General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsInching Towards Becoming A Full Blown Religion, Atheists Create Their Religious Symbol
First Atheists start building churches, now this.
STARKE, Fla. A group of atheists unveiled a monument to their nonbelief in God on Saturday to sit alongside a granite slab that lists the Ten Commandments in front of the Bradford County courthouse.
As a small group of protesters blasted Christian country music and waved "Honk for Jesus" signs, the atheists celebrated what they believe is the first atheist monument allowed on government property in the United States.
"When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has a function. Atheists are about the real and the physical, so we selected to place this monument in the form of a bench," said David Silverman, president of American Atheists.
It also serves another function a counter to the religious monument that the New Jersey-based group wanted removed. It's a case of if you can't beat `em, join `em.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/30/atheists-monument_n_3523762.html
Atheists In Worship:
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Not a bad idea.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)... public discussion. The weather satellite budget has been sacked, college education is unaffordable, the atmosphere is being destroyed--all of those issues are pushed out of public consciousness while we fight over stupid granite slabs.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)The 1%ers love shit like this.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)alfredo
(60,071 posts)form of government into a Tyranny ruled by an imaginary king. Instead of a government ruled by the people, we'd have a government ruled by priests and compliant lawmakers.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It disgusts me when I see crap like that. True atheism is a very simple intellectual position. In other words, to me it is not a belief in disbelief.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)Everyone has a belief system. Even Atheists.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)For me atheism= non belief.
Accepting scientific conclusions as valid is not simple belief, as it is based on evidence.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)Halls of government. I, for one, like the idea.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)For example, tax free status, the ability to compete for voucher school grants, and the ability to post atheistic principles in the public square right next to the 10 Commandments.
I think it is a good thing. Of course a non-believer doesn't have to join that "church" any more than a person who believes in spirits must join the Catholic Church.
Coccydynia
(198 posts)Set by the Teabaggers and Regressives to banish science from the public square in the interest of their new love of separation of church and state.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)People call "atheism" a religion anyway, so we might as well get the benefits.
For example, I think one way to fight all this public money flowing into Christian schools is for Muslims, Scientologists, and atheists to fight for their share of that money. If these teabagger types saw that some of their money was going to non-Christians, they would probably freak out, and that's a good thing.
And maybe that would force them to take atheism to court to get a ruling that it isn't a religion. That would also be a good thing too, I think, because it would set the stage for challenging many of these giant enterprises that are hardly religious but make their money acting like a religion.
Is it a mega-church or just a big social club?
Is it a teevee religion or just another commercial network?
In other words, the hazards go both ways.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)"True atheism is a very simple intellectual position" mow that is a real oxymoron!
marshall
(6,665 posts)I would rather it be left with the quotes of those famous people, but it has to juxtapose itself with Christianity by including Bible verses. It essentially does not let atheism stand on its own, but turns it into something that needs religion to identify itself.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)separation than they do with atheism.
VPStoltz
(1,295 posts)blogslut
(37,993 posts)The title of this post and the bit at the end:
Inching Towards Becoming A Full Blown Religion, Atheists Create Their Religious Symbol
&
Atheists In Worship:
Are those the words of the article's author, the AP, HuffPo, or, are those your words?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)HuffPost shows the article title as "Atheists Unveil Monument Near Ten Commandments In Florida ". That's almost identical to the msn.com use of the AP article "Atheists unveil Florida monument near Ten Commandments", so I think that originated with AP or the article author. There's no caption for the photo.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Anyway, anything that paints all atheists with a broad brush is nonsensical at best.
As an atheist, I wouldn't cross the street to go to an atheist gathering. I am already busy meeting with people who don't believe in unicorns.
That symbol, as has been discussed here a couple of weeks ago (actually, the installation was discussed at length here a few weeks ago) looks like some sort of atomic or nuclear trademark.
Silly at best.
Wouldn't buy the tshirt.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)Referring to atheism as a religion is nonsensical. Because I think gremlins don't exist does not mean I have a religious belief but that I recognize the logical and scientific absurdity of the entire concept.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...then bald is a hair color.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)Boudica the Lyoness
(2,899 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)ornotna
(10,798 posts)Bald is an absence of hair. No hair, no style.
MADem
(135,425 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)this site. Bald must be a hair color. per your logic.
RC
(25,592 posts)+10
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)If you say you don't believe or think there is a god, fine. If you say there is no god, not fine. Saying without a doubt something is so, in this case that there is no god, when there is no proof, is a belief which can be classified as a religion.
Myself I claim to be an agnostic, I don't care if there is a god. There could be many, but I see no reason to give any of them consideration as they have not shown themselves to me nor given me any signs that they have had any influence on my life for the good or bad. If a god wants to prove to me they are indeed a god, then and only then will I believe there is a god. I may then decide to worship them or not.
But the bottom line to me is that if you say with 100% certainty but no proof that there are no gods, that is a belief and is equal to a religion. Without proof stating there is or is not a god deserves equal standing. Either stand without proof will merit the same response from me, disbelief. Anyone who is scientific will say that you can not prove a negative, so why do so many people professing to follow science try to do just that in the case of religion?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)But god, not Jesus, has always been portrayed as sort of an energy being, am I wrong? What, don't tell me you forgot about energy? How about a "thought" being, one that has a parasitic relationship with people? The "thought" being is pure energy and the people provide the matter. Could explain why s/he has to use people to do his/her work. Could also explain why some have the religious "bug" and some like me don't.
Then there's dark matter, never been seen, doesn't emit or absorb light, people don't really know much about it, could this be the "Dark Lord" I have heard about? Is that why some days I feel sluggish, because I'm surrounded by dark matter? Maybe god is trying to get to me.
But I don't care. I even know how matter and energy work, well not the dark variety, and I still don't care. But I know one thing you don't, I can never prove there is no god and neither can you.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)how would it's memory work?
No organic matter at all? Any carbon atoms? Be kind of hard to move a fucking mountain with just magical energy thoughts wouldn't it?
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Maybe that is what the 90% of our brain that we don't use is for.
You never heard of religion being called spiritual? How about the holy ghost?
Most data is transfered as energy, light, electic, mostly as on or off, etc.
But enough of what is possible, tell me how all of it is impossible. Prove there is no god.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)I do like the simulation theory though. See the following link: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
While not actually a god, this theory does hypothesize that we were created by our descendants, which would equate them with gods.
If I absolutely had to pick one it would be Gaia, it just appeals to the romantic side of me.
See the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(mythology)
But of course I should stop now because you can refute all of these in your sleep, right?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)They sound all warm and fuzzy, kind of like the troll that lives under the bridge in Dora...
But sorry, just stories.
That Supernova? That's what created us-
Also, no "God" created the universe, because there was no time for a "God" to create one. Time didn't exist...
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...that error still doesn't make atheism a religion, per se. I consider that to require a number of characteristics that atheism doesn't possess ( most importantly, belief in some form of supernatural controlling power, which is a component of the definition of the term in most any lexicographical source).
Atheism is most definitely a belief system (or at least a belief...hard to call a single doctrinal point a "system" , though. Anyone categorically stating that there are no such things as gods (in a context that doesn't make it clear that there's an "I believe" being implied) bears the burden of proof for their assertion. I with 'em luck (and they'll become one of the most famous figures in the history of philosophy if they can pull it off).
In this sense, we're all technically agnostics, both theists and atheists alike. No one knows whether gods exist...at least not in any way that fulfills knowledge conditions. We all have to make something of a Kierkegaardian leap of faith to arrive an an operative conclusion, a way to act one way or another in matters which require a resolution of the question of god(s)' existence.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)We do now have a symbol, that must get atheism to second base as a religion.
It does seem that we are close to 100% in agreement otherwise.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...only that we don't quite agree on that point. =)
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Having a symbol makes it a religion.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)it's a brand logo. "A" for atheism!
the idea isnt to make atheism a religion, but a *brand*
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Apophis
(1,407 posts)Religion also needs ritual, repetition, the sacred, and the profane.
Atheism got a brand label, and they've had that particular symbol for years.
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)Excuse m, I have to go worship at Taco Bell.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)McD for worship!
Lordquinton
(7,886 posts)They are a false icon of burgers, the crossed palms will reign triumphant in heaven!
lunasun
(21,646 posts)At least you leave with a bible passage to ponder though,............... so you are most likely correct about being triumphant in burger heaven!.
http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/inandout.asp
reformist2
(9,841 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)The belief it talks about is a value judgement - that a hospital should be built, rather than a church. It's perfectly reasonable to use the verb 'believe' for that.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)are in favor of building hospitals.
What do you mean by that?
Logical
(22,457 posts)in the same stuff others do except made up gods.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)is not an "unbeliever," but an idiot.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Our beliefs also lead us to inquiry, which leads us to facts.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Such as a brain in a body that can interact with the actual universe. I do, but we don't know how to prove it. If you are a brain in a jar, imagining the universe, then physics could be very different. The world, if there is one, could be a different shape.
Additionally, most of the science things we know we were told about by other people, and we then either believe them or we don't believe them. When we don't personally experience something, we take others at their word to accept it as fact. We have to believe them. This belief may be the most logically conclusion (e.g.; why would thousands of scientists all over the world lie about X?), but it is still a belief.
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)and how much you do of it (subconsciously or unconsciously) is deeply flawed.
Based on your experience you believe the Sun will rise tomorrow, in the East as it always has (based on seasonal variations) for your entire life. You think it based on rational facts, but you also believe it. There are many reasons (albeit very unlikely ones) that the Sun will not come up tomorrow. Or that it will not come up in the east.
