If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Christian Post .com)   Old and busted: atheist visits Jesus Camp. New Hotness: Christian visits Atheist Church   (blogs.christianpost.com) divider line 403
    More: Interesting, Jesus Camp, Islington, Angels & Demons  
•       •       •

8410 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:47 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



403 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-09 07:02:46 PM  
ciberido:

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks. Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.


Sure Dawkins is a dick. But he's a -charismatic- dick.


Probably not a Jesus / Stalin / Hitler / Mao level celebrity level of dick though. You were going to tell me what X's were checks? Do tell.
 
2013-02-09 07:03:09 PM  

nerftaig: On a more practical level establishing an "atheist church" implies we need a church and unified moral code and defined unified structure that we are somehow lacking. Atheists don't need to send that message. It diminishes us all.


How does establishing an "atheist church" imply that atheists NEED a church?  Maybe it just means that SOME atheists WANT a church.

I've been known to get together with atheists and eat nachos.  I'm not sure that that proves that I NEED nachos.
 
2013-02-09 07:03:58 PM  

maxheck: ciberido:

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks. Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.


Sure Dawkins is a dick. But he's a -charismatic- dick.

Probably not a Jesus / Stalin / Hitler / Mao level celebrity level of dick though. You were going to tell me what X's were checks? Do tell.


No, actually, I wasn't.
 
2013-02-09 07:04:03 PM  

Smgth: Thank you! I've been saying this is in this thread over and over. But no one seems to want to hear it.


It's Fark. It's about 65% trolls trolling other trolls. Don't take it too seriously.
 
2013-02-09 07:04:20 PM  

ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.


I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.


That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.


I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.
 
2013-02-09 07:06:31 PM  

ciberido: ph0rk: BumpInTheNight: People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.

How many atheists are doing that with guns or explosives, generally?

*cough*Red Army*cough*


Mao's revolution was also also a terrible pinnacle of anti-intellectualism, an axis that atheism doesn't tend to align with in the West.

There aren't too many violent atheists in the US or anywhere else recently, though. If the worst you get is a mild internet troll, so be it. It's better than car bombs and assassinations.
 
2013-02-09 07:07:22 PM  

mittromneysdog: Smgth: Thank you! I've been saying this is in this thread over and over. But no one seems to want to hear it.

It's Fark. It's about 65% trolls trolling other trolls. Don't take it too seriously.


LOL. I suppose. Just frustrating. It's like you FEEL you're having an intelligent debate, a lot of the signs are there, but it's just pissing into the wind.

I just don't get how I can say the same thing 4 or 5 times, get no response, then have someone say the same thing, and people jump on it.

/Butthurt.
 
2013-02-09 07:08:02 PM  

Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.


It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.
 
2013-02-09 07:10:09 PM  

FloydA: Dead for Tax Reasons:

it seems like he just went there to point and laugh at how wrong the people there were, not to actually think or see the other side.

Yep.

Two people see something that they don't completely understand.  The atheist will usually say "I don't know," and if s/he is motivated to do so, will go on to try to find an explanation.  The theist will usually say "must be God" and cease all further speculation, because s/he has already come to an answer that satisfies him/her.

If just slapping the name "God" on the mysteries of the universe is enough of an answer for you, then religion is probably satisfying.  If not, it's not.  If you want to actually understand things, simply calling them "supernatural" and ceasing any further research just isn't good enough.


Depends on what your religious tenet a person follows.
 
2013-02-09 07:10:47 PM  
I'm Drunk
 
2013-02-09 07:11:02 PM  

BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,


I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?
 
2013-02-09 07:11:03 PM  

dopekitty74: Mad_Season: xanadian: FTFA: After his introduction, we sang a Queen song as the service moved along.

"Who Wants to Live Forever"?

/there can be only one

Bohemian Rhapsody: "Beelzebub has a devil put aside for meeee...."

Ok, now i'm picturing the entire "congregation" headbanging away like on Wayne's World :)

/thanks!


Have you ever listened to music in a foreign language you don't understand but enjoy it for its feel?  Church does not necessarily dwell in the words so much as the feel and vibe to a song.  I use to attend catchism as a kid- absolutely hated everything about it but there were some songs I really enjoyed singing simply for the feel of the music.  Even today I can enjoy properly sung gospel music (think Blues Brothers revival scene).  Well made music is captivating and powerful and the church understands this.
 
