Arrogathor wrote:

Once upon a time, all the Churches in town decided to hold a communal bake sale.  The good wives all showed up with cookies, chocolate cake, apple pie and other goodies for sale.  The atheists showed up and went around screaming that all the baked goods were filled with arsenic and rat poison and that if you ate it you were doomed.

This, of course, is a parable.  It reflects that when Atheism shows up alongside traditional religions it does not have anything to sell.  It's only message is that traditional religions are evil and will poison your mind with deadly superstitions.

This happened this Christmas Season with an Atheist display next to a Christian nativity scene in a public venue somewhere.  Governor Gregoire got caught in the firefight.  Apparently the Atheist display had nothing positive to sell but only attacked traditional religions saying that they enslaved the mind, etc.  Just like the Atheists at the bake sale above.

You really cannot compete if you have nothing to sell.  Now the 20th century saw some famous atheist movements.  Nazi Germany which attempted to replace traditional religions with 'race science' as a state religion, 12 millions dead.  Communist Russia which tried to replace traditional religions with Communism, 26 millions dead.  Communist China which tried to replace traditional religions with Communism 33 millions dead.

Most of the wars in the 20th century were atheist wars and, simply put, it is no longer possible for a reasonable person to blame all the evils of the world on traditional religions.

My intent in designing the Church of Civilization was to provide a positive product for persons who do not find traditional religious beliefs intellectually satisfying to sell.

I realize most people here have spiritual beliefs of a traditional sort.  Still, you can look at the CoC as just a history club, a way of studying history and the lessons it teaches.

A Church of Civilization sign would not say that Christianity enslaved people with superstition and ignorance, but would consist of quotations from Marcus Aurelius or Confucius or possibly Buddha.  Confucius would not discuss spiritual matters with his students, when pressed he replied, "Why do you wish to know spiritual matters when you have not yet learned to live virtuosly in this world?"

My intent is to write a weekly sermon following my design document to further develop this idea.  I hope it will be interesting and educational.  I am not really looking for converts or trying to sell anything, only to further develop the product with a thoughtful audience.

I have already run into technical difficulties.  My CD rom of The Story of Civilization will not load and run on my new computer.

You are certainly entitled to your position, but your analogy is false and quite misleading. Yes there may individuals who are Atheists who despise all religion and dismiss it as delusion. Most, however simply have no belief in any kind of theism, that's it. I've encountered hundreds of intolerant religious adherents who have openly attacked me for my beliefs and stated countless times that I was either being deluded, or worshiping demons. If those churches are selling baked goods, than one or two of those groups are certainly going to be telling their customers, my brownies are either poorly baked or poisoned. I hardly think Atheists would be running about telling that people are doomed (or damned), that's more in the realm of religious thinking, no?

The purpose of the Atheistic sign was to show how hypocritical many religious people could be, that on the one hand they would fight tooth and nail to support their own freedom of speech and expression, but would turn around and denounce any number of other view points, simply because it was not their own or disagreed with theirs. The hubbub over the Humanistic holiday bus sign, is yet another example of how intolerant many religious groups can be when it comes to first amendment rights extending to all.

Your assertions that the NSDAP turned Germany into an Atheistic state is contentious at best. There are so many quotes involving Hitler acknowledging theistic beliefs is littered through out Mein Kampf, and in transcripts of various speeches that its simply untenable to claim he or his party avowed Atheism. Further trying to state that the NSDAP, USSR and Maoist China replaced traditional religion with Atheism as if that explains away the complexity of the development of those three states and how the atrocities that came to be committed is a gross oversimplification.

Further this not only amounts to a strawman argument, but also a godwin. You are essentially saying.

I: Hitler, Mao, and Stalin were Atheists
II: They committed horrible atrocities
III: Therefore all Atheists are  evil

Even if Hitler was an Atheist, what does that have to do with Atheism today? It isn't like Atheists are running around and proclaiming Hitler as their hero or using him as an exemplar to live by.

If the CoC thinks that the 'history' its spouting is valid, then you really need to redo your homework.

Arrogathor wrote:

"

Well, wait until you read a few sermons from the CoC. As far as homework is concerned, I have actually done it and it is a fair bet that I am far more knowledgeable than you are today or ever will be in your life.

Let us do a content analysis of these belief systems.

Christianity.  Lots of good teaching on morals and ethics which are reminiscent of Buddhism, Diogenes, Aristotle, etc.  Including amazing items like the Sermon on the Mount.  A conviction that all other belief systems are false and lead to heck.  So we will say 50% obnoxious and 50% sweet. 

Islam.  More commandments to religious tolerance than the Old and New Testament combined.  Fairly warlike and aggressive.  A conviction that all other belief systems will lead to heck.  50% obnoxious and 50% sweet.

Atheism.  A conviction that all other belief systems are evil and will destroy the world.  No sermon on the mount, no commandments to religious tolerance, no ethical or moral guidance for the daily lives of Atheists.  100% of the obnoxious and objectionable content of Christianity and Islam and 0% of the desirable content.  100% obnoxious 0% sweet.

