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. mrmigu says:

    I wonder what theyre gonna call the church that preaches to ‘realists’ to stop preaching giving up on god……

  2. Noel says:

    #23-Marc Perkel,

    Don’t tell me what I believe, because I believe nothing. Neither religion, nor atheism are obsessions. If you were to study Kant, you would probably realize that there is no way to prove any belief except that you exist. I say this not really knowing if you exist or not.

    Stop being an intolerant douche. There is little difference between you trying to convert someone any any other obnoxious person trying to change people’s beliefs.

    #25-Mister Mustard,

    It is rather fulfilling. I think things, but do not believe at all.

  3. #19 – Mister Mustard,

    No matter what you believe, you believe it.

    But, one need not make a religion of it. I don’t make a religion of Darwinian evolution either, but I believe it. Ditto for quantum theory and relativity.

  4. bobbo says:

    #28–JP==I think I understand what you say. To me, that doesn’t make “reality” unreal in any sense, or even “unknowable.” Just a matter of precision at the nth degree–a Zeno’s Paradox sort of thing?

    Is the mystery of the quantum world just that simple–or can you hint at its further complexity? I read about “instant communication” between two electrons at a distance. Is this real, or some other “language” issue.

    Thanks. ((Every little bit seems to help, even if I become firmly convince in error–smile!)

  5. iGod says:

    How do you say ‘there is no’ about what you don’t know?

    You are as you say retarded julieb.

  6. RCopeh says:

    Awww geee! I’m so glad there’s someone willing to tell me what’s real and what isn’t real.

    I guess now I can outsource my thinking to the Church of Reality.

    All hail reality. Now let’s start a war over who’s reality is right! Bugsy the nukes!

  7. #21 – bobbo,

    Any explanation as to why/how quantum mechanics throws a wrench into “reality?”

    You weren’t specifically asking me. But, I’ll give it a try. The quantum mechanical wrenches to reality stem from a number of points, possibly a lot more than I have listed here. (I admit my explanations may suck.)

    1) Matter can and does pop in and out of existence at the quantum mechanical level. If you don’t calculate for the existence of “virtual particles” that do not even have the right mass for their types, you get wrong answers.

    2) Cause and effect is thrown out completely at the quantum mechanical level. Matter, including people though it would take many times the age of the universe for it to become likely, can simply tunnel through to another part of the universe without having to travel at pokey light speed or worry about things like walls of sufficient capacity to stop normal motion.

    3) Spooky action at a distance. Well now that just about says it right there. When particles are entangeled together in a quantum way, they can and do interact with each other by some means that no one understands. The interaction is instantaneous regardless of the separation of the particles, again, no issues with light speed here. The classic example is Schrodinger’s cat, where the cat’s life depends on whether the electron is in one half of a sphere or the other, somehow. The cat ends up neither alive nor dead until someone examines the containers to see where the electron is. I think you better search for this one. I’m not explaining it well.

    Better yet, here’s a link.

    Schrodinger’s Cat

  8. Marc Perkel says:

    Sorry – not that easy. The Church of Reality requires you to do your own thinking.

  9. Mister Mustard says:

    >>I nominate this comment as the most retarded
    >>in the thread. Second?

    I object, Jules. It sounds like a pretty accurate statement to me. If you’re a Bible thumper, you’re a believer. If you’re an Atheist, you’re a believer. You just believe in different things.

    How is that retarded? Seems like common sense to me.

    If you’re dazed, confused, not knowing what to believe, you’re an agnostic.

    Otherwise, you believe, Sistah, YOU BELIEVE!!

  10. Mister Mustard says:

    >>It is rather fulfilling. I think
    >>things, but do not believe at all.

    It’s clear that you are 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).

    If you were the second or the third, you’d recognize that life without belief in something is sad, shallow, and meaningless. You sound like some sort of android, flipping your bits and deciding whether to turn left of right.

    Trust me, son. There’s more to life than what you have. Seek, and ye shall find. Lord willin’ and the creek don’t rise, you’ll discover that some day.

  11. iGod says:

    Does reality exist because of your thinking or does your thinking exist because of reality?-)

  12. julieb says:

    There you go again, MM. You are distorting the definition of atheist.

  13. BubbaRay says:

    #21, Bobbo, For even more fun, go see Schroedinger’s cat. “This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer’s paradox : the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that the outcome as such does not exist unless the measurement is made. (That is, there is no single outcome unless it is observed.)”

    Quantum mechanics is a b*tch. But it is a great description of reality at the microscopic level.

  14. karanua says:

    Reality is bunk. Who gives a crap?

  15. bobbo says:

    #7–Scott==thanks, you’re getting better at explaining this to me.

    The first one I get totally. Now, is this popping in and out “theoretical” or has it been observed?

    I ask because that goes to your second point. I understand that most matter is 99.9% empty space and that theoretically we can walk thru walls if all our matter was arranged correctly. I don’t see that as a wrench in reality at all. Just a matter of probability with once in the universe of time being pretty low?

    I’ll have to read Schrodinger’s Cat again which I will later, because I know it will give me a headache. From last reading, it struck me more as a word game than reality??

    If “standard model reality” takes place 99,999% of the time and at non-quantum levels, that is sufficient reality to me as the wrenches don’t appear to affect ME?

    How does quantum mechanics mess with my reality?? Is it at all part of where my car keys are? Otherwise, I’m not concerned, and that makes ignorance a blessing.

    Thanks Scott, keep the good stuff coming.

  16. Mister Mustard says:

    >>There you go again, MM. You are distorting
    >>the definition of atheist.

    Jules, you’re starting to sound like the Jerry Falwell of Atheism.

    Take it down a notch, eh? I realize you are virtually maniacal in your belief, but try a little tolerance. Believe (!!) it or not, not everyone holds the same beliefs that you do.

  17. iGod says:

    ‘Spooky action at a distance.’ ‘they can and do interact with each other by some means that no one understands’

    No_One says they are conscience of them selfs and one another, consciousness is instantaneous, not limited by the slow speed of light, which is really just the speed (rate of change) that the Universe can change.

    Your consciousness is just the net sum of a large mass entangled together.

  18. #40 – Mister Mustard,

    life without belief in something is sad, shallow, and meaningless.

    As I’ve stated before, life without a puppet master to cow before is actually rather fulfilling and empowering. Imagine having a life where your life has exactly the meaning you choose to give it. That is so much more meaningful than a life spent serving a hypothetical sky spirit/master.

  19. bobbo says:

    #43–Bubba==Nice to see you, its good to be busy?

    I like the way you describe the cat issue. I am reaffirmed this is a microscopic/nanometer issue not at my macro level? So that makes me feel good.

    I’m also still getting the feeling it is more a word game than “reality” –as you say, “a paradox.” Much like Zeno’s Paradox, the paradox is avoided if you correctly identify the variables in motion? If we can’t measure something without affecting the outcome (like a floating witch?) then we are simply using the wrong measuring device?

    I’ll read the cat with great interest and report back any solutions–aka–don’t hold your breath waiting for a paradox.

  20. #47 iGod,

    Most of that post is utterly unintelligible. I’ll just say that the particles do not require consciousness or conscience, whichever you may have meant, in order to be interacting. Billiard balls also interact. They do not have much of a discussion that I’ve ever detected nor feel bad about hitting each other so hard.

  21. brian t says:

    Some generally valid points here, but by invoking a “Church of “, you’ve got a non-starter here.

    Speaking for myself: I’ve been calling myself an atheist for about 25 years, and probably was one for all my life, even as my mother was taking me to Catholic Church. I’ve done far more _not_ talking about it than talking about it. What I have been doing recently, however, is answering questions on it at http://asktheatheists.com/

    What I’ve noticed are a large number of “straW man” fallacies, attacking caricatures of atheists created by preachers and mullahs. Even definitions of atheism in dictionaries seem to have been written by people with axes to grind.

    The classic example is the idea that atheists say “there is definitely no God”, which fails on at least two points: 1) it’s too specific, implying that atheists focus on the Judeo-Christian “God” only, and 2) it would be a logical fallacy to assert the NON-existence of something god-like, without complete knowledge of the universe. Which is why any sensible atheist, who puts a bit of thought in to the question, doesn’t do that. (No, I don’t care if that’s in the dictionary: who wrote the dictionary?)

  22. Mister Mustard says:

    #48 Scottie

    >>As I’ve stated before, life without a puppet
    >>master to cow before is actually rather
    >>fulfilling and empowering.

    I cow before no puppetmaster, Scottie. As a seemingly intelligent fellow with an extremely well-designed blog, I’m somewhat disappointed in you.

    You really should look more into the spiritual aspect of life. Although I know you don’t believe it, there are many people of faith who are not like Ted “Meth and Man-Ass” Haggard or Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart.

    For decades, I lived the empty, sad, self-aggrandizing life of the non-believer. I thought I was happy and satisfied, but it was all bragadaccio, empty and self-serving.

    I hope that some day you open your mind, and explore the world of spirituality.

    You don’t believe it now, but there are good things in life that may not be visible under an electron microsope.

  23. John Paradox says:

    I read about “instant communication” between two electrons at a distance. Is this real, or some other “language” issue.

    Actually, two photons (light particles AND waves…how’s that for spooky?)… the term is ‘entanglement’… and there was a post about it and how the Space Station is going to conduct a test.. BadAstronomy, or just go to:
    http://tinyurl.com/5mgsdx

    J/P(hD?)=?

    don’t hold your breath waiting for a paradox.

    HEY!

    😉

  24. bobbo says:

    #52–Mustard==you don’t see the spirituality in trying to figure out what Schroedinger’s cat means?

    What a sad and empty life you lead.

    – – – and for bonus points, explain how your post is not cramming your religion down Scott’s throat, save for his gagging reflex?

  25. iGod says:

    #50 Misanthropic Scott :

    It takes a conscience effort to get the Billiard balls moving in the first place, unless you believe in Spooky Pool?-)

    the quotes in #47 were from #37 part 3)

    you large mass of entangled matter you…)

  26. Yikes says:

    Wasnt thinking bout god before and now all im reading in the article is bout god?

  27. Mister Mustard says:

    >>you don’t see the spirituality in trying to
    >>figure out what Schroedinger’s cat means?

    Nope, but if pondering that kind of shit floats your boat, go for it. I have more mundane things to occupy my time.

    >>and for bonus points, explain how your post is
    >>not cramming your religion down Scott’s
    >>throat, save for his gagging reflex?

    Bobster, lay off of the fucking single-malt, will you? I doubt that even Scottie would say that I’ve ever tried to “cram [my] religion down [his] throat”.

    The only thing I’ve ever tried to cram down his throat is the self-evident fact that his religious beliefs (and yours) are no different from mine. We believe in different things, but in the end, we believe. To argue otherwise is like saying that the dollar is currency, but the Euro or the Yen is not. They’re different, but fundamentally, they’re the same.

  28. pjakobs says:

    has anyone bothered to count the number of occurances of the word “God” in this text here alone?
    Seems someone is using it to define something there.

    strange.

    pj

  29. Jack says:

    I really think everyone is missing the real point of god here.

    What is the point is religious doctrine in the first place? Why did man, as a thinking animal, create religion and god in the first place?

    Religion was originally created by mankind in order to establish a set of rules that enabled us to live as pack animals. The primary reason that our species has excelled is because we hunt, gather, and live as a group. A single human being is no match for the majority of other carnivores on this planet. But, as a pack, we were able to take down and eat much larger prey (i.e. the mastodon).

    Courts, and law enforcement officials, are a fairly new invention. So, how did we force our species to always act to the benefit of the group? Because, when you die, you will be judged – and your pleasures or pains for all eternity will be based on how well you acted to the betterment of the pack. This is why we created god; to act as the judge, jury, and executioner.

    As a result of living as a pack, the vast majority of people find comfort in being a part of a community. This is where organized religion comes in. It provides people with that sense of community.

    A number of posts are critical the Church of Reality because it is just another religion. A religion without god. To me, it just sounds like an opportunity to for individuals to feel a part of a community that doesn’t have an ethereal judge, jury, and executioner always looking over your shoulder.

    I actually prefer the concept of being a Humanist. There is no god. god was created by man in order to force us to act and behave in a certain manner. We have laws and a criminal justice system to that now. You will be punished in this life, and not the next, if you do not behave to the satisfaction of the pack. We have evolved enough now to understand for ourselves what we need to do in order to survive as a pack.

  30. Yikes says:

    the word god appears 22 times in the article above


2

Bad Behavior has blocked 8924 access attempts in the last 7 days.