Holidays or holy days?

IN REPLY TO (IRT)
CCNL1
“WORST ATROCITY OF 20TH CENTURY”

IRT:
"The Top 21 Worst Atrocities Up to and Including the 20th Century is the Sexual Revolution and the Culture of Death
Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries

ANS:
Try getting another source, that one is wrong.

http://www.angelfire.com/nj3/rebekah8370/

The worst atrocity of the 20th Century is. ABORTION; some
45 MILLION UNBORN, WORLDWIDE PER YEAR DIE FROM THERAPEUTIC, ABORTION.

Over 50 million unborn alone have been murdered by Abortion in America. Moreover, the total amount of casualties of Americans in all the wars we have fought combined are less than the unborn Americans murders by Abortion.

President Obama has lifted the ban on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ESCR). This protend the murder of some 800 million unborn and the maiming or death of some 80 million women.

http://www.cspan.org/VideoArchives.asp?z1=&PopupMenu_Name=Science/Technology&CatCodePairs=Issue,ST;

“The victimization of marginalized women is the obvious outcome. For example, to cure just one major disease such as diabetes, scientists have acknowledged that up to 800 million eggs could be required, harvested from about 80 million women.[4] Low socioeconomic status places these women in a compromised and endangered position.”

Women are being exploited from third world countries who are poor and have no idea what kind of risk they are to encounter from these misogynist, and misanthropes.

Five women since last June died from hyperovarian stimulation in England.

In a study of 35 women that had hypo-ovarian stimulation (HOS) they found HOS very problematic.

12 had myocardial cerebral thrombosis.(blood clots in the brain.
6 had major retinal occlusions.
2 had heart attacks
2 required limb amputation
1 died
Several encountered paralysis.
Some lost their fertility.

dangeroustalk

You wrote, "The idea is to let those who do not believe in a deity know that they are not alone and that there are organizations and a community for those who reject superstition in favor of reason and humanistic values."

I suppose that when you find out that the "superstition", as you put it, is not superstition at all will come as quite a surprise to you.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Tis all about operating manuals/doctrines- e.g. the NT vs. the OT vs. the koran vs. the Communist Manifesto vs. Mein Kampf vs. Sun-tzu’s Bingfa (c. fifth century B.C.E.).

With respect to body counts and historical time periods. From this reliable source:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

"The Top 21 Worst Atrocities Up to and Including the 20th Century
Rank Death Toll Cause Centuries

1 55 million Second World War (Nazi Germany atheists/pagans/Aryans/
"Christians" and Japan -Shintu) vs. the rest of the world (Christians, Jews, atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and Muslims).20C
2 40 million Mao Zedong (mostly famine) 20C
3 40 million Mongol Conquests 13C
4 36 million An Lushan Revolt 8C
5 25 million Fall of the Ming Dynasty 17C
6 20 million Taiping Rebellion 19C
7 20 million Annihilation of the South and North American Indians 15C-19C
8 20 million Iosif Stalin 20C
9 19 million Mideast Slave Trade 7C-19C
10 18 million Atlantic Slave Trade 15C-19C

11 17 million Timur Lenk 14C-15C
12 17 million British India (mostly famine) 19C
13 15 million First World War 20C
14 9 million Russian Civil War 20C
15 8 million Fall of Rome 3C-5C
16 8 million Congo Free State 19C-20C
17 7 million Thirty Years War 17C
18 5 million Russia's Time of Troubles 16C-17C
19 4 million Napoleonic Wars 19C
20 3 million Chinese Civil War 20C
21 3 million French Wars of Religion 16C

Looks like the Asians/Chinese win the body count up to and including the 20th century!! And their religions??

And again the atrocity "winner" so far in the 21st century: the "Koranic" Crazies!!!

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,476 killed in combat, 890 in non-combat roles, 94,231 – 102,820 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

10) Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan: (Civil war between the Afghan government and the Taliban) US troops killed in action 650, 192 killed in non-combat situations as of 10/20/09. Civilians killed in 2008, 2,118. Civilian casuality numbers are difficult to determine but since 2001 on average it appears 1000-3000 Afghan civilians die each year from the conflict. (Wikipedia)

11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.

Asoka was a Hindu. His wife was a buddhist. He tended to ignore her teaching and went about conquering lands after lands. At a final battle he came to see what warfare was doing to the people and felt compassion for his enemies. Since then he turned away from war, set up government run hospitals for humans and animals, set up a national road system, and wrote down his law on pillars so all could refer to his law in the case of dispute.

