying. Regardless of the reason we have Christmas, we do have it now and he doesn't want to get rid of it. In the same way that you can have atheist Jews, you can have atheist Christians. The culture is that of the dominant religion, but you don't have to hold to the religion itself.

[T'ai Chi]

He's pandering. You can't say out of one side of your mouth that getting rid of religion means getting rid of violence, and then say out of the other side of your mouth 'oh, Im for keeping some of it'.

[Foster Zygote]

Um yeah... let's re-define words to mean whatever we want.

Words like "random"?

[Foster Zygote]

Biologists should stick to biology. Outside of their sphere they get a lil' lost. ;)

And yet T'ai Chi continues to talk about matters of biology that he is obviously ignorant of.

[joobz]

He's pandering. You can't say out of one side of your mouth that getting rid of religion means getting rid of violence, and then say out of the other side of your mouth 'oh, Im for keeping some of it'.Yes, it's almost like he's saying he likes nuclear power but hates nuclear war. madness!

[Darat]

He's pandering. You can't say out of one side of your mouth that getting rid of religion means getting rid of violence, and then say out of the other side of your mouth 'oh, Im for keeping some of it'.

Perhaps you can't but since that is not what Dawkins said it has nothing to do with what he actually did say...

[brodski]

Is that motto on UK currency as well?

No, we prefer "My God and My Right" although I'm not sure how many denominations it is currently inscribed on.

[Big Les]

Yes, it's almost like he's saying he likes nuclear power but hates nuclear war. madness!

Or likes medieval fairs but disapproves of bloody violence, poverty, and plague pits.

[UnrepentantSinner]

If other religions have as good holydays* as Christmas I really, really want them to become mainstream.

*Excuse to senselessly consume food and anything else to excess, an excuse to just be extra nice to anyone, two days public holidays and so on. A good summer one would be appreciated.

Since many Britons appear ever more glad to be rid of the U.S., why not suggest the adoption of July 4th?

[Darat]

That would be celebrating a civil war and I'm not keen on celebrating wars, I prefer to celebrate good stories.

[NobbyNobbs]

Judaism, Darat. Darat, Judaism.

You two get yourselves acquianted now. I think you're going to like Purim...


In fact, it's said that jujst about every Jewish holiday can be summed up in nine words:

"They tried to overpower us.
We survived.
Let's eat."

[UnrepentantSinner]

That would be celebrating a civil war and I'm not keen on celebrating wars, I prefer to celebrate good stories.

Point taken. How about a feast day for Doubting Thomas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_the_Apostle)?

[danielk]

Well this argument doesn't make much sense, in fact, it seems to say 'hey, don't make any progress at all'. There's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center, and probably no time in history of the world where atheists have been a majority.
I hate to break it to you, but here's the data from where I live:

Religious affiliations in Berlin of 3.4 million inhabitants
Roman-catholic|9.1 %|112 churches
Evangelic|22.3 %|461 churches
Muslim|6.2 %|46 mosques
Orthodox|1.32 %|8 churches
Jewish|0.4 %|7 synagogues
Buddhist|0.19 %|
Others|1.4 %|453 places
Free of confession|59.3 %|
Source: fowid (http://fowid.de/datenarchiv/uebersicht/)

Note that "Free of confession" does not necessarily mean no belief in a god of some sort, but for the majority it does. Add to that the large numbers of people who only nominally belong to a church:

Atheists in Germany nominally belonging to a religious group
Evangelic|20.6 %
Free evangelic churches|7.9 %
Catholic|9.0 %
Other Christian denominations|2.0 %
Non-Christian denominations|9.9 %
Free of confession|61.0 %
Source: fowid - Konfessionslose (http://fowid.de/nc/datenarchiv/uebersicht/themenfeld/konfessionslose/)

Scary, eh? I love it.

