Church of the Athiest

[PavlovianModel146]

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

That works for me!

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.

The cover is ready to roll!

Of course we're not relying on content, if they know what the content is that means they've already bought it which is all I need them for.

[fuse]

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.

Of course it is a matter of belief. And let's be clear, faith (how you are using it) just is belief. E.g.

Oxford English Dictionary
faith, n.
I. Belief, trust, confidence.
b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. (secondary)

The secondary meaning here is the kind of faith that is used to overcome a lack of evidence. It is a blindness overlooked. You take someone else's word because you trust that person, not because there is any real evidence. You don't have that with atheism.

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...

Whatever, I do not believe in extra political benefits for religions.

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.

Sorry. Find another way to make money...if that's what you really want.

A successful atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An atheist may need to give reasons, but does need to defend herself against religion. You have no positive claims. "But if you're an atheist you are saying that God did not create man/the world/etc." Fine, then be agnostic. This is small potatoes. Religion has to defend itself from atheism.

Do you really think "preaching" to the religious is going to make them change their entire belief system? Do you like when theists preach to you? You want to become like them in this respect?

No one likes to be lectured into changing their opinion, much less all their beliefs about the world. Most people will resist. Almost all of us did that with our parents. I am sure this isn't the way to go.

[Oughtist]

Do you really think "preaching" to the religious is going to make them change their entire belief system? Do you like when theists preach to you? You want to become like them in this respect?

No one likes to be lectured into changing their opinion, much less all their beliefs about the world. Most people will resist. Almost all of us did that with our parents. I am sure this isn't the way to go.

Preaching is, in the end, just stand-up. People pay good money to listen to Stand-ups. The Atheist preacher is blatantly a Stand-up. Ex-sistence is a Stand-up. People LOVE for their existence to be put into question, so long as it's done with a light heart and no serious agenda intended. Minds have been changed by laughter. Good can be done through humour!! Ideas, even, can be originated through the cognitive break that is comedy. Religion proper, on the otherhand, is famously tragic, despite its attempts at levity and use of libations. So, no downers allowed!

[fuse]

Do you really think "preaching" to the religious is going to make them change their entire belief system? Do you like when theists preach to you? You want to become like them in this respect?

No one likes to be lectured into changing their opinion, much less all their beliefs about the world. Most people will resist. Almost all of us did that with our parents. I am sure this isn't the way to go.

Preaching is, in the end, just stand-up. People pay good money to listen to Stand-ups. The Atheist preacher is blatantly a Stand-up. Ex-sistence is a Stand-up. People LOVE for their existence to be put into question, so long as it's done with a light heart and no serious agenda intended. Minds have been changed by laughter. Good can be done through humour!! Ideas, even, can be originated through the cognitive break that is comedy. Religion proper, on the otherhand, is famously tragic, despite its attempts at levity and use of libations. So, no downers allowed!

This is comedy. Anyone can make money as a comedian if your punch-lines are good enough. You don't need to be part of a religion to make money doing comedy.

"Minds have been changed by laughter." Sure, but entire belief systems gone? And with a subject as serious as religion? No...my "money" is against it.

[PavlovianModel146]

Of course it is a matter of belief. And let's be clear, faith (how you are using it) just is belief. E.g.

Oxford English Dictionary
faith, n.
I. Belief, trust, confidence.
b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. (secondary)

The secondary meaning here is the kind of faith that is used to overcome a lack of evidence. It is a blindness overlooked. You take someone else's word because you trust that person, not because there is any real evidence. You don't have that with atheism.

I take faith to mean confidence in a belief in this case, because, Atheists are generally confident that there is not a God. That's where your whole Pascal's Wager thing would otherwise come into play again.

Whatever, I do not believe in extra political benefits for religions.

Do you believe in them for NPO's? Because that is pretty much what a Religion is, same tax breaks, different category.

Sorry. Find another way to make money...if that's what you really want.

Not really. I don't know if you read the whole OP, you probably did, but this whole thing was pretty much a joke. Not even pretty much, it just was a joke.

A successful atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An atheist may need to give reasons, but does need to defend herself against religion. You have no positive claims. "But if you're an atheist you are saying that God did not create man/the world/etc." Fine, then be agnostic. This is small potatoes. Religion has to defend itself from atheism.

That depends on who the aggressor is, does it not? It seems to me that when you have people coming to your door, taking you aside, giving you pamphlets, putting books in hotel rooms, and AND practically owning the media for a time (not so much now) yeah, you're the one on the defense.

Do you really think "preaching" to the religious is going to make them change their entire belief system? Do you like when theists preach to you? You want to become like them in this respect?

Who said I am not a Theist? I didn't.

I didn't say I am an Atheist either.

Nor did I say I am Agnostic.

It may or may not make them change. Actually, nothing can make them change, an Athiest will impart information and then they decide whether or not to change. In any case, we'll make our money off of Atheists, but if we can get more people to be Atheists, then that is more money.

Ultimately, the Chruch itself is Secondary in terms of money making, it might even take a small loss. If it does that's fine, because one of our Merchandise Corporations can make a tax deductible donation to make up for it. We're going to make most of our money off of Merchandising, but we need the actual Church to lend an air of legitimacy to the Merchandise.

No one likes to be lectured into changing their opinion, much less all their beliefs about the world. Most people will resist. Almost all of us did that with our parents. I am sure this isn't the way to go.

It'll be Ok. Even if we fail to convert one single Theist, I still think the Market is there for this venture to be profitable.

[Oughtist]

Ultimately, the Chruch itself is Secondary in terms of money making, it might even take a small loss. If it does that's fine, because one of our Merchandise Corporations can make a tax deductible donation to make up for it. We're going to make most of our money off of Merchandising, but we need the actual Church to lend an air of legitimacy to the Merchandise.

This sounds like a killer story theme, Pav. Managing the Achurch! You write the first chapter, and, as VP, I'll write Chapter Two (unless you or someone else beats me to it, of course )... Carleas, get thee to a publisher! We should be able to negotiate movie rights on the thought alone, I figure!

And we could build our Chruch with the profits, and start franschising. Then we could start contributing to political parties and begin our reign of hilarity!!

[fuse]

Of course it is a matter of belief. And let's be clear, faith (how you are using it) just is belief. E.g.

Oxford English Dictionary
faith, n.
I. Belief, trust, confidence.
b. Belief proceeding from reliance on testimony or authority. (secondary)

The secondary meaning here is the kind of faith that is used to overcome a lack of evidence. It is a blindness overlooked. You take someone else's word because you trust that person, not because there is any real evidence. You don't have that with atheism.

I take faith to mean confidence in a belief in this case, because, Atheists are generally confident that there is not a God. That's where your whole Pascal's Wager thing would otherwise come into play again.

?

So now we're talking about belief in a belief?
I think this is irrelevant, really.

Whatever, I do not believe in extra political benefits for religions.

Do you believe in them for NPO's? Because that is pretty much what a Religion is, same tax breaks, different category.

For NPOs, sure. Religions are not NPOs, but, if a religious organization legitimately qualifies as an NPO, then fine.

Sorry. Find another way to make money...if that's what you really want.

Not really. I don't know if you read the whole OP, you probably did, but this whole thing was pretty much a joke. Not even pretty much, it just was a joke.

Then I don't understand the point of the exercise.

A successful atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An atheist may need to give reasons, but does need to defend herself against religion. You have no positive claims. "But if you're an atheist you are saying that God did not create man/the world/etc." Fine, then be agnostic. This is small potatoes. Religion has to defend itself from atheism.

That depends on who the aggressor is, does it not? It seems to me that when you have people coming to your door, taking you aside, giving you pamphlets, putting books in hotel rooms, and AND practically owning the media for a time (not so much now) yeah, you're the one on the defense.

Unless you think it's worth anybody's time to argue for your beliefs...then shut the door, change the channel, etc. The way you say "preach" doesn't evoke images of careful, honest, discussion. If the latter is really the goal, then you already have plenty of avenues to get that underway.

[Oughtist]

Do you really think "preaching" to the religious is going to make them change their entire belief system? Do you like when theists preach to you? You want to become like them in this respect?

No one likes to be lectured into changing their opinion, much less all their beliefs about the world. Most people will resist. Almost all of us did that with our parents. I am sure this isn't the way to go.

Preaching is, in the end, just stand-up. People pay good money to listen to Stand-ups. The Atheist preacher is blatantly a Stand-up. Ex-sistence is a Stand-up. People LOVE for their existence to be put into question, so long as it's done with a light heart and no serious agenda intended. Minds have been changed by laughter. Good can be done through humour!! Ideas, even, can be originated through the cognitive break that is comedy. Religion proper, on the otherhand, is famously tragic, despite its attempts at levity and use of libations. So, no downers allowed!

This is comedy. Anyone can make money as a comedian if your punch-lines are good enough. You don't need to be part of a religion to make money doing comedy.

"Minds have been changed by laughter." Sure, but entire belief systems gone? And with a subject as serious as religion? No...my "money" is against it.

We don't need your money, fuse, just your words! Come on, you could write Ch. 3. Ground floor, fuse, ground floor... goin'up?

I declare a Novel Off! Now get to work, Pav...

[fuse]

Preaching is, in the end, just stand-up. People pay good money to listen to Stand-ups. The Atheist preacher is blatantly a Stand-up. Ex-sistence is a Stand-up. People LOVE for their existence to be put into question, so long as it's done with a light heart and no serious agenda intended. Minds have been changed by laughter. Good can be done through humour!! Ideas, even, can be originated through the cognitive break that is comedy. Religion proper, on the otherhand, is famously tragic, despite its attempts at levity and use of libations. So, no downers allowed!

This is comedy. Anyone can make money as a comedian if your punch-lines are good enough. You don't need to be part of a religion to make money doing comedy.

"Minds have been changed by laughter." Sure, but entire belief systems gone? And with a subject as serious as religion? No...my "money" is against it.

We don't need your money, fuse, just your words! Come on, you could write Ch. 3. Ground floor, fuse, ground floor... goin'up?

I declare a Novel Off! Now get to work, Pav...

Oh? Ch. 3? Of what, an atheist bible?

[Oughtist]

We don't need your money, fuse, just your words! Come on, you could write Ch. 3. Ground floor, fuse, ground floor... goin'up?

I declare a Novel Off! Now get to work, Pav...

Oh? Ch. 3? Of what, an atheist bible?

No, we can wait to write the Text in the liesure of our rich and famous lifestyles. I mean about the thought of running such a business. Intrigue. Suspense. Cliffhangers. Whatever ya want! Though there might at some point be some sort of group committee to discuss editing the Script. Given Hume, it may or may not at that point be an Atheist polemic. The future is unwritten, as Strummer put it.

[fuse]

We don't need your money, fuse, just your words! Come on, you could write Ch. 3. Ground floor, fuse, ground floor... goin'up?

I declare a Novel Off! Now get to work, Pav...

Oh? Ch. 3? Of what, an atheist bible?

No, we can wait to write the Text in the liesure of our rich and famous lifestyles. I mean about the thought of running such a business. Intrigue. Suspense. Cliffhangers. Whatever ya want! Though there might at some point be some sort of group committee to discuss editing the Script. Given Hume, it may or may not at that point be an Atheist polemic. The future is unwritten, as Strummer put it.

Well, if I had known I was going to be offered a position in something this exclusive I might have been less resistant. Do I get a share of any profits?

On second thought... I dunno though. You might want someone a little more...amenable to your cause.

[ravencalls]

...hmmm.. and where do all our so called "shamans" fit into all this?....

... thinks most churches have way HUGH and very TALL doors.. cant understand why..

[ravencalls]

...hmmm.. and where do all our so called "shamans" fit into all this?....

. keeps wondering... If I only believe in "ME".. what is it really that I am believing in?...

[PavlovianModel146]

Ultimately, the Chruch itself is Secondary in terms of money making, it might even take a small loss. If it does that's fine, because one of our Merchandise Corporations can make a tax deductible donation to make up for it. We're going to make most of our money off of Merchandising, but we need the actual Church to lend an air of legitimacy to the Merchandise.

This sounds like a killer story theme, Pav. Managing the Achurch! You write the first chapter, and, as VP, I'll write Chapter Two (unless you or someone else beats me to it, of course )... Carleas, get thee to a publisher! We should be able to negotiate movie rights on the thought alone, I figure!

And we could build our Chruch with the profits, and start franschising. Then we could start contributing to political parties and begin our reign of hilarity!!

I didn't even think about franchising, yet, you're way ahead of me on Chapter 2!

Dude, maybe we seriously should turn this into a book, though.

[PavlovianModel146]

So now we're talking about belief in a belief?
I think this is irrelevant, really.

It is irrelevant, but to clarify, faith is a degree of belief. It is a little, "Higher," than belief. Or, Ahigher in this case.

For NPOs, sure. Religions are not NPOs, but, if a religious organization legitimately qualifies as an NPO, then fine.

They're not NPO's? The goal is to make profit for the owner or owners? What owners? God?

If so, then God owes the IRS a lot of F***ing money!

Then I don't understand the point of the exercise.

It's not an exercise, it's a joke.

Unless you think it's worth anybody's time to argue for your beliefs...then shut the door, change the channel, etc. The way you say "preach" doesn't evoke images of careful, honest, discussion. If the latter is really the goal, then you already have plenty of avenues to get that underway.

Shutting the door and changing the channel are defenses. That's the point. By the way, the latter is not the goal, making money is the goal. We want our target market to think the latter is the goal, though. That's what Mission Statements are all about, making your cause seem noble when your only real cause is, make money.

[Oughtist]

Dude, maybe we seriously should turn this into a book, though.

Egg-sellen't!! Since you're Chapter One, how bout you post the working title in Creative Writing (or an alternate forum?) and start sketching there. I'll reply right behind you and start on Chaper Two (dibs! Infinity!!). Anyone else (including ourselves again, and of course you, fuse, not to mention MMP, xzc, and all you other oratorical legends out there) can claim subsequent chapters and start knitting this thing together. Can't think of any strict rules yet, other than sellability; perhaps no verbose philosophical opinings (unless, of course, such can be done in a commercially sensitive way). Perhaps we should also start a side-thread for commentary on the process.

This time next year we'll be the international darlings of philosophy. People will pay to get into ILP! Fame! Glory! Wealth! Vice galore!!!

...aaah, I love a good dream...

[PavlovianModel146]

You mean I didn't have to pay to be here?

Carleas, you lying bastard!!!

[fuse]

Okay, you guys have made me crack a smile. Funny.

[PavlovianModel146]

AOughtist and I are glad to be of service!

[omar]

Hello Pavlov:

--- I don't know so much about that. If an Athiest were to walk into a Christian Church, go up to the podium and start speaking I doubt if they would be heard for very long, and there would certainly be conditions.
O- Well of course. But my point is that a Church provides certain social advantages for it's members. An atheist could not be a member of a theistic Church, so it would not apply. But that does not discount the benefits enjoyed by theists at theistic Churches, just as there could be at any other defining group. If you started an atheistic Church, for it to attract, it would probably have many features similar to it's theistic counter-parts, as was seen in Communism.

--- By the way, you could have a liturgy if you want to. Sure, it wouldn't technically be worship, unless you want to worship life itself.
O- How would that differ from Pantheism or some forms of witchcraft?

--- 1.) There are a variety of reasons. Not least of which is the complete lack of Empirical-Evidence.
O- "Evidence" is a value judgment, so what is the history behind such decision?

--- I'm not saying there is any Empirical-Evidence necessarily suggestive of an alternative.
O- You can't have it both ways Pavlov. If each is a matter of faith, then each alternative IS suggestive.

--- However, if you think about other things in life, an unprovable negative is more readily acceptable than an unprovable positive.
O- Hardly, or else we would readily gravitate towards solipsism. Knowledge, or the posibility of it, depends on such disposition to imagine unprovable positives-- to take leaps of faith, of which atheism, you admitted, is but just another example of a leap of faith.

--- 2.) The use of a Church would be for Athiests to congregate and discuss different viewpoints existing in support of Athiesm. Much like Bible Study, it would lead to a stronger and more well-read belief.
O- That sounds like in need of "unprovable positives", and if an unprovable negative is "more readily acceptable", then why the need to discuss different viewpoints. Have you ever attended Bible Study? It does not investigate the probability of the existence of God, but departs from the presupposition. Likewise, perhaps what you meant is discussions that follow from the inexistence of God, but as such, the Government would stipulate, these discussions represent scientific research which can be taxed.

--- I think that an Athiest parent should listen with an open ear and give their kids freedom of choice.
O- To even choose to believe in God?

[Oughtist]

AOughtist and I are glad to be of service!

Indeed. At your command!

[Sidhe]

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.

Oh crap I'm allergic to work, seriously every time I go to interviews they turn me down. Perhaps saying my bestest hobby is ham shandies is a tad off putting.

No seriously I wouldn't work for any employer that would have me unless it involved being a titular nobody who does nothing ever and still gets paid as some sort of tax evasion thing.

Oh I'll sell your DVD, car boot sale ok?

[PavlovianModel146]

Hello, Omar.

Hello Pavlov:

O- Well of course. But my point is that a Church provides certain social advantages for it's members. An atheist could not be a member of a theistic Church, so it would not apply. But that does not discount the benefits enjoyed by theists at theistic Churches, just as there could be at any other defining group. If you started an atheistic Church, for it to attract, it would probably have many features similar to it's theistic counter-parts, as was seen in Communism.

Absolutely, youth retreats, after-school programs, extracurricular sports teams. All requiring a donation to the Church, of course.

O- How would that differ from Pantheism or some forms of witchcraft?

It wouldn't. Does it have to?

O- "Evidence" is a value judgment, so what is the history behind such decision?

Well, we all have our own standard for what qualifies as Evidence. Apparently, if someone is an Atheist, what the Theists are bringing to the table is not enough.

O- You can't have it both ways Pavlov. If each is a matter of faith, then each alternative IS suggestive.

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- Hardly, or else we would readily gravitate towards solipsism. Knowledge, or the posibility of it, depends on such disposition to imagine unprovable positives-- to take leaps of faith, of which atheism, you admitted, is but just another example of a leap of faith.

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.

How can such a person defend themselves in the case? You can't prove a negative, he can't prove he was not there if he was home, alone, asleep. They have to be able to prove the guy was at the murder scene.

O- That sounds like in need of "unprovable positives", and if an unprovable negative is "more readily acceptable", then why the need to discuss different viewpoints. Have you ever attended Bible Study? It does not investigate the probability of the existence of God, but departs from the presupposition. Likewise, perhaps what you meant is discussions that follow from the inexistence of God, but as such, the Government would stipulate, these discussions represent scientific research which can be taxed.

[/quote]

The scientific research cannot be taxed if the researching entity is an NPO.

*-Wittgenstein in quotes.

[PavlovianModel146]

Oh crap I'm allergic to work, seriously every time I go to interviews they turn me down. Perhaps saying my bestest hobby is ham shandies is a tad off putting.

No seriously I wouldn't work for any employer that would have me unless it involved being a titular nobody who does nothing ever and still gets paid as some sort of tax evasion thing.

Oh I'll sell your DVD, car boot sale ok?

A sale is a sale.

[Arcturus Descending]

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.