Gandhi saw that war just propagated war and so he set out to represent the best in Hindu and Jain Ahimsa to create a way to fight your enemy as if you are fighting yourself - satyagraha, the propagated into the major freedom movements of the 20th century throughout the world.

ShivaJi attempted to retake India from the muslims. But as he warred against them, he felt a Hindu duty to protect those he conquered - he did not set up forced conversions, etc.

The Aztecs, as they killed the Spanish, felt a moral duty to stop and offer their killings to their gods (instead of going on to kill the next spaniard). The spaniards had no such qualms, their god wanted land.

The natives of the US were largely of the ideology that the world should be shared by all the creations of the Earth. They had difficulty understanding a religion that did not care about the totality of the Earth's children.

Real dharma, always makes the individual victorious, even in cultural defeat.

But real dharma needs champions to continually overpower the enemies of dharma who insist on monoideologies and final solutions.

Dharma, a belief system of the way the world works as a part of a universe (perceived or unperceived as having consciousness), focused on eternal truths (not temporary social ones), and the undivided nature of being (advaita) does help us stop wars; it is the only thing that makes us stop wars, and it is ingrained in each of us (not just outside in a book). Whether you call yourself an atheist, a theist, or a buga bugaist, dharma reaches back into the unity of this life sphere.

hariaum

"I simply disagree. Most wars may use religion as an adjunct to the tribal drive for more territory but itself is not the proximate cause. Certainly the most destructive wars, those of the 20th century, had religion completely at the periphery."

---------

That's exactly my point. Regardless of why wars are started, religion never saves us from war. It usually just makes things worse.

A new committment to Humanism might succeed where religion
has failed.

But you claimed religion can save us from the doom of war.

Care to provide some sucessful examples?

"Most wars are started and waged by religious people so religion certainly doesn't spare us from the doom of war."

I simply disagree. Most wars may use religion as an adjunct to the tribal drive for more territory but itself is not the proximate cause. Certainly the most destructive wars, those of the 20th century, had religion completely at the periphery.

That said, religions that divide, the saved from the unsaved, the Ummah from the infidel, are part of the problem, not the solution. I don't see any appeal to the ultra rational, as many atheists see themselves as a solution either. Rationally, it might make sense for us to unleash our neutron bombs on the oil rich countries now and occupy their suddenly vacant countries but it is not moral.

As it turns out, atheistic organizations like the American Humanist Association have gone out of their way to advertise themselves in a very polite manner. The idea is to let those who do not believe in a deity know that they are not alone and that there are organizations and a community for those who reject superstition in favor of reason and humanistic values.
To read more of my opinion on this topic, please check out my Examiner Article on the topic.
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-8928-Philadelphia-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m11d30-On-Faith-holidays-or-holy-days

"Alas, to my mind, there is no escape from the doom written on our species by the latter natural behavior except a connection to the transcendent reality that connects us all. Atheists have nothing to offer."

---------

Most wars are started and waged by religious people so religion certainly doesn't spare us from the doom of war.

A better way for us to escape the doom of war would simply be to recognize and value our connection to each other, as humans without the inherent divisions that religion generally promotes.

Leaving gods (or religion) out of the equation for what makes a good person doesn't mean religion is bad or that atheism is better, it just means that everyone can be good, regardless of our personal religious opinions.

What does it mean to "be good"? Applying humanist traditions, respect for others, tolerance and charity would seem to fit the definition for most and to do this good seems natural to many, no gods need be invoked. There is a problem however. Human history is replete with intolerance and war. To explain that charity is natural ignore the fact that war is natural as well.

Alas, to my mind, there is no escape from the doom written on our species by the latter natural behavior except a connection to the transcendent reality that connects us all. Atheists have nothing to offer.

DouginMoz

You wrote, "Do the atheists on this site understand that they are no different?"

As I have said: One does not have to believe in God to have a "holier than thou" attitude.

Seems as if many members of both groups, believers and non-believers alike with a "holier than thou" attitude, are blind to their "self-righteous" smugness to the rest of us lowly creatures.

As I have also said: God looks at the person, not the "label".

I suppose this will come as quite a surprise, in different ways, to many of us.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"Navin1" is somewhat of a puzzle. Sometimes he/she appears to be a "want-to-be" Hindu with some deep thoughts about reality. Other times he/she appears to be yet again one of our favorite imposters. Anonymous blogs are indeed strange places.

Gee

I can't remember the last time I heard an atheist saying that their non-god will condemn you to hell if you don't join their group. Or perhaps christian missionaries don't know that that is what they are saying. I also can't remember the last time an atheist priest said you can't take part in a holy communion with god because your politics disagree with mine. Or when was the last time I heard an atheist say, if you join my church I will give you food and shelter.

yep, christian missionaries-islamic missionaries. Doubtful that a statement that you can be good without god is a missionary zeal. Just another way for christians to lie about their persecution while they wipe our indigenous cultures.

hariaum

I am not a Christian. I am not offended by the traditional Christmas displays. I am very offended by anyone of any other religion, other than my own, who feel they are superior to me in their beliefs and their values. I am getting fed up with politicos who push their religiosity into the public forum. Stop! If I vote for you it will be because you hold the same fiscal responsibilities toward government that I do. As a woman, my body is my own as is my conscience as to what I choose to do with it. It is not your concern.

As a devout Christian, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the AHA posting their billboards. Christians can hardly complain. We have been doing the same thing for several years now all across the country, so the AHA is not even being original. They're just copying what we do and they are entitled to that right.
"Have a special sec-cel tomorrow!" I think that will work

As for atheistic holidays, that is no problem either, especially if they come up with a really cool one like "Ayn Rand's birthday where everyone could sit around and listen to the tale of "Atlas Shrugged" and then discuss its various themes. But holidays wouldn't be appropriate. They do know that the word is a contraction for "holy days." Maybe they could use "secular celebrations." It has a nice ring to it, and it could be shortened to "sec-cels."

And if the AHA is equally successful in "being good for goodness sake" creating the numerous forms of charities that are run by volunteers instead of government agencies, then I say more power to them.
But it does bring into question the missionary zeal of the atheist in propagating their beliefs, even forcing them on others. By using the claim that they are not a religion paired with recent court actions, they have near complete control of the nations indoctrina.... (I'm sorry) enculturation centers: public schools and universities, Hollywood and most entertainment media, the courts, etc.

Now before you start saying that atheists don't do that, please note this. Any atheist that comes on a website devoted to discussion on religious matters in order to belittle or ridicule or even civilly discuss the matters to convince others that their atheistic worldview is the correct belief system, then they are proselytizers. Simple as that. I once went on the "About Atheism" website and had several interesting conversations with the man in charge. But after a while, I was asked to leave and was told that I had a lot of "chutzpah" for showing up on an atheistic website. Now I don't believe that atheists should not be allowed to discuss religion. I am a Christian missionary in a 3rd world nation and I defend my faith on websites for fun. I know what I am. Do the atheists on this site understand that they are no different?

ccnl1 :

Eboo Patel "celebrated" his first holiday of the season apparently by attending the state dinner held by BO for the Hindu leader of India
-----------------
Actually, Manmoham Singh (as his name indicates) is not a Hindu but a Sikh.

I see no reason why Eboo Patel should not have been invited. It is good that he was invited and good that he went. The world needs more talk between people of different backgrounds.

Speaking of words, the word "humanist" first appeared in Europe during the 14th century AD. It was used to define those religionists who began using logic and reason to throw the yoke of the corrupt hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church off the population. They have succeeded, somewhat.

All the road runnin

funny word parochialism. Any way, I am glad you have found a word to describe your ashram. But for a long time I wondered if I was a Hindu. The problem was that I wanted to seek the Truth, not as Colbert says, a truthism (his word I think is truthiness). So I sought it, and continue to do so.

Indian government is humbug (an overly liberal exercise in supporting oppressive powers of the colonial past - english and muslim). So I suppose my parochialism is politically American.

But it is Truth I worship, not an ism.

Humanists:

We do need to stand up and point to options to oppressive ideologies. We do need to enter the market of ideas in a populist fashion. It is a humanist ideal that human's are individually important. Thus we need to empower individuals. Sometimes we will need to be silly, sometimes we need to be serious. If we fail to enter the marketplace of commoditizing ideas, then those ideologies that are more easily commodotized will have greater network force and out compete the higher quality ideas. As this has persisted over the last 2000 years in Europe and 1500 years in the Middle east, we know the consequences of keeping a wise silence in a subtly hateful discussion.

If people can not point to the humanist, non sectarian, attempting objectivity, then people will believe it is us v them.

hariaum

As a former elected head of the American Humanist Association for 14 years and member of the association for over 50 years, I am embarrassed by the AHA's "good without God" campaign. Of course Humanists are philosophical naturalists, but what is far more important than advertizing one item in the long list of things not included in our worldview (Do Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc emphasize what they don't include in their belief systems over what they do?) is stressing the many positive positions we hold -- need I add -- in common with progressive religious believers across the spectrum. I refer to such matters as peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, protecting our environment, social justice, enhancing democracy, women's rights, etc. Our planetary society does not have the luxury of engaging endlessly in esoteric debates about philosophical issues. We, all of us, are faced with such problems right now of global warming, endless wars, environmental degradation, denial of civil liberties, worldwide economic downturn, the scandal of misogynistic patriarchalism continuing to ruin the lives of countless women, the triumph of greed and selfishness over empathy, unemployment, the need for healthcare reform. Progressive Humanists, Christians, Jews and others of good will need to concentrate on what should unite us, not on what divides us.

As a former elected head of the American Humanist Association for 14 years and member of the association for over 50 years, I am embarrassed by the AHA's "good without God" campaign. Of course Humanists are philosophical naturalists, but what is far more important than advertizing one item in the long list of things not included in our worldview (Do Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc emphasize what they don't include in their belief systems over what they do?) is stressing the many positive positions we hold -- need I add -- in common with progressive religious believers across the spectrum. I refer to such matters as peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, protecting our environment, social justice, enhancing democracy, women's rights, etc. Our planetary society does not have the luxury of engaging endlessly in esoteric debates about philosophical issues. We, all of us, are faced with such problems right now of global warming, endless wars, environmental degradation, denial of civil liberties, worldwide economic downturn, the scandal of misogynistic patriarchalism continuing to ruin the lives of countless women, the triumph of greed and selfishness over empathy, unemployment, the need for healthcare reform. Progressive Humanists, Christians, Jews and others of good will need to concentrate on what should unite us, not on what divides us.

KIRSTEN99.

Such bathos. Humanists marginalized for centuries?

Everything you learned in school was from a humanist. Maybe I'll just mention Aristotle, Shakespear, Spinoza, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstien, Beethoven, Piccaso -- a humanist, every one. These folks were marginalized?

A few millennium before these fellows, in the thinking department, Laotzu, Confucius, Buddha -- even Jesus Christ's life and teachings denote a humanist.

You are correct about the evolution of human's holidays, however. They merely have nothing to do with humanists, per se.

Winter holiday traditions have, for millennia, been adapted from religion to religion and become integrated from and back into secular societies throughout the world. The creation of a Christian winter holiday, Christmas, to celebrate Jesus's birth was usurped from prior Pagan rituals (the Roman winter festivities of Saturnalia, Europeans' winter solstice celebration that brought us the Christmas tree, and the Babylonian celebration of Isis the goddess of nature on December 25th all preceded the date chosen for Christmas). Over the centuries, how we celebrate Christmas has been tweaked and changed to suit contemporary needs, allowing for the welcome inclusion of interfaith celebration and unfortunately (if not ironically) fallen prey to usurping by the commercial world. People, both religious and nonreligious complain about this; nevertheless, Santa Hats, pretty packages, and all the bling that hangs on trees have become part of the spirit of the holidays. This ultimate genuflection to commercialism and the almighty dollar seems, to me, to be a greater indignity to the Christian faith than Humanists using the same secular and commercial avenues to make their point.

Humanists and nonbelievers have been marginalized for centuries. Like other religions or philosophies, they have the right to collectively carve out a recognized space in society. It is refreshing to see a unified movement stir that seeks to simply be good for the sake of being good, to bring awareness of the oppressive side of religion, to ask serious questions about widespread beliefs that have no evidentiary basis, and to provide an alternative, supportive community for people to become involved in.

Feeling the need to celebrate together and mark the holidays in a meaningful way does not depend on a tie to a religious belief. Rather, it blossoms from the hearts of people who are energized by the bonds of love, feel the awe of nature, sympathize with the plight of those in need, and are moved to action to make the world a better place. The sincerity of these emotions and the virtues they evoke do not depend upon an outside force. They come from within.

