Atheist ‘Church’ Launches In Usa

[naomi24]

Atheists – what do you think of this? Do you feel the need for a sense of community - or to 'Come Out' as an atheist?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/global-mission-atheist-church-launches-in-usa-8708733.html

Personally, I abhor the way in which this appears to be emulating Christianity. These people don't speak for me.

[Khandro]

birdie; // it's interesting to note that the vast majority of scientists across the globe are either atheist or agnostic.//
What is interesting about that ? When did scientists become the spokespeople for the spirit of humanity?

[chrisgel]

Khandro - I really meant what I really said. I always try to pick my words carefully.
And yes the smiley was important and I believe Octavius took the comment in the spirit it was intended.
Misquoting and cherry picking seems to come naturally to some.

[chrisgel]

Solvitquick - //I think you are very rude to keyplus90.//
Do you really?
I thought that I was quite restrained given the utter bilge that he spouted.
You don't think that you are being a bit rude in your implications with regard to Naomi.
I wouldn't presume to speak for her except to say that it was perfectly obvious that the point she was making was that she found the minds of the people she referred to as more attractive than the //dumbed-down nonsense// of the Americans referred to in the OP.
For you and Keyplus to imply that she was talking about physical attraction is so far beneath contempt that I couldn't possibly be rude enough.
There are really no depths you wouldn't plumb in order to besmirch people who don't believe as you do are there.

[birdie1971]

Khandro - “... When did scientists become the spokespeople for the spirit of humanity?...”

I never said they did. Nor did I imply it. Your indignation appears to be on a hair-trigger. Rather than extrapolate ridiculous questions from benign statements, maybe you should re-read my question and ask yourself why the overwhelming majority of scientifically educated people either don't believe in God or are ambivalent about the concept of such a thing.

[LazyGun]

All getting very heated, and very personal isn't it?

I think Chris and Birdie were a tad harsh on Keyplus, who raised a point held by many who have religious faith. Their contention is that Atheism is a Faith to with a capital F, and that people like Dawkins, Hitchins Harris etc are the high priests. If you believe that, then it would be fair to conclude that the followers of this religion might be swayed by the actions of such influential religious figures...

But I do not think the argument holds. Firstly, despite the repeated assertions and beliefs of contributors like Khandro, and Keyplus, atheism is not another faith - at least, not by definition, and not by the vast majority of those who do not believe in a god or in organised religion.

Were any of those high profile commentators to convert to religion, it would have little impact on the content of the rationality of their arguments to date. People can do lots of odd things for all sorts of personal reasons.Might cause a few raised eyebrows though! :)

So Khandro and Keyplus will undoubtedly continue to hold to such a belief, as will, I am sure, thousands of the faithful. Does not make it true though :)

Then SIQ weighs in about posters being rude - a bit rich,coming from them, I think! Naomi will I am sure defend herself, but as usual, cherry picked comments were made out of context.

This is how Naomi was quoted;
"I find the steely and determined jaws of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens far more attractive"

But what she actually said was in response to a comment from Douglas, remarking on the hirsute nature of the founder of this atheist church movement itself. Naomi actual response was as follows;

"Douglas, the thought that this dumbed-down nonsense could become the recognised face of atheism is rather alarming. I find the steely and determined jaws of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens far more attractive"

A light hearted response to Douglas' own observations about the bushily bearded founder of the "atheist church"...

Context is very important.

[naomi24]

Keyplus, I don’t ‘follow’ anyone. If the men I mentioned changed their minds tomorrow, I wouldn’t agree with them.

solvitquick , //Is her philosophy really influenced by the appearance of the of the debater… Very sexist and stupid..//

If anything is stupid that is. It’s not worthy of a considered response.

Khandro, no, I do not require examples of religious intolerance. I see enough examples in the newspapers every day. I do, however, object to your implication.

Chris & LG, thank you. Common sense prevails!

[jomifl]

Khandro, your policy of avoiding answereing a question by asking one of your own gets a bit tedious. However since you admit to having religious belief then I think we can take it as read that you do in fact believe in a god of some sort, though why you are so evasive puzzles me. There is nothing to be ashamed of in believing in a god, in fact most believers seem quite proud of the fact of their belief whether or not their god can be proven to exist.

[jomifl]

SIQ, you did not find KP's question just a tad rude and patronising?

[naomi24]

//in fact most believers seem quite proud of the fact of their belief whether or not their god can be proven to exist. //

Few of them will answer a direct question though. Responding with another question seems par for the course.

[jomifl]

/ When did scientists become the spokespeople for the spirit of humanity/

I didn't know they had, but nice of you to aknowledge it.

[Khandro]

jomifl; I would no more expect coherence on spiritual matters from a scientist than I would expect sound advice on car mechanics from my doctor.
Regarding my belief in God; along with many others, including St Thomas Aquinas, I believe God to be unknowable and therefor the concept is deeply personal and also undefinable, and I most certainly would not wish to attempt to do so in this place.

[jim360]

If God is unknowable then why do so many theists waste time trying? Also, if he's unknowable, then he'd leave no sign in this world (since any sign would be knowable), so he doesn't matter anyway.

[naomi24]

Jim, excellent reasoning! :o)

[jim360]

Thanks Naomi! I wasn't sure if it was or not.

[jomifl]

Khandro, you missed out 'ineffable' from your list of reasons why you can't answer the question.

[naomi24]

Jim, read it again. It makes perfect sense. In fact I'd say it is one of the most astute observations I've ever seen posted here.

[jim360]

*blushes*

[vetuste_ennemi]

Buddhist, Taoist, and now Thomist! Age cannot wither him nor custom stale his infinite variety.

[Octavius]

"If Dawkins or Harris converted to religion tomorrow that wouldn't make them any less intelligent."

Quite, but the swathing assumption by atheists on AB R&S is that people with religion ARE educationally subnormal.

[Khandro]

//Jim, excellent reasoning! :o)//
Surprising (or maybe not) accolade for such illogical nonsense;
//if he's unknowable, then he'd leave no sign in this world (since any sign would be knowable),// You know the cup you drink from, but do you know who made it?