So how many atheists and/or non-Jesus believers celebrate Christmas?

You ARE kidding right?

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html

If there would be a god or many, I only have one thing to say: fuck you, Viva La Revolution !!!!!! Throw that a-hole from his throne.

Indeed, wake up, it's about the jolly fatman in a red suit,, who was invented by Coca Cola, inspired by St. Nick.

We celebrate St. Nick on Dec 6 and I have to say I like Santa Clause better, he's jolly and nice, St. Nick punishes you when you have been bad, I always was scared of him, when I was a kid.

I'm Agnostic . Does that count for anything? And I do celebrate Christmas. I do it for the kids.

This holiday confuses me to be quite honest.

What the fuck does a fat man in a red suit with flying reindeers dropping off gifts to good boys and girls and coal to the others have to do with celebrating the life or death of anyone?????????????

Atheist and Agnostics are different FYI

I agreed with a previous post that stated: X-mas meanings change. First pagan, then about Christ, now it's about Santa Clause.

Relax everyone... Does anyone actually believe I'd start a thread that calls most of GFY hypocrites, that's meant to be taken seriously? Especially after the umpteen post threads and discussions about creation/evolution, knowing where a lot of people here stand on that issue? It's interesting to see how a group of adult industry people react to things, compared to people outside of this industry. No matter what is said and agreed/disagreed with on this board, it's still a very small percentage of the world. That goes for every topic of discussion. You can disagree with that, but it's true.

For the record, Christmas hasn't been a religious or Christ related holiday to me in a good 10-15 years, when I was still attending Catholic church and religious instruction as a child. I believe in creation, what exactly? I'm not sure, I'm open minded. Regardless, I felt obligated as the "religious right winged Republican" many ASSUME I am, to bring forth the definition of Christmas that many in the US, the world and Webster's dicitionary define it as. I'm not saying that definition is accurate or correct, but my point being, many people will tell you that it is, based on their beliefs and to them, the pagan originality is just as wrong as they are to you and me.

It's no wonder wars occur... no one can agree with the most black and white things, much less all the gray areas.

Agnostics are like closeted gays. They know deep down they are atheists they just can't admit it to themselves or others.

Was that before or after the Christians stole/changed the holiday from the Pegan's??

you have a reliance for that stat?

Please. What's there to admit? and to whom? That's your opinion on the matter you are no expert by any means!

After I assume but it's still being defined as such in 2003, so it's not as obsolete as many would like to believe it is.

Okay why don't you tell me what an "agnostic" believes.

That's bullshit.
Sure, chances of the judaic religions being right are about as large as those of irish leprechauns anally raping you while you sleep, but that does not mean nothing super-natural exists.

I know two things for sure:
#1: My current knowledge about religion, science, philosophy etc indicates that nothing god-like exists.
#2: My current knowledge about religion, science, philosophy, etc is incomplete. To see it as absolutely true would not be based on rationality, but on faith.

So, since I choose to base my beliefs on rationality, I am forced to admit that chances of some god-like creature existing may be slim, but not zero.

You atheists, on the other hand, based your beliefs on faith, and are therefore making the same mistake as the religious folk.

Just because we don't know the answer to this question doesn't mean we have to all follow invented ones..ie bible bedtime stories

I think the very fact that recent religions claim the ONE god when it's clearly obviuos if you glance at history that there were MANY different gods, all replacing each other, over and over ad nauseum. Each one claiming supremacy, blah, blah fucking blah. This alone should tell you how much BS people swallow out of fear and ignorance.

But again, arguing about religion is like counting stars.

Wrong! An atheist is not necessarily someone who denies the existance of God but someone with no theistic belief. i.e. a non-theist.

Wrong. While that was the original meaning, these days it has come to mean "someone who rejects or denies the existence of a God or supreme being".
An agnostic is someone who states it is impossible to know if there is a God or not, an atheist is someone who believes no God exists.

You are characterizing agnostics as a subdivision of atheists here, something that is not the case at all.

(your definition even includes deists in the group of atheists, a clear sign that your definition does not meet the definition commonly accepted)

Someone who states it is impossible to know whether or not there is a god is an atheist because they have NO THEISTIC BELIEF.