This nascent movement will make its mistakes. Perhaps Santa hats are not the way to go; perhaps some of the more exuberant members will make remarks that are a bit caustic. Please forgive them these trespasses. Remember, religious belief systems have inflicted much pain on bystanders throughout the centuries. May a kinder, stronger alliance grow from these initial Humanist initiatives, an alliance that brings critical scholarship to important issues, holds nothing too sacred for questioning, and treats the planet and its inhabitants with more dignity and respect than any of its philosophical or religious predecessors.

MARIANOAPOLOGETICUS said:
"Yet again, during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are—need any more be said?"

Wow, MARIANOAPOLOGETICUS. What a powerful argument. Makes me think about megachurches and fat cat preachers lining their pockets all year long, never mind the mind-boggling wealth of the Vatican, but that's just me. Those greedy, self-centered atheists should be ashamed.

NAVIN1.

Ya know, it all sounds well and good, your telling us all about the wonders of Hinduism. I've learned a lot, merely by looking up the words. (Currently in my life, I see I am "sanyasin").

But, ya know, it doesn't seem to work any better, or worse, than Christianism in Europe, or Taoism and Confusianism in China, Buddhism and Shintoism in Japan, or whatever those Aztecs were practicing in Mexico, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

And please know that I appreciate your telling all about it, though I find your parochialism pretty much as I find all the others.

In America, the religion is Healthcarism, and we're all waiting to see how that works out. If and when there is a cure for death, I will attend the conference -- merely to see what that will mean.

In the meantime, I will remain at my little ashram, up here in the Ozark Mountains, working on my Golf swing. (In the Golf religion, the "G" is capitalized).

Daniel brings out the fact that to even believe that there is a Truth, we need faith. Otherwise we are lost in no tools with which to tell what is truth and what is not. This is regardless of the approach being of "religion" or in atheism.

I see it the same thing. But I take it differently. In our modern construct we assume goodness is an outside, an ideal, something to contemplate, to become. But everyday most people get up, go to work, come home, spend time with their family, and then go to sleep. Is that not a universal goodness we are all doing?

In fact people are good to their ability: biological, social, and spiritual. As young kids we are being good when we go to school and learn about the world in which we will participate. As young adults we join that world and, while bettering our own condition, better that of those around us (we exchange our free time for productivity in an economic system). As middle age adults we have converted that wealth into children, propagation of the species, of our ancestral ideologies, and now attempt to foster a deeper sense of community. Finally as elderly we are biologically driven to give up desire for materialism for a spiritual quest (as teachers or as sanyasins). And so we each day participate in being good. This grand adventure is common and so easily overlooked. The more we organize our societies into laws, etc. the more commonplace it becomes to be good. The more a thing is a commodity, the less the economic value it has (the less psychological drama it has). But in this case, it remains a good.

Just because a humanist calls that good human nature and a theist calls that good divine inspiration, does not alter the basic goodness.

Of course, what I am referring to is the Hindu system of Ashrams: brahmacharya, grihastva, vanaprasta, sanyasin. In these the four stages of life are defined by the intent of that stage: to learn, to build a home, to surrender economic interests, to renounce worldly claims. And this goodness is part of the biopsychosocialspiritual make up of being human.

(the conflict of theism v atheism is also resolved by the belief that God=Truth=That which is - all of which is one though we call it by different names. And thus though one religion may celebrate Isis, another jesus, another impersonal truth ... we can all celebrate living in that profound being that is the universe however we perceive the personal connection with That (Tat Sat or YVHW)).

hariaum

Every day's a holiday for a pagan.

DANIEL12.

I am always amazed at your writing, and the fair arguments it expresses. In this one, though, you seem to be assuming a universal "we." Well, I might agree, maybe more than half.

Your "we" certainly does apply to virtually all the writers, and posters, on Slate.com. Their humanist arrogance is truly amazing.

We might also remember that it was the German humanists that finally began an end to the Medieval Age -- for better and worse, as it turned out. The Renaissance is still our direction, it's merely that humans always take things too far -- humanist or religionist.

It's this damned human nature, if you ask me.

The American Humanist Association's Godless holiday campaign? That the message is that one can be good without God?

The first problem we see with this is when we examine the concept holiday. In ancient times certain times of the year were set aside for both days of reverence and days of riotous celebration. And we can see a trend in at least Western civilization along the lines that as religion would become less important to a civilization (typically as more urban centers of such were created and increased in size) the days of reverence would come to be more and more similar to the days of riotous celebration.

