I know it’s Spring and no one wants to be thinking of christmas this time of year, but my friend Joe sent me a paper called Ho, Ho, Hoax: The Case against Santa Claus by Ernâni Magalhães, Visiting Assistant Professor at WVU. It makes some excellent points which really got me thinking.

Before I read this paper, I thought Dale McGowan‘s take on Santa to be the best way to handle it. In a nutshell, he says Santa is a dry run for letting kids reason their way through the fact that Santa is a myth, to then figuring out that religion is mythical, as he puts it, Santa is “the ultimate dry run for a developing inquiring mind”. It makes sense in a way. But then my friend Joe told me about his experience as a kid.

Joe really believed in Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. Then one day a kid in the playground told him it was all a pack of lies. Joe believed him and went home crying. He was devastated. When Joe and I talked about the McGowan philosophy of Santa, I figured out that in theory it seems like a great idea, but maybe in practice it could backfire and cause a lot of unhappiness and pain for kids who don’t get to reason it out for themselves but are told by other children.

And is it necessary to lie to children about a mythical jolly old fat man? Does it increase their happiness, improve their moral fiber? Does it make them better little people, or better adults down the line? And is there an alternative to lying about Santa?

First, there are 3 alternatives, according to Ernâni:

  • Disbelief: The parent tells the child Santa Claus is not real
  • Neutrality: The parent does not inform the child one way or the other
  • Pretense: The parent invites the child to pretend there is a Santa Claus.(page 13)

…inviting to pretend there is a Santa Claus is morally superior to encouraging to believe. (14)

I never thought of this as an option, but it makes sense. You get all the good fun of Santa but you don’t get the lies and beliefs in those lies.

What about short term pleasure and pain? Here is what Ernâni has to say:

The extent to which the pleasure of children and adults justifies the Santa Claus lie depends on the amount of pleasure available from non-deceitful alternatives. The alternative that most closely replicates telling children there is a Santa Claus involves inviting children to pretend there is one. Although pretending something is real is fundamentally different from believing it is, as I have argued, many of the emotions evoked by an object believed to be real are also evoked by objects supposed to be fictional. Children and adults derive great pleasure from creatures of their imaginations, as witnessed by the large crowds at movie theaters. Children who are old enough to know she is fictional still derive great enjoyment from the pretense that Cinderella is a real person with real hopes. And, it is easy to replicate the gift-giving aspect of the Santa experience, which is surely a significant factor in the child’s enjoyment. (15-16)

Interesting and thought-provoking, don’t you think? This is even more important: Read the rest of this entry »

I received this email from a woman the other day. After careful thought I replied to it and decided it was worth sharing.

Here is the email in its entirety:

Thank you for sharing “Wild Geese”. After Joe Biden used most of this poem as his reflection upon the anniversary of 9/11, I went in search of the poem. The two of Mary Oliver’s collections I own did not include it. I was happy to find it at your site and amazed, actually. Amazed and delighted, because a poem I find so “religious” is at the same time such a balm for you. I grew up Roman Catholic; I am now an Episcopal priest. I am convinced after 20 years that what most people throw away – the cats they heave – are indeed worth heaving. Sometimes we have to go deeper, below the interpretations of history, to find our own deeper truth.

Yes, a “barbarous” God exists in the pages of the Bible: What all-kind God and Father would will the death of a Beloved Son? How could God command Abraham to kill his son Isaac as a test of faith? Isn’t that sadistic? Yes, indeed. On the face of it. For us in the 21st century these stories are barbaric. They are foreign to our experience. They were not foreign to the persons for whom they were written when the “first fruits” in ancient societies were offered up to the deity – including in some cases, the first born child. In some places in later writings there seems to be a critique of these practices in the Bible itself. The question becomes, it seems to me, is it worth reinterpreting these stories for our own time, or do we jettison them and replace them with our own stories of sacrificial obedience and love? Yes, life does involve sacrifice – we give up our children constantly to the gods of war who exact a savage price. There are no rams in the thicket to take their place …

But the same source of barbarism comments on itself in texts of amazing love and mercy. We cannot hear these texts enough. Read the rest of this entry »

Bertrand_Russell_1950by Bertrand Russell

Russell delivered this lecture on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall. Published in pamphlet form in that same year, the essay subsequently achieved new fame with Paul Edwards’ edition of Russell’s book, Why I Am Not a Christian and Other Essays … (1957).

