| It’s Christmas Eve. Christmas morn is almost upon us, the culmination of a holiday season that began shortly after Labor Day. It’s a great time of year for atheists.
Christmas as celebrated in America is a family holiday. It is a time to gather together with friends, family and loved ones. It is a time of eating, drinking, and merrymaking, diets be damned. It is a time to exchange gifts, especially to children.
In fact, if we’re honest, Christmas is mostly about children. We older ones experience the day vicariously through them, remembering our own Christmases past. If your Christmas tree is like mine, it’s decked with ornaments from the ages. There’s a special one we put on our very first tree together. There are Norwegian flags from her childhood, and an ornament in the shape of a pickle hiding amid the greenery as it did on her grandparents’ tree.
Christmas is a time of tradition, of history, of magic. When I was a kid, my parents would bring us kids on the subway to Boston Common to see the trees all covered with colored lights. We’d warm up with a cup of cocoa at Chock Full o’ Nuts (they put whipped cream on top!). Then we’d check out the animated windows of Jordan Marsh, and maybe even visit the Enchanted Village. There were other people dressed like Santa around Boston, but they were merely Santa’s helpers. Everyone knew that the Real Santa was in the Enchanted Village at Jordan Marsh.
Sooner or later, though, our childish minds would start to work things out. We’d compare what we knew of the world to what we were being told. Just how was Santa supposed to fit down our chimney, anyway? We didn’t have a fireplace. “He comes in through the front door.” But the front door is always locked before Dad goes to bed. “We leave it open for him,” I was told. In this neighborhood? Sooner or later, the pieces would fall together and we’d realize the deception. The adults would confess, a little nervously, and swear us in as the newest conspirators of the Magic Preservation Guild to keep the secret for our younger siblings. We’ll always remember that as the Christmas We Grew Up. (Sadly, we’ll always remember the next Christmas as the Christmas We Got Socks and Underwear. Growing up is a mixed blessing.)
That’s why I think this is a great time of year for atheists. There’s history and tradition and wonder, but there’s also a wink and a nod to those of us who’ve used our own reason to figure things out. Childish belief in magic is treasured, but it’s intended for little children. Any grownup who still insists on the reality of Santa is just creepy, and you probably don’t want to sit in his lap. Perhaps someday we’ll be able to say the same thing about other magical beliefs.
In the meantime, Happy Christmas to all! Just one thing: if you’re going out a-wassailing, leave the one-horse open sleigh at home, or bring a designated driver. You wouldn’t want to miss the fun next Christmas. | comments: 2 comments or Leave a comment   |
| Since debate in this community often centers around Judeo-Christian cultural perspectives, I thought I'd offer something a little different. Professor Richard Hayes, in a series of lectures given at Leiden University, discusses ten philosophical questions that could be asked of Buddhists that are relevant to Western strands of philosophical inquiry. One of those lectures discusses the classical Buddhist arguments against the possibility of a single source of creation. Since I'm both dumb and lazy, I'm not going to attempt to summarize those arguments here, but offer the text of the lecture [PDF] for your leisurely perusal. And since, as I mentioned, I'm rather dumb, I'm at a loss as to whether the arguments made are in any way sound - although they seem so - or whether aspects of them have been addressed by Western philosophers or theologians.
Here's where you come in. If you are interested in reading this somewhat brief lecture and would like to attempt to rebut the arguments contained therein, I would be most grateful and interested in your arguments. I will also do my best to defend the arguments and/or explain the cultural/historical context in which they occurred. Or if you would not like to be bothered to compose original arguments, you may instead point me toward literature that would help me see past the convincing lines of reasoning that these arguments present. In either case,
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif) convert_me | | comments: 13 comments or Leave a comment |
| Christianity is a syncretic religion. That is, it tries to combine different traditions and schools of thought as a means of reconciling disparate beliefs. For example, the Hebrew scriptures are quite emphatic about there being only one God, but that gave the early Christians problems when they tried to assert the divinity of Jesus. The answer: there is only one God, who is a trinity of persons, but only one God. Perfectly clear to the believer, perfect nonsense to the infidel.
