Church of the Athiest

[fuse]

The only reason people have ever believed in God/gods is because the idea of God has always been attached to other specific conditions or implications. I.E. most God-concepts imply certain "extra" facts about the world, e.g. the existence of souls, Heaven & Hell, sin, God-given morality/authority, etc.

The idea of God becomes superfluous if you define God as the universe or as just whatever started everything. Unnecessary. You could never have a religion from a God-concept of this sort.

[Sidhe]

I disagree but not because there's isn't a belief, because practically speaking atheists are a bag of cats. If there is any dogma its confused and definitely undefined.

The idea of God becomes superfluous if you define God as the universe or as just whatever started everything. Unnecessary. You could never have a religion from a God-concept of this sort.

It's called Buddhism and they don't worship the source of all things as a person or worship anything in fact. You might argue Buddhism isn't a religion its a philosophy, but I think its both. Especially when they start banging on about reincarnation and karma. Two more indistinct notions that are completely unnecessary.

[Oughtist]

If there is any dogma its confused and definitely undefined.

Precisely! That's where the marketing challenge comes in. Dawkins et al. are being given free-reign to define the texture. Not that I have any great beef with that, but, hey, the frontier is open to all who seek to dispell monsters! Anselm's Fool is not only alive and well, but sending travelogues back to civilization. We of the Achurch must act now and keep our Adogma undefined, definitively!!

Adogma 1:

Believing is (not) believing.

To be aware of what one doesn't believe in is to be informed. To be aware of what one does believe in is to be perceptive. To be wise, one must not only believe. To be compassionate, one must not only care. One must know and do. Those are the rules. Aamen.

[Sidhe]

Hehe Ramen.

Anselm is not a fool he is a heretic to the atheist faith.

[fuse]

I disagree but not because there's isn't a belief, because practically speaking atheists are a bag of cats. If there is any dogma its confused and definitely undefined.

The idea of God becomes superfluous if you define God as the universe or as just whatever started everything. Unnecessary. You could never have a religion from a God-concept of this sort.

It's called Buddhism and they don't worship the source of all things as a person or worship anything in fact. You might argue Buddhism isn't a religion its a philosophy, but I think its both. Especially when they start banging on about reincarnation and karma. Two more indistinct notions that are completely unnecessary.

I am not talking about Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion. Buddhism implies certain "extra" facts about the world.

I am talking about a God-concept that does not imply "extra" facts about the world. And I maintain that you could never have a religion from a God-concept of this sort.

[Sidhe]

I am not talking about Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion. What I was referring to was not.

Fair enough but such strange animals do exist.

[fuse]

I disagree but not because there's isn't a belief, because practically speaking atheists are a bag of cats. If there is any dogma its confused and definitely undefined.

There is no dogma to atheism. As I've said, atheism is merely...atheism. For it to be anything else, it has to be "atheism +" ... "atheism and"

Again: Atheism is not a religion because it is neither a belief system nor worldview, it amounts to the single belief that God does not exist.

[Sidhe]

I disagree but not because there's isn't a belief, because practically speaking atheists are a bag of cats. If there is any dogma its confused and definitely undefined.

There is no dogma to atheism. As I've said, atheism is merely...atheism. For it to be anything else, it has to be "atheism +" ... "atheism and"

Again: Atheism is not a religion because it is neither a belief system nor worldview, it amounts to the single belief that God does not exist.

I don't disagree but religions have been founded on less than two fundamental beliefs. No atheism is not a religion, it is by definition the lack of one, and is about as definable as the tensile strength of nothing.

[fuse]

I disagree but not because there's isn't a belief, because practically speaking atheists are a bag of cats. If there is any dogma its confused and definitely undefined.

There is no dogma to atheism. As I've said, atheism is merely...atheism. For it to be anything else, it has to be "atheism +" ... "atheism and"

Again: Atheism is not a religion because it is neither a belief system nor worldview, it amounts to the single belief that God does not exist.

I don't disagree but religions have been founded on less than two fundamental beliefs. No atheism is not a religion, it is by definition the lack of one, and is about as definable as the tensile strength of nothing.

It's not only the fundamental beliefs of religions that matter, it's all that follows from the fundamental belief(s) that matters, and matters greatly. In this way, atheism itself is fundamentally not a religion, as we've both said.

