The image “http://www.churchofreality.org/images/cor-logo2.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

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

The image “http://www.churchofreality.org/images/toast.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors..

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!




  1. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I have found it, I have found it, I have found it.

    OK, Scottie, that works for me.

    For the life of me, I can’t figure out why you continue to characterize me as a proselytizing fundie, seeking to legislate that you believe the same things I do.

    >>It happens I have indeed looked into spirituality.

    OK then. You never mentioned that. In the millions of words that have been written on this general topic on dvorak dot org slash blog, I figured if you never mentioned it, it never happened. My bad.

  2. Jeff says:

    Religious arguments bore me…

  3. QB says:

    Bobbo said “Schroedinger’s cat makes no sense to me. As this is a famous hypothetical, the deficiency is surely my error?”

    It’s a weird mind experiment that was used to illustrate the problems around observation of quantum state. In a ridiculously small nutshell, observing something has an influence on it’s state. This problem is especially true for quantum observations which are notoriously tricky. At the heart of it they are trying to figure if it is possible to objectively measure phenomena.

    It is very odd and strange and not common sensical (sic). The double slit experiment is even better. If it doesn’t make sense to you then you’re probably like most people who read about it. If you find people who think it’s quasi-religious then be suspicious. 😉

  4. #91 – Mister Mustard,

    For the life of me, I can’t figure out why you continue to characterize me as a proselytizing fundie, seeking to legislate that you believe the same things I do.

    I don’t. Note changes below.

    I characterize you as a proselytizing fundie religious progressive, seeking to legislate that convince [me] to believe the same things [you] do, (sarcasm)for my own good, of course(/sarcasm).

    Incidentally, I have never used the phrase “religious progressive” before. Perhaps because there are so few. IMHO, it describes you better than “religious moderate”. If the phrase upsets you, I will not use it again.

  5. Mister Mustard says:

    Scottie #94

    Please believe me. I have no interest whatsoever in convincing you to believe what I believe. What I believe works for me, and I think it’s worth taking a look at. If you choose not to believe it, that’s fine. If you choose not to even take a look at, that’s fine also. If you’re happy with the boat-floater you have, God bless!

    And I don’t mind the term “religious progressive”. In fact, I may begin to refer to you as an “atheist progressive”, to distinguish you from the militant hatemongers that sometimes infect your ranks. Much as you seek to distinguish me from the Creationists and meth-and-man-ass fanatics and wide-stancers who think that infidels to Christianity should be burned at the stake.

  6. QB says:

    “And I don’t mind the term “religious progressive”. In fact, I may begin to refer to you as an “atheist progressive”, to distinguish you from the militant hatemongers that sometimes infect your ranks.”

    It’s a two way street filled with stereotypes.

    All Christians (or Muslims, etc) are fundamentalist misogynists who teach spontaneous ins schools.

    All non-religious people (Atheists, Agnostics, etc) meet secretly in to form communist states so we can enslave church going morons.

    Yeesh. Sounds like Richard Nixon and Pat Buchanen really did win: http://tinyurl.com/6b98w6

  7. #95 – Mister Mustard,

    Actually, for me, the term is antitheist. I am very outspoken against religion, though not against the religious. Think of it as the atheist version of hate the sin love the sinner. It’s sort of “I hate religion. I have nothing against religious folks in particular. And, I have no desire to convert anyone, only to get the nutcases to stop legislating against me.”

    I think the default position of atheist is probably even less at odds with religion than I. What you need is a term for atheist nutjob. I don’t really know any, so can’t offer a good term for such an induhvidual. I think it’s as small a minority among atheists as fundie neocon reactionary sicko is among the religious. However, since there are more religious folks and fewer atheists, the number of fundie neocon reactionary sickos is far higher.

  8. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I think the default position of atheist is
    >>probably even less at odds with
    >>religion than I.

    Hmmm. I’m not so sure about that, Scottie. Whenever I meet someone who describes themself as an Atheist, they’re usually militant, antagonistic, and all up in my grille. Even though I never bring up the topic of religion or spirituality, and unless someone asks me what I believe, I don’t share that information with them. Personal beliefs are, by definition, personal. However, the Atheists seem to have a fundamental need to proselytize, call believers “sheeple”, and like that.

    In any case, you’ve been upgraded. You’re no longer an Atheist, you’re an antitheist. Although that seems to imply that you’re “against God”, yet you claim to be against religion. Religion often has little to do with God. I’m often outspoken against religion also, but that doesn’t mean I’m against God.

  9. Noel says:

    #98-Mister Mustard,

    Again, this is completely ridiculous. In this thread, you have said sheep or sheeple, on 4 different occasions and no one else has said it except when quoting you. Statistics show that atheists are more peaceful than the religious. Furthermore, far fewer atheists (proportionally) commit crimes ever than an religious group. If there is anything that atheists are not (statistically) it is militant. Think of this, atheists are most populous in neutral countries. Perhaps atheists would be nicer to you if you stopped telling them that they believed things, or quoting songs rather than making sense.

  10. #98 – Mister Mustard,

    In any case, you’ve been upgraded. You’re no longer an Atheist, you’re an antitheist. Although that seems to imply that you’re “against God”, yet you claim to be against religion. Religion often has little to do with God. I’m often outspoken against religion also, but that doesn’t mean I’m against God.

    Wikipedia has a good explanation of antitheist as one opposed to theism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheist

    In particular, I find that the following statement matches my views:

    Antitheism may be adopted as a label by those who take the view that theism is destructive.

    I consider myself an antitheist because I feel that theism has had a hugely deleterious net effect on humanity, as measured by the huge number of deleted humans in the name of theism.

    Certainly humans have found a great many reasons to kill. Theism is just one. However, your views on god are unusually benign. A quick read of Deuteronomy through Joshua will show quite quickly that the bible can easily be used to justify genocide. Luke 19:27 shows that even the new testament can be similarly genocidal in its instructions, though probably less pervasively so.

    Anyway, this is getting long and off track here. The point is that many people have been killed in the name of god. While I cannot oppose that in which I do not believe, I do in fact believe theism exists and I am opposed to it. I think that despite people like yourself, the purpose of organized religion around a deity is sectarian in nature. This means that at its core, it separates people into sects of Us and Them. And, it is always OK to kill them.

    I personally believe we are all Us. There is no Them. We are all incredibly closely related and are all basically the same.

  11. Mister Mustard says:

    >>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!

  12. Mister Mustard says:

    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.

  13. #101 – Mister Mustard,

    >>Statistics show that atheists are more
    >>peaceful than the religious.

    Link?

    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.)

  14. Mister Mustard says:

    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

  15. Noel says:

    #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.

  16. #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.

  17. Mister Mustard says:

    >>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.

  18. Jess Hurchist says:

    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.

  19. #107 – Mister Mustard,

    >>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”?

    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.

  20. Mister Mustard says:

    >>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.

  21. QB says:

    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

  22. Noel says:

    #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?

  23. Noel says:

    #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.

  24. QB says:

    112

    Thanks Noel. I’ll take a look at that book.

  25. #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.

  26. bobbo says:

    #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.

  27. nonErgodic says:

    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.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 18671 access attempts in the last 7 days.