LOL @ Bill O

[redandguilty]

...and a google search turned up these people.

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/atheist-church-set-to-go-global-130308.htm

http://sundayassembly.com/

I'm not going to count it though. Don't worry.

 

[Michchamp]

... I responded to both asking if atheist governments counted.

Okay. What I should've said was "NO." Unless the government is synonymous with a religion (like say, Vatican City, or Saudi Arabia) I wouldn't equate the actions of the state with the actions of a religion anyway.

...
The examples of atheist nations I gave weren't just nations founded by atheists. All but one were classified by someone other than me as states where atheism was held as a state belief. They are actual examples of atheist organizations that collect money in a compulsory way, take public positions, and have anthems that rally the troops. If you argue that they don't count as atheist organizations because the existence of a cult of personality or a nationalistic movement, then you've introduced an out that will let a lot of badly behaving religious groups off the hook.

again, organizing as a political movement is a different story. one can be an atheist, obey the laws, go to work every day, pay taxes and not associate his or herself with anything beyond that.

but a religious person adds some belief in a supernatural power, force, deity or deities to that equation.

I'd argue that atheists who form a state government and act in some way are not acting in furtherance of "atheism" but their organization's goals. it's completely different.

And to the extent atheists do form organizations, advocate for the separation of church and state, oppose faith-based laws and initiatives, etc. they're doing this only in response to the actions of actual religious organizations.

 

[Michchamp]

...and a google search turned up these people.

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/atheist-church-set-to-go-global-130308.htm

http://sundayassembly.com/

I'm not going to count it though. Don't worry.

good. cause I'm still trying to understand how some atheists deciding to meet and sing songs on Sundays mean it's a religion anyways.

 

[redandguilty]

I'd argue that atheists who form a state government and act in some way are not acting in furtherance of "atheism" but their organization's goals. it's completely different.

I feel that way about nations with state religions.

 

[Michchamp]

I feel that way about nations with state religions.

well that's stupid. You shouldn't feel that way.

you can live your life as an atheist without believing in anything that requires "faith" to believe in. You can't say the same about any organized religion I'm familiar with.

that's the objective point here, and the actions of a person or persons who identify as atheists don't change anything about it.

 

[KAWDUP]

well, there may be some for whom atheism takes on some semblance of a religion, but not me.

I think the key part of the definition is belief in some deity or some supernatural force that can't be proven, which is what I don't have, and technically no atheists should. some may claim this or that, but really they're confused. and beyond that, I don't go to meetings, I don't look to any one for a set of beliefs or behavioral guidelines, I don't look to anyone else for a set of ethics and morals (which is of course not to say I don't have them, which is a common and unfortunate slur from religious people, that if you don't follow their religion, you are essentially amoral) so, no, it's not a religion.

OK, this makes sense - I would have to say that as many people that mistakenly consider atheists amoral (I am not one of those) on the religious side, also advocate and attempt to "push" atheism just like a religion. Glad you aren'tone of those.

Are you saying that bitter doesn't apply to you, though? Seems like the way you descibe the religious interactions with your family (on these boards), that there is some resentment there.

 

[redandguilty]

well that's stupid. You shouldn't feel that way.

you can live your life as an atheist without believing in anything that requires "faith" to believe in. You can't say the same about any organized religion I'm familiar with.

that's the objective point here, and the actions of a person or persons who identify as atheists don't change anything about it.

It's not stupid. When big groups of people act as a single unit, the mistakes they make are generally not indicators of the validity of the ideas they claim make up their foundation. Sometimes a big organization can stick to the principles it claims, but more often it can't.

...and the actions of a person or persons who identify as XXXXXXX don't change anything about it. (That's the point you just called stupid, isn't it?)

 

[Michchamp]

It's not stupid. When big groups of people act as a single unit, the mistakes they make are generally not indicators of the validity of the ideas they claim make up their foundation. Sometimes a big organization can stick to the principles it claims, but more often it can't.

...and the actions of a person or persons who identify as XXXXXXX don't change anything about it. (That's the point you just called stupid, isn't it?)

sure. but when the church hands down a law/policy, it's a tenet of the religion. this is why I'm saying in states where there is no separation between church/state, the political decisions are inseparable from the tenets of the religion.

I'm limiting it to those instances... I am not saying George W. Bush's political decisions could be an indictment of christianity for example.

 

[tinselwolverine]

You guys remember that one South Park episode where Cartman manages to send himself into the future, and the world is dominated by three aethiest sects at war with other as to which sect practices the purist form of aetheism?

That was pretty funny.

 

[Michchamp]

OK, this makes sense - I would have to say that as many people that mistakenly consider atheists amoral (I am not one of those) on the religious side, also advocate and attempt to "push" atheism just like a religion. Glad you aren'tone of those.

Are you saying that bitter doesn't apply to you, though? Seems like the way you descibe the religious interactions with your family (on these boards), that there is some resentment there.

there was. and there is when I see them being hypocrites and judging others by standards they do not hold themselves to, but that has nothing to do with religion in general being a massive intellectual and philosophical fraud. which it is. but it works for a lot of people (some more than others), and humanity being largely ignorant, superstitious, unscientific and selfish, it looks like we're going to be stuck with it for a long time.

 

[Michchamp]

You guys remember that one South Park episode where Cartman manages to send himself into the future, and the world is dominated by three aethiest sects at war with other as to which sect practices the purist form of aetheism?

That was pretty funny.

I didn't think it was that funny. the only valid point it made is that people will always find something to fight about. while some atheists have argued that religion is the root of violence, I don't agree with that. I think it makes violence a lot easier to justify (who better to sanction murder, and absolve one of any moral penalties than a god?), but an atheist world would not be some sort of utopia without a lot of other things changing.