How is atheism undefinable? "definable as the tensile strength of nothing"

I don't understand, do you take issue with the concept of atheism?

[Oughtist]

There is no dogma to atheism. As I've said, atheism is merely...atheism. For it to be anything else, it has to be "atheism +" ... "atheism and"

Again: Atheism is not a religion because it is neither a belief system nor worldview, it amounts to the single belief that God does not exist.

I don't disagree but religions have been founded on less than two fundamental beliefs. No atheism is not a religion, it is by definition the lack of one, and is about as definable as the tensile strength of nothing.

It's not only the fundamental beliefs of religions that matter, it's all that follows from the fundamental belief(s) that matters, and matters greatly. In this way, atheism itself is fundamentally not a religion, as we've both said.

How is atheism undefinable? "definable as the tensile strength of nothing"

I don't understand, do you take issue with the concept of atheism?

To recap: Atheism = a belief that there is no God (as opposed to being benignly without a belief in God) = a positive lack of religion = an extant void

Now to the tensile strength of nothing: All is suspended by nothing, by definition. Thus, to worship nothing is to expell All. This is surely akin to the Buddhist meditative state of observing emptiness (itself being only a penultimate state of contemplation, mind you). So, to differentiate the Achurch of Atheism (or Athiesm, if you prefer) from Buddhism, we must demonstrate that the extant lack which defines the belief in no God is not "something" which might carry us ontoward a logical consequent. Rather, the worship of nothing must comprise itself as not being an outcomes-based perspective. Rather, it is explicitly affirming the presencing of the present, and not anything else. Or am I reading too deeply into things here?

[Sidhe]

Again: Atheism is not a religion because it is neither a belief system nor worldview, it amounts to the single belief that God does not exist.

The tensile strength of nothing is indefinable, thus atheism is indefinable, lacks dogma or fundamental truths and as said there is a serious challenge as to whether its a religion or ever could be.

As an example of a religion founded on few beliefs, secular humanism, before the church failed the first hit on Google was for the church of secular humanism. I was sad to see it go, but it did make no sense. Secular humanism really just is a moral philosophy.

I don't understand, do you take issue with the concept of atheism?

Nope just the certainty.

Now to the tensile strength of nothing: All is suspended by nothing, by definition. Thus, to worship nothing is to expell All. This is surely akin to the Buddhist meditative state of observing emptiness (itself being only a penultimate state of contemplation, mind you). So, to differentiate the Achurch of Atheism (or Athiesm, if you prefer) from Buddhism, we must demonstrate that the extant lack which defines the belief in no God is not "something" which might carry us ontoward a logical consequent. Rather, the worship of nothing must comprise itself as not being an outcomes-based perspective. Rather, it is explicitly affirming the presencing of the present, and not anything else. Or am I reading too deeply into things here?

If its any consolation on first reading you broke my logic bone, but in a good way. I agree, there aren't enough logical positives to enforce a logical negative into being a logical positive by consequence.

[Oughtist]

Let's make that Adogma 2:

there aren't enough logical positives to enforce a logical negative into being a logical positive by consequence.

Atestify, abrother!!

[fuse]

Now to the tensile strength of nothing: All is suspended by nothing, by definition. Thus, to worship nothing is to expell All. This is surely akin to the Buddhist meditative state of observing emptiness (itself being only a penultimate state of contemplation, mind you). So, to differentiate the Achurch of Atheism (or Athiesm, if you prefer) from Buddhism, we must demonstrate that the extant lack which defines the belief in no God is not "something" which might carry us ontoward a logical consequent. Rather, the worship of nothing must comprise itself as not being an outcomes-based perspective. Rather, it is explicitly affirming the presencing of the present, and not anything else. Or am I reading too deeply into things here?

Atheism does not imply worship of any kind, certainly not worship of "nothing." Is belief that unicorns don't exist an "extant lack"? How can we differentiate "Aunicornism" from Buddhism? These are rhetorical questions.

Again Buddhism is a religion because it is a belief system/worldview. Atheism is not.

[Sidhe]

Let's make that Adogma 2:

there aren't enough logical positives to enforce a logical negative into being a logical positive by consequence.

Atestify, abrother!!

Halelujah abrother, respect the lack of a lord and join with me in a prayer to no one never.

Ramen, and noodle be his indistinct name you fool. Gotta love pirates even if you never believed they existed or were related to global warming. Ninjas are better, hallowed be there lack of being seen, observed, or even heard of.

Behold the visage of the omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster. Bask in His Noodliness and stare agape at His meatitude

"I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."”

~ Bobby Henderson (pasta be upon him)

good FSM when anything is possible anything that is impossible is sidelined without a care for consistency.

Atheism does not imply worship of any kind, certainly not worship of "nothing." Is belief that unicorns don't exist an "extant lack"? How can we differentiate "Aunicornism" from Buddhism? These are rhetorical questions.

Again Buddhism is a religion because it is a belief system/worldview. Atheism is not.

We agree it was only a semantic issue anyway I think we're all on the same train now? If that's not too much of a suggestion of fact before the evidence is in.

[fuse]

As an example of a religion founded on few beliefs, secular humanism, before the church failed the first hit on Google was for the church of secular humanism. I was sad to see it go, but it did make no sense. Secular humanism really just is a moral philosophy.

No I think the term "religion" is to be reserved for belief systems that include a fundamental belief in higher power (God). Secular humanism is..."secular."

Secular humanism is a worldview/belief system. But this thread is concerned with religion and whether atheism is one. We already agree that atheism cannot be a religion. Done.

I don't understand, do you take issue with the concept of atheism?

Nope just the certainty.

The certainty of what...?

EDIT: And atheism is not a religion on at least two counts: (1) no belief in higher power (2) no belief system
Either of these by itself is enough to disqualify atheism from being a religion.

[Oughtist]

Now to the tensile strength of nothing: All is suspended by nothing, by definition. Thus, to worship nothing is to expell All. This is surely akin to the Buddhist meditative state of observing emptiness (itself being only a penultimate state of contemplation, mind you). So, to differentiate the Achurch of Atheism (or Athiesm, if you prefer) from Buddhism, we must demonstrate that the extant lack which defines the belief in no God is not "something" which might carry us ontoward a logical consequent. Rather, the worship of nothing must comprise itself as not being an outcomes-based perspective. Rather, it is explicitly affirming the presencing of the present, and not anything else. Or am I reading too deeply into things here?

Atheism does not imply worship of any kind, certainly not worship of "nothing." Is belief that unicorns don't exist an "extant lack"? How can we differentiate "Aunicornism" from Buddhism? These are rhetorical questions.

Yes indeed, but we are presently in the act of creating within the negative space, as per my previous thought:

Why worship nothing?

For the superb rhetorical effect.

Apsalm 1

"Oh Nothing, you are so inexplicably humongous! And yet you fit in the palm of my hand...
Thine mystery is a dimensionless morass, and yet solice eminates from your nonbeing.
Great ontological personhoodwink, guide my episteme that it may be led by none other than what is determined momentarily.
For though I peregrinate through the many veils of nocturnal indefinition, yay do I find that I wake onto the same dream morningly.
Thine absense is my space to live. Aamen."

[/quote]

All we need worship is presence. This will radically transform Xmas!!

Again Buddhism is a religion because it is a belief system/worldview. Atheism is not.

Is Evolutionary Psychology a religion? (...not that I necessarily want to go there...)

The perniciously spurious speculation of this thread, I'd suggest, is to undergo (for the purposes of intellectual treadmilling) the process of making atheism into a religion... plenty of misguided disbelievers already do. Perhaps there's call for guidance in that respect (on the assumption that it's unavoidable), doused with a jerry can of sarcasm naturally...
[

[Sidhe]

EDIT: And atheism is not a religion on at least two counts: (1) no belief in higher power (2) no belief system
Either of these by itself is enough to disqualify atheism from being a religion.

We agree. We have to anyway I have to go and don my ninja robes soon and speak to an imaginary crowd of imaginary adherents about a religion that does not and could not ever exist.

Short story short, there's no way atheism is going to become a religion unless oughtist sorts out his cult and dies at a Wako like place.

Atheism is just an idea not a religion, but religion is just an idea. What distinguishes it, is that they make articles of faith into truth, an atheist cannot and will not do that, because obviously their only article of faith is up to revision if God smites them. In that sense of course it can't become a faith unless all atheist are strong atheists, and they most certainly aren't, some atheists couldn't give a damn if God exists or not until there's something to talk about, nor even want to talk about it.