We find the same merging of traditions when looking at other divine or semi-divine entities, such as angels. The Hebrew scriptures describes an angel as a messenger of God. Tradition added names, roles, and ranks. So we have Metatron, the Voice of God from the Talmudic tradition, an angel second in rank only to God himself. Christianity gave us Gabriel, who spoke to Mary and Mohammed. There’s Michael the Archangel, general of the hosts of heaven. And there’s Raphael, the healer, and Uriel whose role is unclear but you need four angels if you want to have one for each of the cardinal points of the compass.
When I was a Christian, I thought belief in angels was at best irrelevant; at worst idolatry. If you posit an omnimax God (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), helpers and henchmen are insignificant. If you worship angels, you’re contravening the First Commandment. In this, I was definitely in the minority. According to a Harris poll on religious belief, 68% of American adults believe in angels. (76% of Republicans believe in angels.)
Just in time for Christmas, with its Annunciating Angels and Hosanna-ing Hosts, comes a new study on the subject of angelic flight. According to Professor Roger S. Wotton, professor of biology at the University College of London, angels simply cannot fly. No way, no how, no can do.
Wotton looked at all available representations of angels, fairies, dragons, and putti (putti are those chubby little cherubs we find hovering about the fringes of much Christian art). Unlike birds, which are evolved reptiles whose forelimbs changed over the aeons into wings, angels are just humans with human skeletons and musculature. Bird wings are tacked on as an afterthought. There’s no supporting skeletal or muscular structure to support wings, and they are far too small to lift the weight of even a chubby cherub. Wotton’s essay can be found here, and it’s delightful.
Of course, it won’t persuade a single believer. Their faith is iron-clad and impervious to either science or humor. For the rest of us, it’s a fun holiday read. If angels do fly, after all, it’s because they take themselves lightly. | | comments: 9 comments or Leave a comment |
| At 12:47 this afternoon (Eastern Standard Time), the North Pole will be angled furthest away from the sun. That is, the axial tilt of Terra relative to Sol will be at its most acute. For the Northern Hemisphere, it is the shortest day of the year. Here in New Saint Botolph’s Town, the sun rose this morning at 7:10 a.m. and will set at 4:14 p.m - just a little over nine hours of daylight. Bad news if you’re an office cubicle troglodyte with Seasonal Affective Disorder. It is also the official beginning of winter, but those of us who shoveled snow yesterday already had a pretty good idea of the season.
Our ancestors lit fires today to encourage the sun’s return. It’s not that they really believed the sun would go dark. Primitive doesn’t mean stupid. But if you lived in northern latitudes, it was a darned good excuse for a party. The cider that was put by in October was developing into a pretty decent tipple, and there were other potent beverages to keep you warm. Animals that you didn’t want to keep through the winter were slaughtered and smoked, salted, dried, or roasted. The offal was minced for sausages, haggis, and puddings, and pies. The deep midwinter was almost upon us, we hoped we’d make it through to the spring.
The Solstice has always been a significant date for religion. The forces of darkness have to be battled back, and the forces of light encouraged. Even after the early bull-and-cow cults were supplanted by mighty gods like that preached prophet Zoroaster, elements of the old beliefs still crept through. Ahura Mazda was represented as light and fire; the evil Ahriman was darkness. The bull and sun gods were translated into another form, to be worshipped by the far-flung Roman legions as Mithras and the Unconquerable Sun. Sol Invictus later became an official Roman cult.
The Romans collected religions like some people collect Beanie Babies. The turning of the year was a great time to celebrate the god Saturn. Invented to raise morale after a military defeat around 217 BCE, Saturnalia stretched from a one-day celebration to a whole week by the time of Caesar Augustus. Social strictures were eased and even reversed. Drinking, eating and merrymaking were the order of the day.
