NoGodBlog.com

Sometimes you just need to fight dogma with dogma. I'll pull out my secular proverbs and use it if I have to, and that is because I know that it is much more intellectually satisfying than the dogma of monotheism.

Secular Proverbs -> http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/search/label/Secular%20Proverbs

Hey!

The son of bastards used by name "Atheon"...!!!!

The Atheon Temple of Science is an art project conceived by Jonathan Keats. Using a grant from UC Berkeley's Chancellor's Community Partnership fund, he created the Atheon in downtown Berkeley office building.

That ain't right!

Atheon

It doesn't sound like the Atheon is a church at all. Good.

I have respect aplenty for Blogmeister Silverman and for others--notably Dr. [he can write prescriptions!] Michael Newdow and Dr. [see above] Tim Gorski of Dallas Ft Worth/North Texas Church of Freethought--who're willing to entertain notions like these. But for me personally it's a nonstarter. "Church" and "religion" are terms way too intertwined, in history or the language, with the supernonsensical supernatural for us Atheists to risk getting smeared with by association. Reality--yes! Church--no, IMNSHO. 501-c-3 organizations, like American Atheists, should have *exactly* the same rights and responsibilities as religion-based ones--they are not accountable and should be, period.

We don't need no stinking churches.

I recall reading about a court case back in the late 1800s or early 1900s concerning religious exemptions. The USSC basically stated that religious exemptions were unconstitutional. They didn't become constitutional until the 16th Amendment was passed. So maybe we should be working to repeal the 16th Amendment.

Rational progressive Buddhism works for me.

Everyone says that gods were created by the first civilizations to ever roam the planet. They called things “Gods” because they couldn’t explain what it was or how something happened. I AGREE. That’s how religion started. They saw the sun and didn’t know what it was or why it lit the whole planet, so they said it was a god since they couldn’t explain it. Along with the god of the rain, sun, moon and earth etc etc.
I have a different theory to that. Back long ago in B.C. times. Has anyone very noticed the bible is the “KING JAMES VERSION????” Because a king wrote it! Back then a lot of people knew there was no such thing as god and so the king figured that crime would go up and that one day they may come up against him since there are no consequences in the afterlife.
So he wrote the fictional and well-known “Holy Bible” to strike fear into people. People were then to scared to commit crimes or burn in hell for all eternity with “Demons” but we all se how well that works. The U.S. has one of the highest homicide rates in the world. (I am a U.S. citizen, I'm not just picking out the united states. I'm just using my country as an example)
That’s why the bible was written, to strike fear into others about doing any kind of misdeed. Another topic I’d like to so much get onto is people who die and claim to see “Heaven” or “Hell”.
Something I learned in psychology. When your heart stops, your brain is still alive for several minutes. A famous psychologist named Sigmund Freud invented psychoanalysis, the study of the unconscious mind. When you “die” your mind will flash images through your head that may seem so real that your body has a physical reaction. That’s why when you hear people who have seen Hell wake up with extremely fast heart rates and pulses from “Fear”.
People that have schizophrenia or other mental illnesses, they can hear voices and see things that aren’t there. But there mind thinks it’s real so they have a physical reaction. Like many serial killers of the past, one example is David Berkowitz. He claimed his neighbor’s dog was possessed by a demon that told him to kill. That’s how powerful the mind is. If your mind believes it, your body will also.
There is something called a Placebo Affect. The doctor gives a patient who claims to have problems medication. What the patient doesn’t know is that the medicine is fake and does nothing at all. The patient comes back and says he’s been doing a lot better since he started the medication. He had nothing wrong with them, it was all psychological. His mind told him by taking the medicine he would feel better, his mind believed it and so did his body.

Don’t you see!?!? These people who claim to see “HELL” are actually images that are caused by the brain. No one in the world can not say “I have never in my life ever AT LEAST imagined what heaven or hell look like”. Everyone has imagined at some point in there life whether they remember it or not. When they “die” their brain flashes these images that you may have thought about 20-30 years ago. That’s just how complex the brain is. The brain flashes images that seem so real, you wake up with your heart thumping madly and your heart rate ten times more than normal. Not to mention you just had your ass shocked with 500 volts of electricity.

Atheism is not a religion, and I am so thankful for that.

But I miss going to church. I miss the friendships, and the social life: potluck suppers and circle meetings with cake and coffee, and gossiping after the service, and choir practice. Most of all I miss the music. There is nowhere else I can hear Bach played on an organ.

But I would not support an atheist church. It just doesn't make sense. And I strongly object to the misuse of builing materials and money in the buildiing of churches. They are useless and empty most of the time. We need to work to make churches pay their fair share of taxes, just like the other social clubs do. That is all they really are.
(But I still sing hymns in the privacy of my home, where nobody can hear me. They were the folk music of my childhood and I miss them. )

i agree with that dorky mommy. why should we spend BILLIONS of dollars on churches that are mostly empty rather than BILLIONS of dollars on hospitals or other important things like tracking down criminals.

they should pay there taxes just like everyone else oe every other social group is also free from taxes. this is supposed to be the land of the free!

were not free, this country is ruled nearly 100% by religion. check this link out to see the discrimination we get!

