 |
Is it an oxymoron for atheists to start their own churches? Even God-less ones? As more North Americans continue to move away from religion, a growing movement to efficiently organize is taking root. How atheism is learning from its fiercest critics.
Digital Journal — Atheism inched its way into the spotlight when two best-selling books stormed into our cultural arena: The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens. Both books attacked religious values and imparted messages such as Hitchens calling religion “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry.” Dawkins says the existence of God isn't possible, saying such a complex creature calls into question how it was even created in the first place.
As expected, Dawkins and Hitchens faced a barrage of criticism from the religious public. They called the books short-sighted and insulting. But atheism earned enormous attention amidst the controversies, giving those who fear coming out of the God-less closet more empowerment to do so.
And they are tired of shutting up about their free-spirited philosophies. Atheists are increasingly amassing themselves into loose-knit organizations, building human-centered groups that take the God out of church. Yes, they might want their own church but they want to throw out the Bibles and replace them with traditional songbooks.
As explained in a New York Magazine feature, the secular Society for Ethical Culture was formed in 1877 to give atheists a chance to congregate in a proper facility. Humanistic Judaism stresses cultural roots rather than following the Old Testament by rote. Humanist rabbi Peter Schweitzer told New York: “Jews need a place to go, especially during high holidays, where they don’t have to check reason at the door. This is honest religion. A real gift.”
The First Church of Atheism was born out of a need to spread the belief “that science and reason dictate all natural life.” The Church allows atheists to become ordained free and provides a directory for atheists to find ministers to perform certain ceremonies.
The Texas-based Freethought Church held its first service in 1995, when 40 people attended. Today, around 150 people are active members of a church that does indeed explore religious ideas, but emphasizes the need to reject what they call “religious superstition.”
An American atheist points out many people misunderstand why church is so popular with practicing Christians. Tim Gorski said: “It isn’t the specific doctrines. [Church] binds people together and relates them to one another and gives them each a personal, private, and, of course, quite subjective understanding of themselves and their world.”
Statistically, if not anecdotally, more North Americans are not identifying themselves as religious. A survey from The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released in February 2008 revealed 16 per cent of Americans have no religious affiliation. And among respondents ages 18 to 29, the “unaffiliated” number soars to 31 per cent, more than any other category (Muslims come closest, at 28 per cent).
In Canada, the atheist landscape isn’t much different. According to Statistics Canada, between 1985 and 2004, the percentage of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased from 12 per cent to 19 per cent. Also, 20 per cent of adults between 30 and 44 years old reported no religious affiliation, up from 13 per cent in 1985.
Not surprisingly, the nationwide group American Atheists praised the recent surveys showing the rise of atheism in the country. In a statement, American Atheists president Ellen Johnson said: “We’re encouraged that as a group non-religious Americans are thriving, and that more believers are obviously questioning the dogmas of their religion and starting to think for themselves.”
Atheism is enjoying a reawakening that is seeing its affiliates organize into groups and campus clubs in order to voice their concerns, such as the need to separate church and state. They want to bullhorn their opinions on intelligent design curriculum in schools and the product-placement of God in political campaigns. They are also unafraid to smack out a lawsuit or two — look at how Specialist Jeremy Hall sued the U.S. Army for violating his “right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment” and facing retaliation from fellow officers when he tried to organize a meeting of atheists in an Iraq army camp. Hall told the New York Times:
Even if [the lawsuit] doesn’t go through, I stood up. I don’t think it is futile.
It doesn’t end there. Atheist activists face public attacks, evidenced in how Illinois state Rep. Monique Davis berated atheist Rob Sherman last week, stating atheism is “dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children.” The blogosphere had a field day with that verbal lightning rod.
It’s obvious to see the need for atheists to get organized. They are learning from their own detractors, it seems, because they are also moving into churches, lobbying Congress and creating public awareness campaigns to be both seen and heard. Dawkins and Hitchens may have put their concerns on the map but those two firebrands can’t be to atheists what the Pope is to Catholics. Part of an atheist’s MO is to think freely and to take action without orders from an ordained leader.
If activist atheists are so passionate about their beliefs (um, or religious-related lack thereof), standing idle will only hurt their cause. They have every right to get their voice heard in a continent still overwhelmingly religious. It’s like they are in the back of the classroom, ignored and pitied, just dying to let the rest of the classroom hear their ideas. Even if their opinions run contrary to the norm, shouldn’t they also be voiced?
It won’t be up to anyone but atheists whether that happens. Much like how organized religion has structured bullet-proof marketing campaigns, atheists should do the same. In order to step out of the shadows for good, these free-thinkers should do what they’ve always done: stand up for their rights, think outside the box and find like-minded people who can turn apathy into action.
-
"I think maybe you don't know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah."
Um, I think maybe you don't know it...or the rest of the entire bible, or the rest of all ancient "scripture".
But, then again, I was referring to a vastly deeper story than you have proven yourself capable of accepting. You wouldn't be able to handle doing extra-biblical research, now would you?
You, for instance, probably believe that every time a horny drunken college girl cries "rape" that it's sincere, honest, and factual.
-
@ Lightening
I think maybe you don't know the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people there were extremely vile in many ways and they molested and raped visitors. Lot kept visitors safe in his home so they wouldn't get molested.
Lot had men who visited the city - he met at the gate. They were planning to stay in the town square, but Lot persuaded them to stay at his home with his family (he knew they would be raped if they didn't). So the two men came to Lot's home.
Later that evening scores of men surrounded Lot's home and demanded that he send the two visiting men outside. They wanted to have sex with them [rape them]. They threatened to break down the door and take the men for sex.
God had sent angels that intervened and struck the men blind so they couldn't find the door. Then Lot and his family were told by the angels to leave and not look back. Then God rained down fire and brimstone and destroyed the entire city.