You can deny that you believe things, but it simply untrue. You believe many things. Some of them as irrational as religious dogma. Some of them more harmful than religious dogma. You believe things because you are human and that's how our brains work.
If you don't understand the point I'm getting at, then there is no need to carry this conversation further.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)even if they're an atheist who wants to make a profit from it.
Atheists are against believing in the supernatural. It's not about having no opinions about the real world, and what is best for the real world.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Do aetheists vote?
Do they drive cars?
Do they believe there is no magic man in the sky deity that everyone should worship?
Do they work?
Do they spend money?
Do they have families and children and relationships?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)A plaque that spells out a whole laundry list of things they "believe" is on its face nonsensical.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)They are now fervently arguing what atheists believe. I've seen this before.
What if I think people should build what they want with their own money? What if I think prayer is fine? Are there atheists who are also bad people?
The above folks, as an atheist, scare me. They are turning from logic into the realm of conformity to this fantasy that atheists all believe one thing, and are benevolent.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Apophis
(1,407 posts)The rules prevent me from saying more.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)no one is under any compulsion whatsoever to suffer foolishness of ANY form, including your malformed, absurd opinion.
RudynJack
(1,044 posts)"believe" has multiple meanings.
be·lieve (b-lv)
v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves
v.tr.
1. To accept as true or real: Do you believe the news stories?
2. To credit with veracity: I believe you.
3. To expect or suppose; think: I believe they will arrive shortly.
v.intr.
1. To have firm faith, especially religious faith.
2. To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.
3. To have confidence in the truth or value of something: We believe in free speech.
4. To have an opinion; think: They have already left, I believe.
Javaman
(62,510 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)We're defined by what we don't believe.
Schema Thing
(10,283 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)I believe the US needs a more progressive income tax system. Now, that's not a belief that all atheists will share, but "better to build a hospital than a church" is one that I think all atheists would get behind.
Do you really not have an opinion on the subject?
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)I don't prefer a hospital "because" I'm Atheist.
There are very few, if any, beliefs that all Atheists will share.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)hence the quotation.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)I see a place in this world for churches and prayers. The fact that I don't buy into it doesn't negate the fact that for many, many people, religion is the best path to having some peace of mind in this life. I'm not offended by churches and prayers--I'm offended by hucksters and fanatics.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I continue to find it interesting that some atheists tend to use the first person plural and make statements they think reflect the POV of most, if not all, atheists.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)It makes people feel like they are taking action when they can't control things.
I don't have to agree with their beliefs to understand that it is soothing to them and think that it is useful and they should be able to do it without criticism.
Mariana
(14,854 posts)for praying. For example, if someone is publicly praying for the death of the President, as has been done, that person is deserving of criticism for his prayer. I don't care how "soothing" it is to him.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)1st I never said never. Obviously it's a pretty rare event for someone to publicly pray for anyone's death. The vast majority of people pray in private and with good intentions.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Now they also share a POV about the uselessness of churches and prayers? I'm not sure that you can make that general statement about atheists.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)And a church is also useless - certainly compared with a hospital.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)any authority.
There is evidence that not everyone shares your POV. I suppose you will say that they are not truly atheists, then, but I would strongly disagree with you on that point.
You are merely expressing your personal perspective on church and prayer. You can't speak for others.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)Building edifices to worship non-existent gods is useless. People can be irrational, but I don't think I've known an atheist who thinks a prayer is better than a deed, or a church than a hospital.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)I see it posted over and over again that atheism is very rigidly defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods and that that is the only thing atheists have in common.
And you are basing it on your anecdotal experience?
You can say many. You can say all the ones that you know.
But I would argue that you can't say this is a position held by all atheists. Particularly since there is evidence to the contrary.
Some might say that to do so would be overtly irrational, lol.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)"If you don't believe in gods, then prayer is useless. And a church is also useless"
Many atheists see the power and need for prayer in others life. You are not a spokesperson for atheism. You are a spokesperson for your thoughts and ideas, some of those beliefs you have stated have nothing to do with atheism.
Religion, as a whole, can do horrific things. Churches can teach some pretty horrific things. Churches can also help people to find sobriety, help people to find strength when things are out of their control, help to cover rent for a mother and children, volunteer to clean up a community park, and so much more.
Church is useless to you. Prayer is useless to you. You do not have the ability to comprehend if it is useful to the widow down the street.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Orrex
(63,189 posts)I'd rather have a blank slab of marble than that "atom," and I'd rather have nothing at all instead of the marble slab.
This is a step backwards.
rug
(82,333 posts)"The World's Smallest Super-Hero"
freshwest
(53,661 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I'm sorry he never became more popular. The plotlines are endless.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)I remember you could request that on a marker in 2004 or so.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Mariana
(14,854 posts)but it doesn't represent atheists exclusively.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)onehandle
(51,122 posts)Why have a religion and not take the perks?
If KKKarl Rove can do it with his 'social betterment' group...
