The NYT has a op-ed article that manages to set back public dialogue on atheism at least a couple of decades.
We all have “church-shaped holes” in us, and are desperately chasing “secular humanism” as our replacement for religion. F*ck me.
“Father Time? Little 1984 has escaped from his cage again. Could you come lock him up?”
I think you and I read two different articles. I didn’t find that objectionable at all.
I found it inaccurate/inapplicable in regards to me. I’m an atheist and a secular humanist. I’ve no desire to go to any sort of fellowship meeting and I certainly don’t want to sing songs or be preached at. This article seems to indicate we need to have everything-but-God-churches and the like (at least, if we’re ever to not be viewed as evil). Fellowship meetings are fine for people who want them, but I don’t want them, and I disagree that I need them.
That’s the gist of my objection. Not in the specifics as much as in the perpetual attitude is that atheism is another religious choice, and that someone styling themselves atheist wants and needs a “religion” based on that choice, or is somehow incomplete for its lack.
Getting even the well-intended to understand that atheism is NOT-religion and part of the set that is NOT all other religions is needlessly hard. Which is why atheists should never let the point pass: if we encounter a “Catholic, Baptist or atheist” question or discussion, it’s incumbent on us to correct the assumption. “Did you mean Catholic, Baptist or precision micrometer?” “…snow peas?” “…hypoteneuse?” 'Cuz one of these things is most definitely NOT like the others.
I am less bothered by the muddled discussion of secular humanism, which can be as much a group belief as an individual philosophy. But to whatever extent I am a “secular humanist,” it is as a personal philosophy and not the un-church I belong to.
I found the same thing. If no god in my life, why to I need to gather with my like-minded brethren in a large building on a regular basis?
Ooops. Actually I do that already. After my laundry is done and lunch is eaten, I’ll be off to watch baseball at the bar. A gathering place I know well. 
“Ah believe in the Church of Baseball.”
I went to the Atlanta-area Sunday Assembly a couple of times. Hipster sing-along, a wannabe TED talk, coffee klatsch afterwards. Split-off for volunteer meet ups. What’s not to like?
Not much different from the Unitarian Universalists. Except for meditation instead of singing and TED, not much different than the Quakers.
And all of them really, really comfortably middle class and middlebrow. I guess I’ll always have one foot in the Catholic muck of sex and violence and poverty and suffering.
I like the old standby “atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.”
There’s nothing wrong with social gatherings for any purpose. I just feel that attending a regular conclave with many church-like trappings specifically because you are all atheists is… questionable. It becomes difficult to distinguish between the need for a social center and religious practice while denying it’s any such thing. I suspect there are stronger atheists in many “soft” churches, who choose the coloration to gain the social benefits.
People who combine a stout atheist label and attend such [del]church services[/del] philosophical social gatherings also help foster the notion of atheism as another religious choice, which I feel is counterproductive on many levels.
Why? Suppose people didn’t really understand Judaism - maybe without prejudices believed a lot of the nonsense believed in earlier eras. As a Jew under those conditions, wouldn’t you grow tired of endless group assumption that you ‘really’ believed in Jesus and all that?
I think this sentence from the OP’s link best sums up one of the main points of the article:
As such, I think AB may have been overly sensitive to the way that Miss Worthen was framing things. YMMV.
I tend to agree, I find the whole idea very odd. I tend to identify atheism as something I’m not, rather than something I am.
If it has a purpose (eg in a highly religious area, to raise awareness and let people know that there is an alternative to religion), then fine. But what do these people find to talk about? 
It’s a bit like having a Society of People Who Don’t Like Football, or a club for people that aren’t really into needlepoint.
I’ve never heard that one before, and I’m promptly stealing it. Thanks.
I’ve already 'fessed to being sensitive about the issue, because I think we have to be. I am not, in the end, quite sure what Worthen was trying to say. I only know that a less-decided reader is going to take away quite a bit of the wrong stuff from phrases like “church-shaped hole [in atheist lives]” and the glowing discussions of how secular humanism fills the religious void in such folks. It’s very much the “atheism is another religion/religious choice” mindset, which is wrong.
Exactly. Or The Bald Men’s Hair Style Society. “I have never watched a soccer game in my life, but I have to go to my weekly We Don’t Watch Soccer meeting.”
I’m reminded of the comic strip Get Fuzzy; Bucky Katt thought Facebook was stupid so he tried to start an internet Anti-Social Network, for people who hate people to be able to, er… and um… uhhhhh…
I know it’s not the same at all, but it made me Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there.
I agree with you on the wrongness quotient. And I agree that someone who merely skims the article could only retain the phrases you quoted. And I agree that Miss Worthen’s point is obscured or lost; that’s what happens when a writer is merely rambling along rather than constructing an exposition properly.
Oh for heaven’s sake. It’s a small voluntary social meeting. You don’t have to go. It’s not like anyone is going to threaten you with atheist hell if you don’t.
I realize their are a lot of anti-social people on this board, but surely most of you are aware intellectually at least that many people crave a community and social contact. (Whadda buncha frikkin’ weirdos, amirite?). For people who may have drifted from their faith, who find its tenets unsupportable, a place like Sunday Assembly might be just the thing for them. It’s probably not for me, but I’m really not understanding why I would be bothered by it. I might even check it out, if there’s one in DC.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Wow, that’s deep. Did you think of that yourself? Copyright that shit.
Most of the Christians (self-identified) I know would say the same things you are. Which is basically why so many churches and congregations are failing these days. It doesn’t make you wrong or the article right but I figure it enters into this discussion somewhere. Of course, coming from a school of thought that says atheism can be a religion and some “religious” can be not-religions, based on the individual, does complicate the debate a little, doesn’t it?
I don’t really see how. I don’t disagree that it’s happening, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to the accuracy of the article regarding atheists or to discussion about the article.
Certainly if we are using different definitions of the words, it could complicate matters. I use the dictionary definition 2a. Atheism is a lack of belief in any deities and that’s all. That’s not a region. Certainly any given atheist might believe in an afterlife, spirits, magic crystals, etc. and such that would amount to a religion, but that’s a separate thing about them in addition to being an atheist, just like I’m a fan of The Sims 2 in addition to being an atheist - doesn’t make atheism a video game.
FTR, for “religion” I cannot use the “an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group” definition, as that does make fandoms for television shows religions.