Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists.

reply to post by eight bits


I would still be interested in your motives and purposes for the direction you take on this thread. From my perspective it appears to be compeletly meaningless to wander this far from what's OBVIOUSLY the topic.

If you consider, that my interest in your motives and purposes is none of my darn business, you COULD instead maybe return to a relevant line you opened yourself: The importance and consequences of inductive reasoning in the context of atheist-theist debate.

I've have given you this suggestion before, and as I OBVIOUSLY only have english as my third language, I'm maybe outside the group, which you want to communicate with. Please then inform me of my lacking communication-skills, preferably in a language as offensive as possible, so I can include that in the suggested complaint to moderators you so kindly have instructed me on.

The First Free Church of Atheism exists for the study of freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all from an atheistic perspective.

They must have some amazing potluck dinners!

(With apologies to all non-Protestants, who might not get it.)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by eight bits

 

Honestly, I'm done posting for a reason, and I'm going to just call you out on it: hypocrisy. You have engaged in some half dozen unwarranted attacks on my character in the midst of attempting to distort my words to make it seems as if I've attacked the character of another user. This action is referred to as hypocrisy.

Soooo, this was all an elaborate setup, then? Tricky thread title there i would venture to say this is the other way around, as any attacks on an atheist, or atheism in general, is in fact the topic of the thread.. So, it would seem that even if you were attacked (didnt really happen that way), posters would be responding properly as per the OP. or did i miss something somewhere? So, being warranted "attacks" (using the term lightly) that were specifically requested, that must change the structure around which you will base your almost certain rebuttal.

It also seems that the "official story," from the supreme court, isnt applicable in this case because of "philosophical" differences? it seems they make the same ruling on religions, without taking into context their philosophies either.

I'd also like to point out that Dillahunty clearly points out how the 7th circuit court got things wrong in places. And guess what? The court doesn't get to be right on all of its statements because it's a court. It gets to be right on all of its legal statements unless overruled by a higher court, but it doesn't get to be right on factual or philosophical matters

Ahh, so how does this differ from other fields which have the same process in almost direct simile? Why does such a process all of a sudden become the anti-thesis of the strengths espoused for something like science?

You can admit it to me, you just like arguing semantics and doing mental gymnastics i know anyone who disagrees is "intellectually bankrupt" and just spewing "bovine fecal matter" right? You might as well say they are going to hell!

1) www.southparkstudios.com...
2) www.southparkstudios.com...



Relax a little... Its not like you actually know what you are talking about beyond the semantics, and neither does anyone else.

reply to post by sinohptik


Just for the record:

Eventually, carried to the outermost extremes of human capacity for understanding, knowing and creating methodologies, I disagree with Madness. A disagreement which hypothetically could be as polarized as the more common atheist-theist version.

I would like to be excluded from this generalized group you present in:

Quote: ["You can admit it to us, you just like arguing semantics and doing mental gymnastics we all know anyone who disagrees is "intellectually bankrupt" and just spewing "bovine fecal matter" right? You might as well say they are going to hell!"]....

as Madness has responded politely AND relevant to me in our (potentially farreaching) disagreement.

It's not, that I believe Madness is in any need of my 'defense'. I post this on general principle, defending rational debates instead of scolastic deflections.

Now maybe someone would be interested in returning to topic instead of getting into an excessive analysis of its frame.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by sinohptik

 

I would like to be excluded from this generalized group you present in:

edited then

It's not, that I believe Madness is in any need of my 'defense'. I post this on general principle, defending rational debates instead of scolastic deflections.

Now maybe someone would be interested in returning to topic instead of getting into an excessive analysis of its frame.

See, thats the thing.. What is there to debate? perspectives that can never be aligned? science/mathematics isnt used at all in these discussions, except to support some semantic stance and with little understanding of the actual concepts involved, beyond (once again) their perceived semantic implications. Very much as it has been seen through this thread, and so, so many others. This attitude has been held for, literally, centuries. Many people arent interested in the experiments themselves, thinking such things are based on a binary/dualistic proving something "wrong," instead of personal discovery and comprehension of the real-world forces at play. It is... interesting, to see so many claim scientism as a badge of honor, to me. This is the same belief system that has constantly degraded and stifled true scientific progress throughout the centuries. All of the visionaries we look at with admiration now, were considered everything from deluded, heretical, to frauds. It happened with einstein, it happened when the earth was thought to be flat, etc. Witnessing how the scientific business actually works would be extremely beneficial to those placing so much faith in its "altruism."

So, that is this ones, personal, over-arching issue with atheism "as a movement." Which is the exact same issue i have with most religions. Those who bring what is perceived as "truth" would never, ever deceive anyone, right? Effectively, the personal experiential search is negated. discarded like yesterdays trash. It permeates the idea that we are absolutely separate and divided from that which we observer. However, we are all interacting in the same universe, no one has more "gravity" than another in conceptualizing something that is beyond all of our individual comprehension. And yet, we are directly experiencing and a part of the same concepts that are described by others in many, many different "languages" (science, mysticism, swahili, etc).

Arguing over such things seems counterproductive to pursuing personal "truth," which is out of the bounds of any box we currently have set to explain the world around us, especially one defined by someone else. It just fortifies the already present bias more and more. If all parties involved realize they are speaking about something which is beyond them as individuals, the conversations tends to lean more towards discussion and discourse rather than argument and "debate." Though, the current "status quo" is that when speaking of such things, and asking questions of another person that one wishes to be clarified, it is viewed as an "attack" or a desire to debate the validity of one standpoint versus the other.

"There is no better way to control a population than to have them fight amongst themselves"

It simply turns into who is the better lawyer. Most are not interested in using the process as a learning experience, instead thinking that such a thing is unnecessary and irrelevant in the face of "competition." this seems to result in the sociological/psychological need to educate everyone else of what one has perceived to be true in a universe that is beyond our understanding. Its all about conflict, "being number one," winning, etc.

You see the world differently than me bogomil? psshhhh, surely that cant be right!

"i would never use that word to describe that."

when, it seems, even on seemingly parallel perspectives, the individual realities of those two perspectives are quite vastly different. Though, during such situations, semantic picking takes a back seat to commiseration. why?

Either way, is that on topic? Having some trouble figuring out what is on topic in a thread labelled "here is a thread for you to attack atheists" when individually perceived "attacks" are labelled off topic

reply to post by sinohptik


You wrote:

["See, thats the thing.. What is there to debate? perspectives that can never be aligned?"]

True, but it's not a blind alley. Efforts of a reciprocially accepted common communication basis would be a great start.

Quote: ["science/mathematics isnt used at all in these discussions,"]

Science/mathematics being one of some cornerstones (amongst others), I would personally be willing to do that; admittedly only from my own position as a relatively well-informed half-lay person (I have a solid hard-science education, at which I guess would be college-level in the anglo-american world)

Quote: ["Very much as it has been seen through this thread, and so, so many others."]

This is mostly because of theist reluctance to enter the subject, as this would put them at the mercy of science/logic on science's/logic's own homeground. I personally can accept this theist reluctance, while I despise theist efforts of pseudoscience presented as the real thing.

Quote: [" It is... interesting, to see so many claim scientism as a badge of honor, to me."]

True. 'Scientism's definition-based exclusiveness is as bad as any other exclusiveness.

Quote: ["So, that is this ones, personal, over-arching issue with atheism "as a movement." Which is the exact same issue i have with most religions."]

Agreed. I accept 'faith' as a legitimate personal position. When 'faith' manifests into ideological fascism of one-absolute-for-all aggression, I react strongly.

Quote: ["Effectively, the personal experiential search is negated. discarded like yesterdays trash. It permeates the idea that we are absolutely separate and divided from that which we observer."]

Back to 'scientism' with its materialist reductionism, alternatively monopoly seeking absolute-doctrinal religion. Again agreed.

Quote: ["However, we are all interacting in the same universe, no one has more "gravity" than another in conceptualizing something that is beyond all of our individual comprehension."]

However. Wishy-washy relativism wouldn't be functional. Neither would 'barter' compromises be functional. Reciprocial compromises based on common ground are functional.