You either believe or you don't. You can't sit on the fence. There is no room. Agnosticism has always been a cop out. The word itself doesn't even deal with belief but knowledge.

I do not accept your narrow definition of atheism.

My "narrow" definition is the one the dictionary gives you.

"You either believe or you don't" is much too rigid to be rational. How in the world can you choose to believe or not to believe something you don't have accurate, complete information on?

Not every dictionary gives that definition. However the Religious right use it constantly because it serves their purpose. The word has been twisted.

Besides, when I say you either believe or you don't what I mean is that if you don't have a theistic belief then by default you DO NOT believe. In no way am I suggesting that someone with no theistic belief denies the existance of God.

I'm sure you don't believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden but would you go so far as to say they definitely DON'T exist?

If you have a deistic belief, by default you do not believe?

Also, do not forget that faeries at the bottom of the garden are a much more specific thing that the abstract concept of a "supreme being", and are therefore a lot easier to dismiss as "highly unlikely". God, however, is more like aliens... could very well exist, or not - we do not know.

I once read something that a Christian wrote; he said something to the effect, "I would rather believe in God and then find out after I die that I was wrong and there is no God, than be an atheist and find out after I arrive in hell that I was wrong and there is a God." I think most believers and pseudo-believers (agnostics?) basically feel the same way, which is how the God myth is perpetuated over and over - it's simply done out of fear that there MIGHT be a God.

When I read that I thought, no, I would rather take the latter option. I would rather stand up for what I believe in. I believe that telling people that they should bow down and worship a God that does not exist or risk the consequences is fundamentally wrong - it is evil. I am a pure atheist - I want nothing to do with these fucking Gods. I have read some of the Koran and all of the Bible; if there is a God, he suffers from bipolar syndrome and is basically one nasty fucking asshole. Far more likely is that all these Gods are make-believe. But if I am wrong then I will smell sulfer and brimstone for eternity I guess. I am willing to risk it, because we all have only one life and I'm not going to waste mine perpetuating a lie just because I am afraid that some God will punish me if I am wrong. If God wanted me to worship him he should have have taken some communication and management courses and then made his wishes known in a perfectly clear way that left no ambiguity - 2000 year old scrolls don't cut it. If there is a God out there then not only is He a bipolar schizo, and a mass murderer (Genesis 7:21, one example), and an asshole, but one piss-poor communicator of his wishes. In otherwords, one sorry excuse for a Supreme Being, and not worthy of my worship. That's why I am 100% sure there is no Muslim or Christian God - by definition of what a Supreme Being is, how can God be a genocidal baby-killer, a poor communicator of his dictate, have a hair-trigger temper, and not be powerful enough to show Himself to us all?

Okay, I guess that qualified as a rant.

Joe: I don't need 100% proof that there is no God to be a well-reasoned atheist. The COMPLETE lack of evidence that there is a God is plenty good enough. If there is a God then let him show himself.

i love christmas

I dispute the popular definition of the word atheist. The word means non-theist and that is me. I won't be pigeonholed by the religious right and others in the theistic crowd because the word has been twisted over the years.

The definition of deism that I found is this: "One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

So a deist is a theist.

Further to my last post:

The word `atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusally. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts there is no such being as God,' I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

Antony G.N. Flew, "God, Freedom, and Immortality: A Critical Analysis", p. 14.
Prometheus, 1984.


If you look up 'atheism' in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

[Michael Martin, "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification", p. 463.
Temple University Press, 1990.]

The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses 'atheist' to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.

When we examine the components of the word 'atheism,' we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of 'a-' and '-theism.' Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix 'a-' can mean 'not' (or 'no') or 'without.' If it means 'not,' then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means 'without,' then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

[Gordon Stein (Ed.), "An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism", p. 3.
Prometheus, 1980.]

Did you just say a deist is a theist?! So, in other words, the hundreds of years of extreme debates between the two weren't necessary, they're just one and the same?
You apparently do not even know what theism is. Tsk tsk tsk.

Simple definitions:
Theism => God created the world and remains involved in it.
Deism => God created the world and now leaves alone and comtemplates it.


