You said the absence is Atheistic. So, in a world without a God concept, we would all be Atheists.
We would NOT be theists… if that’s what you mean… so saying that we are atheists would be true… yes…
EDIT: though it would be a meaningless term without an understanding of what theism meant.
It would be a meaningless term and a description that would never be applied, my argument was for the truth of the statement, though. Not whether or not the statement would be applicable or sensible within that context.
Well then you have your answer 
But it’s still not descriptive of a thing… it’s describing the lack of a thing.
Try to guess what I’m thinking about, I’ll describe it for you… it’s not red, it’s not squared, it’s not theistic it’s not a tiger, it’s not hungry, it’s not paper thin, it’s not in my left hand, it’s not the square root of 63… what am i describing?
Point taken.
Either way, you can still make Atheism a Church. Just go there and worship nothing.
Ok, I guess not.
Why not just label it an NPO and call it a Church, since Church is more Marketable. Those rich-ass Evangelists aren’t writing checks to themselves with the Chruch’s name on it, after all. All of these things are necessary expenses. It’s necessary to have a fourteen bedroom mansion, should I ever decide to have mass at my house. It’s necessary for me to have a private jet.
And, it’s necessary for me to sell you one of these DVD’s for four easy payments of $69.99. Rush delivery is available, but supplies are limited so you had better act soon.
What on earth would you be pitching though?
Didn’t we just agree that atheism was the LACK of a thing… and not a thing in itself… there is no “idea” that is atheism…
I’d make a church of science instead… sell science dvd’s and have people worship the accomplishments of past scientists… we could all gather on sundays and go over some facts about the world… except not all boring like a school… I’d put on a big fat show with strippers and kick as music and lightshows and whatnot… attract the audience that really needs the education AND take their money in the process… tax free of course.
We could go over the scientific method as the opening prayer… you know… the song and dance about oberservable phenomen empirical data… hypothesis, falsification… that kinda thing
Some Atheists are so because they are Philosophers, (i.e. Logical Positivists) who cannot accept a thing without empirical evidence.
Some Atheists are so because they are disenfranchised Christians.
Some Athiests are so, because while not Philosophers, they have put signifcant thought into the matter.
Some Atheists, though, are melodramatic, black make-up wearing Goth kids who are so because it is, “Cool,” and, “In,” not believe in God. They believe this makes them, “Bad-Ass.” I suppose some of these people are also young adults. These kids are the butterers of the bread. We will target them. We will make Athiest Church endorsed eye-makeup under a seemingly unaffiliated corporation. We will have Athiest clothing lines, jewelry, maybe even a Cable TV channel.
The money making possibilities are endless!
That’s cool, but the kids referenced above don’t know that.
That’s not a bad idea when you include the strippers and music and everything, if I wanted science I could get that on-line.
The only thing that concerns me about Science is the margins. Science is a pretty-well tapped Market, and learning isn’t really the in-thing to do right now.
I don’t think there is any official Atheist apparel right now. The companies that are making money off of all these T-Shirts and stuff are under the corporate umbrella of a major clothing manufacturer. This is our chance.
I don’t know how much more of this I can really get into without you buying the DVD.
Hi Pavlovianmodel146,
I disagree to the fullest extent with most of what you say and what you are trying to do.
Atheism is not a religion because it is neither a belief system nor worldview, it amounts to the single belief that God does not exist.
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.
So if there are converts to Christianity, then God exists? What evidence do you have for this?
Rather, if there are converts to Christianity, then one must only “think” God exists.
Atheism is NOT a religion. I do not believe religious bodies should be tax-exempt anyways!
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?
I forgot to add:
Tell me what positive beliefs necessarily stem from the one above.
Religion is doctrinal and essentially dogmatic, ex. if you do not take on a specific set of beliefs about the world, you cannot join.