Later Christians sought to stamp out the drunken revelry of Saturnalia by claiming the day to celebrate the birth of their God. It took a while, since the earliest Christians were Jews who saw the celebration of anyone’s birth as a pagan custom. But, several hundred years after the event, which certainly did not take place at the Solstice, Christians were able to stomp out Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, and heathen festivals in favor of a new holiday.
Personally, I’m tired of these people trying to take Saturn out of Saturnalia. When you go to the Forum, what do you hear from merchants? Not “Io, Saturnalia.” No, now it’s “merry christmas.” This is a Roman nation, and we worship Roman Gods. If the christians don’t want to celebrate Saturnalia, let them exile themselves back to the Provinces where they came from. | | comments: 67 comments or Leave a comment |
| Global warming! World hunger! War! Pedophiles! These are the things that we seem to wring our hands about as whole societies. This is what we see on the TV and hear on the radio. It makes for good news. Especially if you have a celebrity talking about it, because celebrities are better than the rest of us and because we are all personal friends of theirs ("Oh yes, I know (him/her)! I read (his/her) twitter every day!).
Groan.
When I walk around outside I see the seeds of society's failure every day. I see the failure of most of the population around me to recognize that their wellbeing depends upon their cooperation with others.
I live in a busy city. I used to work in the heart of it every weekday. And every weekday, while on my way to work, I would have to cross several streets as a pedestrian. There were always dozens of other pedestrians waiting at the lights to do the same. Quite regularly the street we were waiting to cross would be quite packed with cars, such that they was one or two in the middle of the intersection. Large city buses often did this, knowing that the traffic ahead would move momentarily (the next light is green). Quite often, though, the lights would change just as the bus was crawling out of the intersection.
What do you think happened? As soon as the lights changed, 50 pedestrians would begin to cross. The vast majority of them would cross in front of the bus. There was now a space for the bus to move into, but that didn't matter to these people. They had the pedestrian light, so they were crossing. End of story. Meanwhile the bus was blocking the cross-street. Hundreds of cars had to wait until the next lights because this bus was in the way. And behind them, hundreds more had to wait at their lights because these cars in front of them weren't moving.
But what if those 50 pedestrians had waited for all of 10 seconds and let the bus through? Well, then everything would have been fine. No gridlock, no enraged drivers. Just some pedestrians waiting for 10 seconds.
It happens on an even smaller scale. There is a driveway into a warehouse around the corner from me, on a busy street. Occasionally while walking down the footpath I see a car waiting to enter or leave the driveway. There is a light up the road. If the light is red, the car has a chance to get in or out. If it is green they certainly will not be able to do so until it changes again. But in just 4 weeks, I have on several occasions watched as other pedestrians strolled obliviously across the driveway, blocking the car that had a brief chance to get onto the street. Had they waved the car through, or just walked behind it, that driver would have been able to get out. Or more importantly, get in, and not block 100 meters of traffic behind them.
I could make similar rants about the crap I've been hearing on the radio about how pubs have to close because alcohol is evil, or speeding drivers, drugs, what have you. It always seems to come down to the failure of just a few people to get some situational awareness as they live their lives.
What's the explanation? Are people stupid? Oblivious? Or is it just a lack of social responsibility? How do we teach this? | | comments: 44 comments or Leave a comment |
| Send in the trains!
Ok, so all this environmental news has got me thinkin'. Everyone is busy talking up the technology-gospel as our way out of this mess. Hey, really, all we need to do is buy enough solar panels and everything will be fine. I'm not sold on this idea. In fact, I think it is the exact opposite. Technology is of the devil.
Take the tractor, for instance. We all like the tractor. The tractor lets a single person farm 20 acres a day. That is very impressive. Very efficient, right?