[Dragon]

Just to note that the comments by Dawkins linked to in the OP are consistent with what he has said and written in the past about The Bible and the Church of England

Richard Dawkins, the atheist author of The God Delusion, believes that children should grow up reading the Bible and says that he has a “soft spot” for the Church of England.

link (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1769416.ece)

[Mobyseven]

In fact, it's said that jujst about every Jewish holiday can be summed up in nine words:

"They tried to overpower us.
We survived.
Let's eat."

That actually describes half the Jewish holidays. The other half is as follows:

"They tried to overpower us.
They destroyed a lot of stuff.
Let's not eat."

Between the overeating holidays and the fasting holidays, a healthy weight is somehow maintained.

[This Guy]

Quote:
Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.
The comments came after Tory MP Mark Pritchard accused "politically correct" people of undermining Christmas. Professor Dawkins, author of the God Delusion, added that he liked "singing Carols along with everybody else".
This is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.

"So, yes, I like singing Carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. "If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists

It kinda funny this subject came up now. Just a day or two before this thread was started I was debating confessing that I liked many of the Christmas songs that get air time this time of year.

I'm not so embarrassed about that now :D

(I love the one Bing did, where he whistles, White Christmas I think? And the one he sang with David Bowie also, Little Drummer Boy?)

[NobbyNobbs]

That actually describes half the Jewish holidays. The other half is as follows:

"They tried to overpower us.
They destroyed a lot of stuff.
Let's not eat until later tonight, when we'll stuff ourselves silly."

Between the overeating holidays and the fasting holidays, a healthy weight is somehow maintained.


Fixed.

[Mobyseven]

...true.

[T'ai Chi]

Note that "Free of confession" does not necessarily mean no belief in a god of some sort, but for the majority it does.


You have yet to present actual statistics for *this* claim.

[T'ai Chi]

And moreover, I didn't say there hasn't been a culture with majority as vague 'free of confession'-ers.

I said there's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center. Like for example, archeologists come across some ruins, find some parchment and an old building, determined to be used by many people for worshipping something. Is there an atheist equivalent of something so influential? They don't seem to leave much tangible goods that says 'Aha! This culture was predominately atheist.' to the archeologist.

And I'm not sure how to interpret "Atheists in Germany nominally belonging to a religious group". Would that make them religious or atheist? It is kind of vague.

[danielk]

You have yet to present actual statistics for *this* claim.
The second table does precisely that, although for the whole of Germany. Look it up, it says 61%. If anything, the percentage will very likely be higher for Berlin alone. And don't forget to add the atheists nominally belonging to some religious denomination.

It is crystal clear that atheists enjoy at least a simple majority in Berlin by a good margin. From the numbers I have found I cannot say for sure that atheists enjoy an absolute majority, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do. It's definitely close.

[danielk]

And moreover, I didn't say there hasn't been a culture with majority as vague 'free of confession'-ers.
That's just a commonly used term in Germany. Look at the second table.

Is there an atheist equivalent of something so influential? They don't seem to leave much tangible goods that says 'Aha! This culture was predominately atheist.' to the archeologist.
That request will never be fulfilled since atheism by itself doesn't come with any cultural elements prepackaged. You can have a culture that is predominantly atheist, but I don't see how that would be recognizable from artifacts, except by an apparent lack of religious symbols. Anyway, it's probably true that atheist cultures were rather rare during the history of human civilization. However, the present does look a lot better in that regard.

And I'm not sure how to interpret "Atheists in Germany nominally belonging to a religious group". Would that make them religious or atheist? It is kind of vague.
This part of the data is based on a questionnaire. They asked people whether they believe in the existence of a god. Good enough for you?

Anyway, I don't know why you insist on being pedantic here. I could have used numbers from former socialist countries to smack you down, if I had wanted to show the highest atheist percentage. I didn't because I think socialism is too close to being a religion itself, and it would have been unfair because religion used to be suppressed in these countries. On the other hand religion didn't enjoy nearly the full comeback some had hoped for after the Wall fell (religious people are still a minority, but have reached two-digit percentages now if I remember correctly). Of course, Berlin includes an Eastern part, so we have a good mixture here.

