Why atheists are starting their own global church

[magnifier661]

"I don't know, you don't know, but I don't care if you think you know."

Who's motto is that? I sure hope you aren't talking about atheists?

This was off a simple church. Looks to me atheists do care that others believe in God.

 

[Eastoff]

^^^this is who. ;]

I'm agnostic. "I don't know, you don't know, but I don't care if you think you know" is my approach to those with faith.

 

[magnifier661]

^^^this is who. ;]

Well that is exactly what I would see an agnostic stance on. Th atheist obviously does care that you think you know. They are as radical as the right winged, IMO.

 

[magnifier661]

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/faq/

Here is another group trying to form an atheist church. The faith is strong with this one.

You atheists should join. Its free and you can marry people too!

 

[Further]

well, 20% of our nation is atheist, but I hear religious messaging far more than a 4:1 ratio. Go figure.




Mags, the pestering thing was only about two topics you use to derail conversations and get under atheists skin. 1) Atheism is a faith just like religion. 2) Atheism is only what your definition states. I have discussed both these topics at length, many times, as have others. But there is no discussion to be had since you choose to define things for what we believe. Every other topic I'll enjoy discussing with you. But since you admitted to using the definition argument simply to annoy, well, it just became very easy to ignore.

 

[magnifier661]

well, 20% of our nation is atheist, but I hear religious messaging far more than a 4:1 ratio. Go figure.




Mags, the pestering thing was only about two topics you use to derail conversations and get under atheists skin. 1) Atheism is a faith just like religion. 2) Atheism is only what your definition states. I have discussed both these topics at length, many times, as have others. But there is no discussion to be had since you choose to define things for what we believe. Every other topic I'll enjoy discussing with you. But since you admitted to using the definition argument simply to annoy, well, it just became very easy to ignore.

The concept of Atheism being a faith isn't trying to get under your skin. I firmly believe that. Atheism believes there is no God, yet without proof. That is a faith plain and simple. If you want to take an agnostic approach, then consider yourself agnostic and don't jump on the atheism bandwagon.

I was using digs on other things to rile you up. I guess it worked because you believe this stance is a dig and take offense.

P.S. you hear 4-1 of religion vs. atheism. Your math actually proclaims that religion is less prying than atheism since atheism is 1/5th of the populous. They are running their mouth much stronger than that of the Christian %

 

[Further]

The concept of Atheism being a faith isn't trying to get under your skin. I firmly believe that. Atheism believes there is no God, yet without proof. That is a faith plain and simple. If you want to take an agnostic approach, then consider yourself agnostic and don't jump on the atheism bandwagon.

I was using digs on other things to rile you up. I guess it worked because you believe this stance is a dig and take offense.

P.S. you hear 4-1 of religion vs. atheism. Your math actually proclaims that religion is less prying than atheism since atheism is 1/5th of the populous. They are running their mouth much stronger than that of the Christian %

OK, I'll try and explain MY personal view of it. But realize, there are atheists that agree with you as well, although I think the vast majority don't. This is only my view. I claim no affiliation with a movement or group of other atheists.

Here we go.

I do not have a belief that there is no god. This is not a belief of mine. I believe there is zero evidence suggesting there is a god. And lacking evidence, it seems very unlikely. So I do not have an active belief in god. I don't trust that there is no god, there could be. I simply don't have a belief in god. It's possible, but so unlikely to me that it's not worth contemplating beyond how the belief system effects society, which I find very interesting.

So I think about it, but not about the "believe or not believe" portion. There is not much to contemplate regarding the existence of god, at least for me. If you want my fuller thoughts on it, I think it doesn't matter what we believe because I can't imagine a god that would actually care if I believe or not. The concept that something all powerful would care if we have faith seems ridiculous to me. So either there is no god as I think is most likely, or there is a god that is totally separate from the individual at this point.

I am fully aware that you will look at what I said and say I am agnostic, not atheist. This may simply be a matter of differing definitions, but I find the likelihood of god so remote that for all practical purposes I have no belief in god. I do not hold open doors just in case God is real. I do not know that there is not a lockness monster, but the evidence is such crap that I have no belief in it. I don't know it doesn't exist, but I simply find it highly highly unlikely. However, I find Nessy more likely than God, or at least any religious version of God.

