Atheism is a religion.

[Mister Agenda]

Some atheists have told me they miss the 'community' of church going.

I can understand that however the reason why we atheist stop going to church I think is more important, meaningful and relevant don't you agree?

I would presume atheists stop going to church because they no longer agree with enough of what that church teaches. Atheists aren't defined by not going to church. They are defined by not believing in God.

Then there is the obvious tax break angle.

Which only applies to religious, therefore it either turns atheism into a religion or makes those atheists hypocrites. I'm inclined to the second.

In the USA, it applies to any 501©3 charity, of which religious organizations are only one example. An atheist organization could easily qualify if its nonprofit and engages in charitable activities. Unless the atheists involved preach not getting tax exemptions or engaging in charity, it's not hypocritical at all.

Even if one were to go this route, it would hardly make atheism a religion.

I alway ask the theist who claim atheism is a religion that:
Do we kneel? Because theists kneel.

This seems rather the wrong tack to take. It's not a religion for the same reason theism isn't a religion. It doesn't fit the definition. Atheists in a monarchy might kneel to their king or queen.

Do we gather on Sunday? Because theists do.

Those of us who gather, gather on all kinds of days, depending on what's convenient. Sundays being days off for most of us makes them a prime candidate. Are Seven Day Adventists and Jews any less religious because they gather on a Saturday?

Do we seek comfort in a church instead of knowledge? Because theists do that as well.

False dichotomy. The same person could easily find comfort in both, though knowledge tends to be useful or entertaining rather than comforting. Many people find comfort in community and atheists should not be excluded from participating in the communities of their choice.

Do we have to pay penitence for breaking our convictions? Because theists pay penitence for breaking their religious convictions, or a promise of penitence.

In my opinion, we ought to make restitution or otherwise compensate those we've wronged, when we can. We certainly should be sorry for it, and reflect on how we can avoid repeating our mistakes where we've hurt others or damaged important relationships.

Do we confess? Because theists confess.

When they say 'confession is good for the soul', the implication is that admitting what you've done wrong is psychologically healthy, it shouldn't be taken so literally that it becomes a solely religious practice. Not going to see a priest is one thing, not copping to being the one who stole the ice cream is another.

Do our good deeds are done to fulfill the promise of a future reward? Because theists say their good deeds will give them a future reward.

You're on to something here, but to nitpick, I fully anticipate that when I do something good, I will feel good for having done it. That's a future reward. It's no eternal paradise, but it's nice.

Do we get our morals from hearing strangers reading lectures? Because theists use their sermons and texts as a sources of moral dogmas.

Again, tend to agree broadly with you here, but lectures have certainly informed my thinking about morality.

Apparently I can't never use that statement again do I?

I recommend: 'First, prove theism is a religion, then we can talk about atheism being one'.

Atheism in certain forms can be viewed as religion

By whom?....

Mostly by theists insecure in their faith looking for a tu quoque objection to atheism that inadvertently exposes that they agree that taking things completely on faith is a sorry way to form opinions.

What is the definition of a "church"
The Freemasons gather in their "church"

I think of them as a club.
Mind you, with most clubs, moola needs to swap hands....

So technically that doesn’t makes us a religion but a…cult?
A lodge?

A club. A fraternal organization. What it says on the label.

Whatever it is that forms the basis of their so-called church must be something other than atheism.

I think that only makes things worse isn't it?

That doesn't seem to follow.

My guess is anti-theism. Attaching the name church to it is a bit odd but not equal to religion in the sense anti-theism is typically concerned with.

Then why they did attached the name church? I mean do you think that’s the kind of atheism that we should pass to our future generations?

You should take that up with the people labeling it a 'church'. That's not what the people involved are calling it.

---

What would that reason be?

Ah I dunno maybe it's because.
That we don't believe in God?

So a 'church' that doesn't involve believing in God, if you want to join in with the theists and the press in calling them churches, shouldn't pose a problem for an atheist.

Nor we want to be part of a religious system that: condones atrocities in it's name, encourage people to conform with ignorance and superstition and let a bunch two thousand year old scriptures tell us how to live our lives.

Humanism doesn't seem to be such a system.

Those are pretty good reasons of why leaving church don't you think?

Yes. They don't seem to be very good reasons to avoid participating in a Sunday Assembly or a Unitarian Universalist service, though.

---

Yes, I do. Now, what atheist doctrine is out there that would command atheists to do any of the things you just described?

Command atheist to do? Let me see if I understand this you are asking me to name or search an atheist doctrine that command us to do something? So that's why we stop going to church? In order to change one doctrine of commandments for another one?

You've not identified ANY 'atheist' doctrine or dogma of these groups with which to accuse them.

---

I think she's merely pointing out the differences between a religious church (which demands adherence to a set of rules for no other reason than they appear in Scripture) and a group of atheists that use church as a broader synonym for like-minded community (and like I said, I would suspect this has more to do with anti-religious sentiments rather than simply skepticism).

Exactly. "Church" may be evolving to mean "congregation". This is just a matter of semantics. It's really unfortunate that groups of atheists are using the term, given its meaning, but it doesn't mean that the atheist "churches" are adhering to the contents of any religious (probably especially Christian) dogma; and I would be surprised if any have any dogma at all.

It isn't at all clear that it's the atheists involved are using the term rather than the composers of attention-grabbing headlines.

---

I just find it weird that we need a common place to celebrate the "default".
The whole world is the default. Those who want to believe in weird shit should go to a special place and congregate with others as they do now in church.

There must be another angle to it......

Let's see: community of like minded persons, greater opportunities for involvement in charitable action, networking, something to do on Sunday morning, a chance to have the kids in class while you listen to an educational lecture, maybe you like sing-alongs, promotion of humanism, promotion of science, promotion of equal rights for atheists, promotion of political secularism...there are a plethora of other angles to it.

---

Reb, what you describe sounds great!

It's exactly what Sunday Assemblies are doing.

Why can't they meet at places like this?

They are.

Reb, is there any religious oversight in those places at all?

No, because they are not religious in nature.

---

Oh it needed derailing. No worries there. Still what would you have to do to get the same tax exempt status as a church. I think you should really push this as far as possible. No woo whatsoever .. and we expect the same financial incentives as any other place of whatever you want to call it.

501©3 status is the same tax-exempt status churches have. Non-churches generally have to do more paperwork to get it, though.