Agnostic/atheist meetings

[DaSOCOM]

I was looking at the church service schedule for the base that I am at the other day and I noticed that there is never an agnostic service. I found catholic, protestant, muslim, jewish, and even wiccan and pagan services, but nothing for agnostic/atheist.

Now I know what you are all thinking - Agnostics and atheists don't worship deities. True, but look at why religious people have ceremonies - not only to worship their deities but also to fellowship with others of like beliefs and help each other "stay strong" in their religion, and to also try to sucker others into their beliefs as well.

So this got me thinking: Why not an agnostic/atheist service, and if so, what would it consist of? Seeing as how agnostics/athiests many times have multiple reasons for their disbelief, could we possibly find a common ground?

I'm interested to know what others would think of such a thing; it's viability, content, and turnout. So hit me back!

Peace,
DaSOCOM

[Kojack]

There are no ceremonies for agnostics or atheists because they don't care. What would the ceremony be about? Celebrating the fact that they never think about the very thing they are attending?

[Anime Forum]

There are no ceremonies for agnostics or atheists because they don't care. What would the ceremony be about? Celebrating the fact that they never think about the very thing they are attending?


I was thinking the same exact thing, there would be nothing to celebrate about, because they never think about it.

[LadyAmy]

I was thinking the same exact thing, there would be nothing to celebrate about, because they never think about it.



Lawl. True.

If you're agnostic are it's supposed to celebrate? Now, i'm kinda confused. I'm atheist and i never think about nothing of that.. so what am i suppose to celebrate? that today was a rainy day? xP

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Most nontheists think the the idea of meeting up to reinforce each others lack of belief is silly. Getting together nontheists is like herding cats. Which basically explains why something like 15-20 percent of America is Nontheist, but there's only one congressman in the history of America who's actually admitted to being one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark).

You know, in addition to the fact that your average American thinks that atheists will pull out a knife and stab their baby on a whim.

You may want to look into Humanism. It's the ethical philosophy that a lot of nontheists (and some theists) follow, and they tend to have meetings and such.

[TheAsterisk!]

Well, isn't Buddhism actually atheist? As far as I know, there aren't actually any deities in Buddhism. I suppose, then, that your answer is "whatever Buddhists do if and when they gather in groups."

As a note, atheists believe with conviction that there is/are no God/gods. Agnostics admit that the presence of a God or deities cannot be proven or disproven, but each may choose to believe on pure faith or disbelieve as logic dictates.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Well, isn't Buddhism actually atheist? As far as I know, there aren't actually any deities in Buddhism. I suppose, then, that your answer is "whatever Buddhists do if and when they gather in groups."
It exists in the shadow-land between religion and philosophy. Some of the concepts are rather religious (reincarnation, quasi-deity Buddha), and others are fairly philosophical (abandonment of self, etcetera). The philosophical Buddhism tends to be pretty hardcore, and I doubt you could pull it off while living on a base. So I assume that the hypothetical service would be about the religious Buddhism.


As a note, atheists believe with conviction that there is/are no God/gods. Agnostics admit that the presence of a God or deities cannot be proven or disproven, but each may choose to believe on pure faith or disbelieve as logic dictates.

That's true in the strictest sense, but in reality they're pretty interchangeable terms. Most self-described atheists admit that they really don't know there isn't a god, which would make them agnostic also. Most agnostics don't venerate any particular god because they are unsure of the existence of all gods, which would arguably make them atheists (religious people tend to group them with atheists for this reason).

In effect, the choice between the two terms is a philosophical one: whether it is important to emphasize the lack of evidence for the existence of deitys, or to emphasize the impossibility of absolute knowledge in regards to the existence of deitys.

(That last bit is pretty silly, by the way. Logic will never dictate that you should follow faith because faith is logic's antithesis. If you use logic and come up with faith as an answer, you aren't doing it right.)

[TheAsterisk!]

It exists in the shadow-land between religion and philosophy. Some of the concepts are rather religious (reincarnation, quasi-deity Buddha), and others are fairly philosophical (abandonment of self, etcetera). The philosophical Buddhism tends to be pretty hardcore, and I doubt you could pull it off while living on a base. So I assume that the hypothetical service would be about the religious Buddhism.
Buddha isn't granted such high status in every form of Buddhism, just some. It's a religion/philosophy that adapts greatly to different regions, customs and traditions, so it isn't at all monolithic. I guess, then, that I should say certain flavors of Buddhism are atheistic.

That's true in the strictest sense, but in reality they're pretty interchangeable terms. Most self-described atheists admit that they really don't know there isn't a god, which would make them agnostic also. Most agnostics don't venerate any particular god because they are unsure of the existence of all gods, which would arguably make them atheists (religious people tend to group them with atheists for this reason).
That's why it was merely a note and not a part of an argument.