In other words, as Western civilization becomes more and more sophisticated religion declines and no one really reveres on even the more sacred days but rather celebrates wildly. In other words the days on which we are expected to be good tend to be less and less demanding that we be good. The holy days are no longer so distinguished from days of riotous celebration (the less holy days) and we just end up with holidays in which we carouse. What makes it even more interesting is that in ancient times the days of carousing as distinguished from the days of reverence were religious days themselves! But they were considered days in which the devil has his due so to speak.

A reversal of the natural order would occur in ancient times on the days set aside for carousing. These days were considered a release from the rules which would be paid special attention to on the days of reverence. People were all too aware that on the days of carousing they really were getting just those days, that as a day of carousing ended tomorrow would bring renewed expectation of following rules. And of course on the days of reverence there was no question one had to be respectful--or potentially be ostracized or worse.

So now we can see with clarity what exactly is wrong with the humanists having days on which we celebrate being good without God. In America (I assume we are speaking of America) the days on which we truly revere are clearly the days in minority in comparison to the days on which we carouse--and this is in no small part due to the days of reverence becoming days of riotous carousing. Christmas and Thanksgiving are no longer days on which we contemplate the divine and celebrate morality, although we are expected to give presents on the one day and give thanks on the other.

No, even the days on which we are supposed to be in contemplation of the divine and be good are days on which the last question on our minds is how to be good and in mind of God. To put it simply and unfortunately in embarrassing light to the humanists, who thinks about being good on holidays in reverence of God let alone good and in mind of no God? We open a beer on holidays, eat too much, watch the football game or snooze on the couch--do anything but think how we can be good. Tomorrow is work so today we drink!

In fact there is something quaint and quite religious about these humanists. They like the religious fundamentalists actually believe there are special days set aside on which we are supposed to be good! The one just says good in the name of God while the other says good without God...So tell me, who will be more successful, the humanists or the religious in calling for the days to be good? Answer: if the human race cannot even be good in the name of the divine anymore, it is quite foolish that people will begin talking about special days set aside to be good without God.

I predict this Godless holiday campaign will have many followers--from those all too happy that now we have holidays without God.--Happy because we can now really lean back on the couch and swig beer. No God there at all! Great! Party! And in moments of drunken maudlinness "there is no God, oh Jerry, dude, I love you man, I got your back, you got mine, dude, I love you man!" The conversation will be extremely profound. A study in metaphysics. Everyone most certainly gentle when not raging and barfing in the backyard. "We are all humanists now, crack open another beer! Global warming man! Gotta cool down! Another brewski dude!

But it could very well be the humanists are ahead of their time. It could very well be that we are in the middle of a process: First, as in ancient times, religious days set aside for both reverence and carousing. Days on which God was celebrated solemnly and days on which God allowed carousing occurred. Then gradually as religion declined both days of carousing and reverence lost their religious reason for being in the first place and came to be similar in that man would just be celebrating a holiday, hanging out drinking beer--a day off work. Finally, the secular humanist future: days on which we are solemn, good and grateful without God. But evidently these secular humanist days will have to be created against a background of modern man preferring to party on all holidays. Can the secular humanists succeed? If so, we will have the general pattern continued of history being interesting. And if not? We will have the general pattern continued of history being interesting.

The ads are mere propaganda that answers to an argument that no one has made. The claim is not that atheistic lack of morals but a lack of moral premise, lack of ethos.

It is also a reprinting of their ads from last year: http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2008/11/another-atheist-charity-huge-success.html

Yet again, during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined towards charity—peace on earth and good will towards non-gender specific personages—atheists are busily collecting hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of dollars during a time of recession not in order to help anyone in real material need but in order to purchase bill boards and bus ads whereby they seek to demonstrate, to themselves, just how clever they are—need any more be said?

Eboo Patel "celebrated" his first holiday of the season apparently by attending the state dinner held by BO for the Hindu leader of India. Strange that a "rock hard" Muslim like Eboo would be invited to such an occasion but anything for a few more votes.

Colin Powell apparently was in attendance and Eboo got all excited about General Powell's comments to a Marine guard.

What Powell should have said to the Marine was: "Son we live in dangerous times because the followers of the koran are continuing their acts of terror and horror some of which you might soon face."

