The 19th century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche put before people a choice: Dionysos or the Crucified?

There's no sign of life: Le Bon refutes God.

He saw with clarity that there were two starkly opposed views of life being lived out around him. One followed Dionysos, or Dionysius, the Greco-Roman God of wine, who championed hedonism. The other was the Christian way, the way of the crucified saviour who gave his life for others. God taking on flesh to save the world — that’s crazy, said Nietzsche. Many today seem to agree with him.

A new book called The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas (Ariane Sherine (Ed), The Friday Project, 2009) agrees with Nietzsche, but wants to tell even him to chill out a bit when it comes to Christmas.

If there is a summary message to The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas it is that atheists can have their Christmas cake and eat their godlessness, too. In other words, get Dionysian, have a great time at Christmas and don’t feel guilty about not being religious. That’s the summary message of the many short, humorous and entertaining chapters that make up the book.

This compilation of over forty writers that brings together the thoughts of journalists, comedians, scientists and philosophers, has been put together by those behind the Atheist Bus Campaign, that famously declared to London residents ‘There’s Probably No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.’

Much of the book is simply humorous, such as the geeky chapter doing a scientific analysis of ‘Christmassiness’ or the one on how to make the most hateable Christmas light display for your house and garden. But there’s some serious thinking going on here too.

Jenny Colgan, a novelist, and one of the contributors to The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, writes that “accepting the Christmas story means accepting a whole bunch of other stuff; doctrine perhaps not quite so tea-towel- and stuffed lamb friendly” (p.11). In other words, Christmas is kind of pleasurable, but the stuff about sin and judgement isn’t.

I guess she’s right: both Christmas and Easter are essential to the Christian message. And Easter involves a less festive type of tree.

Nevertheless, I was struck by the pettiness of some of the opposition to Christianity. One writer says she gave up on God because he didn’t reply to the Christmas cards she wrote as a five-year old; Simon Le Bon (yes, of Duran Duran fame) philosophizes that if God doesn’t have a brain, then he can’t think and therefore doesn’t exist; another writer says her defining moment of unbelief was because she didn’t get a good role in the school nativity play.

It was startling how many of these writers had abandoned God for frankly childish reasons. Many chapters hark back to childhood, and then in various ways outline the child’s disappointment with church, religion, the Bible and/or God. Religion isn’t something they grew out of; it’s something that disappointed them.

Richard Dawkins does his best Bertie Wooster impersonation (perhaps lost on those not familiar with P.G. Wodehouse’s comic novels) through which character he unveils many of his problems with the Christian faith. He finds no reason to believe in a personal deity rather than Nature; he finds the idea of someone dying to pay the sins of another (substitutionary atonement) abhorrent; and the Bible is self-congratulatory myth. Oh, and he (that is, his persona in the story) deeply disliked his high school Scripture teacher, whom he gives the name Aubrey Upcock (I do wonder why; what is going on with Richard Dawkins?).

I found this story from Dawkins troubling. It is so full of disdain and mockery for Christianity, much of it rooted in bad experiences, and yet it, too, like so many of the other stories, seems to be rejecting God because of childhood.

It was also surprising to me that most of the atheist writers love Christmas. I expected more attacks on ridiculous religiosity and its complicity with consumerism and wastefulness. But no, most of these atheists love a good carol, a good baked dinner, and loads of presents under the tree. As one says, “Pooh to Deep Meanings, as far as I’m concerned. All any of us have is the here and now…so eat, drink and be merry” (p.124). Go, Dionysos! It should be said, however, that one atheist is dreaming of a Green Christmas, so there’s at least some claim to deeper meaning.

In fact, another important element of the book is its emphasis on building an atheistic view of ethics based on kindness. This is a commendable goal, but the thinking on the topic is surprisingly shallow. It is one thing to call people to “forgive purely because it is nicer to forgive” (p.166), but quite another to seek justice for those who have been wronged, to love those who are opposed to you, and to be humble and merciful in the face of injustice done to you. For these ethical goals, Christianity offers a much stronger and more realistic approach.

