http://www.acfnewsource.org/religion/atheist_church.html

hmmm.

a "church for the unchurched"... heh.

I hope it's not just a bunch of people sitting around bitching. Not a bad idea though, as long as they don't dogmatize the whole thing.

Bad idea.

A religious organization should be based upon the positive.

It's not a religious organization. The only thing relating to religion - is the fact that they're all dismissive of it.

They're less religious than the Boy Scouts, Lions, 4-H, football teams and car clubs.

Just because men recognize the inherent value of being in a group, it doesn't need to imply any link to religion or a god.

whats not positive about Atheism?

what support do you have besides stereotypes and other generalizations?

Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

Nox

sounds like they just call it a church for the irony, to me.

Right-o. Groups are okay and all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogey Man:
whats not positive about Atheism?

---

Atheism isn't positive, it's not attempting to accomplish anything.

I think that depends.
Some of the ideas that come along with it (with certain people) can be positive.

quote:

---

Atheism isn't positive, it's not attempting to accomplish anything.

---

On that note, neither does Christianity.

Nox got my point. The whole idea of atheism is to reject the church way of life, and to not agree with "religion". It is an Oxymoron, like JumboShrimp!

>>>whats not positive about Atheism?<<<<

The very label and nature of the belief structure. At least Nihilists name their religion after Nothing. The label "atheism" means No God, so, to say it isnt fundamentally rooted in the negative is kinda stupid. Its name just exists as a counter-point to a religion making an active statement.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:


The label "atheism" means No God, so, to say it isnt fundamentally rooted in the negative is kinda stupid. Its name just exists as a counter-point to a religion making an active statement.

---

Depends on your definition i guess.

Concise Collins Dictionary:

atheism rejection in belief in God or gods, {originally from 16th century French, from the Greek atheos meaning 'godless'.

This seems a somewhat different definition of atheism 'godless' as compared with 'No God'.

Rejection of something isnt a negative? By that definition, atheism is just as dependent on a god as theism is. Otherwise theyd have nothing to define themselves with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Rejection of something isnt a negative? By that definition, atheism is just as dependent on a god as theism is. Otherwise theyd have nothing to define themselves with.

---

Yeah good point.

Not being atheist myself, the definition of atheism as godless seems a vastly different meaning to 'no god'. A 'no god' type of atheism seems to me to be an ignorant, perhaps even arrogant assumption, however godless could simply mean the atheist refuses to recognise any being as 'God'.

Similar to agnostic, but differing - where agnostics might say ' if there is a God i have not met Him/Her/It personally so remain unconvinced', a godless atheist would perhaps say 'there may be those who proclaim themselves God but i reject their claims'.

These are thoughts, ok, not a major statement of fact, but it illustrates to me that to lump all people calling themselves atheists together, as all believing the same thing, is as deficient as lumping all 'christians' or 'pagans' into one category.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
...neither does Christianity.

---

No, it has accomplished plenty. Just because it's based on an invisible deity, a man-god ghost and incongruous scripture - doesn't mean it's not influential.
___

quote:

---

Spirit:
...atheism is just as dependent on a god as theism is.

---

It's dependent on the CONCEPT of god.

The atheist church is an interesting parallel to your Religion and Society topic.
___

quote:

---

Redzed:
the definition of atheism as godless seems a vastly different meaning to 'no god'. A 'no god' type of atheism seems to me to be an ignorant, perhaps even arrogant assumption, however godless could simply mean the atheist refuses to recognise any being as 'God'.

---

First of all, your quoting an ancient language, and the current definition of "godless" implies a refusal to conform, not necessarily linked to a belief in gods existance. Most commonly found in teenagers retaliating against dad, 'cause dad won't allow a nose bone.

Regarding, "no-god", what makes you think that the dismissal of a god is ignorant and arrogant? Because YOU presume he exists? The irony...

the perceived negative connotations of the term atheism, is why many non-believers prefer the term humanist or rationalist..

emphasizing that they not only reject god and religion but more importantly look to humanity and rationality to deal with life.

They are stupid in assuming belief in a God = belief that that God is going to fix their life or help people.

"Rejection of something isnt a negative?"

not beliving in god is rejecting him?
not beliveing in god is not rejecting anything, its just not beliving. if god existed, then yes, you could reject him, but considering its a decision based on faith, not fact, there is no rejection.

people arnet born beliving in god, the bible is not a natural thing, it is something that people are taught to belive.