In effect, the choice between the two terms is a philosophical one: whether it is important to emphasize the lack of evidence for the existence of deitys, or to emphasize the impossibility of absolute knowledge in regards to the existence of deities.
...'Kay. We more or less agree.

(That last bit is pretty silly, by the way. Logic will never dictate that you should follow faith because faith is logic's antithesis. If you use logic and come up with faith as an answer, you aren't doing it right.)
I went against faith with logic, actually. I don't know if I typed poorly or you read poorly, but I meant nothing of the sort. Actually, logic is quite clear, though generic rational thought is not. Given no evidence, the logical default position is to disbelieve. Were I given evidence of deities (impossible as that is), I would have to reconsider things. (I suppose skeptical doubt might be a more accurate term than disbelief, if you define any belief as static and faithful. I used the words' colloquial meanings interchangeably; sorry.) Surely you're aware of the logical principle of parsimony.
The default position of logic is skepticism and disbelief when evidence is absent. Were it any other way, literally everything conceivable would be just as real as anything else. I would have to believe in the very quiet, very sneaky orange tortoise under my bed were it so. The atheist just followed reason to it's end, while the agnostic that continues to wonder or even worship hasn't followed his/her thought(s) to the logical conclusion.
It's also a practical matter. If you can't prove or disprove deities, then what practical consequence do they (not their believers or followers) have? Why bother believing? It comes down to what makes you feel better, really.

[Eris]

There are nontheist meetings everywhere, on lunch breaks, in cafeterias, on line, but they are spontaneous and unorganized. The very idea of an organized religion-style preachy nontheist meeting is an oxymoron. Nontheism is about thinking for yourself, and not being told what to think.


There are no ceremonies for agnostics or atheists because they don't care. What would the ceremony be about? Celebrating the fact that they never think about the very thing they are attending?

Why money! There are plenty of atheists who celebrate X-mas and other commercial holidays, not because of hippie ideals like love and charity, but because of their love for the green stuff (money, not pot.)

[sa5m]

Well... I'm pretty agnostic and the reason I am is because I DON'T want to go to church services and the like. If there were athiest/agnostic meetings, I wouldn't attend them anyway.

[LittleGirl]

I'm the same as jinglefox. I'm agnostic and part of the reason I don't belong to any religion is because I don't like church services and such.

An athiest/agnostic meeting is a bad idea. No one would go, because they don't like it and they don't care.

[Eris]

Well... I'm pretty agnostic and the reason I am is because I DON'T want to go to church services and the like. If there were athiest/agnostic meetings, I wouldn't attend them anyway.

That is a pretty pragmatic way of reasoning. There are plenty of ways you can be religious while not going to church services. Organized religion is not the only way of practicing religion, you know.

[Acnologia]

It would create a paradox.

[Eris]

It would create a paradox.

What paradox is that?

[Diocletian]

You mean scientologists?They babble on and on about nothing.Similar to me.
But I'm a Balrogian so I don't count.

[Eris]

You mean scientologists?They babble on and on about nothing.Similar to me.
But I'm a Balrogian so I don't count.

Uh, scientologists are very much religious, ergo, not atheists.

[Diocletian]

Uh, scientologists are very much religious, ergo, not atheists.

Doesn't sound like it when Tom Cruise talks about it.

[International 4-8818]

There is nothing to worship in those two sects. And there is nothing to support so why would you have meetings to help other people with nothing? No smart ash comment with what i said please.

[wolfgirl90]

Doesn't sound like it when Tom Cruise talks about it.

That's because whenever Tom Cruise is being shown around any of his Scientology church members, he is never doing anything serious. The last thing I remember him doing with them was having a crazy birthday party:rolleyes:. But yes, Scientologists are indeed very religious people and they take their beliefs and practices very seriously.

I can understand why there wouldn't be an atheist and/or agnostic service (I use the word service because there are atheist organizations that do have group meeting; I do not know what they talk about;)). Most people people who fall into this category have very different ideas of what being atheist means. There are some people who do not believe in any gods but are very spiritual while others could care less. Religions usually have some common ground on what the beliefs are.

And a person does not need to belong to an organized religion in order to be a religious person. For example, I am a religious person in Wicca, which is not an organized religion. You can practice with a group or by yourself. There are a lot of people who become Pagan because of the fact that it is a personal religion.

[sa5m]

That is a pretty pragmatic way of reasoning. There are plenty of ways you can be religious while not going to church services. Organized religion is not the only way of practicing religion, you know.

Yes, that's true.
I guess I meant to say that one of the reasons some people are athiest or agnostic is because they are not religious enough to want to attend meetings.

