Church of the Athiest

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:10 am

arcturus rising wrote:Pav,

If God did not even exist conceptually, then nobody would believe in God. A lack of belief in God is Athiesm. Because nobody would believe in any God, everybody would be an Athiest. Not believing in God would simply be the natural (and only) state of affairs.
If God did not even exist *conceptually*, Pav, there would be no word *ath[ei]st* nor *theist*, nor agnostic nor anything at all that would pertain to a god. Right?

That post was very funny and creative. :lol:


There would not be such a word, but a rose by any other name, or no name, would smell as sweet.

The example I threw out is before human created language and called ourselves, "Human," were we any less human?
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:30 am

Pav,

There would not be such a word, but a rose by any other name, or no name, would smell as sweet.
That's presupposing that there was a rose too.

The example I threw out is before human created language and called ourselves, "Human," were we any less human?
i'm not sure...wouldn't it depend at what point we evolved into being *human*?
Call the world, if you please, the vale of soul-making.
Keats, Letters 1819
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 9781
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Within the Primordial Silence of Invisible Waters

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby omar » Wed Nov 25, 2009 1:52 pm

Hello Pavlov:

--- Absolutely, youth retreats, after-school programs, extracurricular sports teams. All requiring a donation to the Church, of course.
O- That in itself is no argument as to why such activities should be untaxable. Having youth retreats does not define your organization as a religion. It is still just a group of people united by nothing. Note that non-belief, even spun to appear a positive, still affirms only the absence (negative existence) of what is affirmed (positive existence) by others. Theists therefore have a basis from which rights or priviledge can be argued ("we're" special because God blah, blah, blah), but I see no such basis from the position that no god exist. The repercusions of such faith in fact bring about no priviledge (we are not special because there is no god...) and the State is free to impose it's will on you as a group, with your blessings, if you wish to remain consistent with your faith.

--- It wouldn't. Does it have to?
O- Pan-theism is not atheism. In fact it would be incompatible with atheism because it is not that it believes in no God but believes in too much God.

--- Everyone has it both ways, Atheist arguments aren't enough to sway Theists (Or, they would no longer be Theists) and vice-versa. That's what I'm saying, there's no Empirical-Evidence either way. "What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence,"* unless it can make money.
O- But the issue is not whether either more suggestive than the other, but whether atheism should count as a Church and be granted tax priviledges. On the first, to me, it cannot count because it's very belief system would act as an acid on any Church structure. You have to admit that the atheist's movement did in fact sway and still sways many, regardless of whether they are former theists or agnostics. And we can see the effects of their influence from the time of Darwin. Kings, Popes, monks, all lost priviledges as a result and democracy became dominant. A Church implies a belief that atheists declare false. But if a Church was possible, then I would have to question the atheist's claim that he or she believes in no god and/or any special status for human beings. Since no Church is sustainable based on the atheist's own belief system, that cannot affirm a special priviledge of one author or one form of organization, it cannot be recognized by the State. What is there to be recognized is an attempt to evade taxes which of course the State will block. By the way, Witgenstein's position seems to be more agnostic and even, at times, theistic (Negative Way).

--- For this, simply look to a court case. If someone was murdered, the cops could pretty much just pick any random person that lives alone and has no alibi and try that person. If unprovable positives were readily acceptable, such a person would probably be found guilty of the murder and such people would be randomly tried more often.
O- I think that a murder case requires unprovable positive beliefs to be held. Stipulating that it is not enough for the lone person without an alibi to automatically be the murderer is yet another exampleof an unprovable but positive belief, not because we can doubt that he/she did it, but because we doubt that based on further beliefs about how we can find a murderer, such as "motive". A murderer is not the lone person with no alibi because we go farther than that criteria in determining who is a murderer, including motive and opportunity, DNA, prints, prior record. As far as our subject is concerned, IF unprovable negative beliefs ("what if" scenarios) were more "readily acceptable", THEN I doubt that we could reach a conviction even if we had more than just a loner without an alibi.

--- The scientific research cannot be taxed if the researching entity is an NPO.
O- What the hell is an "NPO"?
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:15 am

Hello, Omar.

O- That in itself is no argument as to why such activities should be untaxable. Having youth retreats does not define your organization as a religion. It is still just a group of people united by nothing. Note that non-belief, even spun to appear a positive, still affirms only the absence (negative existence) of what is affirmed (positive existence) by others. Theists therefore have a basis from which rights or priviledge can be argued ("we're" special because God blah, blah, blah), but I see no such basis from the position that no god exist. The repercusions of such faith in fact bring about no priviledge (we are not special because there is no god...) and the State is free to impose it's will on you as a group, with your blessings, if you wish to remain consistent with your faith.


Perhaps not as a Religion, but being an organization that is not for profit typically defines you as a non-profit organization.


O- Pan-theism is not atheism. In fact it would be incompatible with atheism because it is not that it believes in no God but believes in too much God.


I meant to be an NPO. The only qualifications for being an NPO is that you are an organization of some kind and you exist for non-profit reasons.

O- But the issue is not whether either more suggestive than the other, but whether atheism should count as a Church and be granted tax priviledges. On the first, to me, it cannot count because it's very belief system would act as an acid on any Church structure. You have to admit that the atheist's movement did in fact sway and still sways many, regardless of whether they are former theists or agnostics. And we can see the effects of their influence from the time of Darwin. Kings, Popes, monks, all lost priviledges as a result and democracy became dominant. A Church implies a belief that atheists declare false. But if a Church was possible, then I would have to question the atheist's claim that he or she believes in no god and/or any special status for human beings. Since no Church is sustainable based on the atheist's own belief system, that cannot affirm a special priviledge of one author or one form of organization, it cannot be recognized by the State. What is there to be recognized is an attempt to evade taxes which of course the State will block. By the way, Witgenstein's position seems to be more agnostic and even, at times, theistic (Negative Way).


Why do you have to have a God to have a church? Keep in mind, we are only calling it a church. I could open up a movie rental place and call it a church if I really wanted to, of course, I'd miss my target audience by a long shot.


O- I think that a murder case requires unprovable positive beliefs to be held. Stipulating that it is not enough for the lone person without an alibi to automatically be the murderer is yet another exampleof an unprovable but positive belief, not because we can doubt that he/she did it, but because we doubt that based on further beliefs about how we can find a murderer, such as "motive". A murderer is not the lone person with no alibi because we go farther than that criteria in determining who is a murderer, including motive and opportunity, DNA, prints, prior record. As far as our subject is concerned, IF unprovable negative beliefs ("what if" scenarios) were more "readily acceptable", THEN I doubt that we could reach a conviction even if we had more than just a loner without an alibi.


The point is, in theory, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof is a positive, but what makes the unprovable negative easier to accept is that a Defendant, at no point, actually has to prove that he did not commit the crime, just that he might not have. Obviously, proving that you did not commit the crime helps, but it is not necessary to avoid a conviction. There are even some notable legal cases where charges were dropped when virtually everyone knew the Defendant was guilty as Hell.

