Features

The church of self-worship: Sunday morning with the atheists

22 February 2014

9:00 AM

22 February 2014

9:00 AM

I had always assumed that the one thing atheism had going for it was that you could have a lie-in on Sundays. For the past year, however, an atheist church has been meeting in London on Sunday mornings. Founded by two comedians, Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, the Sunday Assembly is a symptom of what Theo Hobson identified in this magazine as ‘the new new atheism’, the recognition that the new atheism of Professor Dawkins et al had, in rejecting God, gone too far in rejecting all His works. Churches, the founders felt, had much to recommend themselves — a space for inspiration, reflection, and a sense of community in an atomised city — and they found a willing audience. The Sunday Assembly now has branches in 28 cities across the English-speaking world, with more on their way.

But the sign that the atheist church had definitively come of age was its first schism. Three former members of the New York franchise broke away and formed a group called ‘Godless Revival’, complaining about the institutionalisation of what they had assumed would be nothing more than a parody church. The prophet of Godless Revival, Lee Moore, argued that Jones and Evans ‘are trying to get rich from their new-age religion… after all, we saw how well that worked for L. Ron Hubbard.’ (This is unfair — the accounts of Sunday Assembly are more open than Scientology’s, and show that Jones and Evans are only taking 12 per cent of their £500,000 fundraising target as salary — and besides, there is authority for the view that the labourer is worthy of his hire.) Moreover, Moore claimed, ‘The Sunday Assembly has a problem with atheism.’

DOUNIAMAG-BRITAIN-RELIGION-ATHEISM-OFFBEAT
British comedian Sanderson Jones, a co-founder of The Sunday Assembly, leads a service Photo: AFP/Getty

The Sunday Assembly denies any backsliding or apostasy, and argues that, by not focusing on ‘the atheist community’, it is merely trying to be as inclusive as possible. Moore calls this ‘milquetoast atheism’, but it’s not: the two denominations have different definitions of atheism. For the Sunday Assembly, an atheist church is one that has no belief in God; the schismatics think it should be one with a belief in no God. This confessional difference is not insignificant — it’s as immense as the difference between the phrases ‘He was unmarried’ and ‘He was a confirmed bachelor’ in a Telegraph obituary — but it goes unspoken: the new new atheists are no fonder of nice philosophical distinctions, especially not that one, than the new atheists. So now the Sunday Assembly has the institutions and structure of a religion, and the Godless Revival the proselytising faith. An illustration: the Sunday Assembly has in the past invited a vicar to speak; the Godless Revival’s Facebook page has an article about the Pope’s desire to reach out to others for world peace — ‘Pope to Atheists: We need your help’ — accompanied by the comment: ‘Atheists to Pope: Go fuck yourself.’

The Sunday Assembly meets in Conway Hall, an art deco building in Holborn dedicated to free-thinking that has hosted many ‘alternative’ organisations over the past 90 years, from the British Humanist Society to the National Front. When I arrive for the latest meeting, on the theme of ‘brains’, there is a stall in the foyer selling pamphlets with serious titles and drab covers, as well as magnetic finger puppets of ‘Great Thinkers of the World’ — Einstein; Freud; Frida Kahlo; Sherlock Holmes. There is R&B music playing at exactly the right volume, and an air of excitement among the 500 or so congregants. They are mostly young, white and hip — there is a lot of facial hair among the men, and everyone seems to be wearing quirky spectacles and vintage. If the Church of England is the Conservative party at prayer, this is theguardian.com at well-not-prayer-exactly-let’s-call-it-meditation-shall-we?

The service starts with the Pointer Sisters’ ‘I’m So Excited’ projected on to the back wall. At the prompting of Sanderson Jones, the charismatic leader, everyone stands up and sings along to the small band on stage. Most clap their hands; many are swaying, holding their hands in the air — and, during the instrumental section, where the lyrics are replaced with the words ‘Jumping Break’, some do start jumping. After everyone has applauded themselves, we segue into the next song: Daft Punk’s ‘(I’m Up All Night To) Get Lucky’. On first hearing the lyrics of this song, you might assume that it was about someone searching for a missing dog — and who, amongst the dogless, doesn’t have a dog-shaped hole in their life? — but it’s actually about a man hanging around until a woman is drunk enough for, or otherwise disposed towards, sexual relations. The lyrics have been altered, though: the charismatic leader jumps up and points out that ‘If you change the “I” and “she” to “we”, the song is a lot less creepy.’


Sanderson jumps up a lot throughout the service. He looks like Jesus in quirky spectacles, but acts like Tigger: bouncy and incredibly enthusiastic about everything. He is impossible to dislike.

He introduces, first, a reading. Not having any sacred texts, the Sunday Assembly can make use of wisdom from any work of world literature, and today’s reading is taken from the American science fiction writer Terry Bisson, the author of Star Wars: Boba Fett: The Fight to Survive and the novelisation of The Fifth Element. It’s a short story, a dialogue between two sentient but incorporeal entities (aliens, presumably, rather than angels), who are horrified to discover the human brain is made of meat.

Then there is a secular homily: a neuroscientist talks for ten minutes about the brain, and how we understand it so much better than they did in the olden days. During his talk, I notice an elderly woman — there are a few in the congregation — who has arrived late and is forced to stand. A young man, who is seated, taps her on the shoulder; she turns round, expecting to be offered his seat. Instead, he motions for her to move out of the way so that he can see the neuroscientist’s PowerPoint slide.

Another song — Elvis’s ‘Always On My Mind’ — and then a few minutes’ silence for meditation. There is a collection. A young woman testifies to her life story — she is recovering from a neurological illness, and documenting her recovery on her iPhone — and receives a warm round of applause. A man stands up and talks about a new venture called Casserole Club, a sort of Meals on Wheels for the digital age, a website (www.casseroleclub.com) to help people share extra portions of home-cooked food with neighbours unable to cook for themselves. The charismatic leader finishes with an ethical meditation on self-improvement, and we sing an Aretha Franklin song.

BRITAIN-RELIGION-ATHEISM-OFFBEAT
British comedians Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans lead the congregation in song Photo: AFP/Getty

The shape of the liturgy, therefore, is analogous to a low-church service or school assembly in most respects. It was only afterwards that I realised what was missing that you would find in any church service: there is no secular analogue to confession. You wouldn’t, of course, expect a godless congregation to find the burden of sin intolerable, or the remembrance of it to be grievous, but you might like some acknowledgement that we have done those things which we ought not to have done, and left undone some things which we ought to have done — in short, a recognition that we are anything less than super.

There was a hint of human frailty in the neurologist’s lecture: he spoke of how the brain had, being the product of evolution rather than design, certain quirks; but he added that, just so long as you were aware of these quirks — as the driver of a vintage car is aware of mechanical failings and blind spots — you can overcome them, and avoid ‘accidents’ like superstition and prejudice. But he did not suggest that anyone in the congregation was anything but a Stirling Moss of the brain.

There is no creed, of course, but when, during the collection, we are asked to talk to our neighbour, I am immediately asked by the person sitting next to me about my faith journey. I prevaricate while I search my pockets for the £5 that the charismatic leader has suggested as a donation — I feel uncomfortable admitting my theism. I have never been asked about my faith, or lack of it, in a church service. (I’ve been asked in a synagogue why I was there; but I suspect that this was less out of exclusivism than because I was noticeably taller, blonder and quieter than the rest of the congregation.) But then, I don’t go to the evangelical churches that the Sunday Assembly has self–consciously modelled itself on and reacted against. (Pippa Evans, the founder who wasn’t there on Sunday, was a worshipper at Holy Trinity Brompton until she had Doubts.)

I ring up a college chaplain I know and ask how she would react if she discovered someone who came to her services didn’t believe in God. ‘Absolutely none of my business,’ she replies, before excusing herself. To counsel, as she does every day, another undergraduate who, despite his brains, feels alone and unloved because he knows he is less than super.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Gen

    /facepalm

  • Rockin Ron

    As a lapsed athiest, I think it is encouraging that Pippa Evans is rediscovering faith. My encouragement to her is to reject religion and re-connect with faith. Otherwise, you will find yourself worshiping the material world and we all know there is much more to discover than that.

    • CanadianChris

      Faith is knowing something isn’t true but believing it anyways. Which I see as something not to be encouraged.

      • Rockin Ron

        Well speaking as someone who was an ardent athiest but is now a Christian believer, I can only share what I have discovered to be true – ‘I once was blind, but now I see.’

        Even by your definition of faith, you could not live your life if it only consisted of knowledge. And of course, there are different types of knowledge.

        • CanadianChris

          I am from the other side of the spectrum, I am ordained but moved away from the idea of the christian god. And also I do not dispute the different types of knowledge just the epistemology of faith. Since then I have found that reason and skeptism are much more reliable epistemologies because they rely on reasonable proof. But more over I can not follow a being that causes people to eat their children or ” dash ” them and be happy about it. “And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat everyone the flesh of his friend.” Jeremiah 19:9 “happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” Psalm 137:9 . I do find that now I am exceedingly more happy joyous and full of wonder at the amazing world that we live in.

          • Rockin Ron

            Of course there are many more verses that emphasise the love that God has for his creation.
            The verse from Jeremiah you quote tells it like it is – the suffering of the people was the result of their rejection of God. All sin has consequences and we see many instances of God allowing horrible things to happen because that was the result of people rejecting God. Let’s be clear – God’s heart is that we turn to him and know his love – indeed that is prominent in the book of Jeremiah. However, when people freely turn away from God, then are are real consequences.
            To argue otherwise is to suggest that God should intervene and therefore interfere with the free will he has given to everyone. Free will means the right to choose to do wrong as well as the right to choose right. The people of Israel in Jeremiah’s time had defied all the warnings and exhortations God had given them. God is long suffering but inevitably there are consequences, and I do not think God derives any please from those consequences.
            Psalm 137 expresses the lamentations of the exiles and their expectation of final vindication. It is not what God would have wanted.

