connectedness is entirely achievable without a god.

Entirely.

Never more so than now with the interwebs.

or a congregation, or a union local, group interaction is important. The face time that is experienced emphasizes that the individual is not alone. We are social animals and social animals need that personal interaction.

requires a god because the same things, exactly, are achievable without a god.

Everything else is window dressing.

my point was the desirability of a physical community as well as online support. No one should need a supreme being to treat people fairly.

in cyberspace, creates connectedness.

And can do so around a god or without one.

And any time.

Nothing regarding community and connectedness achieved by a religious community is unique to a religious community and can be readily achieved without a god. Without "religion."

I'm surprised you posted it.

The gap in the logic is huge.

Look at the EXAMPLES in the damned thing. Every single one of those is achievable outside the definition of "religious community."

Every single one of them.

Very hard to believe you don't know that.

I would think that any examples would be addressing "achieved".

do not require a religious community to achieve.

The piece is poorly written because it acknowledges its contradiction and then just plows ahead making points against that contradiction.

As Logic, it collapses on itself. A college debate squad would make quick work of it.

But with examples one could also say it has been achieved.

I think that is the import of examples.

a State religion, insofar as it was much of a "church" at all.

Things changed. You can play the verb tense against history but nothing that eventually converged began in that state.

Which to me obviates the verb tense consideration.

In the original on-line piece, this line (quoted in the excerpt above):

"...ideas that can be embraced without embracing religion itself."

Yet the author plows ahead of that statement, pretending that religious community is distinct in building global connectedness and cosmopolitanism.

Which happens to be false.

is a different matter.

it's from offers some impressive photography, but the articles purporting to serve the mission of the site are lacking.

I don't think they'd be competitive in most college writing classes.

And the one you cite has a huge hole in its logic. You may not be able to see it because you don't want to see it.

But it's there just the same.

To inspire you, I submit a photo of a huge hole.

Either someone taking pictures or wisely assembling them for presentation, whichever it is.

But the articles are poorly written.

Again, kwassa, I'm sorry you're upset with my assessment, but it's for you to test the logic question with others qualified to respond. Just becoming defensive with me won't cut it.

Call the grad students. Ask them if they don't see the logic gap. I think they will.

OK.

Your assessment has no support and therefore without value.

Thank you so much.

only one who thinks so.

You got some folks objecting to you in your thread. And you don't care for that. I guess that's understandable on its face, but you posted an article that isn't well-written.

And instead of re-examination you fly off the handle at people.

Not one point you've made or aligned with or cited has stood up under even casual scrutiny.

Your liking an article doesn't make it a good article. It doesn't make it well-written or thoughtful. It doesn't ensure that the logic of the piece is sound.

You should undertake an honest re-evaluation of the points you think the article is making and see how they stand up to some serious grad-level critical thinking.

But you probably won't do that because I think you know what would happen.

You claim something is poorly written, but you can't say why.

You claim there is a hole in the logic, but you can't point it out.

Saltpoint, you have no argument.

Goodbye. Write again when you have one.

Your article didn't win many friends here.

And your attitude definitely is childish.

Maybe do some serious reading on the subject and then we'll pick this up later.

How do you not get that?

Where the functions that the churches perform as community organizations can be seen in organizations there. Since atheists don't organize, I don't see how that can happen.

The argument that things that religious groups/organizations do could be done without religion is true.

The argument that that happens less frequently and less effectively is also true.

However, there are a growing number of atheist organizations and the potential for that to change is there. Many of them already model themselves on existing religious organizations, which is kind of interesting.

The author makes the point that there is value in the way religious groups organize themselves and pursue their goals.

But recognizing anything good about religion is anathema to some. Despising "faitheists" because they see value in religion and religious people is symptomatic of a larger illness.

You can create a straw man position, assign it to the people you don't like, and then say they have an illness.

You are also the one who has gotten so upset about a picture of Richard Dawkins wearing a T-shirt that says "Religion: Together we can find the cure."

Really, cbayer? What's so horrible for Dawkins, and what indicates a huge problem with atheism and certainly with several people on DU that you have labeled and defined against their wishes, is absolutely A-OK for you to do? Alrighty then.

how miserably wrong everyone else is, particularly everyone else not of cbayer's preferred faith.

It's just beyond the rest of us to even begin to measure how correct cbayer is on everything.

And people who disagree with cbayer -- whether here on this site or Richard Dawkins (!!!!) -- are not only incorrect but they are suffering from an illness!!!!

Dear Christ, the pathos!

Just can't quit him.

Perhaps he hit a nerve.

without your nasty zingers at the end.

