There aren’t many issues for which I sit on the fence, but this is one great big fat one. Do we call ourselves a religion in an effort to gain equality and membership in the movement? If you take the absolute broadest definition of the term “religion” and squint really hard, you can force Atheism to fit (the same goes for baseball fans). Theists love to do that, and from a debating perspective I’d love to take that card away from them. This is certainly not the correct usage of the term, but we’re arguing semantics, and isn’t that irrelevant anyway (semantics change over time)?Is that copping out? Is copping out a bad thing? One side of me says “don’t you DARE group me in with the sheep following invisible men in the sky”, and the other side says “call me anything you like if it gets me equality and fair treatment (easy tax deductions, faith-based money, etc)”.There is no easy answer, in my opinion. At American Atheists we are a “big umbrella” organization, so we gladly welcome Atheists who support the idea of a freethought church, as well as those who are utterly repulsed by the idea. I’m not repulsed, but I find it difficult to decide on which side of the fence to fall.
(thanks Zac)http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=1877The Atheon Temple of Science is an art project conceived by Jonathan Keats. Using a grant from UC Berkeley’s Chancellor’s Community Partnership fund, he created the Atheon in downtown Berkeley office building. Four millennia after Abraham fathered Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and 150,000 years after hominids introduced burial rituals to the Mediterranean, religion has finally been rendered wholly compatible with science. Beginning on September 27, 2008, a two-story downtown Berkeley building dubbed “the Atheon” will provide a spiritual home for rational people in California, and guidance to acolytes worldwide. Establishment of an Atheon has been a high priority in the scientific community for the past several years, rivaling even enthusiasm for the new Large Hadron Collider. “When you listen to people like Nobel-laureate cosmologist Steven Weinberg, or Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, you hear a lot of talk about how god-based religion is out-of-date,” says conceptual artist Jonathon Keats. “The leading minds believe that science can and should provide a spiritually satisfying replacement. But until recently no one bothered to consider what form that alternative might take.” The temporary facility features stained glass windows showing the cosmic microwave background radiation using NASA’s new WMAP satellite data.
Here’s another version — The Church of Reality, headed up by my friend Marc.http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/
The Church of Reality is not just a religion of science, it is a religion of people. We explore reality from the human perspective. In order to explore reality, we need a strong, healthy society where people can live freely and peacefully, and the human race can evolve toward a better future. The pursuit of reality is something that is a shared process. It’s something we do together as a church, as a community, and as the human race.We are about Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Reality!The Church of Reality provides a religious identity for people who have made a personal commitment to pursue reality the way it really is. When we are asked, “What religion are you?,” we answer that we are Realists; we practice Reality because we believe in Reality. We also provide a sense of community, a social structure, and a moral compass to define right and wrong. We provide a sense of purpose about who we are, why we exist, and how we live our lives, in the context of science and logic.
rainbows4dinosaurs:
If they?re so cool, why not?
Off Topic ? What do you think of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?
Comment from: jcc
Come now jcc…one can’t be guilty by association…
I was also interested in the story of Obama asking Petraeus and Iraq NOT to authorize troop withdrawl until after the election…I wonder which one of his 300 foreign advisers gave him that idea…?
(eyes roll)
phreedm:
Yeah, I know, but I?m just curious what the Obama crowd thinks of native-born, self-avowed, unrepentant, anti-American terrorists.
Clearly it was one of His best and brightest disciples? I thought it was pretty funny to hear the Obama camp trying to deny it by actually confirming it.
DVanWechel:
Seriously, what?s your opinion of Ayers and Dohrn?
jcc,
I’m not sure I know what the popular attitudes of Strong Atheism are, nor am I sure how they compare or contrast with the popular attitudes of weak atheism. It seems to me that the popular attitudes and social policies should be very similar between the two.
The only difference I can think of between my weak atheism and Strong Atheism is my refusal to make one particular statement that I could never back up. Everything else is irrelevant to me. It seems to me that there is very little expected behavioral difference between a weak atheist and a Strong Atheist.
That said, you’ve previously stated that you believe atheism to be philosophy, so I can see how you’d come to that conclusion. But you also know that I do not agree.
Thank you for the answer. But in what way can your morality be said to be absolute if your morality is derived from your interpretation of the Bible? Wouldn’t that require that your interpretation be absolute?
phreedm,
It’s about as clear as any legal statement can be: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That statement doesn’t actually protect the beliefs of a non-theist (since there are no beliefs to protect), but it does state that the government is supposed to be secular.