            Reading your response leads me to think that you are attributing the effects of human sin to God. You seem to be saying, ‘Why does God allow these terrible things to happen. Why does he not do something about it?’

            The answer is he has done something about it and that’s what the Gospels are all about. He has finally intervened in human history.

            You are right. We live in an amazing world, full of wonder.

          • CanadianChris

            Is god all powerful? And all knowing?

          • Rockin Ron

            Yes and Yes.

          • CanadianChris

            And he created the heavens and the earth?

          • CanadianChris

            If he is all powerful then he can do anything so he must of had a choice how to make the world and if he is all knowing then we have no free will because he knew that “sin” would happen with all that we are going to do already known. And he already has a place with no sin so he could have made the world without “sin”. That being said he is all powerful and make a world where the vast majority of people are set up to fail from the begining. A rather shitty thing to do and not worthy of my worship. Or he had to make the world like this then he can’t be all powerful then he is not worthy of our faith in him. I have never stole killed raped hurt anyone out of agression or neglect, heck I do not drink smoke or do drugs. And I help the elderly without reward and I give to charity anonomously so I do not get a tax break. And after all this if I go to hell for not believing if the magic invisible man in the sky then I am more moral then your god

          • Fergus Pickering

            Oh come on. This is old creaky stuff. I knew all that when I was eleven.

          • CanadianChris

            Ah yes but I was indoctorinated into a very christian way of thinking. And am just now workinging on my critical thinking skills.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Best of luck. Don’t get indoctrinated by the atheist gang.

          • CanadianChris

            Thinking more of a secular way of being from a humanist view point with a skeptical aproach.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Humanists are very woolly thinkers. Their Humanist church, as it were, is quite ludicrous. Dawkins is OK when talking about his area of science, but childish when he tries to discuss ethics. He has no philosophical or theological training and, what is worse, he does not know it.Remember Robespierre’s rationalist religion. The man was an idiot.

          • Kitty MLB

            Oh, save us from Humanists, the whole concept
            as pointless as the cardboard boxes they end up
            with when they ‘ return to nature’.
            Its always been a big struggle, faith, that is.
            From the time Xenophanis rattled against
            the ancient Greek gods until now.
            Yet I suppose with free will we can create as many crack pot ideas as we like. Mind you no idea why
            God gave Darwin free will.

          • I drink but I’m good: where does that leave me?

          • CanadianChris

            I do not drink because my daughter is FAS and having such stuff might show her that it is fine for her. And also after me telling her that she can’t ever drink it seeing me drink without issue might confuse her. By reward I am meaning material rewards. Live life to the best as you see fit and harm not.

          • I drink and have no idea what FAS is and thank god as there are few enough pleasures in this life. Also jalapeno corn chips. I’m also eyeing that recipe for the Easter Simnel cake with almond paste balls on top….

          • CanadianChris

            Yum… about fas; My then wife who has since passed drank while she was pregnant with her unknown to me. I noted some learning issues and after testing and what not the truth was told led to me raising the kids solo.

          • Oh dear. I’ll have to look it up. Women have drunk while pregnant for thousands of years… my mum did… and though I have much to reproach my parents for, their alcoholic habit s are not among my (many) complaints.

          • Kitty MLB

            ‘the magic invisible man in the sky’
            God is not actually a man, but the spiritual presence
            within the centre of your being, yet mankind decided
            to ‘humanize ‘ God, well some religions.
            I always found whilst living in India, the worship of animals
            somewhat alien to me.
            As you know, the Greeks decided they liked their
            Gods to be just like them, with the same imperfections,
            and then we have our ‘ all powerful’ Abrahamic God, who
            created you, and gave you the gift of free will.
            Its impossible to have a world without sin because
            of that.
            Although may I make the point you do not have to believe
            in God to be ‘good’ God and morality are separate issues.

          • CanadianChris

            if the thing that created you knows everything at the very begining then free will can’t be.
            I understand that god and morality are seperate issues but the vast majority of followers of the abrahamic God,from my understanding think that morality comes from God

          • Kitty MLB

            Everything must have a beginning in order to progress,
            God came first, created us , gave us free will and
            obviously morality is influenced by the way we have been
            nurtured by our parents and influenced by the society
            we live in.
            That society we live in also has influence over the way we treat each other and woman have been oppressed though out history and none more so then in the Islamic religion.
            But yes there is still a male bias within the church ( created
            by Man) with faith in God.
            God said if you have two people together who believe in
            me then that is my church, he said nothing about them being male. That has more to do with the early Christian’s
            and the society they lived it.
            Mind you saying women came from the rib of man did not help 🙂

          • Rockin Ron

            Absolutely, God has the ultimate choice. He knew man would sin, but nevertheless man had a free choice on whether to sin or not. He made a world without sin, but man by making his free choice allowed the entrance of sin.

            It was not in the perfect will of God that Adam sinned, but because of Adam’s free will, it was permissible. That is why we have all the problems we have today, because of that original sin.

            God is all powerful and all knowing, but that does not mean men and women are just robots. He created us with free will, to choose good and evil. Knowing that Adam and Eve would choose evil, he provided a Saviour, his son Jesus. I think that shows how much God cares for us, that he has made a way back from the mess caused by original sin.

            It is not about the good things you do, but who you believe in that ultimately matters.

          • CanadianChris

            I think that living a life if more important then living for the end of it.

          • Kitty MLB

            ‘ Its not about the good things you do, but who you believe
            I that ultimately matters.’
            Its both actually about believing in God , who gave us
            free will and the way morality, which we have control
            over leading us to make the right choices, and be kind to others we do this because of humanity
            and not just because we believe in God.

          • Rockin Ron

            Yes he did and he still governs over heaven and earth.

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            You can’t possibly know that.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            Then, whence cometh evil?

          • Rockin Ron

            Good and evil ultimately come from God. That does not mean he wants us to choose evil, but He allows us free will to live our lives according to the choices that we make. So, you can’t blame God if you, knowing the difference between good and evil, make the wrong choices.

        • Randy Wanat

          What is it that you think you see, and how did you come to see it? Please describe the process/mechanism. Then, provide the means by which you distinguish that from mere delusion/hallucination/wishful thinking.

          • Rockin Ron

            I experienced the love of God, his forgiveness and a new purpose to my life. None of these are measurable in the mechanistic way you mean, however they are nevertheless real.

            If you only accept phenomena that can be measured in your terms, then you are limiting the human condition just to what is material. However, most people would accept there is also an immaterial world, so your mechanistic, Western orientated tools and techniques would not be appropriate for that.

            I would not use a screw driver as an eating implement, for example. Wrong tool, produces wrong thinking and vice versa.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, you could only address the first part of my first question. Lots of noise after that, but nothing relevant.

          • Rockin Ron

            Well you hear what you want to hear. If you have a closed heart and mind, I pray God would open it so you could experience more of His love.

          • Randy Wanat

            Try actually addressing the questions instead of telling a story you find more defensive of your preconceived notions. Too much to ask?

          • Rockin Ron

            It is too much to ask to address a closed mind, so I must close this correspondence. May God have mercy on your soul.

          • Randy Wanat

            I am very closed-minded to baseless assertions. If you can’t demonstrate the veracity of your claims, why should I, or anybody, accept them as true? You sound as though you don’t examine your beliefs so much as claim them as true because perhaps it makes you feel good.

          • CanadianChris

            All randy wanat requires is evidence if given evidence he would believe. As I was given proof that your god was moral then I would see you in the pews. I read the bible from beginning to end and I see it as failing and horidly unhistoric.

          • Fred Scuttle

            “I experienced the love of God, his forgiveness and a new purpose to my life”

            You were very lucky. A tribal war god doesn’t normally do that kind of thing.

          • Rockin Ron

            I don’t think this decision comes either too late or too soon. One can’t go on thinking it over for ever;
            and one can begin to try to be a disciple before one is a professed theologian. In fact they tell us, don’t they, that in these matters to act on the light one has is almost the only way to more light. Don’t be
            worried about feeling that, or about feeling at all.
            For daily reading I suggest (in small doses) Thomas à Kempis’ ‘Imitation of Christ’ and the ‘Theologia Germanica’…and of course the Psalms and
            New Testament. Don’t worry if your heart won’t respond: do the best you can. You are certainly under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, or you
            wouldn’t have come where you now are: and the love that matters is His for you—yours for Him may at present exist only in the form of obedience. He will see to the rest.

      • Fergus Pickering

        No. Faith is not that. Faith is not knowing something is true but believing it anyway, which is a quite different thing,

        • Giraffe-Junk

          But, you know for a fact that the Earth isn’t 6,000ish years old. You know for a fact that all people didn’t come from two people (Adam and Eve). You know for a fact that it isn’t moral to kill every living thing on Earth (save eight). You know for a fact that it isn’t moral to let a rapist marry the victim, if the rapist pays the victim’s father a fine (50 silver shekels). You know for a fact that there isn’t enough water on the planet to cover the planet. But, you claim that “Faith is not knowing something is true but believing it anyways”, Since you know these things can’t be true, is it called a delusion?

          • Fergus didn’t say ‘anyways’; he’s an educated man.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Thank you, Swanky. I am. Educated in the Arts, thank God. This man sounds like a benighted sceintist to me.

