Heaving Dead Cats » myth

An Alternative to the Santa Lie For Secular Parents

Neece — Sun, 16 May 2010 13:14:23 +0000

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:

One reason the justification of the lie cannot be a matter of the short term pleasure is that the purpose of parenting is not only or even primarily to maximize children’s happiness and minimize their suffering. A major purpose of proper parenting is to foster the child’s moral and cognitive development. Much more important than whether Santa belief is conducive to happiness in the short term is the question whether it is conducive to a child’s moral and cognitive development. (17)

How true! It’s all about raising a child to be moral and to think for themselves throughout their lives. So it isn’t just the short term gain you need to think about, but the long term consequences.

Here is where I really agree with Ernâni:

When parents tell their children about Santa Claus they encourage belief, not imagination. (17) Evidently, insofar as increased imagination is supposed to be what is gained through the Santa Claus experience, this can be much more effectively pursued by having the child pretend that Santa is real, rather than believe he is. (18)

Perhaps belief in Santa Claus is beneficial in that it fosters a “sense of magic” and “magical . . . thought” (Breen 2004). A magical occurrence, in the sense in question, would seem to be one which violates the laws of ordinary reality. Why should it be beneficial for a child to believe that there are things that work in unheard of ways? (18)

The similarity between the child’s belief in Santa and adult religious belief has been widely acknowledged. Children often think of Santa as having many of the same characteristics as God, to the extent that upon discovering the truth about Santa, some children question the existence of God as well.

The resemblance between the child’s attitude toward Santa and religious belief is only an advantage of belief if encouraging this sort of religious belief is beneficial. (20)

An excellent point! Why would any secular parent need to teach a child to believe in physics-breaking, supernatural magical beings at all? One thing I was thinking as I read this; wouldn’t it also sow a seed of doubt into that child that their parents lied to them about Santa? What else have they lied about?

If religious conviction is essentially belief in the absence of evidence, then the child’s attitude toward Santa is not religious conviction. Again, the child has ample testimonial and other evidence for the existence of Santa. (21)

A plausible inference for the child to draw from the entire experience is a certain skepticism about claims of the existence of unseen things: once bitten, twice shy. And insofar as encouraging belief in Santa encourages belief in the absence of and contrary to perceptual evidence, the supposed advantage must be weighed against the tendency of the child who discovers the truth to infer that believing in things in the absence of evidence is a hazardous affair. (21-22)

I would also like to add, many millions and millions of kids who once believed in Santa never extend the thought process to then doubt God or Jesus. They figure out that Santa is a myth but never take that lesson any further to realize God is too. So it’s not a safe bet.

Ernâni makes a great point about morality and Santa:

Although Santa is still supposed to observe whether children are naughty or nice, this activity is rarely emphasized. And, importantly, it is extremely rare for parents to follow through on the traditional threat that Santa will not give presents to naughty children. Hardly any American child in the last twenty years has found a lump of coal in his stocking from Santa Claus. This is, interestingly, one of the few aspects of the tradition that has earned the condemnation of childhood psychologists. (22)

Does the concept that Santa, who the child admires, single-mindedly fulfills that child’s wishes translate to a child being more generous themselves? I don’t think so. Neither does Ernâni:

Nothing in the experience encourages the child to give. The child’s primary role in the ritual is as recipient. Indeed, a child who might otherwise feel inclined to do a generous deed for other children is apt to think that Santa will take care of their needs. The tradition does include the cookies and milk for Santa. But this is a rather limited generosity, applying as it does only to someone who has done very nice things for the child. Nothing in the behavior points to the importance of being generous to people in general. (23)

What are the alternatives to lying to a child about Santa then, if the goal is to teach generosity?

One non-deceitful thing that might be done to encourage the child to be generous is to tell the child about the importance of generosity. One might encourage the child to give things to others. One might reward the child for doing generous things. In the right circumstances, such encouragement is known to lead to greater degrees of the tendency encouraged. Indeed, such a direct method promises a much higher likelihood of success than the roundabout method of encouraging the child to adopt Santa as a role model. (23)

What an amazing concept! Just teach a child directly without subterfuge!

Now, if the child is taught to just pretend in Santa, what do you teach that child about the beliefs of other children?

Any parent who decides not to encourage belief in Santa faces the question of how the child ought to discuss the issue with children who believe. If it is possible to teach formerly believing children the importance of discretion concerning Santa belief, then it is similarly possible to teach children who never believe the importance of discretion concerning believers. Children who are not told there is a Santa can easily be told that other children are told and that it is important not to ruin their fun by denying his existence. (24)

Ernâni then explains his main reason why it’s not good to lie to children about Santa:

The main problem with lying to children about Santa Claus is that it encourages children to lie. The encouragement happens because children inevitably discover that there is no Santa Claus. And although apparently some children at first believe that parents are similarly under the misimpression that there is a Santa Claus, eventually children discover that they have been deceived. As lately noted, when they discover the truth children are encouraged not to divulge the truth to other children and also to lie to them. Also when children discover that they have been lied to, they reasonably infer that such lying is held to be permissible by their parents and other adults whose opinion they hold in high regard. (25)