[Oughtist]

Short story short, there's no way atheism is going to become a religion unless oughtist sorts out his cult and dies at a Wako like place.

Are you saying there's hope for me yet??!! Actually, I wouldn't want to assume actual ownership of the cult... I think Pav has copyright privileges on this thread.

[Sidhe]

Short story short, there's no way atheism is going to become a religion unless oughtist sorts out his cult and dies at a Wako like place.

Are you saying there's hope for me yet??!! Actually, I wouldn't want to assume actual ownership of the cult... I think Pav has copyright privileges on this thread.

If you or he has stripper factories and beer volcanoes in the after life I'm in otherwise you can shove it.

[fuse]

Again Buddhism is a religion because it is a belief system/worldview. Atheism is not.

Is Evolutionary Psychology a religion? (...not that I necessarily want to go there...)

Right, as I already said to Sidhe, "religion" is to be reserved for belief systems that include a fundamental belief in higher power (God).

Atheism is not a religion on at least two counts: (1) no belief in higher power (2) no belief system
Either of these by itself is enough to disqualify atheism from being a religion. A religion must have both.

[PavlovianModel146]

Hi Pavlovianmodel146,

I disagree to the fullest extent with most of what you say and what you are trying to do.

Hi, Fuse.

Thank you for your compliments.

Will you not be buying the DVD, then?

Just kidding, we've established that Atheism isn't truly a Religion at this point, though.

So is it the case, then, that all people have faith that an infinite number of other things do not exist as well???
Faith is used to overcome a lack of evidence. But you don't have to have faith not to believe in something that has no evidence.

In this case, you do. OK, an Atheist basically accuses a Christian of not being able to prove that God put us here, while at the same time, the Atheist himself is unable to prove (or in some cases speculate) as to how we did get here. Because the Atheist does not know how we got here, saying it has nothing to do with God is a matter of belief and faith.

Rather, if there are converts to Christianity, then one must only "think" God exists.

Belief and faith are words that describe a specific type of thought.

Atheism is NOT a religion. I do not believe religious bodies should be tax-exempt anyways!

Why not? I think everyone should be sales-tax exempt. Sales tax is bullshit. I've already been income taxed and I have no choice but to buy certain things...

Look, "MERE ATHEISM" is boring. There is very little to preach. IMO, that is a good thing about atheism. You want to make atheism into a religion and I say why?

Money.

There is plenty to preach. To be a very successful Atheist, you don't just have to be able to defend against Christianity, but every Theistic Religion there is.

[PavlovianModel146]

I forgot to add:

Tell me what positive beliefs necessarily stem from the one above.

We've already been through this.

I already lost that argument.

That's why we're making it an NPO.

[PavlovianModel146]

Point of Business: We need to find some way to can the lack. To sell nothing is the pinnacle of marketing evolution. It is an unavoidable eventuality. Supply is endless and demand is born evey minute!! The only labor involved in production is the mediation of the messagelessness.

Either supply is endless or there is no supply whatsoever.

Either way, I'm glad to have you on board. I'll tell you what, now that you are siding with me, I'll go 20% off.

[PavlovianModel146]

Sidhe,

You are four times more hilarious than I thought, and I already thought you were pretty funny!

Oughtist,

You have been doing a fantastic job in my absence. I'm going to make you my VP, but you have to do a better job pushing this DVD.

[Oughtist]

Point of Business: We need to find some way to can the lack. To sell nothing is the pinnacle of marketing evolution. It is an unavoidable eventuality. Supply is endless and demand is born evey minute!! The only labor involved in production is the mediation of the messagelessness.

Either supply is endless or there is no supply whatsoever.

Either way, I'm glad to have you on board. I'll tell you what, now that you are siding with me, I'll go 20% off.

20% off nothing!! Come on, Pav, I may be atheist, but I still have my dignity!! I insist on paying the full tab!!!

Oughtist,

You have been doing a fantastic job in my absence. I'm going to make you my VP, but you have to do a better job pushing this DVD.

Ok boss! Has the cover been designed yet? It's all in the packaging, y'know. Content isn't what I'm going to be relying on, after all.