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes indeed Swanky is correct, you are. words when used correctly
            are like x rays, and yours show you to be very well educated.
            This place is also bursting with those obsessed with science, the mind boggles as to why they do not feel
            the same about the much maligned classics.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Scientists are often, not always, boors. Particularly those at the bottom end. Too much science (that is stuff you mug up) not enough culture bringing sweetness and light. My daughter had to mug up human anatomy to pass an exam. I mugged it up too. Dead knowledge like learning cricket averages..

          • Kitty MLB

            Comparing the lack of sweetness and light and dead knowledge,
            Is like comparing Ovid’s Metamorphoses with Darwin’s
            Origin of Species.
            The earlier maybe nonsense, yet nectar to the soul
            the latter ( may be knowledge) but is like the pillaging of a soul and leaves one quite bereft.
            I also understand that just before Darwin’s death he
            regained his faith in God- quite revealing !

          • Fergus Pickering

            He also had doubts about his theory. He wasn’t at all sure he had got it right. And of course he didn’t get it right. Not quite right.

          • Kitty MLB

            I think I know the answer to his theory, Fergus.
            They say most people resemble their pets,
            although I do not resemble Cadbury
            our brown labrador.
            Darwin was a exceptionally hairy
            chap with apelike features.
            People of his time did have wild animals
            as pets, so perhaps he had a little monkey
            who he felt a special bond to-just an idea
            you never know, we all can have theories!

          • Fergus Pickering

            I think they GROW to resemble their pets. Our cats are very beautiful. I should be so lucky.

          • Kitty MLB

            Well woman would not mind if they GROW to
            resemble their pet if it were a beautiful & graceful cat,
            as cats are feminine.
            But regardless of how handsome our dog is, I would
            really hate to grow to resemble him.
            I have a strange relationship with cats, as I told Swanky,
            once had one as a child and it ran away for a year or two,
            and then just turned up one day, quite lofty and demanding
            food, I get on with them better now .

          • Rockin Ron

            Think you mean scientist – all that education has tripped you up.

          • Fergus Pickering

            I know none of these things for facts and neither do you. I do not think you understand what a fact is. I know for a fact that my cat is standing on the computer at this moment. I know for a fact that I am sitting in my own house at this moment and not on the surface of the moon. M any of the things you mentioj I take on trust, as acts of faith. Moral questions can never be facts, just matters of opinion.

          • Informed opinion and sound judgement, one would hope….

            Certain Africans have or had the opinion that you can cure toothache by smearing elephant dung on your jaw….

          • Giraffe-Junk

            You might not know them for a fact, but I sure do. Check your DNA, it is a fact that we didn’t come from Adam and Eve, your lack of understanding doesn’t change the fact. Morals can be facts, it is in-fact, immoral to allow a rapist to marry a victim (without regard to her wishes) when paying a fine to the father. Some morals might be “matters of opinion”, such as killing, which is in-fact immoral, with varying opinions on the morality and ethics of killing a murderer. What you might be unintentionally referring to is that society norms bring about certain immoralities that other societies might find moral. Again, these are for a fact immoral or moral dependent on the society in question, but are never-the-less facts.
            “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” – Aldous Huxley, Proper Studies 1927

          • Kitty MLB

            ‘You might not know them for a fact, but I sure do’
            So all of us are in the divine presence of the
            great Oracle of Delphi, are we?
            You have drank from the fountain of all knowledge,
            as well as pomposity.
            In reality we are told various things that are only the opinions of Scientists and at the end of the day they are
            only opinions from other mere mortals-
            We do not actually KNOW anything.
            Cannot believe you mentioned Huxley either, Honestly.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            No, I am not a oracle or have all knowledge, but I understand how DNA works. Let’s start small, do you know for a fact what a rocks is made of? No, probably not. Can you find out what rocks are made of? Of course. Can a scientist tells you what a rock is made of and can you can duplicate their findings? Yes. Now, after duplicating and finding out what a rock is made of, it is no longer opinion and now a fact? Yes. Just because you cannot or choose not to understand, does not make it an opinion. “Cannot believe you mentioned Huxley either, Honestly.” I know, right.

          • Kitty MLB

            Fully aware that everything on earth that is not made
            up of a artificial substance contains a unique genetic code, thank you.
            Also have a little knowledge to how DNA works, thank you again.
            Yet I must say science does rape the soul, we are more
            then a DNA, that word does not make us human,
            and rocks do not have a soul.
            You have absolutely no idea what happens to the human soul after death. But it is a source of energy so therefore
            cannot actually die, energy has no beginning or end.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            But, you don’t have any idea if the human soul even exists. Energy doesn’t die, it changes state and that fungus eating your dead corpse is utilizing that energy.

          • Icebow

            Establishment physicists tend to proceed by describing things as being made of smaller things with certain properties, these smaller things in turn composed of yet smaller things with their own properties, and so on, until they come to particles whose properties they cannot explain, whereupon they describe them as fundamental, and regard this as a triumph rather than a failure.
            Your faith in established science may be found either touching or contemptible. Established science is as intellectually corruptible as religions may be spiritually so.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Quarks? I love quarks.

          • Icebow

            As you love them, I hope for your sake that they exist. I do not think a quark has so far been isolated (correct me anyone) and that associated with this apparent failure is a principle of confinement, to a hadron. Bear in mind that they are part of a ‘standard model’ inherent to which are ‘virtual photons’, part of an eternal virtual artillery duel between all electromagnetically-interacting particles in the universe. Mathematical mysticism for you.

          • Fergus Pickering

            I love them BECAUSE they may not exist. Also because they were invented by Lewis Carroll. Well sort of. This is the sort of science I can relate to. The other stuff is tedious. Our servants can do that for us.

          • Icebow

            Carroll? That was the snark. Quark first appeared in Finnegan’s Wake, and was whimsically adopted by Gell-Mann and Zweig.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Every day yu learn something!

          • Giraffe-Junk

            I find them to be delicious…LOL.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Not knowing what is even smaller doesn’t make God exist, it just means that we don’t have the knowledge of what is smaller, at this time. Science may answer the question one day or may not ever answer the question. The description of “fundamental” is not the scientific answer it is a description of something unknown at this time, that means that science is malleable and may change our knowledge of the universe, in time, which is exactly what you want in science.

          • Icebow

            You are a confused person of negative faith.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Pointing out the problems of faith is not being negative or confused, it is rational and positive.

          • Icebow

            Rationalism is positively irrational.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Sure, what-ever you say. If that’s how you rationalize it for yourself.

          • Icebow

            Have drunk, m’dear; sorry! Perhaps a typo.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Unless you are a religious person and believe in God, morals are a human construct, not facts at all. Perhaps you are right about Ada and Eve. I don’t know. However, moral and immoral are words like beautiful and ugly, matters of opinion, not fact. Unless, as I said, you believe in God. Do you believe in God. As a fact?

          • Icebow

            Ada and Eve, eh? Like it!

          • Fergus Pickering

            The first lesbians!

          • Icebow

            As you say perhaps, though I do recall ‘Rosy fingered Dawn’ from the Iliad.

          • Kitty MLB

            As in Eos opened the gates of heaven
            so that Hellios could ride his carriot
            across the rosy fingered dawn of creation
            every day- not too sure there are any
            lesbians in Greek Mythology but
            I shall investigate.

          • Icebow

            It was supposed to be a joke. The ‘original’ is historical anyway; I wish more of her stuff would somehow come to light.

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes I know really, many wish that too 🙂

          • Fergus Pickering

            Nice one, sir!

          • Icebow

            Now that down-votes are no longer to be detectable, it is perhaps the more desirable that comments of which one approves should receive up-votes (see above).

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Then lets look at your God’s morality. Killing your neighbor for working on the Sabbath. Killing a witch. Allowing a rapist to marry his victim if he pays the father a fine. If you say that Jesus changed the old laws, you are incorrect, Matthew 5:17, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Your God’s morality is NOT above reproach.

          • Fergus Pickering

            That is not God. That is an invention of the Jews. Who crucified JC if you remember. ‘Fulfil’ is the operative word. The Old Testament is replaced by the New. Whydo I have to teach you this?

          • Giraffe-Junk

            It was the Romans who crucified Jesus, but why let facts stand in the way of your hate of the Jews? Some Jewish people offered up Jesus, but it wasn’t all Jews. Further, if they hadn’t offered Jesus up to the Romans, He would have never died on the cross for your sins, and then where would you be? Instead of pretending that the Jews changed the Bible, you should be thanking them for allowing your Savior to redeem Himself for you. Jesus states in Matthew 5:17 “Think NOT that I am come to destroy the LAW, or the prophets: I have NOT come to destroy, but to fulfill”… Nope pretty clear to me. Do I have to teach you basic reading comprehension?

          • Kitty MLB

            Accusing someone of ‘ hate’ is a little over the top,
            some Muslims hate us ( and I fear them and the way this country panders to them) they want to murder us,
            a completely different situation to having an opinion
            on someone regardless of that opinion being negative .
            Also he is right, Pilate said, why is this man here,
            remember he washed his hands of the situation,
            and just went along with the situation because
            the Jews wanted him dead.
            Also the God from the Old Testament and New
            Testament are not alike, one is vengeful and cold,
            the opposite to the New Testament God,
            he died and still some are waiting for their ‘ Messiah’.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            So the Old Testament God died and the New Testament God is alive and well. How many Gods are there? Why do you change the definition of God? Is it to fit your made-up construct of what God should be, so you can feel happy and proudly proclaim your belief?

