Atheism is a religion.

[Zidneya]

Okay I’m back. Sorry I couldn’t answer in the last days but I was busy with work and couldn’t do it.
Lets’ see what I missed……
9 PAGES?!!
Okay I’m gonna try to read it all but let’s see what I can do.

Zidneya, I don't think I follow this either?

Emm well I was mentioning the importance in a atheist life along with the independence, objectivity and freedom that ones achieve when he/she leaves their church(or to be more clear their religion indoctrinated). And then rexbeccarox asked me

Now, what atheist doctrine is out there that would command atheists to do any of the things you just described?

Which I can only describe as a paradox. Why leaving a church if you are gonna continue following commands? Because if you are still gonna follow other doctrines instead of your owns why do leave a church in a first place? Why don’t you stay in the church because the very purpose of leaving is thinking for your own. Atheist aren’t part of any established way of acting.

---

Exactly. "Church" may be evolving to mean "congregation". This is just a matter of semantics. It's really unfortunate that groups of atheists are using the term, given its meaning, but it doesn't mean that the atheist "churches" are adhering to the contents of any religious (probably especially Christian) dogma; and I would be surprised if any have any dogma at all.

Well the girl doesn’t like me so I don’t think that I have any reason whatsoever to repress my thoughts. So here I go.
Okay what you are saying is a wrong conclusion based on a real premise.
Because "Church" may be evolving to mean "congregation," doesn’t justify atheist churches.
Yes it’s truth that in cultures and societies their terms and elements will always be evolving, changing and transforming. It always have happened. Culture has been freely transferred between populations since recorded history began. Is a curry considered British yet? No? Well, how about a cuppa, that quintessential British habit? Tea drinking as an idea (and tea leaves themselves) are an import from China/India back in the Middle Ages, hardly a deep rooted indigenous cultural mainstay. Do proponents of this theory get upset when we import Japanese cartoons like Pokemon for kids in the UK to watch? 'Culture' of most nations in the world is a fluid and ever changing concept. But that doesn’t mean that we know for certain that the term Church will be evolving to mean congregation.
Therefor assuming that "that" is gonna be the outcome is impossible.

---

I have around 400 index cards with plans for a congregational "church" (the building, not the dogma)

One goes by the hand with the other. Because if you are already adding the popular term “church” by simple association of ideas in the minds of people immediately think that if the term church is involved therefore there are other religious implications.

Reb, is there any religious oversight in those places at all?

What do you mean by "religious oversight"?

Cross on the wall, etc ...subtle things.

See.

where intellectuals gather. It's a really fun thought: a sort of meeting place where people donate to learn from scientists and musicians; where there is a daycare where education is important; where people can just get-together and do charitable things, etc.

We have this places in here we called them universities. What you are describing doesn’t necessarily has to be a congregational building. I know many schools, town halls, art galleries and cultural institutions that carry those activities. A meeting place can be any place as long as it is frequented by larger groups of people. It even could be a coffee shop.

---

I just find it weird that we need a common place to celebrate the "default".
The whole world is the default. Those who want to believe in weird shit should go to a special place and congregate with others as they do now in church.

There must be another angle to it......

I totally Agree with you Sir 100%

---

Yeah.
I think I'll never let you lecture me about issues after that statement. Like forever.

Obvious joke genius.

So was mine Einstein.

I can already see the headlines Bryan Fischer saved by an atheist….although I still don't know if it will be seen as a good thing or a bad thing

Seriously don’t you see the confused smiley face?

Please remember that the reason I said you have issues is because you advocate letting another human being

Yeah but in my defense we were talking about a very mean and obnoxious human being(that is both a joke and a reality). Besides didn’t I said?
I can already see the headlines Bryan Fischer saved by an atheist. Were is the letting him die? Because that is the statement that according to you probes that I have issues.

suffer a painful death by not getting him/her medical attention simply because you find their speech objectionable.

I don’t find his speeches objectionable. I find this speeches stupid, cruel, retrograde, and illogic.
So like I said:
I'll never let you lecture me about issue. Like forever.
Now let’s move on.

---

Don't take churches so seriously.

Why not?

If I created the church of Batman would it be taken as a religion? No probably as a joke only

There’s always who is gonna take it seriously. Haven’t you’ve heard of the “Iglesia Maradoniana?” It’s a church dedicated to football player Diego Maradona. One would think that it’s a joke. But of course those who would say that it’s a joke wouldn’t be the ones who were in the middle of the riots that presented in Argentina when they lost their last game.

