Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, Jesus Camp, Islington, Angels & Demons  
•       •       •

8433 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Feb 2013 at 4:47 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



403 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-02-09 12:16:59 PM  
A (perhaps first-ever) atheistic church band leading the congregation in hits from Queen, Stevie Wonder, and Nina Simone.

It seemed that most people were there for those very reasons - community and singing. Or, what we Christians like to call, fellowship and worship.


singing is worship now?  i guess they were worshipping freddie murcury by singing queen

It doesn't matter how many songs you sing or how many people you hang out with - if it's not centered around Jesus (the true reason for church in the first place) it's never going to be enough.

yes, it could.  not everyone needs god and jesus, just their fellow man

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.
 
2013-02-09 12:27:25 PM  
This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies
 
2013-02-09 12:29:38 PM  
They are missing the point entirely.

Church isn't about music, it isn't about making people feel happy, and it isn't about instilling wonder. Church isn't even about getting together in community to get your felt needs met.

Church is about Jesus.


Nah. Dude missed the point AND the joke.
 
2013-02-09 12:31:04 PM  
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.
 
2013-02-09 12:39:57 PM  
Atheists have camps?
 
2013-02-09 12:52:05 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.


I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.
 
2013-02-09 12:56:24 PM  
"So," I thought to myself, "at the creation of the universe from nothing there was an inconceivable amount of light followed by the most improbable conditions that allowed for the entire universe to exist."

I couldn't hold back a huge smile.

Why? Because Cliff's talk sounded an awful lot like this:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

The earth was without form and void...

and God said, 'Let there be light.'"


It also sounds a lot like Ovid's Metamorphoses, and the Stoic conception of everything initially coming from fire. And a bunch of other old stuff, too.

What's your point, God boy?
 
2013-02-09 12:58:01 PM  

Lsherm: 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.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


Well, it's a good thing you know better than to stereotype.
 
2013-02-09 01:16:09 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-09 01:17:33 PM  
Bzzzt.  Appeal to ignorance fallacy.  "We don't know, therefore God".

Please try again.
 
2013-02-09 01:29:18 PM  
Allow people their own relationship with God as they perceive him without insisting they profess belief in the supernatural. Otherwise your Special Magic Club is doomed.
 
2013-02-09 01:32:45 PM  
"Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.
 
2013-02-09 01:37:03 PM  

Aar1012: Atheists have camps?


Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.
 
2013-02-09 01:37:51 PM  

muck4doo: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.


how clever
 
2013-02-09 01:39:14 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.


They're the ones they put those who didn't have full faith in the government in. You would have loved them.
 
2013-02-09 01:39:51 PM  

Lionel Mandrake: muck4doo: Aar1012: Atheists have camps?

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao about those.

how clever


Yes, they thought that too.
 
2013-02-09 01:42:04 PM  
The press was there catching interviews. (They also recorded the entire service along with the attendees to a point that it made it uncomfortable).

Aww, the poor widdle baby didn't want people to mistake him for being a big bad atheist.

/and atheists don't have churches, silly christians
 
2013-02-09 01:43:00 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


Not until they stop trying to force their religions.
 
2013-02-09 01:43:55 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: /and atheists don't have churches, silly christians


Just camps for re-education.
 
2013-02-09 01:44:06 PM  

Lsherm: 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.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


You should try RTFA if you want answers to those questions.
 
2013-02-09 01:56:15 PM  
That article was total farking bullshiat. Where were the baby bbq's? The gay orgies? The ritualistic virgin sacrifices to Hitchens? And he wasn't even forced to shoot heroin in his eyeballs once? That must have been some weenie junior camp.The atheist camp I went to, we were raping bald eagles and smoking the mary-juana before the hell wagon left the slaughterhouse! Kids these days....tsk, tsk.....
 
2013-02-09 01:58:07 PM  
 
2013-02-09 01:58:24 PM  

alwaysjaded: That article was total farking bullshiat. Where were the baby bbq's? The gay orgies? The ritualistic virgin sacrifices to Hitchens? And he wasn't even forced to shoot heroin in his eyeballs once? That must have been some weenie junior camp.The atheist camp I went to, we were raping bald eagles and smoking the mary-juana before the hell wagon left the slaughterhouse! Kids these days....tsk, tsk.....


All churches are just like Jesus camp too
 
2013-02-09 02:00:51 PM  

FloydA: Lionel Mandrake:


[i105.photobucket.com image 327x154]


Oh, I have no intention of going any further into the mud than that single, derisively sarcastic remark.  I know better than that.
 
2013-02-09 02:16:32 PM  
Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?
 
2013-02-09 02:19:28 PM  

thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?


i105.photobucket.com
What an atheist church might look like.
 
2013-02-09 02:23:00 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


I know Atheists who don't drink. Don't try to paint them all as alcoholics.
 
2013-02-09 02:24:42 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Allow people their own relationship with God as they perceive him without insisting they profess belief in the supernatural. Otherwise your Special Magic Club is doomed.


No, it can't be done.

We are tribal monkeys. Only one tribe can be right.
 
2013-02-09 02:28:34 PM  
FTFA: After his introduction, we sang a Queen song as the service moved along.

"Who Wants to Live Forever"?

/there can be only one
 
2013-02-09 02:31:53 PM  
Also, FTFA: Here we were at an atheistic church service being delivered evidences of both God's existence (the improbability of asymmetry at the Big Bang) and the Bible's trustwwdow*whistling screeching dial-tuning noise*...

Yeah. :/

At best, Genesis is allegorical. I was half-expecting the author of TFA to suddenly say how the CERN scientist "proved" that the Earth is only 6000 years old, but I stopped reading at this point.
 
2013-02-09 02:32:28 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


Mmmm. Great and yummy comfort food -- love the 5 Point Cafe! My kind of church!
 
2013-02-09 02:36:10 PM  

thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?


I once went to a UU church that had a smattering of everything:  "recovering" Catholics, agnostics, atheists, etc...I think a Buddhist even showed up once.  It seems to be mostly about fellowship than worshiping a cloudy sky wizard.

YMMV.  That place may have been an anomaly.  *shrug*  I know the *local* UU church where I live has a freakin' Pride flag out front.  Yes.  In The County (tm).  I'm surprised the place hasn't been burned down.  For extra fun goodness, they're right across the street from some screaming fundies.  These fundies are moving, though.  They're building a megachurch up the street on top of the hill.

:/

/csb
 
2013-02-09 02:40:08 PM  

xanadian: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

I once went to a UU church that had a smattering of everything:  "recovering" Catholics, agnostics, atheists, etc...I think a Buddhist even showed up once.  It seems to be mostly about fellowship than worshiping a cloudy sky wizard.

YMMV.  That place may have been an anomaly.  *shrug*  I know the *local* UU church where I live has a freakin' Pride flag out front.  Yes.  In The County (tm).  I'm surprised the place hasn't been burned down.  For extra fun goodness, they're right across the street from some screaming fundies.  These fundies are moving, though.  They're building a megachurch up the street on top of the hill.

:/

/csb


Ah yes, so they can have their little private enclave, and let the money changers in the house.

Good for them!
 
2013-02-09 02:41:02 PM  

OnceMoreWithFeeling: FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.

Mmmm. Great and yummy comfort food -- love the 5 Point Cafe! My kind of church!


i105.photobucket.com
Dude, we should hang out!   ;-)
 
2013-02-09 02:42:20 PM  
i think atheist churches are idiotic, but at the same time, the fact that the non-religious aren't as a group a civic or political force is to their detriment - and that will only change with some semblance of community organizing.

just be frigged if i can convince myself that church services are the answer, tho.
 
2013-02-09 02:42:50 PM  
Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?
 
2013-02-09 02:48:33 PM  
depends on where you look, but seeing 'non religious' at around 20% of the population in america is a fair enough average.

for comparisons sake, catholic is at about the same range. same with evangelical. same with 'vanilla' protestant.

the bassackwardness of attempting to coagulate a group based on what they don't think is just too much of a hurdle, tho.
 
2013-02-09 02:49:34 PM  

Aar1012: Atheists have camps?


There's one spot out in the forest on the Olympic Peninsula where there are some natural volcanic hot springs.  I've sometimes hiked out with a tent and backpack and stayed a few days.  Does that count?


Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?


Yeah, calling it a "church" is kind of silly.  Gathering with like-minded individuals can be informative, entertaining, and enjoyable, and it's just as useful for non-believers as for believers.  I was under the impression that "church"  was supposed to be something more than just a casual get together.
 
2013-02-09 02:52:19 PM  

Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?


Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.
 
2013-02-09 02:56:14 PM  

Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?


I think that atheists are getting organized as a group. More political power that way. Once crowds firms with a voice , the leaders have to notice.
 