I’ve seen you make this assertion before plenty of times and I still have no idea how you’ve come to the conclusion that the 1st amendment doesn’t enforce a secular government. It really is as straightforward as it seems.
Ahhhhh, the pathetic attempts of the Right to distract America from our multiple disasters of their making.
Ohhh, I got it! Let’s talk about OJ instead of the economic disaster that the political right has wrought … or their senseless and costly Invasion of Iraq.
One thing we know about the “free thinker” movement is that we are at a disadvantage because we don’t have people knocking on doors selling the afterlife to well meaning idiots who can’t deal with their mortality and nor find the answer to the question, “why am I here”.
To achieve equal footing, when contributions can be made tax free to the movement would be a huge boon. My recommendation is to stop labeling ourselves as atheists, which almost the same as “not religion” which would disqualify the movement under current law. Why not avoid the subject of the existence of god and call ourselves humanists. Publish our policy as a belief that god refuses to interfere in the affairs of men, but, instead is watching from afar as chaos unfolds. Now, that is as equally elligible as buddhism which really teaches that gods and demons are just outside influences in your life you must learn from or confront.
I do believe that free thinkers are the last hope of our species, and that a proactive stance is not only urgently needed, but imperitive.
NeoWolfe
phreedm,
They made plenty of provisions for non-theists, all throughout the Constitution. The only exception is when they explicitly protected religions from government interference. There is no need to do that for non-theists for the reasons I stated in my last two posts.
If you were righting a law to protect horseback riders to use public roads would you include a statement like “non-horseback riders are also allowed to use horses on public roads?” There’s no need to do that. It’s the same situation with non-theists and the Constitution.
The question you really should ask yourself is this: If the framers really wanted a theocratic government, why didn’t they state it explicitly? If they were trying to do that then they’re so incompetent that I’m surprised they could tie their shoes, let alone lead a successful rebellion from the most powerful country in the world at the time.
neowolfe,
Contributions (beyond membership dues) made to American Atheists or other ‘atheist’ or ‘free thinker’ or ‘humanist’ 501c3 organizations ARE tax deductible, and these nonprofits ARE tax exempt – so I’m not sure what your point is.
You can label yourself anything you want, but you may have noticed that this blog is sponsored by American ATHEISTS. I am an atheist, not a humanist. “Our” policy CANNOT be that “god” is watching from afar, because we do not believe in supernatural beings. Am I missing something here?
Atheism is the absence of god-belief. All else is embellishment. At least, that’s my view of the matter.
But then, I’ve never regarded atheism as a conclusion, only a starting point. Atheism doesn’t supply one with an ideology, a moral code, a political agenda or anything else. We are united because we have no belief in gods. That’s all. Atheism, as I view it, has no dogma.
I think the phrases “atheist church” or “atheist religion” are oxymorons.
George,
Bravo!
Jcc,
How could I possibly form an opinion of them? I know very little about them. I don?t know them personally. I have never had a one-on-one conversation with either of them. All I can say is I disagree with their militant attitudes and actions.
Regardless, that’s not the point. Why is ANYONE talking about them? Why are we not focused on real issues? I’m not interested in attempts to discredit individuals (specifically McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden) based on allegations of relationships they may or may not have with others. I want to know what they plan to do as President/VP, how they plan to do it, and why they are going to do it . The rest of this B.S. is distraction and those who engage in it should be ashamed. Anyone who continues to exploit such nonsense needs to get their priorities straight.
alatham:
I don?t see how when one school of thought is practically militant in its denial of God?s existence while the other (I would think) should be basically indifferent towards it. And that attitude of indifference should foster an attitude of near neutrality on the ?strong?s? hot-button issues.
And that reinforces my argument for your cognitive dissonance. When asked, you won?t commit one way or the other on that one proposition, yet your arguments are heavily weighted on the assumption that God does not exist. In my opinion, that?s very slippery intellectual ground to try to stand on?especially when so many other personal philosophical stances are ultimately premised on assumptions as well.
For one thing, I?m certainly not alone in how I?ve interpreted it; and for another, there is very little semantic variation among all the English translations. You seem either uninformed or have forgotten just how much has been invested in Biblical scholarship.
