Around 3500BC humans began celebrating the day the light became 'noticeably' longer, Dec 25th.

Noticeably longer to a human 5500 years ago. Humans that didn't have modern equipment to track precise times when the sun rose and set. Other than early sundials.

On this day of noticeably longer light, humans began throwing celebrations. Light signified life. The new growing season would soon be here etc.

These celebrations on this most important day gave birth to what many archaeologists now call mythological 'solar deities". The rest of us call it mythology.

Some examples of 'solar deity' pagan religions..

Horus- 1300BC "birthday" celebrated by the faithful on Dec 25th.

Dionysis- 900BC "birthday" celebrated on Dec 25th.

Mithra- 650BC "birthday" celebrated on Dec 25th.

Ancient history can be an eye opener.

Google 'solar deities' for an eye opening experience.

?

PB

NO Gregorian calendar?

You really need to provide a link if you're going to do calendar crap. As for asserting the year that the winter solstice began to be celebrated..........!

I think it's nifty that all these events happened in years that end in zero.

The Roman calendar only had 304 days in a year. So, Decemebr 25 would not always be around the winter solstice.

Post when you have something new to say.

Your "eye opener" is no news to me, and it's certainly not changing anything in my world.

and woefully under educated as far as history is concerned.

Riiiiight.

dg

Anyone can indoctrinate & brainwash.

dg

it is impossible for someone without a doctrine to indoctrinate someone else.

get from the word's etymology isn't a fallacy.

You have a "teaching, body of teachings," you have "learning". Therefore you have something taught or to teach. That is a doctrine. A doctrine can be secular or religious, free-market or Communist. Or nearly anything else.

To indoctrinate is to imbue with a teaching or learning.

To teach your kids that there is no god is to indoctrinate them into atheism.

To do it underhandedly, deceitfully, or by force is a later addition. Some people are only familiar with the more recent connotation and assume that all usage must be that usage; others have seen the word used in a variety of contexts and understand that the word's core meaning is fairly stable while the connotation varies a bit by period and context.

Active denial of existence vs. lack of belief.

I lack belief. I have never said "there is no god." I have, however, said "I don't believe in god."

Do you see the difference? The first statement, the one you attribute to atheists and the one you suggest they force upon their children, is a statement of fact given without proof. That active denial of existence is a belief, which is why not a single atheist I've ever talked to or read about espouses that view or makes that statement.

There is no doctrine to atheism, as there is no belief and no active denial of existence. Without doctrine, there can be no indoctrination.

and they do indoctrinate & brainwash their kids. Every time you tell your kids that anyone who believes in God is stupid &/or believes in a myth or fairytale, you are indoctrinating & brainwashing.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge that doesn't make it so.

dg

who tells their kids that anyone who believes in God is stupid &/or believes in a myth or fairytale
I'll wait right here until you bring proof for your little assumption...

Sorry, not going to do your homework for you.

dg

I've seen people say "it's a fairy tale" here; but not that it's what they say to their kids.

I was a life-long strong atheist ("I believe there is no god"), and I acquired that belief precisely because that was what my father taught me. Now I call my self a secular mystic, and believe me it took just as much work to break my parental conditioning as it did for any of the people I've known who made the theist-to-atheist shift.

A weak atheist or agnostic may not indoctrinate their kids, but at least strong atheists do. My father did.

Did he indoctrinate you into atheism, or did he in fact indoctrinate you into something much more religious called anti-theism. Many people don't know the difference, but it's actually as plain as the rather large nose on my face.

Indoctrination requires a lot of work over a long period of time, and it only works if all of that work is coming from the same consistent starting point of a doctrine or dogma. So tell us about your father's doctrine. I have a very strong suspicion that doctrine will easily show itself as being anti-theist.

Your original question was, "Show me one atheist who tells their kids that anyone who believes in God is stupid &/or believes in a myth or fairytale."

My father did precisely that. He was a strong atheist (aka "I believe there is no God). He also believed, and taught me, that "People who believe in God were stupid, weak-minded and superstitious." That's an exact quote, BTW.