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)De Botton thought building one would be a good idea, but no-one seems to have made any attempt to get that started as a project.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Even if atheists do build a church it's not like they're going to worship anything.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Why not treat reason itself as sacred?
Reason is intangible. It replaces ignorance with knowledge.
From the meaningless void reason conjures meaning.
Could there be anything more appropriate for the adjective "sacred"?
djean111
(14,255 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)It's a way of making things important. I have no problem with the idea of worship itself.
rug
(82,333 posts)Come on down to hear inspirational speakers and to enjoy a morning that is part-foot stomping show, part-atheist church.
http://sundayassembly.com/
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)I'm disappointed to see such a misleading reply from you. You can't claim ignorance on this topic.
rug
(82,333 posts)They've already rented space in several countries. Just like those quaint storefront churches.
As you well know.
Don't worry. If they take off I'm sure they'll build and own their own venue.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)But onehandle doesn't seem to care about inaccuracies, either.
rug
(82,333 posts)Because they didn't build the building they hold their Sunday morning services in.
Obviously there is more than one person peddling inaccuracies.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)When this is described as following on from 'building churches', it's clear that it's a claim that atheists actually build churches. Not 'meet regularly'.
rug
(82,333 posts)The rest is history.
To be clear, atheism is not a religion. But it's dishonest to disregard a group that is billing itself as one.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)It's not as if the 'Sunday Assembly' is even staying in the same place. They now advertise a different venue, in a different area of London, from where they started.
rug
(82,333 posts)There'll be another train along in an hour or so.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)It is explicitly atheist.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Here is one of their buldings:
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)Obviously not.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)In the same sense as the op. I don't agree with the op I think it is rank bullshit, I also think de botton is a silly git, but if one wishes to declare places were atheists regularly get together as 'places of worship' for example to qualify for the same stupid tax exemption that religious businesses get for their 'churches', I'm all for that. It might be a way for Barnes & Noble to get out of the fiscal hole they are in
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Of course it is about community building rather than worshiping a deity, but the format is similar. I don't have a link handy on this phone, but a google search should turn up an.article or two. Someone probably posted about them in the religion forums.
rug
(82,333 posts)It gets interesting at 54:10.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)ChazII
(6,204 posts)please, build them with covering to provide and misters to keep cool. (Can you tell I come from a southwest state )
edited for typo
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)Looks like the logo for Atomic Cafe.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,294 posts)http://atheists.org/about-us/logo
What is Atomic Cafe?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atomic_Cafe
http://www.atomicafe.com/
http://www.atomiccafeky.com/
Which one?
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)A textbook produced by the LMG in 1934 admitted the existence of sincere believers among the intellectuals; however, Yaroslavsky in 1937 claimed that all scholars and scientists who believe in God were insincere deceivers and swindlers.[40]
The League trained a massive number of antireligious propagandists and other workers. This work included lecture cycles. The League of Militant Atheists attempted to "control and exploit the Proletarian Freethinkers," a group founded by socialists in 1925, in order to diminish the influence of religion, particularly Catholic Christianity, in Central and Eastern Europe.[44]
The League of Militant Atheists aided the Soviet government in killing clergy and committed believers.[45] The League also made it a priority to remove religious icons from the homes of believers.[46] Under the slogan, "the Storming of Heaven," the League of Militant Atheists pressed for "resolute action against religious peasants" leading to the mass arrest and exile of many believers, especially village priests. By 1940, "over 100 bishops, tens of thousands of Orthodox clergy, and thousands of monks and lay believers had been killed or had died in Soviet prisons and the Gulag."[47]
The LMG had reduced the number of religious communities of all faiths from 50,000 in 1930 to 30,000 by 1938 and 8,000 by 1941. The last figure includes, however, 7,000 communities in the annexed western territories (so that only 1,000 actually remained in the rest of the country).[48]
freshwest
(53,661 posts)1929 magazine cover showing muscular workers dumping Jesus with garbage
Thanks for this historical tidbit. All the Russians I know are Orthodox. They are highly educated and take their faith seriously, but believe in protecting all other faiths so long as they don't commit terrorist acts. From the Wikipedia page on the Russian Orthodox Church:
Under Communist rule
After the October Revolution of November 7, 1917, the officially proclaimed objective of the Soviet Union was to unite all of the people of the world in a communist state free of "capitalist exploitation" (see Communist International). With such a view of the world any ethnic heritage closely tied to traditional religion and its clergy was targeted by Soviet authorities.[18][19]
The Soviet Union was the first state to have elimination of religion as an ideological objective. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.[20][21] Many Orthodox (along with people of other faiths) were also subjected to psychological punishment or torture and mind control experimentation in order to force them give up their religious convictions.[22][23]
Thousands of churches and monasteries were taken over by the government and either destroyed or converted to secular use. It was impossible to build new churches. Practising Orthodox Christians were restricted from prominent careers and membership in communist organizations (the party, the Komsomol). Anti-religious propaganda was openly sponsored and encouraged by the government, which the Church was not given an opportunity to publicly respond to. The government youth organization, the Komsomol, encouraged its members to vandalize Orthodox Churches and harass worshippers. Seminaries were closed down, and the church was restricted from using the press.
