Originally posted by Boogie:
Our esteemed Captain paid a visit - sounds good.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:If so, what's the difference between going to an "atheist church", an "atheist synagogue", an "atheist mosque", and an "atheist temple"?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can atheists go to an "atheist church"?
quote:An old story, no doubt apocryphal:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If so, what's the difference between going to an "atheist church", an "atheist synagogue", an "atheist mosque", and an "atheist temple"?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can atheists go to an "atheist church"?
quote:They should be careful - there's no telling what kind of thing wondering might lead to.
live better, help often, wonder more
quote:Search me. But from the link -
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If so, what's the difference between going to an "atheist church", an "atheist synagogue", an "atheist mosque", and an "atheist temple"?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can atheists go to an "atheist church"?
quote:- since they are using a prayer sandwich, they are obviously protestant atheists.
Critics have suggested by holding the meeting in an old church, (albeit deconsecrated) and by following a format of songs interspersed by reading and addresses, the comedians are at risk of turning atheism into its own sort of religion
quote:I guess that's what it is about. And they don't see the need for GOD to be latched on.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I can understand a desire for a community, which many in modern society lack. An atheist friend of mine in a distant city called me the other night and said he was joining a climate action group partly to find some friends.
And if they they have children then maybe it could be seen as a place to find friends. The article talked of nostalgia. It appears there are aspects of church they miss even though they no longer can accept church teaching.
quote:Good report, too.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our esteemed Captain paid a visit - sounds good.
quote:The reference to nostalgia implies that the founders or participants were once familiar with church life, which is very interesting. In one article Pippa Evans states that she went through a big 'Christian phase' when she was a teenager, so that would explain her interest. But I wonder if the idea of belonging to an 'atheist church' would appeal to people who have no experience of being part of a religious community.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
The article talked of nostalgia. It appears there are aspects of church they miss even though they no longer can accept church teaching.
quote:Unitarian is a form of theism, though. No help if you are an atheist
Originally posted by CL:
Is calling oneself a Unitarian passé nowadays?
quote:Like any number of churches.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It all sounds like self gratifying rubbish to me.
quote:"Humans stand up to say how good humans are" is precisely the self gratifying rubbish I was talking about.
Maybe it makes sense that Humanists want to stand up for humanity and all the good things humans are other than religious.
quote:Surely Quaker atheism is possible though? Lots of essentially atheist (although not antitheist) Quakers about. But I guess that would involve not being self-absorbed Gen-Xers.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:Unitarian is a form of theism, though. No help if you are an atheist
Originally posted by CL:
Is calling oneself a Unitarian passé nowadays?
quote:Pretty much. Of course people like Humanism, it gives people the 'religious' warm fuzzies without the responsibility, and no nasty mentions of how humanity fails.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"Humans stand up to say how good humans are" is precisely the self gratifying rubbish I was talking about.
Maybe it makes sense that Humanists want to stand up for humanity and all the good things humans are other than religious.
quote:I think Unitarian families are more common in the US, or at least were - it's mentioned in The Bell Jar, actually.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There are atheist Unitarians as well as atheist Quakers, so I understand.
Unitarianism seems to have drifted from public consciousness in quite a big way, though. There were Unitarian families in the UK in the early 20th c. Today, the idea that Unitarians exist in family groups as opposed to being individuals on a spiritual search seems somewhat strange! I wonder if this 'atheist church' is more likely to attract families or single people?
quote:That's an intentional misunderstanding of LR. Right?
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"Humans stand up to say how good humans are" is precisely the self gratifying rubbish I was talking about.
Maybe it makes sense that Humanists want to stand up for humanity and all the good things humans are other than religious.
quote:I was expressing my estimation of these silly atheist services.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
That's an intentional misunderstanding of LR. Right?
Or you just want to provide an example to the "judgmental" thread.
quote:Talk about picking up the extremist end of the stick there.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"Humans stand up to say how good humans are" is precisely the self gratifying rubbish I was talking about.
Maybe it makes sense that Humanists want to stand up for humanity and all the good things humans are other than religious.
quote:You think humanists lack responsibility?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course people like Humanism, it gives people the 'religious' warm fuzzies without the responsibility, and no nasty mentions of how humanity fails.
quote:I agree, but I'm not sure just how much I'd miss the 'faith-based' aspects! I believe my own Church does a great deal of good in the world ('Takes responsibility') But I think it could do them just as well without reference to God.
I came away liking the Sunday Assembly and I hope it does well. I missed the familiar, faith-based aspects of meeting with others, but also realised that a good percentage of church – any church – is made up of friendship, listening, singing, laughter, giving, receiving and cups of tea.
It’s good to sit with atheists in their space and feel welcome. It’s challenging to think about living better, helping often and wondering more. I think this is a place where Christians should be.
quote:Apocryphal? Perhaps. But well rooted in reality. My Buddhist friends in Northern Ireland get asked a similar question all the time.
Originally posted by mousethief:
An old story, no doubt apocryphal:
Some time after Albania became officially 100% communist, a man's father died and he took him to the cemetery to bury him. Albanian cemeteries at the time (may still be; I dunno) were segregated: Christians in one part, and Muslims in another. The man speaks to the undertaker, who asks, "Was your father a Christian, or Muslim?"
The man fears a trick. Who wants to get hauled off to jail, or worse? "Um, he was a good atheist, like everybody in Albania."
The undertaker sighs. "Fine. Was he a Christian atheist, or a Muslim atheist?"
quote:You'd be a natural on the ∂y/∂x thread if you could cut out the judgmentalism.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Have you watched Game of Thrones, Latch? It has to be more interesting than whatever you're on about here.
quote:A world of difference, I would have thought - one's atheism is coloured by the theism one is 'a'-ing ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:If so, what's the difference between going to an "atheist church", an "atheist synagogue", an "atheist mosque", and an "atheist temple"?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Can atheists go to an "atheist church"?
quote:Seems to me like an equal and opposite reaction to the lack of mention in 'normal' churches for God responsibility, and how he fails ...
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Pretty much. Of course people like Humanism, it gives people the 'religious' warm fuzzies without the responsibility, and no nasty mentions of how humanity fails.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"Humans stand up to say how good humans are" is precisely the self gratifying rubbish I was talking about.
Maybe it makes sense that Humanists want to stand up for humanity and all the good things humans are other than religious.
quote:
God is not a trivial concept with no implications.
quote:
Pretty much. Of course people like Humanism, it gives people the 'religious' warm fuzzies without the responsibility, and no nasty mentions of how humanity fails.
quote:
People who DO believe have lots of interesting conversion / epiphany / enlightenment / "testimony" stories to entertain themselves with, but atheism doesn't really seem to lend itself to this sort of thing. "How I Came To Realize That My Faith Was All A Pack Of Superstitious Nonsense" just doesn't sound terribly, er, inspirational.
quote:Don't you have that upside down? Without the devil to blame or gods plan to follow doesn't that lead to more responsibility not less?
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Pretty much. Of course people like Humanism, it gives people the 'religious' warm fuzzies without the responsibility, and no nasty mentions of how humanity fails.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"Humans stand up to say how good humans are" is precisely the self gratifying rubbish I was talking about.
Maybe it makes sense that Humanists want to stand up for humanity and all the good things humans are other than religious.
quote:I am frequently embarrassed by my fellow Christians who need to put down others. My hunch is that it stems from their own insecurity. If not they have their own (metaphorical) demons that they need to exorcise (metaphorically again.) I do get annoyed that they make things more difficult for me. As a Chaplain I have to be prepared to allay the frequent suspicion of my motives.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Statements like this do no good for Christians: atheism / agnosticism / humanism / non-theism cannot be and should not be dismissed in this way.
quote:Yep. (Perhaps not always in reality.)
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Don't you have that upside down? Without the devil to blame or gods plan to follow doesn't that lead to more responsibility not less?
quote:Saying it, maybe. Striving to to make it so it is a different matter, and collective encouragement and monitoring is a major facilitator to that end.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:"Humans stand up to say how good humans are" is precisely the self gratifying rubbish I was talking about.
Maybe it makes sense that Humanists want to stand up for humanity and all the good things humans are other than religious.
quote:Sorry, I can't make sense of that - apart from the fact that your use of the word 'sin' is unfortunate when you communicate with Christians (just that it is a religious term). However, this would lead into a wholly different discussion, methinks, about the nature of 'evil' and of the 'whole' of humanity being responsible or accountable.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re responsibility, I meant that with no concept of sin, there is no sense of humanity as a whole being responsible for evil. Perhaps accountability would be a better word.
quote:Only if you believe in GOD (as you admit you do).
The church only fails on the human side - it's we who fail God, not the other way around.
quote:As you say, 'for you'.
As a Christian I believe the true purpose of humanity is ultimately to serve and worship God (serving others being part of that) - so of course I'll feel dismissive of a belief system that excludes God from life. For me atheism/humanism/agnosticism is missing the whole point of life.
quote:I wish!
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's precisely the God bits that stop church from becoming merely a weekly assembly of tacky guitar music and peer pressure.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:While I'm on my soap box (how long has it been since soap has come in wooden creates anyway?) the question framing this whole affair for me is "Why bother with church at all?"
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:I wish!
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's precisely the God bits that stop church from becoming merely a weekly assembly of tacky guitar music and peer pressure.
Which planet are you on Zach82? Or perhaps your church is different? Perhaps it needs a Mystery Worship!
quote:Why? On what basis?
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Don't you have that upside down? Without the devil to blame or gods plan to follow doesn't that lead to more responsibility not less?
quote:Jade, the conversation about sin minus God has been going on here for a while and the theists are always going to say one thing while the atheists sing a chorus of It Ain't Necessarily So. Maybe it's officially a dead horse by now? I don't look in there much. Certainly, I don't see it being resolved by any marginal input I can offer.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re responsibility, I meant that with no concept of sin, there is no sense of humanity as a whole being responsible for evil. Perhaps accountability would be a better word.
The church only fails on the human side - it's we who fail God, not the other way around.
Kancucho, how exactly has humanity won? Ever?
As a Christian I believe the true purpose of humanity is ultimately to serve and worship God (serving others being part of that) - so of course I'll feel dismissive of a belief system that excludes God from life. For me atheism/humanism/agnosticism is missing the whole point of life.
quote:Because they've grown up in the Catholic church and can't bring themselves to see the truth: been too disillusioned by the hypocrisy.
Originally posted by CL:
If all these people want is a Sunday morning social club with a vaguely "religious" feel I don't see why they don't just join the CofE.
quote:CL, someday you'll grow up and have a little charity for your Christian brothers in sisters in the CoE. Until then, could you kindly bugger off and get a blog instead of cluttering every thread you post in with your pointless, pissy, small minded remarks?
Originally posted by CL:
If all these people want is a Sunday morning social club with a vaguely "religious" feel I don't see why they don't just join the CofE.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism provides no answers at all.
What fills the vacuum are other values derived from Christianity.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:I hate to admit it, but you're right. Well said.
Originally posted by Zach82:
It's precisely the God bits that stop church from becoming merely a weekly assembly of tacky guitar music and peer pressure.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:George Spigot is no Hindu.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism provides no answers at all.
What fills the vacuum are other values derived from Christianity.
And those who live in Hindu countries? Or in central south america? or ...
Sorry, you may be joking, I'm not good at spotting irony.
quote:Maybe, but it begs less questions.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism provides no answers at all.
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean. People are held responsible and accountable for things in the secular world all the time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re responsibility, I meant that with no concept of sin, there is no sense of humanity as a whole being responsible for evil. Perhaps accountability would be a better word.
quote:I have been composing responses in my head whilst reading through this thread, but instead I'll just nod very much in agreement with your post which has the above start and finish.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
I’ll settle for ‘God is not’.
<snip>
Maybe I will go to an atheist church gathering!
quote:I wasn't aware those were mutually exclusive categories.
Originally posted by Evensong:
George Spigot is no Hindu.
I believe he is English.
quote:You can, of course, do anything you want to do - but in all seriousness, would you get up every Sunday morning to attend something like this, once the novelty had worn off?
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
So what's a "becoming atheist" to do?
quote:Well, in the Humanist Group I belong to the number of members has continued to increase over the years and that depends, as most orgaanisations do I suppose, on the speakers and of course our common interest.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But how long will this daft "church" last? They will soon get bored when they find they have no-one to antagonise except other atheists!
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
So what's a "becoming atheist" to do? I have been attending church even as I become more convinced that it is based on mythology. I do this because I have been actively involved when a believer and have a body of friends who have the same moral codes that I live by. I still find the companionship and opportunity for service to be rewarding. To move out of this engagement would be difficult and I would have to find some sectarian body that meets these needs.
quote:But not universally, only if they are caught. For the Abrahamic faiths at least, sin is still sin and still wrong even if nobody knows but oneself.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean. People are held responsible and accountable for things in the secular world all the time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re responsibility, I meant that with no concept of sin, there is no sense of humanity as a whole being responsible for evil. Perhaps accountability would be a better word.
quote:Because oppression and evil never happens in atheist states.
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Church for atheists - great idea!
Secular society has far surpassed traditional religion in its upholding of moral values - time to celebrate.
quote:This indeed is a problem for theologies that imagine Church is about making us better people than everyone else and gratifying us with warm feelings. I dunno about that, m'self.
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Church for atheists - great idea!
Secular society has far surpassed traditional religion in its upholding of moral values - time to celebrate.
quote:So you're saying if I (eg) injure someone, I haven't actually done wrong unless I get caught? My victim would surely disagree with you there.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:But not universally, only if they are caught. For the Abrahamic faiths at least, sin is still sin and still wrong even if nobody knows but oneself.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:I'm not sure I understand what you mean. People are held responsible and accountable for things in the secular world all the time.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re responsibility, I meant that with no concept of sin, there is no sense of humanity as a whole being responsible for evil. Perhaps accountability would be a better word.
quote:Alternatively, we may chose to cultivate the 'highest' self we possibly can, for our own and others' sakes. How does that differ in any practical way from the earnest theist's endeavours?
Atheism is by nature inward-looking - when there's nothing/no-one higher than oneself, that will happen.
quote:I would respectfully disagree. IME; atheists are neither more, nor less, introspective than theists. It appears to me to be a trait of the individual.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Atheism is by nature inward-looking - when there's nothing/no-one higher than oneself, that will happen.
quote:Many people find their god/God within. For some that is a good thing (mystics), for others a very bad thing (those who make God in their own image).
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I would respectfully disagree. IME; atheists are neither more, nor less, introspective than theists. It appears to me to be a trait of the individual.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Atheism is by nature inward-looking - when there's nothing/no-one higher than oneself, that will happen.
quote:If you'd read the thread you may not have said this!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but...
Oh please! As we know on this board, atheists thrive on winding up and deriding people of faith - hence the spectacular press releases.
quote:It's a big mistake not to read a thread before contributing, especially when it is less than two pages. It's a bigger mistake to admit it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but...
quote:I would be seriously surprised if the atheists we get on this board are a properly random statistical sample, but a few of them have been Shipmates longer than you have, and to suggest that they are "thriving" by winding us up and deriding us is wrong. It is possible some of them enjoy winding you up, but I suspect the same might be true of some of the people of faith...
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
As we know on this board, atheists thrive on winding up and deriding people of faith ...
quote:It sounds very much like a congregation of American-style Unitarian-Universalists. Less than 20% of UUs now describe themselves as "Christian" in the US, and many describe themselves as atheists or agnostics. I don't know how they are doing now, but during the 1990s they were growing as a denomination (I lived in New England then, and there were more of them about). There are healthy, established congregations in most large US cities. They don't seem to be quite as fissiparous as most Christian groups, so their congregations are usually a decent size, if not large--150-300 or so in average Sunday attendance.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But how long will this daft "church" last? They will soon get bored when they find they have no-one to antagonise except other atheists!
So at the opening "service" there were around 200 "adherents." How many do you think will still be attending regularly in 6 months time? 6 maybe.
quote:This is the basis of non-theism - that we do not believe in a god but can accept that others create their own gods and find them meaningful and so on.
Many people find their god/God within. For some that is a good thing (mystics), for others a very bad thing (those who make God in their own image). [/QB]
quote:I have heard this statistic about infinity times, but NEVER have I seen where this number comes from.
Philip Gulley points out, in "If the Church Were Christian", that there are approximately 39,000 Christian denominations. Apparently fans often ask him to start a new denomination, but he advises them to look at one of the existing 39,000 instead.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:There is a reason. It is preposterous to tell a fellow non-god-believer that they are disbelieving in the wrong god — or disbelieving in the right god but in the wrong way.
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
It seems to me that in many of our churches there are people who are there because they like the sense that a particular group has "all the answers", and they are proud to be a part of that group. They bang on about at every chance, and tell anyone from another faith grouping why those choices are inferior. That seems true on the Ship as well. <snip> There is no reason why an atheist or humanist group wouldn't have that particular appeal as well.
quote:That link kinda only confirms my suspicion that this number people keep slinging around doesn't mean what people tend to think it means. But it's largely a tangent, since that's not why you brought it up, so never mind.
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
"According to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, there are approximately 41,000 Christian denominations and organizations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries, so there is overlapping of many denominations. "
http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/p/christiantoday.htm
quote:I thought the basis of non-theism was lack of sufficient evidence for theism?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:This is the basis of non-theism - that we do not believe in a god but can accept that others create their own gods and find them meaningful and so on.
Many people find their god/God within. For some that is a good thing (mystics), for others a very bad thing (those who make God in their own image).
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I think here we run into a problem in the definition of "non-theism." If that includes Deism, then it includes Spong, but I don't think that's what the OP is about. Spong is clearly not a theist in any normal sense of the term, but he is not an atheist, either.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
There are different non-theisms though, are there not? Jack Spong's variety seems to be a belief in a God that is an emergent property of things.
quote:Isn't that agnosticism? An entirely different belief, I think.
Originally posted by mousethief:
[QUOTE]I thought the basis of non-theism was lack of sufficient evidence for theism?
quote:We've had threads about this definitional problem since God was a sprog. One person's agnosticism is another person's atheism is another person's non-theism. Atheism is very much a moving target. "Entirely different" is vastly underestimating the confusion and overlap between the categories and how the people claiming to fall into one or another of them define themselves.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:Isn't that agnosticism? An entirely different belief, I think.
Originally posted by mousethief:
I thought the basis of non-theism was lack of sufficient evidence for theism?
quote:It comes, fer cryin' out loud, from a fucking CONTENT FARM, which is, in fact, a fucking CONTENT FARM, despite this weasley special pleading.
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I have heard this statistic about infinity times, but NEVER have I seen where this number comes from.
Philip Gulley points out, in "If the Church Were Christian", that there are approximately 39,000 Christian denominations. Apparently fans often ask him to start a new denomination, but he advises them to look at one of the existing 39,000 instead.
quote:to which is attached this this debunking footnote:
CSGC [Center for the Study of Global Christianity] has obtained denominational membership information from about 41,000 organizations worldwide. [24]
quote:So, they are counting "organizations", despite their words. And, they are double, triple, n-tuple counting these organizations. Forty-one thousand is shite.
24 This is the global sum of the total number of denominations in each country. There is overlap between countries because many denominations are present in more than one country.
quote:Or it could be proof that the Christian religion is highly flexible, and that it adapts to different circumstances and environments. For me personally, the idea that all Christians should live under one priestly hierarchy is rather unpalatable. This is not where our unity should lie.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The size of the constellation of denominations in the Fissiparous West (any number is frankly immaterial) is so staggering it gives lie to the phrase, Christian Unity.
quote:I think the idea that a church should suit one's tastes (which is what "palatable" means) is at the very least questionable. "This church doesn't have exactly the right amount of reverb on the bass guitar, so I'm leaving for another." Suiting my palate isn't the criteria I think I should use in determining which church to go to, and that attitude is what makes Protestantism so fissiparous.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Or it could be proof that the Christian religion is highly flexible, and that it adapts to different circumstances and environments. For me personally, the idea that all Christians should live under one priestly hierarchy is rather unpalatable. This is not where our unity should lie.
quote:I'm guessing the better proof of flexible adaptation to different environments and circumstances is the stubborn, two-millenia-long, world-wide persistence of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:Or it could be proof that the Christian religion is highly flexible, and that it adapts to different circumstances and environments.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
The size of the constellation of denominations in the Fissiparous West (any number is frankly immaterial) is so staggering it gives lie to the phrase, Christian Unity.
quote:Didn't you move from some sort of Protestantism to Orthodoxy? What criteria did you use?
Originally posted by mousethief:
Suiting my palate isn't the criteria I think I should use in determining which church to go to, and that attitude is what makes Protestantism so fissiparous.
quote:Are you pointing that oops at me? If so, where do you see the prejudice? The Catholic and Orthodox Church is old. The effusion of Protestantism is not.
Latchkey Kid sed:
Oops.
quote:Correct me if I am wrong, but it appeared to me that your reference to Matt 13:20f was to
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:Are you pointing that oops at me? If so, where do you see the prejudice? The Catholic and Orthodox Church is old. The effusion of Protestantism is not.
Latchkey Kid sed:
Oops.
quote:If not, what were you thinking of in Matt 13:20F?
He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; 25but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. 26So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. 27And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” 28He answered, “An enemy has done this.”
quote:I've run across Quakers who called themselves "nontheist." But when I ask them to explain what that means, they always get snippy and break off the conversation. And I try really hard to ask in a nice, nonjudgmental way...
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Surely Quaker atheism is possible though? Lots of essentially atheist (although not antitheist) Quakers about. But I guess that would involve not being self-absorbed Gen-Xers.
quote:I have read the whole thread now - nothing's changed (surprise surprise.)
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:If you'd read the thread you may not have said this!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but...
Oh please! As we know on this board, atheists thrive on winding up and deriding people of faith - hence the spectacular press releases.
quote:Ah!. I have never heard of the rich soil of tradition, and it is not how the parable is explained where the soils are the persons.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Latchkey Kid, my cite was vv. 20 and 21, paired with vv. 5 and 6, the implication being that without the rich soil of tradition, these novel denominations spring up and then wither away. I count my crowd among them.
Your cite is the next parable and starts three verses later.
quote:Wrong Wrong Wrong!!! Holy Tradition is the Church's beliefs, as taught by Jesus, before the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament are Holy Tradition in written form. There is a BIG difference between "Holy Tradition" and "the traditions of men." There are many in "new" churches (I use the term loosely) who despise tradition (meaning, at least in part, Holy Tradition) so they remove it, only to very quickly unwittingly replace it with their own traditions - the traditions of men.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Ah!. I have never heard of the rich soil of tradition, and it is not how the parable is explained where the soils are the persons.
Jesus, in Matthew and Mark, is generally scathing of tradition. I suppose that when the Gospels were written the young church was against tradition.
quote:If you read my post about the group that founded my high school, they've been at it for over a hudnred years over multiple generations. No doubt it's a phase they're going through.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but...
Oh please! As we know on this board, atheists thrive on winding up and deriding people of faith - hence the spectacular press releases.
But how long will this daft "church" last? They will soon get bored when they find they have no-one to antagonise except other atheists!
So at the opening "service" there were around 200 "adherents." How many do you think will still be attending regularly in 6 months time? 6 maybe.
quote:You mean this one?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If you read my post about the group that founded my high school, they've been at it for over a hudnred years over multiple generations. No doubt it's a phase they're going through.
quote:Quite. It's not like you to let facts get in the way of your preconceptions. I'm surprised you admit it so readily, though.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:I have read the whole thread now - nothing's changed (surprise surprise.)
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
quote:If you'd read the thread you may not have said this!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I haven't had time to read this whole thread, but...
Oh please! As we know on this board, atheists thrive on winding up and deriding people of faith - hence the spectacular press releases.
quote:We are not talking about facts here at all The Great Gumby, just opinions - yours and mine included.
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
..Quite. It's not like you to let facts get in the way of your preconceptions. I'm surprised you admit it so readily, though.
quote:Oddly enough, this sentence could apply equally well to any Christian group you care to name--except for the bit about a recent swelling of interest.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There seems to be a swelling of interest in them at the moment (flavour of the month?) but it is only in fairly recent times - before that they had all been on the wane for years.
quote:Depends on how fucked the theology the atheist is rejecting is.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Maybe, but it begs less questions.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism provides no answers at all.
quote:No. Just that in the western world Christian values is usually the tack the atheists fill the vacuum with.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
Evensong: I may have missed the point. But this statement
What fills the vacuum are other values derived from Christianity.
sounds to me like Christian exclusiveness and pride. As if no-one outside of Christianity can provide any good.
quote:The "recent swelling of interest", IMO, is down to this current celebrity-studded aggressive "new atheism". However, Christopher Hitchens is dead now, and people are getting bored of Richard Dawkins. Why should people want to keep paying good money to hear his lectures, when he has nothing new to offer?
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
...Oddly enough, this sentence could apply equally well to any Christian group you care to name--except for the bit about a recent swelling of interest.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:In the way they often say on the BBC when someone lets a brand plug slip through on air, "Other similar life-enhancing values are also available".
Originally posted by Evensong:
What fills the vacuum are other values derived from Christianity.
...........
... in the western world Christian values is usually the tack the atheists fill the vacuum with....
quote:Atheism is the position of not believing in any gods (and also the positive version of that- believing there are no gods). It doesn't provide answers to any question except one- Is there a god?. Thus, it 'does' nothing of the things you claim, and I think you might be confusing atheism with atheists. Or your idea of what atheists are, anyway.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Depends on how fucked the theology the atheist is rejecting is.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Maybe, but it begs less questions.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism provides no answers at all.
In general, religion provides answers. Atheism just rejects those answers and devises other ones by filling them with something else.
quote:Can you imagine a world full of scientismists with no sense of faith nor hope, never dwelling on the big questions in life, just robots interested in nothing but science and so-called "empirical" evidence - that we are indeed nothing but a temporal product of some amazing cosmic accident!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Several posts have suggested that the interest in atheist groups and, e.g. ~RD's books, will fade. I disagree, since they have a firm basis in testable facts/proofs* which can be relied on; (with the proviso that new and better facts can update them)
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Please don't group me with Mark Betts.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Jesus, in Matthew and Mark, is generally scathing of tradition. I suppose that when the Gospels were written the young church was against tradition.
quote:This is precisely the sort of thing I was talking about, fellow Christians. Why do the Church thing at all if "fulfilled living" can be had easily enough without it? What does bringing God into matters do. That question has to frame our estimation of atheist church.
It looks a lot like the Action For Happiness network/campaign/thingy, which launched a couple of years back, which similarly promotes communal support, volunteer work and other ideas for healthy, fulfilled living....
quote:'tis a shame that what looks to be a rather beautiful rerodos is going to rach-and-ruin in a crumbling building.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Our esteemed Captain paid a visit - sounds good.
quote:With the greatest of respect Latchkey Kid, I found your explanation of Oral Tradition less than statisfactory.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Please don't group me with Mark Betts....
The other part of the tradition—and, here you may not agree with me—is an oral one unwritten by hand. Guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit, it is how the people of God, praying constantly, celebrating the Eucharist, and reading the written word, understand and respond to God's call day-by-day, year-by-year, century-by-century.
quote:Very good - I hate to burst your bubble, but I think you'll find that a few atheists have done things like that as well.
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Some things that churches do that turn people to atheism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/files-show-cardinal-roger-mahony-covered-up-sex-abuse.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/nyregion/nechemya-weberman-sentenced-to-103-years-in-prison.html
And that was just this week!
quote:Atheists leading atheist regimes killing millions of people is an argument in favor of atheism?!
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Those are more an argument for atheism than for the existence of a God.
quote:It sure looks that way, but my crowd usually runs the season of the Incarnation all the way through to the Feast of the Presentation, so there's hope yet.
Originally posted by que sais-je:
So can I take it the season of Good Will to All is officially over?
quote:It isn't my fault!!
Originally posted by que sais-je:
So can I take it the season of Good Will to All is officially over?
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:I think it might be mine. I imagine the Good Feelings were predicated on Christians saying that atheist charity and fellowship is just the same as Christian charity and fellowship. I wouldn't say it, so lily snaps back "WELL CHRISTIANS DIDDLE LITTLE BOYS!"
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:It isn't my fault!!
Originally posted by que sais-je:
So can I take it the season of Good Will to All is officially over?
quote:What a complete load of old tosh.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Can you imagine a world full of scientismists with no sense of faith nor hope, never dwelling on the big questions in life, just robots interested in nothing but science and so-called "empirical" evidence - that we are indeed nothing but a temporal product of some amazing cosmic accident!
Beam me up Scottie!
quote:Evening George!
Originally posted by George Spigot:
What a complete load of old tosh.
quote:I've no doubt people turn to atheism for many reasons. But are you actually suggesting that when atheists do bad things it's evidence that atheism is true?
Originally posted by lilyswinburne:
Those are more an argument for atheism than for the existence of a God.
quote:If there were a benevolent and omnipotent being...
Originally posted by Squibs:
are you actually suggesting that when atheists do bad things it's evidence that atheism is true?
quote:Interesting post. My view, based on nothing but gut feel is that the number of atheists in western countries will continue to grow. If this happens, then the aggressive atheism of Dawkins et al, built on disproving theism and removing the supposed privileging of religion in society will become less relevant. It will take a long time though.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Several posts have suggested that the interest in atheist groups and, e.g. ~RD's books, will fade. I disagree, since they have a firm basis in testable facts/proofs* which can be relied on; (with the proviso that new and better facts can update them)
The response to that could be, I suppose,that religions can be relied on, but I think it is the people who hold the beliefs who can be relied on, not the God beliefs behind them.
*After the 'Evidence' thread, I hesitate before using any word that implies proof etc!
quote:I am looking forward to the answer to this one.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
What are the truth/s upon which you believe atheism rests?
quote:That is typical of the responses from authoritarian fundamentalists. Not that I am saying you are one of them, just that is how they respond.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Wrong Wrong Wrong!!! Holy Tradition is the Church's beliefs, as taught by Jesus, before the New Testament was written. The books of the New Testament are Holy Tradition in written form. There is a BIG difference between "Holy Tradition" and "the traditions of men." There are many in "new" churches (I use the term loosely) who despise tradition (meaning, at least in part, Holy Tradition) so they remove it, only to very quickly unwittingly replace it with their own traditions - the traditions of men.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Ah!. I have never heard of the rich soil of tradition, and it is not how the parable is explained where the soils are the persons.
Jesus, in Matthew and Mark, is generally scathing of tradition. I suppose that when the Gospels were written the young church was against tradition.
quote:What does that even mean?
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
...That is typical of the responses from authoritarian fundamentalists...
quote:I'm not sure what you think a "scientismist" is, but even if this atheist fits your description, I fail to see how you imagine I have neither faith nor hope.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Can you imagine a world full of scientismists with no sense of faith nor hope, never dwelling on the big questions in life, just robots interested in nothing but science and so-called "empirical" evidence - that we are indeed nothing but a temporal product of some amazing cosmic accident!
Beam me up Scottie!
quote:People had been praying for quite a while--there's evidence that theyhad the general outline down.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
- How did christians know how to pray before the Gospels were written?
quote:They just made it up.How did they know the order and form of the Eucharist?
quote:See above.How did they know what parts of the Septuagint to read out and when?
quote:By the Inward Light, that was given to all from the beginning.How did they originally know how to understand and respond to God's calling?
quote:Well, I can imagine such a world, but to believe that there is no hope, joy, delight, excitement, wonder, etc without belief in God is obviously wrong, since you only have to know a few atheists like me to know that!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Can you imagine a world full of scientismists with no sense of faith nor hope, never dwelling on the big questions in life, just robots interested in nothing but science and so-called "empirical" evidence - that we are indeed nothing but a temporal product of some amazing cosmic accident!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Several posts have suggested that the interest in atheist groups and, e.g. ~RD's books, will fade. I disagree, since they have a firm basis in testable facts/proofs* which can be relied on; (with the proviso that new and better facts can update them)
Beam me up Scottie!
quote:Thank you, and yes I think you are right since there is not an empty space at the end of the questions*! Well, there's plenty of actual space in the universe of course and it looks empty, but it can be submitted to analysis!
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:Interesting post. My view, based on nothing but gut feel is that the number of atheists in western countries will continue to grow.
Originally posted by SusanDoris: Several posts have suggested that the interest in atheist groups and, e.g. ~RD's books, will fade. I disagree, since they have a firm basis in testable facts/proofs* which can be relied on; (with the proviso that new and better facts can update them)
The response to that could be, I suppose,that religions can be relied on, but I think it is the people who hold the beliefs who can be relied on, not the God beliefs behind them.
*After the 'Evidence' thread, I hesitate before using any word that implies proof etc!
And the facts are available which back up beliefs of non-believers. quote:I'd always use the word 'assertive' rather than 'aggressive', but that's not really relevant here.
If this happens, then the aggressive atheism of Dawkins et al, built on disproving theism ...
quote:I think this will be sooner rather than later, but probably not in my lifetime!!
...and removing the supposed privileging of religion in society will become less relevant. It will take a long time though.
quote:*imagine little cheerleader emoticon here!*
I am genuinely interested in the idea though that, atheism rests on testable facts/proofs. I have always thought (and this is likely a reflection of my Christian viewpoint) that it rested on the lack of testable facts/proofs for God rather than the existence of proof for atheism. What are the truth/s upon which you believe atheism rests?
'Is this TRUE?' is a question that began as soon as I could read, I think! I loved fiction the more because of that. The Christian ethos of my youth, unquestioned because it was the height of bad manners to do so, has changed to the information age. I shall be thinking of this today which, fortunately, is sunny.quote:I can see it is a waste of time discussing this any further. We are on totally different wavelengths with totally different worldviews.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm not sure what you think a "scientismist" is, but even if this atheist fits your description, I fail to see how you imagine I have neither faith nor hope.
I have all manner of faith and hope. For example, one of my clients several years back...
quote:But we are not talking about the astonishing reaches and powers of science - we are talking about a random unplanned accident (or rather millions upon millions of them) if you are right.
Originally posted by Porridge:
What's more, the notion that the human race is the "temporal product of some amazing cosmic accident" has always filled me with wonder.
I think you have a very limited sense of the astonishing reaches and powers of science.
quote:What sort of analysis do you submit the universe to?
Thank you, and yes I think you are right since there is not an empty space at the end of the questions*! Well, there's plenty of actual space in the universe of course and it looks empty, but it can be submitted to analysis! And the facts are available which back up beliefs of non-believers.
*because there is no God anywhere.
quote:I have no idea what you're getting at here. You said earlier that the ideas of atheist groups eg Dawkins
Oh dear, how to sum up a lifetime in a sentence or two!!! 'Is this TRUE?' is a question that began as soon as I could read, I think! I loved fiction the more because of that. The Christian ethos of my youth, unquestioned because it was the height of bad manners to do so, has changed to the information age. I shall be thinking of this today which, fortunately, is sunny.
quote:and I'm still at a loss as to what you mean by this. What atheist facts/proofs do you rely on?
have a firm basis in testable facts/proofs* which can be relied on
quote:Depends what you mean by faith and hope, I suppose. I believe Attenbrough is an atheist? He seems incredibly joyful and full of wonder about the world he lives in. Hawking is, at the least, a very strong agnostic if not actually an atheist, and ditto for him. People like these are certainly not like robots and are investigating some of the biggest questions in life we can imagine. What's more they do it with imagination, respect and humility.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Can you imagine a world full of scientismists with no sense of faith nor hope, never dwelling on the big questions in life, just robots interested in nothing but science and so-called "empirical" evidence - that we are indeed nothing but a temporal product of some amazing cosmic accident!
Beam me up Scottie!
quote:I'd question the "humility" bit - think about it.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...What's more they do it with imagination, respect and humility.
quote:...and atheists, agnostics, humanists sociologists etc etc.
I wish to heaven as much could be said for more religious believers.
quote:So what? You were asking us to imagine a world without faith and hope, not your particular ideas of them which are bound up with your brand of religion. Porridge's reply beautifully illustrates the paucity of your understanding of another view, and if you think we're missing something important, well hey ho, that's not a problem. But you haven't got a monopoly on faith and hope.
You can only think of faith and hope from a humanist perspective, forgetting that we are "dust in the wind" and ultimately without hope if not for God.
quote:I have thought about it often and deeply. In fact, I would say one of the more impressive virtues of these two guys is their humility. I'm not saying they're angelic, or are never wrong. But it's clear watching them that the respect and wonder they have for creation (however created) often leaves them feeling humbled by it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:I'd question the "humility" bit - think about it.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
...What's more they do it with imagination, respect and humility.
quote:Agreed - and when we see the amazing world they show us we are, in turn, humbled.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I have thought about it often and deeply. In fact, I would say one of the more impressive virtues of these two guys is their humility. I'm not saying they're angelic, or are never wrong. But it's clear watching them that the respect and wonder they have for creation (however created) often leaves them feeling humbled by it.
quote:Thank you for your insight. I particularly like this.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Maybe this isn't necessarily the case; or perhaps human beings simply crave novelty, and a church fellowship that meets in a pub is as fascinating as an atheist fellowship that meets in a church building!
quote:Confidence in the truth may be seen as a lack of humility. Both Christians and atheists who assert the truth of their position are often accused of arrogance. Of course, some are......
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I have thought about it often and deeply. In fact, I would say one of the more impressive virtues of these two guys is their humility. I'm not saying they're angelic, or are never wrong. But it's clear watching them that the respect and wonder they have for creation (however created) often leaves them feeling humbled by it.
quote:I understand that. But people bad stuff was specifically mentioned in relation to who reject the existence of such a being.
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:If there were a benevolent and omnipotent being...
Originally posted by Squibs:
are you actually suggesting that when atheists do bad things it's evidence that atheism is true?
quote:Just a quick post to absolutely 100% assure you that I am not doing that. I very much dislike any kind of sarcasm and I count 'taking the mick' as part of that. Back later.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Susan Doris, my head is spinning trying to make sense of what you've said. I am genuinely interested in understanding where you're coming from, I'm not sure whether your response is taking the mick or not.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I can see it is a waste of time discussing this any further. We are on totally different wavelengths with totally different worldviews.
quote:Who says so? First, I once did so. It took several years of experience within a Christian congregation where I became a deacon to show me my faith and hope were misplaced.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You can only think of faith and hope from a humanist perspective,
quote:I forget nothing of the kind. My work with people who face steep challenges reminds me daily of how brief our lives are, and how astonishing are both our tribulations and our accomplishments. It's hope that together we can ease the former and enhance the latter that keeps me going.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
. . . forgetting that we are "dust in the wind" and ultimately without hope if not for God.
quote:Sorry, but as we are, according to you and your belief system, "dust in the wind," I don't quite grasp where you get this "eternal" business from. All you've mentioned so far is our mortality. Which are we, mortal or immortal? Make up your mind.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Christians can think of faith and hope in an eternal way as well as in your way - you will of course deny this, but that's your shout.
quote:To 'provide' what to whom and why?