SCROLL DOWN TO THE PART ABOUT "STATE CONSTITUTIONS" i could beleive my eyes....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_Against_Atheists#United_States

im so sorry for double posting, but its actually

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists#United_States

lower case "a" on atheist and against.

I pretty much agree with Ed Buckner on this one, on a side note something that really pushed my buttons today- I was talking to a friend and I used 'Jesus' in the way you might use 'jees' and my chem teacher told me not to use the lord's name in vain, now I understand that it might be offensive to him by my saying Jesus out of context and he has every right to tell me so BUT instead he just told me not to do it (maybe be a subtle difference but it means a lot) he was basically assuming that I was a Christian. I won't do it again to be polite but his assumption really pissed me off-and coming from a man of science!

I will be passing through the San Francisco Bay Area on a conference next week. I'll try to drop by The Atheon and give a report here.

cbo-- I'd just keep on using 'Jesus' as a swear as much as I wanted, until he gave me a real reason not to.

I'll be respectful of people when they're respectful of me. Telling me not to use the Lord's name in vain when he's not my Lord is not really my definition of respectful.

If you get in trouble for it, great! Then you get to ask administration why you are expected to follow religious rules in school.

Atheist4Life,

I have a different theory to that. Back long ago in B.C. times. Has anyone very noticed the bible is the “KING JAMES VERSION????” Because a king wrote it! Back then a lot of people knew there was no such thing as god and so the king figured that crime would go up and that one day they may come up against him since there are no consequences in the afterlife.
So he wrote the fictional and well-known “Holy Bible” to strike fear into people.

You are kidding, right? You do know that King James I of England merely authorized that particular translation of the bible, published in 1611, right? You do know he didn't 'write' the dang thing, correct? And what in the world do you mean, "back long ago in B.C. times?" Think hard, now. How could the Christian bible be written before their so-called Christ was even born? What you been smokin', dude?

On topic. Yes, I think a nontheistic "church" is a cop-out. Actually, I take that back. It's an oxymoron.

Personally, I prefer the Church of the Big Ring.

I don't believe atheism is a religion. And therefore a church is not necessary. I find the best way to combat religion is by not going to church. Stay home, do something else. When we start seeing the numbers of church attendance go down dramatically, we'll know we're doing something right.

However, like any organization, a "place" to gather, share ideas, and meet people of like minds can be beneficial. But I wouldn't call it a church because that's where people's minds go to die.

I would love to have an atheist 'church' in my community, and I wouldn't mind using the word 'church' if it got tax exemption and other benefits offered to churches.

But rather than having weekly services like at other churches, I'd like to see it as a center to host blood drives, organize volunteer efforts, perform fundraisers for charities, and things like that. Maybe use it to offer other services sometimes offered by churches, like private schooling options, shelters and crisis centers, without infusing them with Christian doctrine in the meantime.

Tax exemption + good deeds + organization of like minds, sounds great to me.

I was just talking with my wife about this the other day. I don't think Realism/Athiesm/ whatever you want to call it stands a chance until physical churches supporting these ideas start spreading across the nation. As stated by David, people are sheep (sheeple); whether they believe it or not they are lead around by the nose by their religious organization. In fact, I would dare say they need it. Therefore, in order to complete for the minds of the sheeple, atheists are going to need to start employing these same tactics. And it starts by putting up physical churches where people can continue doing what they already do (go to church on Sunday, get married in a church, present their newborn babies to the community, etc). Until we do this, people will continue attending the local Catholic/Protestant/Lutheran/Methodist/Evangelical church whether they believe in the doctrine or not.

BrianE:

My main argument against your comment is that I don't feel we need to evangelize. I don't think we need to actively spread atheism. I enjoy the religious freedom I have, and as long as I am allowed freedom from others' religions, I don't see any reason to change it.

The only reason Christianity bothers me is that it imposes itself upon my life. God is on my money, and God is in my laws. God helps people dictate what happens with my uterus. God keeps a stem-cell cure from my loved ones. If these things weren't happening, I wouldn't give a damn what people believe.

I don't feel the need to spread atheism, so much as to just set a positive example with it and provide resources for those who want them.

Friday

My main argument against your comment is that I don't feel we need to evangelize.

I don't think anybody here is suggesting evangelism for atheists. Information distribution and public relations efforts is better.

Comment from BrianE:

Therefore, in order to complete for the minds of the sheeple, atheists are going to need to start employing these same tactics.

Comment from What:

I don't think anybody here is suggesting evangelism for atheists.

I agree, What.

What's the matter with refusing to buy into the "church" paradigm and just rejecting it outright? I have no desire to co-opt the language or framing of religion. Atheism is not a religion, and it's not "like" a religion, either!

