Atheist 'church'?

[Raeven]

I agree with là bạn điên, it just gives the Christians some faux ammunition to assert that atheism is "just another religion." I really hate that.

Like Christians are going to treat you fairly if you avoid doing certain things. Sounds like you're surrendering some of your autonomy and freedom to avoid false persecution, when doing so won't actually save you from false persecution after all. Standing up to them tends to be more effective than trying to avoid coming up on their radar.

LOL, I have no problem standing up to them. I just prefer to give them less ammunition, and the "atheism is just another religion" meme is particularly grating.

Most religious folk have a hard enough time understanding atheism as something other than a rejection of a god as it is. Throw a "church" into the mix, and it makes the concept even more obscure.

[Angrboda]

Throw a "church" into the mix, and it makes the concept even more obscure.

How does it make "it" more obscure? What does that mean? Or do you mean it makes it harder for what you mean when you say you are an atheist to be understood, and you'd rather avoid that specific misunderstanding? If it's the latter, I don't see how that's any less than what I said. Do you?

[Raeven]

Throw a "church" into the mix, and it makes the concept even more obscure.

How does it make "it" more obscure? What does that mean? Or do you mean it makes it harder for what you mean when you say you are an atheist to be understood, and you'd rather avoid that specific misunderstanding? If it's the latter, I don't see how that's any less than what I said. Do you?

Well, I hardly feel like I'm "surrendering some of (my) autonomy and freedom to avoid false persecution," by not wishing to confuse religious folks further by naming a gathering by atheists a "church." I have zero problem standing up to them and do so comfortably and regularly. It isn't for my personal sake that I have a preference to avoid using the word, "church," in reference to atheist gatherings. It's because use of that term has specific meaning to many people -- particularly among the religious. So it gives rise to even more confusion among the religious than already exists. I see no reason to do that.

If it pleases you to think I'm just making things more comfortable for myself, then that's ok. You are certainly entitled to think it. But I don't feel the concept I'm conveying here is so difficult to grasp.

[Whateverist]

It isn't for me but I have no problem with atheists doing what makes them happy. I'm certainly not waiting for anyone's okay before I pursue what suits me.

[Angrboda]

How does it make "it" more obscure? What does that mean? Or do you mean it makes it harder for what you mean when you say you are an atheist to be understood, and you'd rather avoid that specific misunderstanding? If it's the latter, I don't see how that's any less than what I said. Do you?

Well, I hardly feel like I'm "surrendering some of (my) autonomy and freedom to avoid false persecution," by not wishing to confuse religious folks further by naming a gathering by atheists a "church." I have zero problem standing up to them and do so comfortably and regularly. It isn't for my personal sake that I have a preference to avoid using the word, "church," in reference to atheist gatherings. It's because use of that term has specific meaning to many people -- particularly among the religious. So it gives rise to even more confusion among the religious than already exists. I see no reason to do that.

If it pleases you to think I'm just making things more comfortable for myself, then that's ok. You are certainly entitled to think it. But I don't feel the concept I'm conveying here is so difficult to grasp.

In the social psychological construct known as "minority stress," the stress that minorities of sexual orientation (or other minority staus) suffer is divided into two kinds, proximal and distal.

Minority status and distal stressors

The first tenet of minority stress theory holds that being in a minority group is associated with increased exposure to distal stressors, such as prejudice and discrimination. Indeed, despite significant improvement over the past several decades, numerous studies have confirmed that minority individuals continue to face high rates of distal stressors. For example, in large-scale national surveys, LGB individuals report high rates of prejudice and discrimination across the lifespan. One survey found that one-fourth of LGB adults have experienced victimization related to their sexual orientation, and another found that as many as 90% of LGBT youth report hearing prejudiced remarks at school. Similarly, up to 60% of African Americans report experiencing distal stressors throughout their lives, ranging from social rejection at school to housing discrimination and employment discrimination. In one study, 37 African American respondents recalled over 100 discrete experiences with racist prejudice in a two-year period. In another study, 98% of Black participants reported experiencing at least one incidence of prejudice in the past year.

Rates of exposure to distal stressors are much higher among racial and sexual minorities than among majority individuals. For example, LGB adults are twice as likely to recall experiencing prejudice throughout their lives compared to heterosexuals, and LGBT youth report significantly higher rates of prejudice and discrimination compared to their heterosexual peers. In one carefully controlled study, researchers compared rates of victimization among LGBT youth and their heterosexual siblings, and they found significantly higher rates of abuse among the LGB individuals. Comparing rates of perceived discrimination among African American and White individuals, researchers have found large differences in reports of discrimination: 30.9% of Whites reported experiencing “major discrimination” throughout their lives compared to 48.9% of African Americans. Similarly, 3.4% of Whites reported experiencing discrimination “often” in their lives, compared to 24.8% of African Americans. Thus, collectively, research suggests that minority individuals face frequent exposure to distal stressors compared to their majority group counterparts.

Minority status and proximal stressors

Proximal stressors are internal processes that are presumed to occur following exposure to distal stressors. Examples of proximal stressors include fear of rejection, rumination (psychology) on previous experiences with prejudice, and distaste for one’s own minority group following a prejudice event. Most research on this topic focuses on either sexual minorities or African Americans, and it is unclear whether the proximal stress processes are conceptually similar between these two groups. Thus, it is necessary to review proximal stress processes separately for sexual minority and African American populations.

Suppressing or disguising your identity is a form of proximal stressor in minority stress. We have a number of transgendered individuals on this forum. How much do you want to bet that they disguise or otherwise hide their transgendered status from people who would "be confused" by the concept of their transgender and want to treat them as less than full men or full women on account of knowing, in a confused way, that they are transgendered. Do you see that as healthy? I've been misunderstood as a bisexual and an ambi-gendered (aka gender queer individual) individual. Should I avoid doing things that might contribute to that misunderstanding, regardless of what they mean to me? Maybe I shouldn't wear men's clothing. Maybe I should learn to be more ladylike. Wouldn't wanna confuse the straights, now would we? Do you see the suppression of identity by sexual and gender minorities as dissimilar to what you are doing? I see an awful lot of parallels. Or do you just not see the value of an atheist church, so any negative is one bridge too far? But thank you for implying that I am too dull to understand concepts that aren't all that difficult to grasp.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So I get home, and the first thing I see on the news is bullshit about there being an atheist church:

http://news.sky.com/story/1185876/church...f-atheists

Am I the only person who finds this completely fucking stupid? Just reminds me of Atheism+.

Totally stupid.

I also don't want anything to do with the dicks over at A+.

Oh wait, non-gender biased insult at A+.

[The Valkyrie]

Yes, it is, as far as I'm concerned, bloody stupid.

I agree with the idea in principle, in that it creates a sense of community, something many atheists I've talked to say they miss since they left their religion.

However, I don't like the concept of calling it a "church" and the meeting on Sundays. Why not meet on a Saturday and call it an atheist social club, or something like that.

Calling it a church just gives more ammunition to the idiots who call us a religion. Yes, they're wrong, but it makes the fence sitters take notice of what we're doing.

[Logisch]

Couldn't see myself going to one. Although back when I was a Christian I did enjoy a sense of community. It's something I don't get so much anymore. So I can see why some might be inclined to do it for purposes of a sense of community. But I agree with others in the sense of people using it as a, "See, atheism IS a religion! they even go to church!" but at the same time, one could even propose a simple, "Who cares what you think? We want a community of like minded people, call it whatever you want."

I suppose that comes down to the whole part of not everyone agreeing quite on the same part or being on the same page about it. Would I want one? No. Would I go to one? No. Do I mind if others necessarily want to do it? Nah, not really.

[Napoléon]

It serves to allow otherwise marginalized people, atheists, to get together and share a sense of community and feel not so marginal. I see nothing wrong with that. Plus, it allows atheists to learn from and support each other (not everyone has this forum).

It's more the religious connotations that come with labelling themselves as a 'church' which pisses me off. And the fact they are trying to represent all atheists with this bollocks. Or at least they seem to be.

It's because use of that term has specific meaning to many people -- particularly among the religious. So it gives rise to even more confusion among the religious than already exists. I see no reason to do that.

This. A thousand times this!

It's all the more annoying when these people parade themselves around as rational, intelligent people.

[Cinjin]

Am I the only person who finds this completely fucking stupid? Just reminds me of Atheism+.

Someone in your country needs to tell these atheists about something we call - A BAR.