Now I know that you will see this as some kind of brutal theistic attack on Atheism.  It is rather a fact based analysis.  Where is the great teacher or leader who gave Ten Commandments or an Atheist Sermon on the Mount to the Atheist community?  Different versions of atheist belief do exist.  Marx and 'From each according to his ability to each according to his need" was part of one.

Still, Atheism is poverty stricken when it comes to promoting itself in the public arena.  When Atheists enter the public arena to promote themselves as with that sign, they are incapable of providing anything but attack ads.  This is because the only uniting belief of Atheists is that other religious beliefs are evil.  When that is the only message, it is the only message.

Hume was a very fine, decent person who was an Atheist.  He made great contributions to philosophy.  It is quite possible to be a very fine person as an atheist.  The problem arises only when Atheism becomes a public movement seeking a role in the Political or Public arena and must formulate a message to sell to others.

At this point the extreme poverty of Atheism becomes apparent.  There is no message except attacks on others.  A movement with no public message except attack ads against others is an unpleasant movement and frequently a hate based movement.

Your description of the sign demonstrates this, "The purpose of the Atheistic sign was to show how hypocritical many religious people could be," you defending Atheism still interpret it as an attack ad, a righteous attempt by right thinking Atheists to show the evils of many religious peoples.

This was the purpose, it was intended to preach the dogma of Atheism which consists of nothing more than the conviction that other systems of belief are evil and cripple and destroy humanity.

This is not a positive message and it will not appeal to positive people.  I personally would never want to be associated with the kind of people that this kind of message would appeal to.

My problem with Atheism is not as a personal belief system but as a political or public movement.  When Atheists enter the public arena they always look like hate mongers.  It is difficult or impossible to avoid this when their only unifying belief is that all other systems of belief are evil.  This is a description of reality.

A follows b inevitably.

When a party with no unifying principle except condemnation of others starts speaking out in public it has no message except hatred to spread.

The only way to avoid this is to start incorporating a positive message into the materials.  Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics.  The Analects of Confucius.  The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.  There are lots of positive messages and great teachers in history outside of the Theistic Tradition, especially the Western JudeoChristianIslamic theistic tradition.

I have done my homework and read a great many of them.  I would recommend that you do a little homework yourself.

Off the bat you defer to insult and self aggrandizement, way to go... regardless you're being very disingenuous and reactionary. Your providing a very biased view of atheism and are relying on a caricature of atheists, as opposed to actual atheists. If you bothered to do any research, as opposed to off handed dismissal, like say going to the Atheist/Secular philosophies forum, you would see that the discussion of ethics and morals is frequent.

That's just it, they are not really a party, they are not an organization, they are simply people who have no belief in theism. There are many religious atheists on Bnet, there are more who incorporate those same philosophies and ethical systems you mention. Yes, people can be reactionary and looking to get a rise out of people, but that goes for any group. I could provide ample evidence of the most intolerant and hate filled rhetoric from religious groups, but that would not be indicative of religions as a whole, its an unfair generalization which is what you have presented in your initial post.

The homework I was referring to, btw, was in regard to your very shallow and inaccurate analysis of the development of the NSDAP and your incorrect assertions that they (and their leadership) were atheistic.

Arrogathor wrote:

"

Well, wait until you read a few sermons from the CoC. As far as homework is concerned, I have actually done it and it is a fair bet that I am far more knowledgeable than you are today or ever will be in your life.

Are you certain of this? Do you know Gorm's education? Background? religious affiliation? I would suggest you get to know him before making an assertion like this one. It's disingenuous and dismissive.

Now I have a real beef here and it concerns what Bnet is about. It is a religious website. It has a set of forums that serve a variety of religious, philosophical, spiritual and theological purposes. What it is NOT, frankly, is a space for any one religious organization to POST SERMONS in the forums! The forums here, especially Multifaith, are places for us to come together and discuss the many iterations of religious, spiritual and philosophical points of view that are part of the context of the site. If you wish to post sermons from your church then do so in the blogs of Bnet. If you continue here you are in violation of the ROC and will be reported.

Honestly I would have let this alone. I cannot do that when it seems that your purpose here is to attack one of the philosophical points of view here at Bnet. That is NOT the purpose of the forums. THAT belongs in a blog.

Let us do a content analysis of these belief systems.

Christianity. Lots of good teaching on morals and ethics which are reminiscent of Buddhism, Diogenes, Aristotle, etc. Including amazing items like the Sermon on the Mount. A conviction that all other belief systems are false and lead to heck. So we will say 50% obnoxious and 50% sweet.

Islam. More commandments to religious tolerance than the Old and New Testament combined. Fairly warlike and aggressive. A conviction that all other belief systems will lead to heck. 50% obnoxious and 50% sweet.

