Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

Two things stuck me about this from their mission statement: First, they are attempting to organize into a larger community in order to gain "stature" and "visibility." Second, they are attempting to set themselves off as, "Humanists and free-thinkers." The subtext is that the other side is made up of conformists and non-humanists. As NOG points out, these concepts are not specific to either theists, or nontheists, and that some Christians may be just as disorganized and non-conformists, or free-thinkers as much as nontheists are.

And I almost forgot - Chirstians can be humanists as well and in point of fact, Christian Humanism is far older than modern, nontheistic versions of "Humanism."

http://unitedcor.org/mission.htm

 

I have a simple rule for beliefs (or non-beliefs, if you wish): If it interferes in any way or form with one's ability to figure things out themselves, it's an absolute bad and must be fought against, till the world's end if need be.

The details as to what EXACTLY constitutes "figuring it out on your own" is, however, up to debate.

 

Of course it's older than Modern versions, because it's not modern. Am I sensing an oxi-moron there?

 

It could be. But I was using it as an adjective and not a title.

 

True. I was just making sure everyone didn't think Christianity was one big country club. I know there are people that see us as that.

You're talking about the Charismatics, aren't you?

Just one question. Do you consider learning from the experiences of others (i.e. not making all the basic mistakes yourself) to be "figuring it out on your own"?

 

NOG,

It obviously depends on the issue at hand.

It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that jumping into a well isn't all that smart, and letting someone else tell you that requires even less as you'll learn that there's potential issues, at the very least. The ones that STILL jump are just asking for a Darwin Award so no problem there either.

To use a somewhat more relevant example, the church powers-that-be had a heated argument about gay marriages here in Sweden earlier this week. After a vote it became clear that there is no longer any official stand against it by the church as a whole, although they don't force a priest to bless such a marriage if it's against that priest's beliefs. In practice this also means that priest students that are against gay marriage may end up as a second-rate candidates for a job as a priest.

While I respect that such an issue raises more than its fair share of serious sub-issues, I also have very little tolerance against the arguments that it's always been a no-no, against nature or 'it sayeth thou shalt nay do that' in the holy books. Neither the church not the priest is the one applying for this supposedly horrendous abomination of a holy marriage, so wtf do THEY have to say on it?

 

Well, in so far as they're performing the marriages, they're endorsing them. I'm sure you can argue that point for public servants like judges, but you really can't for a Church. Beyond that, moral teachers have always been concerned with the morality of society, whether the society in question is their followers or not. In a free society, the Church has as much right to voice their opinion as anyone else, but it shouldn't go beyond that.

 

Sorry for not responding; I've been sick and too busy to think seriously

I still think they are selling awareness, rather than the actual non-belief of atheism. It is more to encourage thinking about your personal belief and the fact that there are people out there who do not conscribe to organized religions' ideology.

Yes, they are trying to sell something, but the way the ad was written, it doesn't seem like they are trying to be like, "ATHEISM GOOD, CONVERT FROM YOUR STUPID WAYS NAOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!1111oneone," which would certainly be a bad ad.

 

I think what they're trying to do is spread acceptance. Atheism is still seen in many circles as the loony fringe, the extremists, or those who just aren't educated enough. By representing it as a large, pseudo-mainstream movement, they may be able to subtly change that cultural perception. Or not, we'll see.

 

That view seems almost... well, foreign, I guess. I would go as far as saying here things are completely reversed. At least in middle class society (although I hesitate using the term class) practicing members of religion are certainly becoming an abnormality. I remember back in high school, would have been about 16 then, had a good friend who was Christian. We were walking along one day and a complete stranger stopped and, looking at the cross around his neck, asked "Wow, are you religious? And you go to church and everything?" This sort of reaction wasn't that uncommon at all. I would say that atheism, agnosticism or some sort of non-theism is becoming the norm here with many viewing religions as some (not-so-long past) mythology.

To give you a further example, at University this year I took a few first level Religious Studies papers out of interest. In one of them, the professor works closely with the Statistics NZ (the govt agency responsible for... statistics) and he's showed us some stats that showed that only like 2% of the population can name the 10 commandments. I believe in that lecture, there were three people out of about 200 of us who could list them all correctly. Theism is dying out.

 

On one note, it very much depends on the particular sub-culture, which is why I said "in many circles". It very much depends on age, as well as background culture.

On another note, if they've memorized the 10 commandments isn't a terribly good test. If asked off the cuff, I probably couldn't 8 of them, and I don't think anyone here would question how religious I am.

I don't think theism is dying out by any means, but atheism is growing in numbers.

 

I agree with that. If you agree in the prinicple of separation of church and state, it has to be that way. If a religion forbids gay marriage, then the priests shouldn't be forced to perform one.

 

But then the church marriage shouldnt be the "real" one. Let people have ceremonies in churches but let the official legal marriage be done by some clerk.

 

That's done in some nations. My in-laws, for example, were married in Germany... twice. Once in a church (religious ceremony) and once in front of a judge (legal proceedings). Personally, I don't really see the need. As long as the religious officials are filling out all the paper work properly, and there's a public option that's not allowed to refuse cases, I don't see a need to seperate them. In fact, in some states, couples are allowed to fill out their own paper work and basically marry each other. The only involvement of third parties is the clerk filing the paperwork. I imagine they have to deliver the paperwork jointly, but that's not a problem.

 

Bullocks. Priests have the ability to perform marriages ceremonies - it doesn't mean they have to marry people who do not abide by the rules of their religion. It would be totally different if this were at a courthouse, and a JP refused to marry a gay couple (assuming gay marriage was legal there). Religions an dtheir clergy can for any number of reasons, refuse to marry two people. For example, they also can refuse to marry two straight people if neither one is a practicing member of their faith.

And something is seriously wrong if I'm finding myself on NOG's side in this debate...

 

You can have a church ceremony, with priests and everything and it would be the real marriage in your eyes and in the eyes of god, just not the law. What difference does it make? What does make a difference is someone who have legal powers being allowed to discriminate so the easy answer is to just remove the legal power and let that person discriminate as much as he or she pleases.

 

That's a solution that is easily said, but try putting that one into motion. Most of todays societies have religion so far ingrained into their every day life, to unentangle religion from state would be a process that I wouldn't want to head, even being an aethiest.

 

Exactly - what difference does it make? If you aren't in agreement with a particular relgion's articles of faith, you wouldn't want to get married there anyway. That doesn't mean priests shouldn't be able to perform marriages...

 

As Aldeth said, the reverse is equally true. The only reason I can imagine for a gay couple (for an example) going to a church (that they aren't intimately associated with already) to be married is to look for offense. If they want that, they don't need marriage, they can ask to be members, to be baptized, whatever.

 

I believe that a person does not have to explain their conscience to anyone else. I get extremely uncomfortable with the thought of forcing someone to violate their conscience for the sake of making everyone feel all warm and fuzzy because we have "no discrimination here!" Even if I thought that the stand they are taking is stupid or unreasonable (as in this case with the seemingly racist judge -- I disagree with his position) I still believe that people should have the right to their conscience.

If there is an option that allows someone to get what they want (a marriage, in this case) that doesn't ask someone else to violate their conscience, I think that's a good option to take.

When it gets hard is in rural areas where there IS no other JP around to perform the ceremony. But in most places in the US of which I am aware, there's more than one JP around. Absolutely no need to bully one into doing something that he feels is wrong or unwise. Just get another frigging JP.