One of the more intellectual contributors to the book, philosopher A.C. Grayling, writes that most of the things he enjoys about Christmas derive from Roman traditions — gift-giving, decorating trees, feasting. In other words, the Dionysian element. Plenty of others would say that the Christian elements of carol singing, caring for those in need St Nicholas-style, and sharing with family, are just as pleasurable. But Grayling highlights a problem: Christianity is associated with too narrow a worldview by most of these atheist writers.

Nietzsche was wrong to set his two worldviews so diametrically against each other, and I think the writers of this book make a similar mistake.

The Christian worldview encompasses both the path of suffering and the joys and pleasures of life. It’s Dionysos and the Crucified, It’s both/and, not either/or, and the pleasures of the ceremonies around Christmas pull together the dramatic story of the saviour born in humble circumstances with the coming agony of his journey towards crucifixion and resurrection.

For a jolly Christmas read, a lot of the writing in The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas is quietly melancholy. It is as if some of the authors are saying, “God, I wish this were true because it’s such a great story and it would give us such reason to celebrate”.

They are right about the greatness of the story; I wonder whether it might have been rejected for the wrong reasons.

- Dr Greg Clarke is Director of the Centre for Public Christianity (publicchristianity.org)

45 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • sbegmeister says:

      08:30pm | 24/12/11

      A silly article. Why does this debate continue? Cultural heritage is worth celebrating but not ignorance and irrationality which cannot be justified by “faith”. Merry Christmas and every other European mid-winter festival.

    • Bwian says:

      10:39pm | 24/12/09

      No Ben, I don’t assume that nature is all there is. If you can provide me with sound evidence for the existence of something supernatural, I’ll believe it.  I accept that there are phenomena not explained by science and perhaps inexplicable to science – that which existed prior to the big bang, for instance.  But if you claim that it was a god that made the big bang, then you will have to provide sound evidence or reason to justify that claim – it is not the only possible default explanation - and perhaps not the most plausible given other knowledge we have.  There are lots of things I would accept as justification for factual claims: certain types of direct experience; replicable validated measurement; valid deduction from known premises, etc.

      I’m not sure what you mean by ‘in complete agreement’ - you’ll have to explain that. I’ll illustrate the point I wanted to make.  The argument from objective moral values contends that if objective moral values exist then there must be a god (or at least a god is the best explanation).  If true, it does not imply anything about that god except that it imbued the world with objective moral values.  This conclusion is consistent with a god who is not morally perfect; it is consistent with any number of possible divine beings.  So it does not constitute an argument for the existence of the Christian god.  The other two arguments are similarly insufficiently specific regards the attributes of the implied being to count as arguments in support of the Christian god. 

      Secular moral philosophies - Utilitarianism, for instance – can provide a sound basis for objective moral judgement and are, for the most, decidedly antirelativist.  Utilitarianism provides a reasoned, objective basis for justice, the good and the value of human life.  It satisfies all the concerns you mentioned about morality.  It may even be said to provide a non-moral meaning for life, but at the least, it is not incompatible with many possible meanings. 

      I’m sorry you don’t want to continue this discussion.
      Merry Christmas

    • Ben says:

      02:09pm | 24/12/09

      Again, what constitutes adequate evidence to you?  If you assume nature is all there is (regardless of phenomena that cannot be explained by science), then of course you’ll never consider any evidence beyond your own parameter. 

      The Bible’s description of God as eternal (first cause), creator (teleological), and morally perfect is in complete agreement with the philosophical arguments I put forward.  As for surveys on atheism: isn’t Islam growing too, not to mention Christianity? 

      Re: nihilism—modern literature and philosophy have explored the alternatives to theism and the implications of atheism, including nihilism.  Ultimately there’s no real answer, only the fog of relativism.

      So let’s see: no ultimate meaning for life, no value of human life, no basis for even the most basic moral values, no ultimate justice, no good (how can an atheist objectively determine what is good?).  No thanks!

      Enjoyed chatting with you and you’re welcome to have the last word.

    • Bwian says:

      10:56am | 24/12/09

      Correction, that should be ‘fastest’, not ‘fasted’.

    • Bwian says:

      08:27am | 24/12/09

      Ben, I don’t deny any possiblity of the supernatural.  I just withhold belief in that for which there is inadequate evidence for its existence, supernatural or not.

      By not “constituting evidence for the existence of the Christian god, per se” I mean that they are only arguments for the existence of some sort of powerful force and provide for little specification as to the particular nature of that force.

