RE: Atheist 'church'?
December 31, 2013 at 5:28 pm
(This post was last modified: December 31, 2013 at 5:38 pm by Violet.)
(December 28, 2013 at 7:57 pm)Napoléon Wrote: No one is disputing that. People are within their right to eat dog shit it doesn't make it clever or original.
Well, dog shit is pretty good #justsayin
(December 29, 2013 at 8:15 am)Napoléon Wrote:(December 28, 2013 at 4:52 pm)Violet Lilly Blossom Wrote: it's a church without a god.
OXYMORON!
Except that it isn't?
It is *every* aspect of 'church', but absent the overarching Master. It is a church, still... but it has been abandoned by its lord, and now his children live in the house he built as their own lords.(December 30, 2013 at 1:17 pm)Napoléon Wrote: That's effectively all I've been saying throughout the thread. I'm not against the idea in principle, I just object to it being called a church. I'll happily defend their right to call it a church. I am also exercising my right to say it's a total oxymoron to do so and because of that totally fucking stupid.
It does sound like one on the surface, but it's really not. Were they to have a mosque's setup without God, then it would *still* be a mosque in every way sans-'spiritually'. What would we call it? A nonspiritual mosque is applicable... atheist's mosque would also be.
Tell me what differs such that the terms 'church' and 'atheist' fundamentally cannot be joined as an atheist's church.
Quote:So unless they stop using the term church to describe their little get together, I'll just continue to assume the people organising it are a bunch of douchers who have a counter-productive approach to a secular gathering.
It's actually a really effective way to get members... there are a LOT of atheists who do not hate religion, who simply don't believe, but who love church and its equivalents nonetheless.
Please give me a home where cloud buffalo roam
Where the dear and the strangers can play
Where sometimes is heard a discouraging word
But the skies are not stormy all day