The first step involves the child’s discovery that the parent has lied. It cannot be seriously maintained that children do not discover that deceit has taken place. Children of seven or eight understand what is involved in lying. And eventually children understand that although their parents told them otherwise, the parents do not believe there is a Santa Claus. Children therefore
become aware of two facts, both of which tend to encourage the child to lie. First, their parents (and many other adults) lie. Whether children imitate Santa Claus is questionable, but they undoubtedly imitate their parents. Since they observe and are aware of their parents lying, they are more likely to lie themselves. Second, their parents (and many other adults) believe that it is morally appropriate to lie. Children notice that their parents feel no moral qualm about having deceived the children about Santa Claus. It is evident to the child that the parent believes so deceiving the child was morally appropriate. (26)

…notice that the deceit about Santa Claus is part of a larger pattern: the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, being the two main other culprits. Together with these other incidents, the child is likely to draw the inference that lying is thought to be permissible in many cases beyond the Santa Claus situation. (27)

While I think that lying is a major flaw in teaching kids about Santa, I personally feel the worst part is teaching kids that a magical being gives them presents. I think all the points Ernâni makes are extremely important, and that together they make a strong case for simply encouraging children to pretend instead of lying to them.

What do you think?

Don’t Assume I’m A Sensitive Soul

Neece — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:30:27 +0000

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.

I hope the love, mercy is what you kept when you threw away the dead cat of guilt and the burdens of all that teaching that depressed and suffocated you. If you are still seeking a metaphor or metaphors for the love that is the universe and your place in it, Mary Oliver’s poetry surely hints at it in all its complexity. It is worth the search if you are willing to expand your conversation to include persons who have made a transition through the grief and disillusion you have experienced.

You have purified your heart. You have surrounded yourself with friends eager to share what they’ve rejected. Is it time to resume the search for what you seek and share what you have found as a replacement that has enriched you spiritually, given you new life? Perhaps you have done so.

Please forgive me if I’ve “pried” too much or presumed too much. You are obviously a sensitive soul. Thank you again for sharing a favorite poem.

And here is my reply:

Thank you for your email. I’m glad you enjoyed Wild Geese. It’s a great poem. Funny that you find it religious. It seems very anti-religious to me, which is why I like it. I guess it’s down to interpretation. I also think you are very presumptuous with your assumptions of me. My character is not nearly as weak as you suggest. The poem is not a balm to me. I find it inspirational, but I don’t need to be soothed by it. I find it delightful. Perhaps it might be best to not assume what others are thinking and maybe just ask them.

You immediately go into apologetics with your loose, cherry-picked interpretations of the bible. If a caring, loving god inspired the words of the bible, I’m sure slavery would not have been condoned, nor the rape of daughters, nor the hatred of your own family (that was Jesus, by the way. How loving was that?) If it can’t be taken literally, then the whole book is just about how you interpret it, which means it can mean anything, which means it’s completely worthless as a guide. It IS completely worthless as a guide anyway. It was written in the middle east in the iron age by goat herders. It has zero relevance for today. It is filled with hate and murder with the occasional rape. Lovely. How you can find anything worthwhile in there is beyond me.

What little bit of “wisdom” in the bible is not original or new. The Golden Rule? Older than Jesus. He didn’t come up with it. If he even existed, which is highly doubtful.

So no, it isn’t worth reinterpreting those fables into stories for our own time. We don’t need them. They fuel hate in people who interpret them literally, and just confuse good people who think they are the word of their god. They are completely useless to society.

And no, why do we need to replace them with more sacrificial obedience? Why do you need that? How is that healthy to anyone? Love, sure. We can all use love. But the bible is very thin in that department. Give me a book like The Golden Compass. That has love. And even sacrifice for the good of all mankind. A great epic story with no mixed messages to confuse people. It even has god.

Life involves compromise and sometimes sacrifice. But teaching children ethics, critical thinking and basic philosophy while giving them love will give them the structure they need to build their own moral code. Not one based on blind obedience and fear of eternal damnation if they make a mistake. How could a loving god torture his creation for all eternity just because they aren’t blindly worshiping him? He needs some serious psychotherapy. That’s insane.

I kept nothing from the bible or my early indoctrination into christianity. I have jettisoned the guilt and fear. There was no love to be had. There was only that blind sacrificial obedience you mentioned. That is not love. That is sickness.

And you presumed again that it depressed and suffocated me. I find that offensive that you would presume to know me. Do you talk to your parishioners with such condescension? Why not ask someone what they are thinking instead of arrogantly assuming. I did not experience grief. Although of course I was disillusioned by the lies of religion.

Shaking off the lies of the church, ridding myself of that sick pack of lies was the most liberating, uplifting, positive step I’ve ever taken.