That is the very short version. Not sure how you consider rapists "knowledgeable"....and that was their only "sin"??
It is indeed a very short version of this sordid story:
Gen 19:6-10
And Lot went out at the door unto them, and shut the door after him,
And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.
Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.
And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.
Lot was going to give up his daughters to be raped. After all, they are dispensable, they are only women, yes?
-
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
It is indeed a very short version of this sordid story:
Lot was going to give up his daughters to be raped. After all, they are dispensable, they are only women, yes?
Lot knew they didn't want women....they could care less. They were homosexual men who had absolutely no desire for women at all. Lot was pleading with them to go away and they were trying to break down the door to get the men so they could rape them.
Apparently just having sex with each other wasn't as fulfilling as raping a man.
If you think that is okay... then I apologize...I no longer wish to continue dialogue with you in this forum.
-
@ Lightening
Lot knew they didn't want women....they could care less. They were homosexual men who had absolutely no desire for women at all. Lot was pleading with them to go away and they were trying to break down the door to get the men so they could rape them.
Apparently just having sex with each other wasn't as fulfilling as raping a man.
If you think that is okay... then I apologize...I no longer wish to continue dialogue with you in this forum. Indeed, nice explanation. Only, as someone who has studied the Bible, you know full well that this is not really a good explanation, don't you? In Judges 19, a very similar thing happened, and there the men were very happy to take the daughter of the host and the wife of the guest. The morning after, the guest even went so far as to cut his beloved in 12 pieces, one piece for each of the twelve tribes. How very moral!
By the way, did you already find where the core of the earth is connected to "down" and some consistent use of "down"? Take your time,it is not a matter of life and death. I am sure that it is quite a job to look it up, even for someone who has studied the entire Bible, starting with Adam and Eve.
-
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
Indeed, nice explanation. Only, as someone who has studied the Bible, you know full well that this is not really a good explanation, don't you? In Judges 19, a very similar thing happened, and there the men were very happy to take the daughter of the host and the wife of the guest. The morning after, the guest even went so far as to cut his beloved in 12 pieces, one piece for each of the twelve tribes. How very moral!
By the way, did you already find where the core of the earth is connected to "down" and some consistent use of "down"? Take your time,it is not a matter of life and death. I am sure that it is quite a job to look it up, even for someone who has studied the entire Bible, starting with Adam and Eve.
Well maybe he would have given them up?? There is incredible violence in the old testament. It is a history of the times.
Its really not possible to separate the spirit from the teachings in the bible. I don't know how to explain it. But suffice it to say that I can't possibly share my understanding and wisdom with you....as the spirit of Christ is within me and not within you. So you don't have that guidance. Its like trying to explain to someone who was blind from birth, what everything looks like....there are simply no visual reference points from which to pull.
I am hoping that the Lord will give you a message in your personal life that will be a sign to you of his love for you. I am praying for you.
-
@ Lightening
Well maybe he would have given them up?? There is incredible violence in the old testament. It is a history of the times.
Its really not possible to separate the spirit from the teachings in the bible. I don't know how to explain it. But suffice it to say that I can't possibly share my understanding and wisdom with you....as the spirit of Christ is within me and not within you. So you don't have that guidance. Its like trying to explain to someone who was blind from birth, what everything looks like....there are simply no visual reference points from which to pull.
I am hoping that the Lord will give you a message in your personal life that will be a sign to you of his love for you. I am praying for you.
I think you misunderstand me. It is not important to me whether these horrors happened or not. I dare to think that it is not all too likely, at least not with such cavalier cruelty. My point is, that the Bible does not condemn this type of despicable behaviour, and in that way it indicates to its believers that it is OK to hate, OK to torture, to destroy, and to murder in the name of a non-existing authority whose very existence one dare not question, or else.
In other words, whether God exists or not, is not even relevant. What is relevant, is that the Biblical religions are no inherently idealistically peaceful. They embrace violence with great enthusiasm.
More fundamentally, the Bible is not a book that one should go to in order to learn moral behaviour. The Bible is not moral, it is not amoral, it is profoundly immoral.
And where the question of the core of the earth is concerned: don't bother. It is not there. You have been had. I was only trying to teach you that being convinced of something doesn't make it so, no matter how "trustworthy" the claimant may be. When someone tells you "It's in the Bible," verify it. It is far from always true, and even if it is, reading the whole chapter will often indicate that the quote has been taken out of context in order to mean something it does not.
That's what happens when one takes fiction for reality.
I will always be able to defeat you, based on the Bible, because the Bible doesn't care about the truth and has no agenda. You have the harder argument, you must make it comply with the vision you have been taught to be the correct one. I feel sorry for you.
-
@ Bart B. Van Bockstaele
I think you misunderstand me. It is not important to me whether these horrors happened or not. I dare to think that it is not all too likely, at least not with such cavalier cruelty. My point is, that the Bible does not condemn this type of despicable behaviour, and in that way it indicates to its believers that it is OK to hate, OK to torture, to destroy, and to murder in the name of a non-existing authority whose very existence one dare not question, or else.
In other words, whether God exists or not, is not even relevant. What is relevant, is that the Biblical religions are no inherently idealistically peaceful. They embrace violence with great enthusiasm.
More fundamentally, the Bible is not a book that one should go to in order to learn moral behaviour. The Bible is not moral, it is not amoral, it is profoundly immoral.
And where the question of the core of the earth is concerned: don't bother. It is not there. You have been had. I was only trying to teach you that being convinced of something doesn't make it so, no matter how "trustworthy" the claimant may be. When someone tells you "It's in the Bible," verify it. It is far from always true, and even if it is, reading the whole chapter will often indicate that the quote has been taken out of context in order to mean something it does not.
That's what happens when one takes fiction for reality.
I will always be able to defeat you, based on the Bible, because the Bible doesn't care about the truth and has no agenda. You have the harder argument, you must make it comply with the vision you have been taught to be the correct one. I feel sorry for you.
