Marc Perkel, founder of the Church of Reality, a religion dedicated to the belief in everything that’s real, is calling on Atheists to give up on God. Yes, you heard it right… that Atheists should give up on God.
In a letter posted on an Atheist discussion forum, the Church of Reality urges Atheists to switch from an anti-god position to a pro-reality position, stating that Atheists are more obsessed with God than most believers are. Atheism is about what isn’t real. Realism is about what is real. Believers are more interested in what you believe in than what you don’t believe in.
Here is the letter ….
The time has come for Atheism to Evolve
.
OK people, it’s time for Atheism as we know it to die and move on to Realism. Atheism is stuck in the past because you haven’t given up God until you quit obsessing on God.
1) Atheism is about nothing.
2) Atheists think about and talk about God more than believers.
3) Atheism answers none of the great questions about anything.
4) Atheism is stuck in the past.
5) Atheism is ineffective when it comes to converting believers.
6) Atheism is about Theism – thus the name A-Theism
I think you all can agree that when something isn’t working it’s time to try something else. It’s time to move on. It’s time to GIVE UP GOD!
What do we need to do? We need to be pro-reality rather than anti-god. Being pro-reality is far more effective.
Before I go on, this is not about getting anyone to join the Church of Reality. That’s just my way of promoting reality. However, promoting reality is the right answer.
What is the basis of atheism? It’s about God not being real. Note the reality test. When you say “God is not real,” which is the important part, God or Reality? The important part is Reality because Reality is real and God is not.
Atheism causes brain damage and I will demonstrate the brain damage here. You know how you talk to Christians and no matter what you say, Christians don’t get it? That’s because Christians are brain-damaged by spending all their time thinking about what isn’t real.
When I talk to Atheists about reality, they don’t get it. That’s because, like Christians, they spend all their time thinking about what isn’t real. It’s the same thing… and if you don’t understand what I’m talking about here, it’s because of the brain damage. You aren’t going to get it until you truly give up God.
I find it frustrating that Christians have an easier time grasping Realism than Atheists do. I can explain it to a Christian and they not only get it but they are interested in it. It causes them to think. They at least understand it even if they aren’t ready to embrace it. It starts a process. They respect the idea that the pursuit of reality really has value.
My world view is that you are what you think about. If you are thinking about God, you are one of THEM. If you are thinking about reality then you are one of US. And because Atheists think about God more that Christians do, they are actually more brain-damaged.
I have never been a believer so I don’t have a reference for appreciating the God obsession. My way of comprehending Atheism is like my being in a recovery meeting with alcoholics who are all talking about not drinking. Since I’m not a drinker, not drinking isn’t something I dwell on. I just don’t drink. But my not drinking isn’t the same as a drunk not drinking. So even though I’m an atheist, I’m not an ATHEIST!
The recovery from theism may be better described as having 2 stages. The first stage is to decide that the deity isn’t real. That’s the easy part. The second stage is to quit thinking about the deity. Atheism is good for the first stage, but it totally fails the second stage… so Atheism itself is critically flawed.
Believers are not interested in what you don’t believe in. They are interested in what you do believe in… and Atheism offers NOTHING when it comes to what to believe in. So that’s what Atheism is proving to be… a failed strategy.
What should Atheists believe in? That’s easy. You can believe in what the Church of Reality believes in. Believe in everything that is real. Switch from being anti-God to pro-reality. Lose the A-Thiest identity. Change the name. Change the mission.
Atheists of Silicon Valley should become Realists of Silicon Valley. San Francisco Atheists should become San Francisco Realists. East Bay Atheists should become East Bay Realists. It changes the message. To be a Realist means that it’s about reality. To be an Atheist means that it’s about God. I am asking Atheists today to GIVE UP GOD! It’s time to get GOD out of the name ATHEISM that defines who you are!
So – how many of you Atheists out there are ready to give up God and go out and start winning souls for Darwin? If you truly believe in evolution – then let’s evolve!
>>Statistics show that atheists are more
>>peaceful than the religious.
Link?