          • Fergus Pickering

            Where did you get the idea that I hate the Jews? It’s you atheist leftis who hate the Jews.

          • Kitty MLB

            Just interested to know if you see Muslims
            and Jews in the same light.

          • Fergus Pickering

            Heavens no. Muslims wear robes and are a bit iffy. Jews wear hats and are fine. I don’t care for either religion much.

          • Kitty MLB

            Those robes would be useful
            for chaps to hide beneath when
            in the pub whist hiding from the wife.
            I think they might catch on.
            Hindu chaps, and Buddhists also
            where interesting robes, but I
            dare not ask.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            What about the Catholics with their dresses and big hats?

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes, please answer the question do you believe
            in God ? or if not actually God, do you believe in anything
            such as the continuation of the human soul or do
            you believe we have no hope ?
            At least Fred is honest about his lack of belief.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Those are good honest questions.
            No, I was never raised in ANY religion, since birth, so I do not belief in a God (be it Thor or Jehovah).
            I don’t see any evidence of a soul, I honestly don’t know if we have one, but would tend to argue that we don’t.
            Why wouldn’t you have hope? Because there might not be an “afterlife”? I have hope for my future and what I can make of it, without regard to the unknown. Do you lack hope because you didn’t exist before you were born? Why would you lack hope because you might not exist after you die?

          • Kitty MLB

            Well your soul is not going to sit opposite
            you at Sunday lunch tomorrow and introduce itself.
            Who said you did not exist before you were born and that you will not exist after you die.
            We do not actually know what happens to the human
            soul. Yet being a source of energy and who you are when your mortal body dies, its possible that the soul continues
            forever.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Did you exist before you were born? Do you remember something specific? Are you sure it isn’t your imagination? Is it not also possible that there is no soul?

          • Kitty MLB

            I am just saying you do not know,
            no one does. The soul also exists.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Just saying the soul exists and really, really wanting it, doesn’t make the soul exist.

          • Rockin Ron

            If you do not see any evidence of the soul, where in your body are located such non materials aspects as love? Wake up, the world is more than just the bits you can recognise with your 5 senses.
            You have hope – but only in yourself. That makes you a self worshipper. There are no true atheists because we were made to worship.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Love is an emotion. I can feel the emotion with my 5 senses, but it itself is not a new sense, it is a combination of emotion with the 5 senses that create love. Why would you think otherwise? I’ve always thought there were no true Theists, because no one could truly believe in the contradictions in the Bible (free will and God’s will are mutually exclusive). Further, the morality of the Bible is not something anyone should want to emulate.

          • Randy Wanat

            Love is a demonstrable brain state. But, here’s a little question for you: if someone is a devout Christian for the first 50 years of their life, but receives a traumatic brain injury that eliminates that person’s memory, and that person ends up being an atheist for the rest of their life, was that person’s soul lost, and a new one gained? Is the soul attached to the brain or is it part of the brain, or is it entirely separate? You do realize that if there were evidence of souls, they would be detectable, which means they could be isolated and examined, right? You can’t say there IS evidence, and then refuse to demonstrate that evidence. There is evidence of Thor. There, now we’ve both made stuff up! Last thing: if I said I was an atheist but had an imaginary friend to whom I would speak in times of trouble and need, and who I believed loved me unconditionally, and who hated all the same things and people I did, and from whom I claimed to derive my morality, would I be a better person than if I was an atheist and didn’t have that imaginary friend?

          • Icebow

            There is life beyond this corporeal one; and one can, in certain circumstances, come to know this rather than just believing it.

          • Kitty MLB

            Beautifully put, and I wholeheartedly agree with you.

          • Randy Wanat

            I love the baseless assertion game! My turn. You can ride a flying horse to heaven.

          • Icebow

            You have absolutely no idea of what you are not talking about.

          • Randy Wanat

            Nor do you, as if you did you could demonstrate that what you say is true. If you can’t do that, you’re making baseless assertions by definition. So, you were saying?

          • Icebow

            a) It is not something that can be verbally demonstrated.
            b) I am not putting you in danger of losing your sanity or your life.
            Run along now.

          • Randy Wanat

            A: How CAN it be demonstrated? B: Your superstitious beliefs (without supporting science, that’s all they are) are used as a justification for denying people life-saving medical treatments and psychological services. While YOU might not be doing that, people do that based on the same superstitious beliefs you’re espousing. If you’re going to assert something as true, and it’s being used to harm others, it had better be true, and it takes evidence, not just your say-so.

          • Icebow

            A: Through appropriate experience when ready (you would seem not to be so).
            B: You use superstitious the way Leftist morons use racist. Such claptrap cuts no ice with me. I could give you examples of faulty interpretation of evidence in respect of major scientific orthodoxies, but I suspect that your scientistic superstitiousness would render you incapable of properly understanding them.
            Icebow B.Sc.

          • Randy Wanat

            Ah, the old “it’s not the evidence, it’s you” canard. It’s not that the leprechauns don’t exist; it’s just that you don’t have the special glasses required to see them. Yeah, sorry, but evidence that can’t be presented to a disinterested party is not evidence. If you can explain how you distinguish your “evidence” from wishful thinking and emotional brain states that can be achieved via secular means, that would be great. Also, my phone autocorrected what was going to be “evidence” to “science.” I usually catch that stuff. What is the process by which you “properly understand” whatever it is you think you experience to be some kind of magical entity?

          • Icebow

            Trollus quasi-scientificus. Be vapour.

          • Randy Wanat

            Aw, da widdwe baby can’t stand up for himself and support him’s arguments wifout wesorting to tantwums. Baby needs a nap!

          • Randy Wanat

            By the way…how would YOU define “superstition” such that your religious beliefs don’t qualify (or, do you accept that they actually are superstitious)?

          • Rockin Ron

            Whether they were called Adam and Eve or not, logically the whole human race must have come from two original parents. That’s how genealogy works.

          • Fergus Pickering

            No.Not at all. Humans may, always certainly did, have developed in different parts of the world quite separately.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Actually, there was also interbreeding between different hominid species, back and forth for generations. (I.e. Gen 1 were two distinct species creating Gen 2 Hybrid which bred back with Gen 2 of the distinct species creating a back and forth mixture of genes, ultimately creating the Hominid Homo Sapiens.) May I suggest an EDX course called Introduction to Human Evolution by Wellesley College (it’s free on the internet), although they haven’t yet posted when the next course begins, keep an eye out for it, it’s fun and enlightening.

          • Icebow

            Not to that extent. Relatedness dilutes as one goes back though generations; how should it then reconcentrate into a single pair?

          • Randy Wanat

            Yes, do tell us about your mastery of population dynamics, genetics, and biology. You sound like someone who knows what he’s talking about and not just using his cornpone common sense born of ignorance to tell us how things work. Science exists because common sense is of very limited utility when it comes to understanding things. Common sense says that the solid form of matter is denser than the liquid form, but ice floats on liquid water. Common sense says that a block of iron is completely solid, but most of what fills the volume it inhabits is “empty” space. Common sense says the sun goes around the Earth, and we know how that worked out. Common sense says that heavier things should fall faster than lighter things when dropped from the same height. Your “common sense” ignorance will never supercede scientific inquiry. Ever. Stop being afraid of science. While it doesn’t claim to have all the answers, it can actually demonstrate that the answers it does provide are correct…something that mattrs if you care about whether the things you believe are true or not.

          • Randy Wanat

            It’s dishonest to conflate “faith” (belief despite lack of supporting evidence and/or in the face of contradictory evidence, e.g. religious beliefs about miracles, resurrection, supernatural creatures, meteorological and geological events that defy the laws of physics, etc.) and “faith” (trust based on compelling and demonstrable evidence, or the polar opposite of the prior definition). If you need to use words inappropriately to make your argument work, your argument is too weak to stand on its own. Be intellectually honest and don’t play the ridiculous word games that make you appear like either a liar or a moron.

          • Fergus Pickering

            And you sir, are either a knave or fool. Do not presume to tell me about the appropriate uses of words, about which I have forgotten more than you ever knew, You are , sir, a dung-beetle.

          • Randy Wanat

            Oh, you got me there. You backed up your argument so well. You really are the superior wit. /sarcasm I did notice, though, that you neither acknowledged your inappropriate word use nor the weakness of your argument for relying on said inappropriate word use. People who feel compelled to tell you how smart they are most often show how daft they are. Thanks for keeping that streak alive.

          • Rockin Ron

            A fact is like 2+2=4. No matter how much disagreement we have, 2+2=4.

            However, it can also be a fact if I say I like blue and you like red. Those are facts but with different answers.

            The truth about Christianity is that it is like 2+2=4. It will always be true, not matter what your preference.

          • Randy Wanat

            2+2=4 is not a fact. You don’t know what the word “fact” means in science. And, you don’t know how that equation comes to the result it does. So, you are failing at mathematics, science, and syntax. Are there any academic pursuits at which you are competent?

          • Rockin Ron

            Apologies – I will leave you in your superior ignorance. By the way, I have a Distinction at MBA level.
            May God have mercy upon you and bless you to see His love for you.

          • Randy Wanat

            You shouldn’t need to redefine math and science, or misuse words, to make a coherent argument. People who tell you how smart they are… Why not stop thinking you’re so smart and consider, just for a moment, that you could be wrong.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Define two, then define four. Define how to count. Using contemporary definitions, now take two apples place them on the counter, now take two more apples and place them on the counter, add up the apples did you get four apples? Is it a fact that you had two apples? is it a fact that you added two more apples to the counter? is it a fact that after adding the two more apples you had four apples? Are you trying to use semantics to make a point of the word “fact”? Is that your only way to try to win an argument?