      I didn’t claim that the cited survey disproves god’s existence.  I was only suggesting that a preponderance of expert philosophical opinion lends some support to the warrant of a philosophical claim.

      I’m not sure why you equate atheism with nihilism - you will have to explain that one.  Perhaps most people do currently reject atheism, but in survey after survey it is the fasted growing of all religious belief-related categories across the western world .

    • Ben says:

      10:54pm | 23/12/09

      hi Bwian, I’m not surprised that you cite a lack of evidence, since your viewpoint limits what is credible by denying any possibility of the supernatural!

      You don’t have to be convinced by the traditional arguments (not sure what you mean by claiming they don’t “constitute arguments for the existence of the Christian god”), but most people agree that a higher being or God is one plausible explanation for the universe.  That’s not a proof for God’s existence (and neither is your survey statistic a proof against), but given the choice between a nihilistic life and belief in God, you might see why most people reject atheism.

    • Bwian says:

      03:46pm | 23/12/09

      Hi Ben
      I conclude there is no Christian god (which is, I presume is what you mean) for the same reason that I don’t believe in Osiris, the prophet Joseph Smith, Xenu or Mary McKillop’s miracles – the lack of credible evidence.

      The philosophical arguments you mention (which don’t, of course, constitute arguments for the existence of the Christian god, per se) obviously do not convince me or I would be a believer.  This is no mere individual prejudice, though.  A recent survey of more than 3000 philosophers by PhilPapers found that only 14 per cent were theists.  So it appears that among those who are trained to evaluate such arguments, at least 86 per cent (and perhaps more) find them unconvincing.

    • Ben says:

      09:26am | 23/12/09

      hi Bwian, I’d actually first like to understand how you can conclude there is no God.  I was initially interested by Greg’s description of the atheists reviewed as being humorous, petty, disdainful and I think the general tone of the comments here do reflect his description.  (not that the other side is pure either)  Just curious.

      As for traditional positive arguments, how about the cosmological arguments, or the teleological argument, or the argument from objective moral values?

    • Bwian says:

      07:40am | 23/12/09

      Ben, and the evidence is ...?

    • Ben says:

      06:38am | 23/12/09

      Bwian, you sarcastically imply that there’s no evidence for the existence of God—but you haven’t explained how you come to this conclusion.  There *are* reasonable arguments for the existence of a higher being, and you gain nothing by avoiding them.

    • Bwian says:

      09:55pm | 21/12/09

      I’m with you Ben.  I don’t know where those guys get off still believing in a flying pasta god at the beginning of the 21st centruy.  For me it was thoroughly debunked years ago with the evidentiary argument from macaroni cheese.  And if I hear another cosmological argument about string theory I’m going to spew.

    • Cherub says:

      09:34am | 18/12/09

      Brendan, you call me ignorant and then reveal your own ignorance about religion andreligious faith.  You say, “There is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of God.  You refer to Anthony Flew’s personal transformation from atheist to belever as though this is hard evidence.  All religion is based on faith alone.”  This is a bit like saying there is no evidence for the “big bang theory” where by inductive reasoning you move from what is known to what one cannot see.  No one saw the “big bang” the scientific evidence for this theory is pretty impressive and it the evidence does exist.  You say that all religion is based on faith alone.  What is YOUR evidence for this proposition.  Come on, face it, you have made a statement based not on fact but ignorance and prejudice.  You may not agree with them, but some of the finest human minds today, on the basis of evidence which they identify, find consistency betwen faith and reason.  You, and many others on this thread, simply express your faith in atheism without any supportive arguments and think that clever personal ridicule of others will pass for intelligent argument.  Well it doesn’t!  So get wise, read a little more, and enter a real debate based on knowledge, logic and reason and you will be taken more seriously.

    • Ben says:

      02:24am | 18/12/09

      The FSM / pink unicorn / teapot is a silly and tired joke, because it simply skips over the Christian arguments for God’s existence, by equating belief in God with the groundless belief in a made-up being.  Add wit and stir mindlessly, it seems.

    • Interloper says:

      11:06pm | 17/12/09

      When did intolerance and ignorance become a virtue?

