These Are the 5 ‘Ingenious’ Religious Concepts This Atheist Wants Secularists to Embrace
- Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:04pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Author Alain de Botton (Image Credit: AlaindeBotton.com)
These days, it seems atheism is increasingly adopting religious elements. The Blaze has already covered the fact that some atheist scientists bring their children to church and that skeptics are actively advocating for the installation of atheist military chaplains.
And who can overlook the recommendation — and active plan — by author and atheist Alain de Botton that non-believers construct their own “worship” temples? In a new op-ed on the Huffington Post, de Botton takes his quest to utilize religious tenets to new levels.
In an article entitled, “5 Religious Concepts That Atheists Can Use,” de Botton, the author of the new book, “Religion for Atheists,” highlights five faith elements he says non-believers can benefit from. Clearly, such recommendations would make famed scientist and skeptic Richard Dawkins cringe (Dawkins recently called de Botton’s plan for temples an “aggressive” and “destructive” approach to atheism).
De Botton starts his article by highlighting a battle that he believes to be unfolding between “a hardcore group of fanatical believers” and “an equally small band of fanatical atheists.” At issue in his piece isn’t whether God exists (this is something he has already personally answered for himself). Instead, de Botton covers what he believes needs to happen once an individual determines that he or she is a non-believer.
“In a world beset by fundamentalists of believing and secular varieties, it must be possible to balance a rejection of religious faith with a selective reverence for religious rituals and concepts,” he writes. “The error of modern atheism has been to overlook how many sides of the faiths remain relevant even after their central tenets have been dismissed.”
He’s essentially saying that there are beneficial elements of religion, even for those radical non-believers who attempt to dismiss any and all portions of faith. Thus, he highlight‘s religion’s “ingenious concepts” that can be used, he believes, by secularists as well.
First, he highlights education. De Botton praises the methods the religious use to teach children and says that the success of religious education is inherent in its reliance upon repetition, oratory structures and calendars. “The Jewish or Catholic calendars are masterpieces of synchronisation: every day brings us back round to some important idea,” he writes.
Then, he highlights the religious focus on the mind and body. Rather than focusing solely on the former, de Botton praises the notion that believers take into account the body’s impact over the mind and the role that emotions play in the process. If one wants to reach the mind, taking the other elements into account, he argues, is prudent.
The third element he offers praise for is community. While the secular world has its hangouts, de Botton says that atheists and non-believers are horrible at finding a “regular way of turning strangers into friends.” It is this element that most meshes with the author’s proposal that secularists embrace atheist temples, as these are localities where community can be built.
De Botton’s fourth chosen tenet is the presence of arts and museums. “Christianity never leaves us in any doubt about what art is for: it is a medium to teach us how to live, what to love and what to be afraid of,” he explains. Here, it seems the atheist philosopher is encouraging the use of art in secular circles to speak more about the lessons various artworks teach about mankind.
And last on his list is pilgrimages — the trips the religious take to commemorate and celebrate their faith. De Botton honors the fact that the faithful know how to allow travel to change them (i.e. the trips that are mandated by a faith or taken to celebrate a belief in the Almighty have a profound impact on the individuals partaking in them).
“Religions are intermittently too useful, effective and intelligent to be abandoned to the religious alone,” he concludes, taking a sharp and divergent tone that would likely make Dawkins and the members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation cringe.
(H/T: The Huffington Post)
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 587 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 375 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 414 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 378 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 414 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (218)
Gonzo
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:12pmSorry, I don’t believe in atheism…it’s a myth.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:20pmLol, you can’t believe in Atheism.
Report Post »JohnnyMidknight
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:31pmGonzo is always good for a laugh.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:37pmLike I said last week Atheism IS a religion. They worship Humanism, they like to fellowship with like minded people, They have their preachers get up and give sermons, They proselytize new converts, and their intolerance for other religions is profound. Modern science is their “Bible”. They have all the key elements that make a religion a religion. They have become what they say they hate. How’s that for irony?
Report Post »db321
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:43pmI call for Separation of Church and State right Now! – Atheist need to stop telling me who or what to believe in – I can’t even come to the Blaze without seeing the Atheist logo – it offends me.
Isn’t it amazing how the atheist spend every waking hour of every day, out to prove something they don‘t believe doesn’t exist. I think it is called Torment!
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:17pmAtheism is by definition the non-belief in any diety. religion is defined as belief and worship of a diety. Atheists do no believe in any dieties, hence, not a religion. I can understand some atheists wanting to associate with other atheists and bringing up their children as such, in which case using the ideas that religions have already come up with makes sense. I dont recall any atheist group denouncing how different religions run their business, just the foundation of it all, so I dont see any sort of hypocacy either.
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:25pm@ Db321
isnt it amazing that some people make idiotic comments like “Isn’t it amazing how the atheist spend every waking hour of every day, out to prove something they don‘t believe doesn’t exist”
Yup, you got us, we dont work or go to school or raise families or anything, hell, we dont even eat or drink anything ever! because we spend “Every waking hour of every day” trying to tear down religion everywhere. Please, I wont go into too much detail on why that statement is false and impossible, if you have something intelligent to say, please contribute, if not, blow it out your A$$
Report Post »Dave
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:36pm@Rainman3769:
Report Post »actually, you are mistaken. the opposite of atheism is not religion, the opposite of atheism is theism. religion is defined as “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices“ or ”a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”.
The Jewish Avenger
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:45pm@ModerationIsBest
May be the best taken out of context statement of the day.
If you actually refer to atheism that is. (I don’t believe in their religion either)
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:50pm@Rainman3769
So if I dont want to contribute to the positive outlook of atheism I wont have to blow it out of my a$$?
Sweeeeet….
Ahem… I wish to state that there is NOTHING to contribute to anything positive towards athiesm, thank you.