---

Portland used to have the "Twenty-Four Hour Church of Elvis." It was a collection of integrated pay for show/vending machines and dispensed various trinkets for coins. Is Elvis a religion?

I dunno. From what you are describing no. But I couldn't be 100% sure.

---

But Batman fell and was broken on the knee of Bane, and rose again some days later to purge evil from the city! He sacrificed himself to protect his prophet Gary Oldman from Two-Face lucifer! Praise Master Wayne! Bats be upon him!

WE DON'T PRAISE CRAPPY FILMS THAT DENIGRATES THE BATMAN LEGACY.

Bruce don't quit, That idiot ain't robin and that's the end of story.

---

You mean Sunday Assemblies? It's the media calling them 'atheist churches', not the people doing them.

FINALLLY SOMEONE WHO ADRESS THE POINT, AND ANSWER THE QUESTION. Just one question if it isn’t too much trouble could you give me a citation in which the Sunday Assembly declares they aren’t a church? I mean the media speculation makes sense however until I see a official statement I think is official to assume they are a church.

And ten million churches, temples, and synogogues don't make theism a religion; some atheist meetings with speakers and sing-alongs certainly don't make atheism a religion.

I agree but when you create an atheist church don't think what it means. I want you to think how much it indicates and insinuates. Specially towards society.

I would presume atheists stop going to church because they no longer agree with enough of what that church teaches. Atheists aren't defined by not going to church. They are defined by not believing in God.

I disagree. Leaving your church is every important element of any compromised atheist. It is one of the primordial steps of an atheistic way of life. It’s like a guy who claims he is gay but he won’t be until he starts to pursue his same sex orientation until then it’s just a claim. And so with an atheists one could claim that it’s an atheist but if he continues to be a part of a religious system all that’s ever gonna be is a claim, it is until he leaves his previous beliefs behind that those claims well become a reality.

I always ask the theist who claim atheism is a religion that:
Do we kneel? Because theists kneel.

This seems rather the wrong tack to take. It's not a religion for the same reason theism isn't a religion. It doesn't fit the definition. Atheists in a monarchy might kneel to their king or queen.

Yeah but it’s not the same keeling because you belong to a monarchy that kneeling because you belief in any supernatural entity. I was referring to the cause of kneeling not to the act itself.

Do we gather on Sunday? Because theists do.

Those of us who gather, gather on all kinds of days, depending on what's convenient. Sundays being days off for most of us makes them a prime candidate. Are Seven Day Adventists and Jews any less religious because they gather on a Saturday?

Again I was referring to the cause of the action not to the action itself. You gather on Sundays because you like. Religious gather on Sundays because their Dogma convince them to do it. An referring to your question. I will reply it with another question.
Does the day of gathering of Adventists and Jewish is determinated by their dogmas according to their belief or they just gather because it’s convenient? Because there lies the answer of whether it’s gathering on Saturdays is less or more religious.

Do we seek comfort in a church instead of knowledge? Because theists do that as well.

False dichotomy.

Really? Do tell Please.

The same person could easily find comfort in both

So you are telling me that atheist go to seek comfort in churches?..... Yeah Okay why would we do that?

though knowledge tends to be useful or entertaining rather than comforting.

Then again why would we seek knowledge in church?

Many people find comfort in community and atheists should not be excluded from participating in the communities of their choice.

And aren’t any other places where you can find that comfort instead of a church? Beside we are not excluded by the community.. We exclude ourselves. We abandon church. Not go back whenever we have troubles. Well as long as atheist are compromised with their convictions.

Do we have to pay penitence for breaking our convictions? Because theists pay penitence for breaking their religious convictions, or a promise of penitence.

In my opinion, we ought to make restitution or otherwise compensate those we've wronged, when we can. We certainly should be sorry for it, and reflect on how we can avoid repeating our mistakes where we've hurt others or damaged important relationships.

Yeah but Theist when they seek restitution you can’t always be sure that they do it because they want to or because they are afraid of what gods is gonna do to them. But when an atheist seeks restitution is more meaningful and clearly that he is doing it because he does it because he wants to.
The only thing that could implicate that he is doing it because he is compelled to do it would be a real life treat or repercussion. But if these events don’ts present it selves. It is logically assume that atheist do good because they want to while believers will always have present their future reward and penitence in their minds.

Do we confess? Because theists confess.