Originally posted by Susan Doris
I think 'disproving' is the wrong word because you can't prove a negative, it's up to those who want God/god/s to be true to provide more than stories, anecdotes and personal experience plus 'tradition...
quote:I'll send you a brief pm , but as I indicated above, no sarcasm intended. My interest in discussion and others' views is straightforward and sincere.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Susan Doris, my head is spinning trying to make sense of what you've said. I am genuinely interested in understanding where you're coming from, I'm not sure whether your response is taking the mick or not. I'm quite sincere and not trying to argue you out of your position, in case you think that.
quote:Not me personally, of course. For all of my life, I have listened and watched programmes about Science, read many books on revisionist history etc ... but always looked for the response of Science, for my own interest and that of the children I taught. For a long time I still believed there was a force/power/something which was 'out there' somewhere, but finally erased that from my mind when I realised that it had had no meaning for years.
If that is your position then I can understand it. What I don't understand is your statements which seem to be asserting a different position.
quote:What sort of analysis do you submit the universe to?
Thank you, and yes I think you are right since there is not an empty space at the end of the questions*! Well, there's plenty of actual space in the universe of course and it looks empty, but it can be submitted to analysis! And the facts are available which back up beliefs of non-believers.
*because there is no God anywhere.
quote:Those of the experts who seek to add to the volume of human knowledge. I was at a conference a few years ago where Prof B Cox, Ben goldacre and others, were speaking and, oh, it was so very interesting. There was, for example, a photograph of a small section of space which showed, not just millions of stars, but millions of galaxies.
What are the facts to which you refer?
quote:Ah, I see that is definitely not clear. I do not think there are 'atheist facts', but jjust facts, quite a few of which do not accord with religious beliefs.
I have no idea what you're getting at here. You said earlier that the ideas of atheist groups eg Dawkinsquote:and I'm still at a loss as to what you mean by this. What atheist facts/proofs do you rely on?
have a firm basis in testable facts/proofs* which can be relied on
I wasn't quite sure how to summarise that!quote:As Karl Barth wrote, "The best apologetics is a good dogmatics." "Anxiety concerning the victory of the Gospel—that is, Christian Apologetics—is meaningless, because the Gospel is the victory by which the world is overcome... It does not require representatives with a sense of responsibility, for it is as responsible for those who proclaim it as it is for those to whom it is proclaimed. It is the advocate of both... God does not need us. Indeed, if He were not God, He would be ashamed of us. We, at any rate, cannot be ashamed of Him."
Surely you don't mean "to provide" to those who have already decided that whatever evidence is presented in support of God's existence (e.g. the validity of reason and morality, the nature of consciousness, the phenomenon of complexity etc) is going to be ignored anyway?!
quote:1. With which religious beliefs? All of them?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do not think there are 'atheist facts', but jjust facts, quite a few of which do not accord with religious beliefs.
quote:Just thought I'd dip a toe in the first five minutes before turning off the computer and heard re RD, '... his complete misunderstanding of the christian faith' so I'll have to have a strong cup of tea ready tomorrow before starting again!!
Originally posted by Squibs:
This weeks episode of Unbelievable? is about the atheist church. Sanderson Jones, one of the two founders of the "church", is in discussion with David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland. The episode also feature two other guests who attended the assembly, one of whom is the Ship's Captain.
Click here to listen.
quote:So you agree too? RD has a particular understanding of faith that people like David Roberson think is misapplied to their faith. Why didn't you say so, Susan!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just thought I'd dip a toe in the first five minutes before turning off the computer and heard re RD, '... his complete misunderstanding of the christian faith' so I'll have to have a strong cup of tea ready tomorrow before starting again!!
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Actually, I seem to recall answering that very question over at W&T. Perhaps you missed it. It was the usual stuff, scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayer or faith healing, accurate prophecies in the scriptures etc.
Since no atheist will ever answer the question as to what kind of evidence would *ever* convince him or her of the existence of God
quote:And there have been posts in the atheist blogosphere, too. I think Greta Christina's was the most comprehensive.
I think that if I heard a voice from the sky predicting all that was going to happen to me during the next twenty-four hours, including events that would have seemed highly improbable, and if all these events then produced to happen, I might perhaps be convinced at least of the existence of some superhuman intelligence. I can imagine other evidence of the same sort which might convince me, but so far as I know, no such evidence exists.
quote:I'm not sure the extensive discussions in the evidence thread and in threads on morality involving you and any number of theists and non theists, constitute "ignoring" those arguments. And in the wider world, the arguments from reason and consciousness are widely disputed. CS Lewis got his arse well and truly kicked when he tried to use the argument from reason to prove naturalism is self refuting, the argument from consciousness is itself a gaps argument - so responding as you do is taking the discussion into the playground - and as for the complexity argument: Tesco burger.
Surely you don't mean "to provide" to those who have already decided that whatever evidence is presented in support of God's existence (e.g. the validity of reason and morality, the nature of consciousness, the phenomenon of complexity etc) is going to be ignored anyway?!
quote:Which always strikes me as weak or downright bogus evidence.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
... scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayer
quote:Perhaps it's more a case of allowing individuals to exercise their free will choice. If each side believes that their view is the truth which will set those on the other side free if they accept it, they may do one of three things: try to impose their view for the good of the others, by force if necessary; try to persuade the other side through discussion and debate; or leave the other side to it and associate only with like-minded people.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
There are some christians who take a relativistic view on all this - "God is true for me, but not for you," or "atheism is true for you, but something different is true for me."
I don't know if this is where anyone on the board is coming from, I understand it's one of the features of post-modernism - but it's funny how scientific theory is never ever seen in this way, yet the things which our Salvation hangs upon are.
Perhaps this explains why some christians are so serene when their faith is trashed in favour of scientism, and seem to side with those who hate religion.
quote:I can only share my own 'testimony' (there, non-theists do have testimonies!!) of what persuaded me that GOD does not exist.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Since no atheist will ever answer the question as to what kind of evidence would *ever* convince him or her of the existence of God,
quote:Perhaps I should clarify this. "Dust in the Wind" is a song by Kansas, but has echoes of "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3.19)
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:Sorry, but as we are, according to you and your belief system, "dust in the wind," I don't quite grasp where you get this "eternal" business from. All you've mentioned so far is our mortality. Which are we, mortal or immortal? Make up your mind.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Christians can think of faith and hope in an eternal way as well as in your way - you will of course deny this, but that's your shout.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean. Is it scientific evidence per se that is weak or bogus, or scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayer, of which, AFAIK, there is none?
Which always strikes me as weak or downright bogus evidence.
quote:Presumably Christians are not allowed any money, but non-Christians are, yet the latter can feel justified in rejecting God if the former dare to aspire to have what many non-Christians feel they can take for granted?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo
I can only share my own 'testimony' (there, non-theists do have testimonies!!) of what persuaded me that GOD does not exist.
After 60 years of belief in a major doctrine of (my) sort of Christianity, I came to realise that GOD doesn't intervene. The examples of this that I took were within the righting of wrongs: for example, the accumulation of wealth by GOD's followers when the example of the Jesus of the Gospels and of the early Christians was quite contrary to that; the rejection by the church of sexual activity by gay people; the injustice and violence of humans against humans (e.g.Zimbabwe).
So, if I saw that GOD somehow miraculously righted these wrongs (all plainly Biblical as I understand it), I'd re-consider my position. That's the sort of evidence I need.
quote:Apparently, then, I'm not a humanist either. I'm absolutely certain that I'm far more than my body. I'm also my character, my actions, my attitudes, beliefs, and values. To a significant extent, all these (excepting of course a functioning body) will live on (for good or ill) after I perish, in the memories of those who survive me and who've known me.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Perhaps I should clarify this. "Dust in the Wind" is a song by Kansas, but has echoes of "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." (Genesis 3.19)
Certainly our bodies are mortal, and with humanism that's all we are and that's the end of the matter.
quote:You might try actually reading what I posted. I'm pretty familiar with what Christians believe. I simply find the tenets, well, unbelievable myself.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Christians likewise believe the body is mortal, but we also believe in the Resurrection of the body, at the end of the age.
It is this resurrected body which is immortal:
"So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory."
This is the eternal hope that Christians share, in 1 Corinthians 15.
quote:Not true. There is such a thing as Christian Humanism.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Certainly our bodies are mortal, and with humanism that's all we are and that's the end of the matter.
quote:I think you mistook me for the TSA.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[TANGENT]
quote:With the greatest of respect Latchkey Kid, I found your explanation of Oral Tradition less than statisfactory.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
Please don't group me with Mark Betts....
The other part of the tradition—and, here you may not agree with me—is an oral one unwritten by hand. Guided and preserved by the Holy Spirit, it is how the people of God, praying constantly, celebrating the Eucharist, and reading the written word, understand and respond to God's call day-by-day, year-by-year, century-by-century.
quote:Yet another example of shite from this site. Here is their translation of this phrase from the Latin Gloria, "Deus Pater omnipotens. Domine Fili unigenite, Jesu Christe"
posted by The Silent Acolyte:
lilyswinburne, About dot com is a CONTENT FARM. Despise it.
quote:
God Father almighty. Lord Son only begotten, Jesus Christ
quote:I did - sorry about that!
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I think you mistook me for the TSA.
quote:I suppose we could argue that all christians should be humanists in a sense - but certainly not in the Richard Dawkins sense, where humanism is synonymous with agressive "new" atheism.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Not true. There is such a thing as Christian Humanism.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Certainly our bodies are mortal, and with humanism that's all we are and that's the end of the matter.
quote:Again, the group that founded my high school was run by mostly atheists of Jewish origin. Of course they probaby didn't know that the Torah was a translation from the original Klingon of the Christian Septuagint so they didn't know they were filling the emptiness of their atheism with Christian vaues.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism provides no answers at all.
What fills the vacuum are other values derived from Christianity.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Is that life? And for how long? Anyway, after two (at the most) generations, people will quickly forget you ever existed. Sorry about that.
Originally posted by Porridge:
...Apparently, then, I'm not a humanist either. I'm absolutely certain that I'm far more than my body. I'm also my character, my actions, my attitudes, beliefs, and values. To a significant extent, all these (excepting of course a functioning body) will live on (for good or ill) after I perish, in the memories of those who survive me and who've known me.
quote:I should have known you were being disingenuous. Sorry I bothered.
You might try actually reading what I posted. I'm pretty familiar with what Christians believe. I simply find the tenets, well, unbelievable myself.
quote:I was answering your original question.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Presumably .....
Presumably .....
Presumably .....
Presumably .....
Presumably .....
Presumably .....
Presumably .....
I'd be interested in your answers to these questions.
quote:God can be praised into existence? What an interesting idea! Have you read 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett? You'll find similar ideas there.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Presumably God should be damned into non-existence on account of all the injustice in the world, but never praised into existence for all the justice?
quote:I'm intrigued. What would a Russian Orthodox Humanist believe?
I suppose we could argue that all christians should be humanists in a sense
quote:I don't know what you mean by the "Richard Dawkins sense". But seeing as there are nearly as many schisms in humanist/atheist circles as there are in religious ones, the statement is meaningless if it is meant as anything other than a way of saying atheism is horrid.
but certainly not in the Richard Dawkins sense, where humanism is synonymous with agressive "new" atheism.
quote:Something by believers to convince non-believers of the truth of their (the believers') beliefs - that's if they want to.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:To 'provide' what to whom and why?
Originally posted by Susan Doris
I think 'disproving' is the wrong word because you can't prove a negative, it's up to those who want God/god/s to be true to provide more than stories, anecdotes and personal experience plus 'tradition...
quote:Since all suggestions as to evidence for God is lacking in the one thing that would back it up, i.e. God, and since it is, as far as I can see, all better explained by other means, I cannot think of any object or word which would convince atheists that there is God; especially those of us who used to belief that this invisible force/power was 'out there' somewhere.
Since no atheist will ever answer the question as to what kind of evidence would *ever* convince him or her of the existence of God,
quote:Thank you, and no, I'm absolutely not disingenuous.
....then what you are saying sounds really quite disingenuous. I hate to use that word about you, because you present yourself as a thoroughly decent person ...
quote:But part of the interest and pleasure in reading discussions here is that I do consider arguments, but none aimed at providing the clinching word or proof of god has sounded better than the non-belief I have.
Your comments in defence of atheism bear this out, the main one being along the lines of: "I can't answer that, but one day science will come up with a naturalistic explanation for it, so therefore I don't need to consider your argument."
quote:Ah, yes, I wish I had the skills of Philosophy and debate, but it's a bit late in life now, so I'll just enjoy keeping on joining in here. Vastly more interesting than trying to watch TV.
It's impossible to reason with someone resorting to this kind of special pleading (or faith based 'gaps' argument; in your case, of course, not "God of the gaps", but "naturalism of the gaps").
quote:1. I'd say all religious beliefs which include any kind of God/god/s, since none has ever been seen or produced as evidence.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:1. With which religious beliefs? All of them?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I do not think there are 'atheist facts', but jjust facts, quite a few of which do not accord with religious beliefs.
2. Can you give us a f'rinstance or two?
I'll keep thinking, but I think the fact that every single animal that ever lived has died, and we too will die, and that is final. There is enough knowledge about death to be sure about its finality.
quote:Ah, no, I do not agree! I thought, well, that's not true, soI'll have to listen tomorrow!
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:So you agree too? RD has a particular understanding of faith that people like David Roberson think is misapplied to their faith.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just thought I'd dip a toe in the first five minutes before turning off the computer and heard re RD, '... his complete misunderstanding of the christian faith' so I'll have to have a strong cup of tea ready tomorrow before starting again!!
quote:= Not the least bit sorry. In fact rather triumphant because I reckon I've made an unassailable point that should leave you feeling totally crushed!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is that life? And for how long? Anyway, after two (at the most) generations, people will quickly forget you ever existed. Sorry about that.
quote:I'm talking about the latter. I have no problem with scientific evidence per se. I do have a problem with weak scientific evidence that can't bear the metaphysical weight placed upon it.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:I'm not sure what you mean. Is it scientific evidence per se that is weak or bogus, or scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayer, of which, AFAIK, there is none?
Which always strikes me as weak or downright bogus evidence.
quote:Perhaps you missed the "sticking out tongue" smiley that I had typed.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Ah, no, I do not agree! I thought, well, that's not true, soI'll have to listen tomorrow!
Actually, not sure I'm going to have time today, but will do so asap.
quote:Your faith is touching
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think the fact that every single animal that ever lived has died, and we too will die, and that is final. There is enough knowledge about death to be sure about its finality.
but I think you overmisestimate the nature of proof. It's not a scientific but a philosophical question, on which science can have no answer.quote:Thank you - I'll have to do some more thinking! However, philosophical thought can onlytake place in the brain/mind, which is subject to scien ....tific investigation ... ...hmmmm!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Your faith is touching
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think the fact that every single animal that ever lived has died, and we too will die, and that is final. There is enough knowledge about death to be sure about its finality.
In short, there's a lack of evidence of God, but no evidence of a lack of God.
quote:It sounds as if nothing less would convince you than to see all Christians as perfect followers. Perhaps if all tears were wiped from eyes and there were no more suffering......so, you'd like the second coming now?
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo:
After 60 years of belief in a major doctrine of (my) sort of Christianity, I came to realise that GOD doesn't intervene. The examples of this that I took were within the righting of wrongs: for example, the accumulation of wealth by GOD's followers when the example of the Jesus of the Gospels and of the early Christians was quite contrary to that; the rejection by the church of sexual activity by gay people; the injustice and violence of humans against humans (e.g.Zimbabwe).
So, if I saw that GOD somehow miraculously righted these wrongs (all plainly Biblical as I understand it), I'd re-consider my position. That's the sort of evidence I need.
Of course, the counter-argument always presented to me is along the lines of 'but GOD does it through humans'. Precisely, it's human activity - supports my point.
Note: this is not to present a dead horse tangent or three - I'm simply giving my testimony.
quote:If it's no longer a church, then it's just a meeting place.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I wonder why a disused church was chosen as a meeting place...
quote:Other opinions are also available. You'll find them being expressed in the above-mentioned meeting place.
...and why anyone meeting anywhere considers that they can exclude God, who is everywhere.
quote:Surely even Christians recognize the value (and liveliness) of interpersonal connections. Isn't there something along the lines of "love one another?"
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Is that life?
Originally posted by Porridge:
...Apparently, then, I'm not a humanist either. I'm absolutely certain that I'm far more than my body. I'm also my character, my actions, my attitudes, beliefs, and values. To a significant extent, all these (excepting of course a functioning body) will live on (for good or ill) after I perish, in the memories of those who survive me and who've known me.
quote:How long does anyone need to be remembered for, especially when they're not around to appreciate the remembrances? And for how many generations is the average Christian likely to be remembered by his/her fellows?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
And for how long? Anyway, after two (at the most) generations, people will quickly forget you ever existed.
quote:Why? So what?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Sorry about that.
quote:Disingenuous? How so? I've been open and straightforward; it's not my responsibility if you don't actually read the posts you respond to. I was once a believer; now I'm not. I find absolutely no support for the basic tenets of Christianity: virgin birth, divine/human hybrid; a supernatural being which intervenes in human affairs; resurrection of the body; eternal life (which actually strikes me as a horrid prospect); and on and on. Nor do I ask you or anyone else to join me in my skepticism. I have no problem with you and others occupying yourselves with Christian mythology, so long as you don't try to govern others' private behaviors as though those myths were fact.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:I should have known you were being disingenuous. Sorry I bothered.
Originally posted by Porridge:You might try actually reading what I posted. I'm pretty familiar with what Christians believe. I simply find the tenets, well, unbelievable myself.
quote:I can't speak to any glad tidings from an atheist "church;" personally, I'm not remotely tempted to set foot in such a place; I'd suspect it of being full of atheist proseletyzers, and it's proseletyzing I chiefly object to.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'd love to know what glad tidings of great joy can be shared at this new Atheist "church" everyone is raving about. Anything comparable to 1 Corinthians 15?
quote:My mentioning it was in reply to EE's contention that no atheist would ever say what sort of evidence would convince them. Fiendish experimental difficulties notwithstanding, that might be one sort, were it ever presented.
I would have thought that if you are of the opinion that the failure of prayer was important enough to mention it in this thread then you would have done an investigation of the data.
quote:It also noted that the most rigorous trials reviewed failed to produce significant findings. By far the most comprehensive and rigorous investigation was the Templeton funded study of heart by-pass patients in 2006 which found, strangely, that those who knew they were going to be prayed for were more likely to suffer death or major complications than those who didn't and that there was no difference in mortality between those who were prayed for and those who weren't.
Thus, at this junction in time, the results might be
considered inconclusive. Indeed, perhaps the most certain
result stemming from this study is the following:
The findings are unlikely to satisfy either proponents or
opponents of intercessory prayer
quote:EE's point is his to make. You mentioned prayer trials in as producing evidence that you could consider to be acceptable evidence. I took a different approach and suggested that these trials were methodologically flawed and the conclusions they reached were unsound. Quoting a meta-analysis back to me that pretty much says "Results: Inconclusive" is not a rebuttal to my position. What is curious is that you now state your doubts as to whether anything of value will ever come from these studies. So which is it? Are these trials producing the evidence you are looking for or are they not? And if they aren't why bother mentioning them in the first place?
Originally posted by Grokesx:Anyway, like you, I doubt if anything of value will ever come out of these studies, but that was not the point I was making to EE. He seems convinced that atheists are willfully ignoring the abundant evidence out there, while you on the other hand seem to be keen on denying that evidence (of the effectiveness of prayer at least) is even possible. Perhaps you two should get together and work out what sort of evidence we're allowed to accept or reject.
quote:But it's supposed to be, isn't it? It's supposed to require faith, not provable equations. Perhaps the ubiquity of our Christian heritage has blinded us to the fact that Christianity is meant to be somewhat topsy-turvey, unexpected and peculiar.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I awoke one morning realizing how literally incredible was the basic Christian narrative
quote:The Rabbi had some nice ideas, but he was also a cruel deceiver, by your recognining. You have to blame him for the glitz - not us! Or I suppose you could blame his foolish friends....