Quote: ["If all parties involved realize they are speaking about something which is beyond them as individuals, the conversations tends to lean more towards discussion and discourse rather than argument and "debate." ]

For whatever my competence and knowledge is worth, I often get boringly insistent on this point, maybe because people believe that 'epistemology' is some outlandish ivory-tower hobby of eggheads.

Quote: ["It simply turns into who is the better lawyer. Most are not interested in using the process as a learning experience, instead thinking that such a thing is unnecessary and irrelevant in the face of "competition." this seems to result in the sociological/psychological need to educate everyone else of what one has perceived to be true in a universe that is beyond our understanding. Its all about conflict, "being number one," winning, etc."]

This seems to describe a major part of mankind pretty good. Most react to existence from a rather pragmatic down-to-earth level, where the 'how' and 'why' of results are less interesting than the results themselves. 'Educating the masses' would be a dangerous way out of this dilemma.

Quote: ["You see the world differently than me bogomil? psshhhh, surely that cant be right!"]

Hehe (hopefully together with you). According to my above comments it's possible, that we eventually could see the world less differently.

Quote: [" Either way, is that on topic?"]

If not, then it's a very good communication start. You have defined and outlined your 'position' in a straightforward way, which makes you un-threatening to me (as you appear to be honest about it without any hidden agendas). I can agree to your direction, we can develop common methodologies...


On a constructive note I have a few suggestions of interesting points, which can be of common interest to theists and atheists. Chaos- and complexity theory, eventually/possibly combined with the theory of the 'anthropic principle', then leading to the cosmic manifestation of predation contra symbiosis.

On the point of random contra designed I would suggest an epistemological platform first. A place where I operate with 'relative realities'.

But these are only suggestions.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Drezden

 

Damn that man is unfunny and bigoted. I really prefer the far more hilarious Ricky Gervais...I'd post a video or two, but he uses a lot of language.

I like Ricky. I like Jim Jefferies too.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by sinohptik

 

Science/mathematics being one of some cornerstones (amongst others), I would personally be willing to do that; admittedly only from my own position as a relatively well-informed half-lay person (I have a solid hard-science education, at which I guess would be college-level in the anglo-american world)

I would venture to say being a "scientist" is significantly more about attitude than it is education. the true exploratory nature, with methodical testing, doesnt seem to be instilled by any educational systems. The true skill seems to lie within not only conceptualizing the data in action, but applying it to real life structures and systems in a meaningful way. i think this takes a level of creativity that seems to be further and further ostracized. Its like a switch between the data numbers being a representation of a fluid dynamic, to being the cold hard reality "themselves."

This is mostly because of theist reluctance to enter the subject, as this would put them at the mercy of science/logic on science's/logic's own homeground. I personally can accept this theist reluctance, while I despise theist efforts of pseudoscience presented as the real thing.

I see many that try to relate their conceptualization of the universe, but the atheist view is to tear it down and replace it with literally "nothing." The theist reluctance to debate may just be perceived in that way because of atheist enthusiasm in the activity of debating. Many (such as myself) are not particularly interested in arguing the validity of such things, but rather learning about how others approach the same experiential thing (i.e life). pseudo-science is an issue on both sides, from this ones observations.

True. 'Scientism's definition-based exclusiveness is as bad as any other exclusiveness.

If we track this belief system back, it would seem that it is one of the older systems as well the constant belief that science is statically true and not up for debate has held back progress since its social inception. i say it is more accurate to visualize it (true science) as an ever-morphing viscous human representation of our collective "understanding" on the universe around us. The data might even remain the same, but boy can the perspective change on it!

Quote: ["However, we are all interacting in the same universe, no one has more "gravity" than another in conceptualizing something that is beyond all of our individual comprehension."]

