Church of the Athiest

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”.

Right, so such a person could be described as a non-thiest, which is something they are. A descriptive term cannot be applied to something that is not, otherwise it would not be descriptive. A descriptive term stated in the negative describes a quality a person lacks, but is still itself descriptive.

It may be redundant, but so is saying we are human. That doesn’t make it any less true.

I definitely agree with that.

Exactly, now you are helping everyone understand why there must be different Denominations of Athiest. The Denominations of Athiest will be more specifically descriptive while such terms as, “Non-Theist,” or, “Atheist,” just describe generalities.

Plus you have to consider the cold, hard $$$ and the tax breaks!

Theism is descriptive A-theism is a statement about whether or not that description is accurate or not… Red is a color “not-red” is not a color.

uhhhh… the irony!

Yes Pav… water really IS wet. Spread the word! Redundant as the effort may be :stuck_out_tongue:

If it is blue, it is not red and blue is a color.

That’s basically the way I look at it. Right now, there are three general possibilities, Atheism, Theism, and Agnosticism. If you take Theism out of the equation, then Agnosticism is also gone, leaving Atheism.

For a descriptive term not to be applied to a thing means that there is either an opposite descriptive term, or different descriptive term of the same category that can be applied to that thing. Or, no descriptive term fits the thing.

Now, what you are saying, is that because a person could not be described as Atheist (Because Atheism is not opposite a possible description, and there is no other description in the category due to the category’s non-existence) that nobody can be an Atheist. Of course, without the descriptive term of Atheist, the person could still be (and would be) an Atheist, they just wouldn’t know it. They would not be described as one, but something does not have to be describable or even knowable in order to be.

#-o

That does not mean that “not-red” is a color! “E=mc^2” is as much “not-red” as blue is…

#-o

The point is, if it is not red, it must be some other color. Unless it is clear, then it is not a color, the word to describe that is colorless. Either way, if it is not red, then some other word describes it.

EXACTLY! (provided “it” exists at all… a non-existent thing would equally be “not-red” after all… )

Atheism means “not theist” but some other word actually describes what you ARE… Atheist simply informs us about what you are NOT.

So, you are saying, Atheist is only a term of subtraction.

I’m going to call bullshit.

Otherwise, using the word, “Theist,” simply informs us about what you are not, which is an Athiest.

Yes… and “red” informs us that it’s not “not-red”.
Double negatives are allot of fun arn’t they?

Theism informs us that you believe in a diety of dieties… Atheism informs us that you do NOT believe in such things… it tells us nothing about what you DO believe.

Notice please that the only way to define atheism is through the use of a negative… It’s the dismissal of a description (theism)… it’s not itself a description of anything!
I challange you to finish this sentence without the use of a negative:
Atheism is a belief in… ?

You do believe in a lack of a diety or dieties. That’s easy enough to express as a positive.

Atheism is a belief in the lack of a God or Gods.

Atheism is a belief in the lack of a deity or deities.

Athiesm is a belief in creation ex nihilo.

I rest my case

What do you imagine “lack” means in this context?

C’mon Pav… we both know you’ve lost this one.

Also

I’m an atheist… yet I do not feel compelled to believe this in any way… I don’t know that anything was ever created to begin with… much less have I formed a belief about what caused it (or that nothing did)…
I don’t have a “belief” about how things came into existence or even if there was ever a time where they didn’t exist… I believe that I don’t know any of this…

This is NOT a necessary belief of atheism… and therefor cannot be what we are informed about when we are told that someone is an atheist.

EDIT:

Come to think of it…

Believing in a lack of a diety or dieties is not a necessary condition of atheism either… you could just as easily just lack a belief in a diety or dieties… without actively believing in the absence of such things and be an atheist all the same.

I probably have lost, but until I know for sure,

I’ll ask the questions here.

Do you think a Non-Thiest can exist without being an Athiest, provided the person did not actually believe in a Religion? What would you call such a person? No, I don’t mean Agnostics.

How can you believe in God without a God concept? You can’t. Therefore if there were no God concept, nobody would believe in God. How would you describe such a condition?

Keep in mind that we were collectively humans, before we created the label, “Human.”

I know, like XZC pointed out, that is a necessary belief of Anti-Theism.

Dude… Atheist literaly means “non-theist”. Do I think someone can be a non-theist without being a non-theist? no… I do not.

The human condition… but that’s not what you’re after is it?
What you are asking me to describe is the absence of a thing… not a thing… notice this please.

The thing which is absent is theism… so I have to describe this absence by saying it’s “not theistic.” in other words “atheistic”.

So, we would all be Athiests regardless of whether or not that is an actual thing.