When they say 'confession is good for the soul', the implication is that admitting what you've done wrong is psychologically healthy

Really? Because I always thought that good for the soul meant that its beneficial to a non proven spiritual identity that will be examined and judged in your future dead.

it shouldn't be taken so literally that it becomes a solely religious practice. Not going to see a priest is one thing, not copping to being the one who stole the ice cream is another.

Don’t tell that to me you are the one who is mixing the both the ice cream and the priest. Again I was referring to the cause of the action not to the action itself.

Do our good deeds are done to fulfill the promise of a future reward? Because theists say their good deeds will give them a future reward.

You're on to something here, but to nitpick, I fully anticipate that when I do something good, I will feel good for having done it.

Feeling good and being rewarded are two different things.

That's a future reward.

Yeah but theists actually expect a significant reward from their deity.

Do we get our morals from hearing strangers reading lectures? Because theists use their sermons and texts as a sources of moral dogmas.

Again, tend to agree broadly with you here, but lectures have certainly informed my thinking about morality.

Yeah but I think we can both agree that the level of importance that compromised theist give to their religious lessons are more important to them that what they learn from other real life.

Apparently I can't never use that statement again do I?

I recommend: 'First, prove theism is a religion

PROOVE THAT THEISM IS A RELIGION?!!

YEAH. Because that subject hasn’t been confirmed in the past.

, then we can talk about atheism being one'.

When did I ever said atheism was a religion. The very reason why I am upset of atheist churches is because I don’t think atheism is a religion. Don’t you read or what?

So technically that doesn’t makes us a religion but a…cult?
A lodge?

A club. A fraternal organization. What it says on the label.

Really because the label says church. Atheist church.

Then why they did attached the name church? I mean do you think that’s the kind of atheism that we should pass to our future generations?

You should take that up with the people labeling it a 'church'. That's not what the people involved are calling it.

I can’t I don’t have their contact info. Why do you think I made a thread about atheist churches to see what our fellow users can say about it.

---

Ah I dunno maybe it's because.
That we don't believe in God?

So a 'church' that doesn't involve believing in God, if you want to join in with the theists and the press in calling them churches, shouldn't pose a problem for an atheist.

Ehh Yeah. It is if we what to make it very clear to the world(THE WORLD! NOT US) that atheism ain’t a religion. Okay I dunno if you read bad or I wrote bad because so far you’ve misinterpreted a lot of things I’ve said so I’m gonna put you very simple.

People(theist, naïve, ignorant and non familiar to atheism) promote the idea(silly idea) that atheism is a religion. That is wrong. However if this atheists churches continue to grow without a name change. That only will be counter productive to atheism. That is my concerns please tell me you get it. Because I don’t know how else I can’t explain it to you.

Nor we want to be part of a religious system that: condones atrocities in it's name, encourage people to conform with ignorance and superstition and let a bunch two thousand year old scriptures tell us how to live our lives.

Humanism doesn't seem to be such a system.

Ahhh seriously I need a facepalm for this.
Now I know how Losty feels.
Please pay attention.
I sad:
We don’t want to be part of a religious system.
I’m not asking you nor anyone else what system could we be a part of. I don’t want you to name me what system can we adopt. I am saying what system WE DON’T WANT TO BE PART OF.

Those are pretty good reasons of why leaving church don't you think?

Yes. They don't seem to be very good reasons to avoid participating in a Sunday Assembly or a Unitarian Universalist service, though.

It is if society continues to call them Atheist church

---

Command atheist to do? Let me see if I understand this you are asking me to name or search an atheist doctrine that command us to do something? So that's why we stop going to church? In order to change one doctrine of commandments for another one?

You've not identified ANY 'atheist' doctrine or dogma of these groups with which to accuse them.

Okay pay attention.
I was pointing out how we atheist leave church in order to gain or search knowledge, independence and identity. By abandoning church and their dogmas, commandments and superstition. To which rexbeccarox agreed and then asked me.

Now, what atheist doctrine is out there that would command atheists to do any of the things you just described?

To which I can only say the next.
I’ve never heard or read any atheist doctrine. I’ve never even thought nor heard anyone else say or insinuate that atheist doctrines even exist in the first place. So I pointed out how silly is to ask me to name an atheist doctrine. The reason why we leave church is to grow as individual. And like I said before gaining independence. Therefore it seems really silly to me leaving church (with their commandments and dogmas) to seek other commandments and dogmas to follow. Is changing a doctrine of commandments for another. People should follow their conscience not others doctrines.
Okay.

---

ManMachine I hope you don’t mind if I reply to you latter. This last replay have me a headache.