The history of Orthodoxy (and other religions) under Communism was not limited to this story of repression and secularization. Bolshevik policies toward religious belief and practice tended to vacillate over time between, on the one hand, a utopian determination to substitute secular rationalism for what they considered to be an unmodern, "superstitious" worldview and, on the other, pragmatic acceptance of the tenaciousness of religious faith and institutions. In any case, religious beliefs and practices did persist, not only in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces allowed by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[24]
In November 1917, following the collapse of the tsarist government, a council of the Russian Orthodox church reestablished the patriarchate and elected the metropolitan Tikhon, the former Metropolitan of All America and Canada, as patriarch. But the new Soviet government soon declared the separation of church and state and also nationalized all church-held lands. These administrative measures were followed by brutal state-sanctioned persecutions that included the wholesale destruction of churches, as well as the arrest and execution of many clerics. The Russian Orthodox church was further weakened in 1922, when the Renovated Church, a reform movement supported by the Soviet government, seceded from Patriarch Tikhon's church (also see the Josephites and the Russian True Orthodox Church), restored a Holy Synod to power, and brought division among clergy and faithful.
In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.[25]
Stalin era
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest congregation. Nearly all of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited.
The sixth sector of the OGPU, led by Yevgeny Tuchkov, began aggressively arresting and executing bishops, priests, and devout worshippers, such as Metropolitan Veniamin in Petrograd in 1922 for refusing to accede to the demand to hand in church valuables (including sacred relics). In the time between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1935, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. Of these, 95,000 were put to death. Many thousands of victims of persecution became recognized in a special canon of saints known as the "new martyrs and confessors of Russia".
At no time before the mid to late 1930s did the Bolsheviks control the situation. They maintained that the clergy organized united resistance against the Soviet state. During the mid-1920s, Soviet officials in Nizhny Novgorod and other locations encountered religious groups successfully circulating anti-Soviet political materials. According to party officials, legal organizations served as fronts for oppositional activities.[26]
In January 1918 Patriarch Tikhon proclaimed anathema to the Bolsheviks (without explicitly naming them),[27] which further antagonized relations. When Tikhon died in 1925, Soviet authorities forbade patriarchal elections to be held. Patriarchal locum tenens (acting Patriarch) Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky, 18871944), going against the opinion of a major part of the church's parishes, in 1927 issued a declaration accepting the Soviet authority over the church as legitimate, pledging the church's cooperation with the government and condemning political dissent within the church. By this declaration Sergius granted himself authority that he, being a deputy of imprisoned Metropolitan Peter and acting against his will, had no right to assume according to the XXXIV Apostolic canon, which led to a split with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia abroad and the Russian True Orthodox Church (Russian Catacomb Church) within the Soviet Union, as they allegedly remained faithful to the Canons of the Apostles, declaring the part of the church led by Metropolitan Sergius schism, sometimes coined Sergianism. Due to this canonical disagreement it is disputed which church has been the legitimate successor to the Russian Orthodox Church that had existed before 1925.[28][29][30][31]
With aid from the Methodist Church, two Russian Orthodox seminaries were reopened.[32] Moreover, in the 1929 elections, the Orthodox Church attempted to formulate itself as a full-scale opposition group to the Communist Party, and attempted to run candidates of its own against the Communist candidates. Article 124 of the 1936 Soviet Constitution officially allowed for freedom of religion within the Soviet Union, and along with initial statements of it being a multi-candidate election, the Church again attempted to run its own religious candidates in the 1937 elections. However the support of multicandidate elections was retracted several months before the elections were held and in neither 1929 nor 1937 were any candidates of the Orthodox Church elected.[33]
After Nazi Germany's attack on the Soviet Union in 1941, Joseph Stalin revived the Russian Orthodox Church to intensify patriotic support for the war effort. On September 4, 1943, Metropolitans Sergius, Alexy and Nikolay had a meeting with Stalin and received a permission to convene a council on September 8, 1943, which elected Sergius Patriarch of Moscow and all the Rus'. This is considered by some as violation of the XXX Apostolic canon, as no church hierarch could be consecrated by secular authorities.[28] A new patriarch was elected, theological schools were opened, and thousands of churches began to function. The Moscow Theological Academy Seminary, which had been closed since 1918, was re-opened.
