Atheist Church

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

You've made this point several times now, but I think we're finally at the point where we don't have to sit back and take the BS heaped on us in the name of religion. Any criticism of that is often seen as 'strident'. You can't expect to be free of criticism when you use your religion of philosophy to tell someone who they can or can't marry or what they can do in the privacy of their homes. People say that, and then get offended when you call them out on it. Well, don't use it as justification. If I use (for example), Karl Marx or Adam Smith or Plato or whoever to make an argument -- clearly the other side has the right to address that source. It can't be exempt from criticism.

If simply verbally addressing someone's philosophy is 'intolerance', that's a pretty watered down meaning of the word tbf. But maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at when you made that point.

Well I think you're completely missing the point. It's fine to say you don't accept an ideology or belief system and to say why you don't, which is criticism. It's quite another to openly disparage that ideology and mock the beliefs of others. It's disprespectful and imo it only detracts from your POV, especially when it's the very thing churches have done (among other things) for centuries.

As you know, I'm far from religious but quite frankly, people can believe in a God if they want to. The can go to church if they want to. The can march down Oxford Street on their hands at Mardi Gras time in crotchless chaps if they want to. They can worship Satan for all I care. I don't give a ****. But it doesn't advance the debate at all to be disrespectful about other peoples' beliefs. In fact, it does the opposite IMO. Sure, if someone wants to try and foist their beliefs on me, I'll get the ****s with it. I don't want a bar of that or of those people. But this superior schtick that everyone thinks is so cool in atheists atm is the same kind of superior attitude that mainstream religions engage in.

If you want to be an atheist, just ****ing be one. Make the valid point that we (Australia in this case) live in a secular society and shouldn't have to pander to religious beliefs. But do it in a way which recognises the rights of people to have their own beliefs and practices, leaving out those which subjugate or abuse others in any sense.

I know it's fine line, and I know it's the easiest thing in the world to mock religion. It's like poking fun of the slow or weak kid in high school. But it's not right imo. I mean these people who laud these ****wits like Dawkins (I think is his name). FMD he had a one hour go with Cardinel Pell here a few years ago on tv, and they just left the show looking as stupidly obstinate and closed minded as each other. And Dawkins (if it was him - it might have been some other **** who everyone loves for being a rude ****er) looked every bit as big a **** as Pell at the end of it.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Well I think you're completely missing the point. It's fine to say you don't accept an ideology or belief system and to say why you don't, which is criticism. It's quite another to openly disparage that ideology and mock the beliefs of others. It's disprespectful and imo it only detracts from your POV, especially when it's the very thing churches have done (among other things) for centuries.

Well, as you say, the point is not that people are against mocking - it's all those 'other things' that really are the root of the problem - hence my problem with the false equivalency.

Originally Posted by Burgey

As you know, I'm far from religious but quite frankly, people can believe in a God if they want to. The can go to church if they want to. The can march down Oxford Street on their hands at Mardi Gras time in crotchless chaps if they want to. They can worship Satan for all I care. I don't give a ****. But it doesn't advance the debate at all to be disrespectful about other peoples' beliefs. In fact, it does the opposite IMO. Sure, if someone wants to try and foist their beliefs on me, I'll get the ****s with it. I don't want a bar of that or of those people. But this superior schtick that everyone thinks is so cool in atheists atm is the same kind of superior attitude that mainstream religions engage in.

If you want to be an atheist, just ****ing be one. Make the valid point that we (Australia in this case) live in a secular society and shouldn't have to pander to religious beliefs. But do it in a way which recognises the rights of people to have their own beliefs and practices, leaving out those which subjugate or abuse others in any sense.

But I don't know of anyone who is saying, in the slightest, that people don't have the right to their beliefs. Whatever they may be. The issue is against them using those beliefs to justify public policy and then expecting those beliefs to be immune from challenge.

[Burgey]

Well I think they're two different points. And I've no problem with the proposition that the days of religion dictating laws to a secular society shouldbe well and truly over.

But you often hear people laughing about some religious bloke or other's "imaginary friend", and mocking that they live their life because of what that imaginary friend tells them. it's that sort of **** that I think is piss poor, and there's no need for it.

