I have been hoping that the decline of religious belief was due to just scientific reasoning rather than just from all the publicity about the antics of some priests together with the clergy doing a lot of “blind-eying”. However I fear that it is mainly caused by the latter rather than by science based reasoning. Is my fear justified or is rationality based on scientific evidence accelerating?
I don’t think any research has been done… nevertheless… how about the publicity of the fucked up clergy is making people question. When they start questioning, they find atheist sites and start to listen. I’m comfortable with no one supporting religion. But then what do the religious minded support? Haven’t you seen atheists who treat their atheism like a religion? We even have atheist churches. Not sure what that’s about. I can see an atheist community center, or possibly a library, but a church??? Is that not weird?
No not at all weird. The church is built with bricks of reason and mortar of rationality. It is located in an undisclosed location. If you happen to show up you will not be there. If you do not tell someone of it, it will cease to exist. The choir is made up of birds. Everyone is welcome to attend in absentia.
The lighting is provided by introspection. Membership is only open to those who refuse it.
The pastor is a Pileated Woodpecker.
Any more questions?
“We even have atheist churches. Not sure what that’s about. I can see an atheist community center, or possibly a library, but a church??? Is that not weird?”
Yes I agree. A type of atheist community center is sort of what we have on this site. The word “church” comes with too much historical religious baggage. I guess it needs some atheist hymns to go with it. The Monty Python pioneers made a good one. (You-Tube: “all things dull and ugly” ) But a lot more than that for such “church” services is needed I would think.
The data seems very mixed and while being affiliated with a religion is declining and education may play a part, religious belief is in no danger of going away anytime soon. The biggest decline in membership of a christian church was with the catholic religion. The abuse was more than the antics of a few priests. It was wide spread and systematically covered up. It was allowed to continue despite it being the vile abuse of the most helpless among us for the sake of protecting the church. If someone’s own sense of right and wrong was the reason they left, and not rational scientific thought, does it really matter? I’ll take what I can get. What isn’t based on rational thought can be hard to fight with it.
Yeah this is interesting. Kansas City has an Oasis too, but the pandemic put a real damper on things and it has not recovered.
Opportunities for people to participate in a “community” seems to be useful to many.
In my younger days we gathered for camaraderie and the exchange of ideas, etc., as much or more than partying. Some of my thoughts on morality, politics, awareness, self-identity, community, etc., were given an opportunity to receive charitable critiques in these settings. Of course this was long before computers, internet, cellphones, etc., and personal interaction was all there was, essentially. Communication has changed so much since then that it makes me wonder if there isn’t an even greater need for personal interactions than there was in the past.
Of course I have apprehension towards any organized body which can supplant the real purpose of assembling in the first place.
I recall the way we used the word “rap” back then. Someone might have asked me to stop by and “rap for a while”.
Edit: can you dig it?
["Bringing non-religious people together to develop their own views and an understanding of the world around them
Humanists are people who shape their own lives in the here and now, because we believe it’s the only life we have. We make sense of the world through logic, reason, and evidence, and always seek to treat those around us with warmth, understanding, and respect."](https://humanists.uk/)
Why do I find that so repulsive? LOL It’s kinda like ‘group think’ gone ballistic. Okay, I don’t disagree with church and state separation, or a lot of humanist thinking. It’s the bleeding hart nature of their pleas that I seem to find offensive. They are a religion IMO. And they make the assertion, to me moral, good, right, you must believe like us. We are the standard of morality. That same, better than thou relationship to humanity that the Christians have. IMO. And, Just my experience of the ‘ONE AND ONLY ONE, HUMANIST ORGANIZATION I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO.’ There are none here in Korea that I am aware of. Especially not in the small town area I live in. (I fully admit to my own ignorance and pending the discovery of any Atheist organization, I would willingly check out a humanist organization.) I currently regard them as a church for non-believers.
“Why do I find that so repulsive? LOL It’s kinda like ‘group think’ gone ballistic. Okay, I don’t disagree with church and state separation, or a lot of humanist thinking. It’s the bleeding hart nature of their pleas that I seem to find offensive. They are a religion IMO. And they make the assertion, to me moral, good, right, you must believe like us. We are the standard of morality. That same, better than thou relationship to humanity that the Christians have. IMO. And, Just my experience of the ‘ONE AND ONLY ONE, HUMANIST ORGANIZATION I HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO.’ There are none here in Korea that I am aware of. Especially not in the small town area I live in. (I fully admit to my own ignorance and pending the discovery of any Atheist organization, I would willingly check out a humanist organization.)…”
Try to empathize a bit with humanists. Most of them have grown up floating in a sea of religious folk who on hearing that they have become non-believers go on to suggest that without religious faith for guidance, atheists must all be potential Joseph Starlins etc. So as I understand it Humanism started from atheists who wanted to demonstrate that they are “good” people who want to do good things for society and they much resent and fight the idea that they need religious doctrines to do it. Like all humans they often fall short of their ideals.
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
- a rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.
