Church of the Athiest

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?

Pav,

That’s presupposing that there was a rose too.

i’m not sure…wouldn’t it depend at what point we evolved into being human?

Hello Pavlov:

— Absolutely, youth retreats, after-school programs, extracurricular sports teams. All requiring a donation to the Church, of course.
O- That in itself is no argument as to why such activities should be untaxable. Having youth retreats does not define your organization as a religion. It is still just a group of people united by nothing. Note that non-belief, even spun to appear a positive, still affirms only the absence (negative existence) of what is affirmed (positive existence) by others. Theists therefore have a basis from which rights or priviledge can be argued (“we’re” special because God blah, blah, blah), but I see no such basis from the position that no god exist. The repercusions of such faith in fact bring about no priviledge (we are not special because there is no god…) and the State is free to impose it’s will on you as a group, with your blessings, if you wish to remain consistent with your faith.

— It wouldn’t. Does it have to?
O- Pan-theism is not atheism. In fact it would be incompatible with atheism because it is not that it believes in no God but believes in too much God.

— 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- But the issue is not whether either more suggestive than the other, but whether atheism should count as a Church and be granted tax priviledges. On the first, to me, it cannot count because it’s very belief system would act as an acid on any Church structure. You have to admit that the atheist’s movement did in fact sway and still sways many, regardless of whether they are former theists or agnostics. And we can see the effects of their influence from the time of Darwin. Kings, Popes, monks, all lost priviledges as a result and democracy became dominant. A Church implies a belief that atheists declare false. But if a Church was possible, then I would have to question the atheist’s claim that he or she believes in no god and/or any special status for human beings. Since no Church is sustainable based on the atheist’s own belief system, that cannot affirm a special priviledge of one author or one form of organization, it cannot be recognized by the State. What is there to be recognized is an attempt to evade taxes which of course the State will block. By the way, Witgenstein’s position seems to be more agnostic and even, at times, theistic (Negative Way).

— 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.
O- I think that a murder case requires unprovable positive beliefs to be held. Stipulating that it is not enough for the lone person without an alibi to automatically be the murderer is yet another exampleof an unprovable but positive belief, not because we can doubt that he/she did it, but because we doubt that based on further beliefs about how we can find a murderer, such as “motive”. A murderer is not the lone person with no alibi because we go farther than that criteria in determining who is a murderer, including motive and opportunity, DNA, prints, prior record. As far as our subject is concerned, IF unprovable negative beliefs (“what if” scenarios) were more “readily acceptable”, THEN I doubt that we could reach a conviction even if we had more than just a loner without an alibi.

— The scientific research cannot be taxed if the researching entity is an NPO.
O- What the hell is an “NPO”?

Hello, Omar.

Perhaps not as a Religion, but being an organization that is not for profit typically defines you as a non-profit organization.

I meant to be an NPO. The only qualifications for being an NPO is that you are an organization of some kind and you exist for non-profit reasons.

Why do you have to have a God to have a church? Keep in mind, we are only calling it a church. I could open up a movie rental place and call it a church if I really wanted to, of course, I’d miss my target audience by a long shot.

The point is, in theory, you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof is a positive, but what makes the unprovable negative easier to accept is that a Defendant, at no point, actually has to prove that he did not commit the crime, just that he might not have. Obviously, proving that you did not commit the crime helps, but it is not necessary to avoid a conviction. There are even some notable legal cases where charges were dropped when virtually everyone knew the Defendant was guilty as Hell.

There would be many more convictions if the standard was guilty until proven innocent, because in some cases, you would be attempting to prove an unprovable negative.

Non-Profit Organizations. Any entity that is a non-profit organization can receive tax exemption status in most states.

You can always join that out of the closet atheist thing.

outcampaign.org/

The Dawkinsian religion of choice for the discerning out, homosexuality is optional apparently.

There’s no prejudice if you are gay just to make that clear, and you don’t have to swing that way to join and you are not going to hell apparently after all for man on man action, should that be the way you chose to be in your life for which there is no extra fee, which is free anyway and strictly non profit.

I’m not a member so they are not paying me to advertise, I am agnostic or bi curious if it was a sexuality choice analogy. And by analogy I mean I was never confused! :smiley: