I feel like I'm learning a lot from you guys, so far we've already covered "burden of proof", and the general mindset as to why atheists become atheist, i.e. it is the logical position, we're all born atheists, etc. Good stuff, but the last thread raised one question that I wonder about coming from the Christian side of things. In Christian circles the question is often raised, "if atheists don't believe in God, why do they bother arguing with Christians?" Of course I would say this question is a little off-base to begin with. Saying "atheists do this" is like saying you all got together and decided a single way of doing things you would all follow. I have seen some atheists who would say they don't care much either way, and some who seem to be evangelistic. It's a big group, just like in Christianity you wouldn't say "Christians hate gay people" because while there is a group of "Christians" of about 200 in Kansas that does, there are tens of millions of Christians in denominations that gladly welcome gays and lesbians with no reservations, treating them just like anybody else. So when I have questions like, "why do atheists think this?" please keep in mind that I mean, why do some atheists think that way? I want to avoid sounding like I'm lumping you all together, I recognize there are many different groups within atheism. So what was on my mind was, "what do atheists think of the church?" But let me clarify that.

I was wondering: What do you personally think of the Christian church, or some specific groups within it? and also, What do you see as the typical atheist view of the Church? Do you think there are any good things about having the church around? Do you think it's largely neutral or irrelevant? Do you think it's a very negative thing? Is the Church something that has to be opposed, or can you coexist with? What effect do you think the church has had on the world historically and what effect do you think it's having now?

I know that's a bundle of questions, but anything you want to jump in on is fine. In this thread once again I'm trying to understand how you see things, so I won't be rebutting any posts. However you can feel free to ask me any questions about our differing views of the church. I've had a lot of exposure to a lot of different church traditions so maybe I can offer a different perspective than you've traditionally heard. In any case I really appreciate how much input I've gotten, and I look forward to hearing from you.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: I have seen some atheists who would say they don't care much either way, and some who seem to be evangelistic. It's a big group, just like in Christianity you wouldn't say "Christians hate gay people" because while there is a group of "Christians" of about 200 in Kansas that does, there are tens of millions of Christians in denominations that gladly welcome gays and lesbians with no reservations, treating them just like anybody else.

This is true for the majority of any social group i would think?

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: So when I have questions like, "why do atheists think this?" please keep in mind that I mean, why do some atheists think that way? I want to avoid sounding like I'm lumping you all together, I recognize there are many different groups within atheism. So what was on my mind was, "what do atheists think of the church?" But let me clarify that.

It is not that there are "atheists" as there are...baptists, methodists, mormons, anglicans or catholics, jews (assorted varieties) muslims (even MOOR assorted varieties).
Atheism = No God/s believed in ...PERIOD

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: I was wondering: What do you personally think of the Christian church, or some specific groups within it?

Which of the above varieties are you referring to?

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: and also, What do you see as the typical atheist view of the Church?

Precursor to an online social network

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Do you think there are any good things about having the church around?

Great for pedophiles, murderers, rapist, thieves thugs and the power hungry

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Do you think it's largely neutral or irrelevant?

The church?? or Religion in general???

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Do you think it's a very negative thing? Is the Church something that has to be opposed, or can you coexist with?

Can YOU coexist with something that robs YOU of your right to free thinking??


Retardation of the species called man. Causing more of the grief it has spread over the past 2000years of darkness.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: I know that's a bundle of questions, but anything you want to jump in on is fine. In this thread once again I'm trying to understand how you see things, so I won't be rebutting any posts. However you can feel free to ask me any questions about our differing views of the church. I've had a lot of exposure to a lot of different church traditions so maybe I can offer a different perspective than you've traditionally heard. In any case I really appreciate how much input I've gotten, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Thankyou for your kind offer. I am thinking that why "atheists" (as you conceptualise the term) argue with religious doctrine and it's exponents is that some of us just can't take the hypocritical idiocy anymore, the rest just can't be fook'd

Hope this helps you

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: It's a big group, just like in Christianity you wouldn't say "Christians hate gay people" because while there is a group of "Christians" of about 200 in Kansas that does, there are tens of millions of Christians in denominations that gladly welcome gays and lesbians with no reservations, treating them just like anybody else.

And there are also tens of millions of Christians who don't want gays to have equal rights. I understand your point though. It's a mixed bag.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: I was wondering: What do you personally think of the Christian church, or some specific groups within it?