Also, if you want to go into definitions by quoting "authorities":

<b>atheism</b> (from Greek <i>a-</i>, 'not', and <i>theos</i>, 'god'), the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God; thios use has become the standard one. In the <i>Apology</i> Socrates is accused of atheism for not believing in the official Athenian gods. Some distinguish between <i>theoretical atheism</i> and <i>practical atheism</i>. A theoretical atheist is one who self-consciously denies the existence of a supreme being, whereas a practical atheist may believe that a supreme being exists but lives as though there were no god.

Audi R., Pojman L. P., <i>The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (second edition)</i>, 1999


Now, how about we stick to the "standard use" of the word? It is good form in discussions to use commonly accepted definitions of terms and not go around using definitions used by a minority in the academic world, especially not without telling which definition you will be using up front.

Aside from that, you said:
That means you make no sense whatsoever.
If you are using your definition of atheism, agnosticism is by default included in atheism, and therefore stating to be an agnostic is the same as stating to be an atheist, which would make this remark of yours utterly ridiculous.
On the other hand, if you do make a difference between agnosticism and atheism, like you do in this remark, you have just spent a considerable amount of time refuting your own words.

So, do tell, which logical inconsistency do you prefer?

A/gnosticism deals with knowledge of God
A/theism deals with belief in God

I believe that when it comes to belief in God one is either a theist or an atheist. There is no middle ground. One can be a gnostic theist (a theist who believes that knowledge of God is possible) or an agnostic theist (a theist who believes that knowledge of God is not possible) but one must be a theist or an atheist.

I want to make it clear that I'm not talking about popular definitions or usage I'm talking about the actual words themselves and defining them according to the greek roots.

I hope this makes my view a little clearer.

By the way, this:
"Agnostics are like closeted gays. They know deep down they are atheists they just can't admit it to themselves or others."
was just a crude attempt to provoke a reaction. I am not suggesting that I view agnosticism as a legitimate way to describe a position on belief in God.

your knowledge = the combined total of your beliefs

Knowledge of God, quite obviously, starts with the knowledge of his/her/its existence.

An agnostic theist would, quite obviously, be an idiot. First of all, the agnostic part includes not knowing if God exists (you know nothing about God, including if he/she/it exists or not), and the theist part holds that through revelations, you can have knowledge about God. An agnostic theist would be a walking contradiction.

Also, there is no middle ground between believing and not believing? You're saying it's impossible to not know?
Is there a 42-year-old man in New York named James Wilkinson? What was that? You don't know... but... that's impossible! You either belief in him or not, according to your own words!

As a sidenote, cut the crap with the "greek roots". If you're gonna be using the roots of a word to come to a definition, "agnostic" doesn't even have anything to do with religion or God.
People who define something by it's roots tend to make me want to fuck them in the face (and yes, I'm talking about punching here... just follow the roots).

Why are you taking this so personally and getting aggressive?

Jesus Christ I thought this was a friendly discussion.

Consider it at an end. I'm not up for this shit right now.

You really should stop thinking that something a group of people wrote down in a book is infallible

Oh, it was a friendly discussion. If there's one thing that annoys me, though, it's people talking about the "greek roots" of words. Most of them don't even know ancient greek and just say it to sound like intellectuals. Not talking about you here, just people in general.
An insane amount of words come from ancient greek, and the vast majority of those have just about nothing to do with their origins these days. Combine that with the fact that everyone and their little brother brings greek roots up in discussions, it is one of the few things that do a great job at pissing me off.

The only reason I brought up the greek roots is because I believe it makes the real meanings of THESE particular words apparent. We all know what a theist is: "Someone who believes in God/s". All I'm saying is that as far as I am concerned, an atheist then logically (according to the greek) must be "Someone who doesn't believe in God/s". The crux of my argument is that there is a clear distinction between that and someone who deliberately DENIES the existance of God.

I have had a few beers and I hope I'm making sense.

By the way, this is the first time I've ever brought up greek roots in an argument/discussion.

Well, the problem I see with your definitions is that they leave a gap. If you use the common definitions, you have a term for "someone who believes there is no god" and one for "someone who does not know if there is a god". If you use the other definitions, however, you have a term for "someone who has no set belief in a god" and "someone who does not know if there is a god and thus has no set belief in a god", however, "someone who believes there is no god" is then void of a term.
So, in my humble opinion, the common use does not only have the advantage of being common, it also provides specific coverage of the main groups of positions.