No, not at all. That stupid tractor takes 200 people to make, ship and sell. Thta's ok though, because the tractor makes enough food for the extra requirement of people. Nuclear power? Sweet. We get like 1.21 jiggawatts from a plutonium atom, or something. Of course, that nuclear power plant requires 2000 people to make, run and sustain. That's ok, our new carbon-free tractors can be used to grow even more food. Food that is now genetically engineered and sold by a team of 350 scientists, 600 grad students, 50 HR reps, 12 executives, and 1000 clerks.
Wait a second here, I'm starting to see a pattern. It appears that technology simply drives our ability to consume, and historically speaking, simply feeds our voracious desires and enables ever greater heights of consumption and thus, pollution. The idea that just getting rid of emissions will fix our problems is silly. The idea that technology will do anything other than drive our ability to destroy everything is silly.
I'm going Amish. The simple fact is that we are supposed to spend 14 back-breaking hours of heavy labor a day just to barely sustain ourselves. Oh, but what about our lovely musics and arts? Culture? Advancements?
I don't know, it all just seems like the Titanic at this point. I mean, it appears that the natural balance of nature is predicated upon animals doing two things: eating, sleeping, mating. Three things, then. Zeus was right to punish Promoetheus.
We need more trains!
I'm going Amish. Convert me away from my new lifestyle. | | comments: 67 comments or Leave a comment |
| "Under President George W. Bush , the United States withdrew from its decades-long role as a global leader in supporting family planning, driven by a conservative ideology that favored abstinence and shied away from providing contraceptive devices in developing countries, even to married women."
"When Congress reauthorized PEPFAR in July 2008 , to the tune of $48 billion over five years, religious groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops fought to keep the family-planning restrictions.
Conservatives equated birth control with abortion, U.S. officials said, even though aid agencies are prohibited from spending federal money on abortions, and the procedure is illegal in much of Africa . "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3374340 | | comments: 10 comments or Leave a comment |
| Asheville City Councilman Cecil Bothwell believes in ending the death penalty, conserving water and reforming government -- but he doesn't believe in God. His political opponents say that's a sin that makes him unworthy of serving in office, and they've got the North Carolina Constitution on their side.
More here...
Perspective: It's North Carolina, and I'm not surprised. Stories like this only strengthen the stereotype of ignorance and religious fanaticism in that region. What does surprise (and disturb) me is to find my current residence of Pennsylvania also has a similar provision in its constitution.
This on the heels of Houston's election of its first openly gay mayor. I am under the impression that the GLBT movement is a couple of steps ahead of Atheists in terms of social acceptance, especially in the South. Maybe they have better PR.
Thoughts? | | comments: 4 comments or Leave a comment |
| Or rather I'm talking to t'internet.
I know this isn't "On Topic", but I would value your opinion as vaguely like minded people.
Have you any good blogs or websites (apart from your immaculate own) you could recommend to keep me amused, entertained and informed in the forthcoming exciting, new decade.
By the way after allowing real people to name the last decade the noughties I have decided I will name the next decade.
It will be called Frank. | | comments: 4 comments or Leave a comment |
| This is the result of the recent post in this community asking for demographic information concerning atheists and their political beliefs. I give you my "non scientific, completely for fun, proves nothing at all beyond information about LJ users who belong to the atheist community and have chosen to respond to this poll" poll.
Poll #1498273 What are your politicalbeliefs?
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 92Select the answer that most closely matches your political beliefs. | | comments: 38 comments or Leave a comment |
| In an on-line forum, ( Shooting my mouth off and being banned. (No need to read this.) )
What I was most curious about was that most or all atheists would be libertarians (someone even making that a criterion for being an atheist). Is there any data on the political orientations/affiliations of atheists? I've been searching the net, but have only turned up personal opinion and no hard data. What information is out there? What can be stated with reasonable certainty? | | comments: 15 comments or Leave a comment |
| |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
17wandering's Friends Page
6 (6.5%)![[mood icon]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/mood/punquinheads/pink/curious.gif){kind=small}
curious