As your Chairman has told you, the subject about which I am going to speak to you tonight is “Why I Am Not a Christian.” Perhaps it would be as well, first of all, to try to make out what one means by the word Christian. It is used these days in a very loose sense by a great many people. Some people mean no more by it than a person who attempts to live a good life. In that sense I suppose there would be Christians in all sects and creeds; but I do not think that that is the proper sense of the word, if only because it would imply that all the people who are not Christians — all the Buddhists, Confucians, Mohammedans, and so on — are not trying to live a good life. I do not mean by a Christian any person who tries to live decently according to his lights. I think that you must have a certain amount of definite belief before you have a right to call yourself a Christian. The word does not have quite such a full-blooded meaning now as it had in the times of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. In those days, if a man said that he was a Christian it was known what he meant. You accepted a whole collection of creeds which were set out with great precision, and every single syllable of those creeds you believed with the whole strength of your convictions.

What Is a Christian?
Nowadays it is not quite that. We have to be a little more vague in our meaning of Christianity. I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature — namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian. Of course, there is another sense, which you find in Whitaker’s Almanack and in geography books, where the population of the world is said to be divided into Christians, Mohammedans, Buddhists, fetish worshipers, and so on; and in that sense we are all Christians. The geography books count us all in, but that is a purely geographical sense, which I suppose we can ignore.Therefore I take it that when I tell you why I am not a Christian I have to tell you two different things: first, why I do not believe in God and in immortality; and, secondly, why I do not think that Christ was the best and wisest of men, although I grant him a very high degree of moral goodness. Read the rest of this entry »

funny-pictures-furball-christmasWas Jesus unique and special, born of a virgin on December 25th? The Anointed One, the Messiah? Was his message even all that original? Not at all. Back in the day, religions and cults mixed and borrowed freely from each other. The only thing special about Jesus, you could say, is how long his myth has been embraced as truth. I found this at American Atheists and thought you’d enjoy it for the holiday season.

December 25 is close to the Winter Solstice which has been an important event for ages. It’s the longest night of the year. December 25 was the Roman Winter Solstice upon establishment of the Julian calendar. We now have the Gregorian calendar which put the Winter Solstice to December 21st – 22nd. Many cultures recognized this Longest Night with holidays, festivals, gatherings, rituals about rebirth and other celebrations.

~

EDIT: I shared the following article and a few readers noted below that there are no references or resources for any of this information. I fell into the trap of the Appeal to Authority. I had found it on what I considered to be a reputable site and didn’t think much about who wrote the article or what his sources were. I apologize.

Over the next day or so, I am going to edit this article to include some resources and references.

~

Horus c. 3000 BCE

–born of the virgin Isis-Merion December 25 in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
–his earthly father was named “Seb” (“Joseph”).
–was of royal descent.
–at 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized having disappeared for 18 years.
–baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by “Anup the Baptizer” (“John the Baptist”), who was decapitated.
–had 12 disciples, two of who were his “witnesses” and were named “Anup” and “Aan” (the two “Johns”).
–performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus (“El-Osiris”), from the dead.
–walked on water.
–his personal epithet was “Iusa,” the “ever-becoming son” of “Ptah,” the “Father.” He was thus called “Holy Child.”
–delivered a “Sermon on the Mount” and his followers recounted the “Sayings of Iusa.”
–was transfigured on the Mount.
–crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
–he was also the “Way, the Truth, the Light,” “Messiah,” “God’s Anointed Son,” “the “Son of Man,” the “Good Shepherd,” the “Lamb of God,” the “Word made flesh,” the “Word of Truth,” etc.
–he was “the Fisher” and was associated with the Fish (“Ichthys”), Lamb and Lion.
–came to fulfill the Law.
–called “the KRST,” or “Anointed One.”
–was supposed to reign one thousand years. Read the rest of this entry »

ruppy as canvasI don’t have children, but this issue is still very important to me because I care about kids being indoctrinated and screwed up by their parents and role models.

