Re OP:

It is the nature of humans to congregate in a social setting. It was this aspect of mankind that likely spurred on religious fervor.

I see no issue with atheists congregating together in support of one another. Especially since they would likely use the time to promote understanding and learing about the world around them rather than sticking their heads in the sand like their counter parts.

I would however start calling it something other than church. ANYthing other than church.

(November 11, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Cinjin Wrote: Re OP:

It is the nature of humans to congregate in a social setting. It was this aspect of mankind that likely spurred on religious fervor.

I see no issue with atheists congregating together in support of one another. Especially since they would likely use the time to promote understanding and learing about the world around them rather than sticking their heads in the sand like their counter parts.

I would however start calling it something other than church. ANYthing other than church.

AGREED, simply call the building you meet at a building because that is all it is. And don't call anything atheists do a form of "worship". It really gives me a lip witch when atheists think mimicking the tactics of theism is the way to compete with them.

Who will emcee events; Multiple speakers? Will there be leaders set in place to 'govern' the meetings and meeting places? If so, it is already too much like religion for me. I maintain that once the power struggle begins, the dogma will soon follow to keep the throngs in line, and the hierarchy in tact. No thanks to the entire idea. The only idea that I find any merit in throughout the bible, is that the 'church' was never a building or an organization. Though the biblical church held/holds certain particular worldviews, while atheism necessarily does not, I still like the idea of a universal (meaning broadly accepted) reasoning, or understanding. In borrowing part of the biblical model we are in a sense, already a 'church'. The bible says that where two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am also (presuming Jesus). I say that wherever two or more atheists are gathered together in the name of reason and logic, [it] is there also (presuming commonality in certain respects). In this sense, we atheists are already a 'church' in the truer sense of the idea.

(November 11, 2013 at 11:39 am)TheBeardedDude Wrote: Firstly, I apologize if there is already a thread on this.

Secondly, I keep seeing articles about these Atheist "Mega-churches" everywhere, and I don't know what I think about them.

On the one hand, I understand why some people want them for the community. I do miss that aspect of church in a way, it is a great way to congregate with local members of your community and discuss things important and relevant to you.

But on the other hand, this seems rather contradictory for me. I could understand a secular book club better or perhaps a secular community that has a weekly gathering over lunch or something. But this movement seems to embrace the "churchy" aspect of it, and I find that rather hypocritical in a sense (at least if I were to participate in it I would see it that way).

For instance, Jerry DeWitt (whom I respect) has helped to start one too. I heard a podcast interview with him where he repeated (over and over and over) the fact that he isn't taking a salary from it and that it isn't about making money like a church does. I got rather annoyed by that because it was a fairly shameless plug to get people to buy his book as a way of supporting him. (Don't get me wrong, I wish the man well and hope his book does well, but this seems far to evangelical to me).

Thoughts?

Bringing the sexy words to your town, with gospels by Richard Dawkins and Hitchens, it's all party baby