          • Randy Wanat

            Using words inappropriately matters. It goes to credibility, especially when misuse is demonstrated and, rather than correcting oneself, one instead defends the poor usage and then chooses to add to it. What you described above is not, as it is used in science, a fact. Context is not merely what apologists cite when the horrors of their holy books are exposed. Context determines whether how someone says something is correct, which determines if an argument is sound. If you don’t care about the quality of your arguments, then by all means continue to defend the sloppy word usage.

          • Rockin Ron

            Actually, no one really knows these as facts in the way you are implying. We were not there at the beginning. All we can say, believers and non-believers, is based on the evidence we see, is it more likely or less likely that there is a God? You conclude less likely and I conclude more likely.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Let me concede on your point, I wasn’t there and am using the term facts incorrectly. I concluded that there was no God, because I see no evidence of a God. I used an educated “guess” of the basis of how I know physics to work based on real life experience.
            Now, why don’t you apply the same terms to your knowledge of God? Why did you give yourself a pass? You weren’t there at the beginning of the writing of the Bible so you don’t know if it is truly God “inspired” or even if it is His Word. You can see the world around you and it’s physics and have never seen a God change those physics. You might wonder where the Universe came from and that answer is not “God did it”, since you weren’t there to see it. The answer to where the Universe came from or why life exists is real simple, “I don’t know”. What happens when you die? “I don’t know”. Those are real answers to real questions, they might not be what you want to hear, but even with your own conceding of not knowing something because you weren’t around at the beginning to see it, it is also your answer.

          • Mitachondial Eve anyone?

        • Or believing in the face of the evidence, as with astrology.

      • Kitty MLB

        No, Faith is not what you say, O sagacious one, he
        that knows the mystery of life.
        Have you encountered someone here called Fred?
        Heaven forfend.
        You cannot actually explain faith, yet faith is the bird that feels
        the early morning light when the dawn is still dark.
        Its warmth and hope, and you say those things should
        not be encouraged.

      • Pip

        Believing something is true when it isn’t should be a sign of mental illness or complete idiocy to say the least. Religion is an anachronism and comfort for the feeble mind.

    • Fred Scuttle

      Everyone started out as an atheist.

      • Rockin Ron

        Even if you are correct, is it not remarkable that most people on the planet believe in a deity? The conclusion must be that there is something amiss in remaining an atheist.

        • Giraffe-Junk

          I was never raised in any religion and look at Theist as something is amiss in them. Just because, at one time, the whole of the planet thinks the Earth is flat doesn’t make the Earth flat.

    • Jackthesmilingblack

      Separating religion from belief in God is the first step towards enlightenment.

  • Any church that involves the Pointer Sisters — especially that song — has got to be suspect.

    • Randy Wanat

      What…cocaine rushes and sex are suspect?

      • You a fan of the Horny Sisters, then? Heh heh

  • John Evans

    Rather a false equivalency drawn at the end there. A fellow member of the congregation asking about your own beliefs is not the same as a spiritual leader being asked to comment on somebody else’s. If you felt uncomfortable admitting to being a theist at a gathering that sounds pretty all-accepting, that was your choice. It sounds as if, with no evidence of hostility towards Christians at this gathering, you chose to imagine hostility in somebody asking a perfectly innocent question about why you had come along.

  • rob232

    There are really some silly ways of spending your time but this seems sillier than most. It reminds me a little of learning Esperanto instead of a real language.

    • Fred Scuttle

      Is it sillier than nibbling on Jesus and drinking his blood every Sunday?

      • rob232

        Well yes. Much sillier.

        • recharge

          Really? You honestly think that pretending to eat a man who died 2000 years ago is a sensible way to behave?

          • rob232

            This is part of a very ancient religious rite which dates back 2000 years. It has formed part of the beliefs of millions of people. This religion has produced countless philosophers who have written thousands of books justifying and explaining their rites.
            What is silly is to insist on reducing the whole religious philosophy to a few banal words and think that you have confounded these people.

          • Randy Wanat

            Writing books to justify ridiculous beliefs doesn’t undo their ridiculousness. You’re trying to argue from consequences, as though the things that have come from a religion’s adherents in any way demonstrates the veracity of that religion’s tenets. What is silly is pretending that philosophical word games serve to define a supernatural deity into existence. You might want to brush up on logic before venturing further.

          • rob232

            You might try reading my comments.
            I am not trying to justify the veracity of anything and most certainly would not try in such short postings. It is silly to think you can put down a whole religion in 3 words like nibbling a bit of bread.

          • Randy Wanat

            I did read your comment. You said that eating a cracker that is (figuratively or literally, depending on if you’re Catholic or not) the flesh of a 2000 year old dead man because someone says some special combination of words is not silly because some people take it really seriously and even go so far as to write books defending/explaining/justifying the practice. The act is silly in that it’s a symbolic act of cannibalism that is portrayed as anything but, and somehow that is not as silly as people gathering to sing songs, hear a talk about a particular subject, be fraternal, and create a community without an undercurrent of magical thinking and fantastic stories from 2-3000 years ago being treated as fact when there is, at best, scant evidence for the more mundane stuff and none for the outrageous stuff. So, which is sillier?

          • rob232

            I didn’t say any of those things.
            The theology and philosophy of Christianity dates back 2000 years and has involved millions of people all over the world. Whatever you may believe these people have perfectly arguable reasons to back up their beliefs. Everybody dies and most people come to terms with this fact through some kind of religious belief.
            Many religious people,as part of their rituals, go to church on Sundays. Many of these religious ceremonies have rich historical beauty bearing in mind that many gifted and talented people have created an enormous culture of religious liturgies and music.
            People who are not religious normally take part in other activities on Sunday. I like to go to the gym on a Sunday morning and then have lunch with my family. Other people play football or wash their cars.
            This article is about people who still want to go to church although they don’t believe in God and so they have invented their own church.
            This strikes me as a little silly bearing in mind that a real religion is so full of culture and pageantry, so much more fulfilling and dramatic than singing Elvis Presley songs. It strikes me very much like someone who has chsen to learn Esperanto rather than a language like French German or Spanish which can apport so much more.

          • Randy Wanat

            There’s no coming to terms with death in religion (generally). It usually provides a psychological avoidance mechanism. And, if pageantry and centuries of ritualized traditions makes an act not silly, you would have called the Eucharist silly 1980 years ago. Just because it’s old doesn’t make something not silly, any more than being new makes something silly. Seriously consider what you’re saying. Your argument ridicules any innovation or novel activity for not having centuries under its belt already. That is what you’re saying. Of course you’ll deny it, but that is what you’ve said.

          • rob232

            No I didn’t say any of those things. You really don’t seem to understand anything I write.
            To recap. I think it is silly for atheists to form a church and participate in a religiuos service every Sunday morning when they are not religious and really could spend their time more profitably.
            Religious people go to church because it forms part of their religion. They are members of this religion because they find it emotionally and intellectually satisfying. Are they silly because they believe in God? Possibly. I don’t know. But on a scale of 1 to 10 the atheists who go to church are much sillier.

          • Randy Wanat

            So, to be clear: you’re defining “religion” as a regular meeting of people to sing songs, learn something, and create a community. That is what YOU call religion. By your definition, summer camp is a religion. You’re not doing very well here.

          • rob232

            No, I didn’t write that. I haven’t defined religion at all. Try reading what I have written.

          • Ruthmeb

            You need a course in reading comprehension, what rob232 said was perfectly clear. The person doing not very well here…is you.

          • Randy Wanat

            The services involve inspirational talks and readings, group singing, and community-building. That is being labeled “religious.” Are such activities the exclusive property of religion, or is anybody allowed to gather, speak, and sing?

          • Fred Scuttle

            To be fair, Scientology is nearly as ridiculous.

      • Nowistherighttime

        I’m sorry is that an argument Fred? Sarcastic quips do not suffice. How insincere and perpetually angry can a man get?

        Shall we show everyone how empty headed you are?

        • Randy Wanat

          Religion allows people by the billions to believe things that would be considered crazy in any other context.If you believe that saying some Latin words over your pancakes would turn them into the flesh of Elvis Presley, you’re insane. But, if you believe the same thing about a cracker and Jesus Christ, you’re just a Catholic.

          Paraphrased. Not my original idea, but a point well worth making.

        • Rillian

          Religious people, always with the insults and hate for others who have a different view.

          I bet you’d like to see him burn for all eternity huh? that’d teach them Atheists right?

          So answer me this, who is the more Christ like out of us? The person who wishes to see others in eternal pain or those who find that abhorrent?

        • Jackthesmilingblack

          If you ever do run into God or Mr. Jesus Christ, ask them from me what sort of third-rate operation they think they’re running down here.

  • Randy Wanat

    I don’t suppose you see a distinction between celebrating what is good about humanity and worshiping humanity. For that matter, I don’t suppose you see a distinction between understanding that we are less than perfect and focusing on that fact.

    • Rockin Ron

      Celebrating humanity is worshiping humanity, particularly if we are less than perfect – what is the distinction?

      • Randy Wanat

        Celebrating and worshiping are not synonyms. You don’t get to hijack language to justify your ancient superstitions.

  • Terry Field

    The ‘celebration’ of humanity is excellent, desirable and good. But it is no kind of substitute for belief and the benefits the religious life can provide.
    That is becoming clear, and not before time.

  • rudebaldguy

    I thought this was hilarious. Happy clappy atheists of all things! Proof of the contention that atheists are heart religious people who are pissed off at God for not existing. So they copy evangelicals to a tee. And then they form denominations already. Holy horsecrap Batman!