Lovely. You seem to like and admire the Abrahamic faiths. Well you admire two of the three. I see nothing here with respect to Judaism. I also see nothing here that speaks to me as a Pagan, Wiccan, Witch. I don't think the Sermon on the Mount is so amazing. It is part of the Christian religion. When, or I should say IF, this was preached it was done so my a Jew in dialogue with other Jews. There was no Christianity. It is a particular religious point of view advocated by a Rabbi in dialogue with other members of Jewish philosophy.

Atheism. A conviction that all other belief systems are evil and will destroy the world. No sermon on the mount, no commandments to religious tolerance, no ethical or moral guidance for the daily lives of Atheists. 100% of the obnoxious and objectionable content of Christianity and Islam and 0% of the desirable content. 100% obnoxious 0% sweet

This is a blanket statement and it is wrong. There is no religion called Atheism and you are treating it as such. I have no holy book in Wicca. I have do doctrine to use. There is no dogma. There is no theology. There is nothing, I repeat NO THING about ethical or moral guidance in the daily lives of Wiccans that can be directly attributed to the religion of Wicca. You have no basis to make this blanket assertion here. I see you comparing two of the big three to a nebulous shadowy 'them' and that you are wearing a set of blinkers which has blinded you to the fact that the Abrahamic faiths are no more indicative of what religion is than are the assertions of what religion isn't by people who don't have one.

Now I know that you will see this as some kind of brutal theistic attack on Atheism. It is rather a fact based analysis. Where is the great teacher or leader who gave Ten Commandments or an Atheist Sermon on the Mount to the Atheist community? Different versions of atheist belief do exist. Marx and 'From each according to his ability to each according to his need" was part of one.

Still, Atheism is poverty stricken when it comes to promoting itself in the public arena. When Atheists enter the public arena to promote themselves as with that sign, they are incapable of providing anything but attack ads. This is because the only uniting belief of Atheists is that other religious beliefs are evil. When that is the only message, it is the only message.

I don't have that experience. Mountain Man is a good friend here and is an Atheist. He does none of the above. I have direct experience with MM. He has never told me that my religion is evil, I am evil and I need to give up being a theist and promote atheism. Namchuck, another Atheist here that I admire and respect is the same sort of person. So are the many other Atheists here that I have had the honor to interact with here.

Wicca fits your bill in one way. We don't promote ourselves in the public arena. Frankly we are an exclusivist religion. We don't want the rest of you in ours. It isn't for everyone and we like it like that. We do have a religion rich in personal experience and personal contact with our Gods.

Hume was a very fine, decent person who was an Atheist. He made great contributions to philosophy. It is quite possible to be a very fine person as an atheist. The problem arises only when Atheism becomes a public movement seeking a role in the Political or Public arena and must formulate a message to sell to others.

At this point the extreme poverty of Atheism becomes apparent. There is no message except attacks on others. A movement with no public message except attack ads against others is an unpleasant movement and frequently a hate based movement.

Christian Identity theology, Reconstructionism, Dominionism, the Moral Majority, the 700 club, and many, many Christian organizations are nothing but attack organizations. The LDS church led the pack when they poured millions of dollars into the Yes on Prop 8 campaign. These Christian organizations have no message except that their particular point of view is the only one and the rest of us must either join them or be silenced.

This is not a positive message and it will not appeal to positive people. I personally would never want to be associated with the kind of people that this kind of message would appeal to.

Then don't associate with people you know to be atheists.

When a party with no unifying principle except condemnation of others starts speaking out in public it has no message except hatred to spread.

I think you need to look down at the finger you are pointing here. You will see three other fingers right back at YOU. What are you promoting except condemnation? What are spreading except hatred? That, for me, is very telling and very disturbing.

The only way to avoid this is to start incorporating a positive message into the materials. Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. The Analects of Confucius. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. There are lots of positive messages and great teachers in history outside of the Theistic Tradition, especially the Western JudeoChristianIslamic theistic tradition.

This is where your true colors shine through. You have no interest in anything but the Western, as you put it, JudeoChristianIsmalic theistic tradition(s). So sorry but this negates anything you have said about 'religions' of the world. I am not part of that spectrum. Very many of us here are not part of that spectrum. It has no place in my religion, my belief system and my daily practice of m religion. Yet, you just dismissed all of that with your assessment. You are not talking about anything but an Abrahamic faith system. That won't wash for me. I daresay it will wash with the ahismic religions of the world either. You neatly marginalized them with this just as you marginalized the Pagan religions that are represented here.

I have done my homework and read a great many of them. I would recommend that you do a little homework yourself.

Better be looking down at those fingers again. The one you're pointing is out numbered three to one.

Now you have engaged in a full out frontal attack on something that does not exist. There is no atheist party or Atheist organization or Atheist agenda. Yet you are intimating that here. You have also asserted that you have done much research on the subject. I want to see some of that research. Until I do and until I can assess the validity of that assertion I have no basis to make a discernment with respect to what you are telling is true. Your word won't do on this one Arrogathor. This one you need to back with credible and research able facts from reputable , verifiable and researchable sources.