 

[Further]

P.S. you hear 4-1 of religion vs. atheism. Your math actually proclaims that religion is less prying than atheism since atheism is 1/5th of the populous. They are running their mouth much stronger than that of the Christian %

"well, 20% of our nation is atheist, but I hear religious messaging far more than a 4:1 ratio. Go figure."

far more than. I don't have a way to measure, but it sure feels like I hear religious messaging 10:1 or more. But this is not measured, so I really have no idea. I am sure there are pockets where religious messaging is never heard and pockets where atheistic messaging is never heard. But I did say "far more".

 

[magnifier661]

OK, I'll try and explain MY personal view of it. But realize, there are atheists that agree with you as well, although I think the vast majority don't. This is only my view. I claim no affiliation with a movement or group of other atheists.

Here we go.

I do not have a belief that there is no god. This is not a belief of mine. I believe there is zero evidence suggesting there is a god. And lacking evidence, it seems very unlikely. So I do not have an active belief in god. I don't trust that there is no god, there could be. I simply don't have a belief in god. It's possible, but so unlikely to me that it's not worth contemplating beyond how the belief system effects society, which I find very interesting.

So I think about it, but not about the "believe or not believe" portion. There is not much to contemplate regarding the existence of god, at least for me. If you want my fuller thoughts on it, I think it doesn't matter what we believe because I can't imagine a god that would actually care if I believe or not. The concept that something all powerful would care if we have faith seems ridiculous to me. So either there is no god as I think is most likely, or there is a god that is totally separate from the individual at this point.

I am fully aware that you will look at what I said and say I am agnostic, not atheist. This may simply be a matter of differing definitions, but I find the likelihood of god so remote that for all practical purposes I have no belief in god. I do not hold open doors just in case God is real. I do not know that there is not a lockness monster, but the evidence is such crap that I have no belief in it. I don't know it doesn't exist, but I simply find it highly highly unlikely. However, I find Nessy more likely than God, or at least any religious version of God.

Your answer sways me to a label of agnosticism; but you already know that. So regardless of what I believe, does it really matter to you? Why so defensive when I label you like this, when I am taking the literal interpretation of the concept? It is black and white with me. The gray is agnosticism, believing that you must need physical proof to support a God or Nessy for that matter.

The fact remains that atheism is a faith. The literal term. I can say I am a worship Satan but am still a christian, but many would argue that both aren't compatible. I see agnostic/atheism in the same light. They aren't compatible IMO. One believes there is no God and the other doesn't believe because they have no physical proof there is one.

 

[Denny Crane]

Praise Bob!

 

[magnifier661]

"well, 20% of our nation is atheist, but I hear religious messaging far more than a 4:1 ratio. Go figure."

far more than. I don't have a way to measure, but it sure feels like I hear religious messaging 10:1 or more. But this is not measured, so I really have no idea. I am sure there are pockets where religious messaging is never heard and pockets where atheistic messaging is never heard. But I did say "far more".

Good to know. According to this survey (included agnostics as well); only 1 out of every 10 americans do not believe in God. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

According to Gallup, more than 9 in 10 Americans say "yes" when asked the basic question "Do you believe in God?"; this is down only slightly from the 1940s, when Gallup first asked this question. However, past Gallup surveys have shown that not all Americans are absolutely certain in their beliefs about God. Given the ability to express doubts about their beliefs, the percentage who stick to a certain belief in God drops into the 70% to 80% range. Additionally, when Americans are given the option of saying they believe in a universal spirit or higher power instead of in "God," about 12% choose the former. Still, the May 2011 poll reveals that when given only the choice between believing and not believing in God, more than 9 in 10 Americans say they do believe. Other indicators of religiosity in America have shown more dramatic changes in recent decades, most significantly Americans' self-identification with a religion. At some points in the 1950s, almost all Americans identified themselves with a particular religion. In recent years, more than 1 in 10 Americans tell survey interviewers they have no formal religious identity.[37]

So "far more" is a overstatement on your part. Still justifies atheist is more loud mouth about forcing their views on others.

