I think we’ve jammed up this thread with enough of this jaw jammin stuff.
Jam (the noun) does refer to the fruity concotions, and I agree that ‘comedy jam’ is a stretch of the musically accepted type of ‘jam’, but it is what it is -
hmm, I believe there is some debate about the origin of the word translated as “church” in the New Testament but that the word itself likely derives from a greek word for “assembly.”
I saw one dictionary online (I forget which) that said the musical term “jam” might be a shortening of “jamboree.” I don’t know if that’s right, but it makes more sense to me than the fruit version. Certainly “Man, we gotta get to Small’s, I hear Monk and Trane are gonna have a jamboree!” does not sound quite as cool.
IIRC, it can even be used to describe the individual - you can’t ‘scatter’ a building after all (in the sense used when the church was ‘scattered’ meaning the followers went off in different directions).
But regardless - is it agreed that the current, common usage of the word implies a religious subtext?
Personally, the idea of an Atheist “Church” is very interesting.
However, no I do not see this being a typically good thing. Nor do I see it as bad either…
Lets face it, a majority of the Atheist populace like to push their beliefs onto others rather harshly.I can see a lot of conflict coming from this, especially if said establishment was within proximity of any religious building for worship. Now I for am entirely against Christianity and everything it stands for. This is also why I am for the notion of a Atheist “church”… To me though it sounds more of like an excuse for us Atheists to get together, get smashed and then start sh*t talking about everyone else’s beliefs. Or perhaps to get away from the wifey…
Word up.
Yes, it does. And even if you called it “assembly of Atheists” it would still smell of religion.
Also, although I am not an atheist and cannot speak for them, I would think that atheists as a group would not have any reason to form a community just because they are atheists. There would not be a purpose in common (I.e. Worship or propagating a faith) that is central to the idea of church.
I already find Unitarianism and Reform Judaism and the like to be markedly silly. Of course, actual religious belief is silly as well, but the idea of getting up early on the weekend to go talk about all the things you don’t believe in with a bunch of people who also don’t agree with an absent third party is more than faintly ludicrous. If you want to join a service organization go sign up for the Rotary Club or something. Having churches of nonbelief is just going through the motions for no reason, it’s like a cargo cult.
That’s not what they’re doing, though. They’re talking about what they do believe or think.
What a bizarre comparison.
I do believe we typically call people like this “Stupid”.
But, if they were to actually do something productive in their fight to prove that the religious beliefs of the masses are false, I would back this up.
Funny how I rarely hear objections to the use of the word “church” in the context of the “Church of Satan”, which is actually a non-religious church of hedonists. While Satanists are likely reviled by most Xtians because of the “Satan” connection, they don’t believe in God, nor Satan. They really are a church of atheists.
Where is the outrage when Satanists use the term “Black Mass” or Satanic Bible"? None of these terms literally refer to religious objects, but the use and implications are not so subtle.
The Satanists have a church, and I’ll allow that the Atheists can certainly have one, or as many different ones as they want. Church, church church … the more the term “Church of Atheism” is used, the more people will use it. The definitions will follow.
Good idea? Why not? Folks get together to agree with one another, and they can be as philanthropic and supportive of each other as they like. If the order of the day is to help the poor, that’s great. If it’s to oppose the teaching of Creationism as a scientific theory in Public Schools, that’s fine, too.
There is a difference.
Part of the “Church of Satan” thing is deliberately trying to get a rise out of Christians.
Other atheists don’t generally care.
When I look at something as complex and intricate and beautiful as Professor Richard Dawkins, I don’t believe that something like that could’ve just evolved by chance.
If you think Atheists don’t want to get a rise out of Xtians, you and I are hanging out with two whole different crowds of Atheists.
Apparently so. Most of the ones I know couldn’t care less about it. Total non-issue.
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.
But why would there be expected commonality in what they do believe or think? That (I think) has been asked by Czarcasm, and that is what I don’t get.
The response you quote was about Unitarians and Reform J, not atheists.
UU churches regularly have vigorous debates on issues such as “God language.” Like I said, I was not satisfied with the resolution of the issue of designating ourselves a church, but it didn’t bother me overmuch, as it really impressed me as a pretty minor point.
I thought it was intended to be about all three. None of those groups of people get together just to talk about how they don’t agree with other Christians/Orthodox and Conservative Jews/theists. Those disagreements might distinguish them from those larger groups, but they’re talking about issues that might be of mutual interest to most Unitarians/Reform Jews/atheists.
Dumbest idea I can imagine, and I can imagine quite a bit. "Let’s all assemble, a lot of people who have very little in common, in a place that most of deride regularly, and the rest of us have no use for, for no useful purpose, so that theists can point at us and say, ‘See? It IS a kind of religion!!!’ "