Church of the Athiest

We may also note that when H lies on its side, it becomes I.

You’re absolutely correct and I was hoping that you would bring it up. That’s exactly why there must be separate Denominations of Athiesm so that no particular form of Athiest or Anti-Thiest be excluded. Look at the Apostolics, on the Christian side of things, for example. Those guys are hard-core, they are practically just like the Amish, except they can have electricty. Women can’t cut their hair, wear skirts or pants, have make-up or wear any jewelry aside from a wedding ring, but they want their electricity.

Small differences, in that case, but you’re talking about a big difference. That requires some differentiation. Just make sure not to differentiate too much, otherwise you’ll create a market so niche that you’ll never make any money out of this.

That’s true, also. We’re not really going to talk about Communism in this thread, though. One, because the U.S.S.R. did everything except kill people that had a Religious belief, but also because Religion is supposed to be a tool of Capitalism anyway. You can ask the TV Evangelist if he does it out of a love of God, and if he is on TV, it will seem believable. Ask when he is in his Maserati on his way to the airport to take a private jet (that he owns) out to Vegas to consort with some of the most expensive showgirls and lose hundreds of thousands at blackjack, lighting cigars off of C-Notes. Big Pimpin’, ask him then, and it won’t seem so believable.

Just remember if you want to make money for yourself, erm, I mean, your Athiest Denomination, stay credible, man, stay credible.

I’m raising a son outside of the church, and I pray that your contention is valid.

That said, I would claim that an Atheist’s claim that there is only a benign negation going on here is either deceptive or self-deceiving. Let me share my raisin about Atheism creating the lack of H:

  1. There is no hunger without food.

  2. There is not Atheism without Theism.

  3. Spirit is a many-splendored thing.

  4. H is not the only source of nutrition.

  5. Competition kills absolutes.

  6. Hiserits (aka God) is dead.

  7. This could not have occured without the evolution of appreciation for the true broader source of nutrients.

:sunglasses: There is no name for that source, as nouns are not appropriate.

  1. Atheism points to that lack, indeed created it (as a panorama for consciousness) despite the odds.

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.

I agree that without Theism, we would not coin such a term as, “Atheism,” but it does not mean that without the potential for a belief in God it would be impossible not to believe in a God/God (s). In fact, without that potential, it would only follow that we would not believe in a God.

Take food away, all of it, right now, gone. Will I not still starve to death?

Oh ya, for sure. And you’ll know it. You know food.

A lack of belief in Plubadoo is Aplubadooism. Except for that South American tribe which, allegedly, has no conception of Theity, the rest of us are stuck with the fact that God is a formative concept in our belief pool. As I mentioned to xzc, I personally desire to believe that, absent parental communicability, a new generation of humanity might rightfully claim not to be infected by exposure to the historical theo. But I would guess that’s a few generations away, at minimum. I think that fact explains alot of the atheist plight… wanting to know what it would be like to live in such a world, and “knowing” that one never will… and being reminded of the fact whenever a theist opens their mouth. [No offense intended, Theists, just trying to get a handle on myself, if you will]…

I suppose I am an Aplubadooist, then. Let me ask you this, though, before I was ever aware of Plubadoo (about forty seconds ago) I didn’t believe in Plubadoo then, so was I not still an Aplubadooist? I mean, sure, I couldn’t go up to someone and say that I was an Aplubadooist, but does that in any way change the fact that I did not believe in Plubadoo?

By the way, you could very easily raise an individual (in semi-isolation) and prevent any exposure to anything Theistic whatsoever. So, again, the real question here is would such an individual develop any sort of belief in any kind of God?

Ok, one more before bed… :smiley:

Yes. You did not, in such a scenario, dis-believe in Plubadoo. Athiests disbelieve.

Easily??? Come on Pav!! … g’nite! :laughing:

Fine. Disbelieving still means, not believing, though, and I still not believed. In order to disbelieve, one must not believe, so the net result is the same. The only difference is that disbelieving will actually lead someone to possibly make a case against something, but the point with the previous example is without that thing no case needs to be made for not believing it.

Easy enough. Us mountain men could do it if we had to. I’m sort of glad we don’t have to, but I could.

So I guess the main issue sofar is whether Atheists must self-identify to be atheist… at least they’d have to to be considered upstanding members of the Church (or should that be Achurch?).

Achurch, nice work!

Let’s talk about that self-identification. Before I understood any language when I was just a baby, did I have to self-identify to be human, or was I just human? I think that the main argument here that we have to hash out with one another is (provided that we were not taught anything) belief in a God the natural state of affairs, or is not believing in a God the natural state of affairs?

I’m still trying to work out what Athiesm is.

I suppose Athiesm is something to do with the state of being or belonging to Athi, and Athiest therefore means, literally, most Athi. The proposed Church and religion of Athiesm is presumably therefore the establishment of Ath, from which I speculate its members must suffer lisps and talk out of their Atheth.

Verily, Coatleshsh, you raishe a valid obshervashion. Who ish thish Athi, indeed? I musht shit and think about that for a bit, for I do not recall meeting thish Athi. Or ish Athi not a pershon?

I’m, of course, taking the position that, even assuming the latter is technically the case (where “not believing” = there is no matter for “belief” as such), babies aren’t atheists. That to be an atheist is a developmental achievement, not a preformative state. Being human is a preformative state, awaiting the capacity for self-identity as such.

In connection to your position in your thread on Language, it is the thought that the above “Athiesm” joke wouldn’t make any sense in a world where Theism wasn’t already pretty much de rigueur already.

So, back to my original objection, there was no lack of God prior to Theism. “God” came into being, conceptually, as per the antropoligical development. Atheism eventually ensued, whereby humans had therewith “created” the lack of God. Only in hindsight was there such a lack previous to the human invention. Australopithecus was no more an atheist than is a postmodern infant.

Thus, as part of our Achurch Ritual, we must divise a counter-baptism to wash away the iniquity of previous Human belief, no?

And, of course, we must hunt down Coatless and condemn him for antiblasphemy!! :laughing:

Hello Pavlov:

— …so we can say that Athiests believe there is not a God.
O- Fair enough, but as such as as suceptible to a rational critique as most theists. The only advantage that I can see is that there is no liturgy to keep up with, but that is also it’s downfall. There is something to be said about the popularity of theism and it is not just because of the belief in God. Like psychotheraphy, it’s effects may have little to do with “unlocking” stashed away memories that affect conscious life, blah, blah, blah, and more to do with the biological need to be heard and understood without conditions.

—…have faith that there is not a God…
O- Two things:
1- Why do they believe this?
2- What would be the basis for a Church? Let me explain. If I believe that there is a glass cup before me then I may take further leaps of faith to achieve an end. It all starts with the belief that there “is”. But if I believe that before me there is nothing, then what subsequent steps could be inspired? There is nothing and so there is nothing for me. So I lose interest. A Church would seem to require something in which one believes, that is affected by the existence of a Church. If you believe there is no God then what would be the use of a Church?

—…Consider this, many people that were of other Religions may wake up one day and question their own faith in whatever God or Gods they have.
O- If they question thir faith then they cannot be atheist, for atheism requires faith, as you stated previously. It is not faith that is question and often not even God, but the correctness of our faith. What is question is not our faith but the concepts in which we believe. And I do not believe that doubt just comes with the morning. You do not go to bed a theist and wake up an atheist.

— Athiests did not cause them to do this.
O- No. Life did.

— However, for someone to convert to Christianity, one must read, hear, see or touch Christ in some way to know of Christ even conceptually, this empirical data is not required to not believe in a God.
O- It is. You do not believe in…what? You must know, read or in some way know of at least the concept of “God”, otherwise atheism is non-sensical in all levels and thus a meanigless pursuit that should not receive any serious protection from the powers that be.

— The question has often been asked, if they are a Religion or Church, why do they not gather? The simple answer is, yes, Religious Persecution.
O- For a time the Church of Satan was en vogue…I have read about burning crosses in black people’s lawn, but not in the gardens of white atheists for some odd reason. Again…it is not about God.

— …but have you ever had the opportunity to sit down with someone and talk to them, as a friend, about the complete absence of a God?
O- Let’s imagine this conversation happening with a skeptic:
"God? Son what in the world is that? Why are you wasting my time to talk to me about some unknown that is absolutely absent?

Excellent work!

I laughed my ass off!

That’s fine, but if you are not a Thiest, you are either an Athiest or an Agnostic. Now, if there is no such thing as, Thiesm, then you can also not be an Agnostic because there is no consideration to be given and are therefore an Athiest.

That’s true, I’m just happy someone finally realizes it is a joke! Unless you were planning on buying, then it is most certainly not a joke. I can slap together a package for you.

As threads change, though, so do positions. I just kind of argue whatever I feel like arguing at the moment.

Should anyone ever ask me for my personal position on something, though, I would be forthcoming.

It is true that the lack previous to the human invention exists only in hindsight. Regardless of what sight it exists in, though, the point is it exists.

I think that is a fantastic idea.

Nice joke about antiblasphemy. How dare you blaspheme my lack!!!

Hello, Newman.

Just kidding. Hello, Omar.

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.

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.

KEGSTAND!!!

1.) There are a variety of reasons. Not least of which is the complete lack of Empirical-Evidence. I’m not saying there is any Empirical-Evidence necessarily suggestive of an alternative. However, if you think about other things in life, an unprovable negative is more readily acceptable than an unprovable positive.

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.

They’re not necessarily Athiests at that point, they are Agnostics. From Agnostics, they may become Athiests. Those are the people most susceptible to conversion to the Athiest Church, by the way. They will be most open to our thoughts, not to mention our subliminal messages in our videos. (Sssshhh, that’s our little secret)

You can go to bed a Thiest and wake up an Agnostic, it’s called an A-piphany.

That’s right.

Athiesm would be natural on all levels. The point is that the concept of God is out there, regardless, so the Athiests must unite to help people live their lives without a pre-historic false believe.

No, they’re cool with the Athiests. We basically have a non-competition contract signed with them.

I don’t really want to talk about burning crosses on black peoples’ lawns in this thread, that’s appalling. I’ll discuss it elsewhere, but this thread is meant to be a little more light-hearted than that.

That goes back to the indoctrination of children thread. I think that an Athiest parent should listen with an open ear and give their kids freedom of choice.

I guess that’s where the conceptual difference is: For me, if there is yet no such thing as X, then there is no perspective pursuant to it; an atheist is, I would claim, conscious of their position, and it is pursuant to theism; simply to have no cognitive awareness of the concept “God” is insufficient, imo, to classify one as atheist. Are dogs athiest?

Ya, it’s nice not to have to re-reference oneself to a Text first!

Would it still be fair, though, then, to say that Neanderthals lacked atheism, and as such, did not observe it? Our calling them atheists would seem to be a misapplication. In any event, if a caveman comes a-knockin’ on our Achurch doors, I suggest we redirect him to the Presbyterians first.

I’m kind of in XZC’s corner on this one as it relates to the difference between Athiest and Anti-Thiest. Strictly speaking, are you not without God if there is no God? Certainly if there were no, “God,” concept it would not ever be put in such terms, but does that change the actual state of being?

The difference between dogs and humans is that with humans, even if they did not have a God concept, they could have a God concept. Dogs aren’t built with that ability.

LOL

The reason I do it is to actually figure out what my positions are. I find arguing two opposing positions to the best of my ability helpful in doing so, it also keeps me open-minded.

I think you are open-minded without doing that, but it helps with me because I used to have a tendency to be dogmatic.

LOL

Fair enough.

Of course, he’d be fine at the Achurch. In order for the Achurch to dispute the existence of God, they would still have to explain what the existence of God is. Now, that does not mean that people who know of no God are not Athiests, but to actually be able to discuss there not being a God one must know of God conceptually.

I think too many people tend to think of “atheist” as describing something you are… When in fact it is describing something you are NOT. A-theist literaly means non-theist.

Dog’s are all necessarily atheists and that’s why it’s silly to say that a dog is an atheist… it would be like saying water is wet. It’s redundant.

Humans on the other hand are not NECESSARILY atheists… in fact we’re more often theists of some kind. So in our case it can actually be informative to state whether someone is or is not a theist.

But knowing that someone is NOT a theist dosn’t tell you much about what that person IS. He could be ignorant of theism, he could be anti-theistic… or he could simply be a skeptical agnostic… those all fall under the “not theist” catagory which is “atheism”.