Report Post »Dan_o
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:10pm@Dave, don’t bother explaining definitions to the atheist. He’s already got it all figured out and is smarter than the rest of us.
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:12pm@Dave
“a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ESPECIALLY WHEN CONSIDERED AS THE CREATION OF A SUPERHUMAN AGENCY OR AGENCIES, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”
probably got that from the same google search you did. We may just have to agree to disagree with how religion would be “defined” But i think my definition is more accurate and complete.
The fact is that religion is based on a superhuman creator, you cant deny that. Atheists do not think there is a superhuman creator, so again, atheism cannot be a religion. i cant think of any “rituals” that atheists perform, and atheists do not have one solid, unifying idea of right and wrong, although we pretty much roll with the current system of morality. Seems to me I proved my point rather well.
Your thoughts?
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:23pm@Dan-O
I never made any claim remotely resembling your statement, nor would I ever. Anyone who says they have it all figured out is a fool, religious or not. There are far too many things that remain unexplained from a religious or atheistic standpoint for anyone to say they already know all the answers.
About you I would say “Don’t bother trying to debate with THAT believer, he’s too condesending to intellectually debate something and admit the chance he might be wrong.”
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 8:36pm@Jewish Avenger
Lol. . . . I can see you are one of those types who has nothing worthwhile to add to a conversation that requires THOUGHT, people like you are important. When the grown-ups are having a bad day, we look at you, and immediatly feel better about ourselves. thanks for that.
Report Post »db321
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 9:33pmI see a trend just form reading your comments.
You think you know everything – no body can teach you any thing and you a huge cowardliness about you that makes you want to threaten others under the cover of the Internet.
If I made you mad – lets discuss it – was it because I said, your having a hard time trying to prove something that you don‘t believe doesn’t exists.
Or is it the Tormented part – I made my comment first and then you responded – I had know idea that I would receive a respond to from a man that uses the screen name Rainman. Are you afflicted by some type of Savant syndrome. As you know, some feel that it is a form of torment.
If you are tormented – I assure you that torment comes from the Devil – I know of a cure for you – his name is Jesus and he has healed millions that have been afflicted. I’ve seen it with my eyes.
Ask Jesus into you life, confess that you are a sinner and he will heal you from your affliction of Torment.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 9:46pm@DB321
Millions will say Allah cured them, or Buddha, or Zeus.
What’s your point?
Are their Gods just as powerful as your God?
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 10:13pm. . . . HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Wow man, Im starting to see what Moderationisbest is saying about people reading his stuff and then claiming the opposite. I will admit I made what could be considered a personal attack ONCE in the second page of comments.
I think I know everything? If you REALLY read my posts you would see that more than once I say quite clearly that I dont discount the possibility I could be wrong, I just don’t think I am. I also say, as a matter of opinion and without malice (unless first provoked) that I think believers should also acknowlage THEY could be wrong, which they rarely do, and I think they are.
Where are these cowardly threats that I supposedly made from the safety of the internet? Find them, copy and paste them in a response to me here.
You did not make me mad, more exasperated and confused. I just cant imagine you REALLY believe atheists do LITERALLY nothing but fight the faith. And yes, that is what you said, because that is what “Every waking minute of every day,” means. I feel no compulsion to “prove” anything, because the whole god thing cannot be “proven” for either side.
As for my screenname? When I was 14 i thought the two words, rain, and man, sounded cool when put together. I had never heard of the movie in my life at that time, and it just stuck as the years went on and I needed a moniker. No underlying meaning, no need for further thought.
As for torment, well, I wouldnt go so far as to call
Report Post »boatbuilder1
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 7:34pmit is real and has been hear. I think this will give them a reason to organize and not pay tax.Then they can get govt. assistance.They want to worship something it is our human nature.If I believe in peace and joy now, and the hope for life after death and it is not true then no harm done. If I do not believe in God and it is real then thats what we call h-e double tooth pics.
Report Post »darkstar549
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:06pmNow forming a new church.
The Right and Reverent Brotherhood of the Gun. We believe that God created all men and Sam Colt made them equal. Our church has no race or gender barriers.
All we ask is a belief in Peace and the right to Life and Liberty. We also believe that you are free to pursue Happiness as you think and believe it to be. This is not guaranteed, anywhere. We love our country and we feel our government is just a necessary boil on the hind quarter of Freedom.
That boil is now a festering sore. We hope and pray that 2012 is the cure. Wake Up!
Report Post »Miller
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:57pmOh please allow them to do this…please? God will use this to His advantage, they just don’t see it …yet…I’m smiling :-):-) All the way to church
Report Post »Think_First
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:48pmI have been told that atheists do worship a god. It is the god of self…..or some other thing. To each their own, but I really do feel better believing that there is someone out there smarter, stronger, wiser and kinder than the rest of us. I trust God, and frankly, if it weren’t for Him, I would probably not trust anyone at all. I trust all of us humans to screw up, hurt each other unintentionally or on purpose, and start wars that are based on pride and misunderstanding…..because we all know we are the very smartest. I am willing to think for myself, and demand that respect, but when I get lost I defer to the Master. Lately, I am calling on Him all the time. A building or travel can not replace the peace and hope I get from this. Well, I hope it works out for Bottom. I wish you happiness in your search and pray you will find the answers you are seeking.
Report Post »Fiddlesticks
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:25pmAtheists do not worship a God. Believers think that much of what man creates/does is somehow rooted in God or the belief there of (inspiration). Believers think that it was Jesus/God who got them off of drugs or helped them succeed in life somehow. Believers thank God that their loved ones had a successful life saving surgery or that they won the lottery or that their team won.
Since Atheists don’t believe in God we then have to ask ourselves what is the source of man accomplishments. The answer is us as humans. Humans have the power to get themselves off of drugs and succeed in life. We also have the power to destroy ourselves. We can work together (support groups) or work hard to achieve our goals. Its humans who have studied medicine for hundreds of years that help people through illness and injury.