There would be many more convictions if the standard was guilty until proven innocent, because in some cases, you would be attempting to prove an unprovable negative.


O- What the hell is an "NPO"?


Non-Profit Organizations. Any entity that is a non-profit organization can receive tax exemption status in most states.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Sidhe » Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:57 am

You can always join that out of the closet atheist thing.

http://outcampaign.org/

The Dawkinsian religion of choice for the discerning out, homosexuality is optional apparently.

Atheists have always been at the forefront of rational thinking and beacons of enlightenment, and now you can share your idealism by being part of the OUT Campaign.

Image


There's no prejudice if you are gay just to make that clear, and you don't have to swing that way to join and you are not going to hell apparently after all for man on man action, should that be the way you chose to be in your life for which there is no extra fee, which is free anyway and strictly non profit.

I'm not a member so they are not paying me to advertise, I am agnostic or bi curious if it was a sexuality choice analogy. And by analogy I mean I was never confused! :D
"God is dead": Nietzsche
"I am God": Dawkins
"Dawkins is dead!"

Logic it's not just for smart people anyone can play!
User avatar
Sidhe
Banned
 
Posts: 1893
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: England

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby omar » Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:50 pm

It's been a while Pavlov, so you might not even be interested. But if you are...

--- Perhaps not as a Religion, but being an organization that is not for profit typically defines you as a non-profit organization.
O- I think that enough organizations exists to meet any one ideal, goal or conscience cleaner need out there in the atheist community. What would be the purpose of the Church of the Atheist? What will profits be used for if they do not get routed to the owners of your Church? Feeding, sheltering and caring for the poor? Enviromental conservation? Legally persecuting theistic intrusions into daily life or science?

--- The point is, in theory, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof is a positive, but what makes the unprovable negative easier to accept is that a Defendant, at no point, actually has to prove that he did not commit the crime, just that he might not have. Obviously, proving that you did not commit the crime helps, but it is not necessary to avoid a conviction. There are even some notable legal cases where charges were dropped when virtually everyone knew the Defendant was guilty as Hell.

There would be many more convictions if the standard was guilty until proven innocent, because in some cases, you would be attempting to prove an unprovable negative.
O- It is all about belief. In our legal system I remain a sceptic of someone's guilt until "proven" beyond what I could reasonably continue to doubt. When enough evidence deny me the ability to reasonably continue to doubt the guilt of the man then I convict him. This is certainly more practical that the alternative of remaining a sceptic of someone's innocent until proven beyond what I could reasonably continue to doubt. But this is within our legal system and not in human society in general, outside of the careful parameters of Law. In fact, our Law system illuminates the fact that we are naturally prone to believe someone as guilty until proven innocent. In the public opinion your life might very well be ruined even if you're found "innocent" and you might remain a hero, in the public eye, even though you're convicted.
You're exactly right to say that there would be more convictions if the measure was a person's innocense. Now, how would this apply to our subject? Well, I think that the case can be made that we are naturally born theist. That atheism, skepticism, are positions we have to will ourselves to assume, while credulity is easy and natural. Hume pointed to this already. The issue is not that we believe in gods as well as magiuc potions, evil eye, taboos, curses, lucky socks, lucky rituals....we have evolved a pattern seeking mind and this requires credulity to even engage in a process of filtering, of deselection of true patterns versus false patterns. As it applies to religious or spiritual belief, the problem is not belief in gods but in which gods.
The posture of atheistm, or skepticism, is a very advanced position, and it is, by necessity, highly selective. You can be an atheist but still retain unfounded belief that are necessary for human life to continue. The atheist simply dispenses with a belief he no longer finds necessary or even desirable. The pickle is that he might have lowered the evidence needed to reasonably doubt the existence of God or gods, but did he or she made reasonable doubt equally available for most other belief he or she holds or just had a bone to pick with the divine? Meaning, is a person consistent on his judgment of what belief is based on? And are not other belief, he or she must entretain in his or her daily life as dubious as the belief in something divine? Perhaps we continue to hold on to the belief in Self and in language because it is practical to do so, but then we leave the door open to a belief in God if only the believer finds such belief as practical for him, do we not?
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sun Jan 24, 2010 11:05 pm

O- I think that enough organizations exists to meet any one ideal, goal or conscience cleaner need out there in the atheist community. What would be the purpose of the Church of the Atheist? What will profits be used for if they do not get routed to the owners of your Church? Feeding, sheltering and caring for the poor? Enviromental conservation? Legally persecuting theistic intrusions into daily life or science?

PM146- The Church of the Athiest is not designed to profit, but is rather designed to break even. The main purpose of the Church of the Athiest would be licensing to other companies (owned by COTA higher-ups) for the sale of merchandise and things such as that. The goal is that a certain percentage of the proceeds must go to the COTA, but the markup on the items and the potential popularity thereof (especially amongst teenagers and collegiates) would be such to cover the percentage that is to be donated and still make a healthy profit.

The rest of it could be handled with liberal accounting principles that make any profits the COTA might otherwise see offset by expenditures presumably for the COTA. To this extent, we're talking about dinners, plane trips, cars specifically for the use of the COTA and other things.


O- It is all about belief. In our legal system I remain a sceptic of someone's guilt until "proven" beyond what I could reasonably continue to doubt. When enough evidence deny me the ability to reasonably continue to doubt the guilt of the man then I convict him. This is certainly more practical that the alternative of remaining a sceptic of someone's innocent until proven beyond what I could reasonably continue to doubt. But this is within our legal system and not in human society in general, outside of the careful parameters of Law. In fact, our Law system illuminates the fact that we are naturally prone to believe someone as guilty until proven innocent. In the public opinion your life might very well be ruined even if you're found "innocent" and you might remain a hero, in the public eye, even though you're convicted.

PM146-That's an excellent point, I think that you are right that the concept of, "Innocent until proven guilty," often goes against the natural order of things.

O-You're exactly right to say that there would be more convictions if the measure was a person's innocense. Now, how would this apply to our subject? Well, I think that the case can be made that we are naturally born theist. That atheism, skepticism, are positions we have to will ourselves to assume, while credulity is easy and natural. Hume pointed to this already. The issue is not that we believe in gods as well as magiuc potions, evil eye, taboos, curses, lucky socks, lucky rituals....we have evolved a pattern seeking mind and this requires credulity to even engage in a process of filtering, of deselection of true patterns versus false patterns. As it applies to religious or spiritual belief, the problem is not belief in gods but in which gods.

PM146-I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment as well as Hume's. If not an Athiest, then what is a person who is not schooled in any Religion whatsoever that also has no knowledge or experience of a Religion? The point here is that a Religion must be learned, but to be learned it must also have been initially created, and Nietzsche points out that Religion is a human construct. I think that if we accept Religion to at least be something that is created by humans, then by necessity, we could not conclude that Religion is part of the, "Natural order," of things.

