This is just Confusing!

Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Ahem... What is that guy smoking? Christianity is not a culture, it's a faith (or if you will, a religion).

He was eating rotisserie chicken.

And I think the article makes sense, yeah? I think he’s just referring to the Christian culture i.e. its rituals. Couldn’t you say that Australia was (mainly) a Christian culture, for obvious historical reasons?

But what it also shows is that your personal vendetta against Dawkins is, perhaps, a little over the top. I mean, he’s seriously quite a mild character—I really don’t know why you focus your energy on him so much, as opposed to, say, Christopher Hitchens, or even Sam Harris, who both have much ‘stronger’ attitudes against religion (especially Hitchens).

I want chicken...

I mostly don't care about Dawkins (the article spun up on BBC News)- but no Australia is most definitely not a Christian country, for historical reasons.

Glenjamin wrote:I mostly don't care about Dawkins

Yeah, and the English don't care about their football... You only bag Dawkins out every other time I see you, with little provocation I might add. And I was just curious to know why it was you chose to target him and not some of the others?

Glenjamin wrote:but no Australia is most definitely not a Christian country, for historical reasons.

Yeah, fair call. I forgot Australia is rather secular (thank goodness (in my opinion)). Then replace Australia with, umm, America, or Britain, in my previous sentence.

Wait, hold on a sec, I think there would be plentiful argument for saying that Australia is more Christian than any other religion (for obvious historical reasons). We've de-christianised many of its rituals (e.g. christmas, easter, marriage, Pope day, etc.) but they are obviously rooted in Christianity (at least in this country), whereas we have almost no (or very few) cultural rituals (that are nationally recognised) representing the other major religions.

Secular? I'm pretty sure I just had that celebration of mass consumerism they call Christmas forced on me. Religious freedom my arse.

yeah christian culture. I am a product of christian culture. Our laws are founded on christian precepts. Our holidays are nearly all christian. And yet i don't go to church, but if someone forced me to pick a religion right now i would pick christianity because i know the most about it.

Judaism is a better example of this phenomena. When asked to define judaism it is almost impossible. Most people (70 percent!) who identify themselves as jewish do not attend synagogues or any religious sermons. Most of those actually believe themselves to be atheist but they still follow all of hte holidays etc because that is what they see as jewish. They identify with the jewish system without identifying with the faith.

I identify with the christian system without identifying with the faith. I would therefore put forward that there is a very strong sense of comunity and culture surrounding christianity and that one can be a part of this without actually believing in god.

Super King wrote:Secular? I'm pretty sure I just had that celebration of mass consumerism they call Christmas forced on me. Religious freedom my arse.

True. Though how many people in your family actually associate it with Christianity, rather than just a social get-together?

Tom wrote:Most people (70 percent!) who identify themselves as jewish do not attend synagogues or any religious sermons.

Is that in this country, or world wide?

Tom wrote:I identify with the christian system without identifying with the faith. I would therefore put forward that there is a very strong sense of comunity and culture surrounding christianity and that one can be a part of this without actually believing in god.

Amen. Well put.

Andy/ Trev: i doubt most people identify Christmas with Christ, and i'll tell you why, ask most people on the street and they'll tell you that christmas is about peace, joy, family, gifts, sales and a whole host of other things- most don't even equate the nativity with mainstream christmas (i wish i could find the link for this, but a hornsby restaurant guy got sued for putting a small nativity in his own shop). and we have way more non-religious holidays than religious- Anzac, Australia, labour, New years days, and i'd say there's good argument that only easter remains as a Christian holiday.

Tom: whoa lots here- most people (I could make up a percentage if you'd like) equate Judaism as a race BEFORE it being a religion, and many that don't will still tell you they're jewish because that's what their parents are- the same goes for many catholic or Islamic folks. I think that's why many people are labeled "nominal" in their faiths. And yes, you can define Judaism quite easily- i have several good books you could look at.

Back to Andy:

Andrew.C wrote:You only bag Dawkins out every other time I see you, with little provocation I might add

A little bit of an over-statement, but if you'll cast your mind back to when i have, they've been (mostly) during conversations that relate directly to his field of work (which isn't all that well defined i might add).