2013-02-09 07:12:39 PM  

tshauk: I'm Drunk


This.
 
2013-02-09 07:12:47 PM  

nerftaig: ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.

I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.

That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.

I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.


If you feel diminished, atheism is probably too important a pillar of your identity.

Re: pendulum swing: the secularization thesis is widely considered to be wrong.

If you want to operationalize it as "number of believers", that's great, I guess. Christians who think the bible is the literal word of god have remained stuck at around 33% of the population since at least the 80's when people started asking the question:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Other data sets have similar results.

Looks like the peak of a long pendulum to me (starting with the enlightenment). Have a good long chat with a biblical literalist or two sometime. There are more of them than there are people in the US who can read and understand a scientific paper.
 
2013-02-09 07:14:03 PM  

Smgth: LOL. I suppose. Just frustrating. It's like you FEEL you're having an intelligent debate, a lot of the signs are there, but it's just pissing into the wind.

I just don't get how I can say the same thing 4 or 5 times, get no response, then have someone say the same thing, and people jump on it.

/Butthurt.


Happens to me all the time.
 
2013-02-09 07:14:37 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?


What article?  You mean these discussion topics come from articles?  What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.  I also know that I'm secure enough in my belief that I don't belief in a higher power that I don't need to surround myself with like-minded people once a week to re-affirm with ourselves that we're doing it right.
 
2013-02-09 07:15:03 PM  

omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.


I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!
 
2013-02-09 07:17:36 PM  

BumpInTheNight: mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?

What article?  You mean these discussion topics come from articles?  What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.  I also know that I'm secure enough in my belief that I don't belief in a higher power that I don't need to surround myself with like-minded people once a week to re-affirm with ourselves that we're doing it right.


*meanwhile once again I wish to point out that I live in a part of the world where heavy handed religious types aren't constantly poised to push their agenda upon the rest of us so we don't have to be so vigilant against that sort of fundamentalism, if I were in the states or the middle east I might have a more active approach to shrugging off magical sky wizards and the crazy things people will do in their name.
 
2013-02-09 07:18:05 PM  

ciberido: Somacandra: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

Being an "atheist" has no purpose by definition. Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion. If instead you're going to talk about Humanism or an actual ethos of some kind, then social and ethical organizations have long been part of this tradition in Europe and the United States. Atheism does not mean non-religious: many Buddhists and Jains are 'atheists' but are nonetheless quite religious people.

There's the Humanist Manifestos (I , II,and III) if you want to compare Humanism to Atheism.


Bookmarked your link for later perusal. Thanks!
 
2013-02-09 07:18:44 PM  

GAT_00: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Only ones we put Christians in.  Uhh...I mean, they're re-education camps.  No, wait, I'm not supposed to say that either.  Uhh...knowledge camps!  That's it.


You seem to have trouble focusing, why not try going to a concentration camp?

p.twimg.com
 
2013-02-09 07:20:52 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?


No.

heh

That's part of what I find disconcerting about these threads.  A lot of blame laying as such when there's nothing of the sort going on, or where there is something akin to that, it's a self-defense sort of action(Again, I'll refer to Polk under Prayer and their persecution of local vocal atheists((seriously, this shiat happens, atheists can and do get arrested based on trumped up charges there   http://free2think.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1458 ))).  Really, puts me in mind of people who'd badmouth Rosa Parks.

It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.

At times I wonder if they even can realize they end up sounding like conspiracy theorists.
 
2013-02-09 07:20:59 PM  
The answer is clear - God caused the conditions for the asymmetry. Furthermore, an ancient culture of divinly-inspired Jews nailed it on describing the event. If you're not looking at this data from a theistic perspective, the obvious will always evade you.

But, hey. That's just me.

 Hopefully it  is just you, because I'd hate to think that that level of ignorance regarding what is nowadays pretty basic physics and history was typical of products of the British school system.

You know, things like how it's called the "big bang" specifically as a reference to Christian mythology (some of the scientists involved in early theories were, iirc, Catholic, and most were literate so literary references seemed apropos) and it wasn't a literal flash or bang in any sense, nor does it have any resemblance to the creation myth otherwise.  This argument is sort of like saying that there's a Carrier called the USS Maine, therefore the state of Maine is a large floating island powered by a nuclear reactor with lots of force projection.
 