O-The posture of atheistm, or skepticism, is a very advanced position, and it is, by necessity, highly selective. You can be an atheist but still retain unfounded belief that are necessary for human life to continue. The atheist simply dispenses with a belief he no longer finds necessary or even desirable. The pickle is that he might have lowered the evidence needed to reasonably doubt the existence of God or gods, but did he or she made reasonable doubt equally available for most other belief he or she holds or just had a bone to pick with the divine? Meaning, is a person consistent on his judgment of what belief is based on? And are not other belief, he or she must entretain in his or her daily life as dubious as the belief in something divine? Perhaps we continue to hold on to the belief in Self and in language because it is practical to do so, but then we leave the door open to a belief in God if only the believer finds such belief as practical for him, do we not?

PM146-I understand what you are saying, but I think that the existence of the self is an unassailable concept whereas the existence of a deity or deities is not an unassailable concept. I don't know at what point the belief in a God or Gods becomes more practical for an individual than its opposite, except for if someone decides to look at things in terms of liklihoods. In that event, it simply becomes a question of whether or not (to an individual) it is more likely that we are here because an intelligent and supreme being put us here, or whether any other possibility imaginable is more likely.

I think that both the positions of Athiesm or Thiesm are, "Advanced positions," as you so put it, but then I think there are both equally impractical as they necessitate looking at things outside of the self that merely could be or could not be, but not what definitely is or is not.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby omar » Mon Jan 25, 2010 1:38 pm

Hello Pavlov:

--- PM146- The Church of the Athiest is not designed to profit, but is rather designed to break even. The main purpose of the Church of the Athiest would be licensing to other companies (owned by COTA higher-ups) for the sale of merchandise and things such as that. The goal is that a certain percentage of the proceeds must go to the COTA, but the markup on the items and the potential popularity thereof (especially amongst teenagers and collegiates) would be such to cover the percentage that is to be donated and still make a healthy profit.
O- Whatever makes you a profit should be taxable. For example, the Church itself could be untaxed, just like theist churches, but retailers that sell christian cd's, for example, coffey much and those ever-present bracelets "WWJD" do yield a profit and I do believe that they are treated as retail stores and not as NPOs, or am I wrong about this? Wherever there be a cash resgister there is probably a tax liability. Wherever you make a profit, the govt will find it's way to get a cut of the booty...or am I missing something here?

--- The rest of it could be handled with liberal accounting principles that make any profits the COTA might otherwise see offset by expenditures presumably for the COTA. To this extent, we're talking about dinners, plane trips, cars specifically for the use of the COTA and other things.
O- I am not a CPA, but would not the balance of profit retained by the owners or higher ups at the COTA still remain taxable? What could keep COTA a lucrative enterprise is to declare purchases of homes, jets and other consummer goods as declared necessities for the purposes of the COTA, much as evangelists do.

--- PM146-I have to respectfully disagree with your assessment as well as Hume's. If not an Athiest, then what is a person who is not schooled in any Religion whatsoever that also has no knowledge or experience of a Religion?
O- Someone with no knowledge of gods may well be called an atheists, but that is not the point. The point is that if not gods, we remain credulous enough to believe in other measures of control. A person who has never been exposed to gods may still believe in ghosts and in their power, or in the power of other things, like ammulets. The point of religion is not god. God is just a means to an end and that end is control. Now "control of what?"...yes, yes, but we should also ask "fear of what?". Man is as prone to credulous creations, supertitions as he is of inventing or feeling phobias. Each time he is in the grip of this human assett: imagination.

--- The point here is that a Religion must be learned
O- Not really. In this I adhere to Paul and Luther. You cannot "teach" god, nor love of God, nor belief itself. You can direct the natural ability of man to believe. Thus you can take a credulous child and teach him about Santa Claus, but you cannot teach him to believe in the invisible and fantastic- that he brings to the table on his own. It is "by grace". Some science has been directed at finding a gene for belief, a gene for God, sort of. I don't think that this is a fruitful pursuit, because I think that we are just prone to believe. What we learn is what NOT TO believe.

--- but to be learned it must also have been initially created, and Nietzsche points out that Religion is a human construct.
O- That says little. Mathematics is a human construct, so is language. It would be one thing if they were RANDOM constructs, but quite another when they represent a norm, and in that norm, I suppose, we can see a human phenomenon.

--- I think that if we accept Religion to at least be something that is created by humans, then by necessity, we could not conclude that Religion is part of the, "Natural order," of things.
O- Religion is created by humans and therefore a part of the natural order, as we humans are not unnatural, or are we? Wherever we see a bird's nest we can conclude that it is a bird's construct, but I wouldn't say that a bird's nest is unnatural, but that it is part of nature, just as the bird is part of nature, just as it's feces are part of nature. Of course, religion is a product not of our physical necessities for shelter and digestion but our imagination. But it is as natural because wherever you find the human footprint you are likely to find religion. It defines us and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. And I don't mean that religion defines humanity or that belief in God defines us, but that credulity does, that the predisposition for belief defines us and that God and religion are just outcrops or by products of this disposition for belief and pattern composition. Though, again, I do think that the ever presence of some form of religion makes the case that religion is "normal" to our species, part of our natural order, just like growing hair.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:46 am

Howdy Omar:

O- Whatever makes you a profit should be taxable. For example, the Church itself could be untaxed, just like theist churches, but retailers that sell christian cd's, for example, coffey much and those ever-present bracelets "WWJD" do yield a profit and I do believe that they are treated as retail stores and not as NPOs, or am I wrong about this? Wherever there be a cash resgister there is probably a tax liability. Wherever you make a profit, the govt will find it's way to get a cut of the booty...or am I missing something here?

PM146- You're absolutely right that any profits the business decides to show would be taxable, but they could always, "Donate," the entirety of the net profits to the COTA at the end of the fiscal year. Like I said, though, if you want to keep it clean you expect to pay the tax, but the COTA legitimately existing is necessary for licensing to make the apparel official. The point is that there is a strong and untapped Athiest market out there and by having the COTA license its apparel to only one merchandiser (owned by individuals that represent the COTA) you monopolize the very market you created!

You gave me a good idea bringing up, "WWJD," apparel. How about, "WWND," which is, "What Would Nobody Do?"

O- I am not a CPA, but would not the balance of profit retained by the owners or higher ups at the COTA still remain taxable? What could keep COTA a lucrative enterprise is to declare purchases of homes, jets and other consummer goods as declared necessities for the purposes of the COTA, much as evangelists do.

That's exactly what it would do, and it would also operate under a break-even Philosophy. However, with the COTA (itself) operating as an NPO it would not be subject to having its profits taxed, but it (again, itself) is not really designed to make a profit.

O- Someone with no knowledge of gods may well be called an atheists, but that is not the point. The point is that if not gods, we remain credulous enough to believe in other measures of control. A person who has never been exposed to gods may still believe in ghosts and in their power, or in the power of other things, like ammulets. The point of religion is not god. God is just a means to an end and that end is control. Now "control of what?"...yes, yes, but we should also ask "fear of what?". Man is as prone to credulous creations, supertitions as he is of inventing or feeling phobias. Each time he is in the grip of this human assett: imagination.

PM146- I'm going to agree with all of that.

