Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If your only goal is to mock, then you are just a donkey cave. Atheism has nothing to do with that.

Oh, mockery is pretty big in the atheist community. You should go to the Oklahoma Free Thought Convention in June. I believe it's in your city actually.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Delicious irony.

Irony?

There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.

In other news; The guy running the "Atheist Church" in London seems like a bellend.

 Medium of Death wrote:
There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.

In other news; The guy running the "Atheist Church" in London seems like a bellend.

And as a Christian I will also readily admit that militant Christians can be just as horrible and hurtful to the "brand".

donkey-caves are donkey-caves; no matter their creed, faith, or lack thereof.

 d-usa wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.

In other news; The guy running the "Atheist Church" in London seems like a bellend.

And as a Christian I will also readily admit that militant Christians can be just as horrible and hurtful to the "brand".

donkey-caves are donkey-caves; no matter their creed, faith, or lack thereof.

True that.

 Manchu wrote:

Jurgen Habermas wrote:Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk.

Exalted!!

Gonna have to read more of this guy.


GG

Why shouldn't secularists push their agenda? The religious have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. You oppress people.

 generalgrog wrote:

Gonna have to read more of this guy.

You will almost certainly be disappointed, or you should be.

 Albatross wrote:
Why shouldn't people push their agenda? People have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. People oppress people.

Fix'd.

The issue isn't secularists pushing their agenda, ignoring that a secularist and an atheist are not the same thing (though by their very nature atheists probably end up being secularists). The problem here is the perfect storm of self-satisfaction that these specific atheists are (made all the smugger by pretty much doing everything a religion does while claiming not to be a religion and espouses a world view that would make gathering in such a manner pointless).

 LordofHats wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Why shouldn't people push their agenda? People have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. People oppress people.

Fix'd.

The issue isn't secularists pushing their agenda, ignoring that a secularist and an atheist are not the same thing (though by their very nature atheists probably end up being secularists). The problem here is the perfect storm of self-satisfaction that these specific atheists are (made all the smugger by pretty much doing everything a religion does while claiming not to be a religion and espouses a world view that would make gathering in such a manner pointless).

QFT. Atheists often cry wolf about being oppressed by religious people. A more enlightened response to say that of the many tools used by wicked people to oppress others religion is one including the state as church forms of secular atheism.
Also there tends to be too little distinction between 'oppression' because there happens to be an church in your town that actually doesn't do anything than hold Sunday services and fetes and radical mosques that want you to convert or die. It would be like lumping all politicians in with the fascists as 'the same'.

 dogma wrote:

 generalgrog wrote:

Gonna have to read more of this guy.

You will almost certainly be disappointed, or you should be.

Lol, isn't that the truth.

 d-usa wrote:
What is it with irony today?

It finally got ironed out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If your only goal is to mock, then you are just a donkey cave. Atheism has nothing to do with that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Two articles caught my eye today, the first is a suggested "10 Virtues for Atheists" by philosopher Alain de Boton.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/10-new-virtues-for-atheists-alain-de-botton-unveils-new-manifesto-8479256.html

The second was this report on an "Atheist church" in London.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945

Nice, thanks for both stories. I'm not sure Boton's virtues offer anything really meaningful, other than rebranding humanist ideas into atheist ones, though I do like his emphasis on more positive, less dreary values.

The second story is an interesting one. I like the idea of non-religious community gatherings. I think it's a really important, human thing to desire ritual gatherings, and with a growing number of people not finding what they want in church attendance, I think it's good that non-religious organisations might offer a non-religious gathering. That said, I'm not sure of the value in branding it atheist specifically. Is it not possible for a person of faith to come along because they're interested in Dark Matter? Wouldn't it be better to call it a non-religious gathering*?


*Well, something a lot catchier than 'non-religious gathering'. You can see why I'm not in marketing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Mockery. I was a Christian for over 20 years and now that I'm an atheist it's hard not to mock. Things like talking snakes/donkeys, floating zoos, giants, 900 year old men, ect, are really open game for mockery. I think a lot of it has to do with my feeling of being duped for the vast majority of my life. If something like this gather of mockery was near me, I'd definitely go at least a few times.

To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.

You can interpret it any way you like, but I think that if it's divinely inspired by a perfect deity that it should be fairly clear what the message is. The fact that it can be interpreted to the point that 40,000 denominations are warranted is a testament to it's unreliability.
Keep in mind though, Sebster, a lot of people take the Bible as truth (since it says so in the scripture. Well... again, depending on how you translate it). My Grandma read the Bible 8 times through, believed every word and died believing every word. Stories like Noah's ark and the talking snake are routinely tought to impressionable young children around the world. Most Christians simply interpret it into whatever makes believing in it easier for them.

Both of my parents went to church from a very young age, both are in their 60's now. They were shocked when I told them I had become an atheist. Of course we had many talks and at one point my Dad confessed to me that he never even considered atheism as a choice. Sad eh? A 62 year old man not realizing he had a choice as to whether or not to believe in the Bible. It's an indoctrination in some parts of the country.