>>Furthermore, far fewer atheists
>>(proportionally) commit crimes ever than an
>>religious group.
Link?
>>If there is anything that atheists are not
>>(statistically) it is militant.
I call bullshit.
>>erhaps atheists would be nicer to you if you
>>stopped telling them that they believed
>>things
I’ve never told an atheist “what they believed”, I just pointed out the self-evident fact that they’re believers. (Just like us Jesus-loving folks). In whatever it is that they believe.
____________________________________________
The First Noel, the Angels did say
Was to certain poor shepherds in fields as they lay
In fields where they lay keeping their sheep
On a cold winter’s night that was so deep.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!
They looked up and saw a star
Shining in the East beyond them far
And to the earth it gave great light
And so it continued both day and night.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!
And by the light of that same star
Three Wise men came from country far
To seek for a King was their intent
And to follow the star wherever it went.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!
This star drew nigh to the northwest
O’er Bethlehem it took its rest
And there it did both Pause and stay
Right o’er the place where Jesus lay.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!
Then entered in those Wise men three
Full reverently upon their knee
And offered there in His presence
Their gold and myrrh and frankincense.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!
Then let us all with one accord
Sing praises to our heavenly Lord
That hath made Heaven and earth of nought
And with his blood mankind has bought.
Noel, Noel, Noel, Noel
Born is the King of Israel!
OK, Scottie, I think we’re on the same page. Difrerent paragraphs, but the same page.
“Today the term militant atheism may be used by theists as an epithet for the “militant evolutionists [who] want to silence the idea of creation”.[15]. It is sometimes used pejoratively to describe people who are considered to campaign too actively and outspokenly – or militantly – for atheism and against religion: “those who advocate the elimination of religion” as opposed to “progressive, enlightened people who are simply ‘nonbelievers’.”[16] Catherine Fahringer of the Freedom From Religion Foundation has suggested that the label militant is often routinely applied to atheist for no good reason – “very much as was the adjective ‘damn’ attached to the noun ‘Yankee’ during the Civil War.”[17] Despite the term’s pejorative status, some atheists choose to self-identify as militant.“
#101 – Mister Mustard,
Sorry Mister Mustard, but you asked.
Link: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health
with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies from Journal of Religion & Society (17 page PDF, peer reviewed, check pages 9-11 for nice graphical representation of religion and violence in society.)
Scottie, the article you cite describes the difference between “holy roller” cultures, and mellow, do-what-you-like ones. That has nothing whatsoever to do with peoples’ belief, be it in God, or in the dogma that there is no God.
Your cited site has a link to another interesting article, decrying people who are militant in the name of faith, whether it be Jesus Camp or worshipers at the altar of Dawkins.
http://www.virtue-politics.net/?p=159
#101-Mister Mustard,
For statistics, go to you local public library and check out a copy of the Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Preferably the latest copy you can get our hands on.
#104 – Mister Mustard,
I don’t know musty the article I cited is a peer reviewed article that explicitly does tie religiosity, not “holy rollerness”, to violent crime and a number of other social ills.
The link you cite appears to be a blog post. That a blog or similar site may also have a copy of a peer reviewed article is irrelevant. The point is that one is a peer reviewed article with pages of data. The other is some guys opinion.
I’m a little surprised at you equating the two. Did I miss something? Post a deeper link if there was something else peer reviewed there that contradicts the first.
>>The link you cite appears to be a blog post.
It’s a link on a web site, just like your “peer-reviewed” article was a link on the same web site. So there’s a difference? Are you saying that religious beliefs are fair game for “peer review”?
Har.
Thanks to everyone who stepped up to the challenge of explaining why quantum mechanics might make anyone doubt reality. Couldn’t have done anything like as well myself.
I’d like to add that having faced qm many years ago I realised that there are some things I know (maybe) and other things that I don’t know but do put my belief in, evolution; human rights; the banking system; that there is a scientific explanation for everything.
I can’t explain any of them in enough detail to convince someone else who didn’t either know or believe already. Believing these things makes life possible, the alternative is finding out enough to think I know.
Don’t ask me to explain ‘know’ please I think it just means believe with supporting evidence.