      Anyone quoting the Old Testament as an argument against Christianity is demonstrating ignorance. The crux of Jesus’ message can be interpreted as ‘wow, you really got that wrong’. That’s not proof of anything, but it’s a useful test for whether commentators understand anything they’re talking about.

      I’m a Christian. I don’t know how God works - but I find that expressing my thoughts to him in prayer helps me to figure out what to do next. I accept that this may be an entirely psychological response. But I don’t care. And I don’t see why you should care about my beliefs either.

    • jacketts says:

      10:30pm | 17/12/09

      jacketts says while there are doubts about their lord i do believe in the ideas, meanwhile bring back the maypole

    • Anthony Masters says:

      10:23pm | 17/12/09

      @AdamC, this is my first time on this site but I think Dr Greg hits the nail on the head. Not sure when the Christmas reductionism revival is due to set in, but I’m as game as any right now. Although according to Dawkins there is no such thing as reductionism (“it makes me want to reach for a revolver, there is no such thing as reductionism”), which makes about as much sense as an architect saying “I’m not reducing the upper stories of skyscraper to its ground floor because there are no upper stories”.

    • Nat says:

      09:37pm | 17/12/09

      LOVE how Dawkins little campaign uses the ‘There’s PROBABLY No God. Now Stop Worrying and Enjoy Your Life.’  Sounds to me like he is a little bit unsure himself!

      Many “new-born” athiests tend to treat his words (and those of the overly popous Christopher Hitchens) as “gospel” holding them in a “god like” esteem and “spreading the word” - pfft…almost another “religion” if you ask me.

      Oh, did I mention I am an athiest.

      But Merry Christmas to you all….I will celebrating the coming of ol’ Santa with much joy with my family.  And happy birthday to Jesus Christ on behalf of those who believe - each to their own

      PS The whole FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER thing is a tad overdone - think of something a bit more original please!

    • hoofman says:

      08:42pm | 17/12/09

      Ben, I want you to provide me with a rebuttal for my belief in the existence of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I believe he exists because he is written about on the internet and there are pictures of him. I believe there are none of the Christian god. His Noodliness has a more contemporary and prior claim to existence and I think you should provide your case against that before expect others to refute the existence of your preferred deity.

      Adam C, there has never been a time of greater need for a belief in his noodliness. Believing is seeing.

    • Ben says:

      03:46pm | 17/12/09

      @ hoofman: not quite correct, so I’ll word it another way: what are the Christian arguments for God’s existence that DG rejects, and why? 

      @ Justin: that’s cute but again, would love to hear how you could arrive at that interpretation WITH context.

    • AdamC says:

      03:17pm | 17/12/09

      I think it might be time to retire the Flying Spaghetti Monster, everyone. It was pretty lame to begin with, now it’s beyond tedious.

      This post was great, Greg, I like a bit of pop intellectualism in my mid-afternoon blog-browsing. While I love your Nietzchean (sp) Dionysus and Jesus dichotomy, I fear you failed to get to the heart of our new sectarianism between atheists and Christians. It may have something to do with Bacchus, but has nothing to do with liquor (which has become just as much a part of the season as Christ).

      I think we all know what I am talking about here. While science is often presented as the main rival to (Christian) faith, the fact is that the scientific revolution in Europe coincided with a great Christian revival there. Likewise, the idea of a neo-paganism embodied by the environment movement is spurious: caring about God and His creation are hardly mutually exclusive!

      No, the unfortunate truth is that, in an age of licence and self-gratification over the breakfast table, people simply don’t like the idea of a long-dead semite who they see as wagging his finger at them from on high when they would rather be swinging from the chandeliers (and, for that matter, from anything else).

    • Grant says:

      03:04pm | 17/12/09

      @ hoofman,

      You are very wise indeed.. 

      May his noodly appendage bless you with his meatballs and savoury saucy based goodyness.

      @ Greg Clarke

      Jokes aside, I’ve never associated christmas with religion.  Also church numbers are declining, times are a changing Greg, does it concern you?  I’m pretty sure it does, looking down the barrell of the possibility of your belief system slowly dying out. 

      Maybe its time you swapped to my god, he is just as awesome, and has the same powers as yours, including being invisible, however he is less wrathful and will envelope you in his noodly love.