While this may be the first time that you've brought up greek roots in a discussion, you're the third person this week that brings them up in a discussion with me. Both your predecessors had no knowledge whatsoever of ancient greek, and I even had to give one of them a small lecture in greek mythology.

Speaking of greek mythology, if you really want to go by the greek roots, you have to understand that the greek word "theos" doesn't actually refer to anything remotely like the judaic concept of god. While both the judaic god and the greek gods are objects of worship, their nature is very different, and they can't really be compared at all.
The word deism would probably be more suitable, if it hadn't been claimed by a specific religious position already. But I won't bore you with that stuff right now

Apologies if my reaction to the greek roots was a bit blunt, but one can only take so much greek references in a week

I'm not sure if I've been clear enough on some points.

The term "agnostic" was coined by Thomas Huxley and has been taken up as a fence sittting position when it comes to belief in God. My point is that it is entirely unnecessary and in fact doesn't deal with belief in God/s at all.

In our theistic culture there is a real stigma attached to the term "atheist" and I think it's entirely unwarranted. Although it is far more pronounced in the U.S.A. where they spent zillions of dollars and several decades duking it out with the "godless" commies. George (Daddy) Bush said this about American atheists when he was campaigning in 1987: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." I believe that this sort of shit is why people choose to call themselves agnostics.

Atheism is not a philosophy of life nor a belief system. It teaches nothing. All it says is "I don't believe". It's an absence of belief in God, not necessarily the denial of existence. This is my stance. There are atheists who deny the existance of God/s but logically, because our knowledge of the universe is limited, I can't accept that position. I think it's a bit presumptuous. However, I accept that they too are atheists, just another variety.

So when you say above "someone who does not know if there is a god", I define that person as an atheist because there is an essential ABSENCE of belief. However, I respect your right to define your views however you like.

Anyhow, I'm going to bed now. It's fucking late here and I'm drunk now. Maybe someone else will pick up the ball and run with it.

Cheers.

Bible = A book of short stories

Websters Dictionary = A book of definitions written by anal retentive rebublican christian in a suit that is a bit too tight...jmo

Joe Citizen , punkworld

Hey. You guys are good. Best read I've had in a very long time around here.

Sorry for the delay in response, as YOU(personally) know, and as I mentioned in my first post, I've been very, very busy working on my new project. *smiles*

There is still much to be done, but I had a little bit of time to stop by and give you a response.

Melton, J. Gordon, Jerome Clark & Aidan A. Kelly. New Age Almanac; New York: Visible Ink Press (1991); pg. 340 It says: "difficult to obtain accurate demographic data for [Neo-Pagan Witchcraft movement]... several independent methods for estimating size...based on factors such as [periodical circulation, festival attendance] arrive at figures between 1000 & 5000 covens."

Now, first of all, that is COVENS and doesn't even count all of the solitary witches out there, which there are A LOT of. Plus, also keep in mind that this is in 1991 and also that not ALL witches attend festivals. And you can bet there were more than 5,000 covens around during that time too.

Many witches are very secretive about practicing the craft.

Taking this into consideration, a coven usually has anywhere from about 4 to 12(perhaps more) people in it.

So just with these statistics in 1991 there were about 20,000 to 60,000 Wiccans/Pagans attending these festivals.

There were 768,400 Pagans in the United States in the year 2000 according to a poll that was taken here:

http://www.cog.org/cogpoll_final.html

Of course the numbers have grown by now with it being about 4 years later... Plus, you have to consider that not ALL Pagans participated in this poll(I know I didn't!)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_nbr.htm Also has results of a poll/survey which was taken around the same time, the year 2001.

"Since self-reporting is so unreliable, we must rely on public polling. The massive American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) is probably the most accurate source for religious identification. It was a telephone poll taken during 2001-FEB to June. However, even their estimates contain room for errors:

Some heavily oppressed and discriminated against groups, like Wiccans and other Neopagans, often refuse to reveal their religion to a stranger over the telephone because of safety concerns. So, the actual number of Wiccans is probably much larger than the survey indicates.

In the ARIS study of 1990, 2.3% of those contacted refused to disclose their religion. In the 2001 survey, the number had grown to 5.4%. The latter number represents over 11 million adults. The reason for this increase in desire for secrecy is unknown.

