Atheist Sunday Assembly goes worldwide, the future is bright for non-believers

Originally posted by something wicked

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by waggz
Why cant you just hook up with people in general? I don't even remember the last time I was with a group of people and religion was brought up.

Actually...why are you even in this discussion? You made it clear you have no actual opinion about either church or gatherings in general
Do you also find sewing circles and hammer on them, asking why they don't just sew at home?

Aren't you showing what people are finding ironic? A sewing circle is effectively the religion using an analogy. All the people there have an interest in sewing. A club for people who have no interest in sewing would be the weird thing as they have nothing in common apart from not having an interest in sewing.

Never mind. This thread really shows four aspects of personality - people of faith who find this richly ironic, people of faith who for some reason find it offensive, people of no faith who find it offensive as it obviously breaks some code of the atheist charter and people of no faith who want to be part of a club and have no interests apart from a lack of interest (purportedly) in a particular subject.

The most sensible statement I've heard yet. I wish I could give this muchos stars.

reply to post by grainofsand


Well, some people were arguing about the "wall of separation" which has come to be known as "separation of church and state" wherein people view any religious references in public education to be unConstitutional. The seculars have made their attack on religion in this very public way. When one considers the impact a One World Religion would have on the separation of church and state, one wonders why they demand the removal of religion from schools and courthouses but accept the collectivism of a One World Church purged of real spirituality and replaced by a sanitized unity of all religions. (not to be confused with embracing truth in all religions).

reply to post by votan


I agree with the "to each his own" comment.
But seriously, there are some nice things about religious gatherings on Sunday.

Lots of people, who are non-religious would like to gather together too. Then do , and talk about things that they have in common.

Then go to Denny's for a Grand Slam

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

The default position is that you should not believe a claim untill there is evidence to support it. There is no burden of proof on the athiest.

Why is there no burdon to prove anything when you are a atheist and calim that there is no God?

If they make this claim they must have equal burdon on their behalf to proov their claim.

The reason we always discuss God or no God is because both sides lack solid facts that would without doubt prove one argument to be write.

Not Wert . . . however, it is the believer who is actually making the claim, albeit an epistemic one. So, according to the rules of logic . . . the onus probandi or philosophical burden of proof is on you.

The non-believer isn't actually making a claim . . . they are asserting their position from a lack of knowledge. There are no gods meddling in our everyday lives, nor have any been found in the natural world or the known universe. It is the same reason you probably don't believe in Zeus, Thor, Dragons, or Monsters that hide in closets.

The non-believer in such things is the critic. If you try to shift the onus to the critic, you are engaging in the logical fallacy of an appeal to ignorance. Ignorance meaning lack of evidence to the contrary . . . which is also called logical fallacy of informal logic. You, believer, is asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or it is "generally accepted". Look up the philosophical dilemma of Bertrand Russel's Teapot, for explanation of this concept, if you need a visual. Basically, a claim for any god is scientifically unfalsifiable.
Russel's Teapot

Further more, evidence must meet certain requirements. Usually, those requirements rest in community standards, whether you want to employ the legal system or the scientific method. If we are simply producing evidence for sake of argument then your evidence must be substantive and contestable. Subtantive, the claim of a god is, as it is worthy of consideration . . .not substantive would be trival. However, it fails when it comes to contestable has there is no way to test it. But, let's say you could provide testable evidence . . . the next test is the evidence reliable and relevant.

Can we rely on the evidence . . . personal hearsay . . . no, as people lie, they can be delusional, they may be misinformed or mistaken, etc. . . . the bible . . . mythology and more hearsay, so no. And most importantly, in regard to reliablity, we can not test it or have any way to replicate the experiment. Is the evidence relevant . . . it can be, but again it can not be verified or replicated so it becomes unreliable.

The evidence for any god fails all logical tests and relies solely on creating an appeal to ignorance. Meaning your strongest argument or evidence rests in the fact that it has not yet been disproved . . . it's a false dichotomy. However the reality of everday life and what we know of the behaviors of the natural world don't support the idea, so the proponent or the believer holds the onus probandi.

Extraordinary claims also require extraordinary evidence.

So . . . do you have any?

I just wanted to say that was awesome. You supported your statements with references. You explained it to where everyone should be able to understand.

