Don't dictate beliefs

[derek4]

“Thinking of starting an Atheist "church"
Author: Bio-logical
Posted: 12/11/2009 03:55 PM

So I am unemployed right now, giving me a lot of time to ponder and to use it basically whatever way I see fit. This has given me an idea that I would like to put into action, and I was hoping for help if anybody has any ideas or possibly to just spread the idea abroad.

I want to start an atheist "church". Not a church in the idea of getting together and praying, but instead focusing on the good things that churches accomplish:

volunteer work
helping the poor
mission work (spreading education without a religious subtext)
gathering and maintaining resources and information to help people
counseling for the community
Sunday school (or something similar that teaches children logic and encourages free inquiry)
Social events
Potentially a private school someday

So... What do you think?”
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/pda/thr...

[Is this really a “new” idea -“starting” an atheist church? NO (duh)- this guy is way behind the times......atheist churches certainly aren't NEW.......I've already posted links for a bunch of atheist churches – they're everywhere.]

[derek4]

Another Atheist Goes to Church

“Cedric Stratton is an atheist. He is also a regular attender at St. Luke's Lutheran Church in Savannah, Georgia. In the eleven years he has attended the church, he has become a beloved part of the congregation. According to this article,

Stratton attends nearly every worship service and church event. He volunteers for nearly every work project. He offers help to sick parishioners. He brings his smooth tenor to the church choir.

He evidently has endeared himself to the congregation, and his atheism doesn't seem to be an impediment. To his credit, Stratton is not shy about his beliefs. He wrote a seven-page essay explaining that his atheism is rooted in chaos theory.

On one hand, I think it's admirable that the church has providing a welcoming environment for someone of radically different beliefs. Apparently everyone loves him for his genial spirit and his willingness to serve. But what about those pesky doctrines of heaven and hell, of salvation only through the blood of Jesus? How can an atheist be comfortable in a church over the long haul if he doesn't believe anything in the church's statement of faith? The article explains that Stratton reacts sharply if someone suggests he is not a Christian.

"I take offense to that," he said. "I'm Christian, in everything except theology."

Well, that's one solution. Just get rid of theology and we're all Christians, including people who don't even believe in God. Of course, if you get rid of theology, then you don't need Jesus or God or the Holy Spirit or the Bible. You don't need prayer or worship. You don't really need the church at all. Any neighborhood social club could fill the bill.

But there is one quote at the end of the story that gives me some hope.

"My thinking is that these people are so great to be with, I don't care if I'm forced to live in hell for eternity," Stratton said.

That's a pretty good comment because it means that some part of the truth has broken through to Cedric Stratton. We can only pray that the rest of the truth will find a place in his heart so that he will become a true follower of Christ, theology included.”
http://www.crosswalk.com/blogs/dr-ray-pritcha...

[Wow, if Cedric can do it, so can you lazy atheists in this forum, lol – get up off your lazy rumps and go to church!!!!]

[derek4]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
It is no lie. The *scientific* debate about Creationism happened 200 years ago and the Creationist last because of the evidence. The *political* debate is still going on because the preachers can hoodwink a scientifically illiterate audience and make it seem that their view should be taught in schools.

You conveniently forgot to include any link, and it wouldn't be credible anyway. God has not been disproved, therefore neither has Creationism, regardless of the debate you refer to.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

"Spirituality May Help People Live Longer"

That's good news. Unfortunately for you, you have religion instead.

derek4 wrote:

[So Christians are wasting their Sundays in church???]

Yes. When you subtract out the thousands of hours wasted reading ancient goatherd fairy tales, muttering at the ceiling fan, and listening to mind numbing sermons every Sunday morning, your useful life is dramatically reduced.

derek4 wrote:

"A growing body of research is beginning to define the complex connections between religious and spiritual beliefs"

I don't see them as being related at all. I don't see how a Christian can be spiritual at all. Your infantile dogma drags you down.

Authentic spirituality involves a connection to nature. Your dogma rips you right out of the universe psychologically and philosophically. You see our world as "worldly, " a word which you can barely choke out so great is your contempt for it.

Unbelievably, you hate matter itself, and consider it base, and hate the philosophy based in it: materialism. And you loathe humanity just as much, referring to your own material being as "the flesh," which is spat out with the same contempt that you say "the world."

What could be less spiritual than that? Do you think that you are spiritual because you refer to the mythical pigeon as the Holy Spirit? Wouldn't I be just as spiritual worshiping Casper the Friendly Ghost?

Spirituality combines awe, mystery, gratitude and a sense of connection to the universe. You have taken whatever little of that you might have had and exported it out of our universe to a nonexistent realm populated by figments of your imagination. You have shifted your attention from your humanity, your world, and even your only life to nowhere, and to your death.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

Just a note to the atheist judge or judges:
Please grade my new posts with bad marks this morning. It always makes my day to see them.

That's a bit of a nuisance, but if you insist, you've got it. I'll do at least this page right now, OK?

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

Hell is warming up fer 'ya.

I can tell when you're most frustrated. You bring the scary chicken on the stick out and shake it: "Arise, Chicken. Oogah Boogah!"

[It aint necessarily so]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Wise words which I fear are lost on the Dim crowd.
They're in with the Dim crowd (da da da )
They go where the Dim crowd goes....

Dim Dandy to the rescue!
Go, Dim Dandy! Go, Dim Dandy!

==========

May I have your attention please?
May I have your attention please?
Will the real Dim Shady please stand up?
I repeat, will the real Dim Shady please stand up?
We're gonna have a problem here..

[swerty]

From the onset of the Christian europeans coming to the Americas. There is an estimate of 50 to 60 million indians were killed by these Christians. With about another 100 to 120 million killed by smallpox brought to the Americas with the Christians.
Christopher Columbus said of the Indians "they are a people who were so friendly that all one would have to do is ask and they would give anything they have to the one asking." Columbus was a Catholic. Later Columbus said in Christ name we will kill and enslave and do whatever is necessary to take this land.
In North America the same was done all in the name of Christ. It was said that the Indians were just human animals and did not have a soul. So killing them was done in Christs name to cleans the lands of these vermin.
The indians had their own religion, unknown to the Christians. They believed that God created everything and that everyone was their Brother and a part of themselves. An idea that sounds savage? Not at all!
Does the remainder of the American indian complain? No
They still live lives of great respect for all God created. Yes they have problems alcohol abuse abounds in the Indian community.
But these people who still believe that everyone is their brother and a part of them live on, some now Christians, but a different kind of Christian. A Christian who sees his brothers as sacred and a part of God.

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
No wonder they make up such a small percent – what do they offer the world? Every time they open their mouth, all that erupts is halitosis and intestinal gasses.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Explain how morals came about through evolution?

The same way any inherited or instinctual behavior comes about. First, there are random, heritable changes in the DNA followed by the natural selection of those traits that confer an adaptive advantage.

Which random trait do you think will be be best preserved when Mrs. Dahmer produces two boys, and one becomes a humanitarian, and the other a cannibal? Here's clue: the cannibal was sent to prison where he was murdered before producing offspring.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Ya you can't like him know that he's against the filth put out by that show.

There's no filth in that show.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
One can only rule things out if one has ALL the fact. You don't.

Many things can be ruled out just from their descriptions, such as a married bachelor, a three-sided square, and a perfect god that makes errors or that grants free will but still knows for a fact what "choices" will be made. These are logically impossible - analytically false.

I don't have to know everything to know that such things can't be found anywhere. I don't even have to get up out of my chair.

Here are some more analytically false claims:

[1] An omniscient being that grants free will
[2] A perfect being that makes mistakes or contradicts itself
[3] A perfect being needing worship
[4] A perfect being that changes its mind
[5] An omnipotent being incapable of being in the presence of sin
[6] A perfect being that creates or alters anything
[7] A non-spacial being being omnipresent
[8] An all-loving, omnipotent being that allows suffering.
[9] A perfectly just being that punishes innocents like offspring.
[10] A merciful being that damns without hope of forgiveness from hell.
[11] Anything existing, persisting, thinking or acting outside of time. Those words all imply an interval of time.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

Can you imagine how high the blood pressure is for the average atheist?

Mine is 110/68.

There are much safer and less expensive ways of treating blood pressure than church. I'll control your blood pressure for you for half of whatever you're paying your priests right now, and even provide the therapeutic agents to you at no extra charge.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

God has not been disproved, therefore neither has Creationism, regardless of the debate you refer to.

Your god has been disproven, as has its creation myth. It's illegal to teach in publicly funded science classes in America.

Nobody is waiting for irrationalists with a stake in believing to accept the arguments. You are free to join us, or to continue to throw rocks at science from your caves. It doesn't matter.

[It aint necessarily so]

swerty wrote:

From the onset of the Christian Europeans coming to the Americas. There is an estimate of 50 to 60 million Indians were killed by these Christians. With about another 100 to 120 million killed by smallpox brought to the Americas with the Christians.

Christopher Columbus said of the Indians "they are a people who were so friendly that all one would have to do is ask and they would give anything they have to the one asking." Columbus was a Catholic. Later Columbus said in Christ name we will kill and enslave and do whatever is necessary to take this land.

In North America the same was done all in the name of Christ. It was said that the Indians were just human animals and did not have a soul. So killing them was done in Christs name to cleans the lands of these vermin.

Good post.

[polymath257]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
You conveniently forgot to include any link, and it wouldn't be credible anyway. God has not been disproved, therefore neither has Creationism, regardless of the debate you refer to.

There is a difference between theism (the belief in a God) and Creationism. The first allows for a deity that creates the universe in a way consistent with what science has discovered: using the Big Bang and evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is a specific theological stance that the Bible is literal truth--so it assumes at the start that the Earth is about 6-10,000 years old, that a world-wide flood happened, etc. I tis Creationism that has been shown false based on the evidence.

[polymath257]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
His statement isn't backed anywhere, unless he means evidence supporting the false theory of evolution, which is worthless since it was fraudulent.

There is no debate in the scientific literature because it was settled 150 years ago. The earth is billions, not thousands of years old; species change over geological time (in other words, evolution). That you don't accept this is similar to the flat-earthers not accepting that the earth is round.

[derek4]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a difference between theism (the belief in a God) and Creationism. The first allows for a deity that creates the universe in a way consistent with what science has discovered: using the Big Bang and evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is a specific theological stance that the Bible is literal truth--so it assumes at the start that the Earth is about 6-10,000 years old, that a world-wide flood happened, etc. I tis Creationism that has been shown false based on the evidence.

Creation comes from God, no matter how you rearrange words or try to separate the two, so you've simply elaborated on your original opinion, but it remains nothing more than your opinion.

Science is incapable of proving or disproving God; science has no credible evidence for or against God.

[derek4]

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
There is no debate in the scientific literature because it was settled 150 years ago. The earth is billions, not thousands of years old; species change over geological time (in other words, evolution). That you don't accept this is similar to the flat-earthers not accepting that the earth is round.

There is always debate.

I have posted many links about it. I don't plan to reconstruct the last 3 months of my posts this morning for those who arrived late, since forum participants constantly come and go.

Shattering the Myths of Darwinism

Compelling evidence that the most important assumptions on which Darwinism rests are wrong.
The controversial best-seller that sent Oxford University and Nature magazine into a frenzy has at last come to the United States. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism exposes the gaping holes in an ideology that has reigned unchallenged over the scientific world for a century. Darwinism is considered to be hard fact, the only acceptable explanation for the formation of life on Earth, but with keen insight and objectivity Richard Milton reveals that the theory totters atop a shambles of outdated and circumstantial evidence which in any less controversial field would have been questioned long ago. Sticking to the facts at hand and tackling a vast array of topics, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism offers compelling evidence that the theory of evolution has become an act of faith rather than a functioning science, and that not until the scientific method is applied to it and the right questions are asked will we ever get the true answers to the mystery of life on Earth.

http://www.amazon.com/Shattering-Myths-Darwin...

Challenging Darwin's Myths

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).”

–Richard Dawkins, prominent Oxford scientist and author

Ever since Darwin first published his theory of evolution, his defenders' favorite tactic against critics has been to attack their character and intelligence. Darwin himself used it against some of the greatest scientists of his day, accusing them of superstition and religious bias.

Now that Darwinism rules the scientific roost, such charges against dissenters are widespread. Not even schoolchildren are immune. Indeed, California's science education guidelines instructs teachers to tell dissenting students, "I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in this field..."

By today's rules, criticism of Darwinism is simply unscientific. The student who wishes to pursue such matters is told to "discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy."

But is Darwinism so obviously true that no honest person could doubt it? Are alternatives like "intelligent design" so unscientific that no reasonable person could embrace them?

The answer to both questions is a resounding no.

[WHY?- CONTINUED:]
http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm

[derek4]

Here's another atheist church:

“Atheist Church of the evolving Human God.”

“Atheist friends, should you elect a God and sacrifice to him or her?

By doing so, you would be acknowledging that mankind is the greatest force in the universe by symbolically taking the name of Human God and insuring that there is always a church that preaches the truth of what is known as a certainty of the supernatural God. That he probably does not exist and is a man-made mythical ideal perpetuated by the Noble Lie.

If you believe what the research indicates in terms of hive behavior, then you might wonder as I do if it would not be in the best interest of the atheist movement to elect an atheist God and sacrifice to him or her?

This, if the research is true, would insure the longevity and cohesion of the atheist movement and give it power.

You may have some suggestion for the title that you would put on your leader and church. I do not except for my choice in the title above. Not being a full atheist, I would not have a vote on it; even as I support atheists and non-supernatural spirituality in people over supernatural religious notions and beliefs. I would also suggest a mantra for this church; that being,--- Faith without Facts is for Fools.

I believe in a strongly assertive type of atheism that preaches that truth is the highest principle. This preaching should be done with eloquence and good form and language; recognizing the trap of logical fallacies and the impossibility of atheists proving that there is no creator God; as well as the impossibility of believers to prove that there is a creator God.

Unfortunately I cannot call myself an atheist anymore because of having suffered an apotheosis. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, you will know that I think that creating an atheist church should be the next evolutionary step for the atheist movement. I believe the research shown above to be true and fear that without a church, atheism will not be affective and perhaps die out without it.

Creating an atheist church would be the ideal for both religionists and atheists. It would insure that atheists are always here to correct the imaginary thinking of those who believe in a mythical supernatural God. This would be a benevolent and altruistic expression of atheist’s social conscience and desire to bring all people to sane thinking. This atheist church would recognize the human attribute shown in the following clip and gently try to help those adults whose thinking is hampered by it.

Atheists seem to already want to do more for society towards this end as they seem to be over-represented in religious forums even as statistics say that the atheist in the U. S. and Canada are only at about 5% of the population. This is a sacrifice for atheists that already adds some cohesion and longevity to the organization and appeases the hive nature that we seem to have. But I do not think it is enough based on the research shown above.

Should atheist elect themselves a Pope or God or someone with some other title and do whatever sacrifice is demanded of them to keep the movement alive for the long run?”
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread899...

[Aren't you atheists in the forum pleased that your religion offers you so many worthless churches these days? LMAO]

[derek4]

Re-postng:

“Michael Arthur Newdow (born June 24, 1953) is an American attorney and emergency medicine physician. He is best known for his efforts to have recitations of the current version of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools in the United States declared unconstitutional because of its inclusion of the phrase "under God". He also filed and lost a lawsuit to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration and, most recently, he filed a lawsuit to prevent references to God and religion from being part of President Obama's inauguration.”

Newdow is an atheist and an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow

Here's the video again:

FROM: USA Today:
“First Atheist Church of True Science explains why atheism is a religion.”
“Bonus: church founded by atheist lawsuit king Michael Newdow”
http://www.fark.com/vidplayer/6311079