I thought I couldn’t hate anarchism more than I already do, but you’re right, they did take the good one.
Not sure if this is entirely accurate.
I’d suggest care in discussing UU churches as monolithic. Each congregation reflects its own covenent among its members. Some UU churches are extremely Humanist. Others are christianity-lite. Others reflect pagan/wiccan/newage influences. Some impress me as primarily social action organizations.
The longer I spent associated with UU, the less I felt the UUA reflected my personal beliefs and values. I pretty much broke association over my distaste for UUA Pres. Sinkford whom I considered to be a deist.
Not in any Reform congregation I’ve ever been at. Torah and Haftarah are chanted in Hebrew. With the prayers chanted by those getting that honor before and after each section is read.
Yes, the Torah Service is just one part of the complete service.
The Jewish version of Church for atheists (which is NOT Reform) just replaces prayers like the “Sh’ma” (“Hear O Israel The Lord Our God, The Lord is One”) with things like: “Where is my light? My light is within me. Where is my hope? My hope is within me. Where is my strength? My strength is within me, and in you.”
Believing that Torah (or for that matter the New Testament) was human-created (as opposed to divinely dictated or revealed) does not diminish its greatness as a catalyst for thought about morality and ethics.
Yes, I particularly like - for certain very limited and snarky values of like - the startrekky one.
Never seen that one before; it’s rather hideous (and misleading, by seemingly conflating science and atheism).
Is this the startrekky one? (from Dinsdale’s link).
The implication of pchaos’s posts and OP is that there’s some kind of common core of atheist belief and a “church” would be a useful place to disseminate this belief.
I don’t deny some atheists desire some kind of fellowship. But that just allows the picture to continue being muddied about the idea of some kind of common “Atheist Church” where the tenets of athetic belief (or non-belief) are expounded.
It’s pretty great if you’re an atheist who really likes Watchmen. And it’s the symbol for American Atheists, I see. The government has options for people of just about every option (too bad agnostics didn’t get a question mark), so someone needed to suggest something for atheists and that’s the result.
No, that one’s just awful. This is the one I’m thinking of; do a Google image search for “atheist symbol” for some more fully rendered ones. They all seem to be in blog posts and thus hard to link to.
That one’s awful too. It’s just an upper-case @. I don’t want to be an “at”.
Remember, this is in Britain, where nobody really cares if you’re openly atheist. Hell, the Church of England is really just a bunch of religious mummery for agnostics.
It’s only in America that atheists are defined by Christianity. Well, not only here, but moreso than in the UK at any rate.
It beats the hell out of the Christian symbol, which gives you a torture device with or without an optional torture victim attached.
Here’s me disagreeing with you: “______________.”
Which is what’s wrong with both of these last two atheism threads: they were defined by believers and we were idiotic enough to engage the questions.
So I think I’ll return the favor. Let’s see how they like it.
That’s a little better, or at least cleaner. Let’s just drive anarchism to the dustbin of history and steal theirs.
The non-torture victim cross is aesthetically pleasing, though.
And I’m sure that if Jesus had been hung depictions of the noose would be called something like “The Circle Of Life”.
I’d suggest just stealing the Anarchy symbol, but they’d likely unite and attack us!
Wait a minute - you mean it ISN’T a plus sign? I thought they were really into math!
Not sure if an “at” is better or worse than those doofuses who were advocating the term “bright”…
That reminds you of Startrek? It looks like a generic atomic symbol to me. And I don’t like it much, either. I don’t see the connection.
Maybe the Atheist symbol should be a big void. How can you have a symbol of nothing?
Should we ask Jerry Seinfeld?
And if you weren’t a “bright”, you were a “super”. Decent ideas, horrible marketing.
In that it looks sciency, sure. I’m not a Star Trek fan.
That sounds more like nihilism.
Here’s a collection of possible Atheist Church logos. Pick one:
