Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/6/09 09:46 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/6/09 09:20 PM, poxpower wrote: But at the end of the day, they're all in the same racket.

You do realize that there is such a thing as Church of Atheism, right?

Lol
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.ph p/about/faq/

Those clever little boys.
It seems like a pretty obvious ploy to profit from the same benefits religious people are given through a non-religious mean.

Pretty clever. I can't really guess if it's a social commentary or a genuine attempt at making some kind of money.

I'm guessing number 1
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.ph p/humor/

It's just another way to show that religion is complete bullshit. They started a church OF ATHEISM and it's as recognized by the law apparently. That's like kicking every other religion in the balls while they're down. Now I'm waiting for the FSM church.

At 11/6/09 10:48 PM, Elfer wrote: You also realize that there's no actual church building, and the only thing that organization does is ordain people as ministers, right?

Where is the First Church of Atheism located?

The FCA is located atop the lush rolling hills of Levittown, Pennsylvania.

Wherever the website is based from, they deem that building to be a Church. So.... *blows a raspberry*

At 11/6/09 10:54 PM, poxpower wrote: Pretty clever. I can't really guess if it's a social commentary or a genuine attempt at making some kind of money.

I think it's a social commentary that will eventually lead to some money making. But I don't think the commentary in this instance is going to be glaringly obvious.

Avowed atheism as it stands today has been around for a couple hundred years, yet it has failed to take hold of the populace at large the same way other religious movements have, mainly because the philosophy relies on individual thought and work instead of a collective effort. What better way to help spread atheism than to get together as a group with a codified body of beliefs, and work together toward a common goal... like a Church denomination.

After all, isn't the common goal of Atheism to see the Church taken out of society and atheism elevated to the same worldwide status that religion holds now? Hardly seems to me like your motives are altruistic if that's the case.

After all...

Can atheism really have a church?

A church is defined as an association of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist.

What do I have to do to start my own congregation?

Once you become an ordained minister, you can begin preaching to a congregation immediately.

At 11/7/09 06:56 AM, Proteas wrote: A church is defined as an association of people who share a particular belief system. So yes, a church of atheism can really exist.

;
I've often thought of forming a association for a belief. I wanted to call it 'the nonbelievers'
It just became too overwhelmingly hard when I sat down & tried to figure out the logistics of it.
The more I looked at it, the harder It seemed to be.

Perhaps if I had a different concept, than each member of the non belief system, never having contact & never talking, or leaving or expressing any of their own ideas, of just not believing in anything about god, religion or any dogma written down or recorded in any way...it might have been feasible.

I see that the conversation has shifted from it's original premise (I think the already-mentioned ad-hominem and package-deal fallacies cover it anyway) to the premise of religion as a scam business that doesn't produce anything.

I don't really see the point in vilifying people who sell a product as ephemeral as an idea or a 'way of life' as an argument against religion when there are certainly people involved with atheist philosophy and miscellaneous secular 'ways of life' with the same modus operandi. As long as people have ideas they wish to promote... and as long as other people are willing to pay them any mind at all... they'll find a way to profit financially from it.

I mean, you can call Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris "real scientists" but what tangible scientific advancements have they honestly made? I can't think of any electronic or biochem technology they've contributed towards producing. No new machines, no new vaccines, nothing of THAT sort. It seems to me that all they've done is sell their ideas. For example, the only contribution of the much-praised Richard Dawkins I've ever encountered in day-to-day life is the treat of seeing the word "meme" brought-up every time someone wishes to reference a stupid internet fad or phrase. I admit it's an interesting way to repackage and sell gene theory as applying to general information transfer but it's not like I've ever heard it used in conversation (on OR off the computer) to reference anything OTHER THAN a goofy quote that had made its way into cyberspace. So yeah, he invented a new term (...well, borrowed from old terms) and brought it into the modern lexicon. It's not really that impressive when you think about it, especially when you think about which people tend to use it most frequently.

Then there's people who sell 'ways of life' that avoid religious overtones and stay within secular territory. Tony Robbins, 'Dr.' Phil McGraw, and other "self-help gurus" have made ridiculous fortunes by telling people how they can "live better lives", coming out with all sorts of books and personal well-being products in order to sell their programs. In terms of 'vetting your product', what else is there for things like that other than "if it worked for me/her/him, it can work for you too!!!" ? What about all the different workout gadgets and videos being marketed these days? You don't need them at all in order to be fit and healthy (and the people who promote them were almost certainly fit and healthy BEFORE the product came along)... but is it then fair to immediately presume that they wouldn't help you even if you actually DID use them?

...

So, are ALL THESE THINGS "scams"? Is it wrong to profit from an idea if people come to you en-masse to learn about it? Is it immediately an underhanded and shady venture if your business doesn't produce something of tangible worth (other than books and audio tapes) and only alters the way people think and feel about themselves?

What about 'ways of life'? If your product is the idea of some manner of living, and the people who buy into it see either detrimental or neutral results instead of beneficial results, is that immediate cause to blame the product itself, or doesn't it matter how the people actually put the product to use? If you buy a DVD of workout exercises but you never actually get up off your butt and follow them (or you only perform them at incredibly infrequent intervals) is it really the DVD's fault that you're still fat?

Anybody get what I'm saying here?

At 11/7/09 07:44 AM, morefngdbs wrote: I've often thought of forming a association for a belief. I wanted to call it 'the nonbelievers'
It just became too overwhelmingly hard when I sat down & tried to figure out the logistics of it.
The more I looked at it, the harder It seemed to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_mov ement

At 11/7/09 08:33 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

At 11/7/09 07:44 AM, morefngdbs wrote: The more I looked at it, the harder It seemed to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brights_mov ement

;;;
The problem there is they meet in an online forum .
Way to much meeting for my concept.

At 11/6/09 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Except he probably never existed anyway so who cares.

Uh, yeah, he did exist. If you need any reassurance, Albert Einstein (a scientist in the modern post-Darwinian age) was asked if he believed in Jesus at least as an historical figure to which he replied "Absolutely". That's good enough for me.

At 11/7/09 06:56 AM, Proteas wrote:
Avowed atheism as it stands today has been around for a couple hundred years,

complete and utter bull, even 50 years ago if said you were an atheist you would probaly be shunned by the entire town you lived in . the reason atheism hasn't spread is becuase the extrme predujice against it. plus the fact atheists have never forced atheism onto someone , the most we have is a heated arugument the most religons have is crusades.

hell theres even laws in some states saying atheist's can't take public office.

At 11/7/09 06:56 AM, Proteas wrote: The FCA is located atop the lush rolling hills of Levittown, Pennsylvania.

Wherever the website is based from, they deem that building to be a Church. So.... *blows a raspberry*

They don't necessarily deem the building itself a church, that's just where the organization is located. A reverse 411 on the phone number given shows nothing other than the fact that the provider is a company based in Philly, and that it's a landline. Based on that, I'd venture a guess that the base of operations of the first church of atheism is nothing more than a second phone line.

When I say there's "no actual church building" what I mean is that there's no dedicated building, and people are almost certainly neither invited nor even allowed to show up there for some sort of preaching.

And hey, even if there really was a church where atheists gathered to hear about stuff, I would still think it was pretty stupid, so the point is moot.

What better way to help spread atheism than to get together as a group with a codified body of beliefs, and work together toward a common goal... like a Church denomination.

This is the exact opposite of what atheism is supposed to be. A codified body of beliefs is exactly the sort of problem that shouldn't be promoted. People are fallible, and asking them to just trust you on a philosophical matter is a shitty plan.

After all, isn't the common goal of Atheism to see the Church taken out of society and atheism elevated to the same worldwide status that religion holds now? Hardly seems to me like your motives are altruistic if that's the case.

I think if atheism had some sort of "common goal," (which is a bit weird given the nature of atheism), it would be more along the lines of getting people to think for themselves, or maybe getting rid of the more damaging influnces that organized religion has on society.

"Elevating atheism to the same status that religion holds now" would be a pretty terrible idea.

At 11/2/09 10:00 PM, Ericho wrote: Religion is obviously a controversial subject. The notion that I think is that we clearly have freedom of religion (and lack of, I believe), so we should learn to respect each other's freedoms and not say that we are in any way superior to other people for our beliefs, or lack of.

No Ericho, we have 100% freedom of religion, if you go into a store, are you not allowed to buy anything because your Muslim? Or pay exclusive taxes if your Mormon or any other religion? The problem is that you make posts which just seem, kind of hard to put it without being mean, stupid. You said that if there was no God why not just rape and kill everyone? People just replied saying how evil you must be if you need a God to stop you from doing these things.

At 11/7/09 08:25 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: I mean, you can call Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris "real scientists" but what tangible scientific advancements have they honestly made?

Not all scientific advances are something that have direct practical applications. 90% of all science is done in the library.

I do think that belief in god is not a matter of personal observation and thought but a matter of being indoctrinated by one's parents. For the same reason i think that belief in good government is not a matter of personal observation but of indoctrination by one's parents and by the education system.

However, psychoanalysis is not a valid argument against god nor is it a valid argument against the state. It merely explains why these, usually mild, though potentially deadly ideologies persist to the day in spite of the cults and killings and atrocities that have been committed in the name of church and the name of state. \

Valid arguments against god have to be founded on the idea that science has shown time and time again that order exists because order emerges. Atoms, molecules, galaxies, organs, tissues, all occur in the absence of a sky daddy.

At 11/7/09 08:25 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote:

I don't really see the point in vilifying people who sell a product as ephemeral

Ok well first thing, you have to go on a case-by case basis. A lot of them will make you pay for rituals / potions of some kind of ask offerings / donations for good fortune / karma / forgiveness etc.

Now that is dishonest as they are selling something that does not work as promised. You may feel good after you get it, but that's true of any lie you're fed until you realize you've been had.

I mean, you can call Dennett, Dawkins, and Harris "real scientists"

They are scientists by any definition of a scientist. They have education, do research and publish papers.

It seems to me that all they've done is sell their ideas.

Dawkins was a biologist for like 20+ years before writing any books on atheism. He's written many books on evolution and spent a great deal of time educating the public on scientific matters in which he was an expert.
Sam Harris produced neuroscience research using brain imaging and Dan Dennet.. well go read about it yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Denn ett#Career_in_academia

Then there's people who sell 'ways of life' that avoid religious overtones and stay within secular territory. Tony Robbins, 'Dr.' Phil McGraw, and other "self-help gurus" have made ridiculous fortunes by telling people how they can "live better lives",

Yeah most of them have no support from the skeptic/ scientific community and are regarded as quacks and attacked just as harshly as religious people.

So, are ALL THESE THINGS "scams"?

Most of them.

Is it wrong to profit from an idea if people come to you en-masse to learn about it?

Depends what idea you're talking about.

What about 'ways of life'? If your product is the idea of some manner of living, and the people who buy into it see either detrimental or neutral results instead of beneficial results, is that immediate cause to blame the product itself, or doesn't it matter how the people actually put the product to use?

Well first off, you read the fine print. Then you check if the product works as advertised. If it doesn't, you're entitled to a refund, are you not?

At 11/7/09 09:53 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/6/09 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Except he probably never existed anyway so who cares.

Uh, yeah, he did exist. If you need any reassurance, Albert Einstein (a scientist in the modern post-Darwinian age) was asked if he believed in Jesus at least as an historical figure to which he replied "Absolutely". That's good enough for me.

Haha what the fuck would Einstein know about Jesus?
And if you believe him on that, then you should also be a deist and quit being Christian ( or whatever you are ) because he sure as shit wasn't part of any religion and wasn't a theist.

At 11/7/09 11:40 AM, Elfer wrote:

They don't necessarily deem the building itself a church,

Dude just read the definition of a church on that website.
By their standards, a broom closet could be a cathedral.

"Elevating atheism to the same status that religion holds now" would be a pretty terrible idea.

Unless they make me the Atheist Pope and they give me my own Pope mobile. Then I think it's a great idea.

At 11/7/09 10:15 AM, fatape wrote: complete and utter bull

Kiss my ass.

At 11/7/09 11:40 AM, Elfer wrote: I think if atheism had some sort of "common goal," (which is a bit weird given the nature of atheism), it would be more along the lines of getting people to think for themselves, or maybe getting rid of the more damaging influnces that organized religion has on society.

"Elevating atheism to the same status that religion holds now" would be a pretty terrible idea.

I've read enough of these threads to know what the common goal of atheism is, that's why I find the idea of an atheist church to be deliciously ironic. I know the intention is to satirize religion as a whole, but the idea that they would actually copy the organizational pattern of the Church in spreading atheism intrigues me. Could it lead to atheism becoming a large organization, with doctrines and dogma?

Personally, I don't see why it couldn't happen... just look at what the Church has done with Jesus' original message of peace and love.

And there isn't a one of you here reading this who doesn't get a little bit queasy at the thought of Pox being an atheist pope.

At 11/7/09 07:58 PM, Proteas wrote:

"Elevating atheism to the same status that religion holds now" would be a pretty terrible idea.

I've read enough of these threads to know what the common goal of atheism is, that's why I find the idea of an atheist church to be deliciously ironic. I know the intention is to satirize religion as a whole, but the idea that they would actually copy the organizational pattern of the Church in spreading atheism intrigues me. Could it lead to atheism becoming a large organization, with doctrines and dogma?

I think atheism might have two meanings in this case, for the same reason as a 'church' and theism are not necessarily the same thing.

I can imagine, especially in the united states, individuals believing in a skydaddy to some degree or another, but not forming any organizations based on that collective belief. So it is theoretically possible to believe in god without subscribing to a church.

on the same token you can have a bunch of people who do not believe in god, but do not form special associations on the basis of that belief [or lack thereof]

But you could, theoretically, have an 'atheist' society, or a congregation of people who shared atheism commonly.

In fact that's pretty much what Objectivism is. Of course Rand would have rolled in her grave (Assuming she wasn't cremated) if she found out that people were using the name 'church of objectivism' or maybe the 'first baptist church of rand' or something.

In fact it reminds me of a you tube user by the name of Thunderf00t. He seems to know what he's talking about, as far as science goes, and he has almost fanatical support from his subscribers. So when he says something about politics or economics that's pure bullshit and even an inbred 'god believer' can prove it to be illogical, thunderf00t's drones do his dirty work and run a smear campaign against the person who dared question him... kind of like a religious leader.

At 11/7/09 07:58 PM, Proteas wrote: I know the intention is to satirize religion as a whole, but the idea that they would actually copy the organizational pattern of the Church in spreading atheism intrigues me. Could it lead to atheism becoming a large organization, with doctrines and dogma?

Actually, I think the intention is to allow atheists to become ordained ministers, in order to provide the service to people who are so ANGRYFAIS about being atheists that they demand their wedding be conducted by someone who will not mention god at all.

If atheism does become a large organization with doctrines and dogma, it won't really be atheism any more. In any case, this "church" is not really a step towards that, since they don't really do anything.

At 11/7/09 09:53 AM, Ericho wrote: Uh, yeah, he did exist. If you need any reassurance, Albert Einstein (a scientist in the modern post-Darwinian age) was asked if he believed in Jesus at least as an historical figure to which he replied "Absolutely". That's good enough for me.

Sure because it's a person universally considered to be a brilliant individual backing up your belief. The problem with this (at least insofar as how you phrased it) is I have no idea WHY Einstein believed this to be the case. Did he have a good amount of historical evidence he personally researched? Did he have a historian friend who did the research and convinced Einstein? Or was Einstein merely something of a "closet Christian" so when asked the most basic question you'd need to say yes to to BE a Christian he said yes?

I'm not trying to say Jesus wasn't historical, I really don't know. But I'm saying that once again you've come in with crap evidence and acted like you have something solid. There's a reason we don't allow that kind of hearsay in a court setting

At 11/7/09 09:53 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/6/09 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Except he probably never existed anyway so who cares.

Uh, yeah, he did exist. If you need any reassurance, Albert Einstein (a scientist in the modern post-Darwinian age) was asked if he believed in Jesus at least as an historical figure to which he replied "Absolutely". That's good enough for me.

As a historical figure, not the "omg he gave a guy arms and legs who had his arms and legs chopped off !!!1111!!!!11!!" as in he existed, just not in the same way people would say he did, as in not the myth, but like a doctor. Again, Einstein is a scientist , not a Historian.

At 11/8/09 01:43 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 11/7/09 09:53 AM, Ericho wrote:

At 11/6/09 03:46 PM, poxpower wrote: Except he probably never existed anyway so who cares.

Uh, yeah, he did exist. If you need any reassurance, Albert Einstein (a scientist in the modern post-Darwinian age) was asked if he believed in Jesus at least as an historical figure to which he replied "Absolutely". That's good enough for me.

As a historical figure, not the "omg he gave a guy arms and legs who had his arms and legs chopped off !!!1111!!!!11!!" as in he existed, just not in the same way people would say he did, as in not the myth, but like a doctor. Again, Einstein is a scientist , not a Historian.

History books affirm the existence of historical figures well before Jesus. Did Hammurabi really exist? Was Hammurabi perhaps a fake story told by Babylonian nobles attempting to justify the laws of the code? What about Confucious? Did Muhhamad Exist? Buddha? Julius Caesar?

Jesus most likely never existed and if he did, there is no convincing evidence of it.
I challenge you to find it.

At 11/8/09 09:58 PM, poxpower wrote: Jesus most likely never existed and if he did, there is no convincing evidence of it.
I challenge you to find it.

Click.

At 11/8/09 10:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/8/09 09:58 PM, poxpower wrote: Jesus most likely never existed and if he did, there is no convincing evidence of it.
I challenge you to find it.

Click.

Agreed. There's a general consensus among historians that Jesus was a real person; not to say you can't make that stuff up, but I think it would be pretty difficult to start a movement like Christianity if the man behind it were nothing more than urban legend. Now, whether he was a Messiah, or a prophet, or a witch doctor - that's something people will never agree upon.

At 11/8/09 10:04 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/8/09 09:58 PM, poxpower wrote: Jesus most likely never existed and if he did, there is no convincing evidence of it.
I challenge you to find it.

Click.

Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth _theory
adsadsa

At 11/8/09 10:27 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

Agreed. There's a general consensus among historians

Well first off, there is no such thing as an "historian" who is just a general knower of all history.
Historians have specialties.

And only a select few ever studied the documentation of Christ.

So when you say "historians" just remember that you're NOT talking about all historians, or even most historians, but the select few who did research into that over the decades.

And what did they produce? A lot of books and not a lot of evidence.

At BEST Jesus might have existed as just some guy who may or may not have said any of the things in the bible.
More likely his existence seems to be a collage of myths, fabrications and retro-fitting.

I'm just so sick of hearing "well at least there was a Jesus". Even if that was true, it could mean ANYTHING.
That still wouldn't allow you to attribute any special quality to him as the sources who wrote about him, the BEST ones don't mention anything he's done, really.

You couldn't say he was a teacher, a leader, a magicians... anything. All you know is his name, which could be the name of any random notable Jesus from that era.

It's almost as stupid as being proud of proving there indeed was a guy named Jim Benson who was born in Alabama between 1950 and 1990.

but I think it would be pretty difficult to start a movement like Christianity if the man behind it were nothing more than urban legend.

Haha why?
Just about everything from the early texts of Judaism is bullshit, didn't stop them. And don't get me started on Norse myths. Yeah there must have been SOME guy named Thor. Like maybe he wasn't a God but like there must have been a really tall dude named Thor who like beat someone up using a hammer...yeah how else could you explain it?
Other than just admitting it's made-up? That never happens in religions!

At 11/9/09 12:47 AM, poxpower wrote: Enjoy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth _theory

All you've got there is conjecture and reasons for doubt, not hard evidence to justify your "he didn't exist" position.

I'll look into it later Pox, but I'm pretty sure there's a Roman record of the execution. The Romans did keep records, and Jews have made it their business to know some of the truth since we're accused occasionally of killing the man. So I'm pretty sure the guy existed, but its a known fact that the bible wasn't codified until about 200 years after he died.

Anyone feel comfortable codifying all of the folk stories from the early 1800s around a particularly popular persona as factual information? Probably not.

At 11/7/09 07:58 PM, Proteas wrote: Kiss my ass.

only if you return the favour

At 11/9/09 12:44 PM, fatape wrote: only if you return the favour

Non Sequiter. You called bullshit on my "centuries" claim, I provided it evidence to support what I said, and you respond with... atheist discrimination? How am I discriminating against you by showing how old atheism actually is?

At 11/9/09 12:59 PM, Proteas wrote:
Non Sequiter. You called bullshit on my "centuries" claim, I provided it evidence to support what I said, and you respond with... atheist discrimination? How am I discriminating against you by showing how old atheism actually is?

and this kids is what we call a strawman fallacy.

You two guys:

At 11/7/09 10:15 AM, fatape wrote:

At 11/7/09 06:56 AM, Proteas wrote:
Avowed atheism as it stands today has been around for a couple hundred years,

complete and utter bull, even 50 years ago if said you were an atheist you would probaly be shunned by the entire town you lived in .

For the record, here is exactly where the communication between you two broke down and you started talking about different things. Proteas was talking about how long atheism has existed, and you fatape were talking, for some reason, about how long atheism has been "acceptable" in society.

The full context of Proteas' comment was that he was explaining how a lack of unity in atheism has prevented it from taking hold in the same way the major religions have.

Gonna have to go with Proteas on this one. Fatape, your responses have nothing to do with what he was saying.

And atheism has been around for millenia and probably predates religion anyway.
As far as we know, animals don't believe in God, so they qualify.

So make that billions of years actually.

At 11/9/09 12:12 PM, Proteas wrote:

All you've got there is conjecture and reasons for doubt, not hard evidence to justify your "he didn't exist" position.

Wow after all this time you STILL cannot recognize an instance of "proving a negative"????
How many times will I have to tell you this?

At 11/9/09 12:22 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'll look into it later Pox, but I'm pretty sure there's a Roman record of the execution.

Nope. The Romans don't even mention him as far as we know.

and Jews have made it their business to know some of the truth since we're accused occasionally of killing the man.

They don't mention him either until much much later when he gained popularity as a Christian figure.
The case for Jesus' existence is a classic case of a cascade effect where one guy says it's true and then 15 others say it too all based on the assumption from the first guy.

There's probably no way to ever truly verify it at this point but his existence even as a historical figure it pretty dubious.