O- Not really. In this I adhere to Paul and Luther. You cannot "teach" god, nor love of God, nor belief itself. You can direct the natural ability of man to believe. Thus you can take a credulous child and teach him about Santa Claus, but you cannot teach him to believe in the invisible and fantastic- that he brings to the table on his own. It is "by grace". Some science has been directed at finding a gene for belief, a gene for God, sort of. I don't think that this is a fruitful pursuit, because I think that we are just prone to believe. What we learn is what NOT TO believe.

PM146- You might not be able to teach God, but you can condition a belief in God, which is essentially almost forcing a belief in God. All you would have to do is create a reward/punishment plan based upon how a child's words/actions relate to the Christian teachings. As you know, there are many who become Athiests for specifically this reason, or do they merely think they became Athiests for just this reason? If you were to ask me, the very fact that they were ever able to question the existence of God at all is due to the fact that the conditioning program was not effective enough.

To that same extent, you could also condition Athiesm. My argument is that you don't have to, though, because as you said, "What we learn is what not to believe." I bring this up because the necessity to learn what not to believe wouldn't be there if we had never been taught (or at the very least, exposed to) what it is that we are learning not to believe. For that reason, I still consider Athiesm to be the, "Natural," way of things.


O- That says little. Mathematics is a human construct, so is language. It would be one thing if they were RANDOM constructs, but quite another when they represent a norm, and in that norm, I suppose, we can see a human phenomenon.

PM146- You can well make the argument that in the U.S.A. Christianity (or some form thereof) is representative of a norm, in fact, you could probably generally include the West in that argument. However, you should keep in mind that Christianity was closer to being a random construct than a norm prior to Constantine being the emperor of Rome.


O- Religion is created by humans and therefore a part of the natural order, as we humans are not unnatural, or are we? Wherever we see a bird's nest we can conclude that it is a bird's construct, but I wouldn't say that a bird's nest is unnatural, but that it is part of nature, just as the bird is part of nature, just as it's feces are part of nature. Of course, religion is a product not of our physical necessities for shelter and digestion but our imagination. But it is as natural because wherever you find the human footprint you are likely to find religion. It defines us and separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. And I don't mean that religion defines humanity or that belief in God defines us, but that credulity does, that the predisposition for belief defines us and that God and religion are just outcrops or by products of this disposition for belief and pattern composition. Though, again, I do think that the ever presence of some form of religion makes the case that religion is "normal" to our species, part of our natural order, just like growing hair.

PM146-What should it be that tells us Religion is, "Ever-Present," the Bible? How can we safely assume that Religion was ever-present prior to written language which documented that Religion for us?

If we do not assume that the Bible is correct, then I ask you, would you assume that the first man had a God or Gods?
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Oughtist » Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:22 am

Hey Pav,
rather than WWND, shouldn't it be WWID? Or are we also teaching a No-Self schtick?
What you said.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2852
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:02 am

Oughtist,

I've always thought that the presumption behind WWJD is not knowing what you, yourself, would do and therefore deferring the matter to a higher authority?

Either way, we could try out the WWID bracelets and tee-shirts, but I'm only willing to do that if you agree that we do it on a test-market basis first. We could probably start with Congress whose necessary answer to the question is, "The will of whatever corporation, "Donated," the most to my campaign. Indirectly, of course." If we can perform well in that market, then we can expand it nationwide.

My only real concern is that isn't there an actual Religion that actually worships the self? I mean, the Self as a God? I don't want WWID to turn into anything like that. That's actually what Satanism really is, is it not?
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Oughtist » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:19 am

Maybe we could coopt "Song of Myself" somehow, and thereby worship Walt Whitman instead, i.e. WWWWD.
What you said.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2852
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 5:39 am

WWWWW What Would Walt Whitman Write?

Leaves of Grass.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Oughtist » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:20 am

...wouldn't that be WWWWS? :lol:
What you said.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2852
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:51 am

Nice.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby omar » Tue Jan 26, 2010 2:20 pm

Hello Pavlov:
I am beginning to think that you have mafia connections...

--- PM146- You're absolutely right that any profits the business decides to show would be taxable, but they could always, "Donate," the entirety of the net profits to the COTA at the end of the fiscal year.
O- So what we have so far is a COTA front that creates a consumer good. While the COTA is NPO, retail stores are opened to sell products based on the COTA. While these are profitable and taxable, profit, which would be whatever you have left after the operating costs are deducted, are then funneled or donated back into the COTA, thereby avoiding the tax liability. What then? What happens to the revenew once it is added to the coffers of the COTA?

--- The point is that there is a strong and untapped Athiest market out there and by having the COTA license its apparel to only one merchandiser (owned by individuals that represent the COTA) you monopolize the very market you created!
O- Yes, there is an atheist market, just as there is a religious market...always been. Having COTA "license" the apparel may impact it's claim as a NPO and hint the authorities about it's ulterior motives. I would not recommend it. You don't even need it. It is enough to be identified as the brains behind COTA and customers will naturally flock to whatever is closer to the source of that which they admire. The activities of the COTA should be not for profit..."the pleasure of helping atheist express themselves...", but those that admire the COTA will naturally want to have even more of it and would be willing to pay for it. A market is opened by the existence of the COTA...even if the COTA should continue to remain "indiferent" to this "by-product". At that point, do not try to monopolize the market you've create, for you'll tip your hand, but instead rely on the simple fact that people will try to purchase from the brand that is seen as closer to the "action". The money will be there. At this point, I think that you should pay taxes on your profits, so that you can use your profits for your pleasure in full view. One of the values that you should maniufacture at the COTA is the praise of wealth, in the spirit of Voltaire.

--- You gave me a good idea bringing up, "WWJD," apparel. How about, "WWND," which is, "What Would Nobody Do?"
O- Or how about "What Would Nada Do?", a jab at Christianity, couple with a refernce to Hemingway...what Atheist could resist that article of clothing?

--- PM146- You might not be able to teach God, but you can condition a belief in God, which is essentially almost forcing a belief in God.
O- Forcing a belief in God is counter-productive because it fosters covert rebellion. the ideal should always be to make it look like it is their choice at all times. If not, then a "folk" religion develops along the "official" religion, weakening it's reach and power and making it's conditioning counter-productive.

--- All you would have to do is create a reward/punishment plan based upon how a child's words/actions relate to the Christian teachings. As you know, there are many who become Athiests for specifically this reason, or do they merely think they became Athiests for just this reason?
O- But then there are many others who simply reject the institution of the Church, the Pope, the Saints, the clergy, as false representatives of Jesus, as they recognize a dichotomy between what Jesus character was and the character of their priests. The pendolum of history swings to the left creating the momentum to a right-swing, which creates the momentum for a reverse swing and it goes on and on. The character of Jesus himself remains a mystery into which we project our own. It is very hard for people to become pure atheist and not just unbelievers in A specific RELIGION. The fall out of a specific religion often means not the fall into atheism but the fall into a more congenial spirituality.

