Arizona Senators: church attendance should be compulsory

[Broomstick]

rural areas tend to have better church attendance than urban and less variety in actual religions

One factor in that, beyond just "conservative" and "religious" explanations, is that in rural areas the church may be the major portion or the entirety of the area's social life.

[Adam Reynolds]

Not that this idea would ever actually happen, but if it did would we see actual atheist churches?

Then we could have various schisms as the competing movements each try and form their own church as it turns out that it is a bad idea to associate based on lack of belief in something.

EDIT: Something else that occurs to me is that she specifically says "on Sunday." So apparently if you are Jewish or Muslim, too bad. You would have to move your attendance to Sunday in violation of your belief system or go twice.

[Borgholio]

An atheist church could happen actually. Atheism is a set of beliefs just like religion, except that there's no worship involved. So an Atheist church could be like a club or support group, rather than a place for prayer.

[General Zod]

An atheist church could happen actually. Atheism is a set of beliefs just like religion, except that there's no worship involved. So an Atheist church could be like a club or support group, rather than a place for prayer.

Not really, when a lack of belief is the usual definition of atheism. Atheist religions are a thing though, see the Church of Satan.

[Borgholio]

Atheism is faith that there is no god. So you can have a church surrounding faith in nothing.

[General Zod]

Atheism is faith that there is no god.

That's how Christian apologists define it because it makes for a convenient strawman, not how most atheists define it.

[Borgholio]

Well I'm Atheist and I've found that's a good way to explain it to people who don't understand how we can't believe in God. I say that they have faith there is a God because of (reasons). I have faith there is not due to other reasons. That's really all there is to it.

[General Zod]

Well I'm Atheist and I've found that's a good way to explain it to people who don't understand how we can't believe in God. I say that they have faith there is a God because of (reasons). I have faith there is not due to other reasons. That's really all there is to it.

I think it's a terrible explanation because it lets apologists claim that atheism isn't any more reasonable than Christianity and opens the door to a lot of slimy attacks. I prefer to say that it's no different than Christians not having belief in Shiva.

[Borgholio]

Apologists would be wrong if you point out that their faith is based on a single book (without which they would have nothing), while my faith is based on stuff I can actually see and measure.

[General Zod]

Apologists would be wrong if you point out that their faith is based on a single book (without which they would have nothing), while my faith is based on stuff I can actually see and measure.

I'll let Terry Pratchett field this one.

Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where belief stops, because it isn't needed any more. - Terry Pratchett

[Borgholio]

I see his point, but if I were to point a gun at a target and pull the trigger, wouldn't expecting the gun to go off and a hole to be blasted in the target a form of faith?

[General Zod]

I see his point, but if I were to point a gun at a target and pull the trigger, wouldn't expecting the gun to go off and a hole to be blasted in the target a form of faith?

Prior experience tells me the gun will do x if I perform steps a, b, c. If x does not occur, a step is missing or something is wrong with the gun. I think we should really just stop using the term "faith" altogether to describe things.

[Borgholio]

I think we should really just stop using the term "faith" altogether to describe things.

Because the word is often used in a religious context?

[General Zod]

I think we should really just stop using the term "faith" altogether to describe things.

Because the word is often used in a religious context?

I see it used as a cheap shot all the time when an apologist runs out of arguments against something. It's basically become a type of ad-hominem.

[Knife]

"Faith" is believing something you have no reason to believe. You don't have faith the gun will shoot a hole in the target, you have reasonable expectations based on experience and evidence. To me, saying 'faith' as an atheist is akin to when religious/conservatives say 'it's just a theory'.

Granted, the word 'faith' has become a colloquialism but when discussing such ideals as atheism and theism, I think terms should be clear and precise and not vague and with multiple meanings.

[Soontir C'boath]

Atheism isn't a set of beliefs either since it's just the lack of belief in a deity/god. However, that doesn't mean atheists don't have a general range of beliefs that each individual may have such as believing in ghosts! It would be hard to generalized atheists as a uniform group.

[General Zod]

Here's another way to look at it, atheism is just an answer to a question. Does God exist?

Atheism: No.
Theism: Yes.

[Tribble]

And don't forget Agnosticism, which is basically saying "it's impossible to know one way or another".

[General Zod]

Agnosticism: I'm a coward.

[Simon_Jester]

Agnosticism is only cowardized atheism if you accept the core premise that saying "we can't know" is logically equivalent to saying "therefore we should assume the absence of."

This makes sense if you are fiercely materialist. Not so much sense if you aren't.

[Patroklos]

Apologists would be wrong if you point out that their faith is based on a single book (without which they would have nothing), while my faith is based on stuff I can actually see and measure.

You can see and measure negatives? Come on now, that's just giving canon fodder to your detractors.

[Borgholio]

You can see and measure negatives? Come on now, that's just giving canon fodder to your detractors.

Zod's argument was that calling it faith only weakens my position by saying it's the same thing and not any better than an actual religion. My point was that it's not the same thing because I have "faith" in things I can predict mathematically or experimentally, whereas without a Bible, the religious faith is backed up by nothing at all.

[Tribble]

Agnosticism is only cowardized atheism if you accept the core premise that saying "we can't know" is logically equivalent to saying "therefore we should assume the absence of."

This makes sense if you are fiercely materialist. Not so much sense if you aren't.

And the opposite of course. "We can't know" being treated as the logical equivalent to saying "therefore we should assume the existence of" is cowardized theism

Pure agnosticism is simply "we can't know" and leaves it at that.

[General Zod]

You can see and measure negatives? Come on now, that's just giving canon fodder to your detractors.

Zod's argument was that calling it faith only weakens my position by saying it's the same thing and not any better than an actual religion. My point was that it's not the same thing because I have "faith" in things I can predict mathematically or experimentally, whereas without a Bible, the religious faith is backed up by nothing at all.

The people you're arguing with will see it as a tacit admission that they're right and atheism's no different from any other religion.

[Borgholio]

The people you're arguing with will see it as a tacit admission that they're right and atheism's no different from any other religion.

They would indeed tend to ignore the whole evidence thing, and use the Bible as all the evidence they need. I really know of no other way to argue the logic behind Atheism other than with using terms they would be familiar with.