(August 17, 2011 at 7:58 pm)Godnose Wrote:

Quote:Internet forums

TOTALLY irrelevant and COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY not appropriate

Quote:Anonymous internet chatrooms

Brrrrr!

Quote:Internet support chatrooms

Brrrrr!

Quote:Plenty more I'm sure. The fact is that you chose to talk to a priest, there's always another option.

Nope. Nothing I could think of. Nothing you have suggested. It was quite a while ago now and I still cannot think of anywhere else I could have turned to for the kind of advice I needed. But virtually ANY priest or clergy would have worked. I know, it's a shame. It ought to have been possible to find an atheist. That's my point!

Quote:The idea of having an appointed atheist to dish out advice is not an idea that appeals to me at all.

I recognise that. It's a sticking point in the dogma to which you have allowed yourself to become subject. I advise you to liberate yourself from it.

You've dismissed several of the suggestions with just a "Brrrr!" - what does that mean? I've used the internet many times to discuss personal and confidential issues - the options there, you just don't want to use them.

I'm no subject to dogmatism and I find it insulting of you to suggest I am. Where am I supposed to have obtained this dogmatism from?

No, I don't want an atheist church or atheist priests. Religions have temples and hierarchies because they are essentially businesses, something atheism can't be.

Atheism can not supply you with what you want, if you want a secular public service of the type you are suggesting then it is society your gripe is with.

Meh, troll. A current can be a flow, say the current of a river or a current of water. There is no demand for atheist churches, it's brought up by asshats on a constant basis. The functions you suggest atheist replicate have already been assumed by better qualified people than priests. You're being disagreed with belligerently because you are being belligerent.

(August 17, 2011 at 8:38 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: What do you consider a community? People who can actually see each other? I don't actually see my damn neighbors most days, or talk to them, and we're a "community". What makes this NOT a community?

Wow!

I think my brain just exploded!

In 1987 a certain Margaret Thatcher rocked the whole of Britain and much of the Western world by declaring "There is no such thing as society". At the time she was bitterly cahstised for this and as I recall was forced to virtually retract (I think by pretending she had meant something different from what she had actually said).

Now, nearly 25 years later we have just had a week of senseless rioting and looting throughout England and I find myself confronted by someone who, while I assume to be the possessor of a reasonable level of intelligence and to speak in complete earnestness, purports to be unable to grasp the concept of "community".

Wow wow wow... and wow again.

I am going to have to take a bit of time to think about this one...

I feel like Existentialist is back.

When Godnose is done feeling guilty about seeing a theologian that a therapist/counselor could have more than likely helped him with, I'll be ready to argue semantics with him.

(August 17, 2011 at 7:58 pm)Godnose Wrote: Nope. Nothing I could think of. Nothing you have suggested. It was quite a while ago now and I still cannot think of anywhere else I could have turned to for the kind of advice I needed. But virtually ANY priest or clergy would have worked. I know, it's a shame. It ought to have been possible to find an atheist. That's my point!

Frankly that’s a short coming on your part. Fact is there are secular options. You could have spoken to ANY professional therapist or family councilor with exactly the same expectations of confidentiality. Most of who have better qualifications to deal with personal issues than your average clergy.

(August 17, 2011 at 8:45 pm)Skeptic Wrote: Religions have temples and hierarchies because they are essentially businesses, something atheism can't be.

Yeah. Like the USSR wasn't atheist. Oh do come on! This is pure dogmatic BS. Secular society also has its temples - what do you think those massive shopping malls are? What about sports stadia? These are all temples for humans to congregate and express themselves spiritually. Why else would it be possible for a bunch of rather dim witted blokes kicking a ball around achieve the status of being a "beautiful game"?

Quote:Atheism can not supply you with what you want, if you want a secular public service of the type you are suggesting then it is society your gripe is with.

Atheism can't "supply" anything. It is a philosophical reaction to religion. Without religion there would be no atheism. It is an intrinsic condition of atheism that it depends upon the existence of religion for its own existence.

It is indisputable that religion has performed an essential role in the formation of the modern human society, and in my view many specific aspects of religion are an essential requirement for the continuation of cohesive society.

I am NOT saying that atheism needs to adopt religious systems of belief. What I am suggesting is that there are some aspects of religious organisation which greatly contribute towards society, and atheism rejects these aspects at its peril. For if they are indeed essential (as I believe they are) and not provided by secular means, then people will continue to be forced into religion in order to locate them, as they are today.

The obvious answer is for Atheism to accept the need for these various social organs and to work towards their provision in a secular society. For if they are not provided by secular society they will inevitably continue to be provided instead by religious organisations and the consequence will be the impossibility of creating a truly viable secular system of social organisation.

Scripture? Not yanking your chain this time.

You know I'm one well chosen piece of scripture away from blowing Jesus. Would be a shame to miss the opportunity.........

(August 17, 2011 at 9:24 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Frankly that’s a short coming on your part.

Very probably! I am a human being, and like all human beings one thing I have in plenty is shortcomings.

Quote:Fact is there are secular options. You could have spoken to ANY professional therapist or family councilor with exactly the same expectations of confidentiality. Most of who have better qualifications to deal with personal issues than your average clergy.

I had no TIME to figure out how to find a family councillor or whatever. I didn't even know there was such a thing as a family councillor - i still would not have the faintest idea of how to go about getting one. It would certainly involve appointments and phone calls and arrangements and umming and form filling and all the usual - whereas to get to the local minister all I had to do was give him a bell. No appointments, no forms, no red tape, none of all that. Gave him a bell, told him it was an urgent personal matter on which i needed his advice, and he came round within a day. Bang. Just like that. No way could I have organised that with a therapist or councillor or whatever.

Well, next time you need surgery,I know a guy. He doesn't have PHD, but he owns several very sharp filet knives and a Cessna. He can be anywhere you want.

(August 17, 2011 at 9:13 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: I feel like Existentialist is back.

That some other sucker you chased out and who you are soon going to start accusing me of being?

Quote:When Godnose is done feeling guilty about seeing a theologian that a therapist/counselor could have more than likely helped him with, I'll be ready to argue semantics with him.

No guilt. Why should I feel guilty? I'm an atheist, and if I want to see a priest why shouldn't I? Am I supposed to be scared God will be cross with me? Or what?