What do you Athiests think about the Church of Reality?

[lvx35]

Being advertised on the left panel:

http://www.churchofreality.org/wisdom/welcome_home/

It looks interesting to me. It appears to be an agnostic organization, but acts like a church.

[toddaa]

1. Not as good as the Church of Euthanasia

http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. All religeon is a drug!

end of subject.


There is no God!
the need for a God is silly
But, Hey, if it makes you feel better, have a God.

[Selteri]

4. I semi Agree.

Religion is an addictive drug
There is something more than the human experience, you can call it God, Universal awareness or something else.

I beleive in spirituality being a strong thing, it has ntohing to do with religion, it has to do with finding your own path, if you believe there's a god out there, great, if not, so what, it doesn't matter much as long as you are willing to be a good and moral person.

[manic expression]

11. Care to say why?

Saying religion is like a drug is ridiculous. It can be used in that way, but it actually isn't. What you are saying is like saying science is a drug, and a need for knowledge is "silly".

[beam me up scottie]

12. No, what's ridiculous is equating religion with science.

If it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to believe that, go for it.

But making such a ridiculous comparison is an insult to science, scientists and the intelligence of others.

Let's simplify things;

from the mother of all simplification tools, Wikipedia:

Religion (see etymology below) —sometimes used interchangeably with faith or belief system—is commonly defined as belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine; and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions and rituals associated with such belief. In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe.

Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge - based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism - aimed at finding out the truth.

Actually, religious belief can be like a drug, sometimes it's a good one because it comforts those that have it and inspires them to practice the golden rule.

But it can also be like a bad drug, poisonous, addictive and consuming, impairing abilities, distorting reality, causing paranoia and other delusions, including delusions of grandeur.

[manic expression]

14. Not really

Because many people felt "warm and fuzzy" by thinking things that get proven wrong later. YOU believe things that are supported by science that people will laugh at 50 or even 20 years from now. That's the way it's always been, and if you can't accept that, that's your loss, but at least you feel "warm and fuzzy".

Not everyone 'believes' in divinity for the "warm and fuzzy" feeling. I agree that a lot of Christians have the "well, I believe it, so it must be true" mindset, but that is but one mindset of many.

Using Wikipedia, you forgot this little tidbit: "In its broadest sense some have defined it as the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe." As in the BROADEST SENSE, as in religion as a whole, not as specific philosophies and schools of thought. Furthermore, some define it in that way, so that is not nearly a definitive answer.

Science is aimed at finding the truth, but you forget that any religious person will tell you religion does the same thing. Science looks at the truth of the tangible world, religion looks at the bigger picture. Both have faults, and one should not deny this.

Religious belief is not like a drug at all. It CAN be used badly, it CAN distort reality, but so can anything else. Are you telling me that eugenics, backed by many scientists of the day, was not "poisonous", or "delusional"? The fact is that religion is not a single entity, just as anything else. Different religions give different answers on reality and on existence. You have to see that since these answers vary, they are not all a certain way, and so not all cause the ills you speak of (most do not, actually). What is clear is that many of them offer a wealth of knowledge and wisdom. That, my friend, is most certainly not a drug.

I also thought you might like this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/290121.stm

[beam me up scottie]

15. Yes, really. It's funny, the IDiots can't quite grasp that either.

"YOU believe things that are supported by science that people will laugh at 50 or even 20 years from now."

Let's just skip your obligatory attempt to equate atheists' reliance on science with religious belief this time.
I'm sick of it, it's an insult and an argument from ignorance.

And if you had bothered to actually read my post instead of skimming it and trying to score points, you'd realize I did include the full definition of religion from Wikipedia.

Or were you just pretending you missed it so that you could build one of your famous straw men?

"Science looks at the truth of the tangible world, religion looks at the bigger picture"

So, religion looks at the intangible world?

That's what I've been saying.

Religion is based on faith.

Science is based on knowledge.

It's really very simple.

Well, not for the IDiots, of course.



Your last paragraph is practically incoherent, but I think you're trying to blame eugenics on science in order to compare it to religion.

That's so lame, it's not even worth contemplating.

You also managed to ignore the comparison to a good drug.

Again, you have no argument and you resort to building straw men so that you can knock them down.