More to the point, religion plays hardly any role in daily life. Strongly religious people are a curiosity. However, it isn't a culture "based on atheism", but simply a culture lacking religion. The former would be nonsensical.

[T'ai Chi]

The second table does precisely that, although for the whole of Germany. Look it up, it says 61%.


Well of course I can see that number right there, but your logic is off.

Your table shows the % of atheists in Germany that are free of confession, not the % free of confession in Berlin that are atheists, which is what you are after.

[T'ai Chi]

That request will never be fulfilled since atheism by itself doesn't come with any cultural elements prepackaged.


Well neither does just a 'spiritual' feeling, but we see tons of examples of such sentiment manifesting itself in archeological finds throughout history.

You're expecting me to believe that in all the history of the planet, no doubters of religion anywhere will leave anything behind on atheism but a few books here and there? If you're saying atheism is important, and people build buildings and monuments about important things, you'd think you'd find a few.


I could have used numbers from former socialist countries to smack you down, if I had wanted to show the highest atheist percentage.


I'm sure.

[danielk]

Well of course I can see that number right there, but your logic is off.

Your table shows the % of atheists in Germany that are free of confession, not the % free of confession in Berlin that are atheists, which is what you are after.
Ah, I see what you mean now. However, the table is correct. I should have used a better caption. Here's the original German:
Innerhalb aller Kirchenmitglieder bzw. Konfessionslosen sind die Anteile:
Evangelische Kirchenmitglieder sind zu 20,6 % Atheisten
[...]
And then the other numbers, just as in the table. The part after the colon translates to "20.6 % of the members of the Evangelical church are atheists". The same goes for each row, including those "free of confession".

ETA: Oh, and you could choose between the following options in the questionnaire:


Es gibt einen persönlichen Gott (there is a personal god)
Es gibt irgendein höheres Wesen oder eine geistige Macht (there is some higher being or spiritual power)
Ich weiß nicht richtig, was ich glauben soll (I'm not sure what to believe)
Ich glaube nicht, dass es einen persönlichen Gott, irgendein höheres Wesen oder eine geistige Macht gibt (I do not believe that there is a personal god, some higher being, or a spiritual power)

Only people who chose the fourth option were counted as atheists. In other words, the numbers I have shown don't even include agnostics.

[linusrichard]

I said there's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center. Like for example, archeologists come across some ruins, find some parchment and an old building, determined to be used by many people for worshipping something. Is there an atheist equivalent of something so influential? They don't seem to leave much tangible goods that says 'Aha! This culture was predominately atheist.' to the archeologist.


Why would such a thing exist? Why would, or how could, a culture be centered around atheism? If a culture were mostly atheist, why would we be able to find evidence of this? Five thousand years from now, will archaeologists be able to tell from our ruins that most of us didn't believe in leprechauns? Why not? Why wouldn't we have some parchment or an old building or something dedicated to our non-belief in leprechauns? I don't have statistics, but I would wager at least 98% of our society doesn't believe in leprechauns. In the face of that vast uniformity of unbelief, why wouldn't we leave some evidence behind? In the face of that vast uniformity of unbelief, can you really say we don't have a culture centered around aleprechaunism?

[danielk]

Well neither does just a 'spiritual' feeling, but we see tons of examples of such sentiment manifesting itself in archeological finds throughout history.
Yes, there are many ways to express a spiritual belief, and we recognize the forms of worship known to us.

You're expecting me to believe that in all the history of the planet, no doubters of religion anywhere will leave anything behind on atheism but a few books here and there? If you're saying atheism is important, and people build buildings and monuments about important things, you'd think you'd find a few.
Atheism is only important in a cultural sense if embedded within a religious culture. What do you expect an atheist artifact to look like? Is it so hard to understand that atheism by itself cannot have any cultural elements? It's defined as "not something else"! An isolated pure atheist culture without any known theist heritage wouldn't even be aware of its atheism.