--- If you were to ask me, the very fact that they were ever able to question the existence of God at all is due to the fact that the conditioning program was not effective enough.
O- Not at all. Growing up includes the development of original ideas. Many youths rebel against their parents and distance themselves from every value that is seen as supported by the parent. Often the process is not so original. As a youth walks into the world heor she is exposed to different point of view, different values from those he was taught, or conditioned. A second conditioning is the result of the attempt of the youth to belong to a new family, the world at large. Tell me who you hand with and I'll tell you what you believe.

--- To that same extent, you could also condition Athiesm. My argument is that you don't have to, though, because as you said, "What we learn is what not to believe." I bring this up because the necessity to learn what not to believe wouldn't be there if we had never been taught (or at the very least, exposed to) what it is that we are learning not to believe. For that reason, I still consider Athiesm to be the, "Natural," way of things.
O- In a sense we are all atheist...most just go one god further. We don't learn Christianity. Speak with most Christians and you will find that they lack a strong knowledge of that which they profess. There is no necessity for belief, but the simple disposition for belief...perhaps this is a default system of nature to ensure the nurture of the child by it's care-takers. For that matter there is no necessity for disbelief or to learn what not to believe. The process probably works by the development of the brain, and by the lenght of the instruction and memory of a child. Initialy there is no need for a filter, nor the ability to filter. As memory develops, the minds possesses more items, more "facts", once unquestioned, available for comparasion. Where in accord, a set of facts strenghten themselves. When in discord, a fact is questioned. Memory development is what I call learning, and so we learn what not to believe, we learn to reason and to judge.

--- PM146-What should it be that tells us Religion is, "Ever-Present," the Bible?
O- Nope. What are some of the of the oldest built structures? What were their purpose?

--- How can we safely assume that Religion was ever-present prior to written language which documented that Religion for us?
O- Humans have a strange relation to their dead, prior to their invention of written language. We have been building temples and tombs for quite a long time. When we invented language, much of it's use was to speak about religion. Archeologically then, religion is ever present. Anthropologically, we find superstition to be far more prevalent than incredulity. Here again, observation dictates that religions are part of a normal human phenomenon.
Were humans ALWAYS religious or supertitious? We can infer, from what is observed, that they were.

--- If we do not assume that the Bible is correct, then I ask you, would you assume that the first man had a God or Gods?
O- How would you recognize the "first" man from just the "last" ancestor of man and chimp? I could tell you that, for me, I would look at whether that chimp-like creature was prone to bury it's dead and adorn itself, it's dead or it's cave. But do you consider it just a massive coincidence that some form of superstition exists in just about every human community?
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 2:16 am

O- I am beginning to think that you have mafia connections...

PM146- I am trying to make the Athiests an, "Offer they can't refuse."

O- So what we have so far is a COTA front that creates a consumer good. While the COTA is NPO, retail stores are opened to sell products based on the COTA. While these are profitable and taxable, profit, which would be whatever you have left after the operating costs are deducted, are then funneled or donated back into the COTA, thereby avoiding the tax liability. What then? What happens to the revenew once it is added to the coffers of the COTA?

PM146- Almost. Retail stores would not be, "Opened," to sell the goods as such stores as Hot Topic and Spencer's already have a tendency to appeal to the general target market. The money would be made mostly on the manufacturing end of the spectrum, of course, if a retailer wants to pay a little bit more for exclusivity (Nationally, of course, that way we could target individual clothing stores in locations not covered by the major retailer) then the retailer can do that.

After the revenue is added to the coffers of the COTA it is basically going to be a simple matter of money laundering from that point forward. In fact, you don't even really have to launder it if you just reward very liberal bonuses from the manufacturer, in fact, you don't even need to donate it all then.

You still have to donate the 10% though to keep up appearances.

O- Yes, there is an atheist market, just as there is a religious market...always been. Having COTA "license" the apparel may impact it's claim as a NPO and hint the authorities about it's ulterior motives. I would not recommend it.

PM146- That's the beauty of it, everything that I am suggesting is 100% legal, except maybe the COTA spending itself. The fact that a portion of the proceeds is required for COTA to license the material is actually common practice when it comes to the sales of apparel for many Religious organizations and other NPO's. They don't make the shirts and things themselves, you know, not all of them anyway.

O- You don't even need it. It is enough to be identified as the brains behind COTA and customers will naturally flock to whatever is closer to the source of that which they admire. The activities of the COTA should be not for profit..."the pleasure of helping atheist express themselves...", but those that admire the COTA will naturally want to have even more of it and would be willing to pay for it. A market is opened by the existence of the COTA...even if the COTA should continue to remain "indiferent" to this "by-product". At that point, do not try to monopolize the market you've create, for you'll tip your hand, but instead rely on the simple fact that people will try to purchase from the brand that is seen as closer to the "action". The money will be there. At this point, I think that you should pay taxes on your profits, so that you can use your profits for your pleasure in full view. One of the values that you should maniufacture at the COTA is the praise of wealth, in the spirit of Voltaire.

PM146- I agree with most of your points, but remember that the licensing is necessary otherwise other manufacturers could create COTA apparel (just not using the patented designs of others) and all they would have to do is the 10% donation to use the name. Eventually all of the trendy teenage retailers would have some kind of COTA line and the margins had by our manufacturing company would no longer be even remotely worth it.


O- Or how about "What Would Nada Do?", a jab at Christianity, couple with a refernce to Hemingway...what Atheist could resist that article of clothing?

PM146- Excellent. Hopefully the band called, Nada Surf, doesn't take some kind of legal exception. I'm actually a fan of theirs, so judging from what I know of them, I don't think they will.

O- Forcing a belief in God is counter-productive because it fosters covert rebellion. the ideal should always be to make it look like it is their choice at all times. If not, then a "folk" religion develops along the "official" religion, weakening it's reach and power and making it's conditioning counter-productive.

PM146- Poor conditioning is counter-productive, but that is because poor conditioning merely forces a desired result with adverse consequences as opposed to playing upon the psychology of generally wanting to be accepted AND forcing a desired result with adverse consequences. In other words, the restriction of other freedoms is not by itself enough to truly condition, but you must also play upon the natural tendency of a child not to want to disappoint their parents, from an early age.

Of course, I would never do that, not to satisfy any goal.


O- But then there are many others who simply reject the institution of the Church, the Pope, the Saints, the clergy, as false representatives of Jesus, as they recognize a dichotomy between what Jesus character was and the character of their priests. The pendolum of history swings to the left creating the momentum to a right-swing, which creates the momentum for a reverse swing and it goes on and on. The character of Jesus himself remains a mystery into which we project our own. It is very hard for people to become pure atheist and not just unbelievers in A specific RELIGION. The fall out of a specific religion often means not the fall into atheism but the fall into a more congenial spirituality.

PM146- I think that the fall into Athiesm, which we will call a regression for people who were born and raised to be of a Christian Religion (Though it is not actually a regression) generally leads to people re-building themselves into a more congenial spirituality. At least, I think that is the case if someone is merely disenfranchised with Christianity and has not put any actual thought into other Religions at that time.