Free money and land is always fun and all, but the biggest problem I can see about getting something like this rolling is to actually organize atheists. Since we actually value individual thinking and ideas, and this could potentially lead to a lot of disagreement and nothing actually getting done.

Like how are we suppose to decide who gets to be the 'pastor'? Election?

And for added fun we could sell booze in the churches on sunday in counties in America where blue laws are still in effect. That way if the religious try to stop us we can claim government favoritism in relation to atheists churches and the regular ones and have them lose more power.

Even better! We can sell/give away booze ON Sunday AND in dry counties in the south, claiming that getting sauced is part of our 'religion'.

It works for Christians and their blood of the savior = red wine!

Isnt the Unitarian church a nontheistic church? I know several atheists who attend services there (which I dont understand but who am I to tell them not to?). A lot of universities have secular groups too and Im sure that there is some sort of social networking group out there for atheists. If you look Im sure that those of you who want to have the social support that a church can offer can find something or start something of your own.

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Friday Pirate,

I should be more clear regarding what I mean by 'tactics'. Yes, the way I wrote it made it sound like I was interested in evangelizing and indoctrinating people into atheism. Rather, the tactics I'm interested in revolve around providing people with the services they already get from church, and I would argue actually want and long for. Such as Sunday services, lectures/information to help better their lives, wedding ceremonies, birth presentations, etc. Until these services are provided to the masses in a secular fashion, then traditional churches will continue their monopoly. And I don't think these types of services can be provided without your traditional brick and mortar church.

In this regard, the Unitarian churches are a good alternative. But I don't think they are doing a good job of advertising themselves.

Godless

Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Well said! I love it and will be borrowing it?

To be honest, i think this is a great idea! I think the reason that the religious are so successful is because they band together and get together on a regular basis to plot in favor of their own interests. We are a minority and it is always a good thing for minorities to come together on some kind of regular basis and to a place that is reachable by most. i think to have facilities of Science where people can be briefed on news, discuss things, ask questions and debate is a great thing. It definately would build our community and pull in those people rejected by churches. Im in Jacksonville, FL and if i had a meeting place like that to make like-minded friends and have questions answered i would go constantly. I will admit that the christians def scored big with the idea of the once a week meeting. its time to steal their idea!

Yeah, isn't that similar to the Platonic/Socratic ideal of the University? Except, perhaps, this university would be one that is open to the laymen. It is important for the intellectually elite to have a more powerful voice and to be heard more easily by the rest of us.

As my late (and much missed) young friend Clark Adams always said, "If Atheism is a religion, then health is a disease."

Atheists are united by what we aren't, not by what we are. For example Phreedm and I differ in opinions on almost everything except not believing in a god. Whereas members typically have a small set of bullshit dogma they adhere to almost universally, and a larger on they disagree on.

This topic has been discussed before on this blog.... at least one time I recall.....maybe Dave could provide a link....

at first I thought it might be a good idea....that maybe this could provide for equal tax breaks or something....

then I realized that I routinely give the finger to churches as I pass them bye...

atheism is not a religion....for me it is a logical conclusion based on my own experiences.....part of my experiences are the collective conclusions of all of the sciences.....

Church of the Subgenius, Church of the Subgenius!

The only church that's proud to pay it's taxes.

jamieguinn,

Rational progressive Buddhism works for me.

What exactly is rational progressive Buddhism? If you take away all the woo from Buddhism, aren't you just left with yoga and pacifism?

Ed Buckner,

I totally agree. We need to be non-religious in every sense, and being associated with religious groups is not something I want to deal with. However we do get some support from some grey-area groups like that, so I don't hassle it.

By the way, congrats on becoming AA's new president.

Joe Zamecki
Austin

Joe and Ed

Centers, without the religion-based tax exemption, where atheists can regularly gather and discuss issues would be a good thing, no?

I have the same mixed feeling about this new "Church" as I do about the Ethical Society and Unitarians. It's great that there are more or less secular institutions that can fill some of the roles religious institutions do. OTOH I can't imagine why I'd want to participate in them. It's simply not part of my life.

To me, the good that groups like the Masons or even the Boy Scouts do is somewhat mitigated by their exclusionary nature. The desire to produce a group or service organization that is secular is optimal. But any overt bent toward or against any particular divisive subject is counter-productive. There should be definate by-laws to prevent bias taking effect, in fact -- in either direction.

(Brick-and-mortar "atheist clubs" are fine -- I'm just saying a group with maximum inclusiveness would be less hipocritical to my "ideal self". The problems inherent in being openingly atheist do beg for a specialty group for comfort on occasion, of course. I just think stuff like "atheist scouts" are unnecessary.

i know some aren't going to like this but communism as a atheist religion can offer what a church does.1 fellowship in the local party unit 2 a lifestyle based on a specific economic system.
we must think carefully we cannot go on forever adrift.most people need something to believe in a noble cause to be for something bigger than they are.

