Atheist Churches, Good or Bad Idea.

[Czarcasm]

@BigT

Now having read the thread rather than just skimming, I see a lot of you are saying that some atheists do have beliefs in common. Yes, they do. But a church made up of them would not be a Church of Atheism, even if that’s the way some of these organizations like to style themselves. It would be a church of whatever subdivision of atheism is employed.

I also note the specter of “atheism is not a religion.” In my opinion, atheism is a religion, but it’s a very disorganized one. It’s as much and as little a religion as theism is. I understand some people prefer not to call it a religion, since they think that means more than I think it does. But it can be treated like a religion with many sects.

You can’t get away from religion itself because all it means is a shared belief or belief system amongst a group of people. Plus, it’s the only way “freedom of religion” can include atheism. You’re free to be whatever subset of atheism you want to be, just like theists are free to be whatever subset of theism they want to be.’

Otherwise, you get this stupid dichotomy between “freedom of religion” and “freedom from religion” which is really pointless.

Is baldness a hair color?

[Marley23]

@BigT

I also note the specter of “atheism is not a religion.” In my opinion, atheism is a religion, but it’s a very disorganized one. It’s as much and as little a religion as theism is. I understand some people prefer not to call it a religion, since they think that means more than I think it does. But it can be treated like a religion with many sects.

Atheism isn’t a religion, and neither is theism. This isn’t really an opinion question. A single shared belief or idea is not a religion. It has to be a set of ideas and they have to relate in some way to … well, it’s easier to quote the dictionary: “the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” or “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.” Atheism and theism are too general to fit into those categories.

[DSeid]

@Great_Antibob

… it’s still apparent to me that pchaos is still working under the assumption that every atheist should find and belong to such an institution, rather than having them merely available to those who want them…

“What if any …” seems open-ended enough to me.

And a reasonable answer is that some atheists can and do find other granfalloons to meet those needs and wants, some stay part of congregations mouthing worship they do not believe in order to have the other benefits, and others don’t feel the need.

[BrainGlutton]

@DrFidelius

How would this be different from a social club?

Or, FWIW, as I come from a Roman Catholic background, the Unitarian Universalists don’t seem to care whether or if you actualy believe in any particular manifestation of the Godhead, but that could just be in comparison to the more structured and dogmatic instruction I received while younger.

OK, there’s a synagogue, a Catholic church, and a Unitarian church right next door to each other.

One morning, the rabbi, the priest and the minister are on the sidewalk out front having a chat, and somebody runs out of the synagogue and shouts, “Rabbi! Rabbi! The Temple is on fire!”

The rabbi runs inside, runs up to the ark, grabs the Torah scrolls, and runs back out, shouting, “I’ve saved the Temple!”

Then the fire spreads to the Catholic church. The priest runs inside, runs up to the altar, grabs the chalice and the Bible, and runs out, shouting, “I’ve saved the Church!”

Then the fire spreads to the Unitarian church, and the minister runs inside and grabs the coffee machine.

[Great_Antibob]

@DSeid

“What if any …” seems open-ended enough to me.

It’s just dodgy language from a poster who doesn’t have a firm grasp of definitions.

But at this point, I doubt I’ll convince you and vice-versa.

[BrainGlutton]

@Musicat

Maybe the Atheist symbol should be a big void. How can you have a symbol of nothing?

Is nothing sacred?

[BrainGlutton]

Look, we’re all dancing around the Great Question here: What should atheists call themselves?

(And, of course, the Other Great Question: How do we get the sciencehlogicdamned French-Chinese out of Hawaii?! :mad:)

[monavis]

@Slow_Moving_Vehicle

Thing is, theists don’t just go to church/temple/mosque to hear sermons, sing songs, and hang with their homies. They go to worship - to feel a connection to the numinous, to something other and, as they perceive it, higher than themselves.

Now, I don’t think they’re actually communing with a deity, but they are communing with something. Humans are mythopoetic beings, with an apparently universal need to tell stories, and I suspect that is what theists are doing when they worship - interacting with, telling each other and themselves, feeling a part of - a story. “In the beginning” is not that different from “Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away”.

