Many who participate here are fortunate not to live in the cold shadows of fang-like steeples that dominate the smalltown skylines of America.

pelfdaddy wrote:Many who participate here are fortunate not to live in the cold shadows of fang-like steeples that dominate the smalltown skylines of America.

Right... but I am surrounded by temples where orange-clad beggars go out every morning, and people wake up a 4am to cook food to dish out to the passing monks. I can also sometimes here the call to prayer wafting in my window from the mosque a few roads up.

Sounds peaceful. They have no hell, no bluegrass gospel music...

Spearthrower wrote:Surely this is only of any value in the theocratically inclined states of the USA? ... Where else might this have any value aside from the USA? Some parts of Australia?

Perhaps, although here a combination of churches and belief (rather than one or the other) tends to happen in pockets rather than generally. Those areas where belief is strong seem unlikely to welcome atheists, and I find it hard to disagree with them.

If I were out with friends and a mormon turned up saying "hi, I'm here to show I am normal and you have to live with us" then it is possible I would be impolite; in fact, yes, I would.

Oldskeptic wrote:I just want people to stop believing in stupid shit when the evidence goes against stupid shit.

Congratulations, you're now preaching atheism.

Oldskeptic wrote:And just to clarify my position I think that billboards and bus signs are stupid ideas also. I think that spreading atheism is a fucked up notion. You can't preach atheism, it just happens. And I don't really care if anyone becomes an atheist. I just want people to stop believing in stupid shit when the evidence goes against stupid shit.

I can't help agreeing with this sentiment. There is a fundamental level at which we do not really choose what we believe. We cannot persuade them to become atheists any more than they can persuade us to become theists. The best we can do is make a compelling argument for consistent application of standards for evidence. The rest is up to them.

I find nothing with which to disagree, yet no reason to stop promoting this point of view either. We atheists keep complaining about the effects of faith in this world while stating that there is nothing we can do about it. Meanwhile we conduct arguments on forums like this one and analyze the latest debate. We say that people cannot be made to change their minds, yet we go on to say "all you can do is...(insert action designed to produce an effect)...and the rest is up to them".

Is everyone here just wasting their time? Probably not.

pelfdaddy wrote:I find nothing with which to disagree, yet no reason to stop promoting this point of view either. We atheists keep complaining about the effects of faith in this world while stating that there is nothing we can do about it.

Not something I said. I am disagreeing about what to do.

Meanwhile we conduct arguments on forums like this one and analyze the latest debate. We say that people cannot be made to change their minds

Too general. Some, including most theists who come to atheist forums (and vice versa I expect) will not change their minds. That does not make it true of the general population of people who are substantially uncommitted, whatever their nominal position.

That is one reason I am more interested in those people who do not go to church. Here, only about 7-8% of the population do.

Just a question. Why not start a world-wide rational secular organization to which people can belong and where people can meet on a regular basis to discuss whatever it is that rational skeptics talk about, an anti-church as it were?

quixotecoyote wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:I just want people to stop believing in stupid shit when the evidence goes against stupid shit.

Congratulations, you're now preaching atheism.

I don't make even that demand on people. I simply wish to be what I am without harassment, and without the stupid shit that people believe in creeping its way into areas other than the believers' brains.

Agrippina wrote:Just a question. Why not start a world-wide rational secular organization to which people can belong and where people can meet on a regular basis to discuss whatever it is that rational skeptics talk about, an anti-church as it were?

Could a collective of people who have a common shared non-belief, qualify as a religion?

need to be careful

I wish you luck in your endeavour but I will not be participating. Firstly, I'm generally unpleasant and would therefore be an unsatisfactory example of atheism. Secondly, I wouldn't want to waste my Sunday. Thirdly, I live in a country with a general expectation of atheism (even if it is not called that), I don't think I would have much impact at all. Forthly, one of the things I dislike the most about religion is the proselytizing so I would be loathe to do anything similar.

Having said that, I do think it likely that churches in some areas would get real value from a "Meet an Atheist Day" mainly to dispel some of the stupid beliefs held about us.

Good luck, let us know how it turns out.

Agrippina wrote:Just a question. Why not start a world-wide rational secular organization to which people can belong and where people can meet on a regular basis to discuss whatever it is that rational skeptics talk about, an anti-church as it were?

As long as I get to choose the anti-hymns !!

We could play Black Sabbath music.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRhZISswW_k[/youtube]

les5f wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Just a question. Why not start a world-wide rational secular organization to which people can belong and where people can meet on a regular basis to discuss whatever it is that rational skeptics talk about, an anti-church as it were?

Could a collective of people who have a common shared non-belief, qualify as a religion?

need to be careful

Don't call it a religion, call it a movement ( and no, before someone says it, not a "bowel" movement).

Agrippina wrote:Just a question. Why not start a world-wide rational secular organization to which people can belong and where people can meet on a regular basis to discuss whatever it is that rational skeptics talk about, an anti-church as it were?

Skeptics in the pub?

LarianLeQuella wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Just a question. Why not start a world-wide rational secular organization to which people can belong and where people can meet on a regular basis to discuss whatever it is that rational skeptics talk about, an anti-church as it were?

Skeptics in the pub?

I think that our differences are really the thing that divides us to the extent that we aren't seen as something other than some "loonies" who hate everything and who mock everything. We need to find the thing that brings us together and concentrate on that rather than the things that we disagree about.

And I don't think Richard Dawkins should be held up as the high priest.

Agrippina wrote: I think that our differences are really the thing that divides us to the extent that we aren't seen as something other than some "loonies" who hate everything and who mock everything. We need to find the thing that brings us together and concentrate on that rather than the things that we disagree about.

In my opinion, I think that tends to be the external view of atheists and freethinkers. Every time I get together with folks, we're usually laughing it up and having a jolly good time. Which may be the whole idea behind this event. To dispell that sort of negative image.

Agrippina wrote:And I don't think Richard Dawkins should be held up as the high priest.

Wasn't aware there even was such a position, let alone anyone in it.

LarianLeQuella wrote:

Agrippina wrote: I think that our differences are really the thing that divides us to the extent that we aren't seen as something other than some "loonies" who hate everything and who mock everything. We need to find the thing that brings us together and concentrate on that rather than the things that we disagree about.

In my opinion, I think that tends to be the external view of atheists and freethinkers. Every time I get together with folks, we're usually laughing it up and having a jolly good time. Which may be the whole idea behind this event. To dispell that sort of negative image.

Agrippina wrote:And I don't think Richard Dawkins should be held up as the high priest.

Wasn't aware there even was such a position, let alone anyone in it.

The believers I talk to say that he is the "High Priest" of atheism, of course I always tell them they're mistaken, that is my position. Self-appointed of course.