So it’d require a tortured misrepresentation of both words to imagine they are remotely similar, let alone at all synonymous.
They? I’m a humanist, I belong to no humanist groups or organisations, could you quote me asserting this ever? Only this seems like a straw man fallacy to me, using lazy stereotyping. Also the idea that morality based on the importance of humans rather than deities and religions, is the very antithesis of theisms like Christianity, so again this just seems like pretty lazy stereotyping.
Do you not believe that a rationalist outlook attaching prime importance to humans, is generally a better basis for our moral outlook than one that prioritises supernatural matters? I certainly do, and for pretty obvious reasons. What any humanist groups think beyond that is irrelevant, as that alone makes one a humanist, and just like atheists we need not be an homogenous group beyond that. Do all the atheists here share all the same opinions on everything all the time?
How are you defining church? You can be humanist without joining any organisation, obviously. I am a humanist yet don’t belong to any humanist organisation, though I may agree with much of what they assert, I can reason without adhering to anything they propose, beyond believing that a rationalist outlook attaching prime importance to humans, is generally a better basis for our moral outlook than one that prioritises supernatural matters?
As usual , Sheldon you have the right of it.
Our good friend Cog, sadly seems to have many similarities with a Sovereign Citizen/Libertarian judging by his recent posts. Both positions depend on a viewpoint that have few touch points with reality.
But then his anus filling of rolling pins and barbed wire suggests the same divorce from reality we expect from the same followers of such irrational nonsense.
Thank you for sharing.
Isn’t that what you are doing?
False dichotomy. (Not always - Or… I am not always in agreement with what liberals call rational.)
A congregation of members blindly following tenets. (No belief in God required.) Hence, my allusion to Group Think.
Relax… When I get back to the states and start looking for places to hang out, I could just as easily end up in some liberal humanist mush pot as anyplace else. 100% it will not be a conservative mush pot. LOL I piss off everybody.
It’s the way I was raised, but you’re welcome.
No, clearly, where have I claimed to be right (what does that even mean in a subjective discussion about morality?), where have I claimed anyone must share my humanist basis for morality? Where have I claimed my humanist morality is the standard, what would that even mean? Again humanists are no more all the same than atheists are.
Where did I even mention liberals, something either adheres to the principles of logic or it does not, I fail to see liberalism per se has to do with that? Also where did I claim anyone was limited to just two choices? I asked if you shared the humanist viewpoint of taking a rationalist outlook or system of thought that attaches prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters? You are of course free to use crystals or astrology, or reading tea leaves if you prefer, however I only asked if you agreed with that (humanist) viewpoint. So no that’s not a false dichotomy as far I can see. You also failed to answer?
So as a humanist what tenets am I obliged to blindly follow, indeed why are any humanists obliged to blindly follow any tenets? Even those who are, unlike me, members of humanist organisation are not obliged to follow any tenets of those organisations are they, blindly or otherwise?
Well as a humanist you’re not obliged to adhere to the viewpoints of any other humanists beyond the definition of humanism of course, just like atheists, which is my point. Again I haven’t mentioned liberals, I don’t really see the relevance here? There is nothing specifically about liberals (the US notion or the UK political affiliation) that is necessary for one to be a humanist as far as I can see.
FYI I am relaxed, debate doesn’t upset me or set me on edge, if it did I wouldn’t seek it out. I quite enjoy it, if I’m honest.
Then we are clearly on the same page.
Now that was funny - I hope no one saw it. A consequence of writing while at work.
You are correct. My assumption is that the humanist movement is full of liberals and the woke. (Spiritual but not Godly) That’s just from my readings… I mentioned some of the newsletters I received from these groups. I am thinking of moving back to the states and when I find a place that looks nice, I also look for Atheist Groups. I’ve done a little research, I would not assume all groups are the same and yes, my ‘Liberal’ assertion is hyperbolic. At the same time, that seems to be what I am seeing so far.
Christians are not blindly obliged to follow either. They can always quit. But I get the same sense from the humanist organizations I have looked at. IMO
Cool… I will take what you say, re-examine my assumptions and continue my exploration.
Now see… That tends to make perfect sense to me.
Of course humanist organisation beyond the core definition of humanism, would be shaped by the cultures in which they emerge, just like atheists I imagine.
So you meant some humanist organisation are structured like organized religion, typically characterized by an official doctrine (or dogma), a hierarchical or bureaucratic leadership structure, and a codification of rules and practices .
So solely in that sense not entirely unlike an organised church, though of course it would be almost impossible to form any organisation and not bear that similarity to some degree? Again what tenets is anyone obliged to blindly follow, and why? This might help add some context to the sweeping generalisation. Since the word church suggests core doctrine and beliefs that are mutually exclusive with humanism
I absolutely concur. More than that, it also attracts the sort of people who are attracted to that type of organization. A place for everyone and everyone in their place. Social mores, unspoken boundaries, a sub culture that the devout can understand, or enjoy.
You should probably look for a place in the south when you return to the U.S.