Why would you link to a BBC report about fraudulent findings in scientific journals?

Because the scientific community does an excellent job of policing itself?

Because, through peer review, errors are discovered?

Because of science, the truth comes out?




Can't say the same about religious "truth", can you?


Thanks for providing more evidence of the fundamental difference between science and religion.


Religious truth is not based on evidence.

It's based on hearsay.

[manic expression]

16. Why, in the world,

are you bringing up ID? That has little to do with what we're talking about, and it strikes me as petty and desperate that you would reference that.

Oh, you're insulted? How so? Please, I did not insult you at all. I have a hard time believing you would be so indulgent as to feign insult every time someone challenges your beliefs.

What did I miss in your post? I responded specifically to something you posted, so how is that dishonest? You made a faulty point that you knew was not definitive and I simply pointed that to you.

The fact that science is a field where yesterday's heresies are tomorrow's facts is undeniable. Does that insult you?

Religion looks at the big picture, which includes all that you consider "tangible", and all that is beyond that (so yes, some of it is not fully tangible, but one only needs to see smoke to know that there is fire).

The assertion that religion is based solely on faith is ridiculous. To even try to put all religions into a pot is more than incorrect. So you are saying religion is devoid of knowledge? That is patently wrong.

It's incoherent to you because of your inability to understand it. Eugenics was backed by science, so is science a drug?

I didn't ignore your "good drug" analysis, I simply rejected the entire premise. Religion is something that can be used badly, but that does not make the parts that are good as invalid, and that certainly does not make it a drug, as you wrongly believe. Please re-read my post, and try to think this time.

It doesn't bother you that science has found things to be "true", when they are not? Because of this, people who think science is correct and infallible are wrong, and their commonly accepted beliefs will be mocked in time. Well, at least it still makes people feel "warm and fuzzy", right? :eyes:

Much of what you believe, based on science, will be laughed at in the history classes of the future. Have fun with all that "truth"...:rofl:

Again, religion is not a single entity. There are many philosophies, many mindsets, and so they are based on many different things. However, what is undeniable is the insight to the world it brings (again, not all, but it is not all or nothing).

Oh, and guess what? Your empty claims of "evidence" are about as invalid as your beliefs on this matter.

[lvx35]

18. Two good points I really respect.

That you brought up:

1) Scientific truth does not look at itself is infallible, therefore there is no such thing as scientific fact, only scientific theory, which is mutable and changes. Science is also limited in that it deals with a subset of knowledge, quantitative mutually observable phenomenon, and there is a whole world outside of that, not just religion but things like art.

2) History has now shown that religion is not the source of man's woes, as demonstrated by things like eugenics and the forced athiesm of brutal communist dictatorships. Man is the source of man's woes.

[beam me up scottie]

21. Because IDiots can't understand the difference either.

I don't know how to simplify it anymore than I already did.

I thought the Wikipedia references would do the trick.

Let's try a children's dictionary:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'lij-&n
Function: noun
1 a : the service and worship of God or the supernatural b : belief in or devotion to religious faith or observance c : the state of a person in the religious life <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
2 : a set or system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and ways of doing things
3 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held with faith and strong feeling

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English science "the state of knowing, knowledge," from early French science (same meaning), from Latin scientia (same meaning), from scient-, sciens "knowing," from scire "to know" --related to CONSCIOUS, NICE, OMNISCIENT --see Word History at NICE
1 a : an area of knowledge that is an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like a science <have it down to a science> c : any of the natural sciences (as biology, physics, or chemistry)
2 : knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method

And here I thought you were just being obtuse, which is insulting to critical thinkers.

But you really have a hard time with definitions, I'll try to go slower next time.

Maybe it would help if you wrote it down?

[manic expression]

24. Do you act so petty with anyone who disagrees with you?

The only thing "simple" about your argument is that it is simply wrong.

Are you denying the fact that things commonly accepted because of science get proven wrong later? This is extremely obvious. Scientific "fact" gets proven wrong all of the time, so accepting it blindly without recognition of its status is as silly as it is misled.

Your references to wiki and this children's dictionary (you use it a lot, don't you?) have little to do with your points. The fact is that both science and religion look for knowledge, while they simply look at different things. As I have said before, science is as prone to untruthfulness and misuse as religion is (see eugenics, Mao, Hiroshima, etc...). Therefore, is science as much of a drug as religion?

Why don't you try to think critically? Your pitiful insults and childish rhetoric just exposes the fallacy of your points further.

"I'll try to go slower next time."
Maybe try going somewhere altogether next time.

[beam me up scottie]

25. Nope. Just you.

You're special.

I can tell because you keep implying that I "believe" in science the way you believe in the supernatural even after DU atheists have repeatedly pointed out how silly that is.

It's really too bad you can't understand why it's ridiculous to equate religion with science.

You insist on claiming that believers in the "gospel truth" can be compared to scientists and those who base their world view on knowledge instead of superstition.

I wouldn't have to keep explaining these things to you if you'd pay attention.

[manic expression]

26. Well, at least you admit

that you act petty. However, I do suspect that this is not an exception.

You believe things that will be laughed at in history classes. The sooner you accept this, the better.

Scientists who based their world view on their "knowledge" forcefully sterilized "undesirable" people. Scientists who based their world view on their "knowledge" have had their views thoroughly debunked.

You're not explaining anything, you're only demonstrating how misled you are.

[beam me up scottie]

27. Eugenics proves science is bad...blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

Got any more right wing talking points or does that fill the quota for this week?

Some eugenics proponents based their arguments on bad science and used it to support their programs, and others used creationism.


Guess which source of knowledge debunked eugenics and led to the the end of its practice?


Sorry to break this to you, but using eugenics to malign science is a tactic invented by anti-science morons and has been around for quite some time.

Try again.

[manic expression]

28. Did I say that?

straw man here, straw man there, straw men everywhere. :eyes:

Eugenics proves that science can be misused for terrible things. If you continue to deny this, that is pathetic.

"Some eugenics proponents based their arguments on bad science and used it to support their programs..."

EXACTLY. They based their world view on science. So, is science a drug?

Guess which influence fought segregation. Guess which influence fueled the Indian independence movement. Guess which influence was central to the abolitionist movement. Try answering that.

Sure, just keep trying to compare me to RWers....:eyes: Too bad I'm not maligning science, just stating the fact as it is. Try that for a change.

[beam me up scottie]

29. I got your answer: Guess which was and still IS used to persecute women,

jews, atheists, native peoples and countless other non-christian minorities?

Without religion we wouldn't have needed anyone to rescue us from it's oppressors.

:eyes: Geez, it's like arguing with a six year old.


Oh, and expecting gratitude from those of us who were oppressed also came out of the reichwing toolbox.

[manic expression]

30. Good, now look at this

Just as Eugenics is the product of the misuse of science (I believe you said something similar), so too are those ills the misuse of religion.

Everything can be misused. However, that does not make it a bad thing. Atheists have oppressed other people and other groups. That does not make atheism bad.

I am a non-Christian minority, so supposedly we're in the same boat, no?

What about Mao, Stalin and other atheist oppressors? What about when atheism is forced upon other people? Is that oppression not as bad?

No, you argue LIKE a six year old.

[beam me up scottie]

31. ROFL! Where are you getting these talking points from ?

Did the christo-fascists publish another book that I don't know about?

"Atheists have oppressed other people and other groups"

DING DING DING! DING DING DING! DING DING DING !!!

:rofl:

That is a CLASSIC fundie talking point!

It's right out of their textbook and about as lame as everything else they use against atheists.

Mao, Stalin and other atheist "oppressors" didn't oppress in the NAME of atheism.

Their lack of a religion had nothing to do with what they did.


Got another?

[manic expression]

32. A lie?

Wait, so the fact that Maoists in Nepal are hostile to religion is not persecution? The fact that Mao and Stalin did the same is not persecution? Get a grip. It is.

Oh, and since Bush didn't invade Iraq in the name of imperialism, it's not imperialism? Since the Native Americans were massacred in the name of self-defense, it's not ethnic cleansing? Since rights are taken away in the name of security, it's not authoritarian? GET A CLUE. No one has to proclaim what they're doing for it to count.

Oh, and while we're using that justification, the Conquistadores' religion had nothing to do with what they did; the Inquisition's religion had nothing to do with what they did...just like the lack of religion with Mao, Stalin and others had "nothing" to do with what they did! :rofl:

The funniest thing is how your arguments parallel those you detest so much.

[beam me up scottie]

33. Sorry but distortion used by reichwing bots is not a valid argument.

Since none of the leaders cited by you and the Amerikkan Taliban killed in the name of atheism or "No God", it doesn't help your argument that religion, like science, is based on truth.


And next time try to come up with something original to blame on atheists.

That particular meme was dead and buried and it stinks when you keep digging it up.

[manic expression]

34. Your arguments are more than ridiculous

It doesn't matter what they SAID they were killing for, they still persecuted other groups. Therefore, that is atheist persecution. It does not make atheism bad at all, it is just misuse of something. Again, everything can be misused.

I just want to tell you, your apologist arguments are laughable.

Pointing out the FACT that atheism can and has been misused for terrible things is not blaming any general group. That is the truth, and I'm sorry that it doesn't fit into your world view.

Once again, you feign to be insulted when you really just lack an argument.

[beam me up scottie]

35. "atheist persecution"??? ROFLMFAO !!!

:spray:

Using your logic, what * is doing is Texan Persecution, Saddam's engaging in Mustachioed Persecution and Hitler should be remembered because of Vegetarian Persecuton.

You should send that one to headquarters, I don't think they've used that particular term yet.

Don't they send you money or something if it gets published?

:rofl:

[manic expression]

36. Not really

Bush isn't persecuting anyone not Texan. Saddam didn't go after anyone because of their mustache status and Hitler's crimes had nothing to do with dietary habits.

Again, your arguments are baseless and utterly wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Ah, but * IS persecuting people that aren't Texans.

He's just not persecuting them because they're not Texan.

Just like Saddam doesn't persecute people because they don't have mustaches, Hitler didn't persecute people because they ate meat, and atheist leaders don't persecute people because they're not atheists.

Your argument backfired on you, didn't it?

:rofl:

I'm bookmarking this thread.

This could prove to be a useful strategy the next time a fundie uses that talking point.

[manic expression]

38. You are wrong...again

Bush persecutes people not because they are not Texan, but because the same policies are targeting all groups, and it happens to include that group. Same thing with Saddam. It is not persecution against a group if the group suffers simply as part of a bigger policy.

Your arguments are perhaps the most incorrect I've heard in awhile.

How about dealing with the truth. As in Stalin and Mao persecuted religious groups.

From Wikipedia:
"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been levelled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were dead or imprisoned."

That is persecution against religion, and so it is atheist persecution. He didn't persecute them because they happened to be part of a collective target, he persecuted them specifically for their beliefs.

Using that logic, the Inquisition never targeted Jews in Spain, and the Crusaders didn't persecute Muslims in the Holy Land.

Good job on having the most misled and delusional beliefs I've encountered in some time.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Stalin did not oppress and kill in the name of atheism.

Period.

Repeating an untruth in every post doesn't make it true.

Your arguments have been refuted countless times in this forum by DU atheists.

You really need to stop using the christo-fascists' talking points.

But I guess you share the same agenda when it comes to atheism.

Too bad you're corrupting science in the process, eh?


Stop hijacking this thread and using it to malign atheists.

Start another one for that and see how long it takes for the mods to lock it.

[manic expression]

40. Saying something does not make it true

He targeted religious groups specifically for their religious activities.

From Wikipedia:
"Stalin's role in the fortunes of the Russian Orthodox Church is complex. Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in its near-extinction: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been levelled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were dead or imprisoned."

I've stated countless times that this does not make atheism bad at all. It simply illustrates the FACT that anything can be misused. Your little persecution complex won't win you any points or make you less wrong than you are (especially when I'm not a Christian).

Oh yeah, I'm "maligning atheists" by saying that anything can be misused. Yup, you figured me out...:eyes: Once again you feign being insulted for self-indulgence.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Stop hijacking this thread and using it to push RW talking points.

You can start your own thread for those.

You might want to find some actual evidence that atheists kill in the name of atheism, though, the fundies have already found out that Wikipedia is useless for that.

[manic expression]

42. Too bad I'm not

why don't you stop trying to divert the discussion. Why don't you actually participate in the discussion.

Funny how you continue to deny the truth that anything can be misused. However, just know that even if you feel "warm and fuzzy", you're still wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

43. You are hijacking it, just like you're trying to do in another thread by

following me and trying to continue this argument.

Your obsession with atheists is tragic but treatable with medication.

It doesn't even matter whether it was caused by religious belief or a chemical imbalance.

[manic expression]

51. That

is your own delusion.

Replying to someone in multiple threads is not following anything. I was pointing out the FACT that you were wrong in that other thread. Now, as expected, you play the victim instead of engaging in actual discussion. Care to try thinking next time?

Now this is just laughable:
"Your obsession with atheists is tragic but treatable with medication."

Oh, I don't know...it's called the RELIGION/THEOLOGY message board for a reason. People have disagreements, so they post them. Wow, next you'll be saying that everyone in GD is "obsessed" with moderate Democrats.

It was caused by a valid disagreement, something you might want to get used to.

[lvx35]

44. Wow, classic DU atheism

Religion is being used to oppress the Jews. So huh, I wonder what you call adherants of that major world RELIGION called JUDAISM.

[beam me up scottie]

45. So religion is never used to persecute jews?

Or people of different religions?

Because they're religious?

Must be nice to live in la la land.:eyes:

[lvx35]

47. These arguments get pretty entertaining.

You had to go waaaaay to get that one...Like I'm sitting here saying that religion was never used to oppress anybody. Its kinda funny. Should I respond? The game is to see if there is anything I can say that you won't be able to twist into a straw man you can attack. Lets see...I could bring up the persecution of religious people by non-religious people, as happened under communist dicatatorships. That's always good...But I'm in the mood for something new tonight, something fresh. How about attacking the fallacy that something is bad if it can be used in persecute people, I could bring up lots of fine things that have also been used in persecution...Nah, that's too subtle. How about attacking the contradiction of your statement, describing religion as bad and then blaming people for persecuting the religious...


Nah, I'd just rather be arguing with a republican. Sorry! :)

[beam me up scottie]

52. You're pretty entertaining. You posted: "Wow, classic DU atheism"

"Religion is being used to oppress the Jews. So huh, I wonder what you call adherants(sic) of that major world RELIGION called JUDAISM."

after I posted that religion is still used to persecute people.

Ignoring your cheap shot at DU atheists, I questioned your logic, and you came back with a whole donkey cart full of strawmen:

"How about attacking the fallacy that something is bad if it can be used in persecute people, I could bring up lots of fine things that have also been used in persecution...Nah, that's too subtle. How about attacking the contradiction of your statement, describing religion as bad and then blaming people for persecuting the religious..."

Where did I say "that something is bad if it can be used in persecute people" ?

And please point out where I was "describing religion as bad and then blaming people for persecuting the religious...""

Coming from someone who uses common right wing talking points about atheism, your comment about arguing with a republican is pretty entertaining in a stupid, lazy sort of way.



ps: Love the smilie at the end of your post. I was wondering if you were a member of the DU Passive/Aggressive Atheist Baiter Club.

[madeline_con]

48. Sometimes. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

53. Only if they're psychotic and follow me from thread to thread.

Or show up just to lob a cheap shot my way with no explanation.

But everyone's got to have a hobby, I suppose.

Even cowards.

[Silent3]

54. This old saw again (sigh!)

Because many people felt "warm and fuzzy" by thinking things that get proven wrong later. YOU believe things that are supported by science that people will laugh at 50 or even 20 years from now. That's the way it's always been, and if you can't accept that, that's your loss, but at least you feel "warm and fuzzy".

You convey a popular but wildly inaccurate characterization of science as a world where today's "truth" is always doomed to become tomorrow's joke, where ideas and so-called knowledge come and go in the mercurial manner of fad and fashion. Typical goals behind the use of this caricature are to denigrate science as ephemeral or untrustworthy, or to equate reliance on science to the same flimsy "whatever works for you" standard of selecting a philosophy for life which many people settle for.

To characterize science this way, however, cannot be done without misunderstanding the principles of science and without great ignorance of the history of science and the solid, incremental progress which has been made in science.

Newtonian physics, around 350 years old, is not "laughed at" today. We know Newton's original equations don't hold up under some circumstances (extremely high gravity, velocities approaching the speed of light) but they're "good enough" that we still teach them and use them extensively today.

Anton Leeuwenhoek's microscope and his early conceptions of microbiology, also from around 350 years ago, are not "laughed at" today. We've greatly improved over the centuries both the instrumentation and our understanding of what that instrumentation allows us to explore, but the foundational concepts are not "laughable". The late seventeenth century also saw some important foundational work in thermodynamics by scientists such as Robert Boyle.

Some basic principles of chemistry and electricity discovered in the eighteenth century, such as the work of Lavoisier (who developed the concept of "conservation of matter") and Volta still hold true, or true enough for practical uses, today. The eighteenth century brought a flood of investigation and discovery in matters of magnetism and electricity and disease theory and evolution (Maxwell, Pasteur, Darwin, to name just a few related names), much of which still stands today, as originally stated, or perhaps with incremental refinements or as approximate aspects of broader theories.

I could go on (early twentieth century relativity and quantum mechanics for instance) and supply much more detail and many more examples, but I believe my point stands as is: a great deal of the history of science consists of building upon and refining past work. The history of science is NOT one widespread, wholesale replacement of one law or theory or equation with some wildly different concept, time and time again, as if everything from the past was complete bogus nonsense, tossed into the scrap heap, to be replaced by rootless new fancies of a later day.

Sometimes scientists themselves are to blame for this state of affairs, wanting to trumpet their own work as "revolutionary" rather than evolutionary, but most of the blame here belongs to careless biographers and those in the media who sensationalize science without understanding it very well.

One group of scientists may discover, and state very cautiously, that (just to create a totally random fictional example) "daily consumption of macadamia nuts is linked to a small but measurable increase in the incidence of pancreatic cancer in studies on mice". What does the public hear? "Macadamia nuts cause cancer." Another later study says, "Patients who consumed macadamia nuts at least twice per week showed an apparently statistically significant decline in rates of brain cancer." What does the public hear? "Macadamia nuts cure cancer." Having heard both of these ridiculous oversimplifications, stripped of all original caution and nuance, how does the public react? "First they tell us macadamia nuts cause cancer, now they tell us macadamias cure cancer. Can't they make up their minds? It's obviously all bullshit!"

Sometimes scientist really do get things totally and completely wrong. Sometimes something totally different has to replace these errors. It happens. Scientists are human. But when you look at the bigger picture, especially the Big Ideas and not the particular, minute details like the curative power of drug A or the specific family tree of species B, you'll see that science provides a much more solid, stable and consistent foundation which amounts to far more than a mere "warm and fuzzy" feeling.

[Zenlitened]

55. Excellent post!

:applause:

[beam me up scottie]

56. Ditto, Zen!

Brilliant.

[ingac70]

3. Interesting, but I am pretty attached to my church.

http://www.apatheticagnostic.com/

[lvx35]

6. Hey, good link. I like the meditations section.

I've been looking for dialogue on the role of irreverable complexity in agnostic thought! ;)

[johnnypneumatic]

5. the church of reality might be a religion, but

reality is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion, atheism is reality.

[lvx35]

7. That's why I thought you might like it.

The thing I disagree with philosophically about atheism is the belief that atheists know what "reality" is well enough to make such brought statements about it. Even though I am not an athiest, I liked the site because they were committed to learning about reality and accepting it without fear, which struck me as a real moral value.

[Birthmark]

8. I've never thought about it at all.

:)

[lvx35]

9. Maybe you should.

It would be nice to see all you guys getting together celebrating what you DO believe instead of talking about what you don't. Besides, there's what 600 million of you? You guys could put together a hell of a church! get a tithe going on, protozoa outfits for the evolution rites...It would be fun! ;)

[madeline_con]

49. "... protozoa outfits for the evolution rites..."

That's funny, but does that mean you really don't believe species evolved?

[EST]

10. IT's a neat idea!

I don't particularly like it-too narrow-but I like the idea.
The biggest problem I have with the concept is the notion of belief. I am a realist, not a supernaturalist, and I consider "belief" to be the booby prize of life. Experience is the only real teacher, the only measure. Even talking about and describing experience is an exercise in futility and, by its very nature, a falsification. Even experience, itself, is a pale form of reality, given that everything always happens in the past.

By the time you know that something happened, it's already ancient history, being, literally, millions of picoseconds gone. It's one of those things that can't be avoided. Nobody lives in the here and now, no matter how hard we try, we live in the past and everything we think of as real, at best, may have been real a little while ago but there is no way to know whether that's still true.

There exists exactly no proof of the truth or reality of any of the highly cherished beliefs in any of the extra natural theologies, notions, or professions, period.

And, most of the time, I don't give a shit.

[lvx35]

17. Great post.

Its totally true, we don't see reality as it is. If we take the physical explanation of the human state, we can see that all reality is simply a constructed representation in our brains, and all that we know as real what we have experienced, and our knowledge is ever limited to our perceptions. This is the powerful and reasonable argument for agnosticism, the recognition of limitation of our knowledge.
However if you accept these principles, you also have to accept that it is not that there is "no proof" of religious concepts, rather there is "no proof for you yet." Most truly religious people base their beliefs on some kind of experience, and explain the experiences through the symbolic terms of the religion of their culture. Science does not provide suitable symbols for these experiences, so religion does and will remain prevelant.

[EST]

19. Of course, I assumed "for me" as implied, sorry!

Your last statement, however, is a conclusion. It has been my experience that people do not base their beliefs on an experience but bend and shape the experience to fit the belief. Which is the more accurate? I'm not sure it matters much.
It appears that religion will remain prevalent because it fills a particular, often unquestioned, need, leading me to look for an artifact of brain construction as the actual basis.

[lvx35]

20. Cool.

At a secular level, I have always beleived that religion fits in some way with our brains. I like Richard Dawkins idea of memetics for explaning it, religion is a meme which just basically has worked at a social level for people, gives us cheer in times of hope, etc. If his thoery of memetics is correct, we can see religion like a gene, something that's around because it works...And that gives some interesting conclusions. Things like the idea that its not evolutionarily desirable to be depressed even when those around you are dying, hence the good cheer that comes from the idea of afterlife. Also some simpler things, like the prohibitions against eating pork, which is known to carry many human bacteria.

As far as your first statement, I see events in my life as being meaningful, rather than random. Is that bending and shaping? Its not purely rational, but there are also things I can't rationally explain.

[EST]

22. Dandy idea!

And, like a gene, some have it and some don't. And the lack or presence may or may not offer some protection against some threat. This could offer the substance of many a discussion.
Unlike a gene, it seems that there are a lot of people who have a long line of supernaturalists in their forebears but find themselves at total odds, even disgusted with very notion. A goodly number of ancient prohibitions had a basis in practical experience, for instance-the city dump, sheol' or hell, was kept burning by the application of brimstone (sulphur) and, due to the practice of disposing of diseased bodies of the poor, was a favorite hang out of hogs and dogs.
The prospects are endless.

[lvx35]

23. Yeah, its a very rich line of reasoning.

I agree, there is a lot to get out of it. One thing is just being able to look at religious thinking as natural, at least for many people, and work from there. It follows that science could offer some critical insight into what makes positive theology, and also, science could look at how to make healthy scientific reasoning more approachable, more digestable for people with a religious outlook. Anything like that would be wonderful in my eyes, because we REALLY need to be looking at stuff like global warming now, and it takes a scientific view...That's why I look with interest at things like the church of reality, I have this hope that scientific people will really start to dissect religion, and respectfully understand it, because we need all the backing we can get.

[madeline_con]

50. "I consider "belief" to be the booby prize of life"

That's an interesting statement from someone who goes on to a decidedly philosophical argument that seems to indicate that you've put quite a bit of thought into the subject and have some pretty strong beliefs regarding it.

[beam me up scottie]

13. This "atheist" thinks it's like the Brights.

Cute, but I've never needed nor wanted to belong to a church.

And realism doesn't need one.

[Book Lover]

46. I don't see the point of it

Unless it's a competitor to the Universal Life Church to issue titles to people so they can solemnize marriages... I don't understand how any atheist can hold anything sacred. Maybe it's a place for people who don't hold any faiths but still want to belong to something like a church? Again, I just don't get it.