What you said is common sense to most and at one time was taught in school. (The burden of proof) I have found that on here there seem to be an overwhelming amount of people that do not understand this when it come to a multitude of subjects. They argue tooth and nail on a multitude of subjects UFO. Bigfoot, Alien, God, the Lockness monster.

If I claimed that vampires live and exist in society the burden to prove this would be mine who claim there existence not those who think I am crazy. Lore eyewitness accounts and folktales would not be proof.

The same principle is for those who claim god exists and not on those who think the idea is crazy. Lore folktales(bible)and firsthand accounts are not proof.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by OOOOOO
Funny it says atheist Chuurch and on sunday yet, but Sunday is the day of worship to Creator, that even more oxymoron, Satuday is day of rest. Maybe they should use Monday.

Saturday is Sabbath (last day of the week). Not sunday...sunday is a work day like any other day.

You can thank modernization for that calendar change.

I 'm sorry but you seem to of missed what I said, I said Saturday is the day of Rest the Sabbath, Sunday is the Day of Worship, now are you able to understand the difference rest and worship. Old Testament and the New Testament, the Sabbath is still on the 7th day. Sunday is day worship the Lord Creator, New Testament.

You are right though if you leave it up to the roman catholic church, they will try and change the Sabbath to Sunday

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I have read a few threads here on ATS describing such things in the US, it is difficult for me to comment as it is not my country and my information is all secondary knowledge. There was an interesting exchange between a couple of members here in this thread while I was asleep last night, a rather heated debate regarding the original intentions during the time of the constitutions creation. Again I did not get involved as my information is limited to claims and counter claims.

Regarding the UK though, the Anglican Church of England is very much an official established arm of our state and government. Personally I would change that, but I do support the continued teaching of all the major faiths in our schools as I feel this supports tolerance and inclusivity.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by grainofsand

 

I like this!

It's interesting how threatened many of the Christian posters are by the prospect of atheists organizing, and holding Sunday meetings! I think it's been a long time coming and a very welcome social option to religious indoctrination.

You know, in many states here in the USA, atheists are barred from holding public office and in some they are barred from testifying in a court of law! Medieval!

I do not know if this is a solid rule here in Florida but I was dismissed from jury selection because I am an atheist.

reply to post by Grimpachi

That surprises me again. I wonder why the people who kicked you off the jury thought that a lack of faith equals an inability to make an impartial decision based on presented facts. There is no formal exclusion for atheists in the UK although you would not be told why you were excluded if they turned you away after attending the court.

*Gotta bail from this thread again though folks, sleep calling.
Thanks for all the many interesting replies so far, if there are many more overnight I shall try to catch up after work tomorrow, but I may be busy in 'real' life for the next few days so please don't feel ignored if it takes a while

reply to post by Grimpachi


It may not be a rule for jury duty. Attorneys have a lot of leeway when dismissing potential jurors. I was dismissed from jury duty too, because the judge asked us if anyone was offended by ultra religious people, and I raised my hand. TADA!

Here's a list of States that prohibit atheist to serve:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state. North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8 The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
www.americanhumanist.org...

Florida's not on the list! Lucky you!

To me for the most part this whole thing of religion is much of a joke than anything else. My god is better than your god oh yea, Well I an't gots no God, Na , na , nan ,nan!.
Much like a school yard rant.

The real question beyond any other bull crap is do you believe in your self, Now that is the question, do you really exist, what are, never why are you, are you good, bad.

You need to learn to adapt to the rules of this place, this thing, what is the presiding rule of this Universe.Most of you just don't get it and will take a time to.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

That surprises me again. I wonder why the people who kicked you off the jury thought that a lack of faith equals an inability to make an impartial decision based on presented facts. There is no formal exclusion for atheists in the UK although you would not be told why you were excluded if they turned you away after attending the court.

*Gotta bail from this thread again though folks, sleep calling.
Thanks for all the many interesting replies so far, if there are many more overnight I shall try to catch up after work tomorrow, but I may be busy in 'real' life for the next few days so please don't feel ignored if it takes a while

They can dismiss anyone from jury if they feel that some personal bias may impede their execution of duty. I would think it had more to do with the nature of the trial than anything else.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by ExquisitExamplE

 

Firstly, I'm grateful for the spirit of your intentions in sharing that here.
I have read a little about Bub Hill before, and as you can imagine I am not drawn to believing in it myself.
It is an interesting perspective though and if true, would be mindblowing for pretty much everyone. I can only change my various beliefs (or lack thereof) as my experiences influence my thinking, but until such a time I shall just continue living my life with good intentions and hope for the best.
Again though, thank you for your kind intentions

Indeed. Let me assure you, it's been my pleasure to attempt to share with you and with all those whom I come across in my travels, electronic or otherwise. The paths are as varied as the fractal branches above, or the roots below. I think you are a good and kind soul (O noes! Soul!) and I think that kindness will take you far in your travels, wherever you may wander. Thank you and Namaste!

reply to post by windword


As long as there are laws such as those in this country then the ones who cry foul and claim faith is being persecuted in the US do not have a leg to stand on.

If you are an atheist in the US it is better to stay quiet about it. I for one hope the organization spreads to America because it will be a step in the right direction where being an atheist will not be so taboo.


As far as being excluded from jury duty it was much like your own experience but it was a simple question of do I believe in god. I am not upset about not being selected it wasn’t like I wanted to be there but for a country that has separation of church and state we have a ways to go.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by windword
[more

As far as being excluded from jury duty it was much like your own experience but it was a simple question of do I believe in god. I am not upset about not being selected it wasn’t like I wanted to be there but for a country that has separation of church and state we have a ways to go.

That is just so stupid, excuse me could you be more specific, which God or who's God are you referring to, what does The God you are referring to look like. Do you mean Jesus or his Dad and wait it says in that book your holding there, not to Swear on anything, I think. Could you please be more clear as to what you are referring to.
If you want me to swear on that book let me read it first, I don't want to be blamed later on for some thing I was not aware of. Let me swear on my Dear Mothers life, that I will tell the Truth or is that not good enough, you rather me swear on a book I know nothing about and you have probably, never read your self.

Then to top it off you are going to swear to tell the Truth on some book you never read and then be questioned by people who are professional liers. Look that is part of the problem with government , most people in political office are attorney's, who are professional liers. Just look how before they get elected they tell all the good thing they are going to do, but when they win they laugh and say oh no that's not what I said, that's not what I meant.

Ok no one else was saying nothing so I did, but I said enough, "enough, is enough and I'm not going to take it anymore". Ok, Ok, that was quote, from that one move. I believe in Judaism, and YVHV ( can't spell that word good ) and YVHV said I'm the Boss, see those other dude's over there you listen to Me YVHV not them got it.

reply to post by OOOOOO

Let me swear on my Dear Mothers life, that I will tell the Truth or is that not good enough, you rather me swear on a book I know nothing about and you have probably, never read your self.

By law. You are not allowed to make a bargin with the life of your mother. You dont have that authority.

We dont have the right to use our law as the law of God. Because our law is the law of men, not of God. We dont even have the right to judge another human being. Because we are all sinners.

reply to post by spy66


Did you not understand the point he was making or are you just being purposely obtuse?

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by spy66

 

Did you not understand the point he was making or are you just being purposely obtuse?

No i checked I stand by what i said. I think hes point of argument is wrong. I see what i read a bit different than you. And that is my full write.

reply to post by kennylee


That's a pretty ignorant thing to say.

I could say the same about believers such as yourself.. Are you forever stuck following an invisible man that sits high in the heavens, pointing a finger at you and saying, "Do it and I'll #ing smite you!"

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Grimpachi
reply to post by spy66

 

Did you not understand the point he was making or are you just being purposely obtuse?

No i checked

I stand by what i said. I think hes point of argument is wrong. I see what i read a bit different than you. And that is my full write.

What do you mean by full write? Do you mean fool right?

How do you mean you read it different?

Originally posted by kennylee
I dont know how the future can be bright when there is no future for non-believers.

This quote just means he is a righteous Christian who is hopeful that others that do not believe as he does will have an eternity of suffering and pain.

You know it’s that Christian spirit they seem to feel is above us heathens.


If that is the kind of people that will be in heaven I think I will be happier somewhere else.