Non-theists also feel this need. My reason, and my sense of how human nature operates, tells me that the numen arises out of the human brain, and that gods are just a bunch of tales people made up to explain why the sun rises and why it’s important to treat people as you wish to be treated and why those heathens in the other valley are to be shunned and avoided. But I find the Christ story to be incredibly moving, and gladly celebrate Christmas and Easter. It’s play-acting, perhaps, but the play is beautiful.

An “atheist church” might be, not just a community center or a discussion group, but a place where non-theists meet to express their reverence and commune with the numinous - whatever that means to each. To act their own plays, if you like.

I would thnk of it more as a club…than a church. A church seems to demand a deity of some sort.

[kayaker]

@BigT

And a pastor? Maybe in his advisory role, but not in his leadership role. Sure, the club will need a leader, but a pastor’s leadership stretches beyond the church itself. He isn’t just giving advice when he preaches–he’s telling you how you should live.

Will you consider leading us?

[pchaos]

@monavis

I would thnk of it more as a club…than a church. A church seems to demand a deity of some sort.

That’s true, but a club sounds like it’s not serious enough. Maybe something in between. Also a cross without Jesus sounds like a good logo. Simple, clean and the absence of God.

[Grey]

Or maybe that’s already a symbol for every major Protestant denomination? Then again this is pchaos we’re talking about, maybe we’ve redefined non Catholics as godless heathens?

[DSeid]

@Great_Antibob

It’s just dodgy language from a poster who doesn’t have a firm grasp of definitions.

But at this point, I doubt I’ll convince you and vice-versa.

Maybe not but his last post does lead me to believe that I am missing some of this poster’s context and that you are right.

[Czarcasm]

@pchaos

That’s true, but a club sounds like it’s not serious enough. Maybe something in between. Also a cross without Jesus sounds like a good logo. Simple, clean and the absence of God.

1. What do atheists need with such an icon?
2. Why should atheists adapt a symbol of your god, who is only one amongst a thousand other gods?

[pchaos]

It’s only a logo, an artist could easily make the cross look like it’s crumbling or falling apart.

[Czarcasm]

@pchaos

It’s only a logo, an artist could easily make the cross look like it’s crumbling or falling apart.

Again, why an adaptation of your god’s logo?

[pchaos]

@Czarcasm

Again, why an adaptation of your god’s logo?

I know that the empiricists among you will laugh, but I consider the NT to be close to empirical evidence that God exists. God became man and was willing to suffer along with the rest of us. Yet, apparently God has apparently abandoned mankind.

[DrFidelius]

@pchaos

I know that the empiricists among you will laugh, but I consider the NT to be close to empirical evidence that God exists. God became man and was willing to suffer along with the rest of us. Yet, apparently God has apparently abandoned mankind.

“Empiricists,” Jews, Hindus, Confucians, Shintoists, and followers of another hundred religions I can’t think of right now would all disagree with you. But that is a subject for a comparative religion class. You really must expand your exposure to how others think and believe.

[Czarcasm]

@pchaos

I know that the empiricists among you will laugh, but I consider the NT to be close to empirical evidence that God exists. God became man and was willing to suffer along with the rest of us. Yet, apparently God has apparently abandoned mankind.

Non-responsive. Why should atheists adapt a symbol of your god in particular? Why not the Star of David, or a Crescent? Why not Thor’s hammer, or a Golden Calf? Why not Kali with a bunch of broken arms, uh? Do you think that your god is the only one this is all about?

[pchaos]

No, I didn’t say that. But Christianity is special…it is the only religion where God shows His love by becoming Man. Jesus (God) experiences everything Mankind experiences and then dies on the cross. He led by example and apparently to atheists he has abandoned Mankind.

[Czarcasm]

@pchaos

No, I didn’t say that. But Christianity is special…it is the only religion where God shows His love by becoming Man. Jesus (God) experiences everything Mankind experiences and then dies on the cross. He led by example and apparently to atheists he has abandoned Mankind.

You have said,in this very thread, that you understand and accept the dictionary definition of “atheist”. Considering what you just posted why should anyone believe a word you say from here on in?