In other words, one often goes from Christianity to Athiesm, at least temporarily, but it is certainly more rare to see someone convert from Christianity straight to Buddhism without a period (however temporary) of Athiesm. I could be wrong about that, though, I'm speculating.


O- Not at all. Growing up includes the development of original ideas. Many youths rebel against their parents and distance themselves from every value that is seen as supported by the parent. Often the process is not so original. As a youth walks into the world heor she is exposed to different point of view, different values from those he was taught, or conditioned. A second conditioning is the result of the attempt of the youth to belong to a new family, the world at large. Tell me who you hand with and I'll tell you what you believe.

PM146- That just means that the individual in question was not simultaneously conditioned to value (or unquestionably believe) the beliefs of the immediate family and hold the immediate family in higher esteem than other people in the world. That also can be directly conditioned into an individual.

O- In a sense we are all atheist...most just go one god further. We don't learn Christianity. Speak with most Christians and you will find that they lack a strong knowledge of that which they profess. There is no necessity for belief, but the simple disposition for belief...perhaps this is a default system of nature to ensure the nurture of the child by it's care-takers. For that matter there is no necessity for disbelief or to learn what not to believe. The process probably works by the development of the brain, and by the lenght of the instruction and memory of a child. Initialy there is no need for a filter, nor the ability to filter. As memory develops, the minds possesses more items, more "facts", once unquestioned, available for comparasion. Where in accord, a set of facts strenghten themselves. When in discord, a fact is questioned. Memory development is what I call learning, and so we learn what not to believe, we learn to reason and to judge.

PM146- I agree with everything that you have just said. In fact, it is that very disposition for belief and/or mental training that makes the concept of conditioning or being conditioned even possible. That is also one of the main qualities for conditioning to be successful, the ability to filter (regarding the item being conditioned) being totally eradicated.

O- Nope. What are some of the of the oldest built structures? What were their purpose?

PM146- A fire is one of the oldest built structures, its purpose was survival.


O- Humans have a strange relation to their dead, prior to their invention of written language. We have been building temples and tombs for quite a long time. When we invented language, much of it's use was to speak about religion. Archeologically then, religion is ever present. Anthropologically, we find superstition to be far more prevalent than incredulity. Here again, observation dictates that religions are part of a normal human phenomenon.
Were humans ALWAYS religious or supertitious? We can infer, from what is observed, that they were.

PM146- I simply do not find that acceptable because we have no documentation (written or otherwise) that should lead us to believe that the literal first man, or men, were of any particular Religion. Granted, we do not have any evidence that should indicate otherwise, but I find it much easier to assume that something is/was not than to assume that something is/was.

O- How would you recognize the "first" man from just the "last" ancestor of man and chimp? I could tell you that, for me, I would look at whether that chimp-like creature was prone to bury it's dead and adorn itself, it's dead or it's cave. But do you consider it just a massive coincidence that some form of superstition exists in just about every human community?

PM146- I do not consider that a coincidence per the natural tendency of the human brain to want to believe something as discussed in this post earlier. All that a superstition is though is something that is conditioned into people. For instance, the superstition about the black cat crossing your path was brought about by Middle-Age Christians who thought that they were look-outs for witches or other evil spirits. To this day the superstition holds, not quite to the extent that we kill them all, but it is so ingrained (conditioned) into us that black cats actually have a lower adoption rate at animal shelters!

Either way, much like superstitions, Religion is a human construct which requires language, at least, for it to be conveyed to a specific extent. It all derives from language and is little more than a way for early humans to pass the time when they are not hunting, building shelter, or cultivating. In my opinion, that is.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby omar » Wed Jan 27, 2010 11:26 pm

Hello Pavlov

---PM146- Almost. Retail stores would not be, "Opened," to sell the goods as such stores as Hot Topic and Spencer's already have a tendency to appeal to the general target market.
O- yes, but their products and your products are not the same, and nor would you want to. You need to create a need as much as satisfy their already existing needs. You want a product a bit more serious to attract not just pimple-laced youths but also professionals that might not be found dead in such establishments but who have been, unconsciously, waiting for the opportunity you will provide.

--- The money would be made mostly on the manufacturing end of the spectrum, of course, if a retailer wants to pay a little bit more for exclusivity (Nationally, of course, that way we could target individual clothing stores in locations not covered by the major retailer) then the retailer can do that.
O- I disagree. While the sale of T-shirts and CD's maybe lucrative, the profit of these sales, either to a retailer or directly to a customer, will be a taxable transaction. The goodies that the COTA, as an NPO could really supply is donations from wealthy atheist who believe in the benefits the COTA hopes to provide. The cost of the COTA "owners" or "prophets", so to speak, standard of living, would be be declared as a necessary expense of the COTA, thus allowing massive donations to be funneled into your wallet and other material wellbeing items which are also necessary for the peace of mind of the voice of the COTA.

--- PM146- I agree with most of your points, but remember that the licensing is necessary otherwise other manufacturers could create COTA apparel
O- That would only indicate the success of your brand, but they will be "knock-off" creating the opportunity for COTA stores, just like Nike- a Walmart size store filled with official apparel, normally found in stores and those only found in your exclusive stores.

--- In other words, one often goes from Christianity to Athiesm, at least temporarily, but it is certainly more rare to see someone convert from Christianity straight to Buddhism without a period (however temporary) of Athiesm. I could be wrong about that, though, I'm speculating.
O- No, that is about right. You see it here, where some "atheists" still complaint about God's moral character...they have left the Church because they were too moral for it, too pious for it and are still adherents of righteousness and hope to find righteousness, or at least the narrative of righteousness they have lost and yet still long for.

--- PM146- That just means that the individual in question was not simultaneously conditioned to value (or unquestionably believe) the beliefs of the immediate family and hold the immediate family in higher esteem than other people in the world. That also can be directly conditioned into an individual.
O- No one believes "unquestionably". Even conditioning will not drive it entirely away, since it actually depends on this aspect of human nature to work at all. The biggest treath to Big Brother is information. Control the availability of information and you can control a person's mind. The problem is that we do not live in Orwell's dystopia...at least not in every detail. What you see in history is that the encounter with other cultures raise questions about one's own. Likewise, exposure to other kids and their families, when different from yours, raise doubts about the necessity of the values you've been taught. So it is not so much the "conditioning" part one should worry about, but the "isolation" part.

--- PM146- A fire is one of the oldest built structures, its purpose was survival.
O- And probably also associated with pain and pain then with "punishment", etc, etc. Superstition itself, has as a purpose survival. You knock on wood so that nothing bad befalls you, and not because you simply had desire to rap a beat...

--- PM146- I simply do not find that acceptable because we have no documentation (written or otherwise) that should lead us to believe that the literal first man, or men, were of any particular Religion.
O- That is not what I am saying. I am not saying of a particular religion. I am talking that they were superstitious and credulous and that this made religion a natural outcome/phenomenon.

--- Granted, we do not have any evidence that should indicate otherwise, but I find it much easier to assume that something is/was not than to assume that something is/was.
O- Well...to everyone their own opinion. As they say: "You be the judge."

