Atheistic Churches look for new non believer members..

[fkizz]

So it seems that despite people insisting that atheism is not a religion, despite it being a movement, having its own symbol, gatherings, in some cases even its own church, and following very devoutly something that cannot be proved logically or based on evidence (the absence of a Creator or Prime Mover), they still claim that atheism is not a religion, regardless if it's false or true.

At any rate the nature of atheistic churches to gather non believers or convert believers to atheism still boggles me, the atheistic movement starts get more and more similiar to a religion.

It looked like a typical Sunday morning at any mega-church. Hundreds packed in for more than an hour of rousing music, an inspirational sermon, a reading and some quiet reflection. The only thing missing was God.Dozens of gatherings dubbed "atheist mega-churches" by supporters and detractors are springing up around the U.S. after finding success in Great Britain earlier this year. The movement fueled by social media and spearheaded by two prominent British comedians is no joke.

so as a fellow atheist or member of atheistic church, what do you think of these movements and on how they affect the image of the atheistic community?

do you atend an atheistic church?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...rches/3489967/

An "atheist church" in North London is proving a big hit with non-believers. Does it feel a bit like a new religion?

Not many sermons include the message that we are all going to die and there is no afterlife.
But the Sunday Assembly is no ordinary church service.
Launched last month, as a gathering for non-believers, it is, in the words of master of ceremonies Sanderson Jones, "part foot-stomping show, part atheist church, all celebration of life".
A congregation of more than 300 crowded into the shell of a deconsecrated church to join the celebration on Sunday morning.
Instead of hymns, the non-faithful get to their feet to sing along to Stevie Wonder and Queen songs.

I always knew some of the people here were suspiciously devout and zealous of their atheism, and they insisted it had nothing to do with religion, but to actually have atheistic churches happening still boggles me.

writer Alain De Botton has unveiled a Manifesto for Atheists, listing 10 virtues - or as the press has already dubbed them "commandments" - for the faithless.

They're getting their 10 virtues aswell.

There is a concern among some non-believers that atheism is developing into a religion in its own right, with its own code of ethics and self-appointed high priests.
Jones insists he is not trying to found a new religion, but some members of his congregation disagree.

I find this all very confusing. Why go to all of the trouble to deny church its rights (most of criticism is towards the church rather than christian theology) to then set your own?

Seems a case of "When you stare at the abyss for too long, it also stares back at you".

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21319945

Anyone who lives on UK can coment this a bit better?

[Himster]

Oh irony. Spear headed by comedians: that makes sense.
But still: atheism is not a religion in the same way theism is not a religion.
Theism is a belief, atheism can be a belief but isn't necessarily a belief: ie. "I believe there is no God": that is a belief. "I don't believe in a god": that is not a belief.
A collection of beliefs can be a religion: Catholicism is a collection of beliefs, it is a religion. Secular humanism is a collection of beliefs, but is not a religion. There are atheistic religions, there are certain sects of Buddhism that are atheistic, some of which are implicitly atheistic others are explicitly atheistic and so on. There are arguments that these sects are philosophies and are not religions, in Texas for example these sects of Buddhism are not tax exempt and are not considered religions.

There are many movements that appear to be religious in many respects, political movements most commonly.

So: Is this a religious movement? Kinda/sometimes/not-really: It's completely subjective in every sense of the word.
There's no set of beliefs, there are no rituals, there are no supernatural entities involved (there is a supernatural claim made by some atheists, but not all, it's not a doctrine), there's no unified doctrine, no holy book, no holy places, no rituals, no assertions concerning the meaning of life (except subjective personal opinion), no set of duties, and so on and on and on. Other than the supernatural claim made by some atheists there is nothing here resembling a religion, well there's the superficial similarity of a symbol and a gathering place, but that just puts it on par with Star Wars fans, or gun enthusiasts, or farmers at a farmer market: Are they religions too?

[ShockBlast]

This thread is just a hidden, tard, remark that atheism is a religion, which is not.

[Denny Crane!]

This thread is just a hidden, tard, remark that atheism is a religion, which is not.

Yeah. That is the thread over I'd say.

[Phier]

One thing we atheists who are honest understand, is that while we think believing in the invisible sky gods is primitive thinking and tied to juvenile imprinting, religion does a great deal for a sense of community and connections with other people.

There has been discussion on how to achieve that without the hook for religion. I think such efforts are going to be semi-futile but if it works, good for them. Basically you could call them "friendship workshops" or "community gatherings".

[ShockBlast]

You may have a point, Phier.People who aren`t ready for atheism should still remain theists.

[Mangalore]

Sign me up to the Puritan branch of Atheism then. I demand all these idolaters and worshipers of false Non-Gods be burnt on some non-descript, non-religious symbol!

[sumskilz]

Hmm...

"The idea that you're building an entire organization based on what you don't believe, to me, sounds like an offense against sensibility," said Michael Luciano, a self-described atheist who was raised Roman Catholic but left when he became disillusioned.

"There's something not OK with appropriating all of this religious language, imagery and ritual for atheism."

Uh oh, other dissenting atheist guy disagrees, setting the stage for a sectarian split.

The problem here is that these people have to be about something.

EDIT: What I mean is that they should sell themselves by what they are about, not by what they are not about, otherwise it is "an offense against sensibility". Although I guess emotional appeal rather than sensibility is probably more likely to make a movement catch on.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

Seems to me an attempt by some atheists to cry out - "Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you". I must say it has failed deeply in this respect, from what I read of the proceedings it seems like a farce, it's all a bit forced. Atheism is a negation, why attempt to emulate those who posit what you negate? I must say the point is beyond me. Theists posit something - thus how it is interpreted matters, atheists negate, thus stress of values etc. is irrelevant.
Although if they fall out over interpretations of The God Delusion and then split up over them - we can consider it a religion. Is the Denomination Dawkinian or Hitchonian may I ask?

[sumskilz]

You may have a point, Phier. People who aren`t ready for atheism should still remain theists.

Or just not believe and participate as much as they want or don't want.

Look at what this guy in the article says:

"There was so much about it that I loved, but it's a shame because at the heart of it, it's something I don't believe in," Jones said. "If you think about church, there's very little that's bad. It's singing awesome songs, hearing interesting talks, thinking about improving yourself and helping other people — and doing that in a community with wonderful relationships. What part of that is not to like?"

I have a friend who is culturally Catholic (half Italian half Mexican), he's an atheist, but he goes to church events to meet women. He's probably one of many that are sort of just going through the motions for the community thing.

[Phier]

In some ways this has inspired me to try something like this here. I won't because I'm lazy but it would be nice as adults tend to become isolated in their work and family.

[Col. Tartleton]

I would think congregational atheism is a religion in the sense that its a habitual thing. Like following baseball or soccer or whatever.

Atheism itself isn't a religion because there are no rituals or services or anything like that. It's just answer no to a yes or no question.

I would hope an atheist service be something like people regularly coming together to hear a motivational speaker and some stimulating guest speakers.

[Denny Crane!]

Seems to me an attempt by some atheists to cry out - "Anything you can do I can do better, I can do anything better than you". I must say it has failed deeply in this respect, from what I read of the proceedings it seems like a farce, it's all a bit forced. Atheism is a negation, why attempt to emulate those who posit what you negate? I must say the point is beyond me. Theists posit something - thus how it is interpreted matters, atheists negate, thus stress of values etc. is irrelevant.
Although if they fall out over interpretations of The God Delusion and then split up over them - we can consider it a religion. Is the Denomