Church of the Athiest

?

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

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

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

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.

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… :mrgreen:

Oh? Ch. 3? Of what, an atheist bible? :-k

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.

…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…

…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?..

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.

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

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!

It’s not an exercise, it’s a joke.

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.

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…

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

Carleas, you lying bastard!!!

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

AOughtist and I are glad to be of service!

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?

Indeed. At your command!

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. :wink:

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?

Hello, Omar.

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

It wouldn’t. Does it have to?

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.

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.

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.

[/quote]
The scientific research cannot be taxed if the researching entity is an NPO.

*-Wittgenstein in quotes.

A sale is a sale.

Pav,

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. :laughing:

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?