[ignoramus]

Let me ask everyone another question.
How do we promote atheism?
Other than the odd forum, where can someone who is having issues with his/hers respective church/religion go to for support?
I mean, we don't have a 1800 number or hotline!
In the future, maybe they can swap the batman symbol for the "A" and shine it up to the sky whenever someone is being persecuted by a religion.
Until then, we need to bite the bullet and find a way to prosper. Otherwise, we'll remain scattered. No focus, No growth.

[Cato]

Zidneya,
You back peddle faster than most people can run forward. I can't tell from your screeds whether your inability to understand figurative language fuels your quixotic crusades or whether a quixotic nature requires your literal interpretation of everything in order to build windmills.

[rexbeccarox]

Zid, your outrage over the fact that even atheists like to congregate with like-minded people, along with your assumption that everyone is an atheist for the same reasons are arrogant at best. Tell you what: if you don't like the idea of an atheist "church" don't go to one. Problem solved.

Oh, and please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I didn't like you. Though, those emoticons are truly annoying.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, just to take this where it leads.

"Comic-con" is a church, and it's entrants are the faithful
"A study on the efficacy of bT adjusted against controls, hosted by UF at TGI Fridays on Saturday the 15th" is a church....it's entrants the faithful.

Seems less than useful to me. By this usage a public bathroom is also a church, and taking a shit in one is a religion.

[Dystopia]

I've always wondered if a private school could be oriented according to atheism and teach it in it's classes, just like some private schools are Christian...

[LastPoet]

I religiosly believe in boobs and I don't believe in gods. Does that count?

[Zidneya]

Let me ask everyone another question.
How do we promote atheism?
Other than the odd forum, where can someone who is having issues with his/hers respective church/religion go to for support?
I mean, we don't have a 1800 number or hotline!
In the future, maybe they can swap the batman symbol for the "A" and shine it up to the sky whenever someone is being persecuted by a religion.
Until then, we need to bite the bullet and find a way to prosper. Otherwise, we'll remain scattered. No focus, No growth.

Unfortunately most of the audience that frequents or watch our forums, videos and atheist websites are mostly divided into two groups. On one side there are the atheists or agnostics and in the other the religious who wants to either contradict, mock or insult atheism. However I don't think we should let this demotivate us.
There are plenty number of approaches to promote atheist. Our minority group ain't the first one in history that has tried to expand itself. My advice is to lear from others.
For example one of the most useful tools to promote a cause is humor. Creationists are always a good source of humor.
Other could be a profound message. People tend to take more seriously phrases and sentences that by themselves have logical and deep meaning.
Artwork and visual arts are always a excellent way to reach an audience.
A couple of months ago I thought of designing(or to be more clear "transform" would be more accurate) some atheists logos into grunge. I even posted a thread to know which ones were the most popular atheists logos. However since many images on the Internet end up being pirated and used without giving credit to their maker I decided to not do it. I would have been upset that someone else used one of my designs without giving me the credit(what can I say, greed and pride took over ). However like I said many atheists are always willingly either encouraging us or giving us advice of how to promote atheist.
Here are some examples.

---

---

Another good advice is first instead of attacking religion or questioning it I seriously recommend you that if you want to promote atheism you should tell them the advantages of atheism. Because the angry atheist stereotype still persist to our days so try to delete this. Start by telling them that you ain't unhappy, nor angry, first impressions are very important. However since this is a very tricky subject I recommend you to try to promote atheism with people you are familiar with because choosing random folk to promote your cause(like jehovah witness or mormons do it) is very frustrating, difficult and unpredictable.

---

I religiosly believe in boobs and I don't believe in gods. Does that count?

Emm that depends, how exactly do you express your belief on boobs? Please don't spare any details.

[ManMachine]

I don't think religious devotion is retarded. The need to have systems of belief is hardwired into our brains. It's reasonable to suggest they have had some evolutionary benefit for us as a species for a period long enough they have become a permanent part of our neural structure.

It's also reasonable to suggest that whatever benefit religion provided to our species, we've outgrown its functions. I say "we've" as in religion no longer offers any net benefits to mankind as a whole, though it might for those who believe in it, but these are not proven benefits, especially not in the way it probably was before humans had a rational methodology and a cohesive foundation for civilization, philosophy, science, HISTORY, etc.

I'm curious as to how you are establishing your claims. We know that since 9/11 there has been a marked increase in people claiming to be religious, including a 10% increase in Islam. When the former USSR, a republic that made a conscious effort to eradicate religion by banning it, collapsed there was a massive increase in people claiming to be religious and a huge resurgence in religious activity. The evidence would seem to imply that humanity still has a use for religion, that we have not outgrown its functions and that it clearly still has benefits, the extent of those benefits can be a matter for debate but the evidence speaks for itself. I strongly disagree with you based on the global evidence.