How about Capitalism as an atheist religion huh!?

"Is that copping out?"

YES!

"Is copping out a bad thing?"

Not if one lacks a spine and can therefore do no better, but otherwise...YES!

Religion is a disease and this organization is supposed to be the cure.

I am EXTREMELY disturbed at the very suggestion of lowering ourselves to their level. Religion will never end as long as it is afforded any respect. This is why I'm very wary of your continued role in this organization, Mr. Silverman...as either the host of Viewpoint or as its communications director.

By now, Tim should have received two episodes of Viewpoint which I rejected and returned - unaired.

Imagine...giving half of our precious airtime to that silly, silly mammal - Bill Devlin!

I'm not sure that a "secular activist" who is married to a theist(xian, chosenite or whatever) can deliver the spanking that the childish in our society really, really need.

Should you have a problem w/ this post, you have my email address.

...but perhaps you should first get a decent AV program(not Symantec)...else I may not receive it.

Comment from: reason

most people need something to believe in

A perfect bullseye...

Everyone needs to believe in something...

Exactly why there is no such thing as "pure atheism"...

Just like there is no such thing as "pure communism"...

Just like there is no such thing as "pure Christianity"...

Christians believe in their God...

Communists believe in their "god", the state...

Atheists believe in their "god", themselves...

Yes...atheism is a religion.

religion- something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

The reality is, so many atheists have demonized the word "religion" that they fail to see the forest for the trees...

Atheists believe in their "god", themselves...
Yes...atheism is a religion.

I looked up several defintions of religion and they all included words like "supernatural", "divine", "god", "mythology", and so on. Atheists only believe in what is natural so no, atheism is not a religion.

"Atheists believe in their "god", themselves..."

Comedy gold right there.

*sniffs the air*

I smell a troll! Oh, it's just you Phreed. Delicious bait you've set out today, is it fresh?

godless sodomite The Unitarian Universalists are about 30% Atheists; most of the 70% being Deists and Pantheists.These statistics can vary from congregation to congregation. I am a UU Atheist and so is the senior minister at my Fellowship. Most of our services are secular humanist and ungodly although God is sometimes mentioned. We also have an intern minister who is all spiritual and godly and he really turns me off when he preaches but I love to hear the senior minister in the pulpit. One turnoff for me in UUism is that it respects and cooperates with other religions and is so open-minded that its mind is often open at both ends. Many of my Atheist friends and relatives find UUism to be too much like church and religion. To be brief, UUism is a partly non theist religion with something for believers and non believers. (In Raleigh we call it Fellowship not church)

What are the laws concerning not-for-profit organizations? Can one legal form an NPO with by-laws that clearly state that the organization is to be run by an all atheist board or does this run up against nondiscrimination laws?

I should qualify my question by stating that the NPO in question would like to obtain federal tax exemption.

Comment from: godless sodomite

I looked up several defintions of religion and they all included words like "supernatural", "divine", "god", "mythology", and so on.

You should learn to look a bit deeper...

religion-

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

*cough*

disbelief is not a belief

*cough*

Where's your bridge, Phreed?

phreedm,

The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th definitions are not generally the first to look up. What you're doing is watering down the definition of "religion." If you want religion watered down, then so be it. Play the semantics game all you want, but you risk making the word "religion" worthless. What will you have gained then?

Secondly, all of those definitions refer to a set of beliefs. What set of beliefs must all atheists follow? You've been told plenty of times why atheists are not required to hold any beliefs in order to call themselves atheists. It's funny that you talk of missing the forest for the trees when you can't even open your eyes in the first place.

Once again you've failed to make a supporting argument.

phreedm,

So if atheism means I worship myself, does that make me a blasphemer every time I have self doubt? I mean, I'm often pretty hard on myself, and I certainly don't grovel or pray to myself to make the world a better place or bring me a pony for xmas.

On topic:
I've been to a couple atheist 'churches' - The 'United States Atheists Community Center' that I used to live down the street from and the 'Humanists of Greater Portland' meetings held every sunday.

You know what? In many ways I found both just as boring as a regular church. I don't have anything against the idea, - it would be great to have that sort of network thriving in the non-theist community - it's just that personally I would rather spend time riding my bike or playing with the kids. Life's too short to spend it sitting on your ass any more than absolutely necessary.

I thought the UU percentage of atheists/humanists was higher, like 70%. I go to UU when I can. The Ethical Society of Austin has been battling the state comptroller for tax exempt status because they don't believe in a god. I know Dallas and Houston have the church of freethought though I've never made it to their meetings. I think it's about gathering and organizing as atheists for them.

Comment from: alatham

phreedm,

The 2nd, 3rd, and 6th definitions are not generally the first to look up. What you're doing is watering down the definition of "religion."

Generally? No, they are definitions of the word religion. One can't simply ignore other uses of the word to fit their agenda.

Secondly, all of those definitions refer to a set of beliefs. What set of beliefs must all atheists follow?

So...you don't believe in anything?

What then do you base your interpretation of a moral life upon?

"Generally? No, they are definitions of the word religion. One can't simply ignore other uses of the word to fit their agenda."

Like you do?

"So...you don't believe in anything?"

And into the absurd absolutes.

This seems to be a fun trick for phree to use. Take our stance and ride it WAAYYYY out of perspective.

"What then do you base your interpretation of a moral life upon?"

The same thing you do. Social standards and an inherent golden rule. You just cover it up with nonsense and hope nobody notices that your artificially inflated sense of righteousness is nothing but a pretty disguise.

Asemodeus:

The troll is hungry, but if we leave it alone it will go looking somewhere else.

Phreed:

Sorry to see your bait is still working on some of us. Don't you ever tire of this game?

As you say, like many problems, the "religion" issue comes down to semantics. Both atheism and religion are cosmological ideologies, that is, they make claims about humanity's place in the world and universe and beyond. However, though not explicit, the idea of God, spirit, Higher Power, or whatever is implicit in the idea of religion whereas it is not in atheism. This is why you have to "squint hard" to see atheism as a religion. It can be defined as such, but it's really not when you get down to it.

The problem with religion is that it's part of the warp and woof of human cognition, as Daniel Dennett suggests. The best argument for religion is Plato's doctrine of the forms, where tangible reality cannot be the object of scientific exploration because no tangible physical object has absolute permanence. Ergo, for Plato, the forms have to have some sort of ontological existence, even though they don't exist in the physical realm. The fact that Plato regarded God as the ultimate "form" is really beside the point. The human mind, in its quest for completed gestalts and permanence as on object of cognitive reflection, must invent "forms" and, by extension, religion. It's not just that we want to see aunt Sally in the great beyond, we want to understand how we relate to aunt Sally and everyone else in the here and now within structures (where we came from, why we're here, where we're going) that have meaning and permanence. This is why religion is so appealing. It answers all these questions in one fell swoop.

In order to escape it, one must negotiate a difficult cognitive landscape (for some people, this task is easy and intuitive and for others, it is problemmatic because of its anti-narcissitic implication, i.e., we don't mean squat in this world and universe). We simply have to say "balderdash to all that" and let it go. Most people do not have the intelligence, learning, or temperment to accomplish this task, which is why few people embrace it fully (though many more people are de facto atheists).

If an "Atheon" type of church can alleviate some people's squeemishness about atheism by making the ideology more socially palitable, then I'm all for it. But, I don't it will have much impact. Even mainstream religion is giving way to whacko religion. Unfortunately, whacko religion is just more "religious" than mainstream, watered-down religion. In other words, if you're going to have a pathological worldview, you might as well go all the way.

"The troll is hungry, but if we leave it alone it will go looking somewhere else. "

Oh I know this perfectly well. Doesn't mean that I can't make fun of it as much as I want.

Buddhist groups, Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Humanistic Judaism can offer social comforts -- more socializing than activism, a meditative and positivist "spiritual" space, younger and more women members, and free food -- that can be lacking in some atheist and humanist groups. They all welcome secularists, though they would never define themselves by atheism.

A nontheist friend who identifies only as Jewish is supportive of Jewish culture and likes religious services. She took me to a couple of traditional synagogues, which were boring to alienating to me.

So I took her to what would become my first Humanistic Judaism service, hoping we'd find some middle ground there. It had pretty much the same bad poetry and music and amorphous sermonizing I've found in most Ethical Culture services -- satisfying to the congregation, but uninspiring and too religious for me.

Ironically, my friend found the Humanistic Jewish service to be not religious enough. One person there converted to Judaism by making a short speech and by being given another short speech, and Old Testament name, by the rabbi. My friend was horrified. "That's it? That's not enough. She's not a Jew. They might as well have just given her a pastrami sandwich!"

Still, we atheists should help these nontheistic churches. Their membership is tiny compared to us, but they're more firmly grounded as institutions. Their members have made a strong commitment to their groups. We might learn from them.

Friday Pirate, it's a psychological weakness and emotional need to antagonize. That's why phreedm does this.

What - Yes that sounds good to me. We should have Atheist internet cafes and an Atheist tavern. An Atheist Community Center is something I'd like to help open. We're sociable people.

Joe Zamecki
Austin

I love the idea of an explicitly atheist community center.

I don't want to support sneaky tactics, but there's a small cafe in my Brooklyn, ultraliberal, gay-friendly neighborhood that's actually a church in disguise! It's a "church planting" evangelizing project.

Here's an article about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/20/garden/20turf.html

I've tried it out a couple of times. Delicious coffee and no proselytizing. But I have no reason to give them repeat business.

phreedm:

Sorry to butt-in, but if you’ll recall, I attempted to ascertain an answer your question to alatham:

So...you don't believe in anything?

a while ago. Without trying to put words in his mouth, he regards himself as a “weak” atheist—that is, one who is either unwilling or unable to make the intellectual commitment to the proposition that God does not exist—despite the fact that he functions virtually as a “strong” atheist (and go figure how such people are able to intellectually reconcile the resulting cognitive dissonance).

And your query:

What then do you base your interpretation of a moral life upon?

is the proverbial “$64.000” question that requires atheists of all stripes to wiggle through all kinds of intellectual histrionics to avoid making even the slightest hint at acknowledging a pre-existing moral absolute.

Joe

Do you know what the laws are concerning NPOs applying for tax exemption? Do they need to follow nondiscrimination guidelines?

The problem with getting Atheist community centers built is that they cost money. Although Atheists would probably support building these sends by contributing they face a financial deterrence that theists do not - taxes. Is there a way to ameliorate the tax deterrence without committing the objectionable and inaccurate act of declaring Atheism a religion?

these sends -> these centers

the proverbial “$64.000” question that requires atheists of all stripes to wiggle through all kinds of intellectual histrionics to avoid making even the slightest hint at acknowledging a pre-existing moral absolute.

Ha! That's rich. What about the anti-intellectual histrionics that Christians often stoop to when trying to explain why we don't have to stone people to death anymore or why it's okay to eat shellfish? Yeah, "new covenant"... that explains a lot. Whatever.

I'll take the intellectual challenges of social economics over the circular nonsense of theology any day.

Asemodeus:

Doesn't mean that I can't make fun of it as much as I want.

That's all good and well, except that he is far enough out of touch to think that he's besting you.

He's been having these same arguments here for the two years I've been reading. Nobody's ever made any progress, and making fun of him hasn't gotten anywhere, either. The only approach is to ignore him.

TXatheist:

Friday Pirate, it's a psychological weakness and emotional need to antagonize. That's why phreedm does this.

I'd be willing to bet on that.

I'd like to know about nondiscrimination guidelines, too.

Back in 2001, NYC's L-sbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center refused to even consider NYC Atheists' application for renting meeting space in their great building, even though they'd hosted the meetings of the NYC chapter of American Atheists a decade before. As D.J. Grothe of CFI has said, gay groups can be too vested in getting approval from the religious to be comfortable with freethought activism.

If the LGBT Center can pick and choose its clients according to its own ideology, an atheist community center should be able to as well. No use having religious groups buy their way into monopolizing our scarce resources.

Not that we have this resource quite yet. Anyone have a quarter of a million looking for a new investment/charitable opportunity?

(Dave, this blog software forbade me to use the L word, and I don't mean "liberal.")

Asemodeus already responded to Phreedm, I have nothing to add to his/her post.

jcc,

Without trying to put words in his mouth, he regards himself as a “weak” atheist—that is, one who is either unwilling or unable to make the intellectual commitment to the proposition that God does not exist—despite the fact that he functions virtually as a “strong” atheist

How so? If I have some sort of cognitive dissonance I'd like you to point it out because it's obviously not affecting me greatly enough to be noticeable. Then again, I'm not the preeminent armchair psychologist here.

is the proverbial “$64.000” question that requires atheists of all stripes to wiggle through all kinds of intellectual histrionics to avoid making even the slightest hint at acknowledging a pre-existing moral absolute.

I'll ask you for the tenth time (at least): Who's interpretation of the Bible are you following?

Why won't you answer that question?

Dave, this blog software forbade me to use the L word, and I don't mean "liberal.")

I usually spell 1esbian with the number "1" standing in for the "l". You can also try l_esbian.

Glad to see another godless sodomite in here. :-)

The 1990 NYC atheist chapter's membership was approximately half gay. I don't know what the orientation proportions were in 2001 of the current group. But I felt it was enough to warrant applying to the LGBT Center. They took our application but wouldn't even return our calls. They pretended we didn't exist. Yet they had meetings for gay knitters and gay Star Trek fans!

The Center has some of the most beautiful and most affordable rentable meeting space in Manhattan. Yes, NYC Atheists would've lost some straight homophobes who wouldn't want to go to such a center. But I think we would've gained many more GLBT freethinkers with great activism skills and resources, many of whom had already been fighting the religious right. A lost opportunity.

We settled for a seedy but clean and relatively cheap conference center in west midtown, near commuter trains so people outside the city could come to us too. Other freethought groups now use it too; we were the first.

Phreeky is just pissed because he has final realized that the religious right is being played by John "Keating Five" McCain. Palin was selected by McCain because TrooperGate would allow him to force her from office if elected. He then gets the VP he really wants - Joe "Israel" Lieberman.

LE$$$$Bians!

Hey What,

We did these at my work - you might dig it:
http://barackyou.net/

r4d

Nice design and great looking Ts but I just wouldn't want to associate Obama with a hurricane or The Scorpion song "Rock You Like a Hurricane".

lol

I hear church bells again....Maybe some atheist bells next door would be cool....but how would they sound....

If Atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color... we all know the sayings that make it blatantly clear that not believing in supernatural creatures called deities (which don't exist)is NOT a religion.

Doesn't American Atheists have a policy on this?!?!?!? Of all the years that American Atheists has existed and all the material it has produced, it hasn't made it clear statement on this subject? Why would the spokesperson make this a topic of opinion instead of a topic of policy? AA can't be that disorganized and irresponsible, can it?

After all, from what I have read on this blog, Dave seems to be very much in support of "atheist" religion, with his constant support and defense of jewish and hebrew mythology, zionism, etc and attacking those who don't agree with his religious beliefs.

KenB

Good questions all. What say ye Ed?

OK...so it's a clear by the hard liners who post here that "atheism" is not a religion...

Huston...we have a problem...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...

So then on what grounds are atheists afforded the same protections according to the 1st amendment as religions...?

phreedm,

Thank you for asking a thought-provoking question. I have to admit this is not something I've ever given much thought to.

So then on what grounds are atheists afforded the same protections according to the 1st amendment as religions...?

Exactly what protections are atheists currently afforded via the 1st amendment?

You could make the case that the 1st amendment doesn't protect the free exercise of atheism, but I would then point out that "the free exercise of atheism" doesn't make any sense since there's nothing there to exercise. Free speech and a free press is all the protection my atheism needs and thankfully that's not dependent on belief in a deity.

phreedm
the constituiton doesn't protect atheists who don't have a religion it does protects atheists who have humanism or communism as a religion.
now why do you think christianty is superior to communism or humanism.

didn't jesus command all who would follow him to give up their worldly goods.on that basis most christians are heretics.

alatham:

How so? If I have some sort of cognitive dissonance I'd like you to point it out because it's obviously not affecting me greatly enough to be noticeable.

Claiming to adhere to “weak” atheism while, more often than not, espousing the popular attitudes, vernacular and social policies of “strong” atheism here pretty much makes an air-tight case for your cognitive dissonance… that is, in my opinion of course.

I'll ask you for the tenth time (at least): Who's interpretation of the Bible are you following?

Why won't you answer that question?

My apologies. I wasn’t purposefully dodging the question because until now I took it to be a rhetorical one. I’m not sure what all the fuss is about, but since you seem adamant in wanting to know, I largely regard the orthodoxy and tenets of Reformed Theology (based in part on the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms) along with my research and understanding of the historical context of the Scriptures as the basis of my interpretation of the Bible.

Jcc
Reform Theology what is that but heresy and blasphemy according to the teachings and laws of the church.

rainbows4dinosaurs:

We did these at my work - you might dig it

If you don’t mind me asking, is that you?

the proverbial “$64.000” question that requires atheists of all stripes to wiggle through all kinds of intellectual histrionics to avoid making even the slightest hint at acknowledging a pre-existing moral absolute.

Chuckle, snort.
Yeah, like what? "Don't kill each other? Don't slaughter those around you, 'cause that means no more company (or kids)."

along with my research and understanding of the historical context of the Scriptures as the basis of my interpretation of the Bible.

Really? The fact the damn thing is anything but historical is what I'd term cognitive dissonance in a nutshell.

jcc,

I certainly don't mind you asking, sir. Not me. At 35, I might be a few years past my modeling prime ;). Plus I don't have cool tats like Tyler.

http://www.pampelmoose.com/mspeaks/2008/09/obama-t-shirts-from-nemo

What said: Do you know what the laws are concerning NPOs applying for tax exemption? Do they need to follow nondiscrimination guidelines?

The problem with getting Atheist community centers built is that they cost money. Although Atheists would probably support building these sends by contributing they face a financial deterrence that theists do not - taxes. Is there a way to ameliorate the tax deterrence without committing the objectionable and inaccurate act of declaring Atheism a religion?
____________________
I say:
I don't know the ins and outs of nondiscrimination requirements for NPOs looking to get a tax exemption. Freedom of association has been protected in that case, for religious groups like the Boy Scouts of America. Beyond that, I don't know.

Most community centers are either government run or are non-profit organizations, I believe. If we were to open one that qualified as an actual community center, I'm sure we could get a tax exemption. It wouldn't be profitable though. Some investors won't touch an idea without immediate gains in profits. Some will. It takes a lot of vision to lay that all out in the first place though. It's risky. But I would definitely get involved with it.

The United States Atheists has a community center, I mean I hope they still do. I've tried to contact them for a while, with no success.

Joe Zamecki
Austin

Comment from: alatham

Thank you for asking a thought-provoking question. I have to admit this is not something I've ever given much thought to.

Thanks alatham...

And now I'll take it one step further, and I know many will object, but logic insists we do...

If atheism is not a religion, and it's clear the 1st amendment makes no allowances for those "without a religion", but only applies to those "with a religion", then exactly how can one claim we have a secular government?

If the framers really wanted a "secular" government, then why didn't they make provisions for those "without a religion"?