    Christopher Hitchens must be rotating at 2000 rpm.

    • CanadianChris

      If I remember right the unitarians have been around for about 125 years and many of their number are atheist. So many happy clappy atheist around for a while.

      • rudebaldguy

        Are Unitarians happy clappy? First I’d heard of it, but maybe so. Guess they could merge with the First Church of God the Non-Existent then. Double their numbers probably.

    • Giraffe-Junk

      I’m not “pissed off at God for not existing.” I wouldn’t want that evil tyrant who kills everyone (save eight) and who kills the first born because His all perfect ass can’t do something right to really exist.

      • rudebaldguy

        Of course you are not pissed off at God for not existing. Wasn’t talking about you, silly. That sort of complex atheism requires a bit of mental gymnastics. But I do see what you are getting at. The christians believe in the “evil tyrant” being you speak of. Which being does not exist, according to you and me and many other right thinking folk. And I can see why you would want such a being not to exist. You know, when I think about it, I don’t want Sauron to exist. Or Dracula. Or unicorns. Never liked unicorns, irritating imaginary creatures. Though, since they don’t exist, I don’t go around moaning about them as if they did. So I suggest you get a grip.

        • Giraffe-Junk

          I go around “moaning” because the people who believe in this imaginary “friend” are also the people who want to change the curriculum in schools, want politicians to make laws that favor their ilk, and want to spread their special form of hatred, under the guise of righteousness, to the world without regard to other cultures and creeds.

          • rudebaldguy

            Oh, so that’s what you’re moaning about. I see. So apart from the bit about the imaginary friend, you have a real problem with how human beings (you and me excepted, of course) have behaved since time began and probably will continue to do until the Great Prophet Zarquon returns and cleans up the whole mess. Good luck with that.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Even if humans have acted like this since time began, that is no excuse to continue to do so. Further, since the ancient Greek and Roman Gods have been lost to time as ancient myths, I am sure that a future generation will be studying ancient Greek, Roman and Christian Gods. But to get to that future, people need to point out the errors in the mythologies of the brainwashed as that is all we have. Besides it seems to be working, according to Pew Polls, Christians Churches are losing adherents everyday.

          • rudebaldguy

            No excuse to continue to do so, eh? I don’t know. Seems to me that human tyrants have all sorts of excuses for what they do: “progress”, needing to “break a few eggs”, “pointing out the errors in the mythologies of the brainwashed”, etc. etc. I wonder. Since we no longer have a tyrant deity around to excuse or condemn our naughtiness we’ll need someone to play that role. Nietzsche is dead, he won’t do. Sartre, Camus, Bishop Robinson, all gone. If the tyrant god had the bad manners to go and die, just like that, then who will be our guide, our excuse maker, our law giver? I nominate you. I mean, you are on to our feeble excuses for all our bad acting. Please go up the imaginary Sinai and get the tablets of the Law from the god of progress and tell us what to do and what we will suffer if we don’t do it. Really, you owe us this much. Anyone who has successfully eradicated an imaginary god can handle this small task.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            You think there has to be a “law giver”, how very quaint. Nature built those “laws” right in. Our societal species has laws of how to behave because we are a gregarious species. I can tell you certain moral values that nature innately built-in, but most people know what they are. We gain knowledge of how to act and behave from parents, siblings, peers and society, but we also gain it though the knowledge of empathy and the like (forgoing mental defects, of course). What pray-tell did societies that did not have a God (Buddhists, Certain Native American Tribes, Etc.) do for their moral values? How, without this “law giver” did they come to exist and not perish under their own societal immorality? Yes, there are tyrants in human nature (sociopaths, Hitler, Stalin, etc.), You are intentionally trying to make it out that tyrants try to break up Christianity due to their atheism, versus conspiring with Christianity (Hitler) and trying to rid themselves of the political competition (Stalin). Christian morality is less than stellar, killing a neighbor for working on the Sabbath, not allowing a witch to live, stoning an adulterer to death, so these laws that the “law giver” gives are not actual laws you would adhere to and have no pretense of morality, so why pretend that they do and that this “law giver” even exists?

          • rudebaldguy

            I get it. I’m glad to see you’re making progress in your thinking here. We have just one more step in your education, young Skywalker, but it’s a hard one. Let’s proceed.

            So we’ve defenestrated the old tyrant and his kin. It’s ok, we all had to do it. But the god that was thrown out the window can’t sneak in the back door under an assumed identity. We won’t have it, we just won’t! Whether it’s “society” or just good old mummy and daddy, kind constable Plod or nice teacher. You were sort of getting there when you talked about Buddhism and what you reverently call Native Americans. But clearly you need to look into Buddhism a bit closer. If you do you will see two types of people, monastics and adherents. The monastics see all the law and morality stuff as just another part of the illusion. The adherents have a god called Buddha who gives them their laws and their excuses when they break them. Plus he puts his thumb on the scale if they are in trouble and if they can convince him to help them. You really need to read original sources. As for the Native Americans, Disney doesn’t do them justice.

            You see, there are two types of people in the world, players (or sheep, as some rudely call them) and referees. The players always need referees, and they will insist on having them. But you and I are not players, we’re refs. Remember, we shot the old ref. And now we’re on the rule making committee. Otherwise, why are we writing in this crazy comment thread? But we don’t get our rules by looking up some tattered old book. We have to look inside. What do we care about what our “societal species” says? It’s says lots of things, but we have no obligation to any of them. No. We desire the inner light, no heterodoxy for us.

            But here’s the hard part. You’re going to have to make up your own rules. Oh, you can go along to get along and make like you are one of the players, but it’s not the real you. You’re a ref. You just need to get a spine and decide your own destiny. As a ref, you’re not even allowed the gods of the copybook headings. You’ll lose your job if the other refs find out. No, nothing for it but to look inside yourself, young Skywalker. And though you can’t see it now, when you arrive at your final destination, you will find a stone, and on it is written, “Thelema”. May the force be with you!

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Just three things:
            1. When you realize that we are all in different stages of learning and that you are not a teacher, then and only then will you gain wisdom.
            2. Everyone can become a Buddha. Buddha was just a person and has never been a God. Buddhists did not get “laws” from the Buddha, they gained wisdom from the Buddha.
            3. Get out of your mother’s basement and go get a job and a mate, that way you can quit making Star Wars references and become a wise learner.

      • Rockin Ron

        What would be really evil is if God destroyed everyone. Instead, in His mercy God preserved Noah and his family and made provision for a fresh start. I call that mercy not evil. Don’t forget at that time ‘every incl inclination of every person was towards evil all the time’. Only Noah and his family were righteous in God’s sight.

        • Giraffe-Junk

          You mean evil in the sight of the God that killed innocent first born children? Obviously newborn children had to have been born on Earth just prior to the flood. What is really sick is that you think killing little newborn children was “mercy” from God and you call it righteous. The Bible says that you will know of good and evil and goes on to say that there will be some that call bitter sweet and sweet bitter. I know that killing innocent newborn babies is evil and I refuse to call God’s “mercy” righteous or even merciful. P.S. Allowing a rapist to pay a fine to the victim’s father and marry the victim is not righteous or merciful either.

          • Rockin Ron

            I don’t think this decision comes either too late or too soon. One can’t go on thinking it over for ever; and one can begin to try to be a disciple before one is a professed theologian. In fact they tell us, don’t they, that in these matters to act on the light one has is almost the only way to more light. Don’t be worried about feeling that, or about feeling at all. As to what to do, I suppose the normal next step, after self-examination repentance and restitution, is to make your Communion; and then to continue as well as
            you can, praying as well as you can . . . and fulfilling your daily duties as well as you can. And remember always that religious emotion is only a servant. For
            daily reading I suggest (in small doses) Thomas à Kempis’ ‘Imitation of Christ’ and the ‘Theologia Germanica’…and of course the Psalms and
            New Testament. Don’t worry if your heart won’t respond: do the best you can. You are certainly under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, or you wouldn’t have come where you now are: and the love that matters is His
            for you—yours for Him may at present exist only in the form of obedience. He will see to the rest.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Huh?

          • Rockin Ron

            Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true. The cure for this is first to show that religion is not contrary to reason, but worthy of reverence and respect. Next make it attractive, make good men wish it were true, and then show that it is. Worthy of reverence because it really understands human nature. Attractive because it promises true good.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            I don’t hate or despise religion because it may be true, I know for a fact that the Bible is untrue. I’ve read the Bible, it is full of contradictions, you just choose to ignore the contradictions. For religion to be worthy of respect it must first not be full is immoral acts and untrue stories. Burning bushes and donkeys don’t talk and it is immoral to kill your neighbor for working on the Sabbath. Where are the attractive promises? If Heaven were true and God were the ruler, I don’t think I would call Him righteous. Killing everyone (save eight) and the first born is equivalent to saying when you die you will be sitting right next to Jeffery Dahmer or Hitler or Stalin, hardly something I would want to do for all of eternity.

          • Rockin Ron

            First, the theological argument. If we’re talking about the Christian God, i.e., the God described in the Bible, then it’s true that God makes no mistakes. But we should also notice that on this view the first human beings that God created used their freedom to choose against God—they sinned.

            (Note: Only if this freedom were perfect, i.e., only if God made no mistakes in creating this freedom, could the first humans have the power to choose against God.)

            The result: the human race has “fallen.” That is, we are now morally broken—we have an inclination to sin—and this inclination has been passed down to us from our ancestors.

            This means that we are born with propensities not only for good, but also for evil. We are born self-centered, and we tend to reject the good.