Between 1945 and 1959 the official organization of the church was greatly expanded, although individual members of the clergy were occasionally arrested and exiled. The number of open churches reached 25,000. By 1957 about 22,000 Russian Orthodox churches had become active. But in 1959 Nikita Khrushchev initiated his own campaign against the Russian Orthodox Church and forced the closure of about 12,000 churches. By 1985 fewer than 7,000 churches remained active. Members of the church hierarchy were jailed or forced out, their places taken by docile clergy, many of whom had ties with the KGB. This decline was evident from the dramatic decay of many of the abandoned churches and monasteries that were previously common in even the smallest villages from the pre-revolutionary period.
Persecution under Khrushchev and Brezhnev
A new and widespread persecution of the church was subsequently instituted under the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Brezhnev. A second round of repression, harassment and church closures took place between 1959 and 1964 when Nikita Khrushchev was in office.
The Church and the government remained on unfriendly terms until 1988. In practice, the most important aspect of this conflict was that openly religious people could not join the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which meant that they could not hold any political office. However, among the general population, large numbers remained religious.
Some Orthodox believers and even priests took part in the dissident movement and became prisoners of conscience. The Orthodox priests Gleb Yakunin, Sergiy Zheludkov and others spent years in Soviet prisons and exile for their efforts in defending freedom of worship.[34] Among the prominent figures of that time were Father Dmitri Dudko[35] and Father Aleksandr Men. Although he tried to keep away from practical work of the dissident movement intending to better fulfil his calling as a priest, there was a spiritual link between Fr Aleksandr and many of the dissidents. For some of them he was a friend, for others - a godfather, for many (including Yakunin) - spiritual father.[36]
By 1987 the number of functioning churches in the Soviet Union had fallen to 6893 and the number of functioning monasteries to just 18. In 1987 in the Russian SFSR, between 40% and 50% of newborn babies (depending on the region) were baptized. Over 60% of all deceased received Christian funeral services.
Glasnost and evidence of KGB links
Beginning in the late 1980s, under Mikhail Gorbachev, the new political and social freedoms resulted in many church buildings being returned to the church, to be restored by local parishioners. A pivotal point in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church came in 1988 - the millennial anniversary of the Baptism of Kievan Rus'. Throughout the summer of that year, major government-supported celebrations took place in Moscow and other cities; many older churches and some monasteries were reopened. An implicit ban on religious propaganda on state TV was finally lifted. For the first time in the history of the Soviet Union, people could see live transmissions of church services on television.
Gleb Yakunin, a critic of the Moscow Patriarchate who was one of those who briefly gained access to the KGB archive documents in the early 1990s, argued that the Moscow Patriarchate was "practically a subsidiary, a sister company of the KGB".[37] Critics charge that the archives showed the extent of active participation of the top ROC hierarchs in the KGB efforts overseas.[38][39][40][41][42][43] George Trofimoff, the highest-ranking US military officer ever indicted for, and convicted of, espionage by the United States and sentenced to life imprisonment on September 27, 2001, had been "recruited into the service of the KGB"[44] by Igor Susemihl (a.k.a. Zuzemihl), a bishop in the Russian Orthodox Church (subsequently, a high-ranking hierarch - the ROC Metropolitan Iriney of Vienna, who died in July 1999[45]).
Konstanin Kharchev, former chairman of Soviet Council on Religious Affairs, explained: "Not a single candidate for the office of bishop or any other high-ranking office, much less a member of Holy Synod, went through without confirmation by the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB".[41] Professor Nathaniel Davis points out: "If the bishops wished to defend their people and survive in office, they had to collaborate to some degree with the KGB, with the commissioners of the Council for Religious Affairs, and with other party and governmental authorities.".[46] Patriarch Alexy II, acknowledged that compromises were made with the Soviet government by bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, himself included, and publicly repented of these compromises... [47]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_Orthodox_Church&printable=yes#Under_Communist_rule
TalkingDog
(9,001 posts)n.t.
Logical
(22,457 posts)The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)I don't think I could handle either the pain or message that I am worthless because I was not a member of a group I didn't want to belong too, I would cease thinking for myself, and join them.
Thankfully the government has saved me from ever having to see....oh wait, I am seeing it now without even leaving my house! And the government made the internet (and gives tax breaks to companies who run the cables/etc). Ahhhhhhh! My delicate mind is blown!
TroubleMan
(4,859 posts)by unscrupulous people for money and power.
Every single religion has been exploited at one time or another by bad people to accrue money, power, and/or control. Today I think it's more the rule than the exception.
If Atheism becomes a religion, with a symbol and a creed - then IMHO I think that defeats the whole point of being an Atheist. A full-blown religion comes with full-blown problems.
If I were an Atheist, I'd be worried about this. I'd be worried about the ideas I represent being used by bad people for war, money, power, and control. I don't think that's happening with Atheism now, but if you make a creed and a symbol - those are the first steps.
It then becomes just another symbol to blindly follow, another way for other people to tell you how to live your life.
ellenfl
(8,660 posts)my philosophy includes a rejection of the trappings of organized religion. i would not be inclined to 'join' such a gathering of atheists. i cannot imagine i am alone in this.
longship
(40,416 posts)Yet another "atheism is just another religion" title.