I personally think the Christian Church is an establishment set up for power and social control. It plays on the fears and emotions of people to achieve its goals, all the while being subsidized by the government and dancing around constitutional amendments. Its doctrines are wacky, incorrect and contradictory, and it banks on something that is by definition unverifiable. It also promotes the idea that people are inherently sick, but the church is the cure - all based on a book that is the world's longest running game of telephone.

It's quite a shit show.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: and also, What do you see as the typical atheist view of the Church?

I'm not sure what a typical atheist is.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Do you think there are any good things about having the church around?

Free food and shelter for homeless, social gatherings, nice place for weddings and reflection. However, the church isn't actually necessary for any of this.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Do you think it's largely neutral or irrelevant? Do you think it's a very negative thing?

I think any establishment that trains people to turn off their reasoning skills is a negative thing.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: Is the Church something that has to be opposed, or can you coexist with?

Most of the time, I'm fine with it. If someone asks me about my beliefs, I'll tell them, but I'm not going out and picketing a church because frankly, I have better things to do.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: What effect do you think the church has had on the world historically and what effect do you think it's having now?

It promotes willful ignorance, faulty reasoning, blind obedience.

(November 10, 2010 at 3:37 am)coffeeveritas Wrote: I know that's a bundle of questions, but anything you want to jump in on is fine. In this thread once again I'm trying to understand how you see things, so I won't be rebutting any posts. However you can feel free to ask me any questions about our differing views of the church. I've had a lot of exposure to a lot of different church traditions so maybe I can offer a different perspective than you've traditionally heard. In any case I really appreciate how much input I've gotten, and I look forward to hearing from you.

No prob. I appreciate your willingness to ask questions. I have one for you:

How do you determine what is real and what is not?

(November 10, 2010 at 4:13 am)tavarish Wrote: How do you determine what is real and what is not?

Reality is a tricky question, I can't merely say that what is real is the world of my five senses. Sight for example results from light being flipped upside down, passing through a semi-opaque substance, being deflected off of ganglion cells, and hitting whatever light receptors aren't obscured by the connection of the optic nerve to the back of the eyeball. The actual raw data we get from our eyes is upside down, blurry, full of little holes, and it has a big empty spot. The reason we don't see like that is because the data is processed by the lateral geniculate nucleus, superior colliculus, and other parts of the brain until the image is compiled into what we see. So if we think that for example, the wall we're looking at has three little holes in it, we might be wrong, because there's actually a little blind spot in our vision that our brain fills in with information from the surrounding area. So if it's in the right spot, there can be a little hole in the wall that is completely invisible to you because your brain is filling in the missing pieces so it actually looks like the wall is perfectly fine there. Of course this does not mean that the hole is false, ultimately it's there, and other people may or may not be able to see it, but you can't. The same holds true with the other senses, we can hallucinate just about anything, and even when our senses are correct we still don't understand how the world is in it's raw form because we experience everything through our consciousness. So evaluating what is real ultimately supersedes what I can experience with my senses. I do believe that in reality we are relating to something real through our senses, but our senses are very small doorways to a very large reality.

You could argue that the collective experience of life as shared among the humanity community sheds some light on reality. The outside perspective of others correcting our personal blindness. As we exist in community the fact that we successfully relate concepts to each other reinforces the idea that those concepts are universal. So in our larger community we try to lay the foundations of an absolute understanding of the universe and existence. But once again we are limited by being human. We cannot, for example, see in the infrared spectrum, the best we can do is make a device to translate that spectrum into one we can see. We can never know what it is like to see that spectrum, or to be able to "see" sound like some animals. It's not only a sensory limitation, but a cultural one. Cultures see things differently, and however homogenizing we think the media can be, we always have different cultural groups that define truth and reality a different way. The vast majority of people will simply assume that their world view is superior without really examining the many facets of the others. This is just cultural arrogance. Psychologically speaking, things like culture have the effect of shrinking the world rather than expanding it. Reality is so vast, and there are so many things we will never understand, that we have to compress existence into a manageable format. So we don't really think about humanity at large, we focus on our group of associations. We don't see all the possibilities in our lives, we focus on our routines and hobbies and the places we usually go. We all have our own setting, and we tend to change it very slowly. We create identities within cultural groups in order to belong to a certain set of ideas, which we tend to conform to closely. We set our cultural groups in opposition to other cultural groups whose ideas are too dissimilar because living with the tension that they may have some valid points is to mind-expanding. We shut our minds to the fact that we have everything to learn about our existence.