After thinking about this some more, I think that there could be a meeting for athiests and agnostics-- one in which they discuss why they ARE athiest or agnostic. xD

[LittleGirl]

Not what the thread is about but since someone brought up scientologists...I absolutely hate that religion. To me, it's a cult. Just a money grabbing cult. I respect religion, but I have no respect for scientology.

Sorry, just thought I'd throw that out there.

[DOOM!]

What paradox is that?
An oxymoron, of course. You said it yerself, teacher.

And i ain't atheist because i don't want to go to church. Hmm... actually... i nevel liked having to go to church at 7 in the morning and not getting to eat or drink anything before that, then take 4 fours of just standing up-kneeing down- stanting up- kneeing down, till my feet were falling asleep.
But i mainly overthrew this religion because deep down, i allways hated "Jesus Christ and friends" and i got meet a man who inspired me to criticize whatever religion says. I often label myself Satanic to raise some tension in people i have a chit-chat with.

[Eris]

An oxymoron, of course. You said it yerself, teacher.

That really isn't a paradox. An oxymoron is merely a contradiction in terms, whilst a paradox is a statement that contradicts itself in logic.

[starchaser]

An atheist society started up in our uni, though it kind of just uses atheism as like a side thing. Their motto is 'You only live once so let;s live it' or something like that, and they basically go out and do lots of crazy stuff.

I didn't join because they had a I <3 Richard Dawkins sign.

[DOOM!]

That really isn't a paradox. An oxymoron is merely a contradiction in terms, whilst a paradox is a statement that contradicts itself in logic.
Actually, thinking again at this, it's not an oxymoron. Oxymoron is two things contradicting eachother. This would be only one thing contradicting itself, so it IS a paradox: "Atheists setting up for religious meeting" synonymous to "****ing to earn virginity"

[Eris]

Actually, thinking again at this, it's not an oxymoron. Oxymoron is two things contradicting eachother. This would be only one thing contradicting itself, so it IS a paradox: "Atheists setting up for religious meeting" synonymous to "****ing to earn virginity"

No, oxymoron is two things contradicting themselves. In fact, the wikipedia article on oxymorons lists "Atheist church" as an example of an oxymoron. this article (http://www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_oxymoronology.html) elaborates on different oxymorons.

[DOOM!]

No, oxymoron is two things contradicting themselves. In fact, the wikipedia article on oxymorons lists "Atheist church" as an example of an oxymoron. this article (http://www.fun-with-words.com/oxym_oxymoronology.html) elaborates on different oxymorons.
Hold on; didn't i just say the same thing? Please indicate, in the english language, wich(1,2) applies to which(A,B) in the following schema. Or do they mean the same thing(C)?
http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/8982/whichiswatch123oh1.gif
So, in the assembled picture, would "Atheists setting up for religious meeting" be Paradoxical or Oxymora? They can't be neither.

[Eris]

What now? You expect me to actually read what you post? You really must be new on AF.

Either way, there are oxymorons consisting of one and two things contradicting themselves: Sophomore is one word contradicting itself (wise fool), atheist church is two things contradicting themselves -- both are oxymorons.

The distinction between paradox and oxymoron lies in where the contradiction is. A paradox typically is a contradictory consequence, whilst an oxymoron is an inherent contradiction.

[DOOM!]

Erh... I'll take that as a "paradox, good sir".

[TheAsterisk!]

An oxymoron, of course. You said it yerself, teacher.

And i ain't atheist because i don't want to go to church. Hmm... actually... i nevel liked having to go to church at 7 in the morning and not getting to eat or drink anything before that, then take 4 fours of just standing up-kneeing down- stanting up- kneeing down, till my feet were falling asleep.
But i mainly overthrew this religion because deep down, i allways hated "Jesus Christ and friends" and i got meet a man who inspired me to criticize whatever religion says. I often label myself Satanic to raise some tension in people i have a chit-chat with.
If I read your post correctly, you are angry at God/Jesus. Is this so, or have I botched my late night reading again, as I so often do?
One can't very well hate what one doesn't think exists. To be angry at God/gods one must believe in God/gods, and so a true atheist cannot be angry at God/gods because a true atheist does not believe in God/gods.
By the way, "atheist religion" is arguably an oxymoron but can and does exist, as with types of Buddhism. You could reason that this makes Buddhism a philosophy instead, but it's all a gray area there. "Atheist worship" would be a definite oxymoron. Neither phrase is a paradox, though. Oxymorons contradict themselves with words' definitions, but a paradox leads to a logical contradiction, a logical impossibility or an endless loop of reasoning.
Here's a real simple, common example of a paradox:
"The following statement is true.
The above statement is false."
If you (try to) reason your way through that, you'll see that it's either contradictory or impossible or that you will endlessly try to make sense of it and stick yourself in a reasoning loop.