Mind you, I can't fault the basic morality of the gospels: I think that itinerant rabbi was onto something 2,000 years ago.
Glitzing it up with all this miracle jazz, though -- it's rather like the commercials for perfectly good-but-ordinary products that are desperately trying to outsell competitors. Too good to be true.
quote:Sometimes I wonder what it means to have 'proof' that God exists or doensn't exist. I don't get very far with that either. I can't see how there could be such a thing as scientifically valid proof for God's existence, because if his existence could be proved by scientists he would surely no longer be God (in any Christian sense), because faith would be irrelevant.
I've been pondering the question posed somewhere above: what evidence would I accept for the existence of God? And I have to say I can't conceive of any. Nor do I need any.
quote:I don't actually know what your position is. My reply was an answer to you seeming to think I should accept a conclusion the author of your chosen review was anxious to distance himself from. I'm not convinced you you even read the review.
Quoting a meta-analysis back to me that pretty much says "Results: Inconclusive" is not a rebuttal to my position.
quote:Why is it curious? It's an opinion about how things will pan out in the future based on the results so far.
What is curious is that you now state your doubts as to whether anything of value will ever come from these studies.
quote:So far the results don't lead me to reject the null hypothesis, which is that prayers don't work. That's not to say that results in the future will not produce more interesting findings, no matter how much I doubt it. However, if one thinks that God moves in mysterious ways and juggles his prayer answering prowess to fit in with an appearance of chance, we'll never know.
So which is it? Are these trials producing the evidence you are looking for or are they not?
quote:In answer to EE's assertion.
And if they aren't why bother mentioning them in the first place?
quote:If it's 'arrogant' to try to make sense of your reasons for your atheism, and to draw out the implications of those reasons, then I am very happy to be called 'arrogant'.
Originally posted by Mark Wuntoo
I was answering your original question.
Your response seems to me to be typical of the arrogance of the sort of Christianity I have left behind (thank goodness not all Christianity is like that). I neither stated nor implied what you suggest / imply to be what I think.
quote:No He can't.
Originally posted by Boogie
quote:God can be praised into existence? What an interesting idea!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Presumably God should be damned into non-existence on account of all the injustice in the world, but never praised into existence for all the justice?
quote:I think that supernatural and naturalistic explanations are perfectly useful depending on your world-view. Simply because I don't think "brute fact" is a compelling reason to explain the universe doesn't mean that I don't think it is of use in a debate.
Originally posted by Porridge:
But Squibs, you raise the problem that faces believers and unbelievers alike: the plain fact that just about everything that could possibly point to evidence of God's existence can also be explained away as coincidence, etc.
So-called "naturalistic" explanations for events that might also be answered prayer or "a miracle" or what-have-you abound. Such events are of no use to any side in the debate. Regardless of the side you're on, it's like trying to explain magenta to a person blind from birth.
quote:And when challenged you admitted that you don't have much faith in the results these trails generate. So I fail to see the point in mentioning them in the first place.
Originally posted by Grokesx:In answer to EE's assertion.
quote:I agree - if God is real then there is nothing humans can do to change that.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:No He can't.
Originally posted by Boogie
quote:God can be praised into existence? What an interesting idea!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Presumably God should be damned into non-existence on account of all the injustice in the world, but never praised into existence for all the justice?
And neither can He be driven into non-existence by human hatred, bitterness, rejection, neglect and blasphemy. "God is dead" can be proclaimed from the housetops as much as people like, but it will not change reality.
quote:A very interesting conversation.
Originally posted by Squibs:
This weeks episode of Unbelievable? is about the atheist church. Sanderson Jones, one of the two founders of the "church", is in discussion with David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland. The episode also feature two other guests who attended the assembly, one of whom is the Ship's Captain.
Click here to listen.
quote:Hey, lets just say that when we talk about humanists, and we mean atheists, we should be careful we are not misunderstood by some - call them "Secular Humanists", and you can be sure everyone will know what you mean, and no-one will mistakenly think you are talking about Russian Orthodox Christians.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I'm intrigued. What would a Russian Orthodox Humanist believe?
quote:I do think "new" aggressive atheists are horrid - sorry, but I might as well be honest.
I don't know what you mean by the "Richard Dawkins sense". But seeing as there are nearly as many schisms in humanist/atheist circles as there are in religious ones, the statement is meaningless if it is meant as anything other than a way of saying atheism is horrid.
quote:Did I use any euphemisms? I don't think so, maybe just a slight pinch of sarcasm at the end.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:= Not the least bit sorry. In fact rather triumphant because I reckon I've made an unassailable point that should leave you feeling totally crushed!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is that life? And for how long? Anyway, after two (at the most) generations, people will quickly forget you ever existed. Sorry about that.
Oh wait. Sorry - I thought this was the Euphemism translation thread.
quote:At least then, all the scientismists on this board would have the "empirical" scientific evidence they so desire!
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
....so, you'd like the second coming now?
quote:I don't know how many times I can keep on saying the same thing with different words, but let's try an analogy. I don't think I will ever see a dodo in my back garden, but if I do, I will be convinced the species is not extinct.
And when challenged you admitted that you don't have much faith in the results these trails generate. So I fail to see the point in mentioning them in the first place.
quote:If you don't want to answer the question, you can just ignore it. The reason I ask is that pretty much all definitions of humanism, be it ancient Greek, secular or religious, place humans at the centre of importance. I am interested how this could possibly square with the Orthodox brand of God centredness.
Hey, lets just say that when we talk about humanists, and we mean atheists, we should be careful we are not misunderstood by some - call them "Secular Humanists", and you can be sure everyone will know what you mean, and no-one will mistakenly think you are talking about Russian Orthodox Christians.
quote:And that's why you'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I do think "new" aggressive atheists are horrid
quote:That's ONE meaning of "humanism." There are others. A very quick google gives this trifold definition:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
pretty much all definitions of humanism, be it ancient Greek, secular or religious, place humans at the centre of importance. I am interested how this could possibly square with the Orthodox brand of God centredness.
quote:OK, in that case I guess it doesn't square with Orthodoxy at all. Maybe I didn't mean "humanist" in the strict sense of the term, I just meant it in the way we see all humans as neighbours, and as icons of God, no matter what they themselves believe
Originally posted by Grokesx:
If you don't want to answer the question, you can just ignore it. The reason I ask is that pretty much all definitions of humanism, be it ancient Greek, secular or religious, place humans at the centre of importance. I am interested how this could possibly square with the Orthodox brand of God centredness.
quote:St Mark (new martyr) - I like that!
quote:And that's why you'll be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
I do think "new" aggressive atheists are horrid
quote:Robertson is both, I think. He is a fantastic "everyman" apologist. You may want to check out his last appearance on the same show. It featured him in discussion with Marcus Bridgestock, another comedian, possibly to feature on a comedy panel show on C4 in the near future. It was a fascinating and cordial exchange.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:A very interesting conversation.
Originally posted by Squibs:
This weeks episode of Unbelievable? is about the atheist church. Sanderson Jones, one of the two founders of the "church", is in discussion with David Robertson of the Free Church of Scotland. The episode also feature two other guests who attended the assembly, one of whom is the Ship's Captain.
Click here to listen.
Rev. Robertson's offer to go and 'preach' at the Atheist Assembly strikes me as very brave - or even brazen! I mean, if these people wanted to hear a clergyman preach, they'd go to a 'proper' church! Some of the attenders might feel quite cross about being given a sermon with a religious slant, and could make their feelings known by walking out or grumbling aloud.
Most clergy are used to preaching to the converted, i.e to people who accept the sanctity of the pulpit even if they don't quite believe what's being said. But this is a different ballgame. It's probably better to have these kinds of meetings in a more democratic setting, where people have the right to ask questions and challenge what's coming from the front. I'm assuming that this isn't what would happen here, though I could be wrong.
quote:'He' has failed all of us by being so elusive.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Re responsibility, I meant that with no concept of sin, there is no sense of humanity as a whole being responsible for evil. Perhaps accountability would be a better word.
The church only fails on the human side - it's we who fail God, not the other way around.
quote:I see that. I suppose it's Mousethief's sense 2, although that does rather strike me as a redundant definition in this context. All the varieties of Christianity (and other religions , come to that) AFAIK, exhort followers to care about their fellow man, even when the primary concern is the glory of God and the afterlife. I don't think I'm much mistaken in thinking that adding the word "humanism" to the mix usually denotes a shift of emphasis.
OK, in that case I guess it doesn't square with Orthodoxy at all. Maybe I didn't mean "humanist" in the strict sense of the term, I just meant it in the way we see all humans as neighbours, and as icons of God, no matter what they themselves believe
quote:
Humanity—with all its distinct capabilities, talents, worries, problems, possibilities—was the center of interest. It has been said that medieval thinkers philosophized on their knees, but, bolstered by the new studies, they dared to stand up and to rise to full stature.
quote:How would you recognise it as a dodo? Would you believe it really was a dodo, without any proof other than word of mouth that a dodo existed in the first place?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I don't think I will ever see a dodo in my back garden, but if I do, I will be convinced the species is not extinct.
quote:It doesn't really matter, I'm just a brain in a vat.
How would you recognise it as a dodo? Would you believe it really was a dodo, without any proof other than word of mouth that a dodo existed in the first place?
quote:I think atheism is a kind of religion, in that it's a world view that draws people of like mind together, to encourage them to be happy and do good things. Good luck to them.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Apparently, London now hosts an atheist church , operating under the banner of The Sunday Assembly. They managed to draw over 200 people on the Sunday reported, which is a respectable number these days.
Can atheists go to an "atheist church"?
Is atheism a religion?
(We may have had this debate before, but these two linked items just appeared, and I thought there was a discussion here)
There is also a note in the second linked article about the self-imposed travails of the Church of England, and the rapid rise of the "unchurched".
quote:I'm sure it was very cordial, and I'll certainly give it a listen! But having a cosy chat with an atheist, and preaching before an atheist audience, are two different things, it seems to me. Two very different forms of communication.
Originally posted by Squibs:
[Rev. Robertson] is a fantastic "everyman" apologist. You may want to check out his last appearance on the same show. It featured him in discussion with Marcus Bridgestock, another comedian, possibly to feature on a comedy panel show on C4 in the near future. It was a fascinating and cordial exchange.
quote:False metaphor. Although I cannot communicate in Dogese your God would presumably have the means to speak clearly to anything He wanted. That He does not implies He does not will it to be.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Why do you assume God is trying to elude us? Have you ever tried to communicate with a very young child or a smart dog?
quote:Yes - and to me!
Originally posted by Yorick:
That makes more sense, although it seems very much like a contrived retrofit explanation to me.
quote:The Incarnation changed all that. Do keep up.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hasn't Judaism traditionally said that the presence of God is unbearable?
quote:Talking about God communicating... I thought that was what the Incarnation was supposed to be about: God communicating to man in 'humanese'.
Originally posted by Yorick
Although I cannot communicate in Dogese your God would presumably have the means to speak clearly to anything He wanted. That He does not implies He does not will it to be.
quote:If the incarnation is true, then that may have been God's way of asking for our forgiveness, in respect of his particular failing. That, to me at any rate, would be the only development in theology which could attract me back to a theological view of the world - providing its own kind of saving grace to the 'No no, it must be because we are wretched!' reflex. But I'm not holding my breath.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Talking about God communicating... I thought that was what the Incarnation was supposed to be about: God communicating to man in 'humanese'...
Originally posted by Yorick
Although I cannot communicate in Dogese your God would presumably have the means to speak clearly to anything He wanted. That He does not implies He does not will it to be.
quote:Which is?
Originally posted by glockenspiel
...his particular failing.
quote:We've just been through that (elusive behaviour)
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Which is?
Originally posted by glockenspiel
...his particular failing.
quote:This is a good question. We have thoughts entering our heads all of the time. Where do they come from?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How do those who believe that God is communicating with them tell the difference between their own thoughts and input from God?
quote:Unbidden thoughts, dreams, spiritual experiences, feeling of peace, dreams, visions ...
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:This is a good question. We have thoughts entering our heads all of the time. Where do they come from?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How do those who believe that God is communicating with them tell the difference between their own thoughts and input from God?
God speaks into the spirit, which then feeds into the mind, so that the blessing of peace in the heart accompanies God's guidance. Discernment is applied logically too: God would not guide us into harmful behaviour, and we must be conscious of our own tendencies and influences.
quote:Indeed, which is why we must use discernment, and test everything.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Unbidden thoughts, dreams, spiritual experiences, feeling of peace, dreams, visions ...
all these can be accounted for as coming form our own subconscious mind. We have great imaginations too.
quote:My starting point would be from the belief that God exists. Therefore, all that is good has its source from the presence and action of God in his creation. So a healthy conscience and outlook reveals the Spirit at work - whoever the conscience belongs to. So my view is not so much 'God told me to do this, or God led me to say that'; but whatever is edifying, unselfish, good, just etc is the voice of God.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
How do those who believe that God is communicating with them tell the difference between their own thoughts and input from God?
quote:I am trying to keep up, honest.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:The Incarnation changed all that. Do keep up.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hasn't Judaism traditionally said that the presence of God is unbearable?
quote:Thanks for this redderfreak I had no idea I was a member of a religion. Can you give me some insight into any practices I should be adhering to or avoiding? Any scripture I should be reading etc?
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think atheism is a kind of religion, in that it's a world view that draws people of like mind together, to encourage them to be happy and do good things. Good luck to them.
quote:This.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:Thanks for this redderfreak I had no idea I was a member of a religion. Can you give me some insight into any practices I should be adhering to or avoiding? Any scripture I should be reading etc?
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think atheism is a kind of religion, in that it's a world view that draws people of like mind together, to encourage them to be happy and do good things. Good luck to them.
Cheers.
quote:Atheism isn't a religion in the same way that theism isn't a religion. Though in saying this I do have a small amount of sympathy for redderfreek's position. It's possible to confuse whatever worldview might reset on top of a campaigning atheist's atheism with atheism itself. For example, not all atheists are philosophical naturalists but many (all?) philosophical naturalists are atheists, and if philosophical naturalists are they type of people to grab headlines then perhaps this is where the confusion arises. In this regard I think it is possible to forget that a popular atheist like Dawkins isn't just saying that there (probably) is no God, he is also importing other claims along with this singular claim of atheism.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:Thanks for this redderfreak I had no idea I was a member of a religion. Can you give me some insight into any practices I should be adhering to or avoiding? Any scripture I should be reading etc?
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I think atheism is a kind of religion, in that it's a world view that draws people of like mind together, to encourage them to be happy and do good things. Good luck to them.
Cheers.
quote:In my opinion it would be preferable for people to realise that all the ideas, wisdom, etc that they attribute to God/god/s and which they accept as coming from this source are all human and that there was never a god doing the working out. It's no good trying to 'convert' people, as you say though, I agree. All change should come from education and inner, evidenced*, conviction; as happpened, in fact, in my case many years ago.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Indeed.
This atheist wishes Dawkins had stuck to his academic specialty instead of becoming the Jerry Falwell of non-believers.
quote:In my opinion, it would be preferable for people to realise that all the ideas, wisdom, etc that they attribute to God and which they accept as coming from this source are all indeed from God if they are rooted in what is virtuous. It's no good trying to 'convert' people, I agree. All change should come from education and inner, evidenced* conviction of the truth: as happened, in fact, in my case many years ago.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In my opinion it would be preferable for people to realise that all the ideas, wisdom, etc that they attribute to God/god/s and which they accept as coming from this source are all human and that there was never a god doing the working out. It's no good trying to 'convert' people, as you say though, I agree. All change should come from education and inner, evidenced*, conviction; as happpened, in fact, in my case many years ago.
*Oh dear, it's very difficult to avoid this word!
quote:This is pretty much my view as well. I have no particular desire to hang out with other atheists in preference to anyone else, and while I don't dislike Dawkins, I don't agree with everything he says. I'm also unhappy that all atheists now seem to be tarred with the same brush and are considered to be his 'followers'.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I have no particular itch to "discuss" my non-belief with other non-believers. What's to discuss? It would go, "Hey George Spigot, I don't believe in God," to which George Spigot might respond, "Hey Porridge, I don't either." Then what? I imagine we'd move on to the weather in fairly short order.
I have some sympathy for the metaphysical or supernatural or what-you-call-it. I actually wish I could believe it. I think there's a great deal humanity neither understands of the realities in which we live, nor even guesses at.
quote:Assuming that is true for a moment, why do you want people to believe such things? What does it matter to you if they attribute thing to God or not?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:In my opinion it would be preferable for people to realise that all the ideas, wisdom, etc that they attribute to God/god/s and which they accept as coming from this source are all human and that there was never a god doing the working out. It's no good trying to 'convert' people, as you say though, I agree. All change should come from education and inner, evidenced*, conviction; as happpened, in fact, in my case many years ago.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Indeed.
This atheist wishes Dawkins had stuck to his academic specialty instead of becoming the Jerry Falwell of non-believers.
*Oh dear, it's very difficult to avoid this word!
But it will take me some time to think it through. Back asap.
quote:I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but to SusanDoris, but with a largish mug of tea to hand, I can't forbear commenting.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Assuming that is true for a moment, why do you want people to believe such things? What does it matter to you if they attribute thing to God or not?
quote:I realise this wasn't addressed to me neither, but I can't forbear commenting.
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:Assuming that is true for a moment, why do you want people to believe such things? What does it matter to you if they attribute thing to God or not?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In my opinion it would be preferable for people to realise that all the ideas, wisdom, etc that they attribute to God/god/s and which they accept as coming from this source are all human and that there was never a god doing the working out. It's no good trying to 'convert' people, as you say though, I agree. All change should come from education and inner, evidenced*, conviction; as happpened, in fact, in my case many years ago.
*Oh dear, it's very difficult to avoid this word!
quote:Apparently you believe I made such a comparison, and acted upon that belief.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How very generous of you, Porridge, to compare people who believe in God with someone who is convinced that women are incapable of conceiving when they're raped.
quote:That's difficult as it was implied, rather than stated.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Apparently you believe I made such a comparison, and acted upon that belief.
Please point out where in my post I made that comparison.
quote:Principally, I think it is because, as a teacher of younger children (years 5or 6), and as a mother, I was absolutely certain that I should give them the information that I knew to be true. I didn't know as much about the 'scientific method' then, but had read and learnt enough about life and belief to kknow for certain that children should grow up with the ability to think critically. The children I taught were clear about what was fact and what was fictionand if ever there was any doubt about this, then the obvious answer was to seek the required evidence. If I'd known then what I know now, I think I might have said something about just because people believe something is real doesn't necessarily make it so!
Originally posted by Squibs:
What does it matter to you if they attribute thing to God or not?
quote:(And that should have read “intentional” instead of the non-word used in its place.) I did not intend any comparison between belief in God and beliefs about rape, implied or otherwise. That’s why I made no mention of belief in God in my post. Again, apparently you chose to believe that I had made such a comparison, and then acted on that belief. That demonstrates the point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by Porridge:
What other people believe doesn't necessarily affect me. It's a little like the argument that other people getting (or not getting) married is somehow detrimental to one's own marriage.
Other people's actions may affect me, though. When other people believe (for example) that women are incapable of conceiving when they're raped, and attempt to pass or amend laws based on that belief, that law may affect me (and will certainly affect any woman who conceives from rape). . .
. . . Again, though, the belief qua belief is of little concern to non-believers. It's only when the belief translates into actions / intential inactions that non-subscribers to said belief are likely to be affected.
quote:Again, I didn’t make this comparison; you seem to have done so, however. Unfortunately for all of us, you’re spot-on about the preposterousness of the conviction in question, but mistaken about the conviction itself. It was publicly expressed by a three-term Republican representative from Missouri (Todd Akin), during his 2012 campaign for a Senate seat. As this was US election rhetoric, though there’s no reason to suppose that a UK citizen would have been aware of it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
How very generous of you, Porridge, to compare people who believe in God with someone who is convinced that women are incapable of conceiving when they're raped.
Anyway, such a suggestion is so preposterous it isn't worth entertaining.
quote:I’d be interested to know what you think “usual” atheism consists of. And I’m not at all clear from your comment what you think a “usual atheist” is in denial of, exactly. Care to specify?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I suspect there is some denial here, although your usual atheist would never admit this when it is put to them.
quote:Envy of what? After all, believing versus non-believing is a matter of free choice. I see no particular need for parties of any persuasion to “envy” parties of any other persuasion. If the grass looks greener on t’other side of the fence, hop over it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't think it's so much about wanting to convert people to the good news of their "gospel" - it's more about bringing believers down to their level, the cause being envy - though don't expect them to admit to this neither.
quote:The sort that join boards like this with the clear intention of rubbishing anyone who doesn't share their "enlightened" worldview. And in denial of what Squibs said of you. Others, including myself, have noticed the same thing.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I’d be interested to know what you think “usual” atheism consists of. And I’m not at all clear from your comment what you think a “usual atheist” is in denial of, exactly. Care to specify?
quote:Envy of a perceived peace in the believer's heart, even though the scientismist/atheist thinks he/she can explain it all with "empirical" scientific evidence.
Envy of what? After all, believing versus non-believing is a matter of free choice. I see no particular need for parties of any persuasion to “envy” parties of any other persuasion.
quote:It doesn't, so don't hold your breath!
If the grass looks greener on t’other side of the fence, hop over it.
quote:That is a very odd analogy. If you are claiming that belief in God is akin to the belief that rape can not lead to conception then I would have to reject your analogy - and not for the first time. Any law that was based upon the belief that rape can not result in conception would be demonstrably false and it would probably be universally harmful where it ever to be passed. However, belief in God isn't obviously false - at least not to the billions of believers that have existed, currently exist and will continue to exist long after we are pushing up daises - nor is it necessarily harmful to hold such a view. On the other side, atheism isn't obviously true, nor is it necessarily beneficial to believe.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but to SusanDoris, but with a largish mug of tea to hand, I can't forbear commenting.
What other people believe doesn't necessarily affect me. It's a little like the argument that other people getting (or not getting) married is somehow detrimental to one's own marriage.
Other people's actions may affect me, though. When other people believe (for example) that women are incapable of conceiving when they're raped, and attempt to pass or amend laws based on that belief, that law may affect me (and will certainly affect any woman who conceives from rape).
So in my case, I'd certainly want to see some statistical and empirically-based evidence for the belief that rape somehow automatically self-corrects against conception before I'd be willing to go along with any law based on that belief.
As long as belief remains a belief only, my other concern would be how widespread it might be, given that widespread beliefs probably have a greater propensity (through being socially reinforced) for affecting attitudes, and attitudes may affect actions -- in this case, whether a now-pregnant rape survivor is helped and supported in coping with the trauma she's experienced.
Again, though, the belief qua belief is of little concern to non-believers. It's only when the belief translates into actions / intential inactions that non-subscribers to said belief are likely to be affected.
quote:What is 'your usual atheist'?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I suspect there is some denial here, although your usual atheist would never admit this when it is put to them.
quote:See my post here.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:What is 'your usual atheist'?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I suspect there is some denial here, although your usual atheist would never admit this when it is put to them.
quote:I suppose it should be noted that being an atheist doesn't make you a Secular Humanist - that is a philosophy which an atheist consciously takes to himself, although this same philosophy is being rammed down the throats of school children both here and in the US all the time.
Originally posted by Squibs:
In short, divesting someone of their belief in God might make them happy Secular Humanists, but it might also make them selfish hedonists, morose nihilists or change them very little.
quote:Is it possible for you to offer direct responses to questions put to you? Could you respond to actual comments I've made, rather than to comments you apparently wish I'd made? Could you be slightly less oblique in your responses?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:The sort that join boards like this with the clear intention of rubbishing anyone who doesn't share their "enlightened" worldview. And in denial of what Squibs said of you. Others, including myself, have noticed the same thing.
Originally posted by Porridge:
I’d be interested to know what you think “usual” atheism consists of. And I’m not at all clear from your comment what you think a “usual atheist” is in denial of, exactly. Care to specify?
quote:As I said, these things are implied by you rather than said directly - so it is difficult to pin them down, but I think you know what I am talking about.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Is it possible for you to offer direct responses to questions put to you? Could you respond to actual comments I've made, rather than to comments you apparently wish I'd made? Could you be slightly less oblique in your responses?
For example:
1. Where have I rubbished someone (other than Richard Dawkins) else's beliefs?
2. Where have I claimed to possess an "enlightened" world view?
quote:HERE
3. Squibbs has said a fair number of things, though not all about me. Could you point me to the particular statement(s) you're referring to?
quote:see above
4. Which precise "same thing" have others (what others?), including you, noticed?
quote:I find it difficult to believe you can't work out what I am saying, but I don't want to argue about it on here.
I must confess that this discussion is becoming more and more like efforts to nail Jell-O to a tree.
quote:It most certainly is. That's one of several reasons I didn't attempt to make it. You might note that my post nowhere likens belief in God to a mistaken belief about conception and rape.
Originally posted by Squibs:
That is a very odd analogy.
quote:Since that is not what I am claiming, I'm happy to join you in rejecting the idea.
Originally posted by Squibs:
If you are claiming that belief in God is akin to the belief that rape can not lead to conception then I would have to reject your analogy - and not for the first time.
quote:I'm astonished that you've managed to learn so much about my beliefs, particularly as you seem not to read my posts. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain which one of my beliefs has negatively affected someone else, and when, and how.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Since no-one seems to want to stay on topic anymore, it's worth pointing out that YOUR beliefs, Porridge, can lead to actions which affect people - and this can be in a negative way.
quote:Really? Where did I claim to be a Communist -- not, BTW, a synonym for "atheist?" Where did I claim support for totalitarian regimes?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Communist Russia held the same beliefs about the world and life as you do (that is atheist), and look what they did to anyone who didn't agree with their ideology. Similar things happened in China under Mao.
quote:Yes, they were. Your point being . . . ? I've already stated that in my personal "ideology" (I think that's an overly-grand term for what I've got, but whatever), I don't regard it as my business to convert others to my way of thinking. What others believe is their own personal business; freedom of conscience can exist for individuals only insofar as it exists for all. In short, I lack most of the basic credentials for the role of big bad nasty totalitarian atheist dictator.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Individuals were named "enemies of the people", by the Soviets and sent to Gulags where they usually died, or otherwise they were put in front of a firing squad.
quote:You're losing me. Human rights are important to me. Human rights are not protected by depriving people of them. What are you on about?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I can imagine the same ultimately happening to people who don't take the same view as you do (and the powers that be) as regards human rights.
quote:Well, as I live cross-pond, I'm not familiar with the situations you reference. If I have had, however inadvertantly, a hand in any job losses or agency closures, I'm profoundly sorry for it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
We are already seeing people loose their jobs and adoption agencies being forced to close because of YOUR ideology.
quote:I haven't claimed that it's only people of faith whose actions occasionally deprive others of rights. Is there any single group of humans which has never oppressed any others? I doubt it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So it isn't just people of faith whose beliefs lead to actions which affect others, it is atheists as well.
quote:That'll be because it's been turned into straw and fashioned into the shape of a man.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Envy of a perceived peace in the believer's heart, even though the scientismist/atheist thinks he/she can explain it all with "empirical" scientific evidence.
quote:It doesn't, so don't hold your breath!
If the grass looks greener on t’other side of the fence, hop over it.
quote:There's a bit of a problem here. Yes the USSR was officially atheist, and they have that in common with Porridge, but that's not ALL they believed. They believed a heck of a lot more about the nature of the state and the individual's relationship to it, and that drove their behaviors.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Communist Russia held the same beliefs about the world and life as you do (that is atheist), and look what they did to anyone who didn't agree with their ideology.
quote:Finally!
Originally posted by Porridge:
I haven't claimed that it's only people of faith whose actions occasionally deprive others of rights. Is there any single group of humans which has never oppressed any others? I doubt it.
That's all I really wanted to get to.
quote:It's always atheism AND something else, mousethief, just the same as (in other counties) it's always theocracy AND something else.
Originally posted by mousethief:
For this criticism to stick, you'd have to be able to sort out which of the things they did were motivated PURELY by their atheism; anything that was motivated by atheism AND something else, if Porridge doesn't share that something else, is completely irrelevant to what Porridge might or might not do.
quote:Very quick response here. My apologies for misrepresenting your view. However, I think the majority of my previous post still stands. Indeed, just about everything from the 3rd sentence down.
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:It most certainly is. That's one of several reasons I didn't attempt to make it. You might note that my post nowhere likens belief in God to a mistaken belief about conception and rape...
Originally posted by Squibs:
That is a very odd analogy.
quote:That's a serious answer?!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:See my post here.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:What is 'your usual atheist'?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I suspect there is some denial here, although your usual atheist would never admit this when it is put to them.
quote:Anselmina, we're prettymuch done with this now, Porridge (to whom my answer was addressed) has acknowledged that the actions of people belonging to any belief system or ideology can have a negative impact on the rights of others. That's good enough for me.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
That's a serious answer?!
Looks more like one person's rather narrow and not very well informed attempt at pigeon-holing something they don't really understand that well.
Among my own atheist acquaintances and friends I've yet to come across one I would describe as 'usual'. What you're describing above is simply a typical human behaviour not actually tied into belief or non-belief at all.
quote:What a crock of condescending evasive shit. But it's clearly the best you can do.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Anselmina, we're prettymuch done with this now, Porridge (to whom my answer was addressed) has acknowledged that the actions of people belonging to any belief system or ideology can have a negative impact on the rights of others. That's good enough for me.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
That's a serious answer?!
Looks more like one person's rather narrow and not very well informed attempt at pigeon-holing something they don't really understand that well.
Among my own atheist acquaintances and friends I've yet to come across one I would describe as 'usual'. What you're describing above is simply a typical human behaviour not actually tied into belief or non-belief at all.
quote:Yes. So you have to show the murder spree comes from the atheism and not the something else. That atheism without that particular something else causes murder when it's joined with some other something else, which something else doesn't cause murder by itself.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It's always atheism AND something else, mousethief, just the same as (in other counties) it's always theocracy AND something else.
quote:Squibs, thank you very much; for me, that's the heart of a gracious and thoughtful response, and I deeply appreciate it.
Originally posted by Squibs:
My apologies for misrepresenting your view.
quote:It's not the best I can do, but what you want to talk about isn't our discussion at all - it doesn't even have much to do with the topic of the thread (remind me, what was that again...?)
Originally posted by Anselmina:
What a crock of condescending evasive shit. But it's clearly the best you can do.
So while it's not good enough for me and I'm not finished with what I thought was our discussion, I'll happily let you off the hook because I doubt you can do any better.
quote:Perhaps you could give us a sample or two of your best, then; I suspect several posters here would be grateful for those efforts.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It's not the best I can do,
quote:Out of curiosity, when did the OP Horseman Bree and/or the Purg hosts put you in charge of what does and does not belong in this thread?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
. . . but what you want to talk about isn't our discussion at all - it doesn't even have much to do with the topic of the thread (remind me, what was that again...?)
quote:Aha! You are wrong, it can.
Originally posted by Porridge:
MT, one major feature of Jell-O is its lack of points. If it's points you're after, you might have to look elsewhere.
quote:It sounds to me, George, like it's about time you started looking for peace and joy.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Concerning atheists being motivated by envy. I was a Christian for over twenty years and was miserable for the majority of the time. Just as I am for most of the time now I'm an atheist. So I have no reason to be envious of any supposed peace and joy.
quote:OK, I will - once we start talking about the subject of the thread. Does it matter that much what I meant by "your usual atheist"? It is just a stereotypical Richard Dawkins fanatic, who bores the pants off anyone who isn't of that mindset.
Originally posted by Porridge:
Perhaps you could give us a sample or two of your best, then; I suspect several posters here would be grateful for those efforts.
quote:Mark our bookshelves are currently groaning under the weight. I wouldn't be surprised if I'd read more Lewis than you have.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:It sounds to me, George, like it's about time you started looking for peace and joy.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Concerning atheists being motivated by envy. I was a Christian for over twenty years and was miserable for the majority of the time. Just as I am for most of the time now I'm an atheist. So I have no reason to be envious of any supposed peace and joy.
(You could start with C. S. Lewis: "Surprised by Joy.")
quote:"Pot... meet kettle!"
Originally posted by Porridge:
So now, in addition to misrepresenting others' views, refusing to answer direct questions, ignoring protests about your misrepresentations, and engaging in selective attention...
quote:Oh, dear.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:"Pot... meet kettle!"
Originally posted by Porridge:
So now, in addition to misrepresenting others' views, refusing to answer direct questions, ignoring protests about your misrepresentations, and engaging in selective attention...
quote:I didn't want to comment on this, because it is going to get on other peoples' nerves as well (including the real hosts) but seeing as you insist.... it's none of your business either.
Originally posted by Porridge:
And to repeat (in case your selective attention missed it first time around): When did the OP Horseman Bree and/or the Purg hosts put you in charge of what does and does not belong in this thread?
quote:You probably have George. I (sort of) said that as a joke - I like C. S. Lewis, but of course no-one should limit their quest for joy and peace to his works alone!
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Mark our bookshelves are currently groaning under the weight. I wouldn't be surprised if I'd read more Lewis than you have.
quote:SO, throwing oil on the flames: How much of what churches do is done just for the sake of doing it "because it works", and how much is "more than that"?
a small group of friends have come from High Wycombe in Buckinghamshire, hoping for inspiration. "We were just looking for ideas, whether something like this could work outside London," he says. Their verdict? "Some of the things I thought really wouldn't work, like the singing, were really good. Normally I hate singing."
Churches do a lot of what they do "because it works", he notes, "Atheists make a mistake to look at church and throw it all out just because they don't believe in God."
quote:Now this is interesting. Why would such people continue to attend church after it starts to become unfashionable, and all their friends start disappearing from the pews? Is this what is happening currently?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...After all, a lot of people go to church because it is "what one does" or because they like the music or because the community works, but don't pay much attention to the religious aspect.
quote:Not really. If you roll back to one of my previous posts you will find a link to a radio program featuring the afore mentioned Minister, David Robertson, in discussion with one of the founders, Sanderson Jones (which is a great name). The same show also featured a certain Simon Jenkins - who just so happens to be one of the founders (or the founder?) of this very same site.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The Guardian has a report of the next event, with, just a bit oddly, commentary from a Church of Scotland minister in Dundee,
quote:Aha! I think you've unintentionally hit the nail on the head there. Churches which try to "be relevant" offer pulpit "jokes" and pop music and other entertainment, but usually it is of poor quality. Secular entertainment will (usually) be of much better quality, so if that sort of thing is all some people go to church for, well, DUH!! (no disrespect)
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
What can the Christian churches learn from this? I imagine that the atheist speakers are of high quality, enthusiastic, well prepared and don't speak down to their listeners. With the founders being experienced comedians, I'd expect the jokes to be well above usual pulpit quality! The use of well-known popular songs is a great trick, and I wonder why churches with worship bands don't consider doing that sometimes. It would require making careful choices, and occasionally changing some of the words. I don't know about the legal side of all this, but if the atheist church can do it, why can't 'real' churches?
quote:When I stopped looking outside of myself for the source of peace and joy, there seemed only one other obvious place to look. On the whole, I haven't been disappointed -- although I've appreciated* many contributions from fellow atheists who have given me tips on how best to conduct the search. So, when the hoohah has died down and the publicity-seeking stand-up comedians have gone home, this atheist 'church' might have something of lasting value to offer.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Concerning atheists being motivated by envy. I was a Christian for over twenty years and was miserable for the majority of the time. Just as I am for most of the time now I'm an atheist. So I have no reason to be envious of any supposed peace and joy.
quote:The idea that church often fails by offering a poor quality experience isn't an original one, actually. However, this problem isn't just connected with churches that 'try to imitate secular entertainment', but also with MOTR churches. My own experience is that MOTR churches that try to offer a 'traditional' worship experience on a small budget may fail to match up to what better resourced congregations can offer in this respect, which puts them at a disadvantage.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I think you've unintentionally hit the nail on the head there. Churches which try to "be relevant" offer pulpit "jokes" and pop music and other entertainment, but usually it is of poor quality. Secular entertainment will (usually) be of much better quality, so if that sort of thing is all some people go to church for, well, DUH!! (no disrespect)
IMHO Christian churches should learn one thing and one thing only from this - DON'T try to be like this. DON'T try to imitate secular entertainment, because you'll never be as good as the real thing. Instead of looking for "new ways of being church", try reverting back to just BEING church again, rather than second rate entertainment!
quote:Well, there you go - that's a start! But this consuming hunger needs to be in the church leaders first and foremostly, to affect the rest of the church.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
...As for 'just BEING church again', the question is, what does this mean? My own sense is that our churches lack holiness. There isn't a consuming hunger for God's transforming presence.
quote:OK, but there are things which the Church should offer, which the state and entertainment CANNOT compete with.
It's a challenge; the state satisfies many of our basic needs, and the entertainment industry, our desire for amusement. IMHO, then, the church ought to compensate, if you like, by being MORE holy, MORE spiritual, MORE infused with God than in previous eras, when the church could rely on these other attributes to attract people. Yet instead, our churches seems to be less so. To be fair, this isn't a new problem. But without a deep well of spirituality, along with the opportunity for self-transformation or self-realisation, it's difficult to see how the church can compete against so many other options.
quote:Yes - a lot of people will have turned up due to curiosity. I would have gone if I'd lived in travelling distance, just to see what I thought.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
I was just thinking: it looks like this had great attendance.the first time. I wonder how many people will show up to the fifteenth meeting, or the thirtieth, or the one hundredth.
quote:Oh yes, so do I! Anything which improves community spirit, especially in a big city. I wish them all the best.
I wonder if (honestly, I hope that) this will have more staying power and can bring some community to these people's lives.
quote:There seems to be a degree of tension and ambiguity concerning whether the clergy (in particular) are meant to lead the wider church, or whether the wider church should be leading the clergy. What the clergy would, and often do say is that congregations often prevent, or try to prevent them from pursuing the visions that they may have. It seems to be a constant refrain!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This consuming hunger needs to be in the church leaders first and foremostly, to affect the rest of the church.
quote:A minister was lamenting that his elderly congregation's average spiritual age was about 12. I asked why the many years of attending church hadn't taken them into maturity. There was no reply.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
There seems to be a degree of tension and ambiguity concerning whether the clergy (in particular) are meant to lead the wider church, or whether the wider church should be leading the clergy. What the clergy would, and often do say is that congregations often prevent, or try to prevent them from pursuing the visions that they may have. It seems to be a constant refrain!
(I wonder how the atheist church is dealing with the leadership issue?)
quote:Sounds like and interesting story!
Originally posted by Bostonman:
II'm fairly sympathetic because my turn back to Christianity was via secular humanism (oddly enough).
quote:Jesus would have approved, yes?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A minister was lamenting that his elderly congregation's average spiritual age was about 12.
quote:What it usually means is that the congregation lacks spiritual maturity, and has shown very little sign of spiritual growth. This is usually taken to be problematic, especially if we claim that the life of faith is a 'journey'. It doesn't mean that the congregation has the faith of a child, which would presumably be a good thing!
Originally posted by kankucho:
Thank you, Boogie. I'd been wondering why that was meant to be a bad thing. Not just me then?
quote:Church life as we know it tends to discourage 'awkward questions', which means that church life becomes dominated by certain personality types. It's not necessarily a question of churches laying down the law, but creating a certain environment via their structures and practices. While the clergy complain about traditionally-minded, non-reflective congregations, the fact is that the whole set-up is geared towards perpetuating a certain dependency and narrow-mindedness. Some individuals are nurtured to become preachers, clergy, and theologians, but as for the others, if they gain any knowledge or insights, they're expected to keep such things to themselves. This creates the sense that such things aren't all that important.
Originally posted by kankucho:
These are adults. They have been adults for a very long time and have had plenty of time to ask awkward questions. What have they been doing in between Sundays for all that time? Surely a pastor can't have kept them dumb all this time without their willing participation?
quote:Now this IS a problem with the Western Church, but it is nothing new - it has been around since the Reformation, and is all connected with the question of Authority.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
IMO the clergy/laity divide is a problem, as is the dominance of preaching. But it looks as though only the near collapse of Western Christianity will force the church to question these sacred cows. So be it.
quote:You appear to be normalizing your own experience again.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
sermons are few
quote:I don't think it is simple as that. Trusting God like a child trusts its parents is one thing, but Jesus also complained of lack of understanding in his disciples viz Mark 8
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Jesus would have approved, yes?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A minister was lamenting that his elderly congregation's average spiritual age was about 12.
quote:And this is in line with Paul's observation that we need to move on from milk to solid food.
Now the disciples had forgotten to bring any bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, ‘Watch out—beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.’ They said to one another, ‘It is because we have no bread.’ And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?’ They said to him, ‘Twelve.’ ‘And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?’ And they said to him, ‘Seven.’ Then he said to them, ‘Do you not yet understand?
quote:I agree with you observations in your last two posts, and not only what I have quoted here. In life in general we are expected to have our own opinions and to contribute to the development of our professions etc.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
IMO the clergy/laity divide is a problem, as is the dominance of preaching. But it looks as though only the near collapse of Western Christianity will force the church to question these sacred cows. So be it.
quote:Lets revisit that thought after 50 years and a schisms or two.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Perhaps in the atheist church people are allowed to contribute and voice their thoughts.
quote:I really don't care what will be happening in 50 years. They can all, including the religious institutions, pass away as long as love remains. I will leave the future to the Holy Spirit. If something is good and useful now then I support it.
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:Lets revisit that thought after 50 years and a schisms or two.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Perhaps in the atheist church people are allowed to contribute and voice their thoughts.
quote:I wonder how people would respond to this. It may need a very different format (more time? circular seating?)i but could actually be a really effective way to do a sermon.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I agree with your point: nowhere now, not even in schools, are people expected to listen to a monologue in silence, and then go home with their questions or concerns unaddressed. If people are trained to do this week in, week out, it's hardly surprising that they don't want to do anything much more taxing. Some churches have small groups, which are probably of varying quality, but in any case, they're subordinate to the 'real' event, which happens on Sunday mornings.
quote:I don´t think a service without preaching, or with just a greeting from the bishop is a serious advantage for these churches (assuming this is actually how it´s done). After all, why do we need a trained priest to lead the service, if all he is going to do is read texts.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Now this IS a problem with the Western Church, but it is nothing new - it has been around since the Reformation, and is all connected with the question of Authority.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
IMO the clergy/laity divide is a problem, as is the dominance of preaching. But it looks as though only the near collapse of Western Christianity will force the church to question these sacred cows. So be it.
Here's where the Eastern (Orthodox) Church differs, there is much less of a divide between clergy and laity, sermons are few (most likely a greeting from the Bishop which is read out), and ALL are under the Authority of Holy Tradition.
quote:It´s good that the church gives its members oportunity to ask their questions, but I don´t like the idea of the sunday service becoming a debate. Also, that´s not very practical for services that are attended by a big number of folks.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Latchkey Kid
Yes, I have to say, when I first came across these criticisms, I was struck by how much sense they made to me. They also seem to be relevant to a range of other assessments about the sociological and psychological context of our churches.
I agree with your point: nowhere now, not even in schools, are people expected to listen to a monologue in silence, and then go home with their questions or concerns unaddressed. If people are trained to do this week in, week out, it's hardly surprising that they don't want to do anything much more taxing. Some churches have small groups, which are probably of varying quality, but in any case, they're subordinate to the 'real' event, which happens on Sunday mornings.
quote:Because we believe the eucharist really means something. You don't need to have ordained clergy to preach sermons.
Originally posted by gorpo:
why do we need a trained priest to lead the service, if all he is going to do is read texts.
quote:Perhaps they will take their example from the Buddhists who have, I believe, a law of schism. When a schism occurs the majority stay and the minority go and start a new monastery. Much more amicable and Christian than the church heresy wars.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:I really don't care what will be happening in 50 years. They can all, including the religious institutions, pass away as long as love remains. I will leave the future to the Holy Spirit. If something is good and useful now then I support it.
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:Lets revisit that thought after 50 years and a schisms or two.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Perhaps in the atheist church people are allowed to contribute and voice their thoughts.
quote:An atheist schism? What will be the reason? Will one group say to the other, "You do not disbelieve in anything in quite the same way we disbelieve in anything?"
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:Lets revisit that thought after 50 years and a schisms or two.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Perhaps in the atheist church people are allowed to contribute and voice their thoughts.
quote:It rather reminds me of an all-employee meeting at work, where we have to sit and listen to an hour of boring business talk, most of which is not even relevant to me personally. At the end, I'm dying to get out of there, when the speaker asks, "Does anyone have any questions?"
Originally posted by gorpo:
It´s good that the church gives its members oportunity to ask their questions, but I don´t like the idea of the sunday service becoming a debate. Also, that´s not very practical for services that are attended by a big number of folks.
quote:This is because in Eastern Orthodoxy, liturgy is given far more importance than the individual opinions of a preacher which you may or may not agree with.
Originally posted by gorpo:
I don´t think a service without preaching, or with just a greeting from the bishop is a serious advantage for these churches (assuming this is actually how it´s done). After all, why do we need a trained priest to lead the service, if all he is going to do is read texts.
quote:Nor to have a eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion in some churches.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because we believe the eucharist really means something. You don't need to have ordained clergy to preach sermons.
Originally posted by gorpo:
why do we need a trained priest to lead the service, if all he is going to do is read texts.
quote:There are ways and means for this to be done. The congregation could be arranged in groups who discuss the sermon among themselves. I once read of a service somewhere in Africa where the preacher was unable to speak to the whole congregation, so he preached to a small team separately while the rest sang hymns and prayed. His team then went out and shared the message, the congregation having been split into groups beforehand. There was probably some kind of feedback at the end.
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:It´s good that the church gives its members oportunity to ask their questions, but I don´t like the idea of the sunday service becoming a debate. Also, that´s not very practical for services that are attended by a big number of folks.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Nowhere now, not even in schools, are people expected to listen to a monologue in silence, and then go home with their questions or concerns unaddressed. If people are trained to do this week in, week out, it's hardly surprising that they don't want to do anything much more taxing. Some churches have small groups, which are probably of varying quality, but in any case, they're subordinate to the 'real' event, which happens on Sunday mornings.
quote:Actually I think the atheist church does have a 'message' - I suppose it would be the "gospel" of Secular Humanism. That's not a message I would subscribe to, of course, but "atheism" itself, generally speaking, knows nothing of good nor bad without some sort of philosophy to go with it.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The atheist church doesn't really have a 'message' as such, so this doesn't matter for them. But it should matter to Christians.....
quote:Ha! We're back to that big question about Authority again. I think we'd need a new thread to discuss that properly, or resurrect one from DH.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Nor to have a eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion in some churches.
quote:That was actually a joke. But it should be noted that some atheists tell us they don't believe in God while others are keen to point out that they lack belief in God. It's the latter definition that appears to have arisen in recent times - possibly because it doesn't require as much justification as the former. Aside from this, I would point to the rise (and fall?) of the Atheism+ movement as being the type of thing that could qualify, at least in broad brush terms, as schismatic in nature.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:An atheist schism? What will be the reason? Will one group say to the other, "You do not disbelieve in anything in quite the same way we disbelieve in anything?"
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:Lets revisit that thought after 50 years and a schisms or two.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Perhaps in the atheist church people are allowed to contribute and voice their thoughts.
Atheism is not a belief system, they do not have a belief system. It is the lack of a belief system which makes them atheists.
quote:That's their look-out. If you don't need ordained clergy to preach OR to have eucharist, then you don't need ordained clergy at all, seems to me.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:Nor to have a eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion in some churches.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because we believe the eucharist really means something. You don't need to have ordained clergy to preach sermons.
Originally posted by gorpo:
why do we need a trained priest to lead the service, if all he is going to do is read texts.
quote:Anglicanism?
Originally posted by Chorister:
I wonder what a more quiet, serious, thoughtful atheist church aimed at introverts would look like?
quote:I can't really imagine what 'plain attendance' means in terms of going to church to worship God. I've always thought that the day I go to church to attend only, is the day I stop going to church.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I wouldn't want a debate in worship either. Sharing your experience or understanding isn't debate.
But nor do I like the idea of plain attendance.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:Anglicanism?
Originally posted by Chorister:
I wonder what a more quiet, serious, thoughtful atheist church aimed at introverts would look like?
--Tom Clune
Nice one Tom! (only jesting)
quote:A better question to ask would be "What does this 'church' have to offer for white 30-somethings who have been reasonably successful in life, but at this time are at a crisis point?"
Originally posted by Chorister:
The Atheist Church, to summarise several posters above, is for white 30-somethings who are reasonably successful in life, and not at a moment of crisis.
)
quote:It would also be interesting to see how Porridge deals with it.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:A better question to ask would be "What does this 'church' have to offer for white 30-somethings who have been reasonably successful in life, but at this time are at a crisis point?"
Originally posted by Chorister:
The Atheist Church, to summarise several posters above, is for white 30-somethings who are reasonably successful in life, and not at a moment of crisis.
quote:Some do. Some don't.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That's their look-out. If you don't need ordained clergy to preach OR to have eucharist, then you don't need ordained clergy at all, seems to me.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:Nor to have a eucharist/Lord's Supper/Communion in some churches.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because we believe the eucharist really means something. You don't need to have ordained clergy to preach sermons.
Originally posted by gorpo:
why do we need a trained priest to lead the service, if all he is going to do is read texts.
quote:Sharing your experience or understanding sounds a lot like what evangelicals do in their testimonials during the service. But I suppose that´s not what you want.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I wouldn't want a debate in worship either. Sharing your experience or understanding isn't debate.
But nor do I like the idea of plain attendance.
quote:In that case, the priest wouldn´t need to be trained, but merely ordained. As the understanding of the celebrant has nothing do to with the validity of the sacrament, at least is what they teach us in out western churches.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Because we believe the eucharist really means something. You don't need to have ordained clergy to preach sermons.
Originally posted by gorpo:
why do we need a trained priest to lead the service, if all he is going to do is read texts.
quote:Well, if they are at a point of crisis, a bunch of friends (which they might find there) can be helpful.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:A better question to ask would be "What does this 'church' have to offer for white 30-somethings who have been reasonably successful in life, but at this time are at a crisis point?"
Originally posted by Chorister:
The Atheist Church, to summarise several posters above, is for white 30-somethings who are reasonably successful in life, and not at a moment of crisis.
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
quote:Sharing your experience or understanding sounds a lot like what evangelicals do in their testimonials during the service. But I suppose that´s not what you want.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I wouldn't want a debate in worship either. Sharing your experience or understanding isn't debate.
But nor do I like the idea of plain attendance.
quote:I'm not sure A+ is schismatic or the group that feels they are despicable. It probably depends on which is larger. Personally I would side with the A+ group. And then there is the debate, far less heated, between religious naturalism and religious humanism. And officially many followers of Ayn Rand, objectivists, are atheists though many atheists disagree fervently with Rand's views.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, the A+ movement shows every sign of being schismatic within atheism. It seems to add various ideas to 'not believing in God', such as feminism, various humanistic ideas, and so on.
Probably inevitable really. Who knew that Elevatorgate would lead so far?
quote:That looks very interesting. Completely new to me! A kind of magnified 'how to be a good citizen' course. Or a quasi-religious identification with a particular set of beliefs governing one's behaviour and choices.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
BTW in Norway and Iceland, humanists organize secular confirmation preparation and ceremonies (Norway has done it for over 60 years).
quote:But you're an ordained minister, aren't you? For you, sitting quietly in church represents a break from the norm (as for the attenders at the atheist church, I expect). But for most churchgoers it's entirely normative, and they're not expected to do anything else. I don't think it's a comparable situation.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Personally, I like - as a worshipper - to have an opportunity to sit back and listen to (hopefully) a thoughtful ten minute or so reflection of the scripture for that day's worship. If I feel the need to express my views to anyone or join in a discussion about it, no doubt I could organize a Bible study or home group or seminar.
quote:No, but this humanist confirmation course is much more than simply ethics. It isn't what you'd normally call "satanic", but it would teach you to reject God and believe in a naturalistic source of all things (this is what they mean by "critical thinking" - if the youngsters don't submit to it they fail the course.)
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Oh come on, learning a bit of ethics isn't the work of the Devil.
quote:I dare say it could be - but that would be the last thing which the instructors of the course intended.
If anything, the values of love etc. can be a pathway into Christianity for many people. Seed-bearing logos and all that, anyway.
quote:Objectively, why is that a problem? So it doesn't accord with your own belief system. Neither, presumably, do the things taught in mosques, synagogues. Are all those things 'satanic' too?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:No, but this humanist confirmation course is much more than simply ethics. It isn't what you'd normally call "satanic", but it would teach you to reject God and believe in a naturalistic source of all things (this is what they mean by "critical thinking" - if the youngsters don't submit to it they fail the course.)
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Oh come on, learning a bit of ethics isn't the work of the Devil.
quote:Some might discover that this fresh approach to ethics steers them back to a religious faith which shares them, of which Christianity is one. Others may realise that the ethics they learn are self-evident and don't need to be qualified with 'God says so'. From the way you present it, I infer that you find this possibility undesirable, maybe even a bit unnerving.
I dare say it could be [a pathway into Christianity for many people] - but that would be the last thing which the instructors of the course intended.
quote:As a student, I would absolutely hope it were the last thing the instructors intended. I'd feel distinctly swindled if it were otherwise!
I dare say it could be [a pathway into Christianity for many people] - but that would be the last thing which the instructors of the course intended.
quote:You are missing my point. What you say above is correct, if we are talking about the meaning of "critical thinking" in it's strict sense. However, when people like Richard Dawkins and other atheists/humanists (including most likely this Norwegian group) use the term, they usually mean that christian teaching is wrong, their teaching is correct and must be accepted without question.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
"Critical thinking" is not synonymous with naturalism. If the prevailing culture is naturalistic, critical thinking means questioning how realistic that assumption is.
quote:You are missing the context in which I present these things. I am considering a youngster (older than 15) who has decided that the humanistic teaching he/she was confirmed with is no longer acceptable to him/her. This young person has gone on to search for a better way and now wants to join a church. So, you see, to the youngster and the church they want to join, it is a problem - also, in Baptism, "the devil and all his works" has always been in the liturgy. I didn't make it up.
Originally posted by kankucho:
Objectively, why is that a problem? So it doesn't accord with your own belief system. Neither, presumably, do the things taught in mosques, synagogues. Are all those things 'satanic' too?
quote:I should hope he would say something like "you're not ready yet." Otherwise he shouldn't be a Rev.
I never completed my CoE confirmation classes. But I suspect that, had I emerged from them declaring a belief in a naturalistic source of all things, the rev would have discreetly suggested that perhaps I wasn't really confirmation material.
quote:No. I'm speaking from a lifetime's experience of being a lay-person. I wasn't ordained till I was 34, and I've felt this way about worship since I was a child. And I don't believe it's abnormal to participate in worship through presence, reflection, and the simple fellowship of being together listening, singing and speaking together. (So, no it can't be done at home, either, because the congregation aren't there, nor the sacrament.)
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:But you're an ordained minister, aren't you? For you, sitting quietly in church represents a break from the norm (as for the attenders at the atheist church, I expect). But for most churchgoers it's entirely normative, and they're not expected to do anything else. I don't think it's a comparable situation.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Personally, I like - as a worshipper - to have an opportunity to sit back and listen to (hopefully) a thoughtful ten minute or so reflection of the scripture for that day's worship. If I feel the need to express my views to anyone or join in a discussion about it, no doubt I could organize a Bible study or home group or seminar.
quote:Thanks for explaining that.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I wasn't ordained till I was 34, and I've felt this way about worship since I was a child.
quote:I don't go to church to be coerced either, so we can agree on that! But I suppose that for me, always being told when to stand up, sit down, sing, pray, listen, etc. etc. does feel rather like coercion sometimes!
I've never found it worshipful to be coerced into debate and made to do small-group work or jump through activity-style hoops simply for the satisfaction of a creative worship-leader, or even in the sincere belief that having mentally exhausted the congregation one has provided a more challenging and enriching encounter with God.
quote:For me, the problem isn't that I want to put my 'clever ideas' centre stage, but why only one other person is allowed to put theirs centre stage! Are they inevitably cleverer and more godly than everyone else? What about mutual edification? I can be with God anywhere, and I don't need to go to church to rest in his presence, but I do need the church for advice and support about how to follow and serve him better.
If we really are unable to praise God for one hour without dragging in our own frantic desire to place our clever ideas at the centre of the stage then I feel there's quite a bit more work to be done on the 'being' with God and others bit. I'm not saying we shouldn't do something different every now and then. But it might surprize us how many people, who attend apparently non-participative worship, actually know very well what they're doing, why they're there, and valuing it.
quote:Check!
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is often the case that when I find out what "god" these people say they don't believe in, I don't believe in that "god" either.
quote:Me too, MT. Odd, that.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is often the case that when I find out what "god" these people say they don't believe in, I don't believe in that "god" either.
quote:Yes - I agree with both false assumptions. Has anyone told Sanderson Jones yet? Do you think he'd listen?
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
There was an interesting interview today with one of the leaders of this 'atheist church' on the BBC Radio2 Jeremy Vine Show.
There were two false assumptions on which he based his rejection of religion. He had the idea that belief in the afterlife removed an appreciation of the wondrous world we live in and of living fully day by day; and he thought that religious people helped others because God told them to, rather than because they care/are kind/ love them. Both are far from the truth.
quote:Could the Bishop be right?
From the above article:
The Sunday Assembly certainly did better business than at the evangelical St Jude and St Paul's Church next door, where about 30 believers gathered to sing gospel songs and listen to Bible readings.
But Bishop Harrison, a Christian preacher for 30 years, says he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God.
"They have got to start from somewhere," he says.
quote:Me too.
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
quote:Me too, MT. Odd, that.
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is often the case that when I find out what "god" these people say they don't believe in, I don't believe in that "god" either.
*Sigh*
quote:Despite all the faults of the Corinthian church I don't think Paul is suggesting a compromise in
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:For me, the problem isn't that I want to put my 'clever ideas' centre stage, but why only one other person is allowed to put theirs centre stage! Are they inevitably cleverer and more godly than everyone else? What about mutual edification? I can be with God anywhere, and I don't need to go to church to rest in his presence, but I do need the church for advice and support about how to follow and serve him better.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
If we really are unable to praise God for one hour without dragging in our own frantic desire to place our clever ideas at the centre of the stage
quote:I think Bishop Robinson sounds like he wants to show this (community) image of God - in the form of a welcoming community. Maybe he's also the best person to gently let Sanderson Jones know about his two fundamentally wrong assumptions which he bases his disbelief on. He sounds like a nice guy.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
In these days when we live in many disconnected communities I find it a shame that the community aspect of church is often neglected, at least in my experience. So unless the neighbouring evangelical church shows the (community) image of God in their community those in the Atheist church, whom we are told are looking for community, will have to find their way to God another way.
quote:It was fairly new to me also. I suspect it arose because confirmation was/is a big item in Norway (and also IIRC a legal requirement at one time) and non-religious people wanted something equivalent. Note that the proportion that go through the humanist confirmation is far larger than the proportion who are declared humanists (about 15% of 15 year olds do the humanist confirmation and about 1.7% of Norwegians are officially humanists [though with 80,000+ they are the largest humanist group in the world that is affiliated with the IHEU]).
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:That looks very interesting. Completely new to me! A kind of magnified 'how to be a good citizen' course. Or a quasi-religious identification with a particular set of beliefs governing one's behaviour and choices.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
BTW in Norway and Iceland, humanists organize secular confirmation preparation and ceremonies (Norway has done it for over 60 years).
From where I sit, and despite the reassurances that there is no 'dogma' involved it actually looks fairly dogmatic in application. Eg, presumably if a candidate doesn't complete the couse, have at least general agreement with the teaching, and observe the ceremonies they won't be confirmed?
But that's not a criticism of the process. That's simply human nature. It's impressively well organized and it would be interesting to hear how it has positively impacted those particular societies over the years it's been operating?
quote:Yes. The Secular Humanist line put forward by Greg Epstein et al. ("Good without God") holds that a humanist is anyone who does good and doesn't do bad not because of the fear of divine punishment but because of the innate dignity of other people.
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
There was an interesting interview today with one of the leaders of this 'atheist church' on the BBC Radio2 Jeremy Vine Show.
There were two false assumptions on which he based his rejection of religion. He had the idea that belief in the afterlife removed an appreciation of the wondrous world we live in and of living fully day by day; and he thought that religious people helped others because God told them to, rather than because they care/are kind/ love them. Both are far from the truth.
quote:You make some very good points. Thank you for the food for thought!
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
For me, the problem isn't that I want to put my 'clever ideas' centre stage, but why only one other person is allowed to put theirs centre stage! Are they inevitably cleverer and more godly than everyone else? What about mutual edification? I can be with God anywhere, and I don't need to go to church to rest in his presence, but I do need the church for advice and support about how to follow and serve him better.
quote:"The innate value of proactive value-oriented living?" Poor, childish elderly people held prisoner by evil ideas? Gawd, what smug tosh.
...But they are attitudes encouraged by certain religious institutions (see the earlier discussion on clerics wilfully keeping their elderly congregations in a childish spiritual state). Such people never get to fully appreciate either their lives or the life-enhancing properties of their religion. But that's an abuse of religion, just as it is an abuse of humanism to disregard the innate value of proactive value-oriented living.
quote:I thought you'd enjoy it!
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Mark Bets
T
Thank you for posting the link, which I have read.
quote:I just thought I'd come back to make reference to Frank Viola's concept of organic church, which he explains in his books 'Pagan Christianity?' and 'Reimagining Church'. My thoughts about the restrictive nature of church life, and the alternative, owe quite a bit to these books. As to where one might find examples of organic church - that's the challenge! Viola's also written a DIY guide to help people develop this themselves. I suspect that eventually this sort of advice will be vital in communities where traditional forms of church life have virtually collapsed.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'd be interested to know [...] where one can find a church where the congregation aren't given some instructions? Singing together, speaking together, praying together - wouldn't one assume these were kind of basic elements for community worship? It'd be a kind of a mess if people did their own thing in their own time in the one space! I suppose when I say I don't want to be coerced into anything, I mean there are certain things I find unworshipful that I don't want to be told to do. Which makes me like everyone else, I suppose!
And yes, there should be mutual edification. But how that is defined is debateable. Latchkey Kid sets out Paul's agenda. And some of us have moved away from that, to our cost. Maybe Atheist church will not fall into that trap?
I should say that there are times - for novelty's sake - it's refreshing to have something very different in worship, involving actions and participation of a different sort. Fresh Expressions is no doubt a good example of that.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
More fun!
The church of the non-believers
The above article is about the second "service" at the Atheist church. Yet more gushing praise and fawning from the secular media, as you might expect.
quote:Fun: maybe. But, as Freddie Mercury's paean to his ultimately self-destructive hedonism, it's an unfortunate choice of 'hymn' if it's meant to epitomise what the movement is all about.
From the above:
The nearly 300 people who gathered at a former church in north London this weekend opened their Sunday Assembly with a full-throated rendition of the Queen karaoke classic Don’t Stop Me Now, with its chorus “Yes I’m having a good time/I don’t wanna stop at all”. Whatever your religious stance you have to admit that sounds more fun than miming I Vow To Thee My Country.
quote:What "awkward questions" did you have in mind?
Originally posted by kankucho
However, these are adults. They have been adults for a very long time and have had plenty of time to ask awkward questions. What have they been doing in between Sundays for all that time? Surely a pastor can't have kept them dumb all this time without their willing participation?
quote:I am not on a crusade. The detestable enormity the likes of a crusade is certainly doesn't fit with my saying here. I am merely asserting that these people, bless them, don't have church in their lives but desperately feel something missing without knowing what it is.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Risking a censure for junior hosting, you might want to take a look at the 10 Commandments of the boards, Indifferently. Give #8 a particularly hard look.
quote:What a ridiculous assertion. Most youth are not doing these things on a Sunday morning (though I'll bow to your personal experience if this is what you know for a fact most of the young people known to you do!). Everyone knows they're too busy recovering from the alcohol-drenched, crime-ridden orgies of the night before.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Which is far better than what most youth do on Sunday mornings, which is smoke cannabis and watch blasphemous films.
quote:First you let women into church without hats, then all hell breaks lose- murderers, single mothers, and people who whistle on the Sabbath.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:What a ridiculous assertion. Most youth are not doing these things on a Sunday morning (though I'll bow to your personal experience if this is what you know for a fact most of the young people known to you do!). Everyone knows they're too busy recovering from the alcohol-drenched, crime-ridden orgies of the night before.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Which is far better than what most youth do on Sunday mornings, which is smoke cannabis and watch blasphemous films.
quote:And a Junior Host is someone who pops up and thinks they know better than the hosts and can't wait for the hosts to step in.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Round here, a crusader is one who shows up in multiple threads pitching a tantrum about the same thing, which is precisely what you are doing.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
First you let women into church without hats, then all hell breaks lose- murderers, single mothers, and people who whistle on the Sabbath.
quote:God is alive and well and his Holy Spirit is leading us into all truth, including the importance of feminism in liberating women to live their lives fully in the image of God, the necessity of gay rights after a long period of oppression, the need for 'political correctness' because it counters the telling of lies which is forbidden in the 10 Commandments and the need for secularism to keep in check corrupt churches.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
This was bound to en. Militant secularism and political correctness, feminism and 'gay' rights have done their level best to kill God, but he lives, and his hand is open to all men. He made us to glorify him, and loves us unconditionally.
quote:Well, if women would just humble themselves and go back to wearing hats for church, half of our problems would be resolved immediately.
Originally posted by leo:
God is alive and well and his Holy Spirit is leading us into all truth, including the importance of feminism in liberating women to live their lives fully in the image of God, the necessity of gay rights after a long period of oppression, the need for 'political correctness' because it counters the telling of lies which is forbidden in the 10 Commandments and the need for secularism to keep in check corrupt churches.
He does all this because he loves us unconditionally.
quote:I do hope you are being sarcastic, but something tells me you aren't.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Well, if women would just humble themselves and go back to wearing hats for church, half of our problems would be resolved immediately.
Originally posted by leo:
God is alive and well and his Holy Spirit is leading us into all truth, including the importance of feminism in liberating women to live their lives fully in the image of God, the necessity of gay rights after a long period of oppression, the need for 'political correctness' because it counters the telling of lies which is forbidden in the 10 Commandments and the need for secularism to keep in check corrupt churches.
He does all this because he loves us unconditionally.
quote:Relax Niteowl - I'm jesting!
Originally posted by Niteowl:
I do hope you are being sarcastic, but something tells me you aren't.
quote:They've done their best to get rid of a homophobic, sexist, racist God of the respectable middle class, and good riddance.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
This was bound to en. Militant secularism and political correctness, feminism and 'gay' rights have done their level best to kill God, but he lives, and his hand is open to all men. He made us to glorify him, and loves us unconditionally.
quote:Actually, a good proportion of them are probably out playing football. The churches have in the main positioned themselves in a place of utter irrelevance which most people only visit for hatch match and despatch or as a tourist attraction, along the lines of other icons of a bygone age like castles and museums, and having about as much to do with their daily lives as Jethro Tull's seed drill or a two-handed broadsword.
So many in this country have grown up estranged from God, and they are grasping in the darkness looking for him. Hence we have the Atheist church. Which is far better than what most youth do on Sunday mornings, which is smoke cannabis and watch blasphemous films.
quote:How dare you. Some of the best films ever made were blasphemous.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Which is far better than what most youth do on Sunday mornings, which is smoke cannabis and watch blasphemous films.
quote:Its worse than that mate! Some of them even go dancing
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Which is far better than what most youth do on Sunday mornings, which is smoke cannabis and watch blasphemous films.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
From the above article:
David Robertson, director of the Solas Centre for Public Christianity and a Free Church of Scotland minister in Dundee, is also doubtful. "I can understand why the format of church would be very appealing," he says, "but I do think it's going to appeal only to one particular section of the community" – what he calls "a middle-class cultural elite".
quote:I think I might know....
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
where are the weirdos?
quote:Enlighten us then.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:I think I might know....
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
where are the weirdos?
quote:I'm surprised that the Americans need an Englishman's advice on doing this, because they already have humanist fellowships in some places. But it'll be interesting to see how they do in the rest of the UK.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Latest - including a brief review on how the 3rd Sunday Assembly went:
Britain's 'atheist church' set to go global
So it's confirmed that there are indeed a lot of young, white, middle-class academic atheists in London and elsewhere who are interested in Sanderson's venture - at least until they get bored, or the entertainment starts to lose its edge, or the next craze for "things to do in an academic's spare time" comes along.
quote:Do they limit their speakers to atheists? Anyhow, since that well known authority on atheist gatherings, Mark Betts, said they wouldn't last six months, the shortage of entertainers seems unlikely to be a problem.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
As "Church" is an English word for a Christian religious institution or building, we should really be using "scare quotes" whenever we refer to these assemblies of atheists. So it should be Atheist "church" - note small 'C' as well.
Anyway, as these "churches" for middle-class white atheist academics rely heavily on good entertainers and science lecturers, I can't see them expanding very far without the quality taking a nosedive - there are only so many talented and interesting personalities available - and they are by no means all atheist, and it seems even to try and run the Islington Assembly on a weekly basis would be its downfall.
quote:But ... what did atheists worship in those places of worship back in Anglo-Saxon times?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I know you can't take them TOO seriously, but the Oxford English Dictionary says the word has been used for non-Christian places of worship since 893. Note that's three digits, not four.
quote:But ... what did atheists worship in those non-Christian places of worship back in Anglo-Saxon times?
Originally posted by mousethief:
I know you can't take them TOO seriously, but the Oxford English Dictionary says the word has been used for non-Christian places of worship since 893. Note that's three digits, not four.
quote:"Church" is theistic. The word derives via the common Germanic *kirikon (church/kirk/Kirche/etc) from the Greek word kyriakos - meaning "belonging to the Lord". You might be thinking of ekklesia - the word for "church" used in the New Testament. That is not the origin of our English word "church".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They didn't. It comes from the Greek meaning a gathering of citizens from a town. So it is a non-theistic word co-opted by Christianity.
quote:However Mousethief is correct that it was used to refer to non-Christian places of worship very early on. The OED cites it as used for a Jewish synagogue in a 10th century Old English translation of the gospel of Luke. And for a Roman temple in an early 11th century translation of Orosius' History.
Originally posted by MSHB:
quote:"Church" is theistic. The word derives via the common Germanic *kirikon (church/kirk/Kirche/etc) from the Greek word kyriakos - meaning "belonging to the Lord". You might be thinking of ekklesia - the word for "church" used in the New Testament. That is not the origin of our English word "church".
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
They didn't. It comes from the Greek meaning a gathering of citizens from a town. So it is a non-theistic word co-opted by Christianity.
quote:Nobody is begrudging them such a place - in fact the British Humanist Association already fulfills this function.
Originally posted by leo:
The quibbling over semantics, of what the word 'church' means, misses the point.
Many atheists like to mark births, marriages and deaths, with some sort of ceremony where shared values are rehearsed. Secular 'celebrants' often make a better, more personalised, job of this than many clergy.
A special building in which to hold such ceremonies is desirable.
Who are we to begrudge them such a place?
quote:Probably not, but I can't see an entertainer or science lecturer who isn't an atheist having much enthusiasm for it.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do they limit their speakers to atheists?
quote:Potentially. There's a lot that can be taken from religion without believing in the supernatural. Mindfulness is the most often cited example, perhaps because it seems relatively inoffensive and intrapersonal.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Meanwhile, at the nearby Evangelical church...
What happens at an atheist church?
quote:Could the Bishop be right?
From the above article:
The Sunday Assembly certainly did better business than at the evangelical St Jude and St Paul's Church next door, where about 30 believers gathered to sing gospel songs and listen to Bible readings.
But Bishop Harrison, a Christian preacher for 30 years, says he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God.
"They have got to start from somewhere," he says.
quote:I heard about such an organization in Québec called the FSEV, but its clergy don't seem to hold regular services; they seem to hold *only* pastoral services, and have no sense of community whatsoever. This seems somewhat commercialized.
Originally posted by leo:
Many atheists like to mark births, marriages and deaths, with some sort of ceremony where shared values are rehearsed. Secular 'celebrants' often make a better, more personalised, job of this than many clergy.
quote:As others have pointed out there are atheistic/humanist groups already doing this. Among the older ones are Ethical Culture in the US (started 1877) though quite small. The Unitarian Universalists (before and after merger) have had atheists/humanists for decades (or longer) though individual congregations will vary in their mix of humanists/Christians/pagans/others. My local UU church has a humanist potluck once a month and a Sunday forum at 9 on Sundays (followed by the regular worship service). The local humanist society (founded 1962, weekly meetings since 1990) has a meeting at 11 on Sundays followed by lunch (free for students and first timers, donations requested from others). The local student humanist/atheist group has had several non atheists speak (Hindu, Jewish, Christian in a friendly discussion with a visiting atheist). However these were all affiliated in some way with the University. I'm not sure they could pull in a non-atheist from further afield [barring people determined to do one way evangelism]. A joint effort with some of the other student groups might work.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Probably not, but I can't see an entertainer or science lecturer who isn't an atheist having much enthusiasm for it.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do they limit their speakers to atheists?
quote:Do you never see that problem arising in theist churches then?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
........I can't see them expanding very far without the quality taking a nosedive - there are only so many talented and interesting personalities available .......
quote:Yes I do see that - which is why I now believe good liturgy is much more important than sermons and worship bands.
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:Do you never see that problem arising in theist churches then?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
........I can't see them expanding very far without the quality taking a nosedive - there are only so many talented and interesting personalities available .......
quote:Liturgy may be one of those words which means different things to different people.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Wait a moment, I thought sermons were part of the liturgy in most Christian faiths. Arguably one of the most important, IMO.
quote:Do you begrudge middle-class white atheist academics having a monthly entertainment venue + science lecture?
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
However, the Sunday Assembly does not appear to be about these things at all - it is just a monthly entertainment venue + science lecture for middle-class white atheist academics.
quote:No I don't think so - but I do begrudge talking about a movement in such a way as to make out it is something which it isn't.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Do you begrudge middle-class white atheist academics having a monthly entertainment venue + science lecture?
quote:I know, but I did insert the NSFW disclaimer.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
....Oh, and, Mark, that "Born Again Atheists" link seems to be pretty potty-mouthed for a Good Christian.
quote:
Irving Hexham, professor of religious studies and new religious movements at the University of Calgary:
"In the 19th century, there was a rather large movement of 'Rationalist Churches,' they called them. They were agnostics and atheists and they had circuits of preachers like T.H. Huxley [a period advocate of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution]. They would go around preaching against religion. We seem to be going back to that," he said.
Yet the Rationalist Churches petered out in the 1930s. Religion and atheism come and go in history, he said. Regardless of how advanced its scientific understanding becomes, humans tend to slide back into religiosity over time, Mr. Hexham said.
"There are questions about death. As long as people die they seek answers for the meaning of life," he said.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:
It may seem puzzling to the religious, concedes Gail McCabe, a retired sociology professor and humanist chaplain at the University of Toronto and past president and spokesperson for the Ontario Humanist Society. But for non-theists, this all separates very neatly.
“Basically, religion is, in fact, a social institution,” she said. “And, in fact, there doesn’t have to be God in it.”
quote:Someone else thinks the atheist church should have a pastoral function:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
quote:Potentially. There's a lot that can be taken from religion without believing in the supernatural. Mindfulness is the most often cited example, perhaps because it seems relatively inoffensive and intrapersonal.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Meanwhile, at the nearby Evangelical church...
What happens at an atheist church?
quote:Could the Bishop be right?
From the above article:
The Sunday Assembly certainly did better business than at the evangelical St Jude and St Paul's Church next door, where about 30 believers gathered to sing gospel songs and listen to Bible readings.
But Bishop Harrison, a Christian preacher for 30 years, says he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God.
"They have got to start from somewhere," he says.
But this whole idea doesn't seem terribly novel - isn't this rather similar to Unitarianism, which is also has humanist moments and seems very white-middle-class-academic. I suspect Unitarianism is more popular in the US because the state is weaker there and so people need something to take up the social function of religion, if they don't believe in God. I suppose Unitarianism can often have very new-age moments, which people who don't believe in the supernatural might be offended by.
Like other commentators, I feel some concern that this is too white-middle-class-academic. Yes, there are things that can be taken from religion without believing in the supernatural, but these are more than mindfulness. Perhaps the most striking thing about the C of E is that it's present in every suburb and village of England, and it's not surprising that community organizing goes through churches, because this presence and a commitment to people-centeredness that means that ministers of religion see perhaps better than anything else the life of the marginalized.
So what else can be taken from religion than Mindfulness? A belief that "by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone," commitment to live in voluntary simplicity alongside the poor and marginalized in solidarity, a belief in social justice that means more than simply collecting money for charity, seeing good in everybody and value in all human life, and a commitment to listening to people, "not so much [seeking] to be consoled, as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love."
I would encourage the Atheist Church to set up an organized system of listeners akin to Healing Ministry people in churches, and to do some sort of community work.
An atheist friend of mine expressed interest in volunteering for a foodbank alongside concern that most such foodbanks were being run by churches who might use the foodbank as an excuse for proselytizing.
I am reminded of the school-assembly-hymn, "The Family of Man" by the Spinners. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to link to it here for copyright reasons but it's on YouTube. Like a lot of 1980s school-assembly-hymns it doesn't explicitly mention the supernatural. I seem to notice that secular hymns, such as those found in "Come and Praise" the BBC hymnal from the 1970s and 1980s are mostly about social obligation and the brotherhood of man whereas most modern secular hymns seem to be about a very trite sort of self-belief that seems rather individualistic.
quote:I heard about such an organization in Québec called the FSEV, but its clergy don't seem to hold regular services; they seem to hold *only* pastoral services, and have no sense of community whatsoever. This seems somewhat commercialized.
Originally posted by leo:
Many atheists like to mark births, marriages and deaths, with some sort of ceremony where shared values are rehearsed. Secular 'celebrants' often make a better, more personalised, job of this than many clergy.
quote:Except, of course that I didn't. Why should I lie about my observations of different types of church service?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
...but to suggest other forms are less worthy is arrogance, not accuracy.
quote:Back to this question, I've just found out who will be speaking at "Easter for Atheists": April 7th, at 1.30 pm.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do they limit their speakers to atheists?
quote:
From the advert:
This wonderful vicar will talk about the power of stories, myths and metaphors as ways of seeing the world, and why humans have enjoyed the Easter tale.
quote:Looks like you were wrong about non-atheists not wanting to speak to an atheist gathering.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Back to this question, I've just found out who will be speaking at "Easter for Atheists": April 7th, at 1.30 pm.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do they limit their speakers to atheists?
None other than Dave Tomlinson, a vicar!
quote:It might as well be asked, "Why do you care?" Why does anyone bother posting on here, in any thread?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...The larger question about this thread is "Why do you care?" Don't you already have a past time to keep you busy on Sundays?
quote:Excellent!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Back to this question, I've just found out who will be speaking at "Easter for Atheists": April 7th, at 1.30 pm.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
Do they limit their speakers to atheists?
None other than Dave Tomlinson, a vicar!
quote:
From the advert:
This wonderful vicar will talk about the power of stories, myths and metaphors as ways of seeing the world, and why humans have enjoyed the Easter tale.
The Sunday Assembly - Events
quote:Can you explain what you mean by this?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Looks like an open minded person who is willing to engage with the questions - not to assume religion has all the answers.
quote:Perhaps. But it really depends on what the Rev believes and discusses.
Originally posted by Boogie:
I would say that anyone who is willing to be a speaker at an atheist Church will be engaging with them and with their questions - looking at story and myth will do this too.
I like the fact that there is dialogue between the two 'churches' and a sense of friendly discourse.
Bodes well for both imo.
quote:You are joking, yeah? There are printings handed out on street corners, people preaching in public places* and on the telly saying exactly this.
Originally posted by Squibs:
Additionally, I've personally not met any Christian who has stated that religion has all the answers. Have you?
quote:I for one like conversing with (or more usually reading the conversations of) people from a multitude of life stances. Most here hold a Christian life stance but with a fair number from humanistic or other stances who are considered and treated as of equal worth (unless by their actions on this ship they show they are more worthy or less worthy). Even the Pope or the ABC or a prominent atheist if they showed up would start as apprentices (but even a non-Christian, if worthy and willing, can become a host or administrator).
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:It might as well be asked, "Why do you care?" Why does anyone bother posting on here, in any thread?
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
...The larger question about this thread is "Why do you care?" Don't you already have a past time to keep you busy on Sundays?
quote:I think the Church needs people with different levels of certainty. Too little and nothing will get done; too much and you might be off-putting to the people who have little! People with little faith are often inspired by those who have a great deal. But that doesn't mean they want to be harangued by judgmentalism, which seems like a different thing.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"Certainty" in the Church has all too often meant absolute judgmentalism and the imposition of suffering on people who happen not to think exactly the way you do.
Check out the various forms of the Inquisition, or the tendency to punich the women who got pregnant but not the men who contributed, or the conviction that being a Christian of a particular sect means that the whole country should pray in exactly one way and that anything else is perecution. The Puritans escaping from such "persecution" in England, so that they could persecute (or even slaughter) people not like themselves in Massachusetts is but one of the deadly examples.
Seems to me that the story of the woman taken in adultery spoke to a form of "certainty" that happened to avoid thinking about reality.
And I can be quite certain that if I utter a phrase about "doubt being necessary for faith" there will be a totally-certain person along to correct me, despite the inherent meaning of faith.
quote:Maybe I misunderstood what Palimpsest was getting at - reading his post again, I probably did, so sorry about that.
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
...But the ship is a place of many rooms and so to go back to the original question, why do you find this Atheist Church of such great interest? It doesn't even make a big splash in the atheistic blogsphere (outside of London).
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Mark Betts
It's interesting that you see the Atheist church as on a level with charismatic evangelical churches.
quote:
Some might see it as more closely aligned with an extreme form of liberal theology.
quote:
The speaker mentioned above, Rev. Dave Tomlinson, describes himself post-evangelical, a label that hints at a growing acceptance of liberal theological perspectives. It seems unlikely that the Atheist church would invite a 'real' evangelical pastor to speak!
quote:
The Atheist church makes use of modern pop music, but presumably the songs are chosen because they're well-known and can easily be sung congregationally without much practice. There's also a lot of choice. Conversely, the vast majority of folk songs, which are the secular and 'traditional' equivalent of hymns, would probably be far less familiar to a group of contemporary 20 and 30-something Londoners. In short, the organisers have chosen to go with familiarity and ease of use rather than an attempt to be 'trendy'. IMO the only realistic alternative to pop songs in the long term would be for the organisers to take well-known hymn tunes and write new, humanist lyrics for them. This is what the Unitarians have done, so I understand.
quote:I don't see "boring" as the opposite of "entertaining" - unless one only goes to church to be entertained. What about churches which are so devotional no-one is even interested in being entertained?
As for the idea that 'entertaining' churches are failing churches, I don't really understand that. It implies that boring churches should be successful churches, which doesn't sound quite right either! My view is that churches of all types need to beware of relegating the worshipper to the status of spectator.
quote:But almost any kind of music can be entertaining, and almost any kind can be devotional. The issue is how the music is used, the context, and the spirituality of the folk who are present.
I don't see "boring" as the opposite of "entertaining" - unless one only goes to church to be entertained. What about churches which are so devotional no-one is even interested in being entertained?
quote:Don't worry, Mark. WMC and Conservative Clubs alike up and down the land still host the sort of sexist, racist, homophobic "my mate Chalky, why hello dere mon (he's black you see); take my mother in law, oh please, take my mother in law. Women drivers, sheesh! Right, there were these two poofters..." shite that we had back then for your delectation.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Since they are so desperate to evangelise the nation, I thought I'd help them out:
Start your own Assembly with Sunday Assembly Everywhere
I noted how they reminded me of all those oxbridge comedians who "took over" (and ruined IMO) english comedy in the 70s and 80s, with their "alternative" comedy - an alternative to laughing.
quote:Eh? Not the Nine O’Clock News, The Comic Strip, Harry Enfield, etc. were hilarious!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Since they are so desperate to evangelise the nation, I thought I'd help them out:
Start your own Assembly with Sunday Assembly Everywhere
I noted how they reminded me of all those oxbridge comedians who "took over" (and ruined IMO) english comedy in the 70s and 80s, with their "alternative" comedy - an alternative to laughing.
It was well intentioned but lame and excruciating even back then. As Bill Bryson parodied it: My Neighbour is a Darkie. I've always been impressed by Holy Trinity Brompton's PR. It's easy to parody HTB -as indeed Armstrong and Miller once did. I'm a (slightly) charismatic evangelical and their sketch about vampires on an Alpha course makes me laugh my head off, quote:Mark, the alternative comedy you loathe so much actually started because until then only white racist homophobic sexists were allowed to have a sense of humour.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I know, I know... Only middle-class white academic atheists are allowed to have a sense of humour nowadays.
quote:Yes, of course, no black person ever objected to being called a nig-nog. No gay person ever objected to being called a poofter. It's just white lefties who thought they did. Of course.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
My turn. Seriously Karl, what's wrong with being able to laugh at our differences, be they about skin colour, sexuality or whatever. Much of the time, the old style working-class comedians from up North used to do no more than that.
No-one's saying any of them were saints of course, but it seems to be these politically-correct do-gooders who invent offence where none was ever intended, causing the working-class comics to be anathamatised, while your white Oxbridge academic friends just take over the show whether anyone asks them to or not.
quote:Comedy that rides on the New Atheist bandwagon. And that's another reason it's bad comedy - bandwagon comedy follows the zeitgeist; good comedy helps form it. Where was all the sharp, clever comedy about religion before Dawkins became a media star?
Originally posted by Grokesx:
@Adeodatus
New Atheist comedy? Is there such a thing? No one sent me that memo.
quote:Tim Minchin's done some funny stuff. However, as a scientist and a Christian I resent having an atheistic arts* grad tell me about how my faith makes me irrational and anti-science. What does he know about it?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I suppose Tim Minchin might qualify as one of these "New Atheist" comedians, but he remains very talented, extremely funny and doesn't annoy me in the slightest. I still think it's a travesty that his Christmas song a couple of years back was cut from the Jonathan Ross show.
Storm is a classic. I play it in my mind whilst I'm biting my tongue at any social interaction with someone spouting woo that it would be socially inappropriate* to counter.
*i.e. Mrs Backslider would kill me.
quote:Wow. Now we know who Storm is.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:Tim Minchin's done some funny stuff. However, as a scientist and a Christian I resent having an atheistic arts* grad tell me about how my faith makes me irrational and anti-science. What does he know about it?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Storm is a classic. I play it in my mind whilst I'm biting my tongue at any social interaction with someone spouting woo that it would be socially inappropriate* to counter.
*i.e. Mrs Backslider would kill me.
quote:I know what he thinks. It doesn't make me resentful. Sometimes worried that he's right, but never resentful.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:Tim Minchin's done some funny stuff. However, as a scientist and a Christian I resent having an atheistic arts* grad tell me about how my faith makes me irrational and anti-science. What does he know about it?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I suppose Tim Minchin might qualify as one of these "New Atheist" comedians, but he remains very talented, extremely funny and doesn't annoy me in the slightest. I still think it's a travesty that his Christmas song a couple of years back was cut from the Jonathan Ross show.
Storm is a classic. I play it in my mind whilst I'm biting my tongue at any social interaction with someone spouting woo that it would be socially inappropriate* to counter.
*i.e. Mrs Backslider would kill me.
*BA English & Theatre, University of Western Australia 1995
quote:George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Tom Lehrer, Dave Allen, Monty Python, as someone's already mentioned, Father Ted, as someone else has already mentioned, Eddie Izzard...
Where was all the sharp, clever comedy about religion before Dawkins became a media star?
quote:If you think his video was solely about one particular girl called Storm ...
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Wow. Now we know who Storm is.
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:Tim Minchin's done some funny stuff. However, as a scientist and a Christian I resent having an atheistic arts* grad tell me about how my faith makes me irrational and anti-science. What does he know about it?
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Storm is a classic. I play it in my mind whilst I'm biting my tongue at any social interaction with someone spouting woo that it would be socially inappropriate* to counter.
*i.e. Mrs Backslider would kill me.
quote:You're quite right. I'd have been closer to the mark if I'd specified atheist comedy, which is what I meant to do. It's debatable, but I think that would knock Dave Allen, Father Ted and Eddie Izzard off the list, and possibly even Monty Python. Not because they weren't coming from an atheist perspective, but because I think they were too kind - affectionate, even, in Allen's case. Lehrer I'll grant you, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with Carlin and Bruce.
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Tom Lehrer, Dave Allen, Monty Python, as someone's already mentioned, Father Ted, as someone else has already mentioned, Eddie Izzard...
Where was all the sharp, clever comedy about religion before Dawkins became a media star?
quote:Atheist comedy and Christian comedy are bad for the same reason: they put the evangelism before the comedy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How many atheist comedians are there? I know of comedians who are atheists, some of whom do bits about religion, but they are not "atheist comedians." Whereas, I have heard Christian comedians.
quote:Whereas you can find theist jelly. I've had some that made me exclaim "Holy sh***"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Atheist comedy is like atheist jelly. You just can't buy it these days. I blame austerity.
quote:You're using it wrong.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Whereas you can find theist jelly. I've had some that made me exclaim "Holy sh***"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Atheist comedy is like atheist jelly. You just can't buy it these days. I blame austerity.
quote:I have to agree there Adeodatus - I'm no big fan of christian comedy, particularly the seemingly obligatory pulpit "joke."
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Atheist comedy and Christian comedy are bad for the same reason: they put the evangelism before the comedy.
quote:I believe the water-based ones are very good for the older man and woman, who have problems around, shall we say, their viscosity index.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Whereas you can find theist jelly. I've had some that made me exclaim "Holy sh***"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Atheist comedy is like atheist jelly. You just can't buy it these days. I blame austerity.
quote:I can't imagine such a thing as evangelistic comedy. Who would go to watch it? Christians don't need evangelising, and non-Christians would run a mile.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:Atheist comedy and Christian comedy are bad for the same reason: they put the evangelism before the comedy.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How many atheist comedians are there? I know of comedians who are atheists, some of whom do bits about religion, but they are not "atheist comedians." Whereas, I have heard Christian comedians.
. It drips with middle-class niceness ... like some churches, I suppose. quote:Many thanks!
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I haven't found a review of "Easter for Atheists" yet, but here's a fill-in for the meantime:
'Easter for Atheists' with Sanderson Jones - Wired For Success TV [Episode 53]
That was an interesting start to the day. I was intending to go to the Humanist Group meeting this afternoon (a talk by our Humanist Celebrant), but I've been invited to lunch with son and family , so that takes precedence!quote:Where's your conviction, SusanDoris?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Many thanks!
Have you, or are you going to, listen to it all the way through? Very sensible, the whole thing!
quote:Hahahaha!
Originally posted by Laurelin:
I just read it. A blander, more anodyne piece you couldn't imagine.
Bring it on Laurelin.
quote:I wonder what impression a visitor to an average church service would get about the amount and quality of 'action' its participants get up to in between their self-congratulatory 'shows' -- and whether the opinion they formed would have any more objective validity than the one you've so pointedly formed on this atheists' assembly.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It certainly smacked of a white middle-class academic "set", who don't actually do very much, apart from their once-per-month entertainment show, where they pat each other on the back and celebrate how nice and moralistic atheists are.
quote:This is going to come across as massively judgemental, perhaps because that's exactly what it is... Anyway, I think you're right, kankucho; plenty of religious activities probably are regular (I guess usually weekly, not monthly) shows between which nothing much happens. It shouldn't be this way, of course, but maybe it often is.
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:I wonder what impression a visitor to an average church service would get about the amount and quality of 'action' its participants get up to in between their self-congratulatory 'shows' -- and whether the opinion they formed would have any more objective validity than the one you've so pointedly formed on this atheists' assembly.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It certainly smacked of a white middle-class academic "set", who don't actually do very much, apart from their once-per-month entertainment show, where they pat each other on the back and celebrate how nice and moralistic atheists are.
quote:Easy.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But I do think the preacher in the linked article has a point: there is little community sense in NOT belonging to something. So, how do you find some sense of community without some form of ecclesia?
quote:Jesus.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:This is going to come across as massively judgemental, perhaps because that's exactly what it is... Anyway, I think you're right, kankucho; plenty of religious activities probably are regular (I guess usually weekly, not monthly) shows between which nothing much happens. It shouldn't be this way, of course, but maybe it often is.
Originally posted by kankucho:
quote:I wonder what impression a visitor to an average church service would get about the amount and quality of 'action' its participants get up to in between their self-congratulatory 'shows' -- and whether the opinion they formed would have any more objective validity than the one you've so pointedly formed on this atheists' assembly.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It certainly smacked of a white middle-class academic "set", who don't actually do very much, apart from their once-per-month entertainment show, where they pat each other on the back and celebrate how nice and moralistic atheists are.
quote:Let's just say this: it's not at all surprising that the political scientist Robert Putnam has written a book called American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us and one called Bowling Alone, the latter of which is about the decline of community and social organizations and clubs. Megachurches have filled a lot of that gap with Zuumba classes, birdwatching, and whatever else; us mainliners have our knitting clubs and so on.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Easy.
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
But I do think the preacher in the linked article has a point: there is little community sense in NOT belonging to something. So, how do you find some sense of community without some form of ecclesia?
Sporting club, bridge club, birdwatching club, rotary club, environmental club, political club, volunteer club, schools, universities etc etc.
There are million different options.
But whipping up emotion against a common cause is an excellent way to bind people too. That's why nationalism is so powerful.
quote:Are you saying that this is what these atheist "churches" are really all about? That they are like political pressure groups (strictly left wing) of white middle class academics with nothing better to do?
Originally posted by Evensong:
...But whipping up emotion against a common cause is an excellent way to bind people too. That's why nationalism is so powerful.
However, having thought, I did a google search and came up with two links, the second one of which isthis one dated 23 June. So thank you for prompting me!
quote:If "AE" is me, no, I was just making a little joke about the fact that there's an "atheist church."
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
ISTM that most of the atheists that I know are more in the mode of saying "I can't be arsed" than they are of definitely denying anything.
Churches often refuse to deal with the questions people ask, preferring to offer irrelevant or pointless answers to serious questions. The people who then give up on church may want some form of ritual or gathering-with-a-purpose, but they still want something that seems positive to them. So saying "not... not...not" is unlikely among them.
But, yes, there are plenty of Christians who say "not...not...not..." but all too often it is about other people, not themselves, and this tends to turn even more people off.
Try thinking of Gandhi saying that he understood and would like to follow Jesus, but the Christians turned him off. Is that what you are trying to do, AE?
quote:Sorry to be so blunt, but I recognize all the usual atheist/humanist dogmas, but the article had nothing whatsoever to do with Atheist "churches."
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I saw this thread and your name for last post, so thought you might have news.
quote:No.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:Are you saying that this is what these atheist "churches" are really all about? That they are like political pressure groups (strictly left wing) of white middle class academics with nothing better to do?
Originally posted by Evensong:
...But whipping up emotion against a common cause is an excellent way to bind people too. That's why nationalism is so powerful.
Is their main purpose to take on the rise of nationalism, and eradicate religion (which they associate with the far right)?
Not every atheist is a militant type who wants to eradicate religion from the face of the earth! I am pretty certain that many people attending the Sunday Assembly wouldn't have that attitude. They're just not interested in religion and feel this is a community-based alternative to religious faith ... or so I imagine. I don't see anything political about their setup at all. Indeed, they seem to be a very inoffensive lot. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Or The Freedom From Religion Foundation ( US equivalent?) that actively seek to denigrate religion and are bound emotionally against a cause.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
It's the National Secular Society - who an atheist friend of mine once described as being full of 'angry ex-Catholics' and he should know, he was friends with a lot of them - who can get a bit shirty.
quote:In which case the joke is on you. The atheists aren't the ones calling it an atheist church, it's the media and people like Mark Betts who never let facts get in the way of their prejudices.
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
If "AE" is me, no, I was just making a little joke about the fact that there's an "atheist church."
quote:The first five words of that can be taken as read - if not actually recited. As for the rest of it... Well, you would be imagining that, wouldn't you? But atheism doesn't concern itself with the specific beliefs of others.
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Do they recite a creed? I'm imagining something like,
I don't believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
I don't believe in Jesus Christ . . .
quote:This reminds me of Christians that define themselves by what they don't do.
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
Do they recite a creed? I'm imagining something like,
I don't believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.
I don't believe in Jesus Christ . . .
quote:The same is true of religious ideology.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
It is very easy for a political ideology to become more important in itself than the people it affects.