And if I may:
How in the world can you read that into words that simply aren?t there? The Establishment Clause clearly means that the government must remain indifferent to religions in how it functions?it can?t possibly be construed as a requirement for a ?secular? government because people make up the government and people are free to worship what they choose.
DVanWechel:
Um, how ?bout Googling them?you?d be surprised how much information there is about them out there:
http://tinyurl.com/2ot5zp
Well then, given your ignorance of them and lack of curiosity to find out more about them, I guess you?re perfectly justified in not forming an opinion on them?
Congratulations, you obviously have higher standards than Obama does.
Um, because they were highly instrumental in getting Obama into public office in the first place?
If a presidential candidate?s past close association with an unrepentant, anti-American terrorist isn?t a real issue, then I don?t know what is.
Uh, Obama?s relationship with Ayers and Dohrn isn?t up for debate?it irrefutably occurred.
Again, if a presidential candidate is sympathetic with anti-American terrorists, what higher priority could that be? Do you think for a minute the media would give McCain a pass if it were discovered he had past connections with the Klan?
JCC
What do you think about the OJ trial?
Because I’ve never been able to justify spending so much money on something that I knew I would probably change my mind about a few years later. For me, tattoos are kinda like dogs: I like them for other people, just not for me. Who knows though, maybe I’ll change my mind one day and get a giant, greyscale rainbow arching over top of a dead, bloated velacoraptor etched across my back. (Or maybe the kids will get a puppy for xmas this year.)
What, tattoos weren’t already off topic?
I think both Ayers and Dohrn are a couple of failed hippy radicals who have somehow redeemed themselves enough to become ‘distinguished professors.’ I think calling those two ‘terrorists’ is just the same as when folks on the far left call Henry Kissinger a ‘war criminal.’ It serves nothing, even if true, because the fact remains that all three today are nothing more than old, harmless, and interesting specimens in the quest to understand how and why people can have so much certainty in their beliefs that it short circuits any sense of decency.
Of course, none of that is what you’re fishing for. I mean, I might as well ask you what you think of the Alaska Independence Party, or the fact that it’s somehow okay now for republicans to willfully ignore suppenas, or the fact that government regulation of the economy is suddenly cool again, or the ethics of shooting wolves from helicopters just so they won’t eat the moose that people up there like to shoot. Do you really want to get into another tit-for-tat with me?
r4d
… or the fact that John McCain played a central role in the S&L scandal. Oh wait a second! That actually is relevant given the parallels with our current economic disaster.
JCC
Oh BTW I was asking you about the 1995 O.J. trial not something as current and germane to current world affairs as the current one.
JCC
What do you think about economic terrorist Phil Gram, McCain’s economic adviser?
rainbows4dinosaurs:
Interesting? so the permanence aspect is a consideration for you? Ever seen an 70 year old tattoo?
Hey, you brought it up.
Redeemed themselves??how?
Huh? Did Kissinger unapologetically admit to participating in bombing NYPD headquarters, the Pentagon and the Capital?
?Even if true???Do you not read the New York Times? And admitting as late as September, 2001, ?I don?t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn?t do enough,? is HARMLESS???
So saying, ?Revolutionary violence is the only way?We will never live peaceably?? and ?Kill all the rich people?kill your parents? are the thoughts of those merely on a ?quest to understand how and why people can have so much certainty in their beliefs that it short circuits any sense of decency??
Are you pretending to be so provincial or do you really live in such a cloistered world?
Uh, actually, that was exactly what I was fishing for. Thanks for your (embarrassing) candor.
What? Like that?s something I?m supposed to avoid or be afraid of?
jcc,
Indeed. But we’re talking about atheism. We’re not talking about abortion, evolution, school prayer, or anything else. The only way your argument makes any sense to me is if we assume that I began as an atheist and used that position as a guide to my positions on all those other topics. But that’s not the way it works for me, I’ve arrived at all those other conclusions independent of my atheism.
So when you look at my behavior with regards to anything other than the question “Does God exist” and then say I’m behaving identically to a Strong Atheist, so what? All those other positions are irrelevant if we’re only talking about atheism. Hitler loved dogs just like I do, does that mean I’m behaving like a Nazi?
So? I consider the existence of a deity unlikely. Why wouldn’t I operate that way?
Given that you believe in a deity, I’m not at all surprised you feel that way.