You are ignoring the 10 commandments. And one needs to discern the difference between the old testament and the new testament and their purposes. Christianity teaches love, kindness, patience, selflessness....etc.
I am not trying to defeat you, quite the contrary if you know what I mean. And as far as you defeating me.....you couldn't. You are a mere mortal...and I love the Lord God and in him my faith is strengthened beyond your ability to understand. I will still be praying for you. ;-)
Hugs,
L
-
The only thing which surprises me now is that this crowd doesn't feel totally positive about the decider's administration.
The swarm does believe..!
-
@ Jedediah Redman
The only thing which surprises me now is that this crowd doesn't feel totally positive about the decider's administration.
The swarm does believe..!
I don't understand what you are saying??
-
I'm saying that I suspect this crowd is so slow because they do not think. They believe...
-
You guys are still going at it? **Whistles**
-
@ Jedediah Redman
I'm saying that I suspect this crowd is so slow because they do not think. They believe...
Empty words.
-
@ Can Tran (TFactor)
You guys are still going at it? **Whistles**
LOL!! ;-)
-
I believe the secularists/freethinkers require a community particularly in areas where religious groups are prominent particularly the South and Midwest. But I would avoid creating a secular church with a secular clergy. Does this imply creating a liturgy. The Jewish Secular Humanists have secular rabbis and faux prayers. All seems like nicotine patches for the religiously addicted.
Our focus should be creating community, social action and stimulating education. A secular clergy, in the end, only articulates scripted homily like the priest, rabbi or pastor. It does not make for activist and freethinking community.
-
I agree wholeheartedly. I am also not fond of a "church". We may be paying a high price for that however, since churches enjoy quite a few privileges.
-
What you folks probably need is something along the lines of Mensa, but obviously without the strict intellectual requirements, and with commitments to Atheistic ideals in place thereof.
-
@ tonystep
What you folks probably need is something along the lines of Mensa, but obviously without the strict intellectual requirements, and with commitments to Atheistic ideals in place thereof. In some ways, these already exist: namely sceptical organizations. Atheism is essentially merely a "subdivision" of scepticism. I think that it is a fairly safe bet to say that most atheists are also sceptics.
-
Makes sense. I get a kick out of the skeptics magazine.
-
@ tonystep
Makes sense. I get a kick out of the skeptics magazine. I think that they are doing a great job. They try to show to a public that is not scientifically trained why a certain conclusion is valid and another isn't. This is something that people should learn in school, but usually don't.
-
@ Lightening
Lot knew they didn't want women....they could care less. They were homosexual men who had absolutely no desire for women at all. Lot was pleading with them to go away and they were trying to break down the door to get the men so they could rape them.
Apparently just having sex with each other wasn't as fulfilling as raping a man.
If you think that is okay... then I apologize...I no longer wish to continue dialogue with you in this forum.
At which point the apologist above makes the claim that Lot was behaving as any shifty eyed believer would, and making a false offer that he knew would not be accepted - thus not actually attempting to protect his guests while hypocritically pretending to do so. No wonder the New testament repeatedly refers to this incestuous old bugger as "righteous," indeed going so far as to call him the only righteous man - despite "Jesus" allegedly having said that no-one is righteous. Quite bizarre.
And having hit, but not having the wit to defend the assertions made, the apologist then runs away. Typical.
Was the Church of Virus, founded in 1995, the first atheist church to explicitly lay claim to the mantle of being a belief-free religion?
-
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6
This verse of scripture came to my mind when I read the latest post by Das Hermit.
Here is an excerpt from a writing by Gilbert Beebe:
According to our understanding of the subject, every effort to apply the things of the Spirit of God to unregenerated men, is to give that which is holy to dogs. Theological institutions for giving ministerial qualifications to graceless youths for preaching, and to unrenewed children and adults for church membership, and for evangelizing the world by humanly devised plans and schemes, is an attempt to give that which is holy to the dogs, and is clearly a transgression of the authority of our Lord, and an open violation of the words of our text: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine." It is not in the nature of swine to appreciate the value or beauty of pearls any more than it is the nature of dogs to relish the rich pasture on which the sheep feed. The children of God are in possession of jewels of inestimable value, which none but the children of God can appreciate or enjoy. Their spiritual privileges, their Christian love and fellowship, their gifts and graces, their experimental joys and peculiar exercises, their knowledge of divine things, are all pearls of great value to them, but their excellency cannot be known or appreciated by those who know not God. There is a fitness and utility in exhibiting these pearls among those of like precious faith, but those who have never possessed them would rudely trample on them if cast before them, as swine would trample upon the most costly and precious jewels.
Christians are greatly edified and comforted by speaking often to each other of all the way in which the Lord has led them; they can talk freely one to another of their joys and sorrows their conflicts and victories, but should they make these things the theme of their conversation in the streets and market places, or in the synagogues of Satan, they would be treated roughly; infidels, Arminians, will-worshipers, like swine, would trample them under their feet, and turn and rend the child of grace. The psalmist said, "Come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what He hath done for my soul." They who fear the Lord can understand the language, they know too well the value of such precious pearls to despise or trample on them. But those who have only religion of the world neither divide the hoof nor chew the cud and like swine , serve only their swinish appetites, their god is their belly and their glory is their shame. The swine seem to have but one desire, and that is the gratification of their ravenous appetite-, cast before them the most costly and splendid gems, or pearls, and as they cannot eat them, they have no other use for them, and they would as soon trample on them as on the most common earth, and they will turn again and rend you, determined to obtain something that they can eat; so when the Christian attempts to display the glorious things of the kingdom of Christ to unbelievers, they will sometimes be surprised to find that those with whom they labor cannot appreciate those experimental things of which they speak. Expostulate with them, and demonstrate what you say by the most clear and positive Scripture authority, and they will disregard your testimony and your Scripture, and trample both under their feet, and then assail you again with as much vigor and determined violence as though you had not exhibited to them your pearls.