Are you a licensed clinician in Psychology?

I'm guessing not.

You don't know shit about "...a larger illness" and have no cred to address the topic.

What you're doing is defending your prejudice, shining your limitations.

Remarkably poor attitude toward ideas.

Since the point is that not a single thing the religious communities do actually require religious belief to do them. Which does not require examples of atheists doing the same things to establish, it just requires a basic analysis of the requirements for performing the damn activities.


Getting together in social groups? Guess what? Doesn't require you to hold religious beliefs.


Charitable giving? Guess what, doesn't require you to hold religious beliefs


Etc...




But if you insist on examples of the non religious doing the various things the religious do...



Getting together in social groups? http://www.meetup.com/topics/atheists/ Oh look, that happens even when religious beliefs are not involved!



Charitable activities? http://atheists.org/relief Oh look, people without religious beliefs do that too!


Etc...

You asked for examples. You were given them. You are now ignoring them.

If you want to sink into a state of stubborn resistance to reality your call. The rest of us are not obligated to indulge your state of denial.

"There is no unifying belief in atheism."

I didn't realize that disagreeing with you constituted denial.

I guess it does, in your book. Not in mine.

You demanded examples.

I showed you them doing it. Examples provided. Thus, you were wrong. The end.

There is no dearth of opposing, divisive religious views. We from the outside looking in can see fracturing of churches from within over and over and over. To be sure, the all-pervasive, omnipresent structure of the "church" (as if there were only one church) provides a continuum for its club members that godless organizations often lack. Still, an unbeliever can join Toastmasters, Jaycee, or Kiwanis Clubs (as a few examples) pretty much anywhere. You don't necessarily have to believe in a deity to find organizations to share common cause.

There are former pastors who value the church structure enough to form atheist churches. I do think you're ignoring a good many secular organizations in order to make your point.

eta: How does one become "devout" as an atheist? Really? Devout? Our vocabulary needs some augmenting. I am a convinced atheist, but I don't think devotion has much to do with it.

Just repackaged for consumption here. Fortunately it's been effectively dispatched, many times.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/how_many_hospitals_have_atheists_built

might do well to get out a bit more.

Not least, they might want to examine their positions through different filters.

So far, there's not much evidence that they can manage any such thing.

and clear.

Very nice post.

If you are a fan of cruises, cruise critic.com has a great community forum. And you meet the people on your cruise.
The Center for Inquiry has a terrific sense of community.

And they are all more open to different ideas than faith based religious groups.

At least the ones I am around are. Most Episcopalians I know have other spiritual interests as well, with quite a few interested in Buddhism. Most around here are extremely liberal.

Communities can be organized, and are organized around many different things. Living in the DC area, I am amazed by Redskin fans, as long-suffering as they are. They are a huge local community, albeit a masochistic one. People who scrapbook can create a community. People who raise Golden Retrievers can be a community. Parents often form communities around the sports-team involvement of their children. Any interest group can be the basis for a community.

But what communities are formed around asking the deeper questions, about the meaning of their lives? Aside from churches, who does it?

...that you think anyone *needs* to form a group specifically around asking the meaning of their life.

If you need a group to tell you what the meaning of your life is I feel sorry for you.You do understand that the meaning of your life is *whatever you decide it is*. Right?

But that's just coming from the perspective of many millions that do it.

Answering the "deep" question. And the answer is always that church's concept of God and the doctrines it holds.

Any talk of the meaning of life without God at it's core is not welcome.

I notice you don't comment my giving examples to your challenge.

Still contend there aren't communities without God or religion?

This is pure nonsense and another example of how you negatively generalize when it comes to religion.

There are all kinds of secular groups who are extremely closed to different ideas. There are all kinds of religious groups that are very open to different ideas.

Pure and utter nonsense.

evidently.

You can't handle it. Plain and simple.

Your position could not be more closed, more hyper-protective, more insecure.

Did I mention it was closed? You function on the idea that your version is the correct version and anybody who thinks differently begins wrong.

Wow. That's about as closed as it gets.

I always like to try and help the new recruits in any way possible.

Please don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

I've got to run out now, but I'll be back around.

Have a great evening and don't forget to pick up your decoder ring before you leave today.

Adios!

Fondly, cbayer

people on this site, cbayer.

And you can't respond to posts on this topic without your default nastiness.

Accusing those who differ with you of "illness."

Quite cowardly of you.

If you think cbayer is nasty, then you haven't met nasty.

those who disagree.

And cbayer notably can't manage criticism of the religious view cbayer happens to hold.

