So "Christians do not own Christmas" demonstrates a brilliant stroke of illogical thought. Only West could post such irrational conclusions as seen in his last post. He cannot accept that Christmas is a Christian celebration, but wants to make it rather some unheard of pagan festival. You are free to celebrate any other festival you want - but do not call it Christmas. Otherwise you would be celebrating Christ.

I doubt West, that you would rather adopt the birth of the Rainbow serpent as a festival - because it too is superstition. People are free in Australia to celebrate Christmas stop trying to make out they are celebrating Mithras. Otherwise they would call by another name.

You see West, Christ is Lord of the festival, not some serpent or dragon, or Persian god. I recomend you mature a little more in logicical thinking before posting again.

"Davids point I think is Christians try and exclude everybody who is not part of their cult through propaganda at this time as part of their on going program of ethnic cleansing." - West

I think the kernel of David's atheist position is that the Christian's have not presented the evidence to justify the claims made. David is anti-religious, I am non-religious.

Christmas and other accretions were added to an earlier life lived. I feel Philo would recognise some of these extras have little to do with the Jesus' teachings. As for Christmas day, well the date has been adopted by Christmas to celebrate an event. The Myer retailing family [Christian/Jewish?] would also celebrate Christmas too, as might their Bankers :-).

Oliver,

<<I think the kernel of David's atheist position is that the Christian's have not presented the evidence to justify the claims made. David is anti-religious, I am non-religious.>>

I can't speak for David (although I suspect you're drastically simplifying his position), but as an Atheist myself, it goes far beyond that. For me, if that is all it was, then I too would classify myself as non-religious – as opposed to anti-religious.

You see, while religion has had it's positives – even in a evolutionary sense – unfortunately the negatives far out-weight the positives. Not only that, but there are many examples that have demonstrated that the positives that have come from religion, didn't even need religion to come about.

In this day and age, considering what we now know, religion is becoming more and more of a negative with it's regressiveness. Even the positives that religion may have helped bring about, are now having regressive consequences in a more civilized society that has the experience and wisdom to progress beyond the paralysing and potencially damaging absolutist mindset of the religious.

But it's not so much religion, as much as it is the people that follow it and what it has done to them and the children they force it onto. This can be clearly seen in the justifications of bad acts, both mild and severe, that are derived from their religiosity.

Religion spreads from generation to generation like a hereditary virus and those who break free from it's psychological stranglehold, are often in need of emotional support from organizations like the AFA. The threats of eternal damnation, and the stunting of mental and emotional growth that religion can bring about, can have life-long, damaging effects – just take a look at the posts from the Theists on this Forum, and the immature and nïeve responses this post of mine will provoke.

Fence-sitting won't move us forward, Oliver. And I respect David very much for what both him and the AFA do.

AJP,

I agree with that which most atheists state and would wear the label atheist myself. Here, for me differences are methodological. There is a difference between preaching confirmations [David?] and affirming tentative hypotheses [me]. Neither, is face sitting. Herein, please see, Unwritten Page, OLO, Oliver, Thursday, 17 January 2008 6:08:05 PM.

Also, I see a distinction between anti-religious and non-religious. Relatedly, one does not have to be an atheist to critise the many, many failings of the Christain church. I am sure even Theists can do that with ease.

If we are to build axioms from our constructs we must define our constructs carefully: Religion, Jesus & church are separate constructs.

Cheers,

O.

"face sitting" :O

I believe that's what's known by us godless humanist types as a 'Freudian slip'!

Oliver

<<Relatedly, one does not have to be an atheist to critise the many, many failings of the Christain church. I am sure even Theists can do that with ease.>>

I agree.

But I know from many of my Christian friends over the years (and my days as a Christian) that they can brush-off the dangers of religion far too easily by simply saying: “Oh yeah, but they're not REAL Christians.”

By saying this though, they are ignoring the more mild and subtle danger that they themselves are presenting, by inadvertently aiding extremists, in the sense that they help to put out there an air of undeserved respect that we are supposed to have for the 'faith' of others; An air that faith is somehow a virtue; A virtue that we're, apparently, not really supposed to be questioning – simply because it's their “faith”.

It's this 'underserved respect' that needs to be eliminated in order to inject some rationality, and critical analysis of religion, into society. If we can do this, I believe the world can start to move forward in a very positive direction indeed.

<<If we are to build axioms from our constructs we must define our constructs carefully: Religion, Jesus & church are separate constructs.>>

Well, yes. That being said, I guess it comes down to lack of evidence for me too.

CJ,

You're a funny boy!