2013-02-09 02:57:44 PM  

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


it does, but at the same time, organized group representation is how things work.

it's not like any other group has issue with 'hey, we think alike, let's group together in our own specific civic and political interests.'

that the commonality is in something they don't think is what turns things down an absurd cul-de-sac, but at the same time....i can't say we wouldn't be better off if that 20% slice of the country had as much political clout as other similarly large groupings.
 
2013-02-09 03:02:46 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

I think that atheists are getting organized as a group. More political power that way. Once crowds firms with a voice , the leaders have to notice.


Organized non-stamp collectors?
 
2013-02-09 03:03:06 PM  

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


I think you have atheism confused with anarchism. People can get together and talk about science while still being atheists.
 
2013-02-09 03:03:56 PM  
I guess they'd get a kick out of Unitarians' Atheist vs Theists softball games then...
 
2013-02-09 03:04:18 PM  

FloydA: 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

==

"As in the other sciences, astronomers in the Muslim lands built upon and greatly expanded earlier traditions. At the House of Knowledge founded in Baghdad by the Abbasid caliph Mamun, scientists translated many texts from Sanskrit, Pahlavi or Old Persian, Greek and Syriac into Arabic, notably the great Sanskrit astronomical tables and Ptolemy's astronomical treatise, the Almagest. Muslim astronomers accepted the geometrical structure of the universe expounded by Ptolemy, in which the earth rests motionless near the center of a series of eight spheres, which encompass it, but then faced the problem of reconciling the theoretical model with Aristotelian physics and physical realities derived from observation. Some of the most impressive efforts to modify Ptolemaic theory were made at the observatory founded by Nasir al-Din Tusi in 1257 at Maragha in northwestern Iran and continued by his successors at Tabriz and Damascus. With the assistance of Chinese colleagues, Muslim astronomers worked out planetary models that depended solely on combinations of uniform circular motions. The astronomical tables compiled at Maragha served as a model for later Muslim astronomical efforts. The most famous imitator was the observatory founded in 1420 by the Timurid prince Ulughbeg at Samarkand in Central Asia, where the astronomer Ghiyath al-Din Jamshid al-Kashi worked out his own set of astronomical tables, with sections on diverse computations and eras, the knowledge of time, the course of the stars, and the position of the fixed stars. Essentially Ptolemaic, these tables have improved parameters and structure as well as additional material on the Chinese Uighur-calendar. They were widely admired and translated even as far away as England, where John Greaves, professor at Oxford, called attention to them in 1665."

===
Wow. If only your incredibly stupid generalization had any relevance to the actual history of science, and wasn't thus easily shown to be bullshiat, then it might be meaningful. People of varying religious commitments have made (and continue to make) remarkable contributions to science, medicine, engineering, economics and many forms of related knowledge. But I'm sure you'll apologize right away, right?
 
2013-02-09 03:06:03 PM  
muck4doo:
Organized non-stamp collectors?

if philatelist groups were advocating mandatory and tax payer funded stamp activities, why wouldn't it make sense for those who weren't into stamps to have a voice in the conversation?

again, i fully recognize that organization based on something people don't think is well into absurdville. but being a resident of absurdville doesn't stop any other group from having a voice or collective will, why should this be different?
 
2013-02-09 03:06:42 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

I think you have atheism confused with anarchism. People can get together and talk about science while still being atheists.


No. One is a political belief, the other is a religious belief, and the other is a science belief. Certain politicians in the past have believed the they are mutual though. You don't want to dig there.
 
2013-02-09 03:09:13 PM  
Somacandra:

Wow. If only your incredibly stupid

Well that was helpful. Thank you for advancing the conversation in a useful and effective way.
 
2013-02-09 03:10:50 PM  

heap: muck4doo:
Organized non-stamp collectors?

if philatelist groups were advocating mandatory and tax payer funded stamp activities, why wouldn't it make sense for those who weren't into stamps to have a voice in the conversation?

again, i fully recognize that organization based on something people don't think is well into absurdville. but being a resident of absurdville doesn't stop any other group from having a voice or collective will, why should this be different?


Because anti-absurdville tends to go in their own absurdville directions as well. Remember when that cross got stolen off the cemetery on some obscure California mountain?
 
2013-02-09 03:12:09 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-09 03:14:38 PM  
did i miss somacondra getting the wand passed to him by bevets, or something?


muck4doo: Because anti-absurdville tends to go in their own absurdville directions as well. Remember when that cross got stolen off the cemetery on some obscure California mountain?


people do goofy shiat, that's kinda what we're good at. it doesn't take an ethos to be a goofy bastard, and having an ethos doesn't negate being a goofy bastard.

that really doesn't have anything to do with what i was talking about, tho.
 
2013-02-09 03:17:10 PM  

heap: did i miss somacondra getting the wand passed to him by bevets, or something?


muck4doo: Because anti-absurdville tends to go in their own absurdville directions as well. Remember when that cross got stolen off the cemetery on some obscure California mountain?

people do goofy shiat, that's kinda what we're good at. it doesn't take an ethos to be a goofy bastard, and having an ethos doesn't negate being a goofy bastard.

that really doesn't have anything to do with what i was talking about, tho.


Fair enough
 
2013-02-09 03:27:11 PM  

muck4doo: Darth_Lukecash: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

I think that atheists are getting organized as a group. More political power that way. Once crowds firms with a voice , the leaders have to notice.

Organized non-stamp collectors?


Okay, that made me laugh, you magnificent bastard. ;)
 
2013-02-09 03:36:31 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


They started it.
 
2013-02-09 03:41:54 PM  

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.


Many Buddhists are less inclined to believe in gods, but hold to the teachings, including the acceptance of metaphor in those teachings, because they have found something useful. At no point, do you need gods in Buddhism for the crux of the Eightfold Path and the Four Noble Truths to be adhered to. Many do, but that doesn't mean that the practice is necessarily "theist" or "atheist" as much what the practice means to that particular adherent. In Buddhism especially, gods serve as warning signs. Yes, many are useful, as paragons, but they are trapped in their roles. They can no more move on from their place than the Earth can stop revolving or the Sun to stop its march across the galaxy. Gods play roles, they have purpose, they serve the Celestial order, and are as forces of nature. You can respect nature, you can respect its power, find joy in a sunny day, and leap to avoid winds and rain, without falling down to worship it alone. Respect of place, respect in the order of things isn't quite the same as pure worship.

Atheism alone isn't a position. It's a lack of position. It means simply that you don't hold in a higher power. Organizing on that lack of a higher power is sort silly. As much a rejection of faith as Satanism. In this, I think that Somacandra is right to make the distinction. It isn't what you believe, but rather what you do with what you believe. Atheism and theism are broader terms to describe belief structures, or their lack, but it doesn't immediately mean that you're smarter, or dumber, or more or less violent, or better or worse, it is simply stating that you have or do not have belief structures based on the existence of powers beyond our kenn, and even then, some atheists do have some belief in some universal imperative, even if not named, or a shared consciousness. Simply identifying theist or atheist still covers a LOT of ground. Specificity is necessary in this particular conversation, and I don't think it's out of line to remind folks of that. It's not a team sport, and while in this case, this particular "church" is looking to draw folks together, to sort of mock institutions, it is sort of silly to do so on the basis of a rejection of structures alone. It is sort of the point, to have fun with it, to draw folks together, and if folks are having a good time together, more power to them, but it acts as a sort of lightning rod for the less discerning--which is perhaps the purpose--but it does sort of muddy the waters a bit.
 
2013-02-09 03:42:06 PM  

heap: muck4doo:
Organized non-stamp collectors?

if philatelist groups were advocating mandatory and tax payer funded stamp activities, why wouldn't it make sense for those who weren't into stamps to have a voice in the conversation?


Uh, yeah, if people were trying to cram philately into courtrooms and science classes, I'd oppose that, too.  I might even join or support an organization devoted to stopping that.
 
2013-02-09 03:54:39 PM  

hubiestubert: . In this, I think that Somacandra is right to make the distinction. It isn't what you believe, but rather what you do with what you believe.


In his Boobies in this thread, he called me "incredibly stupid."  I've seen what he does with what he believes.  I'm not impressed.
 
2013-02-09 04:14:18 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: thamike: Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.

I think you have atheism confused with anarchism.


But I probably don't.
 
2013-02-09 04:18:04 PM  

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.


Well put.
 
2013-02-09 04:51:57 PM  
Dear God,

What created you and what are you made out of? Also, who created whoever created you?
 
2013-02-09 04:55:37 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies



Some of us enjoy.
 
2013-02-09 04:56:38 PM  
Fundies, meet the Internets: the downfall of your silliness. People in Podunk who otherwise would have no contact with anyone outside their insulated community are able to receive the entirety of human knowledge at their fingertips - granted, most of that knowledge centers around porn and cats, but that's a different tale for a different time. The Webs will chip away at your base. The end is nigh.
 