The ex-General then would have noted the following:

1a) 179 killed in Mumbai/Bombay, 290 injured

1b) Assassination of Benazir Bhutto and Theo Van Gogh

2) 9/11, 3000 mostly US citizens, 1000’s injured

3) The 24/7 Sunni-Shiite centuries-old blood feud currently being carried out in Iraq, US Troops, 3,476 killed in combat, 890 in non-combat roles, 94,231 – 102,820 Iraqi civilians killed, http://www.iraqbodycount.org/ and
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf

4) Kenya- In Nairobi, about 212 people were killed and an estimated 4000 injured; in Dar es Salaam, the attack killed at least 11 and wounded 85.[2]

5) Bali-in 2002-killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

6) Bali in 2005- Twenty people were killed, and 129 people were injured by three bombers who killed themselves in the attacks.

7) Spain in 2004- killing 191 people and wounding 2,050.

8) UK in 2005- The bombings killed 52 commuters and the four radical Islamic suicide bombers, injured 700.

9) The execution of an eloping couple in Afghanistan on 04/15/2009 by the Taliban.

10) Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan: US troops killed in action 650, 192killed in non-combat situations as of 10/20/09

11) The killing of 13 citizen soldiers at Ft. Hood by a follower of the koran.

Then of course there are the Jains who are atheistic and yet believe in, are the greatest proponents of, ahmisa for more than 2500 years.

hariaum

Yoh,
"No God? . . . No Problem! Be good for goodness' sake."

so, what's the problem with this? nothing!

the fact is 'doing good' and 'improving the human condition' are traits imbedded in the human genetic makeup, whether or not one believes in an extraterrestrial Creator.

but even if people of faith disagree with such a proposition, it is incontestible that in these USofA, people are free to formulate their own self-made values and to deconstruct established religious dogma.

and those who consider "humanists" as non god-fearing, well, a man also has a right to reserve a seat in hell, if there is such a thing.

so please ... can we all live and let live?

The relevant question here is not why any individual chooses to be good, and whether belief in God is required to make that choice.

That question assumes there's some sort of relationship between a person's philosophical system and how they actually behave -- as if people have a coherent philosophy that they actually follow in real life.

They don't.

The relevant questions are (1) how a culture of faith or a culture without faith affects public morality, and (2) if it is even possible to have a secular society.

Unfortunately there's no good way to answer those questions. Perhaps in 50 years we'll be able to glean some thoughts from secular Europe. But ... then again ... it's unlikely Europe will continue on its secular trend.

Human nature abhors a spiritual vacuum. It will get filled -- either with superstition, or with some organized, thoughtful religion, or with both.

Christians seem to think that they invented morality, but the reality is that it was invented by the Greeks whose god, Zeus, was too busy partying to impart any moral values to them. It is another aspect of the shallowness of American religious belief.

AYNRAND says:

'Please read the stories from those who have had Near Death Experiences...NDE. They talk in detail of seeing CHRIST in ALL the stories and the realization and experience of both a heaven and hell.'

There are thousands of NDE reports, and these experiences seem to be conditioned by an individual's deeply held beliefs prior to the NDE, and also by their expectations of an anticipated afterlife...not to say that folks don't have completely novel experiences during an NDE, but visions of Christ do not mean that those visions are objectively real.

It seems far more likely that our reality at every level is purely a mind-created phenomenon.....even in the afterlife, should there actually be one.

Read the Tibetan Book of the Dead for a better understanding of the mechanics of the death experience, as the consciousness departs the body....the bardos of the afterlife are mind-created, just as dreams are generated by our own unconscious mind.

Consider the possibility that there is nothing other than mind.....with no objective reality to be found apart from our own basic awareness.

Please read the stories from those who have had Near Death Experiences...NDE. They talk in detail of seeing CHRIST in ALL the stories and the realization and experience of both a heaven and hell.

Particularly, read about former militant athiest, Howard Storm, and his book "Descent into Death."

The time he spent with Christ after dying in a Paris hospital, changed him so profoundly he is now a Christian Minister in Ohio.

Then too, why when an exorcism needs to be performed, is a CATHOLIC priest called and not a Rabbi nor other religious holy person...?

The evidence of a true Christ is overwhelming folks. You choose your eternity. But lok at the facts.

And yes, I went to a Catholic college and studied various religions.