Quite a nasty trait for someone who purports to be a Christian, yet there you have it.

And beliefs. She says she is agnostic,because there is NO WAY to know.

She has vastly more patience for bad behavior than I do.

And if she supports spirituality that would be one thing.

But she is threatened by anyone who challenges her limited view of what spirituality should be.

That's not support. That's cowardice.

And I'm not remotely interested in how much patience you have. I would have welcomed a thoughtful post from you or anybody else, but didn't get one. The piece you posted is poorly done. You should admit it.

is something potentially positive about the increasing organization of groups of nonbelievers. While not everyone wants or need a community of like minded individuals, there are those that do. In many communities, churches present the only opportunity for this kind of community and that excludes significant numbers of people.

We read here frequently about group forming around non-belief. Some seem purely social. Others have more of a social/political agenda.

Sharing values without the cover of religion can be a powerful and positive thing, and some that are promoting this are copying the way it's been done by religious groups.

it's been done by religious groups" because they don't give two shits about the way religious groups do anything.

And properly so.

Your default position keeps springing up like a noxious weed.

Gotta love 'em.

Religion doesn't bring community to the table, religion uses community to promote its propaganda, to promote an ideology that is irrational and typically authoritarian misogynistic and homophobic.

I've experienced these communities in different churches that I have belonged to. None of the communities that I have belonged to have been homophobic or misogynistic, or authoritarian. The bishops of the church are democratically elected. The church is governed in a bicameral system that imitates the US Congress in structure.

I've been members of two different churches with gay clergy. Their partners were welcomed as members in each church. They were women, as well. One was married to her same-sex partner at National Cathedral in Washington, DC, by the Bishop of Washington.

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, an elected position, is a woman.

The largest christian sect, the RCC is misogynistic and homophobic and authoritarian. Those attributes can also be applied to protestant sects that account for a majority of protestant christians.

Once again, the RCC is authoritarian homophobic and misogynistic, and teaches those values in its wonderful "communities". The protestant sects that account for a majority of protestant Christians behave similarly.

The church is the people, not the institution. Most people in the pews feel that way.

The RCC is a vast institution. In this forum, there is an unrelenting effort to reduce the RCC to the aspects of the institution that are deplorable. This approach misses many valuable and positive aspects of the church. I worked for Catholic Charities twenty years ago. They are the largest private charity in the world, and there is no faith test to receive their services. They do many great charitable services. They perform great social services.

The Protestant churches are going through their own evolution. The Episcopal Church is leading the way among the mainline denominations. 60% of the mainline Protestant churches favor same-sex marriage, while about 57% of Catholics do. Only 41 % of black Protestants, and 21% of white evangelical Protestants favor same-sex marriage, but all the numbers in all categories are trending upwards.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/09/24/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

That is only slightly less than young Republicans.

We should praise them as wel, I guess?

Of course it's what the clergy think that matters.
What percent of them do you suppose approves?

Would you say approve of SSM?

get the exact figure.

But if I were just guessing, I'd say, well, very close to None.

Martin Luther King Jr. based his work on his faith. He did not encourage or enable community?

The Abolition movement that laid the foundation for the American Civil War was a predominantly faith based movement led by many ministers.

Talk to the Berrigan brothers, or Dorothy Day about faith impacting social action. I could go on but the point is that any belief system can be and often is perverted to advance an agenda. Do not condemn the beliefs for the actions of one individual.

Is each American responsible for the actions of George Bush when he lied the country into war?
Is every American responsible for the Vietnam war?

And he was religious, but claiming that he based his work on faith would be an exaggeration and would be insulting to the members of his leadership group that were, for example, atheists. King learned about nonviolent civil disobedience from Bayard Rustin, a black homosexual communist atheist, King, Rustin and others organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and this group, not all of whom were religious, formed the leadership of the civil rights movement of the 50's and early 60's.

and the Berrigans and Dorothy Day, and too many to mention? Religion is one of the excuses that people use to justify anti-social behavior.

towards theists. "Oh sure, religion is wrong, but look what happiness delusion brings to the gullible!" is how many of these pieces come across.

Or "people will always believe false things, so let's look at the bright side of their wrong beliefs!"

A bit arrogant, treats believers like children who can't have their feelings hurt.

Can't wrap my mind around how it's not a huge sore point with believers.

But evidently believers will lap that up, and get very angry at an atheist who dares question their faith.

I guess I'd rather be treated like an adult than patronized.

Close to downright arrogant.

there is a strain who follow the Leo Strauss philosophy that religion is necessary to keep the great unwashed "in line" and controllable.