-
@ Lightening
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Matthew 7:6
This verse of scripture came to my mind when I read the latest post by Das Hermit.
Well, like master, like mindless memedroid. Attempting to imply that it has a "mind" is as far fetched an assertion as the idea that it presented an effective defense of "Lot" or Lot's primitive and evil gods, or that this is responsive to my initial mild criticism.
Being without the imagination to come up with its own invective our ironically named Lightening (which surely does not refer to its intellect except as an inversion), reverts to the classic vaporous putative insults of the belligerently bloviating believer when its inanities and meaningless screeds of gobshite are exposed for what they are. Lovely that it stretches for the same insults as "Jesus" of the babble allegedly used when confronted by a wit vastly exceeding his own*.
Apparently 1500 years of Christianity have degraded the intellect to the point where these shifty-eyed knaves and fools cannot recognize their own propaganda for the sanctimonious excrescence that it is.
Das Hermit
*He said to her, "Let the children (of Israel) be satisfied first, for it is not right to take the children's (Jew's) bread and to throw it to the dogs (Gentiles)." She answered, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." Then he said to her, "Because you said this, you may go. The demon has left your daughter." She went home and found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. Mark: 7:24 (NET) (Also Matt: 15:21).
PS Here is a better class of quotation: For surely it is folly to preach to children who will be riding rockets to the moon a morality and cosmology based on concepts of the Good Society and of man's place in nature that were coined before the harnessing of the horse! And the world is now far too small, and men's stake in sanity too great, for any more of those old games of Chosen Folk (whether of Jehovah, Allah, Wotan, Manu, or the Devil) by which tribesmen sustained themselves against their enemies in the days when the serpent could still talk. Joseph Campbell
-
Lightening;
I'm sure you're a pleasant person but have you had an original thought in your life since being infected with religion? I don't mean to be rude but you do seem awfully keen to repeat (robotlike) the texts you so worship rather than use them to inform you and your outlook. Or maybe it just seems that way and we've seen you in a bad light. I hope so.
-
Light, you are right of course. The concept of Lot being justified - thus "just" - before God, in spite of having made pretty inglorious choices while here on earth, is not going to be readily understood by these intellectually superior masters of elocution. Even my suggestion that we pray together for them, in the hope that spiritual rather than intellectual light might come to them, is inevitably to be scorned, at least until such time as perhaps for one the prayer might be answered. Hang in there. I'm with you, and we are not alone.
-
@ tonystep
Light, you are right of course. The concept of Lot being justified - thus "just" - before God, in spite of having made pretty inglorious choices while here on earth, is not going to be readily understood by these intellectually superior masters of elocution. Even my suggestion that we pray together for them, in the hope that spiritual rather than intellectual light might come to them, is inevitably to be scorned, at least until such time as perhaps for one the prayer might be answered. Hang in there. I'm with you, and we are not alone.
Thank you Tony.........yes, lets pray together for them. I have been praying specifically for Bart....and in general for all those here on DJ that don't know Christ. I was feeling discouraged by their anger and outright hatred for the Lord. I do so appreciate your kind and wise words. Your action is a good example of part of what my last post expressed: "Christians are greatly edified and comforted by speaking often to each other of all the way in which the Lord has led them; they can talk freely one to another of their joys and sorrows their conflicts and victories..."
Hugs and blessings to you Tony,
L
-
Um, I'm totally fine with not finding Christ. My Jewish ancestors wouldn't be too cool with me if I did. No need to pray for me, Light, and perhaps just pray for me to score a few goals tomorrow in ball hockey.
-
**Looks at the comments**
Wasn't this originally about Atheists starting their own churches?
-
@ Can Tran (TFactor)
**Looks at the comments**
Wasn't this originally about Atheists starting their own churches?
LOL - thats what I was thinking.
-
@ Can Tran (TFactor)
**Looks at the comments**
Wasn't this originally about Atheists starting their own churches?
Yes...LOL!.....but that was 225 posts ago. You know how blogs can go! ;-)
-
@ David Silverberg
Um, I'm totally fine with not finding Christ. My Jewish ancestors wouldn't be too cool with me if I did. No need to pray for me, Light, and perhaps just pray for me to score a few goals tomorrow in ball hockey.
Hi David.....Okay...don't get me started again! The Jews that love/live for God are the apple of his eye. The savior of the Gentiles was from the Jews....as you probably know, Jesus was Jewish. But the gift of salvation by grace [through Christ] is offered to ALL people, including the Jews. That said, Christians and Jews worship the same God....the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Okay....I'll stop now. And I will ask God to speak to your heart ....and if it is His will, I will ask him to have you score some goals in your game tomorrow. ;-)
Hugs,
L
-
@ Can Tran (TFactor)
**Looks at the comments**
Wasn't this originally about Atheists starting their own churches?
I can't believe this nonsense is still going on. But there's a kind of horrible fascination with seeing someone who started out as a perfectly normal human being acting like a combination of a wind-up doll and the kind that unreels a different script every time you pull the string in its back. Eventually it runs out of scripts and starts over again.
Does it have an original thought in its head, Allen? Probably not. It's been brainwashed too thoroughly. Polly want a cracker?
-
Again with the rude comments Connie - it really is uncalled for and unnecessary. I am sure Lightening has a true love of Christ and wants to share it with others......that doesn't make her no longer "perfectly normal" as you so rudely imply, nor does it say that she isn't able to have an original thought.
I think that we all need to be accepting and understanding of each others faith or lack thereof in your instance, and to make such derogatory and insulting remarks regarding someone that believes in God just makes you seem really small and shallow in my eyes.
There is nothing whatsoever to be gained by it - so what is your point exactly? How is Lightening's faith and believe system a threat to your life or existence? Is her praying for someone, anyone, going to have any effect on you in any way? My guess NO - so why don't you back off with the insults, innuendo's and just plain mean behavior?