However. Wishy-washy relativism wouldn't be functional. Neither would 'barter' compromises be functional. Reciprocial compromises based on common ground are functional.

i understand the wishy-washy concept. Though, i conceptualize it more as the universe we are in, being able to support these billions of individual perspectives. So, it must be capable of supporting such a thing. None of the individual perspectives will be entirely "correct." The best we can do is notice the patterns. However, in true scale, our data pool is only a result of 5000 years of observation. I am being extremely generous with that number. Solid definitions derived from consistent patterns are still simply "what we think is going on." There is always the possibility that it only remained consistent for say, 7000 years. When speaking of a place that is billions of years old (at least in this cycle), then that consistency might just be an anomaly. That 7000 year consistency is only .004% of the "total time" (quantified at 14,000,000,000 years). However, that isnt to say "all things are relative to the perspectives viewing them" but more that even when using a language with less semantic involvement (such as math), there is still the distinct possibility we have the very base itself wrong. I think the solution is the aforementioned personal search. The "truth" is what is happening all around us, at all times, with us as an intrinsic part. It is not hidden away, such things are in plain sight. Where we seem to get it "wrong" is not what is happening, but what we think about what is happening. It would seem in such experiences as "enlightenment," that literally nothing changes except for the individuals perspective on the universe. nothing! There is also the fatal flaw that we are only so capable. meaning, in this context, that even quantifying all observable operators and data in a given structure (say a spoon), in a given moment, is next to impossible. we are still trying to figure out the basic building blocks of life, so at some point, there would be great, great difficulty. Now, when we consider that same structure, but in its continuous totality? simply beyond our minds. Everything from the formation of the metal involved to its mining, then transport, melting into a spoon, the different uses, different people using it, etc etc. The math is beyond us. and yet, we are a part of it, intrinsically... pretty incredible, to me. So, i view it as not necessarily wishy-washy, but in recognizing our limitations. Through exploring others conceptualizations of the same "place," i believe we can multiply our own efforts in discovery.

Quote: ["It simply turns into who is the better lawyer. Most are not interested in using the process as a learning experience, instead thinking that such a thing is unnecessary and irrelevant in the face of "competition." this seems to result in the sociological/psychological need to educate everyone else of what one has perceived to be true in a universe that is beyond our understanding. Its all about conflict, "being number one," winning, etc."]

This seems to describe a major part of mankind pretty good. Most react to existence from a rather pragmatic down-to-earth level, where the 'how' and 'why' of results are less interesting than the results themselves. 'Educating the masses' would be a dangerous way out of this dilemma.

i also see it as a choice though, you know? one doesnt need to have official education and facts, but more the skills of learning. I think if school was approaching children with how to learn, instead of what to learn, the progress made would be astounding. I visualize this as everything from how to test observables to how to present information, to instilling the passion to continuously learn about "here" and life in general. There is no shortage of "subject material" the only thing that would hold it back would be scientism.

Quote: ["You see the world differently than me bogomil? psshhhh, surely that cant be right!"]

Hehe (hopefully together with you). According to my above comments it's possible, that we eventually could see the world less differently.

Glad you saw the humor See though, im not so sure that diversity needs to be sacrificed. I think the fact that billions of people can have a vastly different perspective about the exact same place they are contained in, only shows how truly complex and deep system this all really is. If anything though, i think that personal search for that which is greater than our individual system, is something that would yield incredibly interesting results, though perhaps only in consequent generations. I think part of "learning" is that we not only attempt to conceptualize our ideas, but verbalize them as well. On the listening side, it taught me how to approach what someone is saying not by how i would be thinking when/if i were to say the same things, but what base and source those words would arise from in a different system from my own. When i do not understand or am curious, i ask questions.

If not, then it's a very good communication start. You have defined and outlined your 'position' in a straightforward way, which makes you un-threatening to me (as you appear to be honest about it without any hidden agendas). I can agree to your direction, we can develop common methodologies...

Oh, dont be fooled, i have hidden agendas they just arent relevant to the topic at hand! When it comes down to it, i enjoy talking with people. i have my beliefs, but they are simply my own conceptualizations. they might help someone find their own way or answers, but one HAS to be willing to explore themselves! While i may feel and believe every single perspective is as valid as another, that doesnt mean what one perspective puts forward will mean much to me. I see each perspective as only valid within itself. How much will, time, and perseverance one puts into that exploration does seem to correlate with overall patterns, though they are all individual, different iterations. But in honest discourse, i found it is beneficial in three main ways. the first is i am able to learn more about communication and hopefully apply the data meaningfully. the second is i learn more about my own perspective of the universe as i conceptualize experiential iterations into verbalization. The third is that i can learn how truly different perspectives can be. That one never, ever, ever ceases to amaze me! It seems none of these are nearly as potent or effective when engaging in argument/debate to "win."

On a constructive note I have a few suggestions of interesting points, which can be of common interest to theists and atheists. Chaos- and complexity theory, eventually/possibly combined with the theory of the 'anthropic principle', then leading to the cosmic manifestation of predation contra symbiosis.

On the point of random contra designed I would suggest an epistemological platform first. A place where I operate with 'relative realities'.

But these are only suggestions.

We should first establish what is, or is not, on topic in a thread titled "Here is a thread for you to attack atheism and atheists." as they say "In the beginning..."

reply to post by sinohptik


My own education was of a rather liberal type, where I learned to learn, rather than passively absorbing data. But I'm still glad for the formal aspects, because they have given a possibility of understanding the basic positions of various models or systematic methodologies.

Quote: [" It would seem in such experiences as "enlightenment," that literally nothing changes except for the individuals perspective on the universe. nothing!"]

You won't find me a stranger or opponent to either trans-mundane or anomaly experiences. Quite the contrary. But I like to have 'inclusive' approaches, where also e.g. 'objective' positions can be considered. So while I privately accept anomaly/trans-mundane phenomena I don't want to push them publicly.

Quote: ["Oh, dont be fooled, i have hidden agendas"]

Hehe again. No not anymore, you don't . I ofcourse still don't know their precise character though.


Generally I agree with much of what you say about the direct experience of existence (if that's the proper way to compress your words). Maybe the following small thread I'm participating in can add something on this. Because of my lousy computer-skills, I'll both write the name of the thread and try to create a link.

"Christians, why are you afraid of adapting other philosophies too?" (On religion, faith and theology)

PS I'll respond to the thread-topic question tomorrow, if that's OK.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by sinohptik

Originally posted by sinohptik
Soooo, this was all an elaborate setup, then?

Tricky thread title there

No, I just didn't want someone continually claiming that I had done something which I hadn't whilst making a personal attack on me in the process. And the attacks weren't related to atheism whatsover.

i would venture to say this is the other way around, as any attacks on an atheist, or atheism in general, is in fact the topic of the thread..

So I guess you can call me all sorts of names then? I'm sorry, but I thought it was sort of obvious that it was atheists as a group, I did use 's' there at the end of the word, didn't I?

So, it would seem that even if you were attacked (didnt really happen that way)

It did quite happen that way and I pointed out every single personal attack that was made as I was responding.

posters would be responding properly as per the OP. or did i miss something somewhere?

Yes, basic English grammar. "Atheists" refers to a group. An attack on atheists would be an attack on the group of atheists, not an attack on an individual who happens to be an atheist.

So, being warranted "attacks" (using the term lightly) that were specifically requested, that must change the structure around which you will base your almost certain rebuttal.

Nope. You're trying to be clever, but a single letter rebuts your entire point here. An s

It also seems that the "official story," from the supreme court, isnt applicable in this case because of "philosophical" differences? it seems they make the same ruling on religions, without taking into context their philosophies either.

Once more, where is the Supreme Court ruling? Someone cited a court ruling from the 7th circuit, I replied that it is a ruling that describes legal usage.

Ahh, so how does this differ from other fields which have the same process in almost direct simile? Why does such a process all of a sudden become the anti-thesis of the strengths espoused for something like science?

The court system is nothing like science. It has no peer-review, it is not founded in repeatable, testable claims. The courts also only rule on law, just like science only rules on the natural world. The rest is handled by philosophy.

You can admit it to me, you just like arguing semantics and doing mental gymnastics

Nope, I'm not arguing the semantics, the courts are wrong.

i know anyone who disagrees is "intellectually bankrupt" and just spewing "bovine fecal matter" right? You might as well say they are going to hell!

I have not called anyone intellectually bankrupt, because even the most ardent believers have some level of intellectual prowess, some even excel. I do call positions intellectually bankrupt, which is an entirely different matter.

Of course, the difference between what I'm saying and spouting off that someone is going to hell is that I can calmly demonstrate my position and am open to the idea of being corrected, regardless of how strong my language can be.

Relax a little... Its not like you actually know what you are talking about beyond the semantics, and neither does anyone else.

I actually happen to know quite a bit about Constitutional law, though I do admit that my memory of court rulings has gone away as I've not flexed it. I even considered going into it as my career at one point.

I do know a few other things, like the definition of the word: "semantics".

reply to post by Seed76

Originally posted by Seed76
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

madness whether atheism is "Lack of belief in a Deity/Deities" or "Belief in the non-existence of Deity/Deities" in real life makes no difference at all.

Well, then real life doesn't care about accuracy or honesty. One is a negative claim "I do not believe in any deity", the other is a positive claim "I believe no deity exists". They are separate claims. The first claim is skeptical and the second claim is founded in some presumed evidence or proof of the nonexistence of deities.

I'm skeptical.

I tell this to people all the time, read over your sources and their citations within them and you might just avoid such contradictions. It saves us all time and embarrassment.

You are accusing me that i am not reading over the source and citations, and yet you fail to post the whole thing.(taken from the wiki citations)

I did prove that you hadn't actually read the citation I quoted.

Source

"[W]hether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a 'way of life,' even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972)."

Yes, and that inherently separates legal definitions of the term 'religion' from any other definition. The only way you can say atheism is a religion is by saying it is treated by the law as a religion. Of course, law is not the arbiter of truth.

Notice how 'religion' is put in quotation marks? Notice how it's only a religion for First Amendment purposes?

Which is exactly what the source says that i cited previously:

In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.

Which is exactly why it's a legal claim, rather than a truth claim. The courts are using an entirely different set of standards for defining what is and is not a religion here and they are doing so for the sake of carrying out justice based upon a legal argument.

Beside that i have also stated : "I am not sure if he/she referring to that, but there was a decision about it."

In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent[12] by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.

For First Amendment purposes. Why are you having so much trouble missing that? The First Amendment, as great of a document as it is, does not dictate truth claims, it dictates legal practice.

And the 'First Church of Atheism' was already cited in this thread, but I don't see how it proves atheism is a religion. I don't even see how this organization can be considered a religion as atheism lacks a belief structure and set of regulating norms.

I think that might help you a bit. Also taken from the citations from the wikipedia.

Source

Atheism was Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective.

That is the definition of a church for the practice of understanding it. The First Free Church of Atheism exists for the study of freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all from an atheistic perspective.

Hey look, none of that is atheism! Atheism is "I do not believe in any deity", not "I want to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practice from an atheist perspective". I don't even get what an 'atheist perspective' is? It's from the perspective that you don't believe in deities?

By the way, you can just type more in brackets to get those lines, like so.

The First Church of Atheism isn't an organization which practices atheism, it's an organization that does a bunch of other stuff and ties it to atheism. These are two separate things.

Where is the evidence that atheism is more than "I do not believe in any deity"?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Well, then real life doesn't care about accuracy or honesty.

It´s true nevertheless.

One is a negative claim "I do not believe in any deity", the other is a positive claim "I believe no deity exists".

No madness, atheism is simple "NON-BELIEF". (Sure, you can argue Philosophically positive or negative.) But, it makes no difference in real life.

For First Amendment purposes. Why are you having so much trouble missing that?

I am not missing that, it is stated plain and simply on my previous post. But,why are you keep missing the point of my first post.?? Why are you keep ignoring the fact, that i cited the wikipedia only to point out, that the person which you had/have dispute with, maybe he/she was referring to the decision made by the supreme court back in 2005?.

Hey look, none of that is atheism! Atheism is "I do not believe in any deity", not "I want to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practice from an atheist perspective".

Opinion madness, simple opinions. You saying "I do not believe in any deity", he says "I want to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practice from an atheist perspective."

I don't even get what an 'atheist perspective' is? It's from the perspective that you don't believe in deities?