The reason this plaque was put there in the first place is because of Republican religious assholes can't stop using legislative fiat and things like these silly Decalogue plaques on public property (along with the crosses and the Jesus statues and, and, and, and) in a blatant attempt to shove their smarmy fundamentalist religion down everybody's throat.
I prefer that the public commons be religion free places but failing that if religion gets to be there atheism will be there, too. Let the theists who would use the commons for purposes of proselytizing chew on that fact for a while.
ellenfl
(8,660 posts)Rob H.
(5,350 posts)The title there is "Atheists Unveil Monument Near Ten Commandments In Florida" but apparently that wasn't flamebaity enough for the OP.
Edited to add that atheist symbol has been around for decades, as most atheists know.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)They've had that symbol for years now and it's quite obvious the point of the atheist plaque was missed by many here.
UTUSN
(70,671 posts)Islandurp
(188 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)...and I always found it a little strange that they thought that assertion was a criticism...
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)To what purpose?
Your spin on this is flibberty jibberty writ large. Piss off.
alp227
(32,013 posts)the liberal version of The Blaze or Daily Caller?
mainer
(12,022 posts)I think the Darwin fish would have been more welcoming.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)So you fail.
Interestingly, I know some of the people behind this movement. The general idea is that all monuments will be gone in two years, because that's when they have to be recertified.
--imm
Response to onehandle (Original post)
Solly Mack This message was self-deleted by its author.
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)From the symbol I see a belief in the intelligence of mans abilities to move forward as shown by the atom. Progress free from the constraints of the bronze age beliefs.
Now like a Rorschach I also see a Star Trek communicator with the A in the middle.
I see a forward looking symbol for like minded people to recognize, and realize that intelligent communication is possible with those persons.
Atheism to me is a multi-faceted belief which looks to humankind's intelligence and that the best path forward is to the future, not holding on to the past.
I take the logical and realistic from history and place the rest in a museum.
I believe that people are inherently good and require no scare tactics to be so. Are the Koch Bros. religious?
I also don't see any monumental buildings to Atheism as per churches etc.
Todays religions collect money and hand out some. This may be relief but doesn't solve any problems.
I would rather pay homage to an institute which helps feed the world and solve our problems in a real sustainable way.
Rodenberry did get it right in the IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.
For example: Gay marriage. The religious right can't help but go straight to beastiality to back up their magical interpretations.
They make the case for Atheism.
We are alike because we are all unique.
Anyway, that's how I see it and I welcome differing opinions.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)How remarkably silly.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Okay, we're going to need a few things. First we need a storybook based on tales of yore from a primitive non-believing people -- nothing less than Bronze Age (or maaaaaybe early Iron Age) will do. Remember, we can quote from it to justify any position under the sun. We're going to need to start butting into peoples' personal lives more, and also going door to door to tell them why their beliefs are wrong. Also, our leader atheists are going to need some weird-ass clothing and funny medieval headgear, and we need to meet every week in a creepy musty building where we sing dreary songs together and have pot lucks where someone brings tater tot casserole. Come on, let's get on this!
SCVDem
(5,103 posts)History shows that every religion needs to build their numbers. The Mormons did this with polygamy and others through strict laws concerning womens rights.
As Rodney Dangerfield famously said, "Hey everybody! We're going to get laid!"
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Does anyone have any experience as a professional charlatan? Carnival barkers, used car salesmen, Amway people would be ideal for the mass fleecing we're going to have to do now that we're a religion.
Textex
(7 posts)Amway doesn't have the ethics or morals to be inbusiness, it is a scam. For more information visit www.stoptheamwaytoolscam.wordpress.com and forward the link to every non-Distributor/IBO you know, so they don't get scammed.
mike_c
(36,279 posts)For pete's sake.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Atheists organzing is an abomination and leads to this. As an atheist, I'm appalled and claim no association with the Dawkins crowd or these fools.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Right wingers saying stupid shit online? Not sure organized atheists can take much credit in either area
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Because no one could say with any certainty where "this leads to" without one.
I say it leads toward organized religion, the formalizing of a belief structure within an organization. Hence the words on the back "atheists believe". They should not presume to form a set of beliefs for people they don't know, that's what theists do. They should not create icons or proselytize, theists do that.
These looneys should speak for themselves only.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)lol
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)...by the American Atheists organization. It's fifty years too late to start accusing atheists of forming a 'religion' because they have a symbol.
Here's their discussion of their logo:
Recognizing the new atomic era, but also emphasizing the truths of older scientific findings, the atomic whirl was chosen. The atom is still a distinguishing unit of all matter, the smallest particle of an element that can exist and still retain the properties of that element.
You may notice that one of the orbitals in our symbol is broken, or open-ended. This demonstrates that while Atheists rely on the scientific method for learning about the cosmos and increasing our knowledge about nature, we know that not all of the answers are in. We recognize that with new knowledge come new questions and areas for human inquiry and exploration.