The terminology is confusing. As a result of the 2001 survey, they estimate that there are 134,000 Wiccans and 140,000 Pagans in the U.S. But many Wiccans describe themselves as Pagans. So, the number of Wiccans is probably larger than indicated.

Our best estimate of the total number of Wiccans in the U.S. is based on the ARIS study:

Number of Wiccan found by ARIS: 134,000 adults
Number of Pagans found by ARIS: 140,000 adults
Total Wiccans and Pagans: 274,000 adults
Less estimated Pagans who are not Wiccans: - 70,000 adults
Total Wiccans: 204,000 adults
Estimated number of Wiccans who refused to disclose religion 204,000 adults
Total Wiccan adults in the U.S. 408,000 adults
Total Wiccans (adults plus children) 750,000 people "

Another quote from the same site:

"A second important statistic is the rate of growth of the Wiccan community. "In May, 1998, the Chicago Tribune reported that, though difficult to quantify due to lack of formal organization, neo-paganism is the fastest-growing religion in North America with the Internet being the prime means of proselytizing." Ms. Curott estimates a doubling in size every 18 months.

This growth rate seems quite high, but appears to have some credibility in the Wiccan community. The ARIS survey of the American adult population indicates a growth in the Wiccan community of 17 fold between 1990 and 2001 - the highest of any faith group monitored. This would indicate a doubling in numbers of adherents about every 2.5 years."

Think for a moment on those numbers. 750,000 Pagans doubling in size after 18 months would be 1,500,000 Wiccans. 18 months after that.... 3 million Pagans in the United States.

Which would support my statement that there are millions of Wiccans in the United States, at LEAST 2 million(though it is my personal belief that there are many more than that) as not all Wiccans/Pagans where even counted in any of those polls.

To further quote....

"Membership numbers, as supplied by large religious organizations, are notoriously inaccurate, even though such groups have a central administrative authority which can communicate with its member churches and collect and collate accurate data.

Within Wicca and other Neopagan religions, there is no such organization. Many, perhaps most, Witches are solitary practitioners; they perform their rites alone. Others form covens which are informal groups of Wiccans. There is often no coordinating group above the coven level; no state, provincial or national organization.

The problem is further complicated by the secrecy which necessarily envelops Wicca. Wiccans who come out of the (broom) closet and publicly reveal their faith expose themselves to physical danger. In recent decades, there has been one lynching, a mass attempted mass murder by stoning, numerous shootings, fire bombings and common assaults. So, most Wiccans remain safely out of sight where they practice their religion in secret."

"A further complication is the religion's rate of growth. The total number of Wiccans is a moving target. They are believed to be among the fastest growing faith groups in North America."

I've not the time to do much more research than that for you right now. But maybe this will give you a little bit more of an idea of how many Pagans there are in the United States....more than you think. *winks and grins*

And now....it's back to work on my project for me!

I am a non believer...but I do the Christmas thing. I do not consider a tree or buying gifts as "celebrating" anymore than a holiday. I don't even think about any religious connotations that Christmas may have...or may not have...as no one knows what day Jesus was born on.

you could have said it was just I guess, I would have accepted that.

Heyyyy YOU asked for "reliance." So...I tried to provide you with some similar information to show you my basis for thinking/saying(or typing rather) that there were millions of Pagans in the US.

I believe in God, but i don't need the church for it

Why does this boggle your mind?
You said yourself Christmas celebrates that birth Jesus Christ - why can't people celebrate his birthday if they are not Christian? I celebrate other peoples birthday whom I do not share Religous affilation with, and even so, Jeseus was a JEW.
Besides , you know as well as I do Christmas is now a commercial holiday more than it is a religous one. I see very few people that disregard all the commercial bells and whistels and strictly adhere to celebrating the birth of Christ. Im sure you partake in the commercialisation of Christmas, which if you do, nullifies your whole argument becuase you are a hippocrite yourself.

Maybe you should be more accepting. It's just people being people. You say this boggles your mind? Something like quantam mechanics or general relativity boggles my mind, I find it hard to believe that something this trivial can boggle your mind unless you are a half wit.

Merry Christmas