 

[Further]

Your answer sways me to a label of agnosticism; but you already know that. So regardless of what I believe, does it really matter to you? Why so defensive when I label you like this, when I am taking the literal interpretation of the concept? It is black and white with me. The gray is agnosticism, believing that you must need physical proof to support a God or Nessy for that matter.

Why does it matter to me, well mostly it doesn't, but there have been several very interesting conversations that were derailed by you bringing this into play. So it just ruins topics. Also, I know that many atheists around here have explained to you very similar reasoning, and explained that 95% of us, who call ourselves atheist, and don't have belief in god, don't claim to know there is no god. We simply claim no belief in god. But you would rather label us. That's kind of rude. But mostly, just annoying.

The fact remains that atheism is a faith. The literal term. I can say I am a worship Satan but am still a christian, but many would argue that both aren't compatible. I see agnostic/atheism in the same light. They aren't compatible IMO. One believes there is no God and the other doesn't believe because they have no physical proof there is one.

OK then. I'm done going in circles.

 

[magnifier661]

Why does it matter to me, well mostly it doesn't, but there have been several very interesting conversations that were derailed by you bringing this into play. So it just ruins topics. Also, I know that many atheists around here have explained to you very similar reasoning, and explained that 95% of us, who call ourselves atheist, and don't have belief in god, don't claim to know there is no god. We simply claim no belief in god. But you would rather label us. That's kind of rude. But mostly, just annoying.


OK then. I'm done going in circles.

Stop with your bullshit high horse! You've had your fair share of derailment. I've seen you jump on the anti-christian threads, derail others as well. So if you don't like what you dish, then stop dishing it!

And rude? You guys label Christians the same fucking way too! Christ man, WTF is your problem?

 

[Further]

Stop with your bullshit high horse! You've had your fair share of derailment. I've seen you jump on the anti-christian threads, derail others as well. So if you don't like what you dish, then stop dishing it!

And rude? You guys label Christians the same fucking way too! Christ man, WTF is your problem?

okay

 

[Further]

Also, I am not blameless. Glass houses and all, perhaps I should have remained quiet.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

okay

You should really just start ignoring him whenever he talks about atheism. It goes absolutely no where.

 

[Further]

You should really just start ignoring him whenever he talks about atheism. It goes absolutely no where.

Nah, I hope to get past these couple subjects that have been hashed out to oblivion cause I really do enjoy discussing other aspects of atheism and theism with Mags. The two of us just need to slap each other on occasion, like you would an old time record player when Miles Davis keeps skipping back to the same B flat.

 

[BlazerWookee]

Man, pre-season can't come soon enough.

That's what my ex-girlfriend used to say about me.

Dammit.

 

[magnifier661]

Nah, I hope to get past these couple subjects that have been hashed out to oblivion cause I really do enjoy discussing other aspects of atheism and theism with Mags. The two of us just need to slap each other on occasion, like you would an old time record player when Miles Davis keeps skipping back to the same B flat.

I agree

 

[VanillaGorilla]

Nah, I hope to get past these couple subjects that have been hashed out to oblivion cause I really do enjoy discussing other aspects of atheism and theism with Mags. The two of us just need to slap each other on occasion, like you would an old time record player when Miles Davis keeps skipping back to the same B flat.

For me, it would be time to stop using that record player. It's broken.

 

[Further]

For me, it would be time to stop using that record player. It's broken.

haha, got a nice chuckle. Repped.

 

[crandc]

For about the billionth time, atheists do not "believe there isn't a god with no proof". Atheists say that the burden of proof is on the believers, whether Jesus, astrology, Muhammed, or alien visitation. And as Richard Dawkins pointed out, we are all atheists, about other people's gods. I doubt few if any believe in Odin (as opposed to Oden) or Zeus. You are not in a church of people who don't believe in Zeus without proof. There is not a religion of people who don't believe in Zeus without proof. Rather, you say there is no reason to believe (no evidence) in either the existence or divinity of Zeus. Or Odin. Or any of the other thousands of gods and goddesses whom people have worshipped. Atheists feel the same way about your god.