A-theist. That is denial, which is an act of negation- negative.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
First of all, your quoting an ancient language, and the current definition of "godless" implies a refusal to conform,

---

Yeah, like i said, it depends on your definition.

quote:

---

Regarding, "no-god", what makes you think that the dismissal of a god is ignorant and arrogant? Because YOU presume he exists? The irony...

---

No offence intended, i was speaking from personal experience, there was a time when i described myself as atheist, or as 22 says A-theist, believed there was no god or gods. However my life experience since then convinced me that the views i held then were ignorant, ignorant in the definition of lacking in knowledge. Now i believe there are powers beyond my knowledge and as i said - "perhaps arrogant". Once again speaking for myself, i came to the thought that as i could not determine 100% either way, then if in fact The Almighty did exist, how arrogant of me to assume otherwise.

My thinking is that to know for sure that God or gods do not exist, one would have to search the universe, and in light of M-theory, perhaps beyond the universe.

In that case i am ignorant of so many things both within this life on earth and without, in the universe and beyond, and perhaps it is arrogance, overpriding my status to state there is no God. After all, what is a man? What is the earth? A bacteria clinging to the surface of a tiny speck of dust in the vastness of a seeminglty limitless universe, that may actually be only a bubble in the even greater expanse of the multi-verse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
A-theist. That is denial, which is an act of negation- negative.

---

A- means without.

I was using negative to describe an influence, not a cancelation.
Theism negates atheism - negative.

You don't deny something you don't think exists.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
No, it has accomplished plenty. Just because it's based on an invisible deity, a man-god ghost and incongruous scripture - doesn't mean it's not influential.

---

Influential in what sense? The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and Salem Witch Trials were all influenced by Christianity.

It's not the belief that does the actions or is good/bad, it is the believers. A belief in itself can yield no results, the believers, however, can.

So that's why I say atheism isn't negative. It's the simple lack of belief in any God/Gods/Godesses. If someone comes up and asks me if I believe in any God and I say "No", does that automatically make me a negative person? No. Atheism is a classification due to mankinds propencity to have to label everything. It is neutral in itself.

That's right, three negative examples - negative by popular current standards.

Three positive examples would be; soup kitchens; parochial sports; and moral direction.

So, until the Atheist Church gets enough players to field a league, they just aren't capable of these things.

And when you denounce god in the midst of this standard, you ARE considered negative, from the prospective of the majority - the ones that set the standard.

They are the ones that determine what is positive and negative.

I don't think I could disagree with you more user.

I didn't know you based everything off the majority's decision, even though their decisions are based on nothing but titles.

Im not talking about negative as harmful, Im saying negative as in not positive, as in, it negates something rather than creates or maintains it. Atheist means, no or without God. That is a negation of God. Negations are negative. Affirmations are positive, by definition. Theist would be an affirming statement. Atheist is a negating one- its negative, get over it.

Yes, but why would you be arguing against it's negation?
the only thing that makes it negative is it's title

Which labels its nature- disbelief in God, or a rejection in the idea of one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogey Man:
...you based everything off the majority's decision...

---

The context is: the reaction to Dark's pronouncement of Atheism, and it WILL be negative, because he does it in a culture that sees it as being negative. If we lived in a predominately Atheist culture, then his statement would be positive - akin to - congratulations, for beating alcoholism.

Name one positive aspect of Atheism.

Its only a rejection for those who believe in God

atheists don't need to deny it, because they don't believe in it.

They are at the neutral zero, everything else varies around them.

they're not a negative because you're not subtracting anything from 0, they start with nothing and end with it.

The others are positive because you are adding things to them

Think about it

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bogey Man:
They are at the neutral zero, everything else varies around them.

---

We used to think that the universe revolved around the earth, but later we learned better.

How about confidence and freedom for positives, but all those feelings are on a singular level, like was said before, its the people, not the idea.

Anti-semitism was positive to the majority in Nazi Germany...

oh shut up user, they are zero because they have no belief, it makes perfect sense.

>>>Anti-semitism was positive to the majority in Nazi Germany...<<<

Anti-anything is by definition negative. It can never be positive to anyone. Its an objective fact, anti=negative.

Its sad how tainted everyones everything, even language, is tainted by christian ideas of everything being absolute right or wrong. Negative means not positive. Positive and negative have nothing to do with good or bad.

No way Atheism is the logical center of anything. As has been posted by others, it is the opposing force to theism.