#107 – Mister Mustard,
Yes. I’m saying that a 17 page sociological study in a peer reviewed journal carries a bit more weight than a one paragraph statement by Joe Dork. Do you really disagree? Careful now, you may end up in a class with the climate change deniers. I know you don’t want that. Find a real publication with a conflicting sociological study or drop the argument.
>>Yes. I’m saying that a 17 page sociological study in
>>a peer reviewed journal carries a bit more weight
>>than a one paragraph statement by Joe Dork.
Scottie, let’s not get too carried away with the “peer reviewed” thing, hm? It’s not like this is Science, or Nature, or even Il Nuovo Cimento.
This is a free “peer-reviewed journal” that seems to have no traction anywhere on earth other than on the web site of moses.creighton.edu, which is some kind of entity self-described as “The Virtual World Project”; “Exploring the Ancient World Through Virtual Reality”. Do you suppose Moses Creighton is next on the list of applicants, after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale?
You’re an educated guy, Scottie. Do you know anyone who graduated from Moses Creighton U? Hmmm?
Give it a rest. Your link from that web site was an opinion piece, my link from that web site was an opinion piece. They’re all opinion pieces.
If you have a link to something that’s at least as credible as USA Today, let’s have it.
Otherwise, just accept that this isn’t the kind of thing people do scholarly studies about, unless they’re looking for brownie points at a diploma mill.
Jess Hurchist said: “Don’t ask me to explain ‘know’ please I think it just means believe with supporting evidence.”
That’s is a pretty darn good definition. Knowledge implies that you believe something is true. To say that ‘I know something exists but I don’t believe it’ is contradictory. This is known as Moore’s Paradox.
I checked and Wikipedia has a pretty good article on this. I’d read it to understand the difference between the ommissive and commissive forms of the paradox. If you figure that out then you’ll figure out why Mustard, Ketchup, and Scott all argue with each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_paradox
#110-Mister Mustard,
That is not true at all. Censuses are recored the world over on a regular basis, and more than a few scholarly papers have been written. The book I recommended earlier (Cambridge Companion to Atheism) is a good start. The internet is obviously not the best place to go looking for information about religion or the lack thereof, because there are so many nuts about. Have you been to your local public library yet?
#111-QB,
You have that backwards. You can know something without believing it, because knowledge is not certain. You cannot believe something without knowing it as belief is a type of knowledge. At least that is the epistemological consensus as I understand it.
112
Thanks Noel. I’ll take a look at that book.
#110 – Mister Mustard,
It’s always good to question stuff like this. I admit it’s certainly controversial. However, the article comes up on a Google Scholar search. And, the journal is listed as a refereed academic journal on Journal Seek.
If you choose to discount it in its entirety, that’s fine. However, did you actually look at the data? If nothing else, it shows how far the U.S. is from other developed democratic nations in a variety of ways.
#111–QB==Good link to why I hate/don’t understand Wittgenstein or any of his ilk.
“Its raining outside and I don’t believe it.” Hardly strikes me as a paradox or the basis of an epistemic or doxastic analysis whether omisive or commissive?
I just don’t see any paradox at all. If you are inside, talking about outside, you have no basis to form any belief.
Most of philosophy is complete BS wrapped in a long explanation with footnotes and commentary.
Mr. Mustard wrote, not all that long ago at #110:
[quote]this is a free “peer-reviewed journal” that seems to have no traction anywhere on earth other than on the web site of moses.creighton.edu, which is some kind of entity self-described as “The Virtual World Project”; “Exploring the Ancient World Through Virtual Reality”. Do you suppose Moses Creighton is next on the list of applicants, after Harvard, Princeton, and Yale?
You’re an educated guy, Scottie. Do you know anyone who graduated from Moses Creighton U? Hmmm?[/quote]
There actually [i]is[/i] a Creighton University, and you have identified a subdomain of its web presence. This latest revelation of yours merely adds to the weight of testimony that you have already given as to just what the limits of your universe really are. However, your creation of the fictional character Moses Creighton is a work of comic genius.