            In other words, even though we might be born with diverse inclinations (and even though on the Christian view God loves us in spite of any inclinations we have), being born this way this doesn’t mean God automatically accepts and affirms our acting on any or all of these inclinations. Significantly, the God of the Bible calls us to (a) turn away from our sinful inclinations and behaviours, plus (b) accept Jesus—God come to earth as a human being—as Lord.

            We should agree with Lady Gaga, then, that “God makes no mistakes,” but we should also disagree with Lady Gaga by realizing that being “born this way” doesn’t automatically mean that “this way” always meets with God’s moral approval.

            Second, here is some philosophical reasoning—which applies whether one believes in the Christian God or not.

            Lady Gaga rightly encourages us to respect and accept all people, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. After all, each person has intrinsic moral worth (because, as Christians would say, each person is made in the image of God). So far, so good.

            But here Lady Gaga’s thinking needs some qualification. We should keep in mind that respecting and accepting all people doesn’t automatically also mean that we should accept and affirm all the behaviours of all people. Nor does it also mean that we should accept and affirm all their (our) dispositions and urges to behave in various ways.

            Why not? Because not all behaviours are good—some behaviours are harmful to one’s self and/or others.

            Think about serial rapist and murderer Ted Bundy. He may have been born with his peculiar sexual propensities and urges. But, surely, Bundy’s behaviour is bad.

            Pedophiles have propensities and urges, too. So do people who are prone to alcoholism, temper tantrums, lying, thievery, greed, gossip, gluttony, etc. (It’s possible that we’ve been born with, say, a genetic predisposition that inclines us in these diverse directions, though the biological situation is probably more complex than this; and no doubt there are social factors, too.)

            Clearly, the appeal to “born this way” as a moral justification of a propensity or urge requires further argument. We should ask: Is acting out on a propensity or urge good for one’s self or others? Or not?

            Is it sin? Or not?

            With all due respect to Lady Gaga, “born this way” doesn’t mean we ought to act this way.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            First and foremost, when we speak of God’s willingness to kill innocent people without provocation (i.e. First born Egyptians) then it is indifferent about how humans will act. Second of all, every claim you make has one major flaw (the elephant in the room, so to speak) it has no proof of God, it presumes that, based on a circular illogical statement (The Bible is true because it speaks of God and the God written is true because the Bible says it is true), until that little flaw is worked out – everything else is indifferent. Is it sin? Sin is a religious construct, so no, until proof of God exists (again, the Bible is proof that someone wrote a book about God, not proof that God exists). “‘born this way’ doesn’t mean we ought to act this way. ” your statement make a presumption that “born this way” was a choice that can be changed by “acting” a different way. Almost all mammals exhibit homosexuality, why would the homo sapiens species be any different? What’s if “born this way” meant an genetic difference? If homosexuality is genetically caused, you are stating the equivalent of a person born with Downs Syndrome (a genetic difference) could choose to change to become “normal” and that sir/madam is an asinine presumption.

          • Randy Wanat

            Is slavery “true good?” What about child sacrifice? Genocide? Incest? Which of these qualifies as “true good?”

          • Jackthesmilingblack

            AKA believing your own BS.

          • Rockin Ron

            Belief in nothing is very strong: strong enough to steal away a man’s best years not in sweet sins but in a dreary flickering of the mind over it knows not what and knows not why, in the gratification of curiosities so feeble that the man is only half aware of them, in drumming of fingers and kicking of heels, in whistling tunes that he does not like, or in the long, dim labyrinth of reveries that have not even lust or ambition to give them a relish, but which, once chance association has started them, the creature is too weak and fuddled to shake off.

            It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge man away from
            the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one—the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.

          • CanadianChris

            What he is saying is simple. You can believe there are yellow men living in the moon if you keep thinking and saying there are yellow men living in the moon. And these yellow men living in the like milk and if you leave a bowl of milk they will come down and drink it if you do not watch it. Then in the morning when you wake up if the milk is gone you will have all the proof that the yellow men are real. But in no way can you think otherwise or something of unimagineable ill will happen to you.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Oh good, for a minute there I wasn’t sure “Huh?” was the right response. Now, I know for sure what I should have responded. Here it is: Huh? What a load of crap.

          • CanadianChris

            I have done what he said and a bit more. I am ashamed that i spent money to learn the things he speaks of and used it to convert others mainly without reading the source or finding out the historic bases (none being found) of said source You would think that there would be a secondary account of the Zombie attack in Mathew.

          • Giraffe-Junk

            Sorry to hear that you lost monies. Never be ashamed that you spent money to learn the things he speaks of (which, by the way, make no sense to me), just learn of your errors and learn WHY you made them, learn how to avoid charlatans in the future. When I get scammed, I don’t try to “break-even” financially I own up to my ignorance of the subject, cut my losses ASAP and move on with life only after I ponder why I “got sucked in”. Then, most importantly, I learn how to avoid such mistakes in the future.
            A great philosophical standpoint on anything you do is: Could your actions cause harm? If so, do not do the action. If not, continue to do the action. While doing the action, are you, inadvertently causing harm to yourself or others? If you are causing harm, quit doing the action. If not, you may continue the action. When the action is complete, re-evaluate the action to determine if harm was caused. If harm was caused due to the action, learn from your mistake and do not do the action again. If no harm was caused then evaluate if it is okay to do the action again.
            Example: Could speeding at 80mph through a residential zone cause harm? Yes, do not do it. But, if you have done it before, without harm, evaluate if it okay to do the action again…well, in evaluation, we could presuppose a child could run after a ball into the street and at 80mph you would not be able to stop in time, thus you should not repeat the action as it could harm a child.
            So, since the Bible doesn’t prove God exists (as it is a circular reference), do you believe in God? If so, why? is it because you were raised in a religion? Are you being scammed?

        • Randy Wanat

          Would it be evil if I killed, say, 100 million men, women, and children? What, other than “might makes right,” is your argument actually saying?

  • Chris Bond

    Atheists are nothing less then pantheists that are too stupid to see they are.
    The whole “liberal” political order is therefore one sad, sad little deformed religious movement. Why do you think they always whinge about “compassion” and “the poor”.
    To be atheist requires as much faith as it does to believe in the existence of a God/ Gods.
    At least real religions base their moral and ethical code on thousands of years of thought. “Liberal” atheists just get their code from Sociology professors and the Guardian.
    Mongs.

    • Icebow

      Very well put, Sir.

    • Fred Scuttle

      Atheism is simply not believing in made up nonsense, and nobody gets moral values from religion.

      • Chris Bond

        Atheism is the assertion of the absence of theism – you are saying you are absolutely certain that something you cannot empirically measure, observe and prove the existence of (or not) – does not exist.
        To use an analogy – person A and B come across a box. Person A states “I have faith that in that box is a gold coin” (note “faith” and not “proof”). Person B then says, there is nothing in the box.
        Both are making a cast iron assertion of the presence (or non presence) of the coin which has no basis in proof.
        The only difference is that person A is honest about it.
        And as for your claim that no one gets moral values from religion, I can only request you prove this statement, as opposed to acting as if it is a self evident truth. (which is again akin to faith).

        • Fred Scuttle

          “you are saying you are absolutely certain that something you cannot
          empirically measure, observe and prove the existence of (or not) – does
          not exist”.

          Nope, not saying that. I’m saying not knowing how thunderstorms occur isn’t really a good enough reason to believe in something as absurd as Thor.

          • Rillian

            Oh that’s God moving his furniture to this bunch.

        • Randy Wanat

          Not believing someone’s claim is not the same as saying that claim is false. If there’s a jar of jellybeans, and Bill says the number of jellybeans is even, do you accept that claim? No, because there is no evidence that he is correct. But, by not accepting the claim, did you declare the number of jellybeans to be odd? No. Likewise, some people claim there is a deity. We don’t accept that claim, because there is no evidence to support it. But, by not accepting the claim, did we say that no gods exist? No. It’s merely an acknowledgment that the god claim hasn’t met its burden of proof, and we refuse to accept such a claim until it does. The Loch Ness monster is real. Do you accept that claim? Not without evidence, right? But, that isn’t the same thing as saying the Loch Ness monster does not exist. Get it? Words mean things. You’re applying your own personal definitions in a (possibly accidental) strawman argument. Please, learn about logical fallacies and read for comprehension. It makes conversation so much more rewarding.

          • Chris Bond

            no I don’t accept that claim, I would require proof.

            But you are separating skepticism of the claim, from skepticism of the object of the claim. I can’t prove or disprove there is an even number of jelly beans until they are counted.

          • Randy Wanat

            there is no functional difference. Person A makes binary (either is or isn’t) Claim X about reality. Person B withholds accepting that claim until adequate evidence is presented. Person B at no point made any claim regarding the truth or falsehood of claim X. You’re trying to avoid logic to prevent your God belief from being subject to the same critical thinking skills you would apply to everything else in your life.

          • Rillian

            Its about proof. You have none. As opposed to masses of proof for evolution.

            Do you believe the Adam and Eve story?

          • Randy Wanat

            I’m afraid you’re not making sense, as I’m advocating skepticism and critical thinking. Perhaps you have misread or misunderstood what I said. Reread. 🙂

          • Rillian

            I did re-read, I’m agreeing with you and picking up on the selectiveness of bible believers.

          • Randy Wanat

            I saw the edit from “you” to “they.”

          • Rillian

            You can count, see and eat the jelly beans. They are real and have form.

            If I said there was a magic sheep that created the Universe would you believe me? No, of course not, it is ridiculous.

            If I had a 2000 year old book, quite clearly written by men, that stated there was a magic sheep that created everything, I suppose you’d believe that…because its old?