What will always be most fundamentally real to any person is their own subjective experience of the life they live, the needs they have, the desires they feel, the questions they have. I think Modern thought tries to say that there is a higher logic beyond this illusion, but it will always be our illusion. One would be wise to remember that the work that gave rise to the Modernist revolution contained the oft quoted phrase, "I think therefore I am." We can't shake this feeling of consciousness, we can't help but feel like us. We experience everything as who we are, and as long as we think about anything we think with ourselves as the thinker. So when it comes down to it the reality that is most "real" to anyone is the one they experience. No one cares about metaphysics when they are losing someone they care about.

So each picture of reality is incomplete, upside-down, and blurry. I have no reason to think any one of them is perfect, but I do know that I have access to several ways of gathering information about what is real, my sensory experience and my own logic (the data I gather about the world personally), the world at large, the story of man as told by history, science, philosophy, the ideas of my community (all the data we take in from our culture/fellow humans), and last, but not by any means least, the more ineffable experience of what it is to be myself, to be this human being that I am, to be in this skin feeling these things I feel. So in my own view, for anything to be considered real it has to do the best job of hanging together within all these different means of seeing reality. To be true it has to the best job of explaining itself within all these contexts. It has to tell the most convincing story. It has to make the most sense out of this mess we live in. So everything that may be real has to be tested in this holistic crucible to be true, but even the crucible is limited. The universe is big, I feel like I'm in a movie and the camera just keeps panning out, and out, and out, out into the atmosphere, into space, the universe. There is so much more to being human than what we can account for with formulas and thought experiments. If you think you have the all the answers, give it enough time and life will humble you. So I can only know what is real to the best of human ability which is actually what most people think of when they think of certainty. I would contend that the human mind cannot hold the nature of existence. I would say that reality is realer than I am, and I can live like that because of what I have seen of the truth.

Wow, that was a big question, but definitely a good one! Thanks for your input!

So which sense did you use to determine god is real?

(November 10, 2010 at 8:29 am)ib.me.ub Wrote: So which sense did you use to determine god is real?

The faith gland. It's located just behind the rectum with all the other shit.

Although I do like your answer, it does delve into tangents a bit.

You go more into the fact that you distinguish fact from fantasy, but you never really explain how. You talk about the wealth of knowledge you have at your disposal to make an informed decision, but don't elaborate on exactly how that is done. I didn't ask you anything of certainty, nor did I imply that I held all the answers, I merely asked what method you use to determine and evaluate phenomena in reality.

I'll give you an example:

If I told you you are the indebted to a great celestial leprechaun for subconsciously stealing his invisible gold, by what standard would you assess the validity of that statement?

Quite a long first post, so will focus on the thread title - What is the Christian church good for.

I would say most of the things it is good for does not actually require the church, and non-religious organizations performing the same things can do it better and without trying to contaminate people's brains with God. I'm talking about giving food and clothing to the needy, other charity work, acting as a social network, etc.

So, yes, it does some good things, but nothing that only the church can or does do, and the harm it does to people with its brainwashing, especially to the impressionable young, is unconscionable.

I agree with a lot of what Loki_999 is saying. However, I would like to add that the whole context of the Christian faith revolves around what could (arguably) be called the longest wild goose chase in the history of mankind.

While the church does charitable things for others, the amount of money that goes directly to the church must also be considered. Remember: God demands 10% of your money. He doesn't say where or how much of that money actually goes to charitable causes.

(November 10, 2010 at 2:25 pm)Loki_999 Wrote: Quite a long first post, so will focus on the thread title - What is the Christian church good for.

I would say most of the things it is good for does not actually require the church, and non-religious organizations performing the same things can do it better and without trying to contaminate people's brains with God. I'm talking about giving food and clothing to the needy, other charity work, acting as a social network, etc.

So, yes, it does some good things, but nothing that only the church can or does do, and the harm it does to people with its brainwashing, especially to the impressionable young, is unconscionable.

This. ^

I don't doubt that the church does some good. But it dosen't do anything that can't be done by other less corrupting and brainwashing organisations.