'Blind faith', as you put it, also has obvious evolutionary benefits. We need to take some information from others at face value without the need to go find the evidence for ourselves (e.g. don't go in that cave, there is a human eating bear in there).

Not all things taken at face value are equal and not all can be rendered "blind faith." Clearly both the practical and evolutionary benefit of taking things at face value ends at a certain point (or reasonably should), and it does so long before religion in today's day and age.

The point I'm making is that blind faith can have reasonable origins. I am even going one step further by saying is that it is easy to see how blind faith can have useful evolutionary origins and can be reasonably seen to be a part of our evolved social strategies. You trying to split hairs on an undefined 'certain point' does not negate any of this.

I can rationalise the human need for both systems of belief and 'blind faith'.

No, you can't.

You do not determine what I find rational.

If we accept this as a rational position then we can reason that religion as we know it today is probably predicated on these neural functions, it is also reasonable to ask the question that if these neural functions are still there even when we consciously reject organised religion, then they probably play a part in selecting whatever we choose to replace rejected religions.

Yes, the neural functions which allow us to engage with the external world and measure what can be reliably said to exist independently of any single person's experience with it. Sorry, religion fails this simple test.

That the most absurd thing you've said yet. How can any person's neural functions measure anything independent of any single person's experience with it? Everything in the universe fails that test.

You believe you are right because you believe you are more enlightened than previous, more religious generations because of your 'rational, evidenced-based philosophies', but this notion itself is not rational, there is nothing to scientifically measure this. This is nothing more than 'blind faith' in your own system of belief.

MM

Okay, stop acting like you're deaf to every achievement mankind has made by actually following a paradigm informed by tools of a rigorous methodology designed to make knowledge more precise and to expose errors. I'm talking about the scientific method, which is what I utilize to form my beliefs, and for you to compare this to the religious method (believe, believe, believe! feel, feel, feel!) is incredibly naive or simply dishonest.

I'm not the one being 'naive or simply dishonest.'

"I'm talking about the scientific method, which is what I utilize to form my beliefs"

MM

---

Then you also understand that science does not have any evidence proving gods do not exist. Atheism is a rejection of a belief in deities. It is saying 'I do not believe in deities'. Which, if you accept science does not disprove them, is not a scientific position. You are saying although science has not disproved deities you are prepared to take a leap of faith and say you do not believe in them.

Disregarding a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence to justify belief is not a leap of faith. Your constant attempts to equivocate all manners of inquiry and consequent knowledge to the means used by religion will not hold up to scrutiny.

Correct, but adopting a proposition for which there is insufficient evidence to justify belief, is a leap of faith. Which is actually what I said.

MM

[Mudhammam]

I'm curious as to how you are establishing your claims. We know that since 9/11 there has been a marked increase in people claiming to be religious, including a 10% increase in Islam. When the former USSR, a republic that made a conscious effort to eradicate religion by banning it, collapsed there was a massive increase in people claiming to be religious and a huge resurgence in religious activity. The evidence would seem to imply that humanity still has a use for religion, that we have not outgrown its functions and that it clearly still has benefits, the extent of those benefits can be a matter for debate but the evidence speaks for itself. I strongly disagree with you based on the global evidence.

Perhaps we're talking past each other. The fact that people still convert to religion, though it typically involves a large degree of indoctrination, fear, and ignorance, does not prove its use, function, or benefits beyond a broader capacity that humans have for enjoying fairy tales and embracing any (false) sense of security, like a child who clutches their favorite stuffed animal at night.

The point I'm making is that blind faith can have reasonable origins. I am even going one step further by saying is that it is easy to see how blind faith can have useful evolutionary origins and can be reasonably seen to be a part of our evolved social strategies. You trying to split hairs on an undefined 'certain point' does not negate any of this.

You do not determine what I find rational.

True, I determine what I find rational, and these statements do not convey anything to me as such. Blind faith is contrary to reason.

That the most absurd thing you've said yet. How can any person's neural functions measure anything independent of any single person's experience with it? Everything in the universe fails that test.

Uh, no. That's sort of the point of scientific experiments, instruments, and all of philosophy, to establish definitions and understand concepts that describe an external reality which can be experienced by any person following the same procedure as opposed to reality confined only to one's imagination.