Again, you presume that I am seeking some great truth. How patronizing. For me, the completely natural workings of the universe inspire and awe me daily. That is my truth and I am quite happy to explore it often. I don’t need to find some god or false belief in a supreme being, or the ridiculous reward of an afterlife. I am happy to have nature in all its complexity. Science is fantastic. That’s all I need. It’s quite satisfying to rid myself of superstitions and myths. You should try it. It’s quite liberating. Maybe it will help you to ask people their feelings and thoughts instead of filtering what you think they experience through your own worldview.

Oh, and you don’t know who my friends are either. Again with the presumptions. I guess you probably don’t think I”m a sensitive soul anymore. Well, when someone I’ve never met claims to know me so intimately, I get a bit irritated. I don’t have a soul. Neither do you. Live this life for today, not for a future promise which doesn’t exist.

I’m glad you enjoyed the poem. But just because I like it too, obviously for very different reasons, doesn’t mean I think like you or share your delusions.

I hope someday you too can shake off the shackles of blind faith, sacrificial obedience, repression and future rewards for constant servitude.

Have a great day!

Why I Am Not A Christian

Neece — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:05:11 +0000

by 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.

But for the successful efforts of unbelievers in the past, I could not take so elastic a definition of Christianity as that. As I said before, in olden days it had a much more full-blooded sense. For instance, it included he belief in hell. Belief in eternal hell-fire was an essential item of Christian belief until pretty recent times. In this country, as you know, it ceased to be an essential item because of a decision of the Privy Council, and from that decision the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York dissented; but in this country our religion is settled by Act of Parliament, and therefore the Privy Council was able to override their Graces and hell was no longer necessary to a Christian. Consequently I shall not insist that a Christian must believe in hell.

The Existence of God
To come to this question of the existence of God: it is a large and serious question, and if I were to attempt to deal with it in any adequate manner I should have to keep you here until Kingdom Come, so that you will have to excuse me if I deal with it in a somewhat summary fashion. You know, of course, that the Catholic Church has laid it down as a dogma that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason. That is a somewhat curious dogma, but it is one of their dogmas. They had to introduce it because at one time the freethinkers adopted the habit of saying that there were such and such arguments which mere reason might urge against the existence of God, but of course they knew as a matter of faith that God did exist. The arguments and the reasons were set out at great length, and the Catholic Church felt that they must stop it. Therefore they laid it down that the existence of God can be proved by the unaided reason and they had to set up what they considered were arguments to prove it. There are, of course, a number of them, but I shall take only a few.

The First-Cause Argument
Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: “My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?’” That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu’s view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, “How about the tortoise?” the Indian said, “Suppose we change the subject.” The argument is really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause.

The Natural-Law Argument
Then there is a very common argument from natural law. That was a favorite argument all through the eighteenth century, especially under the influence of Sir Isaac Newton and his cosmogony. People observed the planets going around the sun according to the law of gravitation, and they thought that God had given a behest to these planets to move in that particular fashion, and that was why they did so. That was, of course, a convenient and simple explanation that saved them the trouble of looking any further for explanations of the law of gravitation. Nowadays we explain the law of gravitation in a somewhat complicated fashion that Einstein has introduced. I do not propose to give you a lecture on the law of gravitation, as interpreted by Einstein, because that again would take some time; at any rate, you no longer have the sort of natural law that you had in the Newtonian system, where, for some reason that nobody could understand, nature behaved in a uniform fashion. We now find that a great many things we thought were natural laws are really human conventions. You know that even in the remotest depths of stellar space there are still three feet to a yard. That is, no doubt, a very remarkable fact, but you would hardly call it a law of nature. And a great many things that have been regarded as laws of nature are of that kind. On the other hand, where you can get down to any knowledge of what atoms actually do, you will find they are much less subject to law than people thought, and that the laws at which you arrive are statistical averages of just the sort that would emerge from chance. There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design. The laws of nature are of that sort as regards a great many of them. They are statistical averages such as would emerge from the laws of chance; and that makes this whole business of natural law much less impressive than it formerly was. Quite apart from that, which represents the momentary state of science that may change tomorrow, the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were, you are then faced with the question “Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?” If you say that he did it simply from his own good pleasure, and without any reason, you then find that there is something which is not subject to law, and so your train of natural law is interrupted. If you say, as more orthodox theologians do, that in all the laws which God issues he had a reason for giving those laws rather than others — the reason, of course, being to create the best universe, although you would never think it to look at it — if there were a reason for the laws which God gave, then God himself was subject to law, and therefore you do not get any advantage by introducing God as an intermediary. You really have a law outside and anterior to the divine edicts, and God does not serve your purpose, because he is not the ultimate lawgiver. In short, this whole argument about natural law no longer has anything like the strength that it used to have. I am traveling on in time in my review of the arguments. The arguments that are used for the existence of God change their character as time goes on. They were at first hard intellectual arguments embodying certain quite definite fallacies. As we come to modern times they become less respectable intellectually and more and more affected by a kind of moralizing vagueness.

The Argument from Design
The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different, we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire’s remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending — something dead, cold, and lifeless.

I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out — at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation — it is not such as to render life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.

The Moral Arguments for a Deity
Now we reach one stage further in what I shall call the intellectual descent that the Theists have made in their argumentations, and we come to what are called the moral arguments for the existence of God. You all know, of course, that there used to be in the old days three intellectual arguments for the existence of God, all of which were disposed of by Immanuel Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason; but no sooner had he disposed of those arguments than he invented a new one, a moral argument, and that quite convinced him. He was like many people: in intellectual matters he was skeptical, but in moral matters he believed implicitly in the maxims that he had imbibed at his mother’s knee. That illustrates what the psychoanalysts so much emphasize — the immensely stronger hold upon us that our very early associations have than those of later times.

Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this situation: Is that difference due to God’s fiat or is it not? If it is due to God’s fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God’s fiat, because God’s fiats are good and not bad independently of the mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line that some of the gnostics took up — a line which I often thought was a very plausible one — that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it.

The Argument for the Remedying of Injustice
Then there is another very curious form of moral argument, which is this: they say that the existence of God is required in order to bring justice into the world. In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying; but if you are going to have justice in the universe as a whole you have to suppose a future life to redress the balance of life here on earth. So they say that there must be a God, and there must be Heaven and Hell in order that in the long run there may be justice. That is a very curious argument. If you looked at the matter from a scientific point of view, you would say, “After all, I only know this world. I do not know about the rest of the universe, but so far as one can argue at all on probabilities one would say that probably this world is a fair sample, and if there is injustice here the odds are that there is injustice elsewhere also.” Supposing you got a crate of oranges that you opened, and you found all the top layer of oranges bad, you would not argue, “The underneath ones must be good, so as to redress the balance.” You would say, “Probably the whole lot is a bad consignment”; and that is really what a scientific person would argue about the universe. He would say, “Here we find in this world a great deal of injustice, and so far as that goes that is a reason for supposing that justice does not rule in the world; and therefore so far as it goes it affords a moral argument against deity and not in favor of one.” Of course I know that the sort of intellectual arguments that I have been talking to you about are not what really moves people. What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.

Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people’s desire for a belief in God.

The Character of Christ
I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we should all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much further than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said, “Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-tse and Buddha some 500 or 600 years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept. I have no doubt that the present prime minister [Stanley Baldwin], for instance, is a most sincere Christian, but I should not advise any of you to go and smite him on one cheek. I think you might find that he thought this text was intended in a figurative sense.

Then there is another point which I consider excellent. You will remember that Christ said, “Judge not lest ye be judged.” That principle I do not think you would find was popular in the law courts of Christian countries. I have known in my time quite a number of judges who were very earnest Christians, and none of them felt that they were acting contrary to Christian principles in what they did. Then Christ says, “Give to him that asketh of thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.” That is a very good principle. Your Chairman has reminded you that we are not here to talk politics, but I cannot help observing that the last general election was fought on the question of how desirable it was to turn away from him that would borrow of thee, so that one must assume that the Liberals and Conservatives of this country are composed of people who do not agree with the teaching of Christ, because they certainly did very emphatically turn away on that occasion.

Then there is one other maxim of Christ which I think has a great deal in it, but I do not find that it is very popular among some of our Christian friends. He says, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor.” That is a very excellent maxim, but, as I say, it is not much practised. All these, I think, are good maxims, although they are a little difficult to live up to. I do not profess to live up to them myself; but then, after all, it is not quite the same thing as for a Christian.

Defects in Christ’s Teaching
Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels; and here I may say that one is not concerned with the historical question. Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. I am concerned with Christ as He appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narrative as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, he certainly thought that His second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time. There are a great many texts that prove that. He says, for instance, “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.” Then he says, “There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom”; and there are a lot of places where it is quite clear that He believed that His second coming would happen during the lifetime of many then living. That was the belief of His earlier followers, and it was the basis of a good deal of His moral teaching. When He said, “Take no thought for the morrow,” and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent. I knew a parson who frightened his congregation terribly by telling them that the second coming was very imminent indeed, but they were much consoled when they found that he was planting trees in his garden. The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.

The Moral Problem
Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching — an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence. You do not, for instance find that attitude in Socrates. You find him quite bland and urbane toward the people who would not listen to him; and it is, to my mind, far more worthy of a sage to take that line than to take the line of indignation. You probably all remember the sorts of things that Socrates was saying when he was dying, and the sort of things that he generally did say to people who did not agree with him.

You will find that in the Gospels Christ said, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of Hell.” That was said to people who did not like His preaching. It is not really to my mind quite the best tone, and there are a great many of these things about Hell. There is, of course, the familiar text about the sin against the Holy Ghost: “Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this World nor in the world to come.” That text has caused an unspeakable amount of misery in the world, for all sorts of people have imagined that they have committed the sin against the Holy Ghost, and thought that it would not be forgiven them either in this world or in the world to come. I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world.