So Atheists don’t worship the self. We know that a divine being isn’t going to come down and change the outcomes of our lives. Instead we place our efforts/time/energy into humanity. Which is where the term Humanist comes from.
Report Post »MammalOne
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:57pm@fiddlesticks
That is the most sane comment i’ve read on this thread.
To further the point, if it turns out that there is no such thing as a deity, then everything we attribute to “god’s will“ or ”god’s plan” or mercy was really just attributable to humans and the state of the universe. I think there’s a lot of power in that idea. It’s certainly empowering for the individual.
This doesn’t mean athiests “worship” humans or “humanism”. They don’t “worship” anything. They’re just a bunch of really well adapted primates on a water-covered rock floating in space, doing what they do best.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:48pmI‘m convinced ’atheism’ takes more faith than believing in the 3-person Godhood.
GOP/ 2012
Report Post »JESUS CHRIST/ETERNITY
ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:50pmJust because you‘re convinced doesn’t mean it’s true. :)
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:58pmModeration
1/3 of the Bible is prophecy.
Jesus fulfilled 300+ specific predictions that were written 700 years before He was born.
That would be like someone in 1312 describing specific things about Obama like where he was born, where his parents were born, and that he would become President…and so on. (Read Josh McDowell)
Christianity is the only religion with fulfilled prophecy.
Report Post »skiz
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:00pm@moderation(whatever)~ but it is true. sorry! JESUS IS the living GOD! Because you dont think it is , doesnt mean it is not.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:01pmWhen I became a Christian, the Truth set me free; it has been verified to the full for this sinner.
As for atheists; they say there is no God and God Himself, addresses that in his Word. Something about ‘the fool says there is no God.’ So, an atheist probably has to work overtime in the faith department, believing there is no God. Sounds like a lot of work to me.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:02pm@HI
That’s the thing about prophecies……they’re so easy to make happen and so open to interpretation. :)
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:05pmIf you haven’t done so yet, please read up on how the current Bible came into print.
Learn that the four gospels weren’t written in the time of Jesus but around 30-40 years after his death.
The Bible is so fallible it’s a hilarious joke that people call it infallible.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:07pm@TRONINTHEMORNING
Look up how the word “fool” has been translated. If I remember correctly, it is not “fool” in the way you take it.
Here comes that whole infallibility of the Bible thing.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:08pm@SKIZ
See that’s you being a hypocrite. I agree that I could be wrong about there not being a God, whereas you claim it as fact.
How is it I am always the one who gets told “I’m so sure of myself” from the very people who claim faith as fact?
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:10pmHey MOD,
Just because you are convinced that moderation is best, doesn‘t mean it’s true. :-}
Have you figured out yet exactly how much evil one must accept to reach the level of moderation that is best?
Peace
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:18pmHey MOD,
There you go again, admitting that there is the possibility that you could be wrong.
Tell us something MOD, why are you in here all the time trying to convince us that we are wrong and you are right, If you ARE NOT SURE about your non-beliefs.
Wouldn’t that be sort of an “evil” thing to do? Actively trying to get people to give up their faith when you are not even sure about what you are claiming to be the truth.
Sounds pretty slimy to me.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:20pmModeration
How about this prophecy that was fulfilled:
‘ He will die 483 years after the declaration of Artaxerxes to rebuild the temple in 444BC.(Daniel 9:24)’
Also, the Gospels were written by close friends except for Paul who was close friends with the apostles.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:22pm@HI
Close friends……40 years after, lol yeah. Yet “it’s all true.”
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:26pmModeration
Report Post »The apostles who walked with Christ were the ones who wrote the Gospels.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:29pm@HI
Can you please tell me which Bible you are using for that verse of Daniel 9:24. I can’t find that verse anywhere online, unless I type out the verse you used.
Plus, if you do the math, doesn’t that mean Jesus died when he was 39, when most people believe he died in his early 30s?
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:35pm@HI
Wow, no they weren’t!
They were hearsays and stories told by friends of the apostles decades after the death of Jesus.
Also, how can that be a true prophecy when most people don’t even know the date Jesus was supposedly born?
People CONSTANTLY lie when they say the Bible is the word of God. If you actually question them further, they will then admit that the Bible was written by men who they claimed were inspired by God. They then go on some wild tangent on how the holy spirit was guiding them in their writings, thus nothing in it could be untrue despite glaring contradictions.
Most people have no clue how the current day Bible came into formation, and the leaders want it that way.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:40pmhttp://www.bing.com/search?q=he+will+die+483+years+after+the+declaration+of+Artaxerxes+to+rebuild+the+temple+in+444+BC&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=he+will+die+483+years+after+the+declaration+of+artaxerxes+to+rebuild+the+temple+in+444+bc&sc=0-12&sp=-1&sk=
Just highlight the verse, then plug it into BING and it will come up if you can’t click on above.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:45pmThe Case for Christ explains all of it. It’s awesome. I read it 8 years ago. I also studied how the Bible was formed. They were very, very careful and each gospel had to meet strict criteria.
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1150
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:54pmI will type verbatim what I’m reading from the Bible I have, and from Bible gateway online.
Daniel 9:24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgressions, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and to anoint the most holy
From Bible Gateway
Daniel 9:24 “”Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.”
In both cases, i continued reading and it never talked about what you wrote.
So, unless I’m mistaken, what you did wasn’t quote actual scripture, but quoted a common interpretation of scripture, and stuck Daniel 9:24 behind it to give it some kind of validity for the prophecy you claim it fulfills? If that is what happened, wow, way to misrepresent scripture.
If that’s not what happened, please inform because I would like to know where you got that from the Bible.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:57pm@HI
Why do you claim an outside sources proves the Bible is true?
Unfortunately for religion, they have put themselves into a catch 22 by saying the Holy books are infallible.
For instance
If the Bible is true, because the Bible says it’s true, then that’s illogical
If you claim an outside sources proves the Bible, well why does the Bible need an outside sources to prove it’s validity?
If you read would even a few critiques of that book, you would see it’s not very logical.
Report Post »jado1981
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:00pm@ MOD, most people don‘t believe Jesus died in his early 30’s. He started his ministry in his early thirties. There are arguments about whether it was 30, or up to 34, but it is known that he did begin in his early 30′s, that is, that you believe Luke 3:23, you know, ’cause it is all made up and all.
Report Post »TxSon
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:05pmAnd just because you are paranoid doesn‘t mean they aren’t out to get you! :P
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:10pm@Rights of Billy
You are really getting on MOD’s case because he allows for the possibility of a greater being? The idea that one can “prove” OR disprove any sort of god exists is currently impossible. To completley discount a possibility of existence or non-existence would be the foolish thing to do, yet it is something believers do quite often. Your lack of intellect is astounding, and you contribute nothing to this debate by your two lame-ass comments. Contribute something worthwhile instead of poorly trying to trip up someone who disagrees with you.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:25pm@RAINMAN3769
Don’t be too hard on Billy. We use to have long discussions about these things until he claimed that I am just playing a “game” and that I just “sit back and laugh” while they continue to respond to me.
To free up some of Billy’s time(and mine) I said I would free him from my “game” and would not respond to any comment that he directed at me.
A month later, and he still goes out his way to respond to stuff that I write and ask me questions knowing full well I won’t answer. He claims these questions are “rhetorical” and “doesn’t care” if I answer but like most of our discussions before, he makes illogical arguments, or will read my posts and then claim I am saying the exact opposite of what I wrote.
Billy always seemed really desperate to respond to everything I wrote, even stuff where I’m saying nice things about people or defending Christians or religion in general.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:02pm@MOD
There is an essential difference between inerrancy and literalism. These are not the same thing, but are often confused both by atheists and believers. The Bible can be inerrant but not literal, these are not inherent contradictions.
@RAINMAN3769
Quote frankly, you are talking out of your rear end. Yes, the definition of atheism is simply non-belief, but functional atheism more often than not equates to a shared ideology. I tend to break these up into (a)theism and (A)theism, respectively.
(A)theism as a worldview not only has within it a subset with rules, manifestos, and doctrine (secular humanism), but from a broader perspective has shared causes (the overlap of atheist evangelicals (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, etc. and atheist philosophers), they have their own meeting centers, their own iconography, they want to build “temples”, want to be recognized by the military chaplaincy as a faith group, etc. etc. In this form, (A)theism is simply a godless religion.
One of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of religion is “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.” God need not apply, and your ostensible claim that religion equates to God belief is wrong-headed. Scientology for example has no God belief but is often referred to politely as a religion and impolitely as a cult.
Cheers!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:13pm@BAD_ASHE
Yes, but then wouldn’t that lead to what we have now?
Where two people can look at the same verse and get different interpretations of it?
Are you then saying that it’s possible for both interpretations to be correct? Or neither are correct?
Let me know if I’m on the right track here.
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:35pm@ Bad-Ashe
ANOTHER one of websters definitions of religion is “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, ESPECIALLY WHEN CONSIDERED AS THE CREATION OF A SUPERHUMAN AGENCY OR AGENCIES, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”\
rather then get bogged down with you over what religion IS, I will just say looks like we are gonna have to agree to disagree on that point. To me it makes sense that defining religion requires a diety of some kind, no diety, not a religion in my mind.
@MOD
Ah I see. I’ve noticed alot of his other comments kind of ring of the same lackluster mentality, I will join you in this stance of ignoring him. Kudos to you for telling me to take it easy on him, very kind.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:41pm@MOD
Someone can be right, someone can be wrong, and someone can be more right than not. Above all, the Bible is a piece of literature, be it divined or not.
Ultimately the meaning of a text is what the author gives to it. We have to use the best of our knowledge and abilities to understand what the author intended. Admittedly, we come to a piece of text with the presuppositions of our cultural as well as our own personal views — none of us are entirely neutral or objective, though we may try to be.
The goal is to attempt to clear our presuppositions to the best of our ability, and strive to be objective. Otherwise the literature, Biblical or not, is meaningless. Now, the atheist could simply make the claim that the Bible is not representative of say, moral or ethical values, because it changes culturally, but this would be wrong-headed as well. If people in the past misinterpreted the Bible, but now we interpret more accurately, this is just a matter of superior principles of interpretation. Conversely, if our current cultural milieu caused us to misinterpret something that was better interpreted in the past, this is still just s failure of interpretation, not of the text itself.
Cheers!
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 8:03pmYep. Isn’t it funny how one word has multiple definitions? This actually supports my point rather than diminishes it. I’m happy to agree to disagree, and will gladly stop referring to various types of organized (A)theism as a “religion” when its adherents stop behaving as if it is one.
If you must narrow your definition of religion down to something that eschews other modern, accepted, and utilized definitions of the word, that’s fine — but it doesn’t make for much of a counter-argument against claims of atheism-as-religion.
Cheers!
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 8:30pmI dont think it really makes your point more valid, just shows that both of us can point to “definitions,” and say we are right, maybe we both are, or maybe neither. All religions, be they ones with god, or some of the freakshow ones that dont have a god, all venerate and worship a being, person, or idea, and all have answers for what happens to you after you die. Atheists do not do that. And the one thing all religions right now have in common, its that they lasted beyond their cult status. So naturally this ONE atheist who wrote the article might think its a good idea to copy, so atheism can spread and endure. its not hypocracy, its just common sense on how to spread a message.