Regarding how an interpreted morality can be called absolute:
I don’t care how common your interpretation is, it’s still a subjective interpretation. “Absolute morality” is a morality that is, by definition, completely objective. Since your interpretation is subjective, it cannot be objective, ergo your absolute morality is not so absolute.
The religious claim for absolute morality would be much more substantial if the religious idea of morality didn’t keep evolving to keep up with social pressures. Within the space of a generation, I’m sure this isn’t entirely noticeable and it may be true that individuals have a consistent set of morals throughout their lives, but it’s plainly clear that the next generation of religious children will not embrace the exact same set of morals that the current generation has embraced, even if they use the same “absolute” source.
Perhaps we should look at the word “secular”
From answers.com:
1. Worldly rather than spiritual. Something that is indifferent to religion could certainly be called secular by this definition.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body. Again, indifference to religion fits here.
The other 4 definitions aren’t applicable for how we’re using “secular.”
From this, it’s very clear that a government that is indifferent to religion is necessarily secular.
Within a republic, people (ideally) make up the power behind the government. But the government exists without the people, it simply has no power to act without the people’s support.
I have a sneaking suspicion that you don’t actually know what “secular” means.
Not interested. Just as I’m not interested in Googling Sarah Palin’s crazy preacher, Ed Kalnins or McCain’s associates involved in the Savings & Loan scandal. It’s all tiresome distraction, designed specifically to keep the voting public’s eye off the ball. And unlike you, I’m not falling for it.
Please provide a link to Obama’s quotes about how he agrees with Ayers and Dohrn’s actions and attitudes. Or, have you spoken to Obama personally?
So. A bunch of gun-toting, animal-killing, environment-plundering, warmongering, Jesus freaks elected Bush into office. What’s your point?
As if their being repentant would matter. Please.
Pretty low priority for me actually ? but obviously not for you. How about the deaths of some 4000+ American troops, or some 100,000+ Iraqis? Not a high priority for you? How about the economic meltdown we’re in? I guess it’s much more important to spend your time attempting discredit Presidential candidates on the inferred philosophical positions they might hold based on their relationship with a couple of whacko, 60s, has-been hippies?
McCain having ties to the KKK wouldn?t matter and you know it. You?d still vote for him as long as he was ?repentant?, regardless of the crap he?d catch from the press.
That was for Jcc.
alatham:
Really? So, you?re seriously asserting that your derived, atheistic ?non-belief? has virtually no current effect on how you maintain your opinions on those topics? Are you saying that your attitude toward abortion and evolution radically changed after you concluded that you were a weak atheist?
I apologize for sounding incredulous, but that seems extremely unlikely to me?but to be fair, I guess that?s not to say that that couldn?t be a genuine example of Clintonian compartmentalism.
I believe the proper question should be ?why would you operate that way?? If I understand it correctly and weak atheism is essentially another form of pure skepticism, then I would expect one?s behavior to reflect an equal deference to both sides of the argument rather than one exhibiting a preponderance of one.
Isn?t the more widespread something is accepted (in this case, the Bible among those who believe), the closer it comes to being objectively true for everyone affected by it? In this case, is that not what an ?objective? interpretation would be?
Oh, absolutely.
Theft, perjury, premeditated murder, rape, pedophilia, etc. are completely and absolutely objective in the moral affect they have on each and every one of us.
Unambiguous directives like: ?do not steal,? ?do not commit murder,? and ?do not bear false witness,? cannot be subjectively interpreted ? but more importantly, human beings cannot be relied upon to consistently acknowledge and abide by such absolutes?and that lends enormous credence to them being of supernatural origin.
There is a fundamental difference between mores?the transient, ?conventions that embody the fundamental values of a group? (from Webster?s Online Dictionary) and morals ? such as murder, theft, rape, etc. that remain objective and absolute for all, throughout time.
As I indicated earlier, I?m not arguing that functionally the government shouldn?t be indifferent to religion. I?m arguing that nowhere in the Constitution is religion expressly prohibited from being practiced by those employed by, or elected to the government.
Considering the fact that our government was derived by the people, that assertion is non-sequitur. Without the people there would be no government and for such a government to be fully ?necessarily secular? would (in my opinion) also prohibit those implementing it from holding any religious beliefs and behaviors while doing so?which is exactly what the left is attempting to accomplish.
Oh, I know what secular means, and I also know what the Constitution does and does not say.