      Ramen…

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      02:51pm | 17/12/09

      All religions are useful if they incalcute an ethical basis in an individual at an early age. (it doesn’t matter which religion- they all have a similar ethical basis.). This is essential for a properly functioning society. Whether or not God exists is another matter…..

    • Justin says:

      02:46pm | 17/12/09

      Ben: I’m sorry, I didn’t realise there was a context where selling your daughter into sexual slavery WAS acceptable. Silly me.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      02:25pm | 17/12/09

      I’ve turned my back on christianity to follow the rainbow serpent and dream time - less corrupt and more believable

    • hoofman says:

      01:17pm | 17/12/09

      Ben - you seem to want DG to provide proof for the non-existence of God. I also challenge you to provide evidence for the non-existence of His Pastaness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
      He’s on the web, therefore he am:
      http://www.venganza.org/

    • Ben says:

      12:58pm | 17/12/09

      @ DG: like the atheists Greg describes, you have a childish understanding of Christianity.  You flatly claim there is no evidence for the existence of God—but you won’t detail your reasons for your conclusion.  Then you try to separate the “philosophy” from the “religion” of Christianity, which suggests you have never seriously read the Bible.  If you had, you would know that the Bible’s teachings on ethics are clearly attributed to God.  It’s futile to practise the Bible’s ethics apart from its theology, not least because it’s dishonest.

      @ Justin: Why not try reading the Bible again, this time with a sense of context?

    • Grant says:

      12:54pm | 17/12/09

      As a practising Pastafarian, I would quickly like to mention my religion, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, he (it), his Noodliness also endorses Christmas.

      And like you Greg, I also believe in an invisible super awe-inspiring deity who can travel through matter, transcend time and space and created the universe.

      May you be blessed by his noodly appendage. Now please take a knee and take communion from his holy meatballs of righteousness.

      Ramen…

    • Liz says:

      12:44pm | 17/12/09

      Faint whiff of patronage here methinks and why is that?Are atheists just that tiny bit less intelligent that believers? Or perhaps threateningly more so.

    • Chase Stevens says:

      12:18pm | 17/12/09

      Christmas has never had a religious element for me. Well none that I know of. Christmas has always to me been a time where family gets together for Christmas lunch (A rather long lunch that usually extends till it’s time for tea), it’s a time where you get to see relatives whom you haven’t seen all year - in some cases longer - and of course it’s been about receiving and giving all manner of gifts. Hedonistic pursuits that I would never give up.

      Of course there are people whom are down on their luck and so cannot afford these pleasantries of Christmas (Because heaven knows the important Gods of Christmas are Money and Consumerism), this is why charities and generous people exist: to donate their time, money and effort to bringing people less fortunate - for whatever reason - a better and happier Christmas.  People from all walks of life donate these things.

      Some people would no doubt be thinking that it is Christians and Christian Charities that do the most over the Christmas Holidays. They’re probably right considering the majority of Australians identify as ‘Christian’ - Note there is no denomination - but for them I’ll wager that Christmas has little or nothing to do with religion as well.

      It is quite possible to hold the values of tolerance et al. of the Christian Religion whilst not believing in any form of God what so ever - Which let me tell you that honestly I wish I could believe in some form of God. It would make life so much easier knowing that something was pulling all the strings for me, much less responsibility then - the people who do hold these beliefs or similar feel good beliefs could be called a myriad of things - ‘Secular Humanist’, ‘Civilised’, ‘Rational Human’ to name a few - but the label isn’t important what is important is that we recognise that Christmas is no longer a purely Christian holiday. Nor in any likely event will it be again, in a nation as secular as Australia Christmas along with all of the other Holidays based on the Christian Faith can be and most probably are celebrated by people who are not Christian, because really these Holidays are less about Jesus and co. and more about wanting - possibly needing - to get together with Friends and Family for a good time.

      Whether or not this fits in with a Christian view of the holiday is entirely irrelevant in this contemporary secular Australia of ours, and because of this I can be proud and thankful for being born here.

    • Brendan says:

      12:10pm | 17/12/09

      Cherub, you sound quite ignorant.  There is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of God.  You refer to Anthony Flew’s personal transformation from atheist to belever as though this is hard evidence.  All religion is based on faith alone. 