Atheism is merely…atheism. For it to be anything else, it has to be “atheism +” … “atheism and”
Notwithstanding my pedantic sectarian dispute in regards to retro-nominalizing beliefless homo fabers “atheists”, as I still maintain that the “lack” per se was created (ex theo, theo ex?)…
Point of Business: We need to find some way to can the lack. To sell nothing is the pinnacle of marketing evolution. It is an unavoidable eventuality. Supply is endless and demand is born evey minute!! The only labor involved in production is the mediation of the messagelessness.
So:
Why worship nothing?
For the superb rhetorical effect.
Apsalm 1
“Oh Nothing, you are so inexplicably humongous! And yet you fit in the palm of my hand…
Thine mystery is a dimensionless morass, and yet solice eminates from your nonbeing.
Great ontological personhoodwink, guide my episteme that it may be led by none other than what is determined momentarily.
For though I peregrinate through the many veils of nocturnal indefinition, yay do I find that I wake onto the same dream morningly.
Thine absense is my space to live. Aamen.”
The only reason people have ever believed in God/gods is because the idea of God has always been attached to other specific conditions or implications. I.E. most God-concepts imply certain “extra” facts about the world, e.g. the existence of souls, Heaven & Hell, sin, God-given morality/authority, etc.
The idea of God becomes superfluous if you define God as the universe or as just whatever started everything. Unnecessary. You could never have a religion from a God-concept of this sort.
I disagree but not because there’s isn’t a belief, because practically speaking atheists are a bag of cats. If there is any dogma its confused and definitely undefined.
It’s called Buddhism and they don’t worship the source of all things as a person or worship anything in fact. You might argue Buddhism isn’t a religion its a philosophy, but I think its both. Especially when they start banging on about reincarnation and karma. Two more indistinct notions that are completely unnecessary.
Precisely! That’s where the marketing challenge comes in. Dawkins et al. are being given free-reign to define the texture. Not that I have any great beef with that, but, hey, the frontier is open to all who seek to dispell monsters! Anselm’s Fool is not only alive and well, but sending travelogues back to civilization. We of the Achurch must act now and keep our Adogma undefined, definitively!!
Adogma 1:
Believing is (not) believing.
To be aware of what one doesn’t believe in is to be informed. To be aware of what one does believe in is to be perceptive. To be wise, one must not only believe. To be compassionate, one must not only care. One must know and do. Those are the rules. Aamen.
Hehe Ramen.
Anselm is not a fool he is a heretic to the atheist faith. 
I am not talking about Buddhism. Buddhism is a religion. Buddhism implies certain “extra” facts about the world.
I am talking about a God-concept that does not imply “extra” facts about the world. And I maintain that you could never have a religion from a God-concept of this sort.
Fair enough but such strange animals do exist.
There is no dogma to atheism. As I’ve said, atheism is merely…atheism. For it to be anything else, it has to be “atheism +” … “atheism and”
Again: Atheism is not a religion because it is neither a belief system nor worldview, it amounts to the single belief that God does not exist.
I don’t disagree but religions have been founded on less than two fundamental beliefs. No atheism is not a religion, it is by definition the lack of one, and is about as definable as the tensile strength of nothing.
It’s not only the fundamental beliefs of religions that matter, it’s all that follows from the fundamental belief(s) that matters, and matters greatly. In this way, atheism itself is fundamentally not a religion, as we’ve both said.
How is atheism undefinable? “definable as the tensile strength of nothing”
I don’t understand, do you take issue with the concept of atheism?
To recap: Atheism = a belief that there is no God (as opposed to being benignly without a belief in God) = a positive lack of religion = an extant void
Now to the tensile strength of nothing: All is suspended by nothing, by definition. Thus, to worship nothing is to expell All. This is surely akin to the Buddhist meditative state of observing emptiness (itself being only a penultimate state of contemplation, mind you). So, to differentiate the Achurch of Atheism (or Athiesm, if you prefer) from Buddhism, we must demonstrate that the extant lack which defines the belief in no God is not “something” which might carry us ontoward a logical consequent. Rather, the worship of nothing must comprise itself as not being an outcomes-based perspective. Rather, it is explicitly affirming the presencing of the present, and not anything else. Or am I reading too deeply into things here? 