Anyway, as I already stated I don't actually care much if there were atheist societies throughout history. If there were, it can't have been many. Human civilization is barely ten thousand years old as far as I'm aware. We progressed from gods and spirits for everything scary or important in nature, to organized polytheism, to monotheism. There's a clear tendency towards the abstract. Now we only need to get rid of one more god and we're done. :cool:

But there is no need to push it as long as we're left alone. Force wouldn't work anyway, and maybe there will always be people who need to believe in a god of some sort. So no need to worry.

[m_huber]

Question: do Buddhists believe in anything that would qualify them for theism? I honestly don't know.

[linusrichard]

Well neither does just a 'spiritual' feeling, but we see tons of examples of such sentiment manifesting itself in archeological finds throughout history.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Is there an archaeological find you're aware of that shows a cultural importance placed on "just a 'spiritual' feeling"?

You're expecting me to believe that in all the history of the planet, no doubters of religion anywhere will leave anything behind on atheism but a few books here and there? If you're saying atheism is important, and people build buildings and monuments about important things, you'd think you'd find a few.


Did he say atheism is important? I don't see how atheism is important, in a cultural sense. Rational thought is important, to a certain extent, and atheism is the necessary result of rational thought applied to the question of God, but I still don't see it.

You're looking at atheism through theist glasses (which is not entirely your fault, I guess). You think the God question is important because you believe in God. This doesn't mean the God question is important. If there is no God, the God question is not important. If a culture believes there is no God, it is natural for that culture to not consider the God question important. There's an asymmetry there that you're missing. Many cultures have centered themselves around their particular answer to the God question, but only because they had a positive answer.

[linusrichard]

Question: do Buddhists believe in anything that would qualify them for theism? I honestly don't know.

This isn't the easiest question. Although Buddhism doesn't require a belief in any deity, there are some Buddhist sects that I think it is only fair to describe as theist (I'm thinking particularly of Pure Land here). Additionally, many Buddhists also believe in other religions.

In short, I consider Buddhism an atheist religion, but many, if not most, Buddhists are theists.

There are Buddhists on this forum - I don't know if any of them are watching this thread.

[Foster Zygote]

You're expecting me to believe that in all the history of the planet, no doubters of religion anywhere will leave anything behind on atheism but a few books here and there? If you're saying atheism is important, and people build buildings and monuments about important things, you'd think you'd find a few.

Just in case you are reading the posts of people you claim to have on ignore, I would like to ask: What is your point?

Why do you insist on treating atheism as though it is some equal opposite to religion? Do you know why there are no monuments to atheism? Do you know why atheism isn't at the center of any societies? It's because atheism is rarely at the center of the lives of individual atheists themselves. Atheists rarely base their lives on atheism the way a Christian bases his life on Christianity or a Muslim bases her life on Islam. I can only speak for myself, but I'm confident that many atheists here will agree when I say that I would not even think of my atheism at all if not for the fact that other people are theists who engage in behavior that ranges in spectrum from willingness to engage me in interesting conversation about their differing beliefs, to imposing laws based on their religious beliefs that threaten my liberty, to actively wishing me death and suffering because I do not share their beliefs. Outside of that atheism has little significance to my life. I am an atheist, not an Atheist. Atheism is not the center of my life.

[-Fran-]

Why would such a thing exist? Why would, or how could, a culture be centered around atheism? If a culture were mostly atheist, why would we be able to find evidence of this? Five thousand years from now, will archaeologists be able to tell from our ruins that most of us didn't believe in leprechauns? Why not? Why wouldn't we have some parchment or an old building or something dedicated to our non-belief in leprechauns? I don't have statistics, but I would wager at least 98% of our society doesn't believe in leprechauns. In the face of that vast uniformity of unbelief, why wouldn't we leave some evidence behind? In the face of that vast uniformity of unbelief, can you really say we don't have a culture centered around aleprechaunism?

Myself, I show my dedication to aleprechaunism by NOT buying a tacky garden gnome and put it in the yard :) The non-existence of garden gnomes here is quite telling.


:p

[linusrichard]

Myself, I show my dedication to aleprechaunism by NOT buying a tacky garden gnome and put it in the yard :) The non-existence of garden gnomes here is quite telling.


:p

Good point. I'm sure future archaeologists will note your gnomeless yard as a very significant find!

;)

(How will they reconcile it with my tackily begnomed yard? I can see the paper now: 21st Century America: A Nation in Conflict...)

ETA: Oof, you're in Sweden - make that 21st Century Earth: A Planet Divided.

[-Fran-]

Good point. I'm sure future archaeologists will note your gnomeless yard as a very significant find!

;)

I damn well hope so! Or all this frantic non-buying of garden gnomes will have been in vain :( ;)


(How will they reconcile it with my tackily begnomed yard? I can see the paper now: 21st Century America: A Nation in Conflict...)

ETA: Oof, you're in Sweden - make that 21st Century Earth: A Planet Divided.

:D

[Henners]

I said there's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center.

...which is exactly as it should be.

Cultures should have humanity at their centre.

Sky fairies are for cripples.

[m_huber]

This isn't the easiest question. Although Buddhism doesn't require a belief in any deity, there are some Buddhist sects that I think it is only fair to describe as theist (I'm thinking particularly of Pure Land here). Additionally, many Buddhists also believe in other religions.

In short, I consider Buddhism an atheist religion, but many, if not most, Buddhists are theists.

There are Buddhists on this forum - I don't know if any of them are watching this thread.

I kind of get the same impression from what I know of Buddhism (which isn't as much as it should be).

If Buddhism is in fact an atheistic belief system, then many Asian cultures could be described as cultures based on atheism.

[articulett]

And yet T'ai Chi continues to talk about matters of biology that he is obviously ignorant of.

T'ai continues to talk about MATTERS that he is obviously ignorant of.

I think that scientific progress and civil rights has been hindered by religion every step of the way... they do like to blind themselves to their outright abuses and elevate tangential help that promotes the fabulousness of theism-- but the points are not very valid-- yes, the church supported science for a bit...it was the only way people could get educated and it had all the money--but when science started questioning it's doctrine, they put the ignorance blockages in place.

When civil right leaders are theists--religion gets credit; when bad guys are atheists, atheists get the blame. Religion gets a lot of credit for good more rightly done for secular reasons and atheism gets the blame for everything bad.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I have a cultural conundrum when it comes to diet. Am I a cultural Muslim/Christian/Jew/Buddhist/Hindu because I love lamb, but eat ham, sometimes don't eat meat on Fridays, but don't eat fish, love beef hot dogs but won't give up lobster and shrimp, love veggie dishes, but won't give up my meats and to come full circle, while I love lamb, I won't give up hamburgers?

The observation of holidays, be it date, rites or holy songs I can take or leave, but my decision about what I want to breakfast, lunch or dinner will never be dictated by any religion I observe or do not.

When civil right leaders are theists--religion gets credit; when bad guys are atheists, atheists get the blame. Religion gets a lot of credit for good more rightly done for secular reasons and atheism gets the blame for everything bad.

Can someone quote this so Arti will get a chance to read it?

If you haven't read Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers yet - do so. She makes an awesome case about how while the Temperance Leagues and Southern black pastors get all the historical press, atheists and secularists were very much active on the front of women's sufferage the Civil Rights era. While her investigation into the issue of slavery is informative, I think the forgotten history of the involvement of secularists (especially atheists and agnostics) in the 20th Century is fascinating compared with the revisionism of D. James Kennedy and web idiots like DOC, etc.

[linusrichard]

If Buddhism is in fact an atheistic belief system, then many Asian cultures could be described as cultures based on atheism.

I don't agree. Even if you find a culture based on Buddhism (some Asian cultures are, some are not), that doesn't mean that the culture is based on atheism. It's not that atheism is a part of Buddhism, it's just that theism is not a part of Buddhism.

Buddhism is an aleprechaunist belief system, but it doesn't make sense to consider any Asian culture to be based on alprechaunism.