      I find religious people to be quite bizarre.  How can you spend so much time and energy focussing on myths and fairy tales.  I mean really, the holy trinity, the virgin birth, the resurrection what a joke!  The one I really find amusing is prayer.  People actually believe that if they murmur stuff in their head or out loud, that there is a supreme being- like Santa- who listens.

    • RT says:

      11:21am | 17/12/09

      REL: I for one did not reject religion because of ‘single bad experience’. Instead, I rejected it by the time I was 15 because I realised it was a pile of mediaeval twaddle with no more foundation than a belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. Less, in fact, because I’d learned when younger that a belief in Santa or TF could have a tangible pay-off.

    • Greg Clarke says:

      11:07am | 17/12/09

      Thanks for commenting, everyone. I’m actually pretty supportive of the idea of re-labelling 25th December ‘Midsummer Day’ or some such thing, and make it a festival of sun and family. We could then find a new date for Christmas for those who want to celebrate their belief that God took on flesh in the birth of Jesus, and it wouldn’t have to involve men in red velvet suits and reindeers. I’d probably celebrate on both occasions.

    • I_Exist says:

      11:01am | 17/12/09

      Eeek- REL has an Imaginary friend.  Music and sports actually exist- your god is a concept.  I worry that people like you can vote…

    • Cherub says:

      11:00am | 17/12/09

      DG, you say “But ignoring those   , there is simply no evidence that supports the existence of god. Not only that there is substantial material within the myth of God that is inconsistent with reality (such as the age of the earth).”  Your ignorance is only matched by your extreme intolerance with those with whom you happen to disagree. Of course there is an abundance of evidence that supports the existence of God.  Atheist philosopher Anthony Flew explored the evidence and changed his mind.  He is not a Chrstian, but over the years this giant of modern philosophy found that that the scientific date properly understood philosophically leads inexorably to the existence of God.  You can read hy he changed his mind in his “There is a God”.  You may not agree with him, b ut you should read him to cure yourself of the prejudice that there is no evidence for the existence of God.  You may not find it compelling, but please do not insult the intelligence of others by denying it exists.

    • Justin says:

      10:58am | 17/12/09

      One doesn’t need bad childhood experiences to abhor everything about Christianity, I dare say I’ve read more of the bible than most Christians. If you’re familiar with the old testament, you’ll be well aware that it sanctions and justifies horrible horrible atrocities that would not be accepted in any modern civil society.

      Heck, it even sets the rules for selling your own daughter as a sex slave. That’s what I might do to celebrate Christmas, sell my daughter.

    • R.E.L. says:

      10:19am | 17/12/09

      Greg, it’s very interesting - as you point out - that most of these atheists reject religion based on unfortunate childhood experiences.
      Religion remains the only “activity” that people reject based on a single bad experience.
      Compare this to playing a musical instrument or a sport. Most of us, if we had a bad teacher or coach, switched teachers or teams until we found one that we could connect with and bring out the best within us. Yet with religion, we simply abandon it at the first hurdle.
      Life is not meant to be easy. But it can be enjoyed thoroughly in knowing that G-d is behind everything that occurs in the universe and therefore, I have no need to worry, because I know everything is ultimately for the best.
      I recommend people read “Toward a Meaningful Life” by Simon Jacobson.

    • David says:

      09:54am | 17/12/09

      Nice column Greg.

    • DG says:

      09:54am | 17/12/09

      “The Christian worldview encompasses both the path of suffering and the joys and pleasures of life.”

      The Religion of Christianity is based on faith in the existence of god and the fear of eternal damnation imposed by someone who purportedly loves you. Seriously, the who god story starts with Abraham offering to kill his own son because a voice in his head told him to. But ignoring those issues, there is simply no evidence that supports the existence of god. Not only that there is substantial material within the myth of God that is inconsistent with reality (such as the age of the earth).

      There really is no reason to believe in the Holy Trinity any more than there is to believe in Greek or Roman gods, Hindu Gods, the Dream time or any of the other ‘religions’ based on the faith in something in the absence of evidence. Each are equally (in)valid. The veracity of each ‘story’ is similar.

