Good news ... told by an idiot

[henryp]

Atheism is just one position on one claim, and there are millions of ways to view the world and still be an atheist.  That's why we say it doesn't factor into our perspective.  It's our perspective that led to our atheism.

That's what I assumed as well.  But in the thread people are talking about how they wouldn't change if they knew there were a God other than believing there was a God.

So if your perspective leads to the conclusion there is no God, which is fine, but then you find out there is a God, it seems weird to be as confident as that group that it'd have no impact on their perspective, right?  Not even a "let's see what this thing we couldn't imagine existing has to say."  Just straight up, don't care.  There's something significant in that, to be sure there'd be no need to even give a God that you concluded doesn't exist, but turns out it does, 5 minutes because you're that certain it'd be waste of everyone's time?

[robvalue]

DBP: Yeah, it could have been a lot worse. Good point, newspaper headlines tend to be overly dramatic and borderline untrue.

What I've noticed most of the atheists here having in common is that they are sceptics. That means a lot more than being an atheist, and it is an actual stance and not just a reaction to evidence. People often make the mistake of assuming all atheists are sceptics though, and they certainly are not.

So if I use the word "we" on this forum, I'm generally talking about the sceptic atheists here, and the stances we tend to agree on. Any particular atheist I haven't met may have any number of weird ideas, and I may have nothing else in common with them.

Wally: It would be possible to have a relationship with God without worshipping it, or being part of an organised religion. If it insisted that I do a load of weird stuff and kiss its ass instead, I'm not interested. Of course, it could force me to if it wanted I guess. But then "God" is fairly likely to be wholly unremarkable, just another being in another reality that may not even be aware something it did caused a separate reality to manifest.

[zebo-the-fat]

Ah ha!  See.  That makes you a golfer!

No, I'm an agolfer!

[Pat Mustard]

Yeah, the author is a dumbass. No religion is the new religion?

Can people please stop it with that arse-crackery. Not everything is a fucking religion. However, the thrust of the article seems to be good. Most people are moral/liberal, at least in theory, without needing the church as usually claimed.

I expect to see more desperate stunts from the church such as the cinema debacle, and a boat load of whining.

The article itself seemed not too unrounded so I wonder if it's just a case of making a provocative title to draw people in.

Andrew Brown is an idiot, there are many cases of him writing articles where his sole point is atheists r dumz, and of him trolling commenters who have given valid rebuttals to points he made.

[KevinM1]

Yeah, the author is a dumbass. No religion is the new religion?

Can people please stop it with that arse-crackery. Not everything is a fucking religion. However, the thrust of the article seems to be good. Most people are moral/liberal, at least in theory, without needing the church as usually claimed.

I expect to see more desperate stunts from the church such as the cinema debacle, and a boat load of whining.

I can't wait to not see the people at the church I don't go to.  I'm even more excited not to hear the sermon on something I don't believe in.

[Edwardo Piet]

Can people please stop it with that arse-crackery.

"arse-crackery", that's a new one! I like it! Does it mean like "quackery" LMFAO

Yeah he's a complete idiot.

I know a lot of deists here in the UK. Most people seem to say they believe in "something", but they're not Christian or atheist.

[robvalue]

Yeah, I hear that a lot. "I do believe something is out there".

Well yeah, so do I. We can see quite a lot of it too.

If you peer below the surface it's almost guaranteed to be the argument from ignorance, but I tend to leave people alone who say this unless they are actually inviting a discussion.

[Edwardo Piet]

Edied my ":roflol" that was missing the closing colon. Now actually have the appropriate emoticon.

P.S.: Turtle face time:

^_____________________^

[henryp]

Wally: It would be possible to have a relationship with God without worshipping it, or being part of an organised religion. If it insisted that I do a load of weird stuff and kiss its ass instead, I'm not interested. Of course, it could force me to if it wanted I guess. But then "God" is fairly likely to be wholly unremarkable, just another being in another reality that may not even be aware something it did caused a separate reality to manifest.

God isn't fairly likely to be anything.  God doesn't exist.  That's why it's weird to see people confident in their reaction to God.  There isn't really even an understandable definition.   Maybe meeting God would just break our brains and we'd go insane.  Maybe God has some wild explanation that makes sense.  Maybe he's a scary Cthulu type thing, and demands worship or we are devoured.  There are a lot of possibilities when things being impossible is no longer an issue.  And of course if we're dealing with the unfathomable, it's tough to gage what our reaction to that would be, because we can't fathom what the unfathomable would even be due to it's unfathomableness.

And even if you toss God aside, maybe now we've got souls, and eternal existences, and maybe some nefarious demons trying to harm us, and magic is a thing, and all the other crazy shit that may now be in play now that the impossible is possible.  

You'd have to reevaluate things, right?  If you are a science and reason person, all the science and reason you knew could be up in the air with a God in play.  That's why to me, when a big chunk of people say "No religion for me, no matter what" in response to unfathomable events, it seems weird. But like I said, I think I just am wrong about some things in terms of how I thought other people think.

[Thumpalumpacus]

While "religion" probably has too many connotations associated with it, I've always thought of atheism sharing some similarity to a religion in that they are both one's take on the nature of existence, upon which you base your beliefs.

But perhaps I've been wrong all along. Rob's "I don't care if there is a God or not" thread, and the number of people who lined up to say they aren't changing no matter what the nature of existence is, throws a wrench in that theory.

That there are people who, no matter what they know/learn reality to be, are going to behave a certain way. I can certainly see why you guys wouldn't want to be likened to religion, as you've got your own thing going. I can't quite figure out what it is, though. Still trying to guess whether it's a real thing, or just being obstinate, because 'take that stupid religion people.'

I reject all dogma, including atheist dogma. It is dogma that separates spirituality from theism from religion.