{"id":715,"date":"2017-08-08T10:01:11","date_gmt":"2017-08-08T08:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/?p=715"},"modified":"2017-08-08T10:01:11","modified_gmt":"2017-08-08T08:01:11","slug":"atheist-church","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/atheist-church\/","title":{"rendered":"Atheist Church"},"content":{"rendered":"

The United Church of Bacon Claims Discrimination<\/a><\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
The United Church of Bacon<\/a> is merely Atheists, run amok. But they use their self-declaration of devotion to a meat to harass. Details are here:<\/p>\n

The United Church Of Bacon Accuses Wells Fargo Of Religious Discrimination<\/a><\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

<\/h3>\n

Bill Quick and the Standard Canard for Denying the Obvious.<\/a><\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
Atheist Bill Quick is easily irritated.<\/a> As his article wrap-up he says this:<\/p>\n

\u201d Some atheists piss me off every once in a while, but not nearly as often or as much as the dumbasses of the \u201catheism is a religion\u201d crowd.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

He seems to reason that Atheism is not a religion and that’s why he doesn\u2019t 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:<\/p>\n

\u201dA standard response is to note that if atheism is a religion, then \u201cbald\u201d 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 \u2013 say, by defining a religion as \u201cany philosophy on life\u201d \u2013 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.)\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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\u2019t 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\u2019s progeny (women\u2019s healthcare), and the installation of Atheism as the standard morality of government and the public square.
\nSo Quick\u2019s 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?
\nBut he also fails in his meager attempt at definition: \u201creligion as a philosophy of life\u201d<\/i>, 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.
\nThere is no doubt that Atheists like Bill Quick really don\u2019t like being apprised of their religious affiliation. But that\u2019s 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.
\nIf 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.<\/div>\n

\n

Atheist Invocation At Public Meeting Refers to Harry Potter For Moral Principles<\/a><\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
Headline:<\/p>\n

Atheist group delivers opening message to City Council<\/a><\/b>
\n„An atheist group gave the opening message for the Sioux Falls City Council meeting Tuesday night \u2014 likely a first in city history.
\nSiouxland Freethinkers President Amanda Novotny said in her message we must \u201clet all voices be heard and understood equally.\u201d”<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Here is the entire preachment:<\/p>\n

„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.
\nOften 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.
\nNow 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.
\nIt is also often customary to read from a book during an invocation, and tonight will be no different – I\u2019ll be sharing a quote from J.K. Rowling\u2019s \u201cHarry Potter and the Goblet of Fire\u201d <\/b>in which Professor Albus Dumbledore said:
\n\u201cDifferences of habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open.\u201d
\nAthough 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.”<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.
\nSeriously, though, look at the quote for a moment: „…if our aims are identical…”<\/i>. 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”<\/i>. 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.
\nThey must be seen for what they are, and stopped.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Hollowness of Atheist Churches<\/a><\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
Headline:<\/a><\/p>\n

Beyond belief: the hell of \u2018atheist church\u2019<\/b>
\nAgain, I found myself asking: why am I here? How is this an alternative to religious observance? Sunday Assembly tells us to \u2018wonder more\u2019, 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\u2019t live in the same suburb. We weren\u2019t 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.
\nIf atheists, or non-religious people, want to create some sense of ritual or community, it can\u2019t be based on imitating low-church Protestantism without the inconvenient God stuff. Attending Sunday Assembly felt like sitting inside a toddler\u2019s crayon drawing of a religious service, and on some level I\u2019m 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\u2019s lives.
\nThe sort of engaged, ethical community that Sunday Assembly tries to build isn\u2019t 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 \u2018what is happiness\u2019. When The Happy Project guys told us the value of doing nice things for other people, it was instrumental. \u2018Do nice things for other people because altruism makes you feel good.\u2019 Sure, but does it make you feel good to know that your motivation for altruistic behaviour is ultimately self-interested? Probably not.
\nThe rewards of living an ethical life (if there are any, which there often aren\u2019t) come from disregarding short-sighted narcissism.<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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.<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

That Didn’t Take Long: Atheist „MegaChurch” Splits Up<\/a><\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
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.
\nSo here’s what happened <\/a>(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”.
\nThe originating megachurch, called the „Sunday Assembly” was denigrated by the breakaways as being a „humanistic cult”<\/i>.
\nBesides dogma issues, the Sunday Assembly also has financial woes:<\/p>\n

The Sunday Assembly recently fell short of its \u00a3500,000 fundraising goal, only bringing in \u00a333,668. While the founders expressed disappointment, they pledged to forge on.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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 \u00a3100 per Atheist, that is 336 Atheists, hardly a gathering worthy of the term „mega”. Conversely, if there were 33,668 Atheists, that comes to \u00a31 per Atheists.
\nOne thing about the Atheist „mega”-„Churches”: they give some empirical insight into Atheists and Atheism.
\nADDENDUM:
\nMuch more here.<\/a><\/div>\n

\n

Atheism Is a Religion.<\/a><\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n
It has ordained ministers<\/a>. Creeds<\/a>. Churches<\/a>. Megachurches with mottos<\/a>. And prayer<\/a>.
\nAccording to their creed and prayer, they worship their own minds. And that’s how they achieve elitism.
\nAnd they pray for this:<\/p>\n

„deliver us from denial of logic”,<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

…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.
\nTheir statement of faith is both non-coherent and ignorant of the actuality of the entities which they blindly worship:<\/p>\n

\u201cNothing 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.\u201d<\/i><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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).
\nThere 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.<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_sitemap_exclude":false,"_sitemap_priority":"","_sitemap_frequency":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1056],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-teksty-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/715","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=715"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/715\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/beniuk.gr5.pl\/apologetyka2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}