Then Christ says, “The Son of Man shall send forth his His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth”; and He goes on about the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It comes in one verse after another, and it is quite manifest to the reader that there is a certain pleasure in contemplating wailing and gnashing of teeth, or else it would not occur so often. Then you all, of course, remember about the sheep and the goats; how at the second coming He is going to divide the sheep from the goats, and He is going to say to the goats, “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” He continues, “And these shall go away into everlasting fire.” Then He says again, “If thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched; where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.” He repeats that again and again also. I must say that I think all this doctrine, that hell-fire is a punishment for sin, is a doctrine of cruelty. It is a doctrine that put cruelty into the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture; and the Christ of the Gospels, if you could take Him asHis chroniclers represent Him, would certainly have to be considered partly responsible for that.

There are other things of less importance. There is the instance of the Gadarene swine, where it certainly was not very kind to the pigs to put the devils into them and make them rush down the hill into the sea. You must remember that He was omnipotent, and He could have made the devils simply go away; but He chose to send them into the pigs. Then there is the curious story of the fig tree, which always rather puzzled me. You remember what happened about the fig tree. “He was hungry; and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, He came if haply He might find anything thereon; and when He came to it He found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it: ‘No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever’ . . . and Peter . . . saith unto Him: ‘Master, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.’” This is a very curious story, because it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree. I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.

The Emotional Factor
As I said before, I do not think that the real reason why people accept religion has anything to do with argumentation. They accept religion on emotional grounds. One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it. You know, of course, the parody of that argument in Samuel Butler’s book, Erewhon Revisited. You will remember that in Erewhon there is a certain Higgs who arrives in a remote country, and after spending some time there he escapes from that country in a balloon. Twenty years later he comes back to that country and finds a new religion in which he is worshiped under the name of the “Sun Child,” and it is said that he ascended into heaven. He finds that the Feast of the Ascension is about to be celebrated, and he hears Professors Hanky and Panky say to each other that they never set eyes on the man Higgs, and they hope they never will; but they are the high priests of the religion of the Sun Child. He is very indignant, and he comes up to them, and he says, “I am going to expose all this humbug and tell the people of Erewhon that it was only I, the man Higgs, and I went up in a balloon.” He was told, “You must not do that, because all the morals of this country are bound round this myth, and if they once know that you did not ascend into Heaven they will all become wicked”; and so he is persuaded of that and he goes quietly away.

That is the idea — that we should all be wicked if we did not hold to the Christian religion. It seems to me that the people who have held to it have been for the most part extremely wicked. You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.

How the Churches Have Retarded Progress
You may think that I am going too far when I say that that is still so. I do not think that I am. Take one fact. You will bear with me if I mention it. It is not a pleasant fact, but the churches compel one to mention facts that are not pleasant. Supposing that in this world that we live in today an inexperienced girl is married to a syphilitic man; in that case the Catholic Church says, “This is an indissoluble sacrament. You must endure celibacy or stay together. And if you stay together, you must not use birth control to prevent the birth of syphilitic children.” Nobody whose natural sympathies have not been warped by dogma, or whose moral nature was not absolutely dead to all sense of suffering, could maintain that it is right and proper that that state of things should continue.

That is only an example. There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering. And of course, as we know, it is in its major part an opponent still of progress and improvement in all the ways that diminish suffering in the world, because it has chosen to label as morality a certain narrow set of rules of conduct which have nothing to do with human happiness; and when you say that this or that ought to be done because it would make for human happiness, they think that has nothing to do with the matter at all. “What has human happiness to do with morals? The object of morals is not to make people happy.”

Fear, the Foundation of Religion
Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing — fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things. In this world we can now begin a little to understand things, and a little to master them by help of science, which has forced its way step by step against the Christian religion, against the churches, and against the opposition of all the old precepts. Science can help us to get over this craven fear in which mankind has lived for so many generations. Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.

What We Must Do
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world — its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it. The whole conception of God is a conception derived from the ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men. When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages. A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men. It needs a fearless outlook and a free intelligence. It needs hope for the future, not looking back all the time toward a past that is dead, which we trust will be far surpassed by the future that our intelligence can create.

The Bertrand Russell Society

Thanks Mr. Russell, I couldn’t agree more!

What Other Deities Were Born On Jesus’ Birthday?

Neece — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 03:12:30 +0000

Was 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.

Inscribed about 3,500 years ago on the walls of the Temple at Luxor were images of the Annunciation, Immaculate Conception, Birth and Adoration of Horus, with Thoth announcing to the Virgin Isis that she will conceive Horus; with Kneph the “Holy Ghost,” impregnating the virgin; and with the infant being attended by three kings, or magi, bearing gifts. In addition, in the catacombs at Rome are pictures of the baby Horus being held by the virgin mother Isis—the original “Madonna and Child.”

~EDIT: more information on Horus:

Religious Tolerance has a handy chart and some background information regarding Horus, comparing the Egyptian god to Jesus.