But as an atheist, freethinker, or skeptic, what do you teach kids about religion? Maybe because I’m removed from the issue it seems rather easy to me. Teach them the same thing about christianity, islam, judaism and all the other active religions that I was taught about Greek Mythology.

I think religion plays such a huge role in the world today, you can’t ignore it. But you don’t have to believe it to share it with young people any more than my teachers believed Zeus threw lightning bolts at people when he was mad at them. I don’t feel religion is helpful in any respect except as a cultural phenomenon. The big three certainly don’t have good moral values. So don’t try to raise an atheist. Try to raise a child to make their own decisions given all the information.

Kids need to learn two things, above all else. They need to learn critical thinking, how to think for themselves. And they need to understand basic morals and ethics. The school system doesn’t teach either of these things. And really, it’s more of an issue that parents should want to handle themselves.

Here’s the thing, though. If you are a parent you might never have been taught critical thinking. So guess what? You need to learn it too! I only learned to think critically a few years ago, so even old dogs can learn to think for themselves. It takes practice and diligence, but it isn’t an insurmountable task.

I’ll share what I know in a future post. In the meantime, read what Michael Shermer has to say about skepticism, which is closely related to critical thinking.

funny-pictures-cat-knows-you-are-aloneDebating Evolution with religious folk is a waste of time.
With the unknown, one is confronted with danger and discomfort–the first instinct is to abolish these painful states. First principle: any explanation is better than none. We all do it, we hear a strange noise and we quickly come up with a guess to explain the noise, i.e., wind, a ghost, a…? All tribes/social groups through time have come up with myths to explain unknowns, answers arrived at not through reason or logic, but to tranquilize the fear of the unknown, providing comfort.

Religious folk form their identities through their religious teachings and any information that doesn’t fit their belief system, triggers feelings of insecurity and fear; emotionally, they feel they are being personally attacked–they must abolish the danger and discomfort they feel. They can’t use reason or logic to evaluate any of the millions of facts supporting evolution–because they are indoctrinated and imprinted as children to feel shame and fear if they question their church’s authority.

Don’t waste your time debating Evolution with a creationist; respect the right of others to believe as they wish, but never miss an opportunity to demonstrate the irrational paradox and dangerous delusion that is religious faith.

Anywhere in the world, where education increases, belief in religion declines and inversely, women’s rights increase. The greatest intolerance for religion comes from religious folk’s intolerance of other religions or sub-groups within their own religion.

It’s time to tax all religious businesses and for the greater enforcement of the laws separating church and state; including, but not limited to, the armed forces, religious schools and donations to political parties.

atheist cat finds your prayers cute but futileSo, my clever friends, here’s an interesting contest. You could win $1,000 for writing an essay about the origins of christianity as well as the fact that jesus never existed. Anyone interested? Let us know if you are so we can pray for you I mean so we can cheer you on. LOL

I know some of you are quite knowledgeable on this subject. Anything you’d like to share with us along your way would be greatly appreciated, too. We love to learn here at HDC.

Here’s the deal:

Announcing the 2010 Mythicist Prize

The Mythicists’ Forum, a consortium of New Testament scholars, together with American Atheists, Inc., have the pleasure to announce the 2010 Mythicist Prize.

THE PRIZE

The sum of $1,000 (U.S.) will be awarded to the author of a submitted essay which, in the opinion of the judges, sheds light on the origins of Christianity and, at the same time, supports the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist.

ELIGIBILITY

Anyone is eligible to submit an essay. The prizewinning contribution will be published in 2010, along with submissions of distinction which merit an Honorable Mention. The publisher will be announced at the time of the award. Read the rest of this entry »