      Now the Philosophy of Christianity - that I can respect. I don’t agree with all of it but I can respect that a person would have the philosophy on rational grounds (i.e based on personal preference, experience and ideals rather than reliance on an old book). In fact I would respect someone that said I read the bible and like that life philosophy - but if they were willing to believe in an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent incorporeal character I would invite them to site down with the Invisible Pink Unicorn and share a strong brew from Russel’s Teapot.

      Just for your information - Christianity doesn’t have a good record with “love those who are opposed to you”, any more than other Faith’s based on Abraham’s God such as Islam. I certainly wouldn’t be holding it up as a strong point of the religion, and certainly not a philosophy that is followed by the church.  Further “to seek justice for those who have been wronged” from an organisation that has form for refusing to disclose evidence of child abuse (where, as I understand it, subsequent evidence has indicated that the church was aware of the veracity of the claims).

      And ignoring their own dirty laundry - “to seek justice for those who have been wronged” - yet to demand the right to confidentiality when a person confesses a crime?

      Again, the Philosophy of Christianity has some credit, I can’t say the same for the Religion, it’s dogma and church.

    • Mother says:

      09:33am | 17/12/09

      A wine and Christianity goes very well together as we know.
      So both things in moderation is the right recipe for me.
      Only if I indulge myself too much in one or the other I am sick.
      As to Dowkins and Le Bon experience with God that is their personal thing and dose not effect me to have wine at mass and at home.
      There are many more people who asked God for things and received them so they will tell as that God exist and is very good and clever one.
      Others who are not so lucky would say the opposite .
      The lives we live and the God we believe or not is our own one.
      This is if you believe God gave us free will.
      What we do with it and how we use it will make us happy or not.
      If there is Christian God or any other God I don’t know, I know that I like to celebrate any good occasion and I like to party for any reason,even the sad one too, like a funeral.
      Tolerance,moderation and respect if you are believer or atheist is the right thing in my opinion.
      Most of us cry and blame God for bad things that happen to us.
      Think about the animals and plants and the nature in whole, who they have to blame if bad things happen to them.
      Are we too selfish?
      As for me I love to wish you good time,some wine,some Christmas tree if you like but most of all respect each other and respect yourself.
      Cheers and Mary Christmas.

    • I_Exist says:

      09:28am | 17/12/09

      Wow- talk about the moral high ground.  Yes yes- all of these atheist writers are childish- now go back to playing with your imaginary friends and re-reading your very dated text.

      “Director of the Centre for Public Christianity “.  That such a role and institution exists is a waste of human effort- please quit and perform a task of real value.

    • Libby says:

      09:15am | 02/02/10

      Hey I_Exist,
      Many of us form our views on God as children: Christians, Atheists and others. An informed view can not be developed on such a thin layer of information. I wonder why you are so moved to read and then comment something that is a ‘waste of human effort?’. Keep reading. You have nothing to lose. If what you find is rubbish you are better informed. If what you find is the truth, then I am happy for you.

    • Proud Infidel says:

      08:52am | 17/12/09

      I have always liked Christmas. Many years ago when I discovered to my amusement that most the traditions are from the Romans, my respect for it grew. Dates of the original festival run from the 17th to the 23rd of December. Gee what a surprise. So Ho Ho, praise to Saturn. Happy Saturnalia to my fellow human beings and I wish you all a happy festival.

    • DWest says:

      08:35am | 17/12/09

      Good point RT. But I think Senator Conroy should censor you and your comments. Your thoughts are unacceptable to ‘reasonable’ Christians. And Retailers.

    • RT says:

      07:51am | 17/12/09

      We need a secular approach to the approaching holiday.  After all it originated as a pagan celebration of midwinter and was appropriated by Christians to displace Paganism. Jesus is not the reason for the season, not really.

      Christmas in Australia should really be called midsummer day and be a cause for the celebration of the commencement of the summer holidays and a chance for families, friends and workmates to gather and hopefully enjoy each other’s company. Religion hardly enters into it in most households even if most of them tick the ‘Christian’ box on the census forms. That’s as it should be.

    • Julian the Apostate says:

      06:01am | 17/12/09

      Happy Saturnalia everyone!

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

This concern for Thomson won’t change the script

Under pressure himself over his crusade against Craig Thomson, Tony Abbott has moved to present a softer…

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter