Atheist Churches on the Rise

[jope]

http://www.christianpress.com/index.php/opinion/columns/dr-jim-denison/639-atheist-churches-on-the-rise

[Mr. B1ack]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT), jope <jop...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.christianpress.com/index.php/opinion/columns/dr-jim-denison/639-atheist-churches-on-the-rise

Um ... 'atheist' and 'church' are two terms
that really don't go together. You can have
a weekly assemblage of athiests, but they'll
never be a 'church'. The lack of any 'religious'
type ideology kinda puts a crimp in the 'church'
thing. I suppose they could discuss 'humanism'
or some other philosophy, but unless it meets
the defintion of 'religion' and is endorsed as
a one-size-fits-all Truth then it still won't be
a 'church'.

[Terry Cross]

On May 16, 8:27 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.christianpress.com/index.php/opinion/columns/dr-jim-deniso...

>
>    Um ... 'atheist' and 'church' are two terms
>    that really don't go together. You can have
>    a weekly assemblage of athiests, but they'll
>    never be a 'church'.

Atheists contemplate their futility and worship their misery. They
look to the Great Dot to reincarnate them after Ragnarok.

TCross

[Ralph]

You know nothing about atheists, Cross. Reply only on things you
actually know about.
By the way, how are you doing, bitch?

[Mr. B1ack]

Nah ... more like AlCor .... :-)

[Terry Cross]

On May 17, 1:28 pm, Ralph <mmman...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/2013 1:23 AM, Terry Cross wrote:
>
> > On May 16, 8:27 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.christianpress.com/index.php/opinion/columns/dr-jim-deniso...
> >>     Um ... 'atheist' and 'church' are two terms
> >>     that really don't go together. You can have
> >>     a weekly assemblage of athiests, but they'll
> >>     never be a 'church'.
>
> > Atheists contemplate their futility and worship their misery.  They
> > look to the Great Dot to reincarnate them after Ragnarok.
>
> > TCross
>
> You know nothing about atheists, Cross.

On the contrary -- I have spent hours watching your kind in the cages
at the zoo. I have studied descriptions of your ancestors on
Wikipedia and watched home movies about your relatives on Animal
Kingdom.

TCross

[Ralph]

Oh, so atheists are in cages and their relatives are on Animal Kingdom.
Your attempt at humor shows your
ignorance better than anything I could say. Come back when god gives you
a brain.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 17:33:25 -0400, Ralph <mmma...@yahoo.com> wrote in
alt.talk.creationism:

Maybe he should be off to see the wizard.

[Rod]

That is a pretty weak response from someone who was just made
to look as you are. I saw your relatives at a zoo as well, one
of them wiping his ass with his hand and the others eating the
wipe. The last one looked a lot like you Ralph...are you certain
that you're not a bastard ???

[Terry Cross]

On May 16, 8:27 pm, Mr. B1ack <nowh...@nada.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:07:47 -0700 (PDT), jope <jope...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.christianpress.com/index.php/opinion/columns/dr-jim-deniso...

>
>    Um ... 'atheist' and 'church' are two terms
>    that really don't go together. You can have
>    a weekly assemblage of athiests, but they'll
>    never be a 'church'. The lack of any 'religious'
>    type ideology kinda puts a crimp in the 'church'
>    thing. I suppose they could discuss 'humanism'
>    or some other philosophy, but unless it meets
>    the defintion of 'religion' and is endorsed as
>    a one-size-fits-all Truth then it still won't be
>    a 'church'.

That is just your opinion, and it is not universal among Atheists.
Read Humanist Manifest I, for example.

TCross

[Mr. B1ack]

I avoid such tripe. Just Another Philosophy trying
to puff itself up and seem *Important* ... searching
for gravitas.

There are some faux-athiests who sort-of DO try to
turn un-belief into a kind of 'religion' with most of the
trappings of the religions they came from. If this
takes the form of political activism then it's actually
something that should be shunned under the
seperation doctrine. Walk like a duck, quack like
a duck ....

Well, not REALLY duck ... 'mock duck' perhaps ...
but with enough essential duckness that you can't
let it 'establiish' itself above all other religions.

[jope]

You are giving the distinct impression of being upset.
Do you disagree with the phylogenetic tree?
According the evolutionary tree:
Man came from a frog then a monkey .And, he is now a full blown ape.
You have to agree that the Bible treats you much more kindly.
If you are going to accept the theory of evolution as the truth,you
also need to accept its description of you, as a great ape.

[Liberal Here]

Oh, you mean if there were an auto-de-fe scheduled for your town
square, you think it's okay and opposing it would just be an example
of a faux-atheist? I kinda think political activism to end religion-
authorized punishments would be okay. Also the use of religious dogma
to enforce economic rules (Sunday closings, other rules of
behavior.....oh, and antichoice concerning pregnancy and birth
control).

Of course, you have no problem.....

[Mr. B1ack]

Might be. Depends on the how's and why's and basis
used to opposed the auto-de-fe.

If you're looking for bright clear lines between things here
you'll go blind before you find any. This is why seperation
cases so often wind up before judges or legislatures.
They seem easy - until you get to the details. Then they
can be very tricky.

When some group involved in religion wants to push all
other religious ideas out the door except their own by
force of law - 'establishment' has gotta cross your mind.
Un-belief IS a religious opinion, a religious philosophy -
and if it becomes too aggressive, too hard on the
'heretics', the de-facto EFFECT at the institutional and
personal levels is as that of a new all-conquering religion.

In short, un-belief CAN take on the most noxious, bullying,
dangerous aspects of any conventional religion. When it
does so, it must be treated LIKE a religion so far as the
law goes.

But not all instances of un-belief are that way. Not all
athiests are crusaders and bullys, not all efforts to
minimize religious contamination of our laws and
institutions take on a quasi-religious zeal of their own.

>I kinda think political activism to end religion-
>authorized punishments would be okay.

So would overtly religious activism to continue/increase
such punishments ...

Just remember that it's philosophy -vs- philosophy here, not
quantitative, objective science or math. There's no "2+x=
auto-de-fe is wrong". The best you can do in this specific
instance is 'state your position and make your case'.

In short, debate the issue. 'Debates' are NOT instruments
for finding Truth of course ... they are a forum within which
you must *persuade* people that your position somehow
has more 'truthiness' to it than the other guys. Persuade
them that the other guy saying "2+x=auto-de-fe is RIGHT"
is full of shit or at least unreliable.

>Also the use of religious dogma
>to enforce economic rules (Sunday closings, other rules of
>behavior.....oh, and antichoice concerning pregnancy and birth
>control).
>
>Of course, you have no problem.....

But I'm the OTHER kind of athiest ... the kind that thinks
un-belief should not be a crusade, should not be forced
up the collective rectum like some suppository to purge
out all the 'wrong' beliefs. Teach by example.

The 'crusader' athiests ... some are in it for the attention
and fame. Most however seem to be very insecure in
their un-belief and constantly feel threatened by the
faithful in some way - the cure being to use the law
to pummel the faithful. The seperation doctrine is
their excuse, their shield ... but their REAL reasons
aren't so altruistic, libertarian or democratic.