Kwanza is just plain silly.

'No God, no problem' is not a problem for people who are not constrained by religion. However, for the religious people who are currently controlled by fearful words in the religious books and religious people next to them; for the people who uses tradition religion as daily living guide, it's a big problem for them.

I would suggest humanist to:

1. Have patient on the people who are stuck in religion.

2. Do not make humanism a religion. Humanism is a faith just like faith of in creationism (God). Some of the major differences are that a). Humanism is young, so its components are simpler compare to traditional faith. b). Humanism’s role in people's daily life is smaller than the traditional religions, especially in the cultures that religion is used as rules of the government, community, and personal life.

3. Humanist needs to find the universal spiritual truth that every human can understand as truth and teach them to use truth as rules to manage their life. For the ordinary people, they always need a set of rules to manage their life spiritually, interpersonally, and intellectually. For many people, traditional faith fulfills the role. It can be a dangerous proposition to destroy traditional faith without providing a better solution.

But on a more serious note:

If god is truth (brahman), then it is hard to be good without god/truth. If god is an internal relationship with truth (ishtadevata), it is hard to be good without god. If god is self (atman/paratman, it is hard to be good without god. If god is an outside (of self) old man who beats you to hell if you disobey him, it is good to be without god.

Humanity is biologically driven to seek truth (in abstract and real forms). Humanism may ally with atheists that mostly reject the simplistic old man version of god. But it also allies with truth. Thus when they celebrate being good for good's sake, they are taking out an externality of the outside god and going deeper into the self-truth relationship. Be joyous for knowing god/truth within is more than any book, savior, or prophet can give you. When oppressive forces divorce man and god with dogma, humanity rises; even though we may call it atheism, we seek Truth.

hariaum

1) god does not equal jesus
2) Dec 25 is not the birthday of jesus
3) the holy days come to us thanks to Jupiter, Zeus, and Osiris (http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_sel.htm)

With those facts, party on.

hariaum

Hmmm, the holydays?

Christmas, the embellished story of the birth of a simple, preacher man named Jesus. As per most contemporary NT exegetes, his parents were Mary and Joseph although some say Jesus was a mamzer, the result of a pre-marital relationship between Mary and a Roman soldier.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Jesus was not born in Bethlehem at least the one we are familiar with and there were no pretty wingie thingies singing from on high, no slaughter of the innocents by the Herod, no visiting wise men and no escape to Egypt.

"John P. Meier - Professor at Notre Dame

Meier [Marginal Jew I,216-219] notes that the "affirmation of Jesus' descent from David might easily be placed alongside his birth at Bethlehem as a theologoumenon (a theological insight narrated as a historical event) if it were not for the fact that numerous and diverse streams of NT tradition also affirm Jesus' Davidic lineage."

"Meier suggests that the belief that Jesus was "son of David" may have been held by Jesus' followers prior to his death, with his resurrection then being understood as a form of enthronement. However, he notes that such messianic views, whatever their provenance, cannot prove Jesus was "literally, biologically of Davidic stock."

http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=007_Of_Davids_Lineage

Conclusion: the holyday of Christmas is historically a non-event. Ditto for the Feast of the Magi and the solemnity of Mary aka New Years day.

Kwanza

"Kwanzaa, which will be celebrated for the 44th time in 2009, was established by Dr. Maulana Karenga. The seven-day festival (December 26 – January 1) is secular, not religious, and aims to strengthen African cultural identity and community values while providing a spiritual alternative to the commercialism of Christmas."

Chanukah (Hanukkah)

"Hanukkah, the Festival of Lights, is one of the most joyous times of the Jewish year. The reason for the celebration is twofold (both dating back to c. 165 BCE): the miraculous military victory of the small, ill-equipped Jewish army over the ruling Greek Syrians, who had banned the Jewish religion and desecrated the Temple; and the miracle of the small cruse of consecrated oil, which burned for eight days in the Temple's menorah instead of just one."

"Originally a minor holiday, it has become more lavishly celebrated as a result of its proximity to Christmas."

Some candles burn for weeks so the menorah "miracle" is hardly miraculous.

Rabbi Wolpe can probably give us his take on the historical validity of Hanukkah.

Theists like to say that being moral requires a belief in something bigger than yourself. Fine; I believe in something 6 billion times as big as I am and just as deserving of respect, life, liberty, etc.