 

[redandguilty]

sure. but when the church hands down a law/policy, it's a tenet of the religion. this is why I'm saying in states where there is no separation between church/state, the political decisions are inseparable from the tenets of the religion.

I'm limiting it to those instances... I am not saying George W. Bush's political decisions could be an indictment of christianity for example.

I don't see it that way. Just because a group of oligarchs decree something in one nation doesn't mean followers of the same religion in other nations have to follow it; it doesn't even have to apply to people of that same religion in that same nation at other times in history.

A lot of religious people understand how church-states (real church-states) can be a problem. Separation of church and state isn't exclusively an atheist thing. Not remotely.

 

[redandguilty]

You guys remember that one South Park episode where Cartman manages to send himself into the future, and the world is dominated by three aethiest sects at war with other as to which sect practices the purist form of aetheism?

That was pretty funny.

Saw it. I also thought it was funny. Didn't need the Dawkins/Garrison scenes though.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I didn't think it was that funny. the only valid point it made is that people will always find something to fight about. while some atheists have argued that religion is the root of violence, I don't agree with that. I think it makes violence a lot easier to justify (who better to sanction murder, and absolve one of any moral penalties than a god?), but an atheist world would not be some sort of utopia without a lot of other things changing.

Maybe it wasn't as funny as the Image of Muhammed/Family guy two part episode, but I thought it was pretty good.

I thought the prank phone calls to the past were pretty funny.

 

[Michchamp]

i forgot about those.

it seemed to me like when they started writing the episode, they thought to themselves "These atheists have been getting ahead of themselves. Let's take this Dawkins guy down a peg." ...And then they actually learned more about him halfway through, and were like, "oh. our bad. he's not a demagogue and he's actually a pretty reasonable guy."

there are some public atheists who seem to have made a career of it. like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (before he died). certainly a guy giving speeches and selling books could start to look a little like a religion... but at least they're urging people to use their brains, instead of "believing" and accepting things based on faith. so it can't be that bad.

 

[KAWDUP]

there was. and there is when I see them being hypocrites and judging others by standards they do not hold themselves to, but that has nothing to do with religion in general being a massive intellectual and philosophical fraud. which it is. but it works for a lot of people (some more than others), and humanity being largely ignorant, superstitious, unscientific and selfish, it looks like we're going to be stuck with it for a long time.

I understand now - I cannot tell a lie that I thought of you when I used the term bitter agnostic - I can no longer make that case even on semantic terms.

I differ from you in one aspect. ". . . humanity being largely ignorant, superstitious, unscientific and selfish . . . " - I like to believe there is a rather large cross-over between religious people and those that don't exhibit any of those qualities I quoted. Like anything else there are gradations for each of those negative qualites. To what would you attribute the obvious intelligence of some of the folks that post here that still believe in a deity.

 

[redandguilty]

i forgot about those.

it seemed to me like when they started writing the episode, they thought to themselves "These atheists have been getting ahead of themselves. Let's take this Dawkins guy down a peg." ...And then they actually learned more about him halfway through, and were like, "oh. our bad. he's not a demagogue and he's actually a pretty reasonable guy."

there are some public atheists who seem to have made a career of it. like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens (before he died). certainly a guy giving speeches and selling books could start to look a little like a religion... but at least they're urging people to use their brains, instead of "believing" and accepting things based on faith. so it can't be that bad.

I agree with the general impressions of Dawkins vs Hitchens. Dawkins is on my list of authors I'd like to get around to and Hitchens isn't.

 

[Michchamp]

I understand now - I cannot tell a lie that I thought of you when I used the term bitter agnostic - I can no longer make that case even on semantic terms.

:ugh:

... To what would you attribute the obvious intelligence of some of the folks that post here that still believe in a deity.

Hmmm... well, here's the way I think about it: Most people on earth are born into religion/religious families, so regardless of intelligence, there's already a presumption that they will be believers. people will follow what they've been taught, as their family/culture creates and enforces certain religious beliefs and traditions.

the more intelligent end of the "curve" will be more naturally inquisitive and to some varying degree skeptical. The degree of skepticism necessary to overcome the pull of religion/tradition is a factor of either sheer brilliance (people like Einstein, Nietzsche, Sartre, etc.) or some event that they experience that causes them to question their beliefs and seek out alternative information. I think skepticism is necessary; exposure to effective arguments against religion/god - by itself - is not really a factor, since true believers are essentially "deaf" to anything that runs counter to their worldview.

so, most people of average-to-above-average intelligence, from happy families, that practice a more mild form of religion that accommodates most of the usual human vices to some degree (drinking, smoking, using electricity, dancing, etc.) will probably go on believing all their lives, because why not? they fit in happily with their immediate family/culture, and nation as a whole. no need to rock the boat

 

[Michchamp]

I agree with the general impressions of Dawkins vs Hitchens. Dawkins is on my list of authors I'd like to get around to and Hitchens isn't.

Dawkins is an actual scientist. Hitchens was just a journalist/commentator/drunk.

 

[tinselwolverine]

so, most people of average-to-above-average intelligence, from happy families, that practice a more mild form of religion that accommodates most of the usual human vices to some degree (drinking, smoking, using electricity, dancing, etc.) will probably go on believing all their lives, because why not? they fit in happily with their immediate family/culture, and nation as a whole. no need to rock the boat

And smoke dope, and also fuck multiple sexual partners over the course of their lives.

So don't forget those things, too; they're very important.