Atheist Church

Obserwuj wątek
( 0 Obserwujących )

Obserwuj wątek

E-mail : *

The United Church of Bacon Claims Discrimination

The United Church of Bacon is merely Atheists, run amok. But they use their self-declaration of devotion to a meat to harass. Details are here:

The United Church Of Bacon Accuses Wells Fargo Of Religious Discrimination

Bill Quick and the Standard Canard for Denying the Obvious.

Atheist Bill Quick is easily irritated. As his article wrap-up he says this:

” Some atheists piss me off every once in a while, but not nearly as often or as much as the dumbasses of the “atheism is a religion” crowd.”

He seems to reason that Atheism is not a religion and that’s why he doesn’t have a blog to assert Atheism as the superior religion to all theist and deist and whatever religions. Except that he does do that religiously on his blog, acting pretty much like a religious zealot. Here he resorts to logical absurdity to defend the non-religiosity of Atheism:

”A standard response is to note that if atheism is a religion, then “bald” is a hair color, and not collecting stamps is a hobby, not kicking a kitten is a form of animal abuse and so on. Another is to note that if the definition of religion was expanded enough to legitimately include atheism – say, by defining a religion as “any philosophy on life” – then practically everything in the world would be a religion, such as socio-economic policies or views on equality. (British law has come close to finding this in employment discrimination cases.)”

Quick has resorted to Atheist bumper sticker wisdom, which always is easily refuted. Atheism does, in fact, have a creation story, evolution, which is used to define the value of human life, the purpose of life, and it constrains the afterlife story to a null hypothesis. Atheists don’t have a common moral statement, but that is their common feature: total freedom from morality and absolutes. Further, they evolve almost directly into Consequentialism (which is an anti-morality sort of morality) and Leftist elitism from which they can be excommunicated as heretics if they sin by not adhering to the Leftist dogma regarding the sacred tenets of Atheism: absolute truth of evolution; the non-existence of absolute truth; the absolute moral imperative of support for the killing one’s progeny (women’s healthcare), and the installation of Atheism as the standard morality of government and the public square.
So Quick’s use of silly false analogs is just pitiful in one sense, and desperate in another. No one is demanding that the government be all-bald, all-non stamp collectors, all-non kitten kicker (although that one is a de facto consideration). But Atheists are everywhere demanding and suing for total Atheism and freedom from religion. Does this not remind anyone of the Islamic demand of total Islam? Or else?
But he also fails in his meager attempt at definition: “religion as a philosophy of life”, which is a phony definition that he can knock right down, a cheap, weightless Straw Man. I.e it is a definition that only a defensive Atheist would conjure up.
There is no doubt that Atheists like Bill Quick really don’t like being apprised of their religious affiliation. But that’s too bad, because they are exactly religious, with the same features which they denounce in theism, including religious gurus and even churches. And their religiously defended sacrament is abortion, about which they become hysterical if it is threatened in any manner. And that is because their religion holds that due to evolution humans have no inherent value, and that they, the elites, get to decide who may, under elitist Atheist morality and moral authority, be killed.
If nothing else suffices to define Atheism as a religion, it is their lack of morality combined with their presumption of self-endowed moral authority which cinches it, completely. Atheism is the religion of moral and intellectual ambiguity, expressed as elitist dogma.

Atheist Invocation At Public Meeting Refers to Harry Potter For Moral Principles


Atheist group delivers opening message to City Council
“An atheist group gave the opening message for the Sioux Falls City Council meeting Tuesday night — likely a first in city history.
Siouxland Freethinkers President Amanda Novotny said in her message we must “let all voices be heard and understood equally.””

Here is the entire preachment:

“Thank you Mr. Mayor, Council members, citizens of Sioux Falls, and all those present for this opportunity to provide an inspirational opening to your meeting.
Often at this time, you are asked to bow your heads. Instead, I ask you to lift your head up and look around. Turn your attention to this room – a room that has heard countless discussions, frustrations, and successes; a room where important decisions regarding your city are routinely made.
Now take a moment to soak in the presence of the men and women in this room, gathered here at this time and place to engage in their civic duty, to contribute and work towards creating a better community. Think of the hundreds and thousands of others who are also affected by the ideas shared here. Let all voices be heard and understood equally.
It is also often customary to read from a book during an invocation, and tonight will be no different – I’ll be sharing a quote from J.K. Rowling’s “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” in which Professor Albus Dumbledore said:
“Differences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.”
Athough our differences may be many, we are bound together in similarity as members of the human species. As humans, we have the capacity to appreciate and thank each other; to utilize compassion and reason in our decision making. I ask those present to join me in showing gratitude to the men and women that serve the great city of Sioux Falls. We need only look to each other for guidance, and work together to overcome any challenges we may face.”

Of course, there is no Book Of Atheist Moral Principles, because there is no morality under the concept of Atheism, especially with its parasitic attachment to evolution. So whatever she said is just her, being as politically correct as she thinks is politically correct. But to reference Harry Potter as a source of objective morality (and if it’s not, why bother?)… well, J.K.Rowling must be ready to create another universe, and I hope she does; it would be a great place for Atheists to migrate to, and sit around and admire their superiority. I think it would be located near Boston, or maybe a San Francisco city park.
Seriously, though, look at the quote for a moment: “…if our aims are identical…”. There is very little that Atheism generates in its adherents that has any commonality with the aims of a responsible culture, much less identical. The adherents of Atheism are overwhelmingly Leftist, and “humanists” are some of the farthest into Leftist Freethought totalitarianism, given their propensity for worshiping the concept of abstract humanity at the expense of individual humans. Making the New Man was the humanist mantra for a century, and it still is. And consider the phrase, if “our hearts are open”. Now apply that idea to the last hundred Atheists you have encountered. The enjoinment is purely put upon the Other to accommodate whatever it is that the Atheist/Humanist is up to at the moment; in other words, accept their chaotic imposition on your culture with an open heart.
They must be seen for what they are, and stopped.