It's the modern equivalent of christians referring to indigineous people as Godless heathens. I'd like to think we're a bit better than that.

[Howe_zat]

This does sound more like a case of self-celebration than taking a stance on some social issue.

[Uppercut]

According to the article most of the congregation don't actually identify as atheist. It's mostly young white people that are used to spending their Sunday mornings at church but are now feeling a bit alienated by the Christian churches.

[sledger]

With Burge on this one.

[Ruckus]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Well I think they're two different points. And I've no problem with the proposition that the days of religion dictating laws to a secular society shouldbe well and truly over.

But you often hear people laughing about some religious bloke or other's "imaginary friend", and mocking that they live their life because of what that imaginary friend tells them. it's that sort of **** that I think is piss poor, and there's no need for it.

It's the modern equivalent of christians referring to indigineous people as Godless heathens. I'd like to think we're a bit better than that.

Yeah I agree with most of what your saying. I think you were pretty harsh on Dawkins though, and would probably benefit from being more familiar with his work. Most of his points are very reasonable, but he does have a frustrating tendency of coming across as more strident than he intends to. He is definitely one who doesn't suffer fools gladly, and to his detriment, it often means he can turns audiences against him very easily in public debates despite providing perfectly valid arguments.

But yeah, the whole 'mainstreamization' of atheism does annoy the hell out of me. Everything seemingly becomes a 'trend' these days, and it always results in unnecessary prejudice against alternative viewpoints. The internet is definitely the worst of it though. Talking about a church for atheism...

[wellAlbidarned]

Go to church, worship, have your belief in god. That doesn't bother me or 99% of atheists. If you start advocating an idea, policy or philosophy which influenes others and cite your religion as the source, then you're fair game. People don't have to take that ****.

[SJS]

Its amusing.

So if scientists get together or form an institution where they do nothing except discuss the issues they have with non-scientific thought and what needs to be done to promote scientific way of thinking and approaching the quest for knowledge, they would become a 'religion' or would be called dogmatic - would they ?

By the way, it is impossible to argue with those who believe in 'religion' because for some reason, not difficult to understand if you were willing to call a spade a spade, it is impossible to stop them from going round and round without getting onto a logical debate. Here is a fabulous and, for me, hilarious example . . . quite irritating for the couple in the video I am sure . . .

The Idiot Theist

[Anil]

Originally Posted by SJS

By the way, it is impossible to argue with those who believe in 'religion' because for some reason, not difficult to understand if you were willing to call a spade a spade, it is impossible to stop them from going round and round without getting onto a logical debate.

they do it because that (going in circles) is the only way they can sustain even the illusion of an intelligent argument...and they can't get into a logical debate because their arguments are not based on logic or reason...logic obviously cannot lose an argument against faith but not losing is not the same as winning (assuming winning is when your opponent accepts that he/she was wrong) and you can't win against the hamids of this world...

[Agent Nationaux]

There is a reason why it's called blind faith. No one can ever provide supportive evidence to say God exists.

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by SJS

Its amusing.

So if scientists get together or form an institution where they do nothing except discuss the issues they have with non-scientific thought and what needs to be done to promote scientific way of thinking and approaching the quest for knowledge, they would become a 'religion' or would be called dogmatic - would they ?

By the way, it is impossible to argue with those who believe in 'religion' because for some reason, not difficult to understand if you were willing to call a spade a spade, it is impossible to stop them from going round and round without getting onto a logical debate. Here is a fabulous and, for me, hilarious example . . . quite irritating for the couple in the video I am sure . . .

The Idiot Theist

No one is calling them a religion. They are labelling themselves as an Atheist church.

Launched last month, as a gathering for non-believers, it is, in the words of master of ceremonies Sanderson Jones, "part foot-stomping show, part atheist church, all celebration of life.

[MrPrez]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

It seems fairly clear to me that the 'church' is merely the template to get a bunch of like-minded people together, not the birth of a belief system or dogma.

Church basically means "a community functioning as one" iirc.

[MrPrez]

I do see the irony given that church is generally a word attributed to Christianity etc.

[L Trumper]

Originally Posted by MrPrez

I do see the irony given that church is generally a word attributed to Christianity etc.

Yeah, don't understand naming it as church. Just call it a society or congress or something without any religious undertones.