That open orbital forms an "A" to represent Atheism.
Personally I would not have chosen a Bohr model image of the atom, since by 1963 quantum mechanics provided a very different view of the nature and likely physical structure of atomic orbitals:
...where atoms would look more like this:
...than this:
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Every budding religion has to start somewhere.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)...since 1892!! Who knew?? Other than you.
...
I am hopeful the American Atheists will update their logo to reflect the current and future understanding of atomic orbital structure. However, given that the Department of Energy religion still has a Bohr atom, a 19th century oil well, and a windmill on its symbol, there is apparently a logo inertia to overcome.
aka-chmeee
(1,132 posts)Iggo
(47,546 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)symbolizes?
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)From my earlier reply on this thread:
Deep13
(39,154 posts)People form non-sectarian organizations with symbols all the time.
mick063
(2,424 posts)Will the "tit for tat" evolve into fanatical Atheist fundamentalism?
No doubt, it is the extremism of the religious right that has done them more harm than good. Extremism defined by imposing their will on the rest of the population. Before Jerry Falwell, folks were more secular in the political arena (for the most part).
So what happens fifty years from now? The new Atheist "religion" evolves in to the very thing they despise most by imposing their will on the rest of the nation?
It boils down to the human element. Devise any organization, religion, government, or cooperative with well intended perfection and watch it become a monster by a handful of corrupt and/or fanatical people.
Not against the monument. Not against the Atheist movement. I am agnostic. How many people, in world history, have died in the name of god? I just fear it's potential to become like all the rest.
Orrex
(63,189 posts)MellowDem
(5,018 posts)Some atheists have formed political interest groups, like this one, that goes beyond mere atheism and promotes the separation of church and state. It is a simple distinction, unless you like to use well-worn conservative talking points to attack atheists.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)a court case to have the ten commandments taken down from a public space.
I think they are making a point, and I think it's a good one.
If the courts won't recognize what appears to be clear violations of church/state separation issues, then turn around makes a strong and valid point.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)Thank you.
usGovOwesUs3Trillion
(2,022 posts)unless we are including all corporations in the 'religion' group, too?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Actually, let's not give corporations any ideas. They'll stop paying what little taxes they pay now.
Politicub
(12,165 posts)One of the best things about our country is the potential to invent and reinvent yourself.
If this group if atheists feel passionate enough to do this, then more power to them. I like how the symbol offers a degree of balance and will cause many to have a conversation about non-belief.
Cool.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)You might as well say that Mickie D's is trying to become a religion
Or the United Nations
Or the British Humanist Association.
Atheists do not venerate that symbol, nor do they use it as an object to focus prayer, nor yet as a symbol of anything more than the particular group who have adopted it.
yortsed snacilbuper
(7,939 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Would there be this eternal seeking if the found existed?
greytdemocrat
(3,299 posts)Looks like the "A" from the Avengers movie...
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)Jetsons. Is that a company logo for a competitor to Spacely's Sprockets?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)And they don't worship. They discuss whatever they want.
trumad
(41,692 posts)I hate shit like this.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Javaman
(62,510 posts)I find this silly.
malaise
(268,846 posts)Atheists do not believe in any religion. We worship nothing.
frogmarch
(12,153 posts)Becoming a Full Blown Religion"?
What utter crap. Atheism isn't a religion, and the atheist symbol isn't a religious symbol. How can any reasonably intelligent person think otherwise?
WovenGems
(776 posts)Bill Maher "atheism is a religion like abstinences is a sex position".
And that about sums it up.
cbdo2007
(9,213 posts)A HERETIC I AM
(24,365 posts)It fronts US 301 right in front of the courthouse building. The bench is close to the street with the Decalogue monument behind, closer to the courthouse.
There was not one single person in the courtyard. Not one.
The replies in this thread that try and define Atheism make me smile.
Here's mine, and I borrow from many others before me;
I do not lack a belief in god, nor do I "believe" no gods exist. I KNOW gods are inherently mythical constructs, just as I know I shall never see a Unicorn, a pixie, a Faerie, a Leprechaun or any number of other mythical entities. Followers of the Abrahamic faiths reject belief in the thousands of other gods held as true by civilizations large and small thruout history. I just simply reject one more god than they do.
I read a great line just recently. If your god is all knowing, then he knows why I reject the idea of his existence. If he is all powerful, then he has the ability to show me why I am wrong. If he is all loving and has not done the former, then he just doesn't give a damn and is therefore unworthy of my attention.
Orrex
(63,189 posts)Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that this symbol is every bit as dim-witted as the attempt to have atheists referred to as "Brights' a few years ago.
haele
(12,645 posts)Looks too much like my old Navy rating badge for me to take seriously, anyway.
(Look up Data systems Technician)
Haele