Przeczytaj jeszcze:   Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism”

The Hollowness of Atheist Churches


Beyond belief: the hell of ‘atheist church’
Again, I found myself asking: why am I here? How is this an alternative to religious observance? Sunday Assembly tells us to ‘wonder more’, but the only thing I wondered was whether everyone else was as disappointed as I did. The whole thing had a curiously AstroTurf atmosphere, I suspect because none of us knew each other, or had anything in common. We didn’t live in the same suburb. We weren’t dedicated to any sort of collective cause. We could have had common values or beliefs, but none of us really got the chance to find out.
If atheists, or non-religious people, want to create some sense of ritual or community, it can’t be based on imitating low-church Protestantism without the inconvenient God stuff. Attending Sunday Assembly felt like sitting inside a toddler’s crayon drawing of a religious service, and on some level I’m sure some of the other people there must have felt similarly. The organisers, at least of the Sydney event, seemed to have misunderstood what it is about religious observance and worship that adds meaning to people’s lives.
The sort of engaged, ethical community that Sunday Assembly tries to build isn’t necessarily religious (although the bells and smells help). But it does require dedication to a common cause, an approach that is the opposite of sitting around Googling ‘what is happiness’. When The Happy Project guys told us the value of doing nice things for other people, it was instrumental. ‘Do nice things for other people because altruism makes you feel good.’ Sure, but does it make you feel good to know that your motivation for altruistic behaviour is ultimately self-interested? Probably not.
The rewards of living an ethical life (if there are any, which there often aren’t) come from disregarding short-sighted narcissism.

Atheists insist that they have merely a lack of belief: thus Atheism is an empty bucket. Without any principles at all, much less unifying principles, there is no commonality to be found in a group of Atheists other than antipathy toward religion, specifically Christianity. That’s enough to sustain the occasional audiences attending the ridiculing performance of the comedians who formed the Atheist “megachurches”, but it is not enough to engage consistent groups of intelligent people looking for inspiration to worldviews other than nihilism.

That Didn’t Take Long: Atheist “MegaChurch” Splits Up

Because Atheism is based on NO principles save hatred of religion, there is not much to bind them into an ideologically coherent and compatible congregation. In fact, every Atheist is free to determine his own moral system, if any, and to determine just how elite he personally is, relative to the other elites. So the concept of a universal Atheist MegaChurch is immediately on shaky grounds, right from its inception. Personal conflict seems inevitable since there is no core of fundamentals which is not based solely in the individual self.
So here’s what happened (apparently). The originators of the Atheist megachurch concept wanted to be at least somewhat friendly to non-Atheists too, so as not to spook them. This apparently enraged the Fundamentalists, who broke away and started a new denomination, called the “Godless Revival”.
The originating megachurch, called the “Sunday Assembly” was denigrated by the breakaways as being a “humanistic cult”.
Besides dogma issues, the Sunday Assembly also has financial woes:

The Sunday Assembly recently fell short of its £500,000 fundraising goal, only bringing in £33,668. While the founders expressed disappointment, they pledged to forge on.

This bodes ill for the concept of Atheist generosity and empathy. Not to mention the “mega” part of the group. Reaching less than 7% of their financial target should be some sort of clue. At £100 per Atheist, that is 336 Atheists, hardly a gathering worthy of the term “mega”. Conversely, if there were 33,668 Atheists, that comes to £1 per Atheists.
One thing about the Atheist “mega”-“Churches”: they give some empirical insight into Atheists and Atheism.
Much more here.

Atheism Is a Religion.

It has ordained ministers. Creeds. Churches. Megachurches with mottos. And prayer.
According to their creed and prayer, they worship their own minds. And that’s how they achieve elitism.
And they pray for this:

“deliver us from denial of logic”,

…which is an admirable pursuit except that Atheists (the capitalization is justified, just like Presbyterians) use non-aristotelian rationalization as their logic rather than grounded deductive testable logic. So when they say “logic”, they mean something entirely foreign to the standards of objective deductive processes.
Their statement of faith is both non-coherent and ignorant of the actuality of the entities which they blindly worship:

“Nothing exists besides natural phenomena. Thought is merely a function of those natural phenomena. Death is complete, and irreversible. We have faith solely in humankind, nature, and the facts of science.”

The “facts of science” do not support that belief system, cannot support it, and will never support it. Science has nothing to test regarding non-physical phenomena, including thought – which is non-determinate; or beyond death; or whether non-scientific facts can exist. So this belief statement asserts a blind belief in something which is, at its base, logically absurd, and that directly contradicts their claim to logic (at least to the type of logic which is part of rationality and reason).
There will be Atheists who object to all this, but at the core, they really are all of similar beliefs: personal intellectual and moral superiority; Scientism; Rationalization; Denialism.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
Powiadom o
0 komentarzy
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x