Joe

Thanks for the response. It would be nice to get some definitive info on NPOs. Doesn't AA retain lawyers with this sort of expertise?

rainbows4dinosaurs:

I don't have cool tats like Tyler.

If they’re so cool, why not?

Off Topic – What do you think of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?

Comment from: jcc

Off Topic – What do you think of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?

Come now jcc...one can't be guilty by association...

I was also interested in the story of Obama asking Petraeus and Iraq NOT to authorize troop withdrawl until after the election...I wonder which one of his 300 foreign advisers gave him that idea...?

Off Topic – What do you think of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?

(eyes roll)

phreedm:

Come now jcc...one can't be guilty by association...

Yeah, I know, but I’m just curious what the Obama crowd thinks of native-born, self-avowed, unrepentant, anti-American terrorists.

I was also interested in the story of Obama asking Petraeus and Iraq NOT to authorize troop withdrawal until after the election...I wonder which one of his 300 foreign advisers gave him that idea...?

Clearly it was one of His best and brightest disciples… I thought it was pretty funny to hear the Obama camp trying to deny it by actually confirming it.

DVanWechel:

(eyes roll)

Seriously, what’s your opinion of Ayers and Dohrn?

jcc,

Claiming to adhere to “weak” atheism while, more often than not, espousing the popular attitudes, vernacular and social policies of “strong” atheism here pretty much makes an air-tight case for your cognitive dissonance… that is, in my opinion of course.

I'm not sure I know what the popular attitudes of Strong Atheism are, nor am I sure how they compare or contrast with the popular attitudes of weak atheism. It seems to me that the popular attitudes and social policies should be very similar between the two.

The only difference I can think of between my weak atheism and Strong Atheism is my refusal to make one particular statement that I could never back up. Everything else is irrelevant to me. It seems to me that there is very little expected behavioral difference between a weak atheist and a Strong Atheist.

That said, you've previously stated that you believe atheism to be philosophy, so I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. But you also know that I do not agree.

I largely regard the orthodoxy and tenets of Reformed Theology (based in part on the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms) along with my research and understanding of the historical context of the Scriptures as the basis of my interpretation of the Bible.

Thank you for the answer. But in what way can your morality be said to be absolute if your morality is derived from your interpretation of the Bible? Wouldn't that require that your interpretation be absolute?

phreedm,

If atheism is not a religion, and it's clear the 1st amendment makes no allowances for those "without a religion", but only applies to those "with a religion", then exactly how can one claim we have a secular government?

It's about as clear as any legal statement can be: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That statement doesn't actually protect the beliefs of a non-theist (since there are no beliefs to protect), but it does state that the government is supposed to be secular.

I've seen you make this assertion before plenty of times and I still have no idea how you've come to the conclusion that the 1st amendment doesn't enforce a secular government. It really is as straightforward as it seems.

Seriously, what’s your opinion of Ayers and Dohrn?

Ahhhhh, the pathetic attempts of the Right to distract America from our multiple disasters of their making.

Ohhh, I got it! Let's talk about OJ instead of the economic disaster that the political right has wrought ... or their senseless and costly Invasion of Iraq.

One thing we know about the "free thinker" movement is that we are at a disadvantage because we don't have people knocking on doors selling the afterlife to well meaning idiots who can't deal with their mortality and nor find the answer to the question, "why am I here".

To achieve equal footing, when contributions can be made tax free to the movement would be a huge boon. My recommendation is to stop labeling ourselves as atheists, which almost the same as "not religion" which would disqualify the movement under current law. Why not avoid the subject of the existence of god and call ourselves humanists. Publish our policy as a belief that god refuses to interfere in the affairs of men, but, instead is watching from afar as chaos unfolds. Now, that is as equally elligible as buddhism which really teaches that gods and demons are just outside influences in your life you must learn from or confront.

I do believe that free thinkers are the last hope of our species, and that a proactive stance is not only urgently needed, but imperitive.

NeoWolfe

phreedm,

If the framers really wanted a "secular" government, then why didn't they make provisions for those "without a religion"?

They made plenty of provisions for non-theists, all throughout the Constitution. The only exception is when they explicitly protected religions from government interference. There is no need to do that for non-theists for the reasons I stated in my last two posts.

If you were righting a law to protect horseback riders to use public roads would you include a statement like "non-horseback riders are also allowed to use horses on public roads?" There's no need to do that. It's the same situation with non-theists and the Constitution.

The question you really should ask yourself is this: If the framers really wanted a theocratic government, why didn't they state it explicitly? If they were trying to do that then they're so incompetent that I'm surprised they could tie their shoes, let alone lead a successful rebellion from the most powerful country in the world at the time.

neowolfe,

To achieve equal footing, when contributions can be made tax free to the movement would be a huge boon.

Contributions (beyond membership dues) made to American Atheists or other 'atheist' or 'free thinker' or 'humanist' 501c3 organizations ARE tax deductible, and these nonprofits ARE tax exempt - so I'm not sure what your point is.

My recommendation is to stop labeling