Some atheists have recognized that houses of worship also perform a social and community function; indeed, for many if not most parishioners that's the reason they go. My late stepmother was an atheist but she loved Shabbat services for the music and the connection to the community. And some atheists have suggested that we need our own form of social structure. I don't agree, personally, because we don't have a common belief on which to base it. There are liberal, conservative, communist, socialist, libertarian and apolitical atheists. There are charitable atheists and anti-charity atheists. There are feminist atheists like Greta Christina and anti-women's rights atheists like Nat Hentoff. There are atheists of all ethnicities. There are gay atheists, straight ally atheists, and homophobic atheists. I mean, I read Free Inquiry and Freethought Blogs and the range of views is huge, no flipping way we could come together in a "church".

However, I do believe we need secular ways of recognizing major life changes - birth, coming of age, mating/marriage, death. There are atheists to still use religious rituals they don't believe in because of the need for some formal recognition and religious rituals are all they have.

 

[magnifier661]

For the billionth time, Christians or any other theist feel the same way. There is no difference between and atheist or theist. They both believe what they believe in and don't feel the need for the non believer to question their faith.

Cran, you have a faith that you don't feel the need to have others justify your belief. Just as the theist doesn't require a non believer to tell you "hey your opinion is valid". The only difference is the atheist believes they have science to back them up; but fail to use science to truly back them up.

Agnostics are the only "Spock-like" logical thinking. They don't say "there is no God" but instead they say "all of what I've seen has given me no proof God exists".

 

[Further]

What up folks? Good Morning everyone!

I decided for a couple weeks, I'm not going to get in any debates, I'm not going to defend anything. I may post if I find something interesting, funny or cool, but for a few weeks I won't go beyond that. Especially no politics.

Peace be with you brothers and sisters

 

[crandc]

I do not have a faith. I accept facts for which there is evidence. Faith is by definition belief in something for which there is no evidence. Faith is not repeat not disbelief in something for which there is no evidence. Would you say I am religious because I point out there is no evidence for astrology and therefore don't accept it?

I think the trouble is believers in a divine being can't see that non believers place their divine being in the same "bag" as all the rest. There MUST be something special about their god that is so self-evident that disbelieving it is also "faith" without proof. They would not say that about disbelief in Zeus. For me all gods are the same. And there is no evidence for any. Therefore I do not accept their existence and will not without evidence. Which there cannot be because, as numerous Christians have pointed out, the whole point of faith is acceptance without evidence. And I'm getting virtual laryngitis having to explain this over and over!

 

[Eastoff]

For the billionth time, Christians or any other theist feel the same way. There is no difference between and atheist or theist. They both believe what they believe in and don't feel the need for the non believer to question their faith.

Cran, you have a faith that you don't feel the need to have others justify your belief. Just as the theist doesn't require a non believer to tell you "hey your opinion is valid". The only difference is the atheist believes they have science to back them up; but fail to use science to truly back them up.

Agnostics are the only "Spock-like" logical thinking. They don't say "there is no God" but instead they say "all of what I've seen has given me no proof God exists".

Nor do schizophrenics.

 

[magnifier661]

Nor do schizophrenics.

Or liberals.

 

[Eastoff]

Or liberals.

GG you win!

 

[e_blazer]

I do not have a faith. I accept facts for which there is evidence. Faith is by definition belief in something for which there is no evidence. Faith is not repeat not disbelief in something for which there is no evidence. Would you say I am religious because I point out there is no evidence for astrology and therefore don't accept it?

Hey, cran, here's where I think that you're off the mark in your thinking. I disagree with your statement that faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. That puts belief in God in the light of believing in Santa Claus or, as message board atheists love to use, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Rather, I believe that true faith is looking at human existence in this universe with open eyes, assessing the order of the universe, the physical laws, the incredible amount of information that is necessary for the formation of even the simplest of cells, and making an assessment that it is more likely that an intelligent, outside causative force is likely behind our existence than sheer time and random chance. Certainly that assessment involves being willing to accept that there are limits of what can be known and ultimately knowing that there cannot be a proof of God's existence in terms of a logic equation. But is an atheistic view on this any better? The atheist simply states that there is no proof for a god and therefore he or she must not exist. Not exactly a valid argument from a logic standpoint either.