2013-02-09 04:58:51 PM  
Avast:  Threat detected, URL blocked
 
2013-02-09 04:59:43 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Dear God,

What created you and what are you made out of? Also, who created whoever created you?


I'll start getting turtles. BRB.
 
2013-02-09 05:01:54 PM  
...and athiest....church?

You people are crazy, fark'yall I'm being whatever it is that doesn't believe in sky wizards or noodly flying monsters but doesn't waste his time in some church either.
 
2013-02-09 05:02:26 PM  
ArkyBeagle: I'll start getting turtles. BRB.

images.sodahead.com

already on the case
 
2013-02-09 05:03:02 PM  

Princess Ryans Knickers: Dear God,

What created you and what are you made out of? Also, who created whoever created you?


img194.imageshack.us

It's all in your head.
 
2013-02-09 05:03:26 PM  
i47.tinypic.com

just sayin'
 
2013-02-09 05:04:08 PM  
They sing Queen songs at atheist churches? Damn, I wanna go now!
 
2013-02-09 05:05:48 PM  
ITT: small minded person misses point of thing.
 
2013-02-09 05:05:59 PM  

Four Horsemen of the Domestic Dispute: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


Some of us enjoy.


and some of us grow weary of it.
*obvious parent is obvious*
 
2013-02-09 05:07:19 PM  
"So," I thought to myself, "at the creation of the universe from nothing there was an inconceivable amount of light followed by the most improbable conditions that allowed for the entire universe to exist."
I couldn't hold back a huge smile.
Why? Because Cliff's talk sounded an awful lot like this:
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.
The earth was without form and void...
and God said, 'Let there be light.'"


And you would be wrong in thinking that it sounds an awful lot like the Genesis myth of creation. What Dr. Cliff is describing is not a direct process caused by an agent, but an emergent process caused by independent events acting simultaneously and randomly.You are making a categorical mistake by inferring from that description the presence of any causal agency, i.e. God, in any of it. Nature simply happens, with neither proximal nor distal causation necessarily coming from any intentional agent or agents.

My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical? He essentially sidestepped the chicken-or-the-egg issue with the Big Bang.

You only see a chicken-or-the-egg issue (which is not even the appropriate paradoxical allusion to make here) because you have already loaded your interpretation of what he said with an unwarranted assumption, i.e. the existence of a casual and intentional agency that set things in motion. As a parallel, that is akin to asking how much does velocity weigh, because it is assuming the referent being described belongs to a different ontological category that has different features and properties. You are assuming that things only happen if causation originates from intentionality. That is, you have already assumed a priori, with no justifiable reason to do so, that physical processes must have psychological properties in order to exist (in this case, the psychological property of intentionality as a casual factor to kick off physical events), when the reality is the overlap between physical ontologies and psychological ontologies only exists in animals... and even then only in a minority of them that happen to have a minimally sophisticated central nervous system.

It is for precisely this reason that religious dogmas either fail to be supported by scientific inquiry or are directly refuted by scientific inquiry, because the quantity and quality of a priori assumptions about reality are both greatly reduced and more logically justifiable. Whereas you, and all religious people for that matter, believe there is some psychologically-endowed entity causing things - whether it's proximally, as in intercessory prayer, or distally, as in the creation of the universe - in order to make sense of the reality you encounter, scientific inquiry has succeeded in maintaining the fewest number of relevant assumptions in order to draw any meaningful conclusion that helps us to understand the reality we encounter (for example, science assumes that all effects have causes, but doesn't assume that all causes originate from an intentional agent), making necessary additions and subtractions as more and more evidence piles in.
 
2013-02-09 05:08:27 PM  
for a not religion they sure do act like one
 
2013-02-09 05:11:35 PM  

Spanky_McFarksalot: for a not religion they sure do act like one


In what way?
 
2013-02-09 05:12:14 PM  

thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.


Free-range-atheist
 
2013-02-09 05:13:39 PM  

Aar1012: Atheists have camps?


www.moviefancentral.com
This one time, at atheist camp ...
 
2013-02-09 05:13:39 PM  

Lsherm: FloydA:
I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


And I find this stereotypical dismissal, typical of conservative ignorance, just plain amusing.
 
2013-02-09 05:13:57 PM  

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.


Don't forget
theindiespiritualist.com

/also this
//NSFW
 
2013-02-09 05:15:19 PM  
gimmegimme: Spanky_McFarksalot: for a not religion they sure do act like one

In what way?


what with all the non-beliefs in deities and shiat
 
2013-02-09 05:15:27 PM  

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

just sayin'


Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday.  Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society.  I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.
 
2013-02-09 05:17:03 PM  

Aar1012: camp



Camp Quest, now with 16 locations in 3 countries to serve you.

i224.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-09 05:17:19 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


www.reverie.comI prefer the Church of the Inner Spring
 
2013-02-09 05:17:34 PM  
Peter von Nostrand:  Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Just as soon as they quit voting and trying to force their moral code onto the rest of us.
 
2013-02-09 05:18:37 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.


theparanoidgamer.com
What an atheist camp might look like.
 
2013-02-09 05:19:58 PM  
Well, this was the most condescending article I've read in a long time. I feel like theists, atheists, and even deists can agree that the author is a sanctimonious coont.
 
2013-02-09 05:21:57 PM  
If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:02 PM  

g4lt: FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.

[www.reverie.com image 850x676]I prefer the Church of the Inner Spring


For a second there, I was wondering why you had a hidden stash of toilet paper.
 
2013-02-09 05:22:43 PM  
Sheeit! Religion again? Sooooo boring. Been there. Total waste of 30 years. And then I got crucified. And now I have to hang up here in this fuggin' white room listening to d-bag angels sing elevator music 24-7. Which is why I've got wifi because at least I can surf some porn.

Sure, believe in "God" all you want, insects. But take it from me, my dad's a total a-hole who's never followed through on a promise in his life - unless it's to torture you like some kid with an ant farm. You wanna worship that? What-e-ver.
 
2013-02-09 05:23:21 PM  

nerftaig: Well, this was the most condescending article I've read in a long time. I feel like theists, atheists, and even deists can agree that the author is a sanctimonious coont.


The fact that he saw everything through a brutal religious filter was pretty pathetic.
 
2013-02-09 05:23:53 PM  

Farking Canuck: If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.


I advise you to take the author's description of the meeting with a grain of salt; he's not necessarily a reliable, objective source of information about the event.
 
2013-02-09 05:25:04 PM  
I found it interesting that he was made uncomfortable by the press taking pictures and recording

The press was there catching interviews. (They also recorded the entire service along with the attendees to a point that it made it uncomfortable).

Yet he had no issue taking his own pictures covertly

I surreptitiously wandered around taking photos of the event. I was, after all, running a clandestine intel-gathering mission behind enemy lines.

At least the press was aboveboard and didn't sneak around like he did.

Also his use of the term enemy should put to rest any thought or even hint that he was there with even a slightly open mind.

The guy's an asswipe no matter which side he's on of any debate.
 
2013-02-09 05:25:21 PM  
clowncar on fire:

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

just sayin'

Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday. Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society. I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.


Well, ok. We will await your easy refutation. Have at it.

I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.
 
2013-02-09 05:27:05 PM  

susler: I found it interesting that he was made uncomfortable by the press taking pictures and recording

The press was there catching interviews. (They also recorded the entire service along with the attendees to a point that it made it uncomfortable).

Yet he had no issue taking his own pictures covertly

I surreptitiously wandered around taking photos of the event. I was, after all, running a clandestine intel-gathering mission behind enemy lines.

At least the press was aboveboard and didn't sneak around like he did.

Also his use of the term enemy should put to rest any thought or even hint that he was there with even a slightly open mind.

The guy's an asswipe no matter which side he's on of any debate.


A religious hypocrite?  HOW CAN THAT BE?  HE IS THE FIRST.
 
2013-02-09 05:28:59 PM  
Eww... I think I stepped in some smug. Didn't anybody clean up after TFA author?
 
2013-02-09 05:30:26 PM  
TFA: My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical?

Wizards. Next.
 
2013-02-09 05:31:18 PM  

maxheck: I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.


Yup, around here, Jesus is a pretty big farking deal:

cdn.marshill.com

/I don't really get the donkey image, myself, if that's what it is.
 
2013-02-09 05:31:29 PM  
Shockingly, there's someone out there who thinks everyone ought to go to church to worship what he worships.
 
2013-02-09 05:31:38 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


An atheist place to congregate and seek higher learning?

That's called a "school".  AN ATHEIST CHURCH IS A SCHOOL!