Here is a bit of information that they have before the chart. I’ve added Wikipedia links to the three authors mentioned:

“There is a near consensus that Yeshua was born circa 4 to 7 BCE. By that time, stories from the life of Horus had been circulating for centuries before. If any copying occurred by the writers of the Egyptian or Christian religions, it was the myths and legends of Horus that were incorporated into Jesus’ biography, not vice-versa.

Tom Harpur, an author, journalist, Anglican priest, and theologian, studied the works of three authors specialized in ancient Egyptian religion: Godfrey Higgins (1771-1834), Gerald Massey (1828-1907) and Alvin Boyd Kuhn (1880-1963). Harpur incorporated some of their findings into his book “Pagan Christ.” He argued that all of the essential ideas of both Judaism and Christianity came primarily from Egyptian religion.

Harpur writes, in his book:

“[Author Gerald] Massey discovered nearly two hundred instances of immediate correspondence between the mythical Egyptian material and the allegedly historical Christian writings about Jesus. Horus indeed was the archetypal Pagan Christ.” ₂

One problem with comparing events in the life of Horus and Yeshua relates to time. Horus was a leading figure in Egyptian mythology for millennia. Folklore about him naturally proliferated during this interval. So, for example, there is more than one story about the method by which he died. Thus, if the writers of the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) did copy events from Horus’ life, they would have had multiple options from which to choose. Further, one cannot compare crucifixion in 1st century CE Judah, with a similar procedure in ancient Egypt. Roman crucifixion followed a specific procedure by which the victim was made to carry the crosspiece through the city, clothing was stripped from him, his limbs were tied — or in rare instances, nailed — to the cross, etc. Nothing precisely like this existed in ancient Egypt. So, one cannot strictly call Horus’ execution a crucifixion, even if he was tied to a tree and died of exposure.”

They have a second chart here: Similarities between Jesus and Horus: More life events, characteristics and teachings.

The main reference is Tom Harpur’s The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Also, The Egyptian Book of the Dead

Osiris c. 3000 BCE

–Father of Horus, considered to be part of a triune godhead — Osiris, Horus and Isis.
–Osiris was identified with nearly every other Egyptian god and was on the way to absorbing them all. He had well over 200 divine names.
–He was called the Lord of Lords, King of Kings, God of Gods.
–He was the Resurrection and the Life, the Good Shepherd, Eternity and Everlastingness, the god who “made men and women to be born again.” –From first to last, Osiris was to the Egyptians the god-man who suffered, an died, and rose again, and reigned eternally in heaven. They believed that they would inherit eternal life, just as he had done .
–Osiris’s coming was announced by Three Wise Men: the three stars Mintaka, Anilam, and Alnitak in the belt of Orion, which point directly to Osiris’s star in the east, Sirius (Sothis), significator of his birth . . .
–Osiris was a prototypical Messiah, as well as a devoured Host. His flesh was eaten in the form of communion cakes of wheat, the “plant of Truth.” . . .
–The cult of Osiris contributed a number of ideas and phrases to the Bible. The 23rd Psalm copied an Egyptian text appealing to Osiris the Good Shepherd to lead the deceased to the “green pastures” and “still waters” of the nefer-nefer land, to restore the soul to the body, and to give protection in the valley of the shadow of death (the Tuat).
–The Lord’s Prayer was prefigured by an Egyptian hymn to Osiris-Amen beginning, “O Amen, O Amen, who are in heaven.” Amen was also invoked at the end of every prayer.

~Edit: More information on Osiris at Wikipedia and TourEgypt.net

Wheat and Clay Rituals (from Wikipedia):

Contrasting with the public “theatrical” ceremonies sourced from the I-Kher-Nefert stele, more esoteric ceremonies were performed inside the temples by priests witnessed only by chosen initiates. Plutarch mentions that two days after the beginning of the festival “the priests bring forth sacred chest containing a small golden coffer, into which they pour some potable water…and a great shout arises from the company for joy that Osiris is found (or resurrected). Then they knead some fertile soil with the water…and fashion therefrom a crescent-shaped figure, which they cloth and adorn, this indicating that they regard these gods as the substance of Earth and Water.” (Isis and Osiris, 39). Yet even his accounts were still obscure for he also wrote, “I pass over the cutting of the wood” opting not to describe it since he considered it as a most sacred ritual (Ibid. 21). In the Osirian temple at Denderah, an inscription (translated by Budge, Chapter XV, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection) describes in detail the making of wheat paste models of each dismembered piece of Osiris to be sent out to the town where each piece was discovered by Isis. At the temple of Mendes, figures of Osiris are made from wheat and paste placed in a trough on the day of the murder, then water was added for several days, until finally the mixture was kneaded into a mold of Osiris and taken to the temple to be buried (the sacred grain for these cakes were grown only in the temple fields). Molds were made from the wood of a red tree in the forms of the sixteen dismembered parts of Osiris, the cakes of ‘divine’ bread were made from each mold, placed in a silver chest and set near the head of the god with the inward parts of Osiris as described in the Book of the Dead (XVII). On the first day of the Festival of Ploughing, where the goddess Isis appears in her shrine where she is stripped naked, paste made from the grain were placed in her bed and moistened with water, representing the fecund earth. All of these sacred rituals were climaxed by the eating of sacramental god, the eucharist by which the celebrants were transformed, in their persuasion, into replicas of their god-man (Larson 20).