2013-02-09 07:21:40 PM  
www.deeptruths.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-02-09 07:22:26 PM  

BumpInTheNight: mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though,

I'll grant, I only scanned the article. But of what I scanned, I saw nothing to indicate that the Sunday Assembly is bent on dismantling any other community. Can you copy and paste the relevant text?

What article?  You mean these discussion topics come from articles?  What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.  I also know that I'm secure enough in my belief that I don't belief in a higher power that I don't need to surround myself with like-minded people once a week to re-affirm with ourselves that we're doing it right.


While I will admit there are jerks on both sides of the religious debate, proselytization occurs in every case where there are people with ideas. But you're assuming that this is what is taking place here. Which may or may not be the case. I'd like to think that these people are just out to feel part of something. They aren't trying to convert or reinforce their anti-faith. Just hang out and have a sing along. Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts. They get the comraderie and belonging without the lung cancer and brainwashing belief.
 
2013-02-09 07:24:11 PM  

BumpInTheNight: What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.


That doesn't really relate to the idea of atheist church as presented in this article.
 
2013-02-09 07:24:16 PM  
ciberido:

maxheck: ciberido:

ph0rk: ciberido: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks. Including "charismatic leader".

There isn't a charismatic leader of "atheism"

/Dawkins is a dick, just to start you off.


Sure Dawkins is a dick. But he's a -charismatic- dick.

Probably not a Jesus / Stalin / Hitler / Mao level celebrity level of dick though. You were going to tell me what X's were checks? Do tell.

No, actually, I wasn't.


fair enough.
 
2013-02-09 07:26:03 PM  

omeganuepsilon: It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.


It's like that all over the internet. The atheism thread at Reddit is about 95% theists bashing various stereotypes of atheists.
 
2013-02-09 07:27:51 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: What I'm referencing there is the general notion that a subset of self-identified atheists seek to 'do battle' with and convert fundamentlists and use terms like 'drag the world out of the dark ages' and other things like you'll find throughout this thread.

That doesn't really relate to the idea of atheist church as presented in this article.


Atheism sometimes appeals to people who have had bad experiences with religion, just for the reason that 'this (atheism) is not that (organized religion)'.

Truth is, atheist can organize and make good or bad groups just as often as theists.
 
2013-02-09 07:29:00 PM  

Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.


This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

milliondollarspatula.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-09 07:29:22 PM  

mittromneysdog: omeganuepsilon: It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.

It's like that all over the internet. The atheism thread at Reddit is about 95% theists bashing various stereotypes of atheists.


Because defeating straw men will ALWAYS be the modus operandi of people who can't defeat the actual argument. Until it devolves to ad hominem attacks.

/Of course their ENTIRE belief system is the appeal to authority fallacy.
//Logic.
 
2013-02-09 07:30:02 PM  

ph0rk: nerftaig: ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.

I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.

That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.

I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.

If you feel diminished, atheism is probably too important a pillar of your identity.

Re: pendulum swing: the secularization thesis is widely considered to be wrong.

If you want to operationalize it as "number of believers", that's great, I guess. Christians who think the bible is the literal word of god have remained stuck at around 33% of the population since at least the 80's when people started asking the question:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Other data sets have similar results.

Looks like the peak of a long pendulum to me (starting with the enlightenment). Have a good long chat with a biblical literalist or two sometime. There are more of them than there are people in the US who can read and understand a scientific paper.


I don't understand why you are being so antagonistic to me in attacking my character. I said I felt that atheism was diminished. My wording was unclear, and I apologize for that.

I don't deny for a second that ignorance is overwhelming. The proposition that ignorance is the way things will always be though is sad and I do not accept it.

On another note I in no way for a second deny that humanity needs community. Human beings coming together is a great and important thing, unless it creates an us versus them divide in our population. Which I believe religion does. So I want the word church no where near anything so sacred as secular human fellowship.
 
2013-02-09 07:30:38 PM  

Smgth: I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.


A lot of people are fond of saying a lot of the old conservative types are dying out, but I really don't think so.  Liberals are quickly filling in those empty shoes, it's just a different and unorganized edict, but comes from the same place.

I mentioned above about what is part of human nature(the need and subsequent usefulness of society).

I think that this is another manifestation of that same need.  A certain amount of people will deny logic if it means they strengthen their bond with each other, and will choose any arbitrary "cause" they can get behind.

I don't think that humanity has the capability at large to be intellectually enlightened(to borrow the term), enlightened people will always be a minority of some margin.  At times it may seem like it, where by sheer chance the populace falls in line with what is provably right and fair for the topic of the age.  I think this is the "loss" that I referred to above.  We've hit and are quickly passing that time of day when the broken clock is correct.
 
2013-02-09 07:32:01 PM  
I amzed at the "scientific, clear thinking atheists" here that rad three paragraphs of the article and immediately just KNEW so much they didn't bother to read the rest.

/And they say Christians are closed-minded?
//Also, GB Shaw wrestled pigs?  How else would he know the pros and cons of it?
 
2013-02-09 07:32:45 PM  

boomm: Truth is, atheist can organize and make good or bad groups just as often as theists.


Historically, I'm not aware of very many atheists who've formed organizations "qua atheists," so to speak. I mean, atheists naturally gravitate to certain organizations dedicated to natural sciences, or skepticism, etc. But the idea of an organization dedicated to being social with other atheists just because they're other atheists is new as far as I know. Theists, by contrast, have a looooong history of forming organizations "qua theists."
 
2013-02-09 07:33:45 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.


Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.
 
2013-02-09 07:35:07 PM  

Smgth: BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.


Congregation and fellowship are two words used by UUs.
 
2013-02-09 07:35:17 PM  
Come to think of it, one of the things I like about being an atheist is sleeping in on Sunday mornings.  No way in heck a hot place full of torture, but unrelated to any religion, am I giving that up.
 
2013-02-09 07:36:21 PM  

mittromneysdog: omeganuepsilon: It's almost like we(fark) have a bunch of religious people who don't want to sound "bad" so they don't mention religion at all, but show up and denigrate atheism in all of it's forms, even going so far as to fabricate nefarious atheist plots.

It's like that all over the internet. The atheism thread at Reddit is about 95% theists bashing various stereotypes of atheists.


It is now.  Relative to what I mentioned in my last post, we, the internet, are suffering from a resurgence(or insurgence if you prefer) of the populace that was previously unable and/or uninterested in the internet, and indeed, all the perks of the intormation age.   Lending more to that illusion of "loss" I referred to above.

I would have worked this into my last post had I caught up on the thread before posting, but eh, I'll catch it next thread if it comes up.

Fark, and the internet, has indeed gone downhill.
 
2013-02-09 07:36:46 PM  

Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.

I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!


Why let the constraints of religion interfere with your ability to accept science?  Christ could well of existed as did the dinosaurs.  I'm not seeing anything in the good book that says otherwise.  You follow the order in which the biblical God created the universe, logical steps had been taken.  Universe, stars/sun, earth, life, and eventually mankind.  Has science disputed this other than it with the explanation of that it occurred "randomly on its own"- which, in itself, requires a huge leap of faith.  Seven biblical God days equal millions of pages of time consuming explanation to ancient populations seeking a quick, comforting explanation.

The bible was never intended as science but rather, a collection parables attempting to introduce law to a lawless society and answers to a society troubled with unanserable questions.
 
2013-02-09 07:37:10 PM  

nerftaig: ph0rk: nerftaig: ph0rk: I don't feel diminished.

I do. What does that prove? Nothing. Its my position. Creating an atheist church implies we need a church.

ph0rk: Too late for that, the pendulum has probably started to swing the other way.

That is cynical and wrong.

ph0rk:

The ship has entirely sailed on that - Most Americans dislike Atheists more than any other group, including muslims and homosexuals.

/There is nothing wrong with those groups.

I understand the practical reasons of why in reality atheists are a fringe group that need protection. I just feel we don't need it because right is on our side and our numbers will continue to grow.

I wildly disagree that the rate of believers exists as a pendulum going back and fourth. This is the march of progress.

If you feel diminished, atheism is probably too important a pillar of your identity.

Re: pendulum swing: the secularization thesis is widely considered to be wrong.

If you want to operationalize it as "number of believers", that's great, I guess. Christians who think the bible is the literal word of god have remained stuck at around 33% of the population since at least the 80's when people started asking the question:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148427/say-bible-literally.aspx

Other data sets have similar results.

Looks like the peak of a long pendulum to me (starting with the enlightenment). Have a good long chat with a biblical literalist or two sometime. There are more of them than there are people in the US who can read and understand a scientific paper.

I don't understand why you are being so antagonistic to me in attacking my character. I said I felt that atheism was diminished. My wording was unclear, and I apologize for that.

I don't deny for a second that ignorance is overwhelming. The proposition that ignorance is the way things will always be though is sad and I do not accept it.

On another note I in no way for a second deny that humanity needs community. Human beings coming together is a great and important thing, unless it creates an us versus them divide in our population. Which I believe religion does. So I want the word church no where near anything so sacred as secular human fellowship.


So now we're just arguing the semantics of the thing. I both agree and disagree with using the word 'church'. Your point is certainly valid. However it's a useful construct insomuch as it immediately informs the uninitiated as to what is taking place.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:23 PM  

evil saltine: Smgth: BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.

Congregation and fellowship are two words used by UUs.


Fair enough.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:43 PM  

evil saltine: Smgth: BumpInTheNight: Smgth: Think of it as the nicotine patch for people who went to church as children but still want what the church provides minus the bad parts.

This is an important aspect I neglect to keep in mind, not having a religious background myself I never had to 'break up' with religion, it was just never a part of my life in the first place.  I still think they should call the place something different then a church though.  With that stigma it looks more like a support group, which with the above kept in mind its probably close to any ways.

Well the problem is, if not 'church', what do you call it so that people immediately grasp what's taking place there?

It carries all those negative connotations, but the POSITIVE connotations are clearly what is attracting a standing room only crowd.

Much in the way that A-theism, still has theism in it. Just have to take the good with the bad. And as my friend was wont to say, the bad with the scotch.

Congregation and fellowship are two words used by UUs.


Fellowship could work, but yah I can help but think using the word church to organize a bunch of people who get together primarily because they've all decided to reject religion is ironic.  I also think that it'd have been hilarious if they called it a mosque or even a synagogue.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:45 PM  

muck4doo: Lionel Mandrake: muck4doo: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.

how clever

Yes, they thought that too.


And that...is why you fail.
 
2013-02-09 07:38:47 PM  

Lee451: I amzed at the "scientific, clear thinking atheists" here that rad three paragraphs of the article and immediately just KNEW so much they didn't bother to read the rest.

/And they say Christians are closed-minded?
//Also, GB Shaw wrestled pigs?  How else would he know the pros and cons of it?


One needs only to hear a few insults to get tired of someone ranting in a backhanded manner.  Do you suggest we all be gluttons for punishment?

I mean, hey, if masochism works for you, more power to you, but let's not pretend we all need to suffer.
 
2013-02-09 07:39:46 PM  

clowncar on fire: Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need.  It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce.  Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message.  That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep.  Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.

I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!

Why let the constraints of religion interfere with your ability to accept science?  Christ could well of existed as did the dinosaurs.  I'm not seeing anything in the good book that says otherwise.  You follow the order in which the biblical God created the universe, logical steps had been taken.  Universe, stars/sun, earth, life, and eventually mankind.  Has science disputed this other than it with the explanation of that it occurred "randomly on its own"- which, in itself, requires a huge leap of faith.  Seven biblical God days equal millions of pages of time consuming explanation to ancient populations seeking a quick, comforting explanation.

The bible was never intended as science but rather, a collection parables attempting to introduce law to a lawless society and answers to a society troubled with unanserable questions.


Many religionists would not agree with those assesments.
 
2013-02-09 07:41:15 PM  
clowncar on fire:

Smgth: omeganuepsilon: Smgth: I agree with you, in principle. But I think the problem is that atheists, like religionists, like most of humanity, feels the need to belong to something bigger then itself to feel a sense if community, and that they aren't alone.

It's not just a basic psychological need. It also serves as keeping the world a safe enough place in which to reproduce. Community such as we have is a HUGE advantage over a solo-life.

It makes sense on a conscious level, and satisfies a sub-conscious need.

What's worrisome is the people in society who, even after thorough and often repeated explanation, refuse the existence of those truths.

That is the other problem a lot of atheists have with a lot of religious viewpoints, there is often a spreading of ignorance that goes hand in hand with the message. That is yet another detriment to society as we know it.

The worrisome part is that we've only had a brief reprieve of humans being intellectual, and are going to return, by and large, to being sheep. Signs point to it, what with liberals being every bit as bad as conservatives at times, in judging "right" and "wrong" based on personal feelings, not so much logical thought.