Yes, that is a consideration.
Not as a new topic of conversation. You asked if that was me… If it had been, were you planning on talking shit about my tattoos?
Good fracking question – I have no idea. Maybe they’re really nice in person or something. I did say ‘apparently’ – the whole thing perplexes me.
Um… no. The gripe is that he was behind the bombing and invasion of Cambodia, which many believe led to the brutal Cambodian civil war. Then again, he was also instrumental in easing tensions with the Soviets, so he couldn’t have been all bad.
Ha! I seriously doubt you first read that in the NYT. (And that was before 9/11, just to keep things straight.) What about this quote:
“I was ‘embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way. The rigidity and the narcissism.’ “(See, I can wiki too!)
The point is that somehow he has earned a significant amount of respect in his community. He was even an advisor to Mayor Daily. Could he have pulled that off if all he were about was bombing people? I mean, I still think he’s a loon, and I hate hippies anyway, but the fact that he’s at least achieved some amount of redemption is undeniable. You still believe in redemption, right?
Um… no, that is not at all what I meant. In fact, I have no idea how you got that so mixed up. You must be so blinded by your skewed mental image of me that it got you reading ahead to that hallucinatory fish you think you’ve so triumphantly caught.
Here’s a simplified version of what I said:
Ayers behavior in the seventies is an example of what can happen when you take your own bullshit way too seriously. Beware.
You know, I might be provincial. I might even be an elitist. And if that bothers you, then good. Portland is the best, period.
That wasn’t meant as any kind of threat. I’m just perplexed at the fact that you actually want to start one of these stupid threads. I for one am pretty sick of it. The pattern is too familiar, the payoff non-existent.
DVanWechel:
Ok, then don?t take umbrage to those who are.
Not falling for it, or turning a blind eye to it?
I don?t have any direct quotes of Obama?s, but I do have a timeline of their association (as substantiated by the venerable New York Times):
1995: Ayers & Dohrn host a ?meet-and-greet? for Obama in their home to introduce him to their neighbors during his first run for the Illinois Senate.
1997: Obama makes a joint appearance with Ayers (orchestrated by Michelle Obama) on a University of Chicago panel to discuss, ?Should a Child Ever Be Called a ?Super Predator???
1999: Ayers joins the Woods Fund of Chicago, a nonprofit organization, where he serves as a director alongside fellow board member, Barack Obama.
2002: Woods Fund makes a grant to Northwestern Univ. law school?s Children & Family Justice Center, where Dohrn is employed.
4/02: Obama and Ayers appear together as panelists to discuss, ?Intellectuals in Times of Crisis;? Dohrn is a panelist at the same conference.
2003: Obama, Ayers and Dohrn attend a party for Rashid Khalidi, reported PLO operative and Arafat apologist.
Ever heard the phrase: if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas?
Actually, that would at least be a step in the right direction.
Not surprising. Clearly nothing?s changed for liberals; Carville said it best in ?92 that ?character has no political traction.? May God help you all.
100,000 Iraqis??that?s a good one?got any hard data to substantiate that??or is that Saddam?s reign-of-terror death toll?
Meltdown? Please explain how an economy in ?meltdown? can also grow at the same time.
Inferred positions? Obama is irrefutably the most liberal member of the Senate. And one doesn?t spend twenty years attending a church ?pastored? by a racist, America-hating radical and not be affected by or obtain some affinity for that rhetoric?otherwise he would?ve left years ago.
JCC
McCain hung out with the North Vietnamese for five years. He must be one of them.
Makes more sense than your Ayers nonsense
Jcc,
This from ABC news.
How far off was I again?
Given how you seem to want to dismiss Iraqi deaths, you would know about turning a blind eye.
Figures. I ask for proof, I get a timeline. Ridiculous.
I’m not a liberal. But I guess you’re more concerned with labels than the truth. By the way, wasn’t your Jesus a liberal?
You have got to be kidding. I’m not even going to bother.
What’s that have to do with your wanting to paint him as an anti-American extremist?
Unfortunately, I haven’t been graced with the ability to know what people would or wouldn’t do ? apparently you have.
What:
Ah-HA! McStain is the Manchurian Candidate!
Phreakshow & Jebediah Chastises Christhaters have apparently turned a blind eye to history. The track record shows that the USA always does better when Democrats are in the house.
We always do worse when the pig lickers are in power.