How are "confidence" and "freedom" generated by Atheism?

What do you people have agains atheism, i will admit that the idea of an aethiest church is almost an oxymoron, but aethism is just as much of a religon as any other.

in the words of Einstien "it's not what you believe its that you believe."

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:

Three positive examples would be; soup kitchens; parochial sports; and moral direction.

---

I am an atheist and that doesn't stop me from being charitable. I gave my last $5 to some homeless Vietnam war vet on the side of the road.

quote:

---

So, until the Atheist Church gets enough players to field a league, they just aren't capable of these things.

---

It sounds like your contrast is holier-than-thou. Church is just a collective effort. Just because Atheists don't band together in masse and perform charity doesn't mean that they don't do it on an individual basis.

quote:

---

And when you denounce god in the midst of this standard, you ARE considered negative, from the prospective of the majority - the ones that set the standard.

---

There is a big difference between denunciation and failure to acknowledge. I don't acknowledge God as existing. I don't acknowledge him anymore now than I did the day I was born and I don't reject him any moreso.

quote:

---

They are the ones that determine what is positive and negative.

---

The Christian Church doesn't establish the definitions of positive and negative.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 09-22-2002).]

I'll have to agree with Dark Magneto. Atheism doesn't deny God, they just don't acknowledge him/her/it as existing.

The only thing that makes atheism negative is its title.

Atheism is the 0 on the number line.
It doesn't mean anything other than atheism would not be a negative because you're not subtracting anything.
Theism would be a positive number because you'd be adding different beliefs.

The only way atheism would be a negative is if you could claim that theism was the 0, which makes absolutely no sense because there are so many different facets of theism adding different beliefs, who can't agree with each other.

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 09-22-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
How are "confidence" and "freedom" generated by Atheism?

---

Like i said, it's felt on an individual level, I'm sure not every other atheist has the same feelings generated from atheism.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
There is a big difference between denunciation and failure to acknowledge. I don't acknowledge God as existing. I don't acknowledge him anymore now than I did the day I was born and I don't reject him any moreso.

---

"Denounce" implies a stated (public) opposition to religion - which usually draws out negative attitudes in the majority of people. "Failure to acknowledge" IS different, because it just means you're keeping your mouth shut. Which as you well know, is the appropriate action when applying for work, or talking to relatives at a funeral.

quote:

---

The Christian Church doesn't establish the definitions of positive and negative.

---

It does for Christians.

"They" means the MAJORITY in the context of my post, so it has some universal application.

The only possible positive coming from Atheism, would be the personal satisfaction that an Atheist holds, because he avoided subscribing to the bullshit of religion. However, it's cancelled out by the Theist's feelings for his belief (which are identical), so it really is insignificant.

And no, Atheism is NOT at the center of the spiritual world, as Bogey's little geometry example would have us believe.

I'm not saying its the center of anything, I'm saying its not negative.
being the 0 isn't anything special, it just shows that it's not negative.

what would you consider to be the zero if you don't believe that atheism is? would you support yourself, instead of just implying your opinion as fact?

[This message has been edited by Bogey Man (edited 09-22-2002).]

Fools!

The negative doesn't have to be a denial. It can be the absence of as well.

You have 5 cookies.
I have 0 cookies.
0 cookies is not a negative number.

now replace cookies with religious beliefs and it's still not a negative number

Thats a crappy analogy. We got a god in one corner. In the other corner we have no god. Thats a negative- hence NO, a statement of negative, god.

I don't care how crappy of an analogy it is, it works, all you people do is say "nu-uh"

Learn some basic math skills, or do you consider having a God to be the zero? (even though having something should be positive, but you people like to pull all sorts of double standards out of your asses)

how about this analogy:
there are 2 glasses, one is full of water, the other is empty. Does the empty glass have a negative amount of water? or, does it just have 0 water?

You have doG, I do not have doG. Does that make the absence of doG automatically assume negative connotation? Does that mean that those that are just now born are negative to doG since they don't have it?

I think these analogies aren't going to work because they will continue to adhere to their preferred definitions.

I think you guys are misunderstanding the definition of negative, like christian tainted jackasses. Negative means something that negates. Denying an existence of god, refusing to believe it, is a negation. That has no implications whatsoever regarding whats good or bad for people.

I know that you're not talking about whether or not it is good/bad, but like I said before, the only things that makes it negative (using your context) is its title.

But you seem to very fond of semantics