-
@ Connie M (Catana)
I can't believe this nonsense is still going on. But there's a kind of horrible fascination with seeing someone who started out as a perfectly normal human being acting like a combination of a wind-up doll and the kind that unreels a different script every time you pull the string in its back. Eventually it runs out of scripts and starts over again.
Does it have an original thought in its head, Allen? Probably not. It's been brainwashed too thoroughly. Polly want a cracker?
Are your comments towards me as a result of the love in your heart for me?
My posts and comments are as a result of the love I have for people. It is a result of my desire for them to feel the absolute peace that I have in my heart [through the spirit of Christ].... and my hope that they too will spend eternity in a place more beautiful and wonderful than we as mere humans could possibly even begin to imagine.
I hope the best for you Connie....and will include you in my prayers.
-
Thanks, Pam - I haven't seen anything obnoxious or aggressive from Light, i think that here she's been a credit to her Saviour. It is in your spirit of acceptance of other faiths that i repeat that i think a church foratheists is a good idea. This would give them a foundational position to work out their evident strong evangelical position to try to win others into the belief system that there is no god. It would also give them a bit more of an inside view of both the good and the bad things about "churchiness" - and help them to understand the humanness of church attenders, both the weaknesses and th strengths.
I am not the least afraid of their evangelism of Christians - those who are firm in their faith are safe anyway. Those who are not genuine, hangers-on, will be the ones to move over to their church. In this way, sheep-stealing is a good thing - it weeds out the very ones who are weakening the group. The same will prove true in the atheist church - those who are not sure about their faith in the nonexistence of a god will be led astray toward other evangelical groups who support the idea of one or more gods.
-
Connie;
You're right, of course. Indoctrination so complete rarely leaves any room for anything else. It's saddening to me to see the human potential so effectively quashed though.
Pamela;
It's commendable of you to stand up for someone else but you miss the point. If all beliefs or lack of them were tolerated then we of no belief would be perfectly happy. The situation is far from that however. When polls of the American population consistently place atheists as more dangerous than communists, terrorists and murderers; when atheists are vilified for their lack of belief; when evangelicals of all branches remain completely steadfast in their self-given 'right' to proselytise in public in attempts to convert others to their own particular delusion in direct opposition to the constitution then how can we sit still and make no response? Just look up how the SCOTUS is leaning at the moment; look up Kitzmiller vs Dover School Board; look up the latest battles by the Freedom from Religion group; look up the work being done by the scientific groups attempting to stop the encroachment of dark ages mystery teaching into the science classroom and then take one second to see the reality of the world from our perspective.
Tony;
You, of course, see no problem because you share the same delusion as Lightening. It's not surprising.
The same old canards;
Atheism is not a religion; it is the absence of religion. Atheism is a religion in precisely the same way that baldness is a hairstyle (I know I'm repeating my point of 200 posts ago :)).
We have no evangelical position to pursue; we just want all religion, yes we are tolerant, to be removed to private not public places. Simple really.
Virtually all atheists have been religious so we understand the churchiness you speak of. You misunderstand if you think anything else. Most atheists have thought longer and harder about their faith than most believers in my experience.
And as for your last comment; someone said that once the reasonable people leave a church what you are left with is a concentration of unreason. I think that may be true.
Peace.
-
Well said. I suspect you are one of those who i define as atheistic agnostics, not confirmed atheists. With agnostics i have no argument. They truly have no religion. They are the most sensible people around. If i had not come to the conclusion (for myself) that the Bible, correctly interpreted, is actually a communication from the Creator of the universe, i too would, i believe, return to agnosticiism. So far, there is definitely no other religious writing that fulfills my criteria for a plausible expectation of a Creator, nor of the lack thereof. (As for baldness, i know of a number of people who have chosen baldness for a variety of reasons - even those who have chosen it as a style in place of any other :o)
-
Just for the record AllenW - I, too, am a Christian. Thought you should be made aware just in case you thought I was on your team. LOL!
"when evangelicals of all branches remain completely steadfast in their self-given 'right' to proselytise in public in attempts to convert others"
Last time I checked this would fall under the right to freedom of speech in this country, would it not. Just as you have the right to declare that belief in God is delusional, I have the right to say He is the Way, The Truth and the Life - correct?
Peace to you too AllenW.
:-)
-
What this all boils down to is the right to believe what you believe without the fear of attack. Even those without a belief in God will send out good vibes into the universe for others. In the end most people regardless of their belief system want the same thing; peace, harmony, goodness.
If we celebrated those hopes and desires instead of trying to change one another we'd be in a better head space to have tolerance for one another.
-
Thanks, Pam and Mom. I think "without fear of attack" is the key here. I as an evangelical have been guilty of "attack" in my approach to sharing what i believe. Regardless of sincerity in motivation, i am aware i have caused my audience to recoil instead of appreciate my input. I presume that, in such instances, i have overstepped reasonable social accommodation. I think it's a learning curve, one some of us never even start to turn into. Perhaps the various churches should place more emphasis on how to communicate with the sensibilities of the hearer in mind. This would include input from atheists, and this then would be another useful function of a church for atheist, as they would then learn to practice not speaking in a way that is a self-righteous put-down to their hearers.
While this would be of general social benefit, these blogs would get much more boring. "Oh, yes. Nice person. (Pat, pat, pat)."
-
@ David Silverberg
Um, I'm totally fine with not finding Christ. My Jewish ancestors wouldn't be too cool with me if I did. No need to pray for me, Light, and perhaps just pray for me to score a few goals tomorrow in ball hockey. That's it, isn't it. One person's God is another's villain. That should make some people think, but apparently it doesn't. What would we think if American science told us that gravity exists, and Japanese science told us it doesn't?
-
momentsintime;
I have a lot of personal sympathy for the outlook you espouse.
tonystep;
I applaud the concilatory stance you take. Now if you can just get all religious believers to think the same way we may have a society that all can live in happily.
But I would take it a little further in that 'fear of attack' only touches upon one aspect of religious effects upon society. For me, the attack upon scientifically proven laws is producing a de facto theocracy from which the US will find it difficult to escape. It's the extreme promulgation into the legislature and body politic of damaging religious views that hampers modern society; from issues like homosexual rights to abortion, from stem cell research to school boards stuffed with evangelicals that commit to teaching dark age mythology as science; these are the issues that religious belivers have had too much influence over. This is where I have a problem; as well as the public place of free speech :)
-
Now you bring it up, Bart, i've had my problems with the existence of gravity. (From some of my comments, it should be clear gravity has never been my forte;o)
Allan, having "a society we can all live in happily" is going a bit far. Even if all theistic religious people quit pressing their points, there would be dissention between the rest. Pure Darwinists would disagree with the social aims of pure Humanists (i know - most atheists are a mixture of the two philosophies, but there are extremists in the camps). Socialists would want different goals than capitalists. The hungry would still want the food of the fed. Religion may be a tool of selfish differentials, but the basic selfish instincts will find a path to dissention anyway. I don't see less religious societies having less trouble than those that are more so.
Meanwhile, the "flat earth" syndrome (in more current forms) is more than a little frustrating, i must say. But there again, i know agnostics (or spell that "...sticks" ;o) who insist dinosaurs are the invention of the government, 250 mpg carburetors are being kept from us, man has no influence on global warming, man will never get to the moon, women belong in the kitchen, and anyone who doesn't agree with them really doesn't deserve to be alive. Atheistic governments aren't making too many friends, either.
-
1) On belief. If there is some evidence that compels the acceptance of something as true then belief is not required. It is only when the evidence is lacking or contradictory that belief is required. So when somebody asserts belief it means they accept something as true when there is insufficient evidence or contradictory evidence. Such a person can best be described as gullible, delusional, mentally incompetent or some combination. The notion that public announcements of belief deserve anything but derision is an unsupported belief. To propose "conciliation" between rationality and the forces opposed to it is to accept and even abet the abandonment of reason.
2) On atheism. Atheism is from "a"-without, "theism"-belief in gods. That is all that it says and all that it means. Atheism per se does not even speak to the existence or lack of existence of gods, merely to the non-vesting of belief in god-thingies by the atheist. According to Encyclopedia Britannica and other respected sources, atheism as generally expressed, comes in two primary forms. The first an assertion of a lack of knowledge of the attributes of gods while accepting that there may be god-thingies hiding somewhere in the Universe, referred to as weak atheism and congruent with agnosticism as defined by Huxley; the second a rejection, due to a total lack of supporting evidence, of god-thingies however defined, and generally referred to as strong atheism. Of course a person could generally be a weak atheist (acknowledging that there may be monsters somewhere that we would have to acknowledge as gods if we ever found compelling evidence for them), while rejecting such ridiculous and vicious god caricatures as the brutal Judaic pantheon and the mythical, nasty, inconsistent and confused Jesus, Mohamed and Mormon derivatives.
3) On believers. Advocating dementia instantiated by belief deriving from delusion or gullibility is as foolish as apologetica for any other form of insanity. What the world needs is more sanity, not less, and as the slightest glimpse at the history of believers to this day will show, belief utterly banishes reason. As Steven Weinberg, put it, "With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." Given this, why on earth should atheists not speak out against the highly vocal collective insanity taking over the USA, well represented by the lunatic fringe here on digiatljournal, which rejects this country's history as a community based in the fruits of the enlightenment, reason and humanism, in favor of self-serving myths steeped in the bile of primitive but none-the-less murderous religions?
4) On atheist churches. In these last days of cheap energy, with the threat of the world reverting to one similar to the time when the Christian religion did in fact rule much of the world, a period often known, with some reason, as the Dark Ages, we see that rather than the historic dichotomy of "In every village there is a teacher, to light the lamp of learning, and a priest, to put it out," that at least in the USA, learning is being overwhelmed by people demanding that the teachers aid the priests in spreading darkness, well described as "One Nation Under Educated(C).". For anyone interested in the near future, opposing this counter-enlightenment process might perhaps be a priority. This is almost certainly an excellent reason why Atheist Churches, such as [ http://www.churchofvirus.org]the Church of Virus, probably make sense. It seems reasonable that organized communities will do much better than lone protesters against the well orchestrated, funded - and swiftly gathering - forces of darkness. History suggests that we should be vigilant against the current groundswell of hysteria, because history also shows that even if believers pray upon their knees on their "sabbaths", they still prefer to prey upon their neighbors the rest of the time.
-
Postscript
Jesus was never really lost. He was working for minimum wage in a meat packing pant in the midwest all the time. So you Christians don't need to "pray" for people to "find him". And by the way, my soul is already sold. You might consider selling yours too. It has the going rate of one cool DVD here.
-
@ tonystepPure Darwinists would disagree with the social aims of pure Humanists (i know - most atheists are a mixture of the two philosophies, but there are extremists in the camps). I think that this needs more clarification. Darwinism is a scientific theory, a theory that is true because there is ample evidence for it, and because it can be used to produce predictable results.
Darwinism is not to be confused with social Darwinism. No Darwinist I know of, has ever advocated using Darwinism as a basis for our society. In spite of what many creationists claim, not even Darwin himself wanted such a society, and he has said that in no uncertain terms.
-
@ Das Hermit
1) On belief.
2) On atheism.
3) On believers.
4) On atheist churches.
I agree. I'd like to add something to the terminology. Some of us like to talk about atheists and de facto atheists. An atheist being someone who rejects any and all belief in (the possibility of) a God. A de facto atheist is someone who accepts that the probability that a God exists is not zero, but based on available evidence he/she coniders it so small that he/she can best live as if God did not exist.
-
Can't argue with Das here. He's said basically the same thing i did, only in typical atheist rhetoric.
Bart, i have a self-claimed atheist humanist friend who goes along with Darwinism until Darwinism claims that different branches of the human tree have developed according to their local environmental pressures to be appropriately survivable within that local context. As a humanist, she is unable to accept a difference in the physical and mental characteristics of groups that have evolved separately for as little as 10,000 years, even though there is empirical data to support that fact. She and those with her can accept changes that occurred prior to the common ancestor, but not thereafter. This is but one glaring idiosyncrasy that will keep various non-theistic groups at odds, pitting the "vile Nazi-like racial elitists" against the "blind-to-science idealistic everyone's inexplicably the same morons," Right now the two groups maintain an uneasy truce to continue the front against the common enemy, but when that enemy subsides, the virulent tirades will turn to face the present threat to ultimate truth.
I confess to a matter of faith in place of reasonable evidence myself, in the matter of the Big Bang theory. I still support it, in spite of the need to believe that a strange period of expansion took place that established the the current universe in an unreasonably short period of time. My steady state friends laugh at my faith in the BB theory, yet i hold steadfast, trusting that there is an explanation beyond my ken. Pardon me my foolishness. I am but a religious moron.
-
@ tonystep Bart, i have a self-claimed atheist humanist friend who goes along with Darwinism until Darwinism claims that different branches of the human tree have developed according to their local environmental pressures to be appropriately survivable within that local context. As a humanist, she is unable to accept a difference in the physical and mental characteristics of groups that have evolved separately for as little as 10,000 years, even though there is empirical data to support that fact. She and those with her can accept changes that occurred prior to the common ancestor, but not thereafter. This is but one glaring idiosyncrasy that will keep various non-theistic groups at odds, pitting the "vile Nazi-like racial elitists" against the "blind-to-science idealistic everyone's inexplicably the same morons," Right now the two groups maintain an uneasy truce to continue the front against the common enemy, but when that enemy subsides, the virulent tirades will turn to face the present threat to ultimate truth.
I confess to a matter of faith in place of reasonable evidence myself, in the matter of the Big Bang theory. I still support it, in spite of the need to believe that a strange period of expansion took place that established the the current universe in an unreasonably short period of time. My steady state friends laugh at my faith in the BB theory, yet i hold steadfast, trusting that there is an explanation beyond my ken. Pardon me my foolishness. I am but a religious moron. I am unsure as to how I must interpret this. Not all atheists understand all of science, although that I would tentatively say that atheists as a group understand more of science than religious people as a group. Why? Because religious people, following the advice of St. Augustine and similar zealots often voluntarily shut out science from their sources of information.
I resent the term moron. The difference between atheists and religious people is most definitely not necessarily a matter of intelligence. If it were, we would not see that some top level scientists were or are religious people. Granted, it is a tiny number, and it is shrinking fast, but it is not zero and this is all the evidence we need to say that lack of intelligence is not a sufficient reason to explain religiosity. I do believe that lack of intelligence can be a contributing factor, and can be the only reason, it is just not a sufficient reason.
Religious indoctrination is essentially a given. In our society, it is virtually impossible to point to a religious person and say that religious indoctrination has not played a role in that person’s delusion.
In my opinion, ignorance is the most important reason after indoctrination. There is nothing moronic about being ignorant. I am ignorant in most everything, and I realize that. I also realize that my ignorance is only going to increase until I die. That is an unavoidable reality of life.
I once had a boss who firmly believed that ice expands when it melts, and that this is the reason that water pipes burst in spring. I fought this as much as I could, but his conviction was immutable. Yet, he was no moron. He made a lot more money in five years than I am likely to make in my lifetime. He knew a lot, he was shrewd. He was also ruthless. He didn’t care whether his victims were going to suffer or not. However, he was also so ignorant in science that I have never been able understand how he could be as ignorant as he was.
A scientist will not call someone who is ignorant a fool. The Bible calls people fools. Science is too scientific to do that.
Ignorance is a fundamental right. It should just never be used as “evidence” that one’s claims in the very field of which one is ignorant are true.
Science does not prove the existence of a God. It also does not disprove it. However, science also tells us that the probability of these two is not identical. According to science, it is very unlikely that God exists, and very likely that it doesn’t. There are lots of evidence that points to the non-existence of God. There is not a shred of evidence that points to its existence.
If a religious person tells me that he or she believes in God because of scientific proof, that person show me that he or she doesn’t know what scientific proof means. If that person tells me he or she believes in God because it talks in her or his head or some other such type of personal revelation, fine. I can live with that. For now.
-
Bart, you are an oratory genius. :You came through again. Your paragraph on the term "moron" is a classic. I read it with pure joy.
True, i am not technically a moron, nor should i put the word into the mouths of the Darwinists, although some very similar terms have escaped atheists' pens in this place and in the Skeptics magazine. It's true, when i used the term, i was judging the tenor of the atheist's language use.
The Bible actually tells me to call no man "fool", although i don't pretend to know the full range of meaning of the word in the original language, nor the implications of interpretation from context. Not that that would be of significant concern to you.
Thank you for your input. You are definitely appreciated, even if you do get a bit too arrogant when back-pat conversing with your fellow atheists. Keep up the good work. I don't pretend to try to match yor wit, though i throw in my 2 bits now and then.
-
@ tonystep
Bart, you are an oratory genius. :You came through again. Your paragraph on the term "moron" is a classic. I read it with pure joy.
True, i am not technically a moron, nor should i put the word into the mouths of the Darwinists, although some very similar terms have escaped atheists' pens in this place and in the Skeptics magazine. It's true, when i used the term, i was judging the tenor of the atheist's language use.
The Bible actually tells me to call no man "fool", although i don't pretend to know the full range of meaning of the word in the original language, nor the implications of interpretation from context. Not that that would be of significant concern to you.
Thank you for your input. You are definitely appreciated, even if you do get a bit too arrogant when back-pat conversing with your fellow atheists. Keep up the good work. I don't pretend to try to match yor wit, though i throw in my 2 bits now and then.
Indeed. Not everyone is always subtle, and context is indeed important. Ad hominem attacks are unacceptable, whether they comes from religious fanatics, or from atheists. The atheist has the easier argument here, for atheism is a conclusion, and because of that it will be virtually impossible to ever find an atheist fanatic. That is very nearly a contradiction in terms, whereas the religious person is a fanatic by definition, because one either believes or one doesn't. I think that it can be said without much danger of being wrong, that -looking at the discussions on Digital Journal- the ad hominem attacks invariably come from the religious. With good reason. The religious cannot defend their position with rational arguments, because religion is irrational to begin with. If religion was rational, there would be no such thing as religious wars.
Scientists have their fair share of disagreements. They have even been known to be rude once every know and then. The "Black Hole Wars" are a case in point. However, no one has ever been killed, not even punched on the nose for the black hole wars. They were solved peacefully, and in good camaraderie because truth is truth, regardless of one's character, upbringing, culture, conviction...
Such is not the way of religion. Religion fights and kills, and when it becomes a bit more civilized, it "tolerates" and "respects", i.e. it practices ghettoification.
I wouldn't exactly accuse most religious zealots of much subtlety. When the Bible calls those who say in their hearts that there is no God, fools, fool is supposed to mean "morally deficient". Maybe so.
It is true that Matthew 5:22 says "But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
However, if context is important, then one must accept that the Bible talks here about fellow Jews, and not of gentiles.
Context is either important, or it isn't. I believe it is, for not even the most rigorous scientific writings will often not mean anything, if context is not taken into account.
So, before calling the other party arrogant, I would verify if there is cause. Second, I would look if it is useful to call another that, for it is not exactly a very convincing argument.
-
@ Bart B. Van BockstaeleSo, before calling the other party arrogant, I would verify if there is cause. Second, I would look if it is useful to call another that, for it is not exactly a very convincing argument.
What's more, there's nothing at all wrong with justified arrogance.
The word "arrogant" is derived from the Middle English Latin-influenced word arrogāre, rooted in the Latin word arrogātus, meaning appropriated or assumed (by oneself), with the implication being that one is appropriating for oneself the concept that one is wise or good or correct about something.
In short, feeling arrogant means thinking highly of oneself, but it is meant to be assumed that one has accomplished something to earn this feeling.
As Hall of Fame pitcher Dizzy Dean put it in so many words: It ain't boasting if what you say is true.
-
I suspect arrogance and boasting say more about a person than the claims of the boast. Let's face it, they wouldn't bother if they didn't need to. At least, hopefully, they do have that about which to be arrogant. Just think of all those - many of course religious - whose boast is without base, thereby leaving them with nothing but an exposed neediness.
I can't help thinking an atheist church would, for those so inclined, provide as effective an indoctrination platform as the religions have installed. (Yes, i am thinking "other religions", but i didn't say it.) The young could, for example, go to something like "Noday School" to learn how to support development of atheistic governmental systems, based of course on models from present and recent world history, of which there are interesting examples from which to select ideas.
-
@ tonystepI suspect arrogance and boasting say more about a person than the claims of the boast. Let's face it, they wouldn't bother if they didn't need to. At least, hopefully, they do have that about which to be arrogant. Just think of all those - many of course religious - whose boast is without base, thereby leaving them with nothing but an exposed neediness. I agree with that. Arrogance, according to the dictionary, is an “offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride”, a definition that I can live with. Telling the truth is usually not arrogance, and arrogance usually shows an insecurity of some type. I am not offended by arrogance. When I see an arrogant person, all I feel is pity. Pity for the people who have to suffer it, and pity for the arrogant person, for that person surely has a problem.
@ tonystepI can't help thinking an atheist church would, for those so inclined, provide as effective an indoctrination platform as the religions have installed. (Yes, i am thinking "other religions", but i didn't say it.) The young could, for example, go to something like "Noday School" to learn how to support development of atheistic governmental systems, based of course on models from present and recent world history, of which there are interesting examples from which to select ideas. Actually, there is such a thing as an atheistic government system. It is called “secular” and the United States of America used to be a shining example of it. It was a government were freedom of thought included freedom of and from religion. It was an ideal to aspire to. No longer. The American Taliban made certain of that.
-
tonystep;
While I welcome the open, friendly approach and tone you adopt in these posts I still need to point out that you don't 'get' atheism. Virtually all religious people find it impossible to conceive of the idea as well so don't feel bad :)
It's just an absence of theism of any sort; no more. It is not an ideology, dogma, viewpoint, approach or weltanschauung. As a label it describes one thing and nothing more; the position that until more evidence is presented either way, it is highly unlikely that gods exist.
It has no comment to make and has no information value about any other proposition whatsoever. There are atheists who cover the whole spectrum of views on political organisations (from fascist right through to communist), there are atheists who espouse views similarly across the spectrum of economic viewpoints, sexual viewpoints, philosophical views and which are the best wines, restaurants, sports clubs and tv shows.
The idea of a lobby group or church organisation is a non sequitor. Your idea that atheist churches could teach our doctrine or possible organisational values is equally impossible; there is no doctrine, there are no principles. The only 'lesson' would be; 'today we'll assess the evidence for any gods' followed swiftly by 'So there it all is; class dismissed'.
-
@ AllanW
tonystep;
While I welcome the open, friendly approach and tone you adopt in these posts I still need to point out that you don't 'get' atheism. Virtually all religious people find it impossible to conceive of the idea as well so don't feel bad :)
It's just an absence of theism of any sort; no more |