/unless it's a Catholic school
//or a public school in Arkansas
///or Tennessee
////or Texas
 
2013-02-09 05:33:27 PM  

Oznog: FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.

An atheist place to congregate and seek higher learning?

That's called a "school".  AN ATHEIST CHURCH IS A SCHOOL!

/unless it's a Catholic school
//or a public school in Arkansas
///or Tennessee
////or Texas


Not really. Schools have an inherent system of values, (sports aside) - knowledge is good, intellect is good, etc. Atheism has no inherent value system.

Schools tend to be secular, but they were not always so and many (as you pointed out) still are not entirely secular.
 
2013-02-09 05:33:42 PM  

hubiestubert: I guess they'd get a kick out of Unitarians' Atheist vs Theists softball games then...


 I read the article and was thinking, "Here's an author who's apparently never heard of the UUs.

/atheist who attends a UU church in the Bible Belt
 
2013-02-09 05:33:54 PM  

ph0rk: maxheck: I will take exception to your idea that the Christ isn't the center of worship... I'm pretty sure there are a few people who hang on his words and put his picture up everywhere. As an outsider, I am pretty sure that the Christ was considered a leader of his flock.

Yup, around here, Jesus is a pretty big farking deal:

[cdn.marshill.com image 720x402]

/I don't really get the donkey image, myself, if that's what it is.


It's a reference to Ezekiel 23:20:

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.



The word of the Lord.  Amen.
 
2013-02-09 05:35:53 PM  

gimmegimme: It's a reference to Ezekiel 23:20:


Aha, classy.

/not telling which party I mean
 
2013-02-09 05:36:13 PM  
Atheism is a Religion.
 
2013-02-09 05:36:59 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


Oh good, now it's a party.
 
2013-02-09 05:38:04 PM  

letrole: Atheism is a Religion.


If you're going to le troll, at least pretend to support your assertion.
 
2013-02-09 05:38:16 PM  
letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.
 
2013-02-09 05:38:21 PM  
Let's see what we've got here.

Smug self assurance?  Check.

Condescension?  Oh yeah.

Subtle dig at the media?  That's a big ten four, good buddy.

You sure this is from England and not somewhere in the gold old US of A?
 
2013-02-09 05:38:48 PM  

maxheck: letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.


Also a sock puppet.
 
2013-02-09 05:41:13 PM  

ph0rk: maxheck: letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.

Also a sock puppet.


Ya think?
 
2013-02-09 05:42:19 PM  

clowncar on fire: Avast:  Threat detected, URL blocked


I wish I had gotten that warning, because then I wouldn't have read that boring blog post.
 
2013-02-09 05:43:33 PM  

Farking Canuck: If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.


I don't know. There's nothing wrong with organizing around a shared characteristic or a shared goal. That's what sci-fi conventions, churches, political rallies, alcoholics anonymous meetings, sporting events, and even web-forums are for (among other things, I know). We are inherently social animals, even if some of us are more introverted than others. We like to congregate in some fashion, for whatever reason. This is just as arbitrary a reason as any other, and many people admit that they go to secular or atheist meetings because they enjoy the atmosphere of community, just as many people who go to church enjoy the community that they foster (again, among the myriad of other reasons for attending).
 
2013-02-09 05:43:56 PM  
I thought that was called "Unitarian Universalism".

Sample sermon:  www.uce.ca/wordpress/morality-without-god/
 
2013-02-09 05:45:15 PM  

muck4doo: alwaysjaded: That article was total farking bullshiat. Where were the baby bbq's? The gay orgies? The ritualistic virgin sacrifices to Hitchens? And he wasn't even forced to shoot heroin in his eyeballs once? That must have been some weenie junior camp.The atheist camp I went to, we were raping bald eagles and smoking the mary-juana before the hell wagon left the slaughterhouse! Kids these days....tsk, tsk.....

All churches are just like Jesus camp too


Eh, that was just a lite satire of those old "report from the frontlines of evil" type stories that used to float around churches. Like during Marilyn Manson's peak when all those kids were claiming they saw him slaughtering goats while sodomizing audience members and having alter calls for Satanism. Guess I'm not very funny today.

/ or ever
 
2013-02-09 05:45:33 PM  

grokca: thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.

Free-range-atheist


Ha!  Seriously though  f*ck that noise.  Atheism is a lack of a deity.  That's it.  Anyone who wants to lump in a bunch of stuff?  They should get the hyphens.  One of the things I used to enjoy about being an atheist was not getting asked questions about my belief system.
 
2013-02-09 05:45:57 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies


Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.
 
2013-02-09 05:46:40 PM  
I thought we had gone beyond this.  The denigration of an atheist "church" as if "church" implies faith and such(tatamount to calling atheism a religion in and of itself).  No, it's simply a gathering of people with similar interests.  Rockin' Science Sunday.

Regardless of your personal theory of how it all began, humans are very social creatures, and can fill a need by attending such an organized celebration, as it were.  Just because people ditch the dodgy trappings of religion does not mean they have to sacrifice all that makes society function.  Religion does not own society and therefore atheists are not required to GTFO.(And yes, that is what many of you imply).

As to the article:

Typical christian of an author, denigrate anything remotely informative and any who wish to participate.  Embrace the Ignorance!

Given that, there is no big surprise at people more or less fleeing from any given actual religion and calling themselves atheist(but with no real knowledge of what the word means).  Prevalent attitudes as such are what drive people away more and more, not necessarily so much any sort of formal education as to what atheism is, just the vitriolic and hateful actions of the "faithful".
 
2013-02-09 05:46:45 PM  

clowncar on fire: maxheck: [i47.tinypic.com image 640x1188]

just sayin'

Max: your list is farked up nine ways to Sunday.  Christ, oddly enough was never recognized as the leader of christianity,; all the other items are easily refutable or easy enough to find examples of how being atheist is no different other than the one about live now for a future utpian society.  I'll agree there- not a lick of sense when it comes to you kids planning for your future be it financial or spiritual.


Is this a troll?
 
2013-02-09 05:46:52 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.


*Golf clap*
 
2013-02-09 05:50:46 PM  
I don't know whether Farkers are trolling, or feeding the trolls. Either way, this thread is hilarious.
 
2013-02-09 05:51:02 PM  

maxheck: ph0rk: maxheck: letrole:

Atheism is a Religion.

"letrole" is a surname.

/ yes, we've heard it before, dumbass.

Also a sock puppet.

Ya think?


Well, specifically - he double-post outed himself in mid-summer 2012 or thereabouts.
 
2013-02-09 05:51:53 PM  

IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.


What?
 
2013-02-09 05:52:17 PM  

muck4doo: The My Little Pony Killer: /and atheists don't have churches, silly christians

Just camps for re-education.


There are Lodz of places like that.
 
2013-02-09 05:54:23 PM  
letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

i259.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-09 05:54:53 PM  

Somacandra: Wow. If only your incredibly stupid generalization had any relevance to the actual history of science,


You mean the history of science that was suppressed by the centers of religion when they went against the sacred Word of GodTM? Galileo ring a bell? Library of Alexandria? Charles Darwin? Any time science went against religious status quo, religion has always responded swiftly and brutally to suppress it.
 
2013-02-09 05:56:10 PM  
There's no difference between atheists, christians, scientologists, and Nazi child molesters.

While typing the above sentence Firefox spellcheck flagged christians and scientologists for not being capitalized but left atheists alone. I like that.
 
2013-02-09 05:56:15 PM  

thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?


Do you really not grasp the concept that sometimes fighting is what is needed? Or that when meting out punishement/reprimand, not all things are created equal?
Or are you of the philosophy that "fighting never solved anything"?
 
2013-02-09 05:57:09 PM  

ultraholland: letrole: Atheism is a Religion.

[i259.photobucket.com image 463x620]


Out of curiosity- what happens if step 2 doesn't occur over the next few seconds.  Pro tip: identify your target before pulling the pin on your grenade.  Just sayin'.
 
2013-02-09 05:57:13 PM  
People that go to church don't really believe in god.  Church provides a way to connect with your community once a week, and provides recipes for child rearing (yes that's intentional) and dealing with your fellow man in an equitable manner, etc.

So religion and churches do provide valuable services in our civilization.  But there's no god as far as I can tell.
 
2013-02-09 05:57:44 PM  

thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?


Okay, how about...

Southern whites, please quit lynching blacks and allow them to live as free men.

Martin Luther King, please stop assembling large masses to sue for your right to live.

My point is, taking a "centrist" role in any issue where one side has a distinct advantage is as bad as taking the side with the distinct advantage.
 
2013-02-09 05:58:50 PM  

clowncar on fire: Avast:  Threat detected, URL blocked


Arrrrrr! Thar be Christians!

/Arrr.
 
2013-02-09 05:59:19 PM  
I think the point that the whole 'atheists don't church' argues are missing is that these people, who happen to be atheists, miss the sort of community and fellowship they had as children before they learned to think for themselves and leave the church. It's sad our culture is so divorced from its roots of small tight knit communities that people have become so disaffected they can't find that anywhere but at a place designated for something they don't believe in.

As a secular Jew, I understand these people. I'm an atheist, but I enjoy being with people I share a commonality with. I just don't want to do any pointless worshipping.

/Article writer was a self righteous prig.
//So ALL people were CREATED to worship Jesus. Must've been confusing for all those people who lived before him..
 
2013-02-09 06:00:19 PM  
Oxymorn or, diametrically opposed statement. YOU MAKE THE CALL
 
2013-02-09 06:01:12 PM  

FloydA: thamike: Atheist Church?  What, like Brazzers?

[i105.photobucket.com image 500x375]
What an atheist church might look like.


Ah the 5pt. Great place!
 
2013-02-09 06:01:17 PM  
Let edit TFA down a bit:

The Sunday Assembly, as the group is called, meets once a month at The Nave in North London for
"anybody searching for a sense of community, to meet and 'turn good intentions into action.'"
It is, all things considered, an atheistic church.
Yes. A church for atheists.


[..]

They are missing the point entirely.
Church isn't about music, it isn't about making people feel happy, and it isn't about instilling wonder.
Church isn't even about getting together in community to get your felt needs met.
Church is about Jesus.


Maybe there's a reason that the thing you attended wasn't called church?
Like, "all things considered", it not being a church after all?

Or to put it differently:
"Hah! My assumption was wrong. That means they failed!"
 
2013-02-09 06:01:24 PM  

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...."
 
2013-02-09 06:01:38 PM  

omeganuepsilon: thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?

Do you really not grasp the concept that sometimes fighting is what is needed? Or that when meting out punishement/reprimand, not all things are created equal?
Or are you of the philosophy that "fighting never solved anything"?


Iran and Israel differences need be resolved, even if it is through conflict.

Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution and trolling and not an acceptable method for reparation any how.  Trolling is about moving goal posts about, actual conflict/compremise is about finding a solution.
 
2013-02-09 06:03:01 PM  
This thread hasn't been nearly as derpy as I was expecting.
 
2013-02-09 06:03:07 PM  
Ooh - I forgot - churches also handled all the gay and insane people, back when nobody acknowledged that gay or insane existed.

So just imagine Ghastly in robes and a pointy hat.
 
2013-02-09 06:05:46 PM  

clowncar on fire: omeganuepsilon: thamike: IlGreven: Peter von Nostrand: This shiat is getting old. Fundies, please stop trying to force your religion on everyone. Atheists, please quit trolling the fundies

Yeah!

Ahmadinejad, quit gassing your own people and developing nukes to lob at Israel.

UN, quit writing strongly-worded letters to Ahmadinejad.

What?

Do you really not grasp the concept that sometimes fighting is what is needed? Or that when meting out punishement/reprimand, not all things are created equal?
Or are you of the philosophy that "fighting never solved anything"?

Iran and Israel differences need be resolved, even if it is through conflict.

Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution. Trolling is not an acceptable method for reparation anyhow.  Trolling is about moving goal posts about, actual conflict/compromise is about finding a solution.

 
2013-02-09 06:06:28 PM  
clowncar on fire: Out of curiosity- what happens if step 2 doesn't occur over the next few seconds. Pro tip: identify your target before pulling the pin on your grenade. Just sayin'.

Just don't let the spoon go flying away and you're fine.
 
2013-02-09 06:06:47 PM  

noitsnot: Ooh - I forgot - churches also handled all the gay and insane people, back when nobody acknowledged that gay or insane existed.

So just imagine Ghastly in robes and a pointy hat.


Are you a wizard?!  He usually starts our chats that way.
 
2013-02-09 06:07:14 PM  

Smgth: I think ...

As a secular Jew, I understand ...

/Article writer was a self righteous prig.
//So ALL people were CREATED to worship Jesus. Must've been confusing for all those people who lived before him..


Being a jew must be complicated - there are political, religious, ethnic, and cultural facets.  It's hard for a gentile to keep it all straight.
 
2013-02-09 06:09:42 PM  

clowncar on fire: Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution


What sheltered world do you live in?

Fundies attempt to pass, or grasp to, laws that are in place only because of religion.(gay marriage, women's rights, etc)
Fundies can and do abuse power, as per the Polk Under Prayer group.
Workplaces that will fire people who are gay/women, etc, do so more or less at the instruction of religion.

You don't see any of that as a problem, or are you just ignorant as to those things happening with an alarming regularity?
 
2013-02-09 06:11:53 PM  

BumpInTheNight: noitsnot: Ooh - I forgot - churches also handled all the gay and insane people, back when nobody acknowledged that gay or insane existed.

So just imagine Ghastly in robes and a pointy hat.

Are you a wizard?!  He usually starts our chats that way.


I love me some Ghastly.  (From afar....)
 
2013-02-09 06:13:46 PM  
omeganuepsilon: clowncar on fire: Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution

What sheltered world do you live in?

Fundies attempt to pass, or grasp to, laws that are in place only because of religion.(gay marriage, women's rights, etc)
Fundies can and do abuse power, as per the Polk Under Prayer group.
Workplaces that will fire people who are gay/women, etc, do so more or less at the instruction of religion.

You don't see any of that as a problem, or are you just ignorant as to those things happening with an alarming regularity?


to put it more succinctly: Medieval modes of thought have no place in the 21st century.
 
2013-02-09 06:13:48 PM  

noitsnot: Smgth: I think ...

As a secular Jew, I understand ...

/Article writer was a self righteous prig.
//So ALL people were CREATED to worship Jesus. Must've been confusing for all those people who lived before him..

Being a jew must be complicated - there are political, religious, ethnic, and cultural facets.  It's hard for a gentile to keep it all straight.


Too right! The majority of Jews at least have God to fall back on when the whole thing makes no sense. Seculars are left adrift.

And most Jews don't know how to feel about Israel. I mean I'M not from there. BUT it's full of Jews. Now. BUT it wasn't always. And everything they do is hardly 'Jew-centric', as it were, so it's not like there's an obligation to agree with everything they do. BUT some feel that way.

/It's a quagmire to be sure.
//Most people don't really think about it. Good for you!
 
2013-02-09 06:16:37 PM  

Lsherm: 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.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.


Didn't read the article, did you?

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.

I'll just quote a few paragraphs of the article, thanks:

My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical? He essentially sidestepped the chicken-or-the-egg issue with the Big Bang.

Perhaps it's because there needed to be an intelligence behind the asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in order to bring about the creation of the universe in the most explosive display of light in the universe's entire existence.

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.

 
2013-02-09 06:18:09 PM  

iron de havilland: Lsherm: 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.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Didn't read the article, did you?

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.

I'll just quote a few paragraphs of the article, thanks:

My only complaint about Cliff's talk was that he never discussed the obvious question of how the most improbable condition was probable in the first place. What made the asymmetry, well, asymmetrical? He essentially sidestepped the chicken-or-the-egg issue with the Big Bang.

Perhaps it's because there needed to be an intelligence behind the asymmetry of matter and anti-matter in order to bring about the creation of the universe in the most explosive display of light in the universe's entire existence.

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.


"God Did It."

Okay, got it.  When are we sending this writer a Nobel Prize in Physics?
 
2013-02-09 06:19:24 PM  

ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.


So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?
 
2013-02-09 06:21:41 PM  
Jones kicked the service off by warmly welcoming everyone and offering an amusing story of how he had learned that it was actually fellow atheists, not Christians as he had expected, who vocally disapproved of The Sunday Assembly.

This I did not expect.  Friendly fire?
 
2013-02-09 06:22:34 PM  

heap: the bassackwardness of attempting to coagulate a group based on what they don't think is just too much of a hurdle, tho.


143,000 atheists disagree with you.
 
2013-02-09 06:24:03 PM  

FloydA: Somacandra:

Wow. If only your incredibly stupid

Well that was helpful. Thank you for advancing the conversation in a useful and effective way.


Well, I disagree with you as well, but I won't say that you or your opinions are stupid.
 
2013-02-09 06:24:35 PM  

ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?


I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.
 
2013-02-09 06:26:13 PM  

Somacandra: FloydA: 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
==

"As in the other sciences, astronomers in the Muslim lands built upon and greatly expanded earlier traditions. At the House of Knowledge founded in Baghdad by the Abbasid caliph Mamun, scientists translated many texts from Sanskrit, Pahlavi or Old Persian, Greek and Syriac into Arabic, notably the great Sanskrit astronomical tables and Ptolemy's astronomical treatise, the Almagest. Muslim astronomers accepted the geometrical structure of the universe expounded by Ptolemy, in which the earth rests motionless near the center of a series of eight spheres, which encompass it, but then faced the problem of reconciling the theoretical model with Aristotelian physics and physical realities derived from observation. Some of the most impressive efforts to modify Ptolemaic theory were made at the observatory founded by Nasir al-Din Tusi in 1257 at Maragha in northwestern Iran and continued by his successors at Tabriz and Damascus. With the assistance of Chinese colleagues, Muslim astronomers worked out planetary models that depended solely on combinations of uniform circular motions. The astronomical tables compiled at Maragha served as a model for later Muslim astronomical efforts. The most famous imitator was the observatory founded in 1420 by the Timurid prince Ulughbeg at Samarkand in Central Asia, where the astronomer Ghiyath al-Din Jamshid al-Kashi worked out his own set of astronomical tables, with sections on diverse computations and eras, the knowledge of time, the course of the stars, and the position of the fixed stars. Essentially Ptolemaic, these tables have improved parameters and structure as well as additional material on the Chinese Uighur-calendar. They were widely admired and translated e ...



Were these advances made because of religion, or in spite of religion? Was every researcher and/or scientist that made an advance in human knowledge devout in their faith, or were they Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Whatever in name only?

Is there a single faith that embraces the scientific method? Is there any sacred writing that instructs the faithful to alter their beliefs in light of new and better evidence that contradicts the sacred writing?
 
2013-02-09 06:26:16 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-09 06:26:25 PM  

BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.


1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?
 
2013-02-09 06:29:10 PM  

omeganuepsilon: clowncar on fire: Fundies and atheists are not a conflict that needs resolution

What sheltered world do you live in?

Fundies attempt to pass, or grasp to, laws that are in place only because of religion.(gay marriage, women's rights, etc) 
Fundies can and do abuse power, as per the Polk Under Prayer group.
Workplaces that will fire people who are gay/women, etc, do so more or less at the instruction of religion.

You don't see any of that as a problem, or are you just ignorant as to those things happening with an alarming regularity?


Laws regardings gays and women actually exist in every society, regardless of beliefs.  Can you believe that at one time fundies were actually out there trying to protect women from the evils that society was inflicting upon them (abuse, homeless, prostitution), thaough admittantly, I don't believe just a short 50 years ago there were too many advocates for homosexuality- fundie or otherwise.

Fundies abuse power *chuckles* only because they have a monopoly in that department.

Workplaces fire women for a variety reasons- not just because jesus told them to do so.  Try not to tie in sexism with religion though.  Gays get fired for similar reasons.  Anectadote time.  I work in a faith based hospital and we have many gay employees there- some who have been there longer than the 15 years I have been employed.  We're faith based and they are still employed- go figure , huh.  Gays who get fired either suck at what they do or become such a nuisance with their gayness that they begin to make others around them uncomfortable is gets them fired.

Fortunately, we have a group of intrepid individuals who are willing to take up the cause and devote an equal amount of time and effort countering every belief the fundies hold.
 
2013-02-09 06:30:02 PM  
Here we were at an atheistic church service being delivered evidences of both God's existence (the improbability of asymmetry at the Big Bang) and the Bible's trustworthiness (the fact that God's first creative act was light).

It was at this point that it became too obnoxious to tolerate. He already did the wrong thing by taking up two seats in a packed place. How would he feel if atheists went to his church and kept part of its real congregation from having a seat? What a jerk.
 
2013-02-09 06:30:54 PM  

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

just sayin'


Several of those "X"s in your little chart are arguably checks.  Including "charismatic leader".
 
2013-02-09 06:32:04 PM  

gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?


madmikesamerica.com
 
2013-02-09 06:32:23 PM  

Farking Canuck: If some atheists keep organizing like this I am going to have to get some identifier to make it clear that I am not affiliated.

Maybe "Chaos Atheist" - I like that.


Chaos Atheist ?  Is that like, the final boss or something?  Does it have special attacks?
 
2013-02-09 06:32:31 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-09 06:32:46 PM  
Ah, just a contrarian troll then.  I get it.

The discussion was about fundies, not "faith based" organizations.  Nice equivocation though.
 
2013-02-09 06:32:47 PM  

gimmegimme: 1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?


People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.  Its one thing to celebrate your decision to be completely self-responsible and all that, its quite another to brow beat others in an attempt to get them to convert to your point of view.  Then as I mentioned before its just kind of petty to primary identify yourself as 'not religion' as opposed to say 'free thinking'.

I don't care about religion myself and never felt a strong pull towards any of them but I'd sooner distance myself from a zealously religious person then actively challenge their core beliefs at every turn.  Again, things would probably be different if Canada has the same problems with fundamentalists like the states and the middle east do.
 
2013-02-09 06:34:03 PM  

ciberido: Chaos Atheist ?  Is that like, the final boss or something?  Does it have special attacks?


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-02-09 06:34:45 PM  

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?
 
2013-02-09 06:35:30 PM  

Somacandra: Modern Western Atheism has no content--its a concept entirely founded on negating a complete strawman of a Protestant concept of religion.


1) You scolded someone else in this thread for a blindingly stupid generalization... then you say this.

2) "Atheism" as I experience it has nothing to do with negating any concept of religion whatsoever. Rather, it is the lack of belief in any god, gods, or the supernatural. Though the last isn't necessary to the concept of atheism. It just overlaps with it quite a lot.

3) What may have confused you, professor, is that atheists like myself frequently find ourselves arguing with obnoxious evangelists, usually Protestant, presenting us with a very real concept of Christian religion that 1) corresponds strongly with what common English translations of the Bible say in plain words, and 2) you probably don't care for because you feel, rightly or wrongly, that the many who practice it reflect poorly on you and what you regard as your more nuanced beliefs.

I do not speak to the question of whether reading common English translations of the Bible, and taking them literally is a sound epistemological approach to discovering religious truth, even within a Christian framework. I do say that it is a very real approach, and much as you'd like to pretend otherwise, the main approach among laypersons out here in red America. Neither do I speak to the question of whether adherents to this strain of Christianity in fact reflect poorly on sophisticates like yourself, other than to say that you yourself seem influenced by some stereotype of atheism arising from your interactions with some few of them.
 
2013-02-09 06:35:37 PM  

BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.


So it's 'militant' to want to hang out with a bunch if like minded people in the search for community our modern world is sadly lacking? Interesting.

Would they still be 'militant' if they didn't use the word 'church'? I assume they used that word to convey the point that their get together was meant to engender the spirt of togetherness the church does for it's adherents. Not as a means of proselytization of the 'atheist faith'.
 
2013-02-09 06:36:23 PM  

gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"?

A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.
 
2013-02-09 06:36:26 PM  

BumpInTheNight: gimmegimme: 1) What is a "militant atheist"?

2) How is the above "just as bad"?

People who stick their noses into other people's business and pushing their own world view upon others.  Its one thing to celebrate your decision to be completely self-responsible and all that, its quite another to brow beat others in an attempt to get them to convert to your point of view.  Then as I mentioned before its just kind of petty to primary identify yourself as 'not religion' as opposed to say 'free thinking'.

I don't care about religion myself and never felt a strong pull towards any of them but I'd sooner distance myself from a zealously religious person then actively challenge their core beliefs at every turn.  Again, things would probably be different if Canada has the same problems with fundamentalists like the states and the middle east do.


Do you realize, by your own definition, you are a "militant atheist"?  You have entered a public forum and are indeed "browbeating" others to agree with your point of view through the use of inflammatory rhetoric.  Why not do as you urge others and not "stick your nose into the business of others?"
 
2013-02-09 06:36:31 PM  
Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Using the word church implies a religious structure which many of us would like to see go away.

While some people see a church as an example of unity, those of us who are not fans of religion see it as a source of division. While an atheist temple may be one we are welcome in and agree with, we would like to be free of temples. At least I would.

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.
 
2013-02-09 06:37:34 PM  

Lsherm: 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.

I find this stereotypical summation, typical of liberal bigotry, amusingly ironic.

Please, you two, tell us more about how "those people" think.  Make sure to fluff yourselves up as the enlightened class at the same time.  Extra bonus points for ridiculous generalizations and/or complete ignorance baout the people you are criticizing.


You can't blame him -- that's how God made him.
 
2013-02-09 06:39:08 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.


How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?
 
2013-02-09 06:41:54 PM  

thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.


I recommend "nontheist" or "anti organized religion" -- "heathen" if you're feeling playful.
 
2013-02-09 06:43:53 PM  

nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.


Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.
 
2013-02-09 06:44:43 PM  

ennuie: thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.

I recommend "nontheist" or "anti organized religion" -- "heathen" if you're feeling playful.


I like "positive atheist." Actively disbelieve that god doesn't exist and actively believe that religion is evil.
 
2013-02-09 06:45:06 PM  

give me doughnuts: Was every researcher and/or scientist that made an advance in human knowledge devout in their faith, or were they Muslim/Christian/Jewish/Whatever in name only?



Isaac Newton is the one of best examples of what you suggest, he wrote more on religion than he did on natural science. Although he has in recent years found to be rather heterodox, his view on gravity provides insight into his position "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
 
2013-02-09 06:45:58 PM  
Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.
 
2013-02-09 06:46:35 PM  

nerftaig: I like "positive atheist." Actively disbelieve that god doesn't exist and actively believe that religion is evil.


unfortunately it has a weird confusing connotation because of the word "positive"
 
2013-02-09 06:48:34 PM  
ciberido:

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

just sayin'

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


Such as?
 
2013-02-09 06:50:29 PM  

ph0rk: nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.


My objection is not inherently an atheists position I understand that. I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole, and the movement of the world towards reason. Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.

I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.
 
2013-02-09 06:53:29 PM  

nerftaig: I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole,


I don't feel diminished.

nerftaig: and the movement of the world towards reason.


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

nerftaig: Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.


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.
 
2013-02-09 06:54:15 PM  

fusillade762: This thread hasn't been nearly as derpy as I was expecting.


Give it time.
 
2013-02-09 06:54:23 PM  

BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.


There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.
 
2013-02-09 06:55:46 PM  

gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.

How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?


The  "method " is the usual: browbeat, troll, bully, etc.  In the framework of the cyber community, I would say the bravery of being out of range would be considered acceptable.

I, for example, am an atheist in regards to the existance of the Easter Bunny.  My disbelief in The Bunny is the end game.  In your venacular- whatever.  Why would I even bother to even debate about its existance as I know it not to exist?  As a true theist, with no doubt in my heart, I w ould not even see the oint of trying to expend my efforts to debunk that which is not debunkable.

A true theist would not see the need to engage in such discourse as to whether God exists or not, but rather be comfortable in the belief in non-existance.

Militant theists are an entirely different bird.  There appears to be an internal need, not unlike that of a bully, to defend a core belief to which the holder may himself have doubts.  In the case of theism, a need to express the non-existance of a diety and receive confirmation thereof.
 
2013-02-09 06:56:16 PM  

nerftaig: I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.


At the very least you own up to it, and don't operate as if that's some hidden agenda and lie cheat and steal your way around it.

And if I'm reading you right, it's akin to pacifism?
 
2013-02-09 06:57:12 PM  
Church is just another form of atheism.
 
2013-02-09 06:57:23 PM  

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


Atheism has a "purpose" now?

Something tells me it's you who's confused about atheism.
 
2013-02-09 06:57:33 PM  

give me doughnuts: Is there a single faith that embraces the scientific method? Is there any sacred writing that instructs the faithful to alter their beliefs in light of new and better evidence that contradicts the sacred writing?



"If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality
 
2013-02-09 06:58:00 PM  

nerftaig: ph0rk: nerftaig: Many atheists not only do not accept the existence of a theistic god (I know that is all atheist means) but actually have negative views towards organized religion.

Two different concepts - not necessarily comorbid.

A certain type of devout theist will hold negative views about believers in other faiths, and others that are nominally of the same faith as the devout theist will not hold those negative views.

Theism/Atheism - belief, or not

Other people suck/You do what you want - Dick, or not.

My objection is not inherently an atheists position I understand that. I am using an argument that even if you want to have a church you shouldn't because it somehow diminishes atheists as a whole, and the movement of the world towards reason. Im not really a fan of treating atheists as a fringe group that needs to be protected anyway.

I think my argument would be sacrifice what you think is right for what I think is the good of the world. That is an unreasonable thing for me to ask.

So I'm willing to grant Im probably in the wrong here, but its how I feel.


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.

The problem being this role has been filled by religion for so long, it's hard to divorce the idea from result. I think they're using the word 'church' or 'temple' to show they're a community of like minded individuals who get together and do the sorts if things that they feel they're missing.

The modern world is an alienating one.
 
2013-02-09 06:58:09 PM  

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"

 
2013-02-09 06:58:51 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"


[smug.jpg]
 
2013-02-09 06:59:04 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.


Thank you! I've been saying this is in this thread over and over. But no one seems to want to hear it.
 
2013-02-09 06:59:22 PM  

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.
 
2013-02-09 06:59:45 PM  

mittromneysdog: BumpInTheNight: Jesus you're a sensitive lot ;)  Yes I think its weird that a particular group of atheists decided to call their club house a church, yes I think its counter productive to decide you need to write down 'atheist' in the slot for 'religion' on your life score card rather then just leave it blank.  I think seeking out echo chambers of 'anti-religion' is just a silly notion, its a sign of insecurity to need to cluster over something you claim doesn't need to exist.  Now, these are my opinions and this is a discussion about the topic, beyond this discussion I really don't bring this topic up and that's why I'm not a militant or let's called it 'recruiting' atheist, I'm just someone who at the moment is bored but in general has no time to waste on bullshiat like religions or agonize that some people actually take them seriously.

There are fairly well documented psychological and health benefits associated with religious participation. A popular theory holds that the benefits derive from the sense of belonging to a special community. There is no good reason atheists shouldn't seek to enjoy these benefits in a non-religious way. And if they want to call their special community a "church" because it fills the same role in their lives that other peoples' religion fulfills in theirs, that's fine too. At least to sensible people.


All good, hell I'm part of a couple special communities myself, work, a few hobbies, things like that.  No need to join a community bent on a dismantling another one though, that's again the line between militant and existent, to me.  Oh and none of my hobbies require a club house who's name is directly hijacked from something the in which the hobby's goal is to actively reject.  I think its ironic they called their building a church, I think Letrolle is right when it comes to these people:  At this point for those people being atheist is their religion.
 
2013-02-09 07:00:15 PM  

ennuie: thamike: Weaver95: Atheists have church?  um...doesn't that kind of defeat the point of being an atheist?

Everything about organized atheism defeats the purpose of being an atheist.  Now I have to go around with some sort of absurd hyphenated clarification because of these bozos.

I recommend "nontheist" or "anti organized religion" -- "heathen" if you're feeling playful.


Again, I point to the Unitarian Universalists. The minister before Victoria Safford took over at the Unitarian Society in Northampton was very much an atheist; so much so, that there was some push back from the congregation when she began services for being too theist in her approach. The language of faith, from many faith traditions, helps us to understand how those disparate faith traditions all approach things from slightly different perspectives, but to common goals, and with lessons that we can all learn from. Kindness. Charity. Forgiveness. Be you Buddhist, pagan, Jewish, Lutheran, Baptist, Hindu, Jain, Catholic, Muslim or Methodist, we can all learn from one another. Common values, common drives, desires, common needs, they transcend faith traditions, and even atheists can find important lessons in the disparate teachings, or even in the teachings of one tradition alone. Deeds over creeds tends to drive the UUs. Where you find the inspiration, that tends to come from one's own personal experiences. Ultimately, those experiences drive us, but we can find common ground in our actions. The language of faith, the lessons, those don't have to drive you to exclusivity that YOU are the only one who knows the back door to the Great and Secret Show.

The language of faith, the lessons contained, they can be gleaned without damning all those around you. Even Buddhists differ wildly in their interpretations of the Eightfold Path. Atheists are welcome in a UU community, because they bring their own experiences to the table, and they are just as valid as those of folks with theistic bends. Openness isn't a trait for only believers or unbelievers. Openness and willingness to listen, those are traits to be inculcated and nurtured. UUs are fantastic in their arguments amongst one another, and still within the bounds of looking to help each other define their own thoughts and processes. In an environment that is safe, and nurturing, where the questions are supposed to be asked of one another.
 
2013-02-09 07:00:40 PM  

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*
 
2013-02-09 07:00:57 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.


Yes, but not a leader. He has fans, but not followers.
 
2013-02-09 07:01:27 PM  

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!
 
2013-02-09 07:02:25 PM  

ciberido: "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims."

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality



Heh.  So when science conclusively demonstrates that people don't reincarnate into spirits and bugs, then they will abandon those claims.  Seems like a pretty safe dodge.
 
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).
 
2013-02-09 07:49:57 PM  

phrawgh: [www.deeptruths.com image 420x300]
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x298]


Better yet WHY would your Jesus return?
Given your society's / sect's previous attitude *sheesh*
 
2013-02-09 07:53:19 PM  

Robert Farker: It seems like you are being purposely cryptic. Why post if you are afraid to be clear in your actual opinion?


It must have been trained by the likes of SteveB and IDW when it comes to making a clear point.

An interesting snake oil pitch situation, a staple tactic to the loud religious "debaters", and indeed, anyone wanting to appear wise but with no real talent for it.
 
2013-02-09 07:55:10 PM  

maxheck: 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.


So you are saying there is nothing we can garnish from the bible or religion that no longer benefits today's society?  Does the bible/koran offer no comfort to its readers, no self evident law to which all members of society should not subscribe to- you know: don't steal shiat, obscess with others, respect authority, and recognise order through some rule of law?  No comfort in the belief that things may get better in the afterlife or possible governance over personal belief when defining right and wrong.

I would not even attempt to defend the bible in regards of science other than to say that it may offer simple explanation where simplicity over complexity may be needed.
 
2013-02-09 07:55:43 PM  
I visited an Athiest camp once.
I can't believe what I saw there.
 
2013-02-09 07:55:59 PM  
I thought an Atheist church was called a bar (or pub on the other side of the Atlantic)
 
2013-02-09 07:56:28 PM  

ciberido: So your objection is to the word "church"? If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?


Absolutely. The very definition of church in virtually EVERY dictionary is "A building used for public Christian worship." If it were a book club, meeting, hobby club or whatever I'd be fine, but "Atheist" and "Church" are mutually exclusive words.
 
2013-02-09 08:00:48 PM  

EngineerBob: I visited an Athiest camp once.
I can't believe what I saw there.


Want some whiskey in your water
Sugar in your tea
What's all these crazy questions they askin' me
This is the craziest party there could ever be
Don't turn on the lights, 'cause I don't want to see

Mama told me not to come
Mama told me not to come
That ain't the way to have fun, no

Open up the window
Let some air into this room
I think I'm almost chokin'
From the smell of stale perfume

And that cigarette you're smoking
'Bout scared me half to death
Open up the window, sucker
Let me catch my breath

[Refrain]
Mama told me not to come
Mama told me not to come
She said, that ain't the way to have fun, son
That ain't the way to have fun, son

The radio is blastin'
Someone's knocking at the door
I'm lookin' at my girlfriend
She's passed out on the floor

I seen so many things
I ain't never seen before
Don't know what it is
I don't wanna see no more

[Refrain]

Mama told me, mama told me, mama told me
Told me, told me
That ain't no way to have fun, whoah, yeah yeah
Mama told me not to come
Mama, mama, mama told me
That ain't no way to have fun

That ain't the way to have fun, no
That ain't the way to have fun, son
That ain't the way to have fun, no
That ain't the way to have fun, son  ~Three Dog Night
 
2013-02-09 08:05:01 PM  
Oh, FOR FARK SAKE, YOU ASSHOLE! You are at SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVICE! SHUT THE FARK UP ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS AND STOP ASSUMING THEY 'NEED' YOURS!

Goddamn, is there just something about being the dominant religion in a country that makes you completely farking forget basic good manners?
 
2013-02-09 08:05:41 PM  

clowncar on fire: maxheck: 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.

So you are saying there is nothing we can garnish from the bible or religion that no longer benefits today's society?  Does the bible/koran offer no comfort to its readers, no self evident law to which all members of society should not subscribe to- you know: don't steal shiat, obscess with others, respect authority, and recognise order through some rule of law?  No comfort in the belief that things may get better in the afterlife or possible governance over personal belief when defining right and wrong.

I would not even attempt to defend the bible in regards of science other than to say that it may offer simple explanation where simplicity over complexity may be needed.


How do you derive that from what I said?! I said people like to feel a sense of belonging. The end. This group of atheists wasn't getting it from the world around them, they don't believe in god, so they sought out a surrogate. How does that mean I don't think religious people should enjoy going to church?! If you want worship god, knock yourself out, no skin off my nose.

You're making a lot of large, unwarranted, assumptions about my position.
 
2013-02-09 08:08:00 PM  

PsiChick: Oh, FOR FARK SAKE, YOU ASSHOLE! You are at SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVICE! SHUT THE FARK UP ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS AND STOP ASSUMING THEY 'NEED' YOURS!

Goddamn, is there just something about being the dominant religion in a country that makes you completely farking forget basic good manners?


Nah, minority religions have NO problem being self-righteous smug assholes.

LOTS of people think they've the ONLY answer, and look down at the rest as deluded fools.

/The majority just have more room for smug.
 
2013-02-09 08:17:10 PM  

PsiChick: Oh, FOR FARK SAKE, YOU ASSHOLE! You are at SOMEONE ELSE'S SERVICE! SHUT THE FARK UP ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS AND STOP ASSUMING THEY 'NEED' YOURS!

Goddamn, is there just something about being the dominant religion in a country that makes you completely farking forget basic good manners?



lh3.googleusercontent.com
Because that's what they figure everyone needs...
 
2013-02-09 08:19:20 PM  

clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: clowncar on fire: gimmegimme: BumpInTheNight: ciberido: ajgeek: "Atheist Church" is an oxymoron. Also stupid, but I repeat myself.

So your objection is to the word "church"?  If it was called "an atheist weekly social club" it would be fine?

Or do you think it's stupid for a group of like-minded atheists to get together on a regular basis to listen to music and lectures?

I gotta admit I find it more then a little strange that this group of people who are actively trying to reject the notion of religion are using a name universally recognized as reserved for houses of christian worship and applying it to their weekly club house.  This sort of radical anti-religion is mildly funny to me, like I'm sure I'd feel differently if I had to deal with the zealously religious on a more regular basis but to me the idea of identifying myself as 'not that' in reference to something I reject as opposed to identifying something I actually am is just strange.  Its counter productive and at the end of  the day your self identification is reliant on the thing you reject existing...this guaranteeing it can never be fully erased lest you become void of purpose yourself.

TL;DR?  Militant atheists are just as bad as militant fundamentalists, they're just bad in different ways.

1) What is a "militant atheist"? A person who not only believes but must make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways

2) How is the above "just as bad"?  Re-read all posts in this thread. Take the time to keep count of those who defend the fundies and the nature of their responses versus those who oppose the fundies.  Come to your own conclusions.

How, exactly, does a "militant atheist" "make sure anyone who believes otherwise better change their ways" and why/how is this method unacceptable?

The  "method " is the usual: browbeat, troll, bully, etc.  In the framework of the cyber community, I would say the bravery of being out of range would be considered acceptable.

I, for example, am an atheist in regards to the existance of the Easter Bunny.  My disbelief in The Bunny is the end game.  In your venacular- whatever.  Why would I even bother to even debate about its existance as I know it not to exist?  As a true theist, with no doubt in my heart, I w ould not even see the oint of trying to expend my efforts to debunk that which is not debunkable.

A true theist would not see the need to engage in such discourse as to whether God exists or not, but rather be comfortable in the belief in non-existance.

Militant theists are an entirely different bird.  There appears to be an internal need, not unlike that of a bully, to defend a core belief to which the holder may himself have doubts.  In the case of theism, a need to express the non-existance of a diety and receive confirmation thereof.


If, as a theist, the worst thing that can happen to you for your religious position is to get trolled on Fark, you're getting off light. As an atheist in Arkansas, I can be disqualified from serving on a jury or to hold state public office. Once you start getting discriminated against for being a Christian and having your actual civil rights revoked, you call me up.
 
2013-02-09 08:23:21 PM  

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.


My lack of belief in god is entirely focused on negating a strawman?

Please elaborate.
 
2013-02-09 08:23:26 PM  
while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".
 
2013-02-09 08:29:57 PM  
Well, he almost made a good point about our instinctual need for community, until he got all smug about his religion.

Our need for community and social bonds stems from biology, not religion. It's too bad the author can't understand this, and wastes energy feeling pity for people who are probably happier than he is.
 
2013-02-09 08:31:15 PM  
Popular Opinion:

while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".


So you'd agree that say, legislation based on faith is ok, and *not* getting in someone's face?

There may have been an example or two of that lately, just saying. I can in fact name a class of people who don't seem to give a fark about anyone else. It's not the one you're thinking of.
 
2013-02-09 08:33:11 PM  

Popular Opinion: while i am not religious, i have a growing dislike for the anti-religious.
i am battered daily by protestations from the FSM worshippers proclaiming the absolute disconnection between church and charity, and yet for 17 years now, I have yet to meet an atheist group at the local community center feeding the poor.
i could understand if i only worked at a few, or only at faith based centers...

atheist is another word for selfish and don't give a f*ck about anyone else. jmo.

and i don't even believe in "god".


You're certainly welcome to view the world as if your experiences are the only way the world functions. But just because you haven't seen at your community center doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

But please, continue to paint all atheists with the same brush.
 
pc
2013-02-09 08:38:59 PM  
i50.tinypic.com
/just saying