--- PM146- I do not consider that a coincidence per the natural tendency of the human brain to want to believe something as discussed in this post earlier. All that a superstition is though is something that is conditioned into people. For instance, the superstition about the black cat crossing your path was brought about by Middle-Age Christians who thought that they were look-outs for witches or other evil spirits.
O- The cat itself or it's color are incidentals. What stands accross the species is the ability to associate the mundane with the spiritual, the carnal with the divine. Some men may have not been indoctrinated into hating black cats but in venerating cows, or trees, or socks, or just rocks. What you need for all these diverse activities is not just indoctrination but the ability to be indioctrinated at all.
In a hipnotic session, just and in the vodoo and in Jesus healings, there is not just the action of the hipnotizer or healer, but an interaction between this person and his "customer". Credulity, I guess, correlates to suggestibility. The success of the Christian indoctrination was caused on two events:
1- A "Kingdom of God". In a time where mobility was restricted for most, all one could interact with was the narrative of christianity. Information of alternatives was unavailable for most.
2- Given condition one, number two, our suggestibility, credulity, superstitious nature, was shaped by what was available.

--- To this day the superstition holds, not quite to the extent that we kill them all, but it is so ingrained (conditioned) into us that black cats actually have a lower adoption rate at animal shelters!
O- If it is "so ingrained into us" shouldn't you consider that perhaps you have the cart mistaken for the horse? That perhaps the aversion to black cats was present prior to Christianity, and that Christianity simply adopted, as with so much else, what was already there as it's own? Just a thought that seems compelling, if it is as you say that in this "scientific age" we live in black cats are still shunned...or for that matter, why don't we find the adoption rates of snakes, rats, and spiders?

--- Either way, much like superstitions, Religion is a human construct which requires language, at least, for it to be conveyed to a specific extent.
O- And you don't think that language is a quality that defines man?

--- It all derives from language and is little more than a way for early humans to pass the time when they are not hunting, building shelter, or cultivating. In my opinion, that is.
O- So El was just an early version of small talk? Hardly. he might have been a version of Superman, but Superman carries a message and is not, to itself, a medium without a message. I think that religion, however, did not start with El or Yahweh, but with the veneration of ancestors and the personification of the life-giving Sun. the rituals that early man creates are meant to ensure the continuation of life. When you kill 12 virgins in one night (who knows), you are not just passing time until the next hunt or fruit desert, but ensuring to yourself that there will be a successful hunt and berries, AT ALL.
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Thu Jan 28, 2010 10:12 pm

O- yes, but their products and your products are not the same, and nor would you want to. You need to create a need as much as satisfy their already existing needs. You want a product a bit more serious to attract not just pimple-laced youths but also professionals that might not be found dead in such establishments but who have been, unconsciously, waiting for the opportunity you will provide.

PM146- I actually think that Hot Topic and Spencer's might appeal to many professionals. You'd be surprised at the guys that I have seen wprl in the office five days a week, who become leather-clad motorcycle enthusiasts the other two days of the week. Lawyers that spend their weekends playing World of Warcraft, the list goes on.

In any case, though, I think that said pimple-faced youths and acne-scarred collegiates are going to be our target market here, because much like the, "Goth," craze it has little more to do with the belief than about the fashion. Besides, what resemblance do these little Goth kids bear to the Visigoths who once took Rome?

Either way, we might come up with a separate mid-scale line of COTA apparel for either JCenney or Macy's just to see how it does because you could well be right.

Now, I need to go a full post without mentioning Rome, kind of tough while the discussion is partly about Religious history, though.

O- I disagree. While the sale of T-shirts and CD's maybe lucrative, the profit of these sales, either to a retailer or directly to a customer, will be a taxable transaction. The goodies that the COTA, as an NPO could really supply is donations from wealthy atheist who believe in the benefits the COTA hopes to provide. The cost of the COTA "owners" or "prophets", so to speak, standard of living, would be be declared as a necessary expense of the COTA, thus allowing massive donations to be funneled into your wallet and other material wellbeing items which are also necessary for the peace of mind of the voice of the COTA.

PM146- Those are very good points, but at the same time, I'm seeking to avoid external audit here. In addition to that, if the COTA runs the clothing line and the manufacturing end, then the COTA must not take a loss or it will fold. Ideally, both the COTA and the manufacturer will do well, but if either ever hit a rough patch (and as long as both do not do it at the same time) one could always act in such a way to support the other.

O- That would only indicate the success of your brand, but they will be "knock-off" creating the opportunity for COTA stores, just like Nike- a Walmart size store filled with official apparel, normally found in stores and those only found in your exclusive stores.

PM146- That is probably true, but the problem is then that you have to price-compete with the knock-off brands. Of course, you would still have a higher price, but you might have to bring it down to some extent. That's why you see so many knock-off jerseys all the time for different sports. However, if you monopolize the very market that you create, then you can manage your price-point based strictly off of how many people will remain actually in the market for whatever price you want to charge and what are the costs to deliver the market its own demand vs. the revenues.

In that sense, the exclusivity of the market will be based only on what is the most profitable, and the need will not exist to compete with anyone.

O- No one believes "unquestionably". Even conditioning will not drive it entirely away, since it actually depends on this aspect of human nature to work at all. The biggest treath to Big Brother is information. Control the availability of information and you can control a person's mind. The problem is that we do not live in Orwell's dystopia...at least not in every detail. What you see in history is that the encounter with other cultures raise questions about one's own. Likewise, exposure to other kids and their families, when different from yours, raise doubts about the necessity of the values you've been taught. So it is not so much the "conditioning" part one should worry about, but the "isolation" part.

PM146- You make a very good point, here, and I suppose that the degree to which an individual is isolated is going to be to whatever the moral and legal degrees are to which the parent can isolate them. For instance, take those segmentations of the LDS out in Utah that lived in those encampments for so long and had everybody mostly brainwashed. They only got in trouble for violating incest and polygamy laws, not because they were brainwashing people. The could have brainwashed people without all of the incest and polygamy, but it was not enough for them.


O- And probably also associated with pain and pain then with "punishment", etc, etc. Superstition itself, has as a purpose survival. You knock on wood so that nothing bad befalls you, and not because you simply had desire to rap a beat...

PM146- Again, conditioning. That's why occasionally when some people are in need of luck they will, "Unconsciously," knock on wood. I quoted unconsciously because it actually is a conscious action, but it is a conditioned conscious action. I suppose that makes it somewhere in between conscious and unconscious.

O- That is not what I am saying. I am not saying of a particular religion. I am talking that they were superstitious and credulous and that this made religion a natural outcome/phenomenon.

PM146- It is worth noting that many of their superstitions came as the result of not being fully developed mentally. Could the same be true for many of our superstitions?

O- The cat itself or it's color are incidentals. What stands accross the species is the ability to associate the mundane with the spiritual, the carnal with the divine. Some men may have not been indoctrinated into hating black cats but in venerating cows, or trees, or socks, or just rocks. What you need for all these diverse activities is not just indoctrination but the ability to be indioctrinated at all.