I'm not sure it's time to signal the death knell of the intellectual enlightenment JUST yet. I think that the Internet gives SO many a voice, that the craziest are the loudest, so those are the people who seem the most represented.

I take solace in the fact that there's something like CERN. Literally BILLIONS of dollars spent for research. Almost pure research. It might produce some new tech. It might just produce knowledge. But there were enough people who thought it was worth it.

It's not quite the new dark ages bad religion sings about yet. And even in the depths if the dark ages, scientific progress didn't cease. There's still hope for the world yet.

/Man, if _I_ have to be the optimistic one, we are DOOMED!

Why let the constraints of religion interfere with your ability to accept science? Christ could well of existed as did the dinosaurs. I'm not seeing anything in the good book that says otherwise. You follow the order in which the biblical God created the universe, logical steps had been taken. Universe, stars/sun, earth, life, and eventually mankind. Has science disputed this other than it with the explanation of that it occurred "randomly on its own"- which, in itself, requires a huge leap of faith. Seven biblical God days equal millions of pages of time consuming explanation to ancient populations seeking a quick, comforting explanation.

The bible was never intended as science but rather, a collection parables attempting to introduce law to a lawless society and answers to a society troubled with unanserable questions.


Follow through on that thought.

Are we still in that society? Should we be drawing from those answers to the situations we're facing now?

Things may have changed since the Council of Nicea.
 
2013-02-09 07:43:03 PM  

Lee451: I amzed at the "scientific, clear thinking atheists" here that rad three paragraphs of the article and immediately just KNEW so much they didn't bother to read the rest.

/And they say Christians are closed-minded?
//Also, GB Shaw wrestled pigs?  How else would he know the pros and cons of it?



It seems like you are being purposely cryptic. Why post if you are afraid to be clear in your actual opinion?
 
2013-02-09 07:43:20 PM  

mittromneysdog: Historically, I'm not aware of very many atheists who've formed organizations "qua atheists," so to speak. I mean, atheists naturally gravitate to certain organizations dedicated to natural sciences, or skepticism, etc. But the idea of an organization dedicated to being social with other atheists just because they're other atheists is new as far as I know. Theists, by contrast, have a looooong history of forming organizations "qua theists."


The premise of getting together with a common tie of disbelief might apply more if you allow for it to just be 'not that god,' instead of 'no god at all.' But specific to old history, since the 'heathens' in most histories weren't the ones interested in documenting the actions and beliefs of their group they don't come across as a cohesive continuous group. You have to take the believer's history as an account for how 'bad' they were treated by the heathens.
 
2013-02-09 07:47:45 PM  

ModernLuddite: I thought that was called "Unitarian Universalism".

Sample sermon:  www.uce.ca/wordpress/morality-without-god/


One could think of UU being a "Fair Trade" religion with none of the nasty "baggage" of all the rest (that they are all pretty stubborn about dumping)

Roman Catholics - Crusades, politics, against woman's reproductive rights while being celibate themselves, protecting child rapists
Protestant - Worshiping a nasty vengeful OT God, against women's rights, Messing with politics, passing blue laws, censorship of entertainment & prohibition of alcohol
Muslims - Terrorists, messing with politics, women's rights, censorship
Judaism - Women's rights (this bit is getting old), usury (well we actually blame this on the Christians), again messing with politics...

..and you can go on, but at least UU gives it's followers a clear conscience on what they are supporting. And if there was this all good and just god (like he is supposed to be), UU members would be the ones who will get their reward in the afterlife, while those supposedly "pious" folk will be meeting the horned red guy with the pitchfork..
 
2013-02-09 07:49:44 PM  

maxheck: Things may have changed since the Council of Nicea.


heh

We do not live entirely in that society.  Some religious schools still teach bunk science and misinformation upon which to prop themselves.  It's not that we let religion interfere with us, but to allow such propaganda to spread can be and is problem causing, not solving.

People wonder why our youth are progressively less and less capable little snowflakes....they blame gays and other assorted heathenry for corrupting life as we know it, and are blind to actual useful information.

This desire for all people to be decently educated and not lied to has nothing to do with theism/atheism as people are saying, that atheists "by definition" should be come sort of apathy personified(which ties into my original post in the thread).
 
Displayed 50 of 403 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report