Well, the way that i understand it would be something in the line of : what is an "atheistic perspective" on "religious belief"?? On "Creeds"? On "Freedom of thought"? etc.

By the way, you can just type more in brackets to get those lines, like so.

Thanks madness i appreciate your tip.

The First Church of Atheism isn't an organization which practices atheism,

The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority.

it's an organization that does a bunch of other stuff and ties it to atheism. These are two separate things.

As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.

Fees for service are negotiated between the individual parties, but the average rate is $300US.

Where is the evidence that atheism is more than "I do not believe in any deity"?

How about the fact, that you have a "Group" of people, sharing a "Non-Belief" and this "Non-Belief" been promoted in society. That for me, is clearly more than a simple "I do not believe in any deity".

Peace

reply to post by Seed76

The First Church of Atheism wants you to pursue and cherish your realistic beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority.

Good on the Church of Atheism; "follow your dreams, don't be a sheep, beliefs don't have to be without evidence, they can be based on evidence. Also, don't let outside agencies tell you what to think. Think for yourself!

It's great; it promotes arguments, discussions and debate based on evidence, instead of arguing about nonsense that we can't falsify. It promotes discussion of morality without immoral scripture interfering with free thought. Where do i sign up for this church!?

PS. Hope this "Church" is tax exempt like the rest of them!!!

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Where do i sign up for this church!?

If you are really interested Here.

PS. Hope this "Church" is tax exempt like the rest of them!!

I am not so sure about that. Anyway i done a little search for you. All i could found was this :

Tax Exemptions Available to Churches

Churches, however, tend to benefit the most from the various tax exemptions available, in particular because they qualify for many of them automatically, whereas non-religious groups have to go through a more complicated application and approval process. Non-religious groups also have to be more accountable for where their money goes, while churches, in order to avoid possibly excessive entanglements between church and state, do not have to submit financial disclosure statements.

Hope that helps you a bit.

Peace

reply to post by Seed76


Thanks very much for the info.

I can't see why the Church of Atheism can't be tax exempt in that case.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Seed76

 

Thanks very much for the info.

I can't see why the Church of Atheism can't be tax exempt in that case.

I think it should be, it's a faith-based organization.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Derp - No it's not.

It's doesn't take faith to be agnostic atheist. It just takes a bit of common sense and understanding of what humans actually know about the universe. Men who wrote religious doctrine had serious misconceptions of reality around them, i don't trust them and i can't prove whether a creator exists.

It doesn't take faith to have a lack of belief in an unprovable theory.

"There is an afterlife" - Response: No human can prove this, why should i believe it?

ATHEISM DOES NOT REQUIRE FAITH.

THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS DOGMA INVOLVED WITH ATHEISM.

It doesn't take faith to have a lack of belief in invisible unicorns.

Burden of proof is on the person making the claim, otherwise, it's just faith.

It takes faith to say you KNOW for a fact that there is no God. (Gnostic Atheism)

Agnosticism/Gnosticism - What you know

Atheism/Theism - what you believe.

See, i could still change my mind, providing i find the evidence - It would take a lot of evidence to prove the "GOD" of Christianity is the true God, and then it's picking which particular denomination of Christianity is true.

reply to post by awake_and_aware

Thanks very much for the info.

You are welcome.

Peace

reply to post by awake_and_aware


LOL! If an Atheist doesn't "know" for a fact God doesn't exist then his or her stance on God's existence or non-existence is a matter of faith. And it's my statement that no one can know for a fact that God doesn't exist. Therefore, any stance on God either existing or not existing is a matter of faith. Atheists have faith in their mind that God doesn't exist, Theists have faith in their mind that God does exist.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What's your stance on infinity?

Have you got faith that infinity is not true and that it is some super entity with rules matching man-made religion's rules?

You must have.

Look it's REALLY REALLY easily to understand.

You make up a theory regarding any issue, physics, maths or the cause of the universe, then it is up to you to back up your claims with evidence, otherwise YOU are the person with faith. Not the non-believer in your theory.

Do you have faith in regards to the flying spagetti monster? By your logic, you do.

It's either faith or a lack of faith - Learn that before you use that old chesnut again.