[m_huber]

I don't agree. Even if you find a culture based on Buddhism (some Asian cultures are, some are not), that doesn't mean that the culture is based on atheism. It's not that atheism is a part of Buddhism, it's just that theism is not a part of Buddhism.

Buddhism is an aleprechaunist belief system, but it doesn't make sense to consider any Asian culture to be based on alprechaunism.

Forgive me, my understanding of Buddhism is rather weak. It just seems, from what I know of it, that Buddhist spirituality is essentially compatible with atheism (though perhaps not always skepticism). I suppose what I really mean is that, if Buddhists don't have a god, then a culture based on Buddhism will be a culture that is not built around any god(s), which is, by definition, atheistic.

Perhaps I don't follow your argument because I don't know what "alprechaunism" is (and neither did my dictionary). I'm really not sure if this is a valid example of an atheistic society or not, I'm just throwing it out in answer to Tai Chi. Nonetheless, it would still be intellectually amusing.

[joobz]

Just in case you are reading the posts of people you claim to have on ignore, I would like to ask: What is your point?
I do not see the point either.

What if all past cultures had some religion involved? Does this prove all religions are equally valid or equally parasitic?

[Zarathustra]

It's perfectly possible to respect and enjoy traditions without actively practising or even condoning the religion that inspired (or co-opted) it.

Perhaps even more so as we are reminded that the vast majority of common Christmas traditions are unrelated in origin to the religion of Christianity.

[T'ai Chi]

Atheism is only important in a cultural sense if embedded within a religious culture.


Then you're admitting that

a) theism came first / we are born theists, and
b) there has been no entirely atheistic culture

I'm not sure fellow atheists would agree with those two things.


Is it so hard to understand that atheism by itself cannot have any cultural elements?


One can see a few atheist organizations in present day. They have books, speeches, buildings, symbols, etc. It is not too fantastic to consider the possibility of such things existing somewhere in the distant past given the thousands of years of atheism, that archeological digs could uncover.

[danielk]

Then you're admitting that

a) theism came first / we are born theists, and
b) there has been no entirely atheistic culture
Now, really, this is just lame. In the context of our discussion, "Theists came first" refers to theist culture. "We are born atheists" is the claim that every individual human being is born into this world without a belief in god. The latter is pretty much self-evident. How should a new-born baby be able to believe in something it has no idea of?

As it happens, when these little human beings grow up, many of them begin to ask questions about the world and their place in it. Since the enlightenment would still be a couple thousand years into the future, but the people at that time needed answers anyway, they had to make them up. It was only natural to extent their social knowledge towards nature and assume it works along the same lines, except for being vastly more powerful. In other words, they anthropomorphized natural phenomena to be able to explain them. What we know of human history appears to support this hypothesis pretty well.

I'm not sure fellow atheists would agree with those two things.
Why not? The first humans capable of asking themselves "why" questions simply thought nature works like a human society, with rulers and stronger groups and all that. Can't blame them. They didn't know what we know now.

One can see a few atheist organizations in present day. They have books, speeches, buildings, symbols, etc. It is not too fantastic to consider the possibility of such things existing somewhere in the distant past given the thousands of years of atheism, that archeological digs could uncover.
Have you actually bothered to read what others and I have written in this thread? The answer to your question was explained to you a couple of times already. You are not stupid, so please spare us the dumb acting and read.

[Rrose Selavy]

I kind of get the same impression from what I know of Buddhism (which isn't as much as it should be).

If Buddhism is in fact an atheistic belief system, then many Asian cultures could be described as cultures based on atheism.

I'm no great scholar but I'll have a go, Buddhism in it's original sense , if you go back to what the historical Buddha actually said, as far as we know, could be more accurately described as non-theistic rather than atheistic. He didn't answer common relgious questions because so he provided no new creation myths and refused to answer such questions, but he came out of a culture that was religious and his teachings spread and absorbed into a non rational religious culture so semi mythical beings,deities, reincarnation, etc almost inevitably became part of Buddhism - even though the teaching might thrive in some ways the prevaining religious culture couldn't just be swept away. A lot of mythology has undoubtedly been added over time to the Buddha's own life.