Here is something interesting: A paper written by Martin Luther King, Jr in 1950: The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity.

Here is his bibliography from the bottom of the paper:

1. Angus, S., Mystery Religions and Christianity, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York: 1925),
2. Cumont, Franz, The Mysteries of Mithra, (The Open Court Publishing Co., Chicago: 1910).
3. Cumont, Franz, The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism, (The Open House Publishing Co., Chicago: 1911).
4. Dill, Samuel, Roman society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, (Macmillan and Co., New York: 1905), pp. 585-626.
5. Enslin Morton S., Christian Beginnings, (Harper and Brothers Publishers, New York: 1938), pp. 186-200.
6. Frazer, J. E., Adonis, Attis, Osiris, (London, 1922), Vol. I.
7. Fairbanks, Arthur, Greek Religion, (American Book Co, New York: 1910).
8. Halliday, W. R., Pagan Background of Early Christianity, (The University Press of Liverpool, London: N.D.), pp. 281-311.
9. Hyde, Walter, W, Paganism to Christianity in the Roman Empire, (University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia: 1946).
10. Moore, George F., History of Religions, (Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York: 1913), Vol. I, pp. 375-405.
11. Nilsson, Martin P., Greek Popular Religion, (Columbia University Press, New York: 1940), pp. 42-64.
12. Weigall Arthur, The Paganism in Our Christianity, (Hutchinson and Co. London: N.D.).
13. Willoughby, Harold R., Pagan Regeneration, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1929).

Attis of Phrygia c.1400 BCE

– born on December 25 of the Virgin Nana (or sometimes Cybelem).
– considered the savior who was slain for the salvation of mankind.
– his body as bread was eaten by his worshippers
– his priests were “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.”
– he was both the Divine Son and the Father.
– he was crucified on a tree on “Black Friday,” from which his holy blood ran down to redeem the earth.
– descended into the underworld for three days.
– was resurrected on March 25 (as tradition held of Jesus) as the Most High God. — reborn as the evergreen pine.

~EDIT: Links to Attis on Wikipedia and Theoi. I am not sure where the above information came from. The priests castrated themselves, yes. But the rest is unsourced, so question its validity.

Krishna c. 1400 BCE (possibly as early as 5771 BCE)

– born of the Virgin Devaki (“Divine One”) on December 25.
–his earthly father was a carpenter, off in the city paying tax when K. was born.
–birth was signaled by a star in the east and attended by angels and shepherds, at which time he was presented with spices.
–heavenly hosts danced and sang at his birth.
–persecuted by a tyrant who ordered the slaughter of thousands of infants.
–anointed on the head with oil by a woman whom he healed.
–depicted as having his foot on the head of a serpent.
–worked miracles and wonders, raising the dead and healing lepers, the deaf and the blind.
–used parables to teach the people about charity and love, and he “lived poor and he loved the poor.”
–castigated the clergy, charging them with “ambition and hypocrisy . . . Tradition says he fell victim to their vengeance.”
–his “beloved disciple” was Arjuina or Ar-jouan (Jouhn).
–transfigured in front of his disciples.
–gave his twelve disciples the ability to work miracles.
–his path was “strewn with branches.”
–died on a tree or was crucified between two thieves.
–killed around the age of 30, and the sun darkened at his death.
–rose from the dead and ascended to heaven “in the sight of all men.”
–depicted on a cross with nail-holes in his feet, as well as having a heart emblem on his clothing.
–the “lion of the tribe of Saki.”
–called the “Shepherd of God” and considered the “Redeemer,” “Firstborn,” “Sin-Bearer,” “Liberator,” “Universal Word.”
–deemed the “Son of God” and “our Lord and Savior,” who came to earth to die for man’s salvation.
–the second person of the Trinity.
–his disciples purportedly bestowed upon him the title “Jezeus,” or “Jeseus,” meaning “pure essence.”

Zoroaster/Zarathustra c. 1000 BCE or earlier

–born of a 15-year-old virgin, Dughdhava and “immaculate conception by a ray of divine reason.”
–he was baptized in a river.
–in his youth he astounded wise men with his wisdom.
–was tempted in the wilderness by the devil.
–began his ministry at age 30 wandered around with twelve followers.
–baptized with water, fire and “holy wind.”
–cast out demons and restored the sight to a blind man.
–taught about heaven and hell, and revealed mysteries, including resurrection, judgment, salvation and the apocalypse.
–had a sacred cup or grail.
–was slain.
–his religion had a eucharist.
–he was the “Word made flesh.”
–followers expected a “second coming” in the virgin-born Saoshynt or Savior, who is to come in 2341 CE and begin his ministry at age 30, ushering in a golden age.