See, if there is no diety, I just fail to see how that equates to a religion instead of simply a belief system. Because one can certainly have a belief system on how to live one’s life and not have any god in the equation. You call it religion after that, Im gonna have to call it BS.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 8:55pmWow,
I guess Rainman really put me in my place.
Boy, don’t I feel stupid now.
Gimme a break LOL (That’s MOD speak)
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 2:11am@RAINMAN3769
Surely it does, as we admit that both definitions are current and applicable. You simply choose to reject one over the other despite its validity, while I (and Merriam Webster) accept both.
Defining religion as only a supernatural belief system is disingenuous. Jainism worships life, not a single being or pantheon of beings, believing all living things are sacred. Supernaturalism in Taoism differs on the practice, and does not include deity worship. Certain forms of Buddhism are the same. Confucianism isn’t compelled by the supernatural at all, and let’s not forget otherworldly-based religions such as the aforementioned Scientology…they don’t worship a being(s) and have no devotions whatsoever.
Ninian Smart was a pioneer of secular religious studies, and he developed the 7 dimensions of religions, a metric widely used by religious scholars and anthropologists. Not every religion has these dimensions, but most have the majority of them. Organized Atheism also fits the majority of these dimensions.
You fail to see how a religion without a deity equates to a religion because it erodes the strength of your defense. I simply look at the behavior of those engaged in organized Atheism (way more than just the one guy) and make a reasonable observation. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…well, you know the rest. You can call it whatever you want, but I’m pretty sure I know where the smell of BS is actually coming from here.
Report Post »nietzschean23
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 2:17amDo you really believe that? I doubt it.
Report Post »Liberty1947
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 12:17pmI think MOD doth protest too much.
Report Post »Liberty1947
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 12:20pmIt seems to me that RAIN and MOD, for not believing in GOD, have a “holier than thou” attitude.
Report Post »Brian
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:45pm“Richard Dawkins says he cannot be sure God does not exist…”
He also told Ben Stein that he can indeed imagine a “higher power”…..in the form of an alien species that created humans.
Even Atheists need to have faith in something.
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:10pmI dont think its a matter of needing to have faith in something. I think its more about not discounting the possibility of something bigger then humanity. Atheists do not cling to these possibilities as a guiding force in life, but as a question that currently has no answer.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:11pmI love it when the word “cling” is used as a pejorative. Atheists certainly have faith in, and cling to MANY things, and this can usually be demonstrated with a few simple questions.
Report Post »Rainman3769
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:40pmI didnt mean for “cling” to be a negative, more as something important to not be let go of. if you took it as a negative, I think that says something about you.
What are these simple questions? I’m not going anywhere for awhile, I woud like to tackle them.
Report Post »Derek01
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:44pmHere’s the concept I want atheists to understand. I’m holding three fingers out horizontally, read between the lines
Report Post »rvill0048
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:17pmOoo clever. You’re a smart one huh?
Report Post »B-Neil
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:39pmThe atheist might want only ( 5 ) concepts, We Christians only have three; the Father, Son and Holy Ghost backed up by ten commandments. So you clones can go on and try creating you’re thing. We Christians got a lock. GOD BLESS AMERICA AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:45pmMany Christians break the Sabbath.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:59pmModeration
Report Post »The Sabbath was a gift from God to us. He doesn’t care what day we take a break.
ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:09pm@HI
Okay now I’ve heard just about every justification possible. I applaud you.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:27pmI learned it in seminary. I can look up a detailed explanation but I’m afraid you will be gone by them. I sat in on classes, I did not study in seminary.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:16pmHI, that is a load of crap. He does care that we follow the Sabbath. It is modern times and the need for greed that have businesses open on Sunday. Some companies do honor the Sabbath by only operating Monday – Friday. It is those who don’t honor the Sabbath that are open. Chick-fil-A is closed on Sundays. I remember when Malls were closed on Sundays.
Report Post »Komponist-ZAH
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 1:47am“We Christians only have three; the Father, Son and Holy Ghost backed up by ten commandments”
Wouldn’t that be thirteen?
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:37pmHey everyone! I have a quick survey relating to this topic. Since many members of this website are Christian I’m curious what you guys have to say about my questions. I’m curious like everyone else.
1: What is your definition of atheism?
2: How do you see people who are secular?
3: What are your views on the big bang theory?
4: What are your views on evolution?
5: If your critical of either one or both what is your substitute for both?
This is just something I wanted to ask people who are Christian. Anyone can answer but I’m looking to see the opinions from Christian users. You have the right to your opinion like everyone else.
Report Post »Kitkarr
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:04pmChameleonx – I feel like this is a trap, but I’ll bite.
1) The opposite of theism.
2) Of the world, not particularly spiritual in nature and in need of the same Grace and Mercy as me.
3) Impossible to prove, mainly due to the fact that the theories are consistantly changing. Also, if the bang happened and formed everything, where did the original mass come from? In my opinion, there is no convincing answer.
4) Evolution most certainly exists. If it didn’t, we would have cured the cold a long time ago. People are taller, life spans change, etc. However, Darwin’s theory is just that – theory. It also conflicts with several other scientific theories that claim just as much validity as it does. So which is true? Not macro-evolution.
5) I have no substitute for either because there is no need. God created us all on an individual basis and He molds and forms us on that same basis. He has been the cause and effect of everything since the beginning and will continue to be through the end.
Obviously, I speak for myself. I really hope you were genuine in your question and also hope that I have helped in some way.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:16pm1. IDK…atheists don’t believe in God?
Report Post »2. I think secular people are Lost and eventually will search for the love from their Creator.
3.Big Bang goes against the laws of physics. I see a lot of destruction when things blow up, not little planets forming. How did nothing turn into a sphere the size of the period I just typed explode ito everything you see?
4. Evolution has a starting point which is nothing. You can’t just start from a primordial soup because you need to explain how it got there, not that it would help much to begin at the soup. So, you have to start with the big bang. Evolution goes against the law of spontaneous generation, law of physics, law of conservation of matter and energy, law of entropy, and against common sense.
5. Critical of evolution/big bang? I believe in a Creator.
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel, Yale Law graduate, is a great book that “proves” the Bible is true.
Compelling Evidence for the Flood by MIT grad, Walt Brown is a great scientific book that “proves” the Biblical is true.
The fact that we have fulfilled prophecy is awesome! As I said in the other post, Christ fulfilled 300+ predictions which were written about Christ 700 years before he walked the earth! (Josh McDowell) One was even that He will die 483 years after the declaration of Artaxerxes to rebuild the temple in 444BC.(Daniel 9:24)
hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:34pmKitkarr
Report Post »Evolution means one species turning into another.
You are explaining variation which are lateral moves, not upward ones. Ex, blond hair is not better than brown hair.
The ability of a virus to change is already built into the system. It didn’t evolve and get better. As far as antibiotic resistance of bacteria, one of the bacteria in the sample already had the ability to resist, then passed it onto the others. It didn’t mutate the ability to do so.
BOMUSTGO
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:57pmThe “Big Bang Theory” is one of my favorite shows.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:34pm1. A consistent one…which is more than I can say for various atheist organizations out there. The textbook definition of atheism is simply a lack of god-belief, but atheism in practice is often more of an overall ideological worldview. I typically break these down into (a)theism and (A)theism, respectively.
2. Be more specific. If you’re going to ask a question, do it right. “Secular” is a bit of vaguery that can run a whole gamut of individual perspectives and reactions to those perspectives. (deism, agnosticism, functional agnosticism).
3. A boon for natural theology in general and Judeo-Christian theology in particular, and one of the biggest issues facing the atheistic worldview. If you have to ask why, you’re too short for this ride.
4. Common descent is a given, but I doubt the explanatory power of neo-Darwinian evolution for many reasons both philosophical and mathematical. Given its lack of predictions, its just-so explanations, its mathematical probability issues, its general lack of scientific usefulness, and the behavior of those who bitterly cling to it like guns or religion, etc., many scientists outside the field of biology and philosophers are starting to doubt neo-Darwinism as well. In other words, I’m hardly alone in this.
5. Idiotic question. Just because one can point out the inherent issues in a theory does not mean they also have to give an alternative theory to make their criticisms valid.
Cheers!
Report Post »Nanner-SW
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:47pmYou seem like a polite fellow, I don’t mind answering your questions.
Report Post »1. Individuals who believe life and matter did not come into existence by a higher power (except for those few scientist who believe alien lifeforms planted life on Earth)
2. Individuals who concern themselves more with the world (the what) rather than questioning/caring about the origin/purpose of life or spiritual matters (the why).
3. With theories I like to keep an open mind, even with spiritual experiences in my life I try to see them how a non-believer would. It’s in my nature to be empathetic, I guess. The Big Bang is a good theory in describing the movements of celestial bodies in space but not in describing the origin of matter.
4. Micro-evolution Yes (observable facts). Macro-evolution- a good theory on the possible progression of life from a simple organism to a complex one (no observable facts), but does not do well in describing the origin of life.
5. I believe that a higher-power/God created matter and dispersed it as God desired. God chose Earth to create life. Biblically- breathed life into dust, which for us would consist mainly of carbon, calcium, and phosphorus (yeah spellchecker).
the wireworker
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 8:35pm1: What is your definition of atheism? opposite of theist
2: How do you see people who are secular? in need of a redeemer in the person and work of Jesus Christ on the cross and His resurrection
3: What are your views on the big bang (THEORY)? that it has to have a first cause, an absolute. if the big bang did happen the elements involved had to be created, they had to obey certain laws of physics, and they have to be measured against an absolute therefore there was an absolute creator and a lawgiver
4: What are your views on evolution (THEORY)? currently i believe man is devolving because of sin, we live in a decaying world because of sin. sin is death to the human condition. in the beginning evolution needs creation, creation does not need evolution see above answer for the big bang theory.
5: If your critical of either one or both what is your substitute for both? love in the absolute form, the father, the son and the holy spirit.
darkness does not exist in and of itself, it is a word given by man to describe the absence of light.
Report Post »i can not switch on the dark i can only turn the light off
Kitkarr
Posted on March 5, 2012 at 10:35amHi – Thanks for that response. I assumed that the term “evolution” was referring to the term “evolve,“ which means to ”change to a different adaptive state or condition.” Which is what my answer was based on. The “macro” part, referring to “a change at or above the species level” is more what you are talking about, I think. What I was trying to convey was my acceptance of “micro” and rejection of “macro.”
Maybe only one of these applies to Darwin, I don’t know. If either exists, its only because God created it/them.
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:36pm““Religions are intermittently too useful, effective and intelligent to be abandoned to the religious alone,” he concludes, taking a sharp and divergent tone that would likely make Dawkins and the members of the Freedom From Religion Foundation cringe.”
Report Post »Depends upon your definition of “religion.”
BOMUSTGO
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:59pmIt’s not about religion..It’s about relationship.Obey Acts 2:38
Report Post »momprayn
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:35pmRichard Dawkins says he cannot be sure God does not exist…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:42pmThat’s not news, Hitchens, Harris, and most other honest Atheists say the same thing. Atheism defines itself around rejecting other people’s claims that a God does exist. It never says, “God doesn’t exist.” it merely says, “You haven’t given me sufficient evidence that a God does exist.”
Report Post »Fiddlesticks
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:49pmThis has always been Richard Dawkins’s stance. Typical media to find a snippet then post it like its current news. Any knowledgeable Atheist will tell you that they cannot prove there isn’t a God (Omnipotent Creator of the Universe). Hence the partially Agnostic statement Richard mentions in the video.
The burden of proof falls on those of each religious faith to prove that their God exists which Atheists believe they have not done.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:40pmI thought this was odd bit of spin as well.
Despite Dawkins being a complete and utter tool, he has been consistent in his claim that he cannot be entirely sure of the non-existence of God, though the % of certainty he quotes has changed on occasion. There are many things Dawkins has done or said or written that can be leveraged to show him for the hypocritical and intellectually dishonest weasel he is, but this is not one of them.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:05pm@FIDDLESTICKS
Not true, actually, even though atheists always attempt this bit of intellectual juke and weave. Philosophically speaking, the burden of proof lies on whomever make the assertion, be it in the positive or the negative. While either position may not be proven as true, evidence can be given to support the assertion either way.
Cheers!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 10:15pm@BAD_ASHE
See I’m torn here because while I understand what you mean, isn’t “There IS a God” the ultimate assertion?
If people didn’t believe a God exists, Atheism wouldn’t exist. Wouldn’t there first have to be a claim of God before there could be a rejection of the claim of a God?
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 1:32am@MOD
I see what you’re getting at, but this is not a chicken or egg argument. Atheism is not defined as a rejection of the God claim, but rather the simple act of not believing in a God.
That being said, I would think that an assertion of God’s existence would be the ultimate claim. However, that doesn’t mean all those who claim otherwise or promote lesser claims are let off the hook.
This is not about proving a negative, which is rather difficult to do…but If the atheist states “there is no God”, he is making an unprovable assertion, the same as the theist who claims “there is a God”. Since given the current evidence our concept of this metaphysical entity cannot reach the status of facthood or outright falsification, we can only review the current evidence and decide which evidence is more compelling and has greater explanatory power.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 1:47am@Bad
Right, but I guess this kind of goes back to the discussion you had with the other person about “definitions”
Just like there are different definitions of almost any religion, there could be different definitions of Atheism(as you have also said talking about Atheists and atheists). For instance, you and I both agree that there are Atheists out there who claim as fact that a God doesn‘t exist whereas I don’t prescribe to that. Does that mean I don’t view them as a “true” Atheist? No because their version of Atheism doesn’t affect my view of it.
As with most things in this world, we try to lump people into one big group so we don’t have to actually get to know the person and find out their actual views on certain issues. These usually result in people making arguments refuting other people’s claims, when in fact they never made those claims.
My main thinking of this would be. Someone has to claim AKEIBJD(or whatever you choose) before I can even attempt to reject AKEIBJD. I can‘t go around rejecting a claim that hasn’t been made, which is why I would say it would be more up to the person making the claim to prove it.
That is why I personally don’t like to use the word “believe” because I think that belief doesn’t play a part in the way I perceive the world. I tend to say, “I don’t care what you believe, I care what you think“ because I think that ”belief” carries around a stigma that the belief can’t be changed.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 2:07am@Bad_Ashe
When talking about definitions for religion, I tend to look at it in the terms of how you react to opposing evidence.
For instance, while I think evolution and the big bang(without a God) is a perfectly plausible way to describe how things have gotten to this point, I don’t “believe” it in the sense that I’m closed to opposing evidence. If something came along in 50 years that completely shatters evolution, I will no longer think that’s a viable answer. Some may call that “fence sitting” or “wishy washy” or “flip flopping” but I think that is the only intellectually honest position to take.
The reason science keeps “contradicting” itself is because it is not bound by belief and the urge to not get proven wrong. Sure there are people who would never accept legitimate evidence to the contrary, but we’re all individuals(there are very few things EVERYONE accepts).
So far you are the only one on here who has accepted my offer to admit that while you believe there is a God, you may be wrong(although you doubt it). My only “motive” behind this is to show people that I’m not that different from them. We can reach a common ground. It’s not extreme right vs extreme left in every case. While tempting(I still do it too), it’s not smart to lump everyone in with stereotypes and misconceptions. I agree with a lot of these people on a lot of other issues, but I usually get called a “liberal” because I’m an Atheist when I actually vote Re
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 2:51pm@MOD
It’s still a non-issue. This is akin to asking if someone can reject the concept of an automobile without first conceptualizing of an automobile. Ultimately it doesn’t matter, particularly if the auto has been conceptualized previously by an external source. Think about it this way, the same source can both conceptualize and reject a concept almost instantaneously.
Bottom line, an assertion is an assertion, be it negative or positive, and must be at least be philosophically, if not empirically supported. An atheist can make a personal claim, “I‘m not convinced by the evidence of God’s existence.” and they wouldn’t be expected to support this, as they are simply stating their personal opinion. Now if they were to say “There is no evidence for God’s existence”, this is a negative, universally applicable epistemological claim and the onus is on them to support this claim.
Your statement about science is interesting because scientific results are turned over all the time, yet many scientists (ex. biologists) love to hang on to their pet theories even with there is evidence to the contrary. This is human nature, and scientists are not better, more insightful, or more honest than the rest of us.
Additionally, both the fields of theology and philosophy have overturned old beliefs based on new evidence. Don’t fall into the trap of scientism here..these people and their work are far from infallible, and far from superior to other disciplines of knowledge.
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 2:54pm@MOD
Last but not least, it should come as no shock that people assume a liberal worldview based on your atheism. I’m not necessarily defending their false assumptions, but given the historical and philosophical overlap of atheism, liberalism, and socialism, I’m not surprised that people believe you to be a liberal when they discover your atheism. While I’m not a fan of painting everyone with a broad brush, in most instances, claiming an atheist to be a liberal would be correct more often than not.
Cheers!