There are Buddhist atheists, non theists and Buddhist Christians. Buddha neither denied not affirmed the existence of "god" he simply emphasised that to him, there was the more immediate issue of human suffering..

Like the story told of the arrow that strikes you in the eye while walking in the forest. What's the first thing you do? Find out where the arrow came from or get it out of your eye? It 's this psychological/spiritual first aid that he was concerned with , not banishing demons or deities or asking "How was the universe made"?

[linusrichard]

Forgive me, my understanding of Buddhism is rather weak. It just seems, from what I know of it, that Buddhist spirituality is essentially compatible with atheism (though perhaps not always skepticism). I suppose what I really mean is that, if Buddhists don't have a god, then a culture based on Buddhism will be a culture that is not built around any god(s), which is, by definition, atheistic.
Right, I think you're right about that. I'm pointing out what I see as an important difference, which is the difference between "a culture that is not build around any god(s)" and a culture that is built around the absence of any gods.

Perhaps I don't follow your argument because I don't know what "alprechaunism" is (and neither did my dictionary). I'm really not sure if this is a valid example of an atheistic society or not, I'm just throwing it out in answer to Tai Chi. Nonetheless, it would still be intellectually amusing.
"Aleprechaunism" is something I just made up, I think it was this thread, to point out the absurdity of a culture centered on a nonbelief.

[andyandy]

Can someone quote this so Arti will get a chance to read it?

If you haven't read Susan Jacoby's Freethinkers yet - do so. She makes an awesome case about how while the Temperance Leagues and Southern black pastors get all the historical press, atheists and secularists were very much active on the front of women's sufferage the Civil Rights era. While her investigation into the issue of slavery is informative, I think the forgotten history of the involvement of secularists (especially atheists and agnostics) in the 20th Century is fascinating compared with the revisionism of D. James Kennedy and web idiots like DOC, etc.

there we go....though i think she might have me on ignore as well ;)

[joobz]

Have you actually bothered to read what others and I have written in this thread?
Most likely not.


I find it amusing that he's asserting the fact that almost all cultures having religion as being a good thing. What about the number of cultures that had surfdom/caste systems? Does that make social inequity a good thing?


His logic is so horrificly flawed, I'm starting to believe that T'ai is going for the "Stupidest post on JREF award".


All he needs to do in order to ensure victory is to, in a single post, include randomness of evolution, atheism cause of stalin/mao deaths, people being born theist, use the word stochastic, diss dawkins, and post a like saying interesting.

[m_huber]

Right, I think you're right about that. I'm pointing out what I see as an important difference, which is the difference between "a culture that is not build around any god(s)" and a culture that is built around the absence of any gods.

So I guess the real question is how we would define an atheistic culture. If, as was suggested earlier, an atheistic culture would tend to focus on humanity rather than deities, then I think this is a winner. Of course, if atheism means no belief in the supernatural, then it wouldn't do, but if atheism is no belief in a god or pantheon, then it would seem to be.

If we are looking for a culture that worships atheism, then I don't think we could even find an individual to qualify.


"Aleprechaunism" is something I just made up, I think it was this thread, to point out the absurdity of a culture centered on a nonbelief.

Right.. I had read that post, but when I saw it later on, I kept breaking the word up in a funny way..

Well, exams are over now, so perhaps I can have my mind back to do some thinking..

[T'ai Chi]

, to point out the absurdity of a culture centered on a nonbelief.

So what you're saying is that it, by definition, has no chance to be mainstream, ever? That it is an idea that loses from the start?

[Darat]

So what you're saying is that it, by definition, has no chance to be mainstream, ever? That it is an idea that loses from the start?
Given your tendency to misrepresent and lie please provide a link to the entire post that you have only partly quoted so it can be seen if you are misrepresenting the Member's point or not.

[T'ai Chi]

Given your tendency to misrepresent and lie please provide a link to the entire post that you have only partly quoted so it can be seen if you are misrepresenting the Member's point or not.

Wah.

'Don't tell others how you'd like them to post.' comes to mind.

[Darat]

Wah.

'Don't tell others how you'd like them to post.' comes to mind.

Since you do not care to provide a link to the quote I will, based on past experience of your lies and misrepresentations of what people have said, assume that this is yet another example of you misrepresenting a Member's point and therefore there is nothing of relevance to the topic under discussion that is worth responding to.

[UnrepentantSinner]

So what you're saying is...

Given your tendency to misrepresent and lie please provide a link to the entire post that you have only partly quoted so it can be seen if you are misrepresenting the Member's point or not.

His post was a double whammy since he started it with what I quoted which is a sure sign he's getting ready to twist the meaning of what that person said.

You're a great troll T'ai.

[brodski]

Wah.

'Don't tell others how you'd like them to post.' comes to mind.

Don't misrepresent other posters posts if you don't want to get called on it.

[T'ai Chi]

Don't misrepresent other posters posts if you don't want to get called on it.

No "called" on it here. :) I simply asked the person some questions.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally Posted by danielk


I could have used numbers from former socialist countries to smack you down, if I had wanted to show the highest atheist percentage.


Would these be regimes led under Stalin, Lenin, or Maozidong by any chance?

[brodski]

No "called" on it here. :) I simply asked the person some questions.

So what you're saying is that you deliberately lied about what others had posted and then whined about it when people pointed out your dishonesty?

Just asking questions here... :)

[linusrichard]

So what you're saying is that it, by definition, has no chance to be mainstream, ever? That it is an idea that loses from the start?
I can't really answer your question without knowing what "it" refers to. Does it refer to "a culture centered on nonbelief"? If so, then the question doesn't make sense to me, but I guess the answer is yes. I guess. If "it" refers to nonbelief itself, then no, of course not. Nonbelief is mainstream - nonbelief in leprechauns, in unicorns, in fairies, in Thor, etc. What is absurd is to expect that a culture could be built around aleprechaunism, or athorism, or atheism.

Either you're not reading what I (and some others on this thread) have already written, or you're not reading it carefully. We're going in circles.

Would these be regimes led under Stalin, Lenin, or Maozidong by any chance?

Well, since he referred to "former socialist countries," then obviously not. Didn't you already respond to this already, anyway, with an "I'm sure"? I think you did!

[Dr Adequate]

The "cultural Christian" bit is what I find most nauseating.

The constant low-level background noise of Christianity passes unnoticed by many and IMHO is only thrown into sharp relief when one has lived away from it and returned.

Not until then is its pervasive, mad dribblings an annoyance akin to water-torture. Interesting avatar you have there. Is it some sort of seasonal festivity?

[Dr Adequate]

I said there's been no culture, from what I can tell, with atheism as its center. The word "duh" springs to mind.

[danielk]

Would these be regimes led under Stalin, Lenin, or Maozidong by any chance?
Looks like you lost the argument, since you're now speaking in hypotheticals twice removed. Since I didn't use these numbers and even already explained that the suppression of religion was one of the reasons I didn't do so, I fail to see your point.

You lost. Get over it.

[T'ai Chi]

So what you're saying is that you deliberately lied about what others had posted and then whined about it when people pointed out your dishonesty?

Just asking questions here... :)

So what you're saying is you misunderstand a lot.

(notice no question mark there.)

[Mobyseven]

So what you're saying is you misunderstand a lot.

(notice no question mark there.)

(Notice inappropriate use of an interrogative pronoun where a relative pronoun would have been more appropriate)

If you're going to try and look smart, don't write in 'clumsy' English.

ETA: Yes, I know that 'what' can function as a relative pronoun, but that particular sentence would have been better expressed as, "So you are saying that you misundertand a lot." "What" is unnecessarily ambiguous and clunky.

[brodski]

So what you're saying is you misunderstand a lot.



That would be a lie.

And a particularly stupid lie at that, given that anyone who reads your lie will also be able to read what I actually said.