Glenjamin wrote:I doubt most people identify Christmas with Christ, and i'll tell you why

Yeah, I agree with most of that (although you didn't really tell us "why"; you just told us how it was). Yes we have many non-religious holidays (of course - there are many things that 'deserve' holidays that have nothing to do with religions). But that doesn't mean that those other holidays weren't originally associated with Christianity, and the point still remains that even the little amount of Christian associated holidays that there are, there are still less (much less) associated with any other religion.

Glenjamin wrote:Back to Andy:

Andrew.C wrote:You only bag Dawkins out every other time I see you, with little provocation I might add

A little bit of an over-statement, but if you'll cast your mind back to when i have, they've been (mostly) during conversations that relate directly to his field of work (which isn't all that well defined i might add).

Yeah, sorry, it was an overstatement (just for effect). But still, I was just surprised that you'd never attacked any of the others in that "field," which I assume is loosely defined as the field that attacks religion, since I'm pretty sure you've never attacked (or noticed) Dawkins when he was previously dealing specifically within his science field.

I guess you could say his field was 'The public understanding of science,' at least it was while he still held that Chair. And probably still is.

I think he just gets more press- so his views are brought to my attention more

Yeah, fair call.

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/03/oklahoma_hates_richard_dawkins.php

They're trying to ban Dawkins in Oklahoma? Before his speeches? Oh, man...

As much as i dislike the man's views- he doesn't really cause Christians that much of an issue (except "extremists"), so why make the rest of us look bad by doing this kind of garbage?

I reckon (i have almost no facts to back this up) that Dawkins has indirectly added to the number of Christians out there, and while i disagree with his theories, let him keep putting out (read: funding) campaigns that get people into churches!

Glen, you say that about everything atheists do.

Mmm, I don’t know whether he’s increased the level of Christians—he may have, but not by a significant level, I think. There are certainly many non-Christians who simply won’t listen to what he’s saying just because they call it ‘offensive’ or ‘arrogant’ (that’s just the way people operate), and in that sense he’s been criticised (by the scientific profession and others) for his methods not being the most effective. But he’s not really that concerned with what’s effective; he’s more passionate about what’s true.

Then why doesn't he just read the bible? (yes i understand we're not going to agree on that one)

In the UK they reckon he's 'helped' many lapsed Christians step up and affirm their faith publicly and in a more real manner.

Yeah, “lapsed Christians.” Doesn’t really surprise me.

I'm all for Dawkins helping people back to church.

Uhuh.

I notice you always fail to mention what he's doing for the Atheists side.

This kinda goes back to that discussion we had about potential American Presidents not being allowed to admit to their absence of belief.

COLUMN: Anti-atheist prejudice widespread in America

Article wrote:Americans find atheists a particularly repugnant minority. According to Gallup, they are more disliked than any other major religious group, with the exception of Scientologists.

Research by Gallup also indicates the majority of Americans would not vote for a well-qualified atheistic presidential candidate. Even a gay candidate, the data suggest, would face less formidable discrimination.

Unfortunately the "data" isn't provided, but still it's quite an interesting article by an "English junior."

This might be an odd thought but... aren't the laws of the USA based on Christian thinking? if the system is based on that isn't a practitioner better at working within that system?

Based on Christian thinking...? And what are you basing that on? The fact that the founders happened to be Christian (some of them)? I don’t think that that counts for the laws being based on Christian thinking. Also, I’m no expert, but I believe that when they made the American Constitution (if we’re talking about it) that they explicitly tried to avoid any appeals to any particular religion’s ideas, or even mentioning of religion (except in the ‘freedom of religion’ thing).

A practitioner may be better at working within the system, agreed; although, they’re less able to accept changes to the system when the people call for it. (But, as stated, I don’t think America is “a Christian system,” whatever that might mean.)

You apart from the whole "one nation under God" that kicks off the whole constitution, or the fact that the seal is under girded by "in God we trust"... I think if you researched the founding tenets of the US, you'd find that Christian Orthodoxy was at the heart of their thinking...