You can try to move the goal-posts by dragging in the poorly defined and even more poorly accepted term "anti-theist", but the fact remains that my father did precisely what you claimed no atheist did.

1. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god.
If someone makes it a mission to deride theists and make sure that others do not join them, that's the added bonus of being an anti-theist. I know many people don't WANT to see a difference, but it IS there.

Atheist: "I don't believe in god."
Anti-theist: "No one should believe in god."

One of those statements is about the self, while the other is about controlling other people.

So here's the problem neither one of us wants to admit: We're both right. Your father lacked belief in a god, therefore he was an atheist. However, he also made it his mission to fight against other people's belief in gods, which makes him an anti-theist. So, an atheist indoctrinated you (you were right) into anti-theism (I was right).

I'll repeat it again, atheism has no doctrine, and it is therefore impossible to indoctrinate someone into it.

2. Anti-theism is not poorly defined.
It is in fact quite simple to understand by taking the root word and looking at the prefix. An anti-theist is someone who is against theism, or theistic believers. Here's a handy little spectrum for you.

Theists------atheists-----anti-theists

Of course, it's more like a Venn Diagram, but draw THAT on a message board. :)

BTW: Save your accusations of dancing and goal-post moving. You'll need them for people on this board more interested in deriding you than discussing things with you.

You asked a question;
I answered it;
You didn't like the answer.

Sure my father is anti-theistic, but that has nothing to do with the question you asked. Anti-theism was a post-facto introduction intended (as far as I can tell) to generate a "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

is that you and others are intent on accusing atheists of indoctrinating people and you can't even tell us what doctrine we would use to do that.

The only doctrine you've demonstrated thus far is one of anti-theism, not atheism.

Atheism. Has. No. Doctrine. You and your accusatory friends can either prove that statement wrong, or admit to using the term "indoctrination" incorrectly.

That's the key. "I believe there is no God" is a doctrine.

However, what one person calls indoctrination, another just calls "teaching". As far as I was concerned, my father was simply teaching me his core values as fathers have done from the beginning of time. It worked too -- for 57 years I agreed with him lock, stock and barrel.

Atheists aren't saints, you know. We're human beings with the same vices and failings as everyone else. We just don't believe in the god that most other people do. Which is one point for our side.

Nor is it atheism.

Just because you're ignorant about this subject and refuse to acknowledge it doesn't make it so.

Makes you wonder.

:shrug:

Craehyzei :rofl:

I think it goes back much further than that.

Just my humble opinion.

The Mithraic Mysteries or Mysteries of Mithras (also Mithraism) was a mystery religion which became popular among the military in the Roman Empire, from the 1st to 4th centuries AD. Information on the cult is based mainly on interpretations of monuments. These depict Mithras as born from a rock and sacrificing a bull. His worshippers had a complex system of 7 grades of initiation, with ritual meals. They met in underground temples. Little else is known for certain ... The mysteries of Mithras were not practiced until the 1st century A.D. The unique underground temples or Mithraea appear suddenly in the archaeology in the last quarter of the first century AD ... http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Mithraism

My church taught that Jesus died an hour or so before sundown.

It also taught that he was resurrected an hour or so before sundown.

I guess that if we kept Easter we'd have Easter sunset services. Knocks the "sunset = death, sunrise = resurrection" correlation right out of the ballpark though.

December 21st

"Humans that didn't have modern equipment to track precise times when the sun rose and set. Other than early sundials."

They used the landscape itself and eventually altered the landscape all over the planet (built stone circles and other monuments)

And who said Christianity was original?

The fantastic paintings appear to be elaborate star charts and the main gallery at Lascaux is illuminated by the sun through it's opening on the solstice. Other caves (over 100) in the area were chosen to be decorated with astrological symbolism because they had entrances orientated to to the sun on solstice and equinox events during the year.

I highly recommend:



Lascaux is covered on page 158 of my copy.