Atheist Church opens in London

Originally posted by Wonders

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by Wonders
My parents didn't indoctrinate me, they didn't sit me down and read the bible to me, I had to do that for myself. Never rely on others to do your learning for you.

Yep, same for me, it's why I don't believe in any gods, and look forward to a future atheist debate/discussion/social meeting place opening in my area, I would certainly check it out as a safe place from religious zealots. The social element of religious groups can definitely be beneficial but the belief in gods is not needed, just the shared interests of the group members.

Honestly I don't see why you shouldn't start the club yourself, I'd love to hear how it turns out for you.

That's a thought

Emotional abuse is common, no one is immune to it.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance in this discussion, what emotional abuse do you refer to while we consider the reality of atheist meeting places being formed in the UK?

I just want to say, atheist have every right to a church where they can enjoy brainstorming with like minded individuals, my angst was concerning the comment by a poster that said the world will be a better place when all religion is eradicated.

With that kind of attitude why shouldn't i be concerned?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I just want to say, atheist have every right to a church where they can enjoy brainstorming with like minded individuals, my angst was concerning the comment by a poster that said the world will be a better place when all religion is eradicated.

With that kind of attitude why shouldn't i be concerned?

Are you sure you want us non-believers brainstorming about some of the more difficult challenges we have to deal with from some zealously religious types?
Discussions in such camps would surely ask the question of no religion, and the discussion would explore any potential benefits of non-religiously clouded thoughts.

Originally posted by grainofsand

Emotional abuse is common, no one is immune to it.

Sorry, I don't see the relevance in this discussion, what emotional abuse do you refer to while we consider the reality of atheist meeting places being formed in the UK?

I felt that what I said had relevance to what you said about "a safe place from religious zealots."

That's all.

reply to post by Wonders
Ah, I understand, although I'm drawn to thinking that hatred is much more common between opposing religious groups and against atheists than the other way round. Churches, mosques, synagogues & temples are the 'safe' places for religious types to discuss their various beliefs without disagreement. It is lovely to see such environments being created for people who do not believe in gods, free from criticism of the fire and brimstone crowd.

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by Wonders

 

Ah, I understand, although I'm drawn to thinking that hatred is much more common between opposing religious groups and against atheists than the other way round. Churches, mosques, synagogues & temples are the 'safe' places for religious types to discuss their various beliefs without disagreement. It is lovely to see such environments being created for people who do not believe in gods, free from criticism of the fire and brimstone crowd.

I disagree. I think hatred is much more ommon than that. I don't believe that those buildings are necessarily "safe" places without disagreement. So far I've disagreed with a few pastors.
Luke 4:33 Once when he was in the synagogue, a man possessed by a demon--an evil spirit--began shouting at Jesus,
So, as the saying goes, Stay Safe.

reply to post by Wonders
Perhaps 'disagreement' was too mild a term. The safety I see in various places of worship is the community spirit of 'mostly' likeminded folk, in an environment free from ridicule or abuse by others who do not share such beliefs.
An atheist meeting place would have a similar attraction for me with rational debate not being ruined by unsubstantiated scripture 'evidence' or silly damnation type statements about the horrors of not believing in any gods. A friendly environment where one would not feel any need to hide such lack of belief.

I wish you well and reciprocate the stay safe sentiments, but as I don't believe in any demons or other mystical bad guys, I'm quite sure I have much less to look out for in life.

reply to post by grainofsand


Instead of having a specifically "anti-theistic" gathering, why not just have a scientific gathering where the term "God" is never even brought up or relevant at all?

This already exists, to an extent, in the scientific community (which you can already take part in today!). Though obviously, none of us are immune to dogma in its many forms.

Like I said before, I think it would be pretty neat to have a grass roots type scientific movement. And since most atheists use our current understanding of the universe as their "bible," it would seem that it would fit like a perfectly hemmed suit.

In other words, from your perspective, why not just have a scientific gathering rather than one that has its foundation laid in the religion it attempts to escape?

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by grainofsand

 

Instead of having a specifically "anti-theistic" gathering, why not just have a scientific gathering where the term "God" is never even brought up or relevant at all?

Did you just make up anti-theistic? I must have missed that elsewhere, it's 'atheist', a lack of belief, it is different.
People of faith enjoy many pastimes and interests unrelated to belief in gods, shared social experiences if you like. Busy places of worship for all faiths are much more than the worship itself, with youth groups, social nights, camps, trips, sports, music, singing, charitable work, volunteering and much more.

A science slant is certainly an obvious shared focus, but people who don't believe in gods cover the entire spectrum of society as well, so with the numerous different interests of attending members there would certainly be a wider social experience, with all sharing an environment free from religious zealots who criticise a lack of faith.

Originally posted by grainofsand
Did you just make up anti-theistic?

Here, Ill fix it for you:

Instead of having a specifically "atheistic" gathering, why not just have a scientific gathering where the term "God" is never even brought up or relevant at all?

People of faith enjoy many pastimes and interests unrelated to belief in gods, shared social experiences if you like. Busy places of worship for all faiths are much more than the worship itself, with youth groups, social nights, camps, trips, sports, music, singing, charitable work, volunteering and much more.

A science slant is certainly an obvious shared focus, but people who don't believe in gods cover the entire spectrum of society as well, so with the numerous different interests of attending members there would certainly be a wider social experience, with all sharing an environment free from religious zealots who criticise a lack of faith.

Fair enough, there is no need to justify anything to me. Honestly, I dont particularly care! I just find it odd to base it on, and justify it according to religious gatherings, and that makes me curious what the perspective is on the matter. I see it as the same as religious zealotry, just a criticism of those with faith. As always, there will be exceptions to the rule, but I see as many conversion attempts from atheists as I do theists. If not more! And it seems the percentage of zealous atheists in proportion to the whole is much higher than with theism. I also find defining an atheists beliefs (or defining their lack of beliefs) to be significantly more predictable than any form of theism. That specifically is something I find quite interesting, so every once in a while Ill ask some questions on it.

What would happen if I went to one of these gatherings and said that I believe in a God(s)? Conversion attempts would inevitably follow. I still dont get it, but it seems the dichotomy is lost in translation, as seems inherent to counter-cultures.

edit: Keep in mind, I am someone who is not accepted by either theism or atheism and I see zero difference in how that is handled by either one.

Thanks for the input!

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by grainofsand
Did you just make up anti-theistic?

Here, Ill fix it for you:

Instead of having a specifically "atheistic" gathering, why not just have a scientific gathering where the term "God" is never even brought up or relevant at all?

Much better

Fair enough, there is no need to justify anything to me.

I made no attempt to justify anything, just offered an explanatory answer to your previous question.

Honestly, I dont particularly care!

You cared enough to ask questions, I responded.

I just find it odd to base it on, and justify it according to religious gatherings, and that makes me curious what the perspective is on the matter. I see it as the same as religious zealotry, just a criticism of those with faith.

Where is this critisism you speak of? I just see a group of people who don't believe in gods hooking up to hear talks, sing songs, and celebrate life. That what you call criticism?

As always, there will be exceptions to the rule, but I see as many conversion attempts from atheists as I do theists. If not more! And it seems the percentage of zealous atheists in proportion to the whole is much higher than with theism.

Got a source to back that up yeh?

I also find defining an atheists beliefs (or defining their lack of beliefs) to be significantly more predictable than any form of theism.

Probably because reasoned argument is often predictable.

That specifically is something I find quite interesting, so every once in a while Ill ask some questions on it.

What would happen if I went to one of these gatherings and said that I believe in a God(s)? Conversion attempts would inevitably follow. I still dont get it, but it seems the dichotomy is lost in translation, as seems inherent to counter-cultures.

More assertions and loaded labels, can't you do better than that?

edit: Keep in mind, I am someone who is not accepted by either theism or atheism and I see zero difference in how that is handled by either one.

Yes, you've mentioned this before but hold back with releasing your viewpoint, why is that? Got some other faith based mystical opinion but don't have the confidence to share it openly?

Thanks for the input!

Likewise.

reply to post by grainofsand


You ask where is the criticism of atheists towards theists.. honestly, Im not particularly sure how to respond to that. Essentially, I just dont understand why the different viewpoints couldnt get together and "hooking up to hear talks, sing songs, and celebrate life." I really dont see the relevance of faith/lack of faith to it or why people would choose to divide each other on such a thing. The only time I would see relevance is if they specifically conversed on the faith/lack of faith. And that starts to lead directly into criticism. The difference being, theists have something to talk about whereas an atheist-specific gathering would talk about something which doesnt exist and how they dont believe in it. Because of human nature, its not exactly a huge leap from this into talking about those who do have faith.

"It seems" might mean something different than you think it does. It certainly doesnt imply a scientific, or even sourced assertion, that may or may not exist beyond the perceiving system (me).

You see them as "loaded labels," but I do not view something like a counter-culture with any sort of negative connotation. I think it is just human nature to divide ourselves according to specific parameters. That said, I dont think its necessarily beneficial for society as a whole for these things to carry over to areas where they arent even relevant (such as "hooking up to hear talks, sing songs, and celebrate life."). I dont understand why people would consciously choose to divide themselves in such a manner, but we all do it to an extent because it is our cultural story.

My beliefs are shown in my actions. If there is a God, that is how I choose to live. If there is not a God, I choose to live in the same way. "Respect all" pretty much sums it up. There tend to be mix ups on the perception of that though, and so I continuously attempt to become better at it. If you feel disrespected enough to start resorting to character attacks about "confidence," that is a direct result of your own bias mixed in with my imperfect ability. In that way, we both have something to learn from the discourse.

Originally posted by SerdgiamMy beliefs are shown in my actions. If there is a God, that is how I choose to live. If there is not a God, I choose to live in the same way. "Respect all" pretty much sums it up. There tend to be mix ups on the perception of that though, and so I continuously attempt to become better at it. If you feel disrespected enough to start resorting to character attacks about "confidence," that is a direct result of your own bias mixed in with my imperfect ability. In that way, we both have something to learn from the discourse.

You've been slippery again, no clear answer but quick to question my honest and open view.
I have so far seen nothing in life to draw me towards believing that there is anything mystical in the universe, from gods, ghosts and angels, to pixies, astrology, reiki and everything in between.
I am happy to defend my position if you or anyone else has issue with it, it is clear and publically expressed.
Your own position is cryptically unclear, but regardless, it is certainly irrelevant to this topic as long as you choose not to share it.

reply to post by grainofsand


You are focusing very strongly on the "God(s)" part.

There was a whole post before that, which to my perspective, was the meat of my point with this specific thread.

Why does it need to turn into a discussion on "God(s)?"

The point I am raising is that, ideally, I think that these freely chosen dividers dont need to divide us to the extent they do. Sure, when speaking about faith/lack of faith it becomes relevant. But, why would someone need that bit of info to be able to share life and time together? Why does it even matter if all you want to do is "hooking up to hear talks, sing songs, and celebrate life?"

But, seemingly inevitably, the conversation always gets steered towards God(s).

Why are my beliefs relevant to the claim that such unnecessary division may not be the best way to go about a healthy social structure? I think that such behaviors minimize the true extent of diversity between individual perspectives. Agreement and disagreement happen regardless of labels. Yet, we use the labels themselves to further exacerbate the division into cliques.

In other words, why is it so much more preferred to "hook up to hear talks, sing songs, and celebrate life" with people that only agree on a very specific label, but agree and disagree in a plethora of other different areas? There are plenty of things that we would agree and disagree with, why is so much importance placed on one very specific aspect of interaction? I think that if we were all to approach it a bit differently, it would end up benefiting everyone.

Just like this conversation; why are you so focused on my beliefs when they have nothing to do with the point I am attempting, and failing, to make? Why is that needed by you to have a productive conversation on the nature of the human social structures?

reply to post by Serdgiam
OK, you're questioning my support for an environment where people who don't believe in gods can meet socially, yet you are unwilling to be as succinct with your own beliefs as I was.
Hmm, level playing field and all that.

reply to post by grainofsand


Im not questioning your support of it, I am questioning our overall behavior when it comes to social exchanges like this. "Our" meaning every single human on the face of the Earth.

Do we carry out actions in the most fruitful way possible? Or just in a way that furthers our own insular nature? I think we search out groups where we can get the easiest pats on the back/self-gratification possible.

You are free to continue focusing on belief/lack of belief, but I am trying to address a much larger point.

No worries at all, I knew exactly what to expect. Never know when that surprise will jump around the corner though! And those moments are just so much damn fun.

Originally posted by Serdgiam
reply to post by grainofsand

 

Im not questioning your support of it, I am questioning our overall behavior when it comes to social exchanges like this. "Our" meaning every single human on the face of the Earth.

More cryptic statements with little explanation, if any.

Do we carry out actions in the most fruitful way possible? Or just in a way that furthers our own insular nature? I think we search out groups where we can get the easiest pats on the back/self-gratification possible.

Well, I've explained my position quite clearly in previous posts. You have not, I ask why?

You are free to continue focusing on belief/lack of belief, but I am trying to address a much larger point.

Then declare it and stop the cryptic style of delivery.

No worries at all, I knew exactly what to expect.

Never know when that surprise will jump around the corner though! And those moments are just so much damn fun.

Yes, life certainly is fun, and from my point of view much more so without the magical entity faith thing going on.

Originally posted by grainofsand
More cryptic statements with little explanation, if any.

You.. find those statements cryptic? Its sociology.

Well, I've explained my position quite clearly in previous posts. You have not, I ask why?

If you have explained your position on the social repercussions of the insular nature of cliques, culture, and labels, I completely missed it. I even went through the thread again, and still dont find it. I am curious as to what you think about it, but you just keep talking about faith. My position is that the clique-ish nature of our social structure is detrimental, as I have repeatedly said. To expand, I think it can be healthy to an extent, but not when it is the sole foundation of an entire culture.

Then declare it and stop the cryptic style of delivery.

I fail to see the cryptic style of delivery. I have been quite clear that I dont think forming cliques and insular societies is the healthiest way to go about it, regardless of any label whatsoever. I think it encourages more growth when understanding the true diversity amongst viewpoints rather minimizing them by giving the general label "like-minded" when it only refers to one aspect. That one aspect, in this specific case, is atheism/theism.

Yes, life certainly is fun, and from my point of view much more so without the magical entity faith thing going on.

Really have no idea what you are on about here.

Anywho my friend, you obviously are not understanding my point. Or at least are feigning it until I give you a specific label to grasp on to. Ill give you the benefit of the doubt and go with the former. As I said, it was to be expected as I knew I couldnt articulate it as well as I would like. I am speaking of the sociology and pscyhology behind all of this that a significant portion of the population isnt even aware of (perhaps you arent aware of it, giving the illusion of being cryptic?).

The overall point has nothing to do with faith/lack of faith, etc. Those are just manifestations of the underlying human behavior. There arent many who are aware of the foundation of their decisions. So, if you are not, then I have no doubt none of this would make sense. All the best to you!

reply to post by Serdgiam
Ah, you stand from a neutral sociological viewpoint now, I can do the same if you wish. Please don't question my lack of faith again with vague references about yourself not being accepted in theist or atheist camps due to your unique way of looking at the world which you are not prepared to share in this thread.
Wanna debate sociologically? Excellent, I'm happy to engage.

Let's try and stay on-topic about regular meeting places being formed by people who share a lack of belief in gods though

Originally posted by grainofsand
Ah, you stand from a neutral sociological viewpoint now, I can do the same if you wish. Please don't question my lack of faith again with vague references about yourself not being accepted in theist or atheist camps due to your unique way of looking at the world which you are not prepared to share in this thread.
Wanna debate sociologically? Excellent, I'm happy to engage.

When did I question your "lack of faith?" You just kept bringing up faith (sorry, "lack of faith") as a topic, I kept trying to go away from it. The reason I brought up not being accepted in either camp was very well demonstrated by yourself. By not attaching a label, I am not accepted in either camp. I dont like the innate generalization that takes place when assigning such a label. The point is "Does it have to be that way?" It is indicative of the repercussions of the insular nature of these things.

Let's try and stay on-topic about regular meeting places being formed by people who share a lack of belief in gods though

Its 100% on topic. And I am unquestionably in support of the right to do it! But the point is, "is that really the healthiest way to go about it?" The insular nature of religion has allowed it to do unspeakable things. They will only listen to those who have attached the same label, due to the social repercussions of "cliques." Do atheists really want to go down the same route? Obviously, the right to do as such is there, as its being done. But, should we learn the lessons that religion taught on the nature of such insular social groups?