            Show me your god/s. If you can’t then he is as real to me as the tooth fairy.

      • anotherjoeblogs

        For someone who doesn’t do religion, Mr Scuttle, you are always on blogs telling us about religious nonsense, you are more obsessed with religion than the religious types I know.

        • Fred Scuttle

          This is an atheist blog. I put it to you that you are obsessed by atheists.

    • Alex Lemin

      No, no, noooo. Atheism does not require faith, it is the abscence of faith. Atheists primarily use science as their tool to understand the world around them, science adjusts it’s views based on what is observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved. Atheists look at the world around them, and try to understand (through scientific and critical thinking) what they can observe. Followers of “real religions” simply believe what is told to them in religious texts, and by religious speakers, without questioning it. That is the difference, it’s listening to what someone has to say and then demanding that they prove it, rather than just accepting it blindly.

      • Chris Bond

        I find Atheists tend to be modern “liberals” who adhere to either socialism or “liberal” politics. Both these strains claim to uphold reason, yet exhibit zero reason. Take for example multiculturalism. Here is a political system which has failed, or is failing, in every country it has been present in. On every account it ends with bloodshed, yet ignoring this plethora of observable evidence, Liberal atheists support multiculturism blindly. This is a complete renunciation of the rational calculation. As a result we have the following- evidence (multiculturalism is badly unstable) + reason (multiculturalism should be avoided at all costs) = decision (implement multiculturalism to create a multicultural paradise).
        Or Global warming, sorry, climate change – evidence (none) + reason (unable to prove or disprove the theory) = Decision (everyone must act now to halt climate change).
        Adherence based on lack of evidence = faith in climate change.
        There are many such examples of this from atheist liberals and socialists.
        A rational person basing their decision on science alone would make the following decision regarding theism – evidence (no evidence) + reason (unable to prove or disprove) = decision (any position minus evidence is tantamount to faith in that position)

        • Alex Lemin

          To be honest with you mate, you’re welcome to your bigoted, misinformed opinions. Keep on being an idiot, you’re pretty good at it.

          • Chris Bond

            I recommend reading Feuerbach, Marx and Hegel to understand the roots of the Liberal thought process and it’s basic appropriation of Religion and faith.

          • Randy Wanat

            You could have just said you’re an anti-science conspiracy theory kook.

          • Chris Bond

            Anti-science? or “unenlightened”?
            That’s the general smear thrown at opponents of the “enlightened” ones like you ?
            I’m anything but anti-science. I understand it’s basis in empiricism and understand the necessity for proof. Something which is rare in these days when apparently science equals a “consensus” of “scientists”

          • Randy Wanat

            Anti-science. I say what I mean. Don’t try to put words in my mouth. Fox News Channel: bullshit factory churning out Republican party propaganda or legitimate news organization?

      • Rockin Ron

        To actually have absence of faith requires faith.

        • Alex Lemin

          This opinion shows a clear misunderstanding of the term faith, or what it means to have faith in something. Having faith in something means that regardless of any non-supporting evidence, one believes that the thing one has faith in is still undoubtedly true. As I said in my original comment, “Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.”. I don’t have to have faith in my absence of faith, because I KNOW that what I believe is true, because of cold hard evidence. My belief is supported by observation.

          • Rockin Ron

            If you consistently lived your life only on the basis of cold, hard evidence then that would be a pitiful existence. There are plenty of things that people don’t have cold, hard evidence for, but nevertheless go ahead and do anyway. For example, Falling in love, investing in the stock market, having children without a sure knowledge of how they will turn out, for example Daily life requires faith, acting on a belief in something, someone or some system without cold, hard evidence unsupported by observation and trust that the outcome will be as expected.
            I have not met anyone who lives only on the basis of cold, hard evidence supported by observation.

    • Rillian

      My Atheism comes from observing religions, their texts and how relevant and believable they seem to me personally. To me they all appear to come from our scientifically ignorant ancestors, who made up stories to explain what they couldn’t comprehend.

      To continue this cycle of wanton ignorance, in light of all the human race has learned, is beyond our ancestors level of ignorance. People now choose to believe in magical entities, which have absolute zero proof or evidence of their existence in all the time humans have existed on this planet.

      It may comfort you, help, in way of a crutch, with any mental problems you may or may not have, that does not make it real.

      • Chris

        I’m agnostic. You are clearly Marxist.

        • Rillian

          I have no idea why you would believe that. I’m just for free though and application of logic.

        • Ruthmeb

          “clearly”. This would be funny it it weren’t tragic. Your comment has exactly the same validity as saying “you are clearly a poopyhead” – Use of the term Marxist as knee-jerk insult.

      • Rockin Ron

        You make two insupportable suppositions. First, that our ancestors were scientifically ignorant and secondly that this ignorance explains the attractions of religion. This is a arrogant view because it denies the achievements of previous civilisations. For example, it required high levels of scientific knowledge to produce the pyramids and that civilisation was not ignorant. Also, if your views were tenable, then today we would see a decline in religious affiliation. Actually, all religions are growing across the world. So, you should re-examine your views.

        • Rillian

          They built pyramids to transport their souls. They also worshipped cats. I’d say that was pretty ignorant.

          How they did it, using mathematics, is totally undermined by their reasons for doing it. Its like people going to the Moon to collect cheese.

          Religion is attractive to ignorant people. Look at where it is most prevalent in the world.

    • Ruthmeb

      “Mongs”?! – where are we again: a 1950s primary school playground? Revolting. But the sort of thing that people around here clearly approve of. Quelle surprise.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    “From a Christian perspective” has to be the parameter here. It can be depressing even annoying to reside in a “religion” dominated area, so one logical response is humour.
    “So what church do you attend?”
    “I’m more of a Satanist. We’ve got some great rituals.”
    Then there was the missionary kid that demanded I prove God doesn’t exist.
    “I don’t have to. You’re the one selling the after-life insurance.”
    But in my part of the Japan Alps, the Christian wedding is a great money spinner: from the actor priest to all the trimmings; the photographs, flowers, food, transport, accommodation, clothes rental… It’s just one long gravy train.
    Face it, there has to be a percentage.
    Never give a sucker an even break and never wise up a chump.

  • Perseus Slade

    Just another bitchy hatchet-job story on failure to believe in silly stories
    with the customary dig at Dawkins en passant.
    It`s time to sweep out all this nonsense and dump it in the bin of history.
    And no more state money for schools that indoctrinate young children.

  • Roy Allen

    If you call yourself an atheist you’re defining yourself in terms of religion so it’s no surprise to see these people apeing the lowest form of religious service. There are plenty of places where people can go for inspiration, meditation, fun and a sense of community without resorting to a church-like setting: cinema, theatre, countryside, parks, libraries, pubs, concerts etc.
    in short, I find this behaviour sad and lacking in imagination. It’s not for me. But, they’re obviously enjoying themselves and harming no-one so good luck to them.

  • justejudexultionis

    It takes a hell of a lot of faith to believe that the universe made itself.

    • Fred Scuttle

      Even more to believe a god did, and then used magic to create the universe.

    • john

      Maybe you should read more widely. Science is beginnin g to make inroads into this fundamental question and I expect all will be revealed in the coming years.

  • GraveDave

    When I arrive for the latest meeting, on the theme of ‘brains’, there is a stall in the foyer selling pamphlets with serious titles and drab covers, as well as magnetic finger puppets of ‘Great Thinkers of the World’ — Einstein; Freud; Frida Kahlo; Sherlock Holmes.

    So, you play R&B music. Makes a lot of f—-g sense. As usual.

    ,

  • There are lot more silly ways for spending tim e

    http://www.consumerspk.com/sufi-cooking-oil-company-fined-rs-25000/

  • Rillian

    If you do not believe magic is a real thing, why would you believe any religious books?

    They’re all full of it.

  • Fred Scuttle

    Atheists do not worship themselves BTW.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Essentially religion (Christianity) means avoiding serious thought by taking refuge in the majority. While Atheism is for those that have issues with authority. The sheep and the goats. But now “Organised Atheism” offers a middle way.
    Jack, Nepal

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Catholic cannibals, don’t you just love um!

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    I don’t recall Jesus ever cracking a joke or coming out with a one-liner. “I’m a virgin just like me dear old Mum.”
    Perhaps that’s because the Bible was so heavily edited.

  • chump23

    I don’t believe in God, but Jesus aren’t atheists irritating , shallow little prats? I refer to the comments more than the service.

    • Fred Scuttle

      So you must be a shallow little prat.

      • chump23

        I consider myself agnostic as all sensible non-believers should. False syllogism, scuttle.

        • Fred Scuttle

          If you don’t believe in a god you’re an atheist.

          • chump23

            Suit yourself mr richard head

          • Fred Scuttle

            If you don’t believe in a god you are not a theist and therefore an atheist. It isn’t a question of suiting myself Mr.Shallow.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Ridicule, abuse, contempt; that’s what organized religion deserves in spades and that’s what it’s going to get.

  • Boston You

    As part of its war against civilization, Hussein Obama’s criminal marxist regime forces employers to pay for abortion inducing substances.

  • mattghg

    I am a Christian and I do go to one of “the evangelical churches that the Sunday Assembly has self–consciously modelled itself on and reacted against”. But if I didn’t believe in God there is no way I would go to one of these things just for the sake of singing and being made to feel nice. That’s not what I go to church for in the first place.

  • John Kenner

    Here we find all the arguments for decisively defeating liberal teachers and professors: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0094KY878

  • Its really amazing

    http://www.consumerspk.com/

Close