Atheist 'church'?

[Violet]

LOL, or.... I could stand under someone pissing on me and call it a shower.

If that's your thing... well: go for it. Infact, said *is* called a shower, specifically? A "golden shower".

I think the whole notion of atheists attempting to co-opt the word, 'church,' to suit their own meaning is not only indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of the word, 'church,' but also ridiculous on its face and passive aggressive to boot. I think atheists should congregate in whatever way they wish. The smart ones won't try to refer to it as 'church.'

Sure, and there are atheist meetings, atheist bookclubs, atheist rotary, parties of nonreligion, secular states, and more...

And... there are among these: churches. There are mosques and there are temples, there are meeting halls and there are courthouses, there are colosseums and arenas... and all of these have in common one core: community. Each of these a different system has, and the system chosen by this community is that of a church... the only difference between it, and any other church, being that which is believed within this church.

There are millions of churches, for some 41K sects (and likely many more that are simply too small to be of note). That's 41 THOUSAND different beliefs under the house that is called 'church'. What is one more?

Here, by the way, is a definition of the word. It does not mean, 'community,' as you have chosen to characterize it. I understand your meaning, but clearly most religious folks won't -- and with good reason: <churchez>

That's because before they were 'churches': they were sits. The root of church is community... the root of religion? Also community. This pairing was made long ago: a place of peace and meeting in a community. Its function has changed a thousand of thousands of times, for a thousand of thousands of peoples... but the *root* of church is community.

That, my friend... is the difference between understanding what a dictionary tells you a word or place 'means'... and understanding what a word or place 'means'.

But if you like pummeling your head against a brick wall, by all means -- get together with your atheist buddies, call it 'church' and have a blast, "furthering the understanding" of church-going folk. Me, I'll get together with my friends and call it something -- anything -- else.

Okay... then perhaps you should stop telling these peeps that they shouldn't do precisely that I would recommend not calling it 'a facesit' unless that's what it is. Some of them might be a little... disappointed.

---

In the end, if you want to get out of your pajamas on Sundays to go hang out with other people instead of enjoying the TV with a hot cup of coffee (tea for you brits), than by all means - enjoy.

I personally would never do it, but if for some reason, Hell froze over and I found myself wanting to sing ridiculous songs with a bunch of strangers;
I think I would still have to call it anything other than ... church.

/thread

Even though that's what it is?

---

As an "ideas" person, and as someone who grew up in church, I actually have about 150 note cards outlining a sort of skeptics' congregation. Instead of sermons on Sundays, we would have lectures and discussions of a skeptical nature. Instead of Sunday School, we would have music lessons, tutoring, etc. We would do charity, and have free babysitting after school every day, conducted by volunteers from the congregation. We would have potlucks and parties, wine and beer tastings. None of it would have to be on any specific day of the week, as my idea is for a continuously evolving community, so I would hope for activities happening every day. We would have committees and game nights, writers' groups and book clubs. We would invite guest speakers and comedians to entertain. We would put on plays and musicals. My idea is to have a second home for a community of thinkers and their families.

My ideas will probably stay relegated to the note cards, though. I love them, but I'm not sure I have the moxie to pull them off. One thing is for certain, though: I would never in a million years call it a "church".

Something something Jews still hate the Germans something.

---

I think there is a very human need to gather and to be together and I think we all have a very human need to sing and dance and eat and commune but I think they're wrong to call it church

And I think it's within their right to call it what they like. Church is a familiar thing to most of them.

It's easier to risk something familiar.

[Napoléon]

And I think it's within their right to call it what they like.

No one is disputing that. People are within their right to eat dog shit it doesn't make it clever or original.

[The_Thinking_Theist]

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+.

I think it's a great idea for people to gather and share their thoughts, be it a church or an assembly, whatever.

[là bạn điên]

Atheist churches would soon start splitting over ideological differences. There would be an A+ crowd who would be cobnstantly demanding adherance to their principals, the Humanist crowd would demand that their politics just accepted as 'gospel'. Dawkinsitas would fall out with Multiculturalists

[Whateverist]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with rebooting the concept of a church to secular ends

Well I do. Raeven hit the nail on the head with why. I understand your own point about this Sangha, but I do think it's an entirely different circumstance. I'm not doubting the idea behind this 'atheist church' is probably a good idea, but my contention is entirely with them calling it a church. I don't see that word as being 'rebootable'. The word literally means "house of god". IMO calling an atheist gathering a church just creates completely unneeded confusion. It's almost as though these people have tried to be clever. "Ohh hehehe we've called it a church aren't we smart". No, you're just feeding the negative stereotypes people already have with atheists in the way you're going about it. Many religious people will find this whole thing not only laughable, but see it as though atheists are taking the piss out of their religion, something I'm not exactly keen on encouraging, at least not in such a dumbass way.

Who cares what theists think? I'm not trying to impress them. Atheists are cats. We don't herd well (and we don't care).

---

Who wants to go with me? I don't wanna go alone. I'm scared.

I hear we sometimes spontaneously combust when stepping on hallowed ground. Think I'll stay home.

[Napoléon]

it's a church without a god.

OXYMORON!

---

Who cares what theists think? I'm not trying to impress them.

I care. I care that when I tell people I'm an atheist I don't want them to have any more preconceptions in their head about me than they already have. Hence why I think this whole "atheist church" nonsense is counterproductive. You don't have to care, that's fair enough. I'm not asking you to. But I do. Am I going to go out and campaign against it? No. I still think it's a fucking retarded idea to call the thing a church.

Atheists are cats. We don't herd well (and we don't care).

So that's why this church thing is cropping up in the first place?

[Whateverist]

Atheists are cats. We don't herd well (and we don't care).

So that's why this church thing is cropping up in the first place?

Some cats want one thing, some another. Want to herd them? Good luck. But why would they listen to you?

[Napoléon]

Some cats want one thing, some another. Want to herd them? Good luck. But why would they listen to you?

Did you miss the part of my post where I said "You don't have to care, that's fair enough. I'm not asking you to"?

[bennyboy]

I want cake. Just saying. . .

[Napoléon]

I want cake. Just saying. . .

Not death?