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!
#78 – Scottie
>>And, yeah, pushing spirituality in the way
>>you do is indeed proselytizing.
Scottie, Scottie, Scottie. I’m not proselytizing for anything. I’m merely stating my own beliefs. If you choose not to believe them, that’s great. For you.
>>It’s at least the fourth time you’ve told
>>me to get spirituality
What is? Could you post the statement where I told you to get it? And while you’re at it, please post times 1, 2, and 3.
>>And, at least a dozen times you’ve made is
>>sound as if those with spirituality are more
>>enlightened or in some way better than those
>>without.
Hey, if the shoe fits….
>>You’d let people post their own beliefs for
>>themselves.
Oh, I do. I’m only clarifying for the benefit of those who can’t decode some of the hip-and-happening, “I’m so tolerant of others”, slightly dangerous yet groovy bullshit.
The end.
Schroedinger’s Religion
Is there or isn’t there a God?
You don’t find out until you’re in the box.
>> Amen, Mr. Allen. Unfortunately, many of the Angry Young Men here don’t share your point of view. They seem to get their jollies by calling your kind “sheeple”, “morans” and other disrespectful terms because your beliefs are not the same as their beliefs.
I have no beef with most atheists. People can’t really help what they do or don’t believe in.
But there is a new upsurge of aggressive atheist supremacists who give me the creeps.
My own religious community were slaughtered — men, women and children, by the thousands because we were less-enlightened “opiates of the people,” holding back the atheists’ utopian dream.
As you can imagine, atheists arguing that they are more enlightened doesn’t get much traction with me!
Please, don’t get into the subject of reality. I just finished a paper on the topic of skepticism with Descartes and Hume. Meh, brain hurts.
gregallen–your post at #63 is “cute.”
There is an immaterial quality to God, love, and beauty, so if everyone has experienced love and beauty, the argument for God is pretty well made?====Not so fast.
The “existential experience” of God is not singular. You go on from there to explaining God in detail. He created the world. He has created an afterlife….and so forth==none of which is supported by any evidence.
Love–it can be measured in brain scans.
Beauty–mostly symmetry and youth indicating a likelihood of reproduction, it has mathematical properties that can be studied.
So–you can argue Love exists because everyone has experienced it.
You can argue beauty exists because everyone has seen it.
You CANT ARGUE GOD because everyone disagrees with it, its logically incoherent and self-contradictory, and nothing God says about the world has any evidence for it.
Kinda different things in reality–existentially speaking.
Schroedinger’s cat (see link at #37) makes no sense to me. As this is a famous hypothetical, the deficiency is surely my error?
At its heart, there is a word game going on. The cat cannot be both alive and dead at the same time and this state of affairs does not arise just because we don’t know the answer.
It goes back to my original clumsy thought that if the measuring technique fouls the observation, then we need to use a different measuring device.
It the cat example two come immediately to mind==use a glass container and look -or- open a can of cat food and listen for a meow?
My common sense tells me my uncle is alive or dead right now even though I don’t know for sure which until I call him on the phone.
Now–the dual nature of light seems more a mystery. Is it a particle or a wave OR BOTH? Again, language seems to limit the discussion. I can see a sinlge “wave” passing thru two slits, but not a single photon? and thats why it is described as having properties of both?
Now, we constantly make fun of religionists for becoming dogmatic on made-up things rather than simply say “we don’t know.” Seems much the same thing is going on here–what is the exact nature of a photon, or a quantum?===we don’t know. Lay down with cats, and you’ll stand up with fleas.
#81 – Mister Mustard,
Scottie, Scottie, Scottie. I’m not proselytizing for anything. I’m merely stating my own beliefs.
Bullshit again.
That is not stating a belief; it is recommending one. And, no. I’m not going searching for the other times you’ve said similar things. You don’t believe you said this even though it’s here in black and white. Why would you believe other quotes from yourself?
Scottie, Scottie, Scottie (#87)
I wasn’t suggesting you ADOPT a spiritual life. I was merely suggesting that you LOOK INTO it. You know, see what it has to offer, without the calicified antagonism that you bring to any discussion of God, religion, or spirtuality.
It’s clear that with your current closed state of mind, NOTHING that spirituality might have to offer will ever be available to you.
In your world, unless a guy in a white robe appears before your very eyes and starts throwing lightning bolts, or some physicist tells you he’s found God in a particle beam accelerator, you will haughtily disrespect any beliefs other than your own.
Tsk.
#83 – gregallen,
People can’t really help what they do or don’t believe in.
Sure they can.
People can read a book.
If people choose the bible, people can choose whether to read it literally and start killing those who work on whichever day they choose to call the sabbath and killing those who are gay and killing those who wear a mix of linen and wool and killing those who wear clothing designed for the opposite sex and killing those who worship god by the wrong name.
People could read the bible and cherry pick it for the nice bits, ignoring all of the genocide and going to quotes like “Do to others as you would have them do to you.”
People could choose to read a book on physics and gain some real understanding of how the universe works, the big bang, relativity, quantum mechanics and the like.
People could choose to read a book on biology and learn about their biological history. Your Inner Fish, for example would be a great start.
There are lots of ways for people to explore and think to determine their own views.
Of course, any of these courses would require thinking, something at which most people are actually quite bad.
#88 – Mister Mustard,
Scottie, Scottie, Scottie (#87)
I wasn’t suggesting you ADOPT a spiritual life. I was merely suggesting that you LOOK INTO it.
What a wonderful assumption you’ve made. See, you assume that since I have no spirituality, I have not looked into spirituality. You cannot even imagine that I actually have and have rejected it.
And you call me the one with the closed mind.
It happens I have indeed looked into spirituality. And, I have found it, though likely not by your close minded definition. I have found it looking into the eyes of my relatives. I have found spirituality in the oneness of life on this planet. I have found it in the eyes of a chimp and the eyes of a gorilla and the eyes of a lion and of a leopard seal and a harp seal pup and many many others.
So, you might want to do a little more open minded thinking on your part. Right now, I suspect that the whites of your eyes are looking a tad brown.
>>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.
Religious arguments bore me…
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.
#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
fundiereligious progressive, seeking tolegislate thatconvince [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.
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.
“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
#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.
>>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.
#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.
#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:
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.