Mithra of Persia c. 600 BCE

–born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave, and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
–considered a great traveling teacher and master.
–had 12 companions or disciples.
–his followers were promised immortality.
–performed miracles.
–the “great bull of the Sun,” Mithra sacrificed himself for world peace.
– buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
–resurrection was celebrated every year.
–called “the Good Shepherd” and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
–considered the “Way, the Truth and the Light,” and the “Logos,” [Word] “Redeemer,” “Savior” and “Messiah.”
–sacred day was Sunday, the “Lord’s Day,” hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
–had his principal festival on what was later to become Easter.
–his religion had a eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithra said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
–his annual sacrifice is the Passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement of pledge of moral and physical regeneration.

ALSO, the Vatican is built upon the papacy of Mithra, and the Christian hierarchy is nearly identical to the Mithraic version it replaced . . . Virtually all of the elements of the Catholic ritual, from miter to wafer to altar to doxology, are directly taken from earlier Pagan mystery religions.

Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) c. 563 BCE

–born on December 25
–born of the Virgin Maya (“the Queen of Heaven”)
– announced by a star and attended by wise men presenting costly gifts.
–at his birth Brahma angels sang hymns.
–tempted by Mara, the Evil One, while fasting, but overcame the temptation, putting the Evil One to flight.
–taught in temple at age 12 and was able to match the wise religious scholars in their understanding.
– He healed the sick; fed 500 from a small basket of cakes.
–walked on water.
–Buddha’s disciple wanted to hear his lord preach so he started to cross a stream – he doubted and started to sink but he built up his faith and continued to walk across the water.
–came to fulfill the law and preached the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness.
–He obliged followers to live in poverty and to renounce the world.
–In his final years, Buddha was said to have ‘crushed a serpent’s head’ and to have been transfigured on a mount …’
–It was Buddha, not Christ, who first said: ‘If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also’

Heracles c. 800 BCE

–born on December 25 to a virgin who refrained from sex with her until her God-begotten child was born.
–sacrificed at the spring equinox.

Dionysus c. 186 BCE

–born of a virgin on December 25 and, as the Holy Child, was placed in a manger.
–a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
–rode in a triumphal procession on an ass.
– a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
–rose from the dead on March 25.
–the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
–called “King of Kings” and “God of Gods.”
–considered the “Only Begotten Son,” Savior,” “Redeemer,” “Sin Bearer,” Anointed One,” and the “Alpha and Omega.”
–identified with the Ram or Lamb.
–His sacrificial title of “Dendrites” or “Young Man of the Tree” indicates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

Tammuz c. 400 BCE

–born to a virgin, named Mylitta, on December 25

Adonis c. 200 BCE

–born on December 25 was son of the virgin Myrha. (Almost certainly based on Tammuz).

Hermes

–born on December 25 was the son of the virgin Maia,
–member of a holy trinity Hermes Tris-Megistus.

Bacchus

–born on December 25, was crucified in 200 BCE.

Prometheus

–born on December 25, descended from heaven as a god incarnate as man, to save mankind, and was crucified, suffered, and was redeemed from death.

Thank you, Edwin Kagin at American Atheists

Should Religion Be Taught To Minors?

Neece — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 05:49:13 +0000

I 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.

Debating Evolution is a Waste of Time (yeah, I know it’s been covered before)

groovecat — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:08:20 +0000

Debating 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.

2010 Mythicist Prize

Neece — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:01:22 +0000

So, 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.

SUBMISSION

Contestants are limited to one essay each. Three copies of the work should be mailed in one package to: 2010 Mythicist Prize 396 E. 29th Ave., & Eugene, OR 97405 U.S.A.

DEADLINES FOR RECEIPT OF SUBMISSIONS

From the U.S.A.: Dec. 1, 2009. & From other countries: Dec. 15, 2009.

LANGUAGE OF SUBMISSION

Essays must be written in one of the following languages: English, German, French, Italian, Spanish.

JUDGES:

René Salm, Robert M. Price, Frank R. Zindler, Earl Doherty. The decision of the judges is final. The prizewinner will be announced at the 2010 American Atheist National Convention. (Note: If no submission is deemed worthy of receiving the Mythicist Prize, then the prize will not be awarded.)

FORMAT

Essays must be 30–100 pages in length and double-spaced. Submissions should preferably be printed (or typed) on both sides of the paper. Footnotes or endnotes are permissible and a bibliography is required. Pages are to be numbered, with the author’s name and the title of the essay on each page. Also, the author’s name, address, as well as e-mail address should appear on the first or cover page. Submissions via email and digital files on computer disk are not permitted, but contributors should be prepared to supply a digital copy of their essay if requested.

For further information, please write to “2010 Mythicist Prize” at the address above, or email Mr. René Salm at rjs@epud.net. ”

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/mythicist_prize.html

http://www.atheists.org/Mythicist_Prize

Mythicists’ Forum
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mythicists_forum/

the VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icvpY6cAZzg