Report Post »coryf076
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:33pmGlenn Beck is a flaming fraud using religion as a tool to advance an agenda. If you think he’s not in cahoots with others advancing a one world rule, then you’ve sadly been duped, if you think he’s a flag waving patriot, then you’re crazy. He’s an actor, entertainer, and a pawn. GB loves the division of R‘s and D’s, progs and conservs, and making George Soros his/your boogey man, cuz it’s keeps your mind off what him and his crony’s are really trying to accomplish, CONTROL! He spins and distorts this conservative against progressive stuff everyday so you buy into it, subscribe to his stuff, and buy his crap. Wake up people…GB is not the answer.
Report Post »wntsmallgov
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 4:59amand the soon to be dictator in the white house uses the fair, hope and change to achieve his goal. Your point being what?
Report Post »Kitkarr
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:26pmThe icon for this story on The Blaze page…is that a Star Trek symbol? Should be if it isn’t.
Report Post »Balpit
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 4:10pmAn “A” in a circle? I think it’s the symbol for anarchy.
Report Post »Fernyyy
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:24pmAtheists are funny. They say they have no faith, but they have to have more faith in not believing based on science than believers do.
Report Post »olliec
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:21pmMark 7:7
Report Post »‘ BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.
cessna152
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:18pmWell, I sure know what Jesus is speaking about when he said “people that don’t have the Spirit will not understand…” These dopes think it’s indoctrination. It’s a relationship with Jesus Christ…it’s that simple.
BTW, all the prophecies, 25000 plus manuscripts, artifacts,records, etc, etc, etc are another element of truth! My goodness, these Atheists are awful scared of something that “does not exist”.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:46pmWell said, indeed, CESSNA152.
Doesn‘t that little atheist dude look like the guy who played Mindy’s dad in Mork and Mindy? Conrad Bain, I think is the actor’s name.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:53pmIt is indoctrination. It’s no different then what many religious people think the school system does to little kids.
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:55pmHey MOD,
We don’t “think” the schools indoctrinate.
We know it to be true.
Report Post »Meyvn
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:18pmAh… the spirit of anti-christ.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:17pmshocker athiests unsatisfied and searching for spirituality. why? because life with out God is by its very nature unfulfilling. the longing is in our hearts folks whether you like to think so or not.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:27pmThese are just some atheists, and I think they’re stupid. All of this is unnecessary.
Report Post »Dismayed Veteran
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:16pmI thought atheist worship temples. were called universities
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:16pmLol, no thanks.
Report Post »Ghandi was a Republican
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:15pmCan‘t understand religion if you can’t conceive of your own soul….
Report Post »Mr.Fitnah
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:15pmAtheist have hangouts, places to turn strangers into friends.They are call Bars.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:13pmI like Alain de Botton ideas on how people who are secular can take better care of themselves, their families, and communities. He is not turning atheism into a religion. What he is trying to do is help influence atheism and non-believers in becoming more active. I salute you Botton. You’re a great person with a lot of good ideas.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:17pmOne of the pros about being an atheist is how little you have to do to “practice” it…..which is nothing.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:20pmYes, of course. Atheism is not a religion. People chose to identify as an atheist. But it would be better to help ourselves, our families & friends and communities. We can only do so much on the internet.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:26pmMeh, spend time with people you enjoy spending time with. Personally, I think it’s unnecessary to go “find” people to hang out with who think the same way and feel the same way you do about this stuff.
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:27pm“Helping community” means a place to “hang out” to him, not a place to help and serve others like a soup kitchen or shelter for people in need.
Report Post »chameleonx
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:33pmI always help people out and donate to charity. Are you guys saying I just want to “hang out” with strangers?
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:49pmI was never talking about any kind of charitable donation or service. I was merely talking about this guys’ idea of “communities” and Atheists going out of their way to be with other atheists. If you like Christians, hang out with them to, same with Muslims, Mormons, homosexuals, etc.
I try to do charitable work, and it usually ends up being through my friends Evangelical church. I don‘t care if the people I’m helping think I’m with a church. It’s not necessary to me for them to think, “Oh, this is an Atheist helping me.”
Report Post »Therightsofbilly
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 6:00pmMODERATIONISBEST says:
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:17pm
“One of the pros about being an atheist is how little you have to do to “practice” it…..which is nothing.”
Now there is a ringing endorsement if I ever heard one.
Hey kids, follow me, you don’t have to do anything.
Beautiful.
How much evil Mod?
Report Post »Bad_Ashe
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:22pmWhat Alain has realized is that organized atheism in the form practiced by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and the late Chris Hitchens is a social non-starter. It tends to attract socially-awkward, male, bearded, letter-of-complaint-types, and has more or less made zero headway into eating away at religious belief. Even in supposedly secular countries, new-age-y “paganism” is popping up at a rapid pace.
In other words, very few in the overall population give up the concept of religion in whatever form it takes. Knowing this, De Botton simply wants to perpetuate a godless, materialist, religion; the secular, naturalist, version of Scientology.
Report Post »Nanner-SW
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 7:50pmI have no problem being friends with an atheist who doesn’t believe me to be intellectually inferior by asking the same questions and him/her and getting a different answer. I have experience with both . . . and became friends with both. . . life is strange sometimes ^-^.
Report Post »formidable_foe
Posted on March 3, 2012 at 2:23amHey Mod,
Don’t get me wrong… I think it‘s admirable that you do charitable work at your friend’s church, and I hope you continue. Just curious… how do you respond to the people you’re helping who say “God bless you” or “May the peace of Christ be with you”?
Report Post »hi
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:13pmHe’s missing the point.
The “good” in Christianity is having a personal relationship with one’s creator and spending eternity in heaven with Him.
Report Post »AmazingGrace8
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 5:03pmAmen!
Report Post »TheSoundOf Truth
Posted on March 2, 2012 at 4:08pmSounds pretty religious to me.
DeNial is NOT a river in Egypt…
Report Post »