I don't know why you would want to meet other atheists and non-believers in their physical forms anyway. They're best if they're just kept as lines of text on a screen. That way you distill their essence into their pure reason and factual knowledge about things that are true. And it doesn't provide a visible target for religious people to say "You have a religion as well".

Yep, I think a lot of people make their deeper thinking, existential decisions out of public.

You have too many emotions to contend with when you are not relatively anonymous.

It's why there are are far more Internet warriors - they do not particularly care for the consequences of their actions.

This enables more trolling, but can also enable more truth.

I find the most truth is in the person that isn't watched or judged... or rather doesn't care about others' judgements.

I don't think Atheists should have a church because its not a belief system.

(February 6, 2013 at 6:23 pm)victor4128 Wrote: I don't think Atheists should have a church because its not a belief system.

It is a philosophy of description, but it only exists through the religious and supernatural claims of others as a rejection of them.

(February 6, 2013 at 6:33 pm)Zone Wrote:

(February 6, 2013 at 6:23 pm)victor4128 Wrote: I don't think Atheists should have a church because its not a belief system.

It is a philosophy of description, but it only exists through the religious and supernatural claims of others as a rejection of them.

It can go further than that for some though.

I can reject everyone else's claims and be agnostic. I can make my own claims that there will be no god in the future and be an atheist.

I realise this isn't the view of every atheist, however it is the view of enough so that I cannot associate with the label fully (6-7/7 on a Dawkins scale).

So it's a social club then.

Just because it's run by someone who looks like a character from a Monty Python sketch hardly makes it newsworthy. BBC journalism hits a new low in pointlessness.

Zone Wrote:Perhaps they ought to be called Temples of Reason.

I thought they were called Libraries.

---

Those could all be books about the theology or Fairies.



That a first person account there, you don't get that in the gospels.

Welcome to my ignore list Zone..... you have nothing to contribute.

(February 4, 2013 at 2:20 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945

I thought the best part about being an atheist was not having to go to places like this.

Haha, we have a much better physicist at our church! Plus our priest isn't an atheist!!

---

(February 4, 2013 at 3:23 pm)Zone Wrote: The worlds very first computer was made in ancient Greece as well. It ran on clockwork and tracked the course of heavenly bodies, the year and the seasons.



They weren't too far from reaching an equivalent our Enlightenment era.

The Antikythera Mechanism is not a computer, it's totally wrong to say it is. It's a clock/calendar (yes, including an "astronomical calendar"). We do not know who invented it, thus we don't know whether it comes from Ancient Greece or Alexandria, Egypt. And both are equally likely.

Big Ben is far more impressive technologically and mechanically, it contains more gears/moving parts than the AM does, do you think that makes Big Ben a computer?

Also, it's entirely possible to construct an astronomical clock like the AM from water instead of gears. A Ctesibius water clock (clepsydra) could have been constructed to do exactly the same thing as what the AM achieves, do you think that would be a computer?

The world's first computer was made in 1936. Although Charles Babbage indeed invented the computer a full century earlier, he failed to ever build one, and his son Henry Babbage only ever built 6 demonstration pieces of the no. 1 difference engine, which in itself is not a computer (they simply served to demonstrate that the Babbage Engine would work as a computer if ever built).