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
You can interpret it any way you like, but I think that if it's divinely inspired by a perfect deity that it should be fairly clear what the message is. The fact that it can be interpreted to the point that 40,000 denominations are warranted is a testament to it's unreliability.
Keep in mind though, Sebster, a lot of people take the Bible as truth (since it says so in the scripture. Well... again, depending on how you translate it). My Grandma read the Bible 8 times through, believed every word and died believing every word. Stories like Noah's ark and the talking snake are routinely tought to impressionable young children around the world. Most Christians simply interpret it into whatever makes believing in it easier for them.

Both of my parents went to church from a very young age, both are in their 60's now. They were shocked when I told them I had become an atheist. Of course we had many talks and at one point my Dad confessed to me that he never even considered atheism as a choice. Sad eh? A 62 year old man not realizing he had a choice as to whether or not to believe in the Bible. It's an indoctrination in some parts of the country.

Yeah. I think the problem really comes from teaching 'what is' rather than 'what I believe'. And then when teaching that, teaching only one very narrow, literalist view of Christianity. The faith is presented with a 6,000 year old earth, talking snake, boat with every animal on board, and you accept all of that as well as Jesus, or you leave Christianity entirely.

The idea that the bible is a complex, subjective text with many possible interpretations, because it is representing a complex, subjective world (both physical and spiritual) just isn't allowed as an option. And that means for a lot of folk, when it becomes clear that a lot of the stories just make no sense given what we know of the world, people leave the faith entirely.

I mean, I'm not trying to speculate too much on your position, or question your choice at all, I'm just saying from a few things I've read it seems a lot of people go straight from rejecting the young earth, creationist style christianity they were taught, straight to rejecting Christianity entirely.

I can understand the warning about I driving away. I just don't agree with his determination that it is okay to demonize and mock the whole of Christianity because be feels duped by a very specific subgroup.

I don't hold all atheists accountable for the actions of some militant jerks.

 d-usa wrote:
I can understand the warning about I driving away. I just don't agree with his determination that it is okay to demonize and mock the whole of Christianity because be feels duped by a very specific subgroup.

I don't hold all atheists accountable for the actions of some militant jerks.

I agree exactly. I don't hold Christians accountable for the actions of some obnoxious jerks, either.

Can we hold hands now?

 d-usa wrote:
Can we hold hands now?

By asking you ruined the moment.

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Can we hold hands now?

By asking you ruined the moment.

Stupid atheist...

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Can we hold hands now?

By asking you ruined the moment.

Stupid atheist...

The hell with you Christian. Religious intolerance is back on.

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Can we hold hands now?

By asking you ruined the moment.

Stupid atheist...

The hell with you Christian. Religious intolerance is back on.

That's the stupidest insult ever, you don't even believe in hell.

Well done Sebster, funniest thing I have ever read here.

As for this aethiest group thing that some seem so taken by, they already existed here in large numbers - they are called pubs!

I'm not sure of the reasoning for loosing the bar or pool table but it's not something I can get on board with.

As I was saying to the local vicar in the pub the other day....D'oh!

Oh god, those two articles... I don't even.
First off, commandments, seriously? In atheism? It just doesn't work.
One of the beautiful things about atheism is being able to choose what's right and wrong and no one is gonna torture you for all eternity. We rely on laws and human good will to make society a nice place. There should'nt be any commandments. How could these commandments reasonably apply to all atheist? There is no uniting factor to keep atheists together.
Secondly, an atheist church. Really?
Why would you want to hold your disbelieving sessions in an old church? Why would you need to have atheism meetings to begin with? There isn't much to say. In fact, the meetings probably doesn't have anything to do with atheism at all except for the clear lack of god. I get a lack of god from my school too, does that make my school an atheist school?
Nah, it doesn't sound like this church has anything to do with atheism at all, unless they actually spend their entire sessions talking about how god didn't create everything. If they don't then they should just call it a meeting. Perhaps "meeting with no religious strings" if they push it. And they should probably have them in a place with less religious significance, like a theatre or something.

Sigh. Sorry for the rant everyone. I just got so butthurt and mad and needed to get it all out.
I guess this is how it feels to be offended. Oh my.

 d-usa wrote:
That's the stupidest insult ever, you don't even believe in hell.

Oh yeah,

Well played.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 The CF wrote:
Oh god, those two articles... I don't even.
First off, commandments, seriously? In atheism? It just doesn't work.

If you read the list, you'll see that commandments is really just playing with words. They're more like principle or suggested virtues. They're not presented as unquestionable religious orders that must be followed or else, but are presented as, as you say later on, 'human good'.

The point being that one not only can but should discuss what makes for a virtuous life, whether they are religious or not. If a person is not religion and so doesn't get their ethical principles from there, some kind of humanist principles could be beneficial.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
Why shouldn't people push their agenda? People have impact upon our lives and it is frankly undeserved, unjustifiable and unwelcome. You don't like mockery? Suck it up. People oppress people.

Fix'd.

The issue isn't secularists pushing their agenda, ignoring that a secularist and an atheist are not the same thing (though by their very nature atheists probably end up being secularists).

No, it isn't 'fix'd'. You don't get to just hand-wave the years of ignorance and servitude religion has kept the human race in. The same goes for all the women denied control over their own bodies, and same-sex couples denied equality. That is very real oppression and it has its basis in religious dogma. And that's just here in the West, today.

I didn't say that secularists and atheists were the same thing, I was pointing out the real cause for people like Frazzled to desperately find something in this story to be offended about - they feel threatened by the secular agenda. Good. They should be. We are a threat to their way of life.

The problem here is the perfect storm of self-satisfaction that these specific atheists are (made all the smugger by pretty much doing everything a religion does while claiming not to be a religion and espouses a world view that would make gathering in such a manner pointless).

Once again, suck it up. We haven't started killing people or anything.

 Albatross wrote:
They should be. We are a threat to their way of life.

and

 Albatross wrote:

Once again, suck it up. We haven't started killing people or anything.

Yet....

We have already had secular atheist society under communism and it stinks. All the bigotry but none of the benefits. the early church hadn't killed anyone either, its what comes afterwards.

One of the great tragedies that has occured is for atheism to hijack the word 'reason', what they should be using to define their outlook is 'dogma', especially those who call themselves an enemy of religion, no matter how peaceful they appear. Sure Hitchens and our Albatross here arent/werent going to persecute them. But when atheism wants societal change and society doesn't change the way they want it someone will move to stage two and apply pressure. To some extent we are already there.

Religious hatred is the result of political pressures to use the human mass that the movement contains as a powerbase. Sooner or later this is wielded against people of opposing viewpoints. The big disadvantage the human race faces with atheism being the religious-political unit is that it has nothing positive to offer. Other religious choices offer a faith in return for rejection of other choices, atheism only offers the rejection of other choices, so you have the apostasy without the community.

This might explain why it took a considerable time for most major religions to turn from an initial benign stage to one where the religious movement was subverted for political ends. With the atheist state the people behind the religious preferences descended into savagery almost immediately. In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.

Medium of Death wrote:There are Atheists and Militant Atheists. The Militant ones are those who just can't get on with their own life, feel the need to bash religion and belittle it at any given opportunity. Richard Dawkins is a prime example of this, while he's a very intelligent man he comes across as a Militant Atheist douche sometimes. If you don't believe in a God, or follow any religion what does it matter that others do? I think as long as the law continues to move away from religious precedence there really isn't a problem.

The thing is, as much as someone like Dawkins can come off as an donkey-cave at times, at the very least, the input of people like him is important as a voice to stand up against absolutely silly and unreasonable things that do affect other people. Things like religious indoctrination and education, especially in secular environments (I'm sure we all know what discussion I'm getting at, and that's not one for here) are things can get off a lot more freely without a voice to call them out.

sebster wrote:

 Lt. Coldfire wrote:
Mockery. I was a Christian for over 20 years and now that I'm an atheist it's hard not to mock. Things like talking snakes/donkeys, floating zoos, giants, 900 year old men, ect, are really open game for mockery. I think a lot of it has to do with my feeling of being duped for the vast majority of my life. If something like this gather of mockery was near me, I'd definitely go at least a few times.

To all the Christians out there Lt. Coldfire's story there should read as warning bell about why insisting that the bible is literally true drives away people who might otherwise be good Christians. Insist that the ludicrous must be believed, and that it is just as important as the moral message, and you lose people from the faith.

Yes, I find this to be quite notable. As someone who's an atheist that was raised without any religious background stressed upon me by my parents (my grandparents were quite religious, and my grandfather was and still is an incredibly bigoted religious old coot, but their impact on my beliefs is negligible), and I find myself to be much more tolerant and respectful of the beliefs of others than other atheists I knew who grew up with religion in their lives.

All that said, the idea of an "atheist church" is stupid. The only thing atheism contests is the absence of a god. There is literally no other underlying principle, which is why you can have atheists who still follow a religion. Granted, in some areas where secularism is persecuted by the public at large, it would be useful to have communities for people to get support if their facing alienation from their friends and families for a disparity or lack of religious values, but there's no need for a supposedly secular circle jerk. What's more, interests in things like science and books have nothing to do with atheism, and should be open to all people regardless of religious point of view.

 Orlanth wrote:
. In fact I can't think of any atheist state which can can be described as benign, whether from the time of the French Communards or Maoist China.

While I can't think of any atheist state which has had the stability to be benign. Its easy to claim that for example Maoist China or the USSR were evil becuase they were atheists yet that completely ignores the real reasons why these regimes were so oppressive.