Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[One Bad Pig]

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C...E,lf:1,lf_ui:1

Apparently I am surrounded by them - with odd names like "Church of the Redeemer" and "Lyndon Bible Church."

Me thinks "atheist church" makes google's search engine go

You should see some of the odd connections Amazon makes:

OddAmazon.JPG

[carpedm9587]

nope there really are Atheist Churches.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...rches/3489967/

This sentence jumped out at me:

The idea that you're building an entire organization based on what you don't believe, to me, sounds like an offense against sensibility...

Atheism is an entire system of beliefs that is currently expressed as "non-belief" because it is expressed as a reaction to theism. But I do not experience atheism as "non-belief." That's a "half-glass-empty" approach. Expressed more positively, atheism is (for me) the belief that the universe exists and operates according to known and knowable rules. When we encounter the unexplained, it is because it is in the latter category. With time, we can know more about its operation and discover the answers to the previously unknown.

But we live in a world that, today, is predominantly theistic. So instead of focusing on what the universe IS and contains, atheism is defined by its definition of what ISN'T: the supernatural. In time, as religions continue to lose their hold on thought, that will likely change. That shift is well underway - but it's not going to be an easy one.

[Sparko]

This sentence jumped out at me:

The idea that you're building an entire organization based on what you don't believe, to me, sounds like an offense against sensibility...

There are many atheists who build an entire career on what they don't believe in, like Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, etc. so why not a church?

[carpedm9587]

There are many atheists who build an entire career on what they don't believe in, like Richard Carrier, Richard Dawkins, etc. so why not a church?

Like I said - atheism is about "non-belief" if you're looking at the empty part of the glass (i.e., looking at it from the perspective of belief in a god). It is also a belief system about the nature of the universe and knowledge; if you look at what atheists DO believe in rather than what they DO NOT believe in.

It's all about the glass.

Of course - language doesn't help, since the very term is designed as a negation. And I don't particularly like "secular humanism" because it's not just about humanity.

We need a new word.

[Sparko]

Like I said - atheism is about "non-belief" if you're looking at the empty part of the glass (i.e., looking at it from the perspective of belief in a god). It is also a belief system about the nature of the universe and knowledge; if you look at what atheists DO believe in rather than what they DO NOT believe in.

It's all about the glass.

Of course - language doesn't help, since the very term is designed as a negation. And I don't particularly like "secular humanism" because it's not just about humanity.

We need a new word.

it just seems odd to dedicate your entire life and career to something you don't believe in. I don't believe in bigfoot, but I also don't make a career about not believing in bigfoot, or writing books denouncing bigfoot or hanging out on bigfoot forums calling those who do fools and arguing with them several hours a day. If they come up to me and try to convince me of bigfoot, I will listen and then respond, but I don't seek them out or make a career out of it.


And I don't attend an Abigfoot church either.

[carpedm9587]

it just seems odd to dedicate your entire life and career to something you don't believe in. I don't believe in bigfoot, but I also don't make a career about not believing in bigfoot, or writing books denouncing bigfoot or hanging out on bigfoot forums calling those who do fools and arguing with them several hours a day. If they come up to me and try to convince me of bigfoot, I will listen and then respond, but I don't seek them out or make a career out of it.

And I don't attend an Abigfoot church either.

Ahh... but you are not in a world where 95% of the world believes in this bigfoot - and is basing decisions about appropriate behavior and political policy on that belief. If you were, and you were part of the 5% that did not believe bigfoot existed, you might well seek to gather with other a-bigfoot believers and try to figure out how to get out from under the thumb of the "bigfooters." For example, if bigfooters were telling you that a bigfoot family never has more than 2 pups - which means it is immoral to have more than 2 children, and proceeded to pass laws preventing you from having three or more children in your family, you would likely look at it and say, "Wait a sec - you're limiting me on the basis of something that doesn't even exist!? What the heck?"

At that point, you might well make it your life's mission to show people that there is no bigfoot and that these rules/laws are unjust and harmful.

[Sparko]

Ahh... but you are not in a world where 95% of the world believes in this bigfoot - and is basing decisions about appropriate behavior and political policy on that belief. If you were, and you were part of the 5% that did not believe bigfoot existed, you might well seek to gather with other a-bigfoot believers and try to figure out how to get out from under the thumb of the "bigfooters." For example, if bigfooters were telling you that a bigfoot family never has more than 2 pups - which means it is immoral to have more than 2 children, and proceeded to pass laws preventing you from having three or more children in your family, you would likely look at it and say, "Wait a sec - you're limiting me on the basis of something that doesn't even exist!? What the heck?"

At that point, you might well make it your life's mission to show people that there is no bigfoot and that these rules/laws are unjust and harmful.

OK better example. I don't believe in AGW (man-made Global Warming). 95% of the world does and makes decisions and political policy based on it. While I do argue against it occasionally when other people bring it up, I don't dedicate my life to arguing against it, or being an Anti-global warming activist, or go to meeting of other Global Warming Deniers, or make an entire career out of it. I don't define myself as an AAGWist.

[carpedm9587]

OK better example. I don't believe in AGW (man-made Global Warming). 95% of the world does and makes decisions and political policy based on it. While I do argue against it occasionally when other people bring it up, I don't dedicate my life to arguing against it, or being an Anti-global warming activist, or go to meeting of other Global Warming Deniers, or make an entire career out of it. I don't define myself as an AAGWist.

The example is basically the same, Sparko. You have not made a career of it because the policies being made are apparently not directly impacting you to a point that you are motivated to do so. So let's say that you have a home near the water, and the AWGers decide to pass a law that, because global warming targets have not been hit and there is now a high probability that sea levels will rise 10 feet in the next decade (somewhat exaggerated, mind you), all homes currently within that 10 foot rise need to be destroyed or moved by the end of 2023, and the government will only fund 50% of that cost because you chose to live there.

My guess is that you will fairly quickly become an aAGWer, and you will be attending the meetings and trying to figure out how to counter this attrocious set of policies.

If you take a moment and set your theism aside, and try to look at the world from the side of the atheist, most of what is being said is about these kinds of (we believe) intrusions into oour lives that are considered acceptable because a) there are more of you, and b) you were here first (sort of). Most atheists I know, the non-rabid ones, are not looking to have theists believe differently, or to interfere with theistic practices. We're looking to be free from having to adhere to theistically-driven social and political rules that do not HAVE to be that way, and whose absence would in no way threaten your religion or your freedom to practice.

[Sparko]

The example is basically the same, Sparko. You have not made a career of it because the policies being made are apparently not directly impacting you to a point that you are motivated to do so. So let's say that you have a home near the water, and the AWGers decide to pass a law that, because global warming targets have not been hit and there is now a high probability that sea levels will rise 10 feet in the next decade (somewhat exaggerated, mind you), all homes currently within that 10 foot rise need to be destroyed or moved by the end of 2023, and the government will only fund 50% of that cost because you chose to live there.

My guess is that you will fairly quickly become an aAGWer, and you will be attending the meetings and trying to figure out how to counter this attrocious set of policies.

If you take a moment and set your theism aside, and try to look at the world from the side of the atheist, most of what is being said is about these kinds of (we believe) intrusions into oour lives that are considered acceptable because a) there are more of you, and b) you were here first (sort of). Most atheists I know, the non-rabid ones, are not looking to have theists believe differently, or to interfere with theistic practices. We're looking to be free from having to adhere to theistically-driven social and political rules that do not HAVE to be that way, and whose absence would in no way threaten your religion or your freedom to practice.

It is affecting me. I used to work in an industry that was directly affected by the policies in the 1980s when they banned CFCs. Gas prices are higher because of some AGW regulations. and so on.

But I don't see how a belief in God is ruining your life. You already agree that abortion is wrong. Christians are for caring, charity, law and order, etc. Exactly how are we ruining the lives of you and atheists? What would drive Richard Dawkins to make an entire career out of mocking religion, denigrating Christians and doing everything he can to destroy it?

[carpedm9587]

It is affecting me. I used to work in an industry that was directly affected by the policies in the 1980s when they banned CFCs. Gas prices are higher because of some AGW regulations. and so on.

But I don't see how a belief in God is ruining your life. You already agree that abortion is wrong. Christians are for caring, charity, law and order, etc. Exactly how are we ruining the lives of you and atheists? What would drive Richard Dawkins to make an entire career out of mocking religion, denigrating Christians and doing everything he can to destroy it?

First of all - I do not admire (or follow) atheists whose approach to dealing with these issues is to mock or denigrate. It accomplishes nothing and simply polarizes us all. And belief in god is NOT ruining my life - but it IS putting in place policies and practices that run counter to my beliefs and do not NEED to be that way - from the small to the large. I know there is a common feeling that theists are being told they cannot practice their religion freely - and I recognize that this HAS sometimes happened. But atheists are FAR more forced to participate in things we do not believe in or actually believe are not just, because theists believe they are right.

Let me take a very simple example - and it's a minor one. I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. But it's a case in point. Up until the 1950's our money said nothing about god. Nobody thought anything of it. Money was not about religion - it was just a technique for more efficient trading. Then along comes the red scare - and those "godless communists" and politicians saw an opportunity to stand on their crates and gain attention and votes - so they pushed for "In god we trust" to be added to our coinage, and "Under god" to our pledge. Before that happened, both the theist and the atheist could handle money without a thought - and without compromising their beliefs. And we could stand side-by-side and recite the pledge, without a thought, and without a compromise.

But now we can't. Every time, as a scout leader, I led the pledge of allegiance, our differences are made manifest. I have to skip those words, and then explain myself when someone inevitably asks, and I am "different" because of it. Without those words - we're all one. You are free to believe we are "under god" and I am free to believe we are not - and we can still recite together and celebrate this awesome country in which we live. With those words - we are divided. Every time I hand out a bill - some part of me is aware that I am handing someone a slogan I do not believe is true. Imagine if you worked for a company that required you to have "Allah is the one true God" on your business card. You probably would not work there. But this is not a business card - its our money. Avoiding using it is almost impossible. So I should leave the country and find a new home? Your right to believe and worship is not compromised if those words are omitted. My right is being infringed upon slightly by having the government force me to hand out slogans I do not believe. I am fairly sure the theist would not like money that says "god does not exist" on it. Likewise the atheist doe snot loke money that says "god DOES exist." Why should our money say ANYTHING about religion. It's just money.

We don't need to ADD to the divisive things in our country. We have enough of them already.

Like I said - these two examples I don't lose a lot of sleep over - but when someone tells me that my government should be denying equality under the law for people on the basis of their gender association or sexual orientation because "god said so." There we have a different matter. Your freedom to practice your religion is not compromised because someone ELSE wants to marry a same-sex partner. If someone were to say - "your church has to marry same sex couples" I would be right there next to you saying, "no it doesn't." But when you tell others who believe differently than you that they have to adhere to your moral principles because god said so...?

I think you can expect a few Richard Dawkins to come out of the woodwork.

Sorry - that was wordy (again).

[Sparko]

First of all - I do not admire (or follow) atheists whose approach to dealing with these issues is to mock or denigrate. It accomplishes nothing and simply polarizes us all. And belief in god is NOT ruining my life - but it IS putting in place policies and practices that run counter to my beliefs and do not NEED to be that way - from the small to the large. I know there is a common feeling that theists are being told they cannot practice their religion freely - and I recognize that this HAS sometimes happened. But atheists are FAR more forced to participate in things we do not believe in or actually believe are not just, because theists believe they are right.

Let me take a very simple example - and it's a minor one. I don't lose a lot of sleep over it. But it's a case in point. Up until the 1950's our money said nothing about god. Nobody thought anything of it. Money was not about religion - it was just a technique for more efficient trading. Then along comes the red scare - and those "godless communists" and politicians saw an opportunity to stand on their crates and gain attention and votes - so they pushed for "In god we trust" to be added to our coinage, and "Under god" to our pledge. Before that happened, both the theist and the atheist could handle money without a thought - and without compromising their beliefs. And we could stand side-by-side and recite the pledge, without a thought, and without a compromise.

But now we can't. Every time, as a scout leader, I led the pledge of allegiance, our differences are made manifest. I have to skip those words, and then explain myself when someone inevitably asks, and I am "different" because of it. Without those words - we're all one. You are free to believe we are "under god" and I am free to believe we are not - and we can still recite together and celebrate this awesome country in which we live. With those words - we are divided. Every time I hand out a bill - some part of me is aware that I am handing someone a slogan I do not believe is true. Imagine if you worked for a company that required you to have "Allah is the one true God" on your business card. You probably would not work there. But this is not a business card - its our money. Avoiding using it is almost impossible. So I should leave the country and find a new home? Your right to believe and worship is not compromised if those words are omitted. My right is being infringed upon slightly by having the government force me to hand out slogans I do not believe. I am fairly sure the theist would not like money that says "god does not exist" on it. Likewise the atheist doe snot loke money that says "god DOES exist." Why should our money say ANYTHING about religion. It's just money.

We don't need to ADD to the divisive things in our country. We have enough of them already.

Like I said - these two examples I don't lose a lot of sleep over - but when someone tells me that my government should be denying equality under the law for people on the basis of their gender association or sexual orientation because "god said so." There we have a different matter. Your freedom to practice your religion is not compromised because someone ELSE wants to marry a same-sex partner. If someone were to say - "your church has to marry same sex couples" I would be right there next to you saying, "no it doesn't." But when you tell others who believe differently than you that they have to adhere to your moral principles because god said so...?

I think you can expect a few Richard Dawkins to come out of the woodwork.

Sorry - that was wordy (again).

sure I can understand fighting back when something personally impacts you - when it gets to be something important. If we mandated everyone pray for instance. but putting "in God we Trust" on money? yeah that's pretty petty. I would not dedicate my life to fighting against bigfoot if they put "in bigfoot we trust" or because his picture is on my $5 bill (you do realize that Abe Lincoln IS bigfoot, right?)

And Christians are not saying anything about denying equality under the law for homosexuality. We might think it is a sin, but nobody but some fringe nutjobs think that is an excuse to deny them jobs or treat them differently in public. And until a few decades ago, even the atheists agreed that homosexuality was wrong and not because of the bible. Marriage, yeah Christians think gay marriage is wrong. So did everyone else a few years ago. And so do many people today who are not religious. And there are many religious people who totally agree with atheists on the matter.

It still is not something to base your entire career and life on. Richard Dawkins for instance is not writing books about gay marriage or equal rights for gays is he? He is writing books about atheism and arguing against Christianity and God.

[carpedm9587]

sure I can understand fighting back when something personally impacts you - when it gets to be something important. If we mandated everyone pray for instance. but putting "in God we Trust" on money? yeah that's pretty petty. I would not dedicate my life to fighting against bigfoot if they put "in bigfoot we trust" or because his picture is on my $5 bill (you do realize that Abe Lincoln IS bigfoot, right?)

And Christians are not saying anything about denying equality under the law for homosexuality. We might think it is a sin, but nobody but some fringe nutjobs think that is an excuse to deny them jobs or treat them differently in public. And until a few decades ago, even the atheists agreed that homosexuality was wrong and not because of the bible. Marriage, yeah Christians think gay marriage is wrong. So did everyone else a few years ago. And so do many people today who are not religious. And there are many religious people who totally agree with atheists on the matter.

It still is not something to base your entire career and life on. Richard Dawkins for instance is not writing books about gay marriage or equal rights for gays is he? He is writing books about atheism and arguing against Christianity and God.

I agree about money and the pledge. It's irritating, but not the basis for a career. And the marriage thing is a problem because the distinction between secular marriage (i.e., what the state recognizes) and a religious marriage (what a religion recognizes) has been muddled. I believe secular marriage should be free of religious constraints. I believe religions should determine what they consider to be "acceptable" within their faith. I believe the state should recognize marriages deemed acceptable by a religion - but the religion need not accept a marriage accepted by the state. If these things were kept distinct, I suspect some of the gay marriage issue would disappear.

But a lot of religious people would actually argue that this is a "Christian" nation so the laws of the land should reflect "Christian values," so they will advocate for "no gay marriage." I could not disagree more. I think the laws of the land were intended to be independent of religion.

I think the problem is that the nation is changing. When change happens, often, someone gains and someone loses. When we have had the privilege of calling the shots by the sheer volume of our presence, to suddenly have a group of people, with growing power, saying "wait a sec - we're here too," feels like a loss. And people hate to lose things - generally. So they resist.

And there we are today...

[Raphael]

IIRC Richard Dawkins while alternatively describing himself as an atheist or a strong agnostic (I've seen him do both) also describes himself as being a cultural Christian.

[KingsGambit]

IIRC Richard Dawkins while alternatively describing himself as an atheist or a strong agnostic (I've seen him do both) also describes himself as being a cultural Christian.

That must explain the interaction I mentioned that one time with somebody ranting about how John Key, being an agnostic, was also one of those terrible Christians.

[Raphael]

That must explain the interaction I mentioned that one time with somebody ranting about how John Key, being an agnostic, was also one of those terrible Christians.

John Key is an agnostic Jew (his mother escaped Germany in WWII), who is on record as saying that he and his family go to Church because he and his wife believe it is the right thing to do.