PM146- That's true, so I suppose the question that we are having is whether the capacity for indoctrination is inherent or learned. That question really is simply the question of whether indoctrination can or cannot exist without language, and I suppose that it can. Since it can exist without language (without outside human influence) then I would have to infer that the capacity for belief, or to be indoctrinated, is inherent.

So, do you think it took language for Religion to become in any way formalized, or do you think that some people (prior to language) detected the same patterns in things and were able to come to an agreement on what those patterns symbolized?

O- a hipnotic session, just and in the vodoo and in Jesus healings, there is not just the action of the hipnotizer or healer, but an interaction between this person and his "customer". Credulity, I guess, correlates to suggestibility. The success of the Christian indoctrination was caused on two events:
1- A "Kingdom of God". In a time where mobility was restricted for most, all one could interact with was the narrative of christianity. Information of alternatives was unavailable for most.
2- Given condition one, number two, our suggestibility, credulity, superstitious nature, was shaped by what was available.

PM146- I understand whatyou mean here about the hypnotic session, though I don't think that Jesus would necessarily serve as a Universally acceptable example.

Your first point is fantastic, not only did it have the benefit of assuaging the material desires of those oppressed, but it additionally prevented the oppressed from revolting as the very act of revolting might be sufficient to keep them out of the Kingdom! Now, what about the people who have no reason to hope for any kind of a Kingdom because all of their material desires on Earth are already satisfied, would it be strictly number 2 for them?

O- If it is "so ingrained into us" shouldn't you consider that perhaps you have the cart mistaken for the horse? That perhaps the aversion to black cats was present prior to Christianity, and that Christianity simply adopted, as with so much else, what was already there as it's own? Just a thought that seems compelling, if it is as you say that in this "scientific age" we live in black cats are still shunned...or for that matter, why don't we find the adoption rates of snakes, rats, and spiders?

PM146- It was present prior to Christianity, but only amongst the Druids who did not necessarily believe them to be bad luck but merely the reincarnation of former humans who had done wicked acts. In virtually all other cultures except the Pagans and the Christians (At least, in all other cultures who feel one way or the other about it) the black cat is a sign of good luck!

As far as the snakes, rats and spiders are concerned, historically, they have not been kept as pets nearly as long as cats have.

O- And you don't think that language is a quality that defines man?

PM146- I didn't say that it wasn't, just merely that language is the First Cause of all other things caused as a result of language. Of course, man must exist to have language, so man would be a first cause all the same, but you see what I mean.

O- So El was just an early version of small talk? Hardly. he might have been a version of Superman, but Superman carries a message and is not, to itself, a medium without a message. I think that religion, however, did not start with El or Yahweh, but with the veneration of ancestors and the personification of the life-giving Sun. the rituals that early man creates are meant to ensure the continuation of life. When you kill 12 virgins in one night (who knows), you are not just passing time until the next hunt or fruit desert, but ensuring to yourself that there will be a successful hunt and berries, AT ALL.[

PM146- You make a very good point, which only illustrates that it is our capacity for indoctrination and our susceptibility to superstition that makes us inferior to what we could be as well as what makes us conditionable.Fortunately, not very many cultures go around wantonly sacrificing virgins to ensure a good harvest anymore, so we've at least mentally evolved past that.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby omar » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:08 pm

Hello Pavlov.

So about the COTA marketing strategy:
Your customer pool might be drawn from Hot Topic/Spencer...and World of Witcraft playing professionals, but then you don't want to just compete alongside them, to offer the same products or offer a new spin on an existing product. Who doesn't make atheist themed t-shirts? The point is to offer what is not there and create the desire for that article. For example, why not atheist retreats for couples, or atheists TV channels with atheistic programing? Along these products, you still sell small items that anyone will want a part of, but up to now, that I know of, no one has really gone after the big fish the way that christians have. Why not start? Look at Scientology as a model, attracting the rich and the powerful. If you narrate it correctly, you can create a NPO that is very lucrative, providing what all people need, including atheists- the need to belong to something greater, to be heard, to be provided with a means to enhance their fitness. What you charge to possibly meet these needs is arbitrary and what makes such enterprise lucrative. Combining these aspects of a possible COTA, is the market by-product that accompanies such narratives. People in Greece were selling statuetes of gods right outside the temples. In Catholic countries the celebration of days dedicated to a saint coincides with the sell of various objects deemed necessary to the effectiveness of the narrative. Meaning that it is not only in t-shirts were money is to be made but in everything you create as necessary to fulfill the narrative that you are selling.

As for superstition you ask: "It is worth noting that many of their superstitions came as the result of not being fully developed mentally. Could the same be true for many of our superstitions?
O- Was Socrates and other greeks not fully developed? What about Philo, Marcus Borg, Martin Bueber, even Ratzinger himself? Do read his book on Religious tolerance. I find that superstition can be defined in many ways and can be found in many things. I think that where we think that there is no superstition what we find is the same ability that made superstition possible making a substitude for it. We don't believe in God now so much now it might be because we believe in science and in math as the language of It's, Reality, revelation. The book of this god is written in the sky and in our hands, but this belief is just belief...we are no longer superstitious because we are still, in some new form, superstitious.

You ask me: "So, do you think it took language for Religion to become in any way formalized, or do you think that some people (prior to language) detected the same patterns in things and were able to come to an agreement on what those patterns symbolized?
O- Language is already presuppose in the very ability to dicern patterns and correspondence. We "communicate" already and without this ability no belief is possible and no communication is possible, verbal or written. But sure, the formalization of religion probably follows the development of language. When our language becomes capable of transcending the moment, the now and here and projects itself where the speaker or hearer IS NOT, religion, as well as science then can reach a higher plateau.

--- Now, what about the people who have no reason to hope for any kind of a Kingdom because all of their material desires on Earth are already satisfied, would it be strictly number 2 for them?
O- It depends. I believe that the rich always have a troublesome relationship with the Saviour. How genuine were their prayers?
omar
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2868
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Where Crocs thrive

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:35 am

"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7062
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Jayson » Fri Feb 03, 2012 9:26 am

the black tower will scale 46 meters (150 ft), with each centimeter honoring earth's age of 4.6 billion years

Image
Image
Image

That review was also pretty condescending, but I like the concept.
>jaysonthestumps.blogspot.com
>Hebrew, Greek, and more similar resources on ILP

Spiritual: a set of neurological processes dealing with value placement, empathy, and sympathy through the associative truncation of relative identity, and which has reached a value set capable of being described as reverent to the individual, and from which existential experience and reflection is capable explicitly.
User avatar
Jayson
Alaskan Gypsy
 
Posts: 8318
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2008 4:53 am
Location: Wasilla, Alaska

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Oughtist » Sat Apr 14, 2012 9:32 pm

There's money to be made here people. Money to be made!!
What you said.
User avatar
Oughtist
Para-philosopher
 
Posts: 2852
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 5:42 am
Location: Epiphoneminal Max

Re: Church of the Athiest

Postby Moreno » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:18 am

User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8894
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]