I kind of like this quote:

If there is no God, then all that exists is time and chance acting on matter. If this is true then the difference between your thoughts and mine correspond to the difference between shaking up a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bottle of Dr. Pepper. You simply fizz atheistically and I fizz theistically. This means that you do not hold to atheism because it is true , but rather because of a series of chemical reactions… … Morality, tragedy, and sorrow are equally evanescent. They are all empty sensations created by the chemical reactions of the brain, in turn created by too much pizza the night before. If there is no God, then all abstractions are chemical epiphenomena, like swamp gas over fetid water. This means that we have no reason for assigning truth and falsity to the chemical fizz we call reasoning or right and wrong to the irrational reaction we call morality. If no God, mankind is a set of bi-pedal carbon units of mostly water. And nothing else.

Douglas Wilson

I think the trouble is believers in a divine being can't see that non believers place their divine being in the same "bag" as all the rest. There MUST be something special about their god that is so self-evident that disbelieving it is also "faith" without proof. They would not say that about disbelief in Zeus. For me all gods are the same. And there is no evidence for any. Therefore I do not accept their existence and will not without evidence. Which there cannot be because, as numerous Christians have pointed out, the whole point of faith is acceptance without evidence. And I'm getting virtual laryngitis having to explain this over and over!

I understand where you're coming from on this and I hope that I've never given you the impression that I think there is any need for you to justify your lack of belief in God. We're all faced with the fact that we look at two basic facts that we can never wholly explain: 1. The universe exists through factors that we will never be able to fully understand; and 2. There is life within the universe when there is no logical explanation as to how or why that should be so. I choose to believe that there is a God behind it all. You choose to believe that billions of years and random chance is sufficient explanation. I have found peace and comfort in my faith, in my prayer life, in my church community, and in the Bible.

I guess ultimately it comes down to the Blood Sweat and Tears lyric:

Swear there ain't no heaven and I pray there ain't no hell,
But I'll never know by living, only my dying will tell.

Although that lyric really never made a whole lot of sense to me from an atheist point of view because if death is simply turning off a light bulb, then I guess dying won't tell us anything at all.

 

[magnifier661]

Hey, cran, here's where I think that you're off the mark in your thinking. I disagree with your statement that faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence. That puts belief in God in the light of believing in Santa Claus or, as message board atheists love to use, the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Rather, I believe that true faith is looking at human existence in this universe with open eyes, assessing the order of the universe, the physical laws, the incredible amount of information that is necessary for the formation of even the simplest of cells, and making an assessment that it is more likely that an intelligent, outside causative force is likely behind our existence than sheer time and random chance. Certainly that assessment involves being willing to accept that there are limits of what can be known and ultimately knowing that there cannot be a proof of God's existence in terms of a logic equation. But is an atheistic view on this any better? The atheist simply states that there is no proof for a god and therefore he or she must not exist. Not exactly a valid argument from a logic standpoint either.

I kind of like this quote:





I understand where you're coming from on this and I hope that I've never given you the impression that I think there is any need for you to justify your lack of belief in God. We're all faced with the fact that we look at two basic facts that we can never wholly explain: 1. The universe exists through factors that we will never be able to fully understand; and 2. There is life within the universe when there is no logical explanation as to how or why that should be so. I choose to believe that there is a God behind it all. You choose to believe that billions of years and random chance is sufficient explanation. I have found peace and comfort in my faith, in my prayer life, in my church community, and in the Bible.

I guess ultimately it comes down to the Blood Sweat and Tears lyric:



Although that lyric really never made a whole lot of sense to me from an atheist point of view because if death is simply turning off a light bulb, then I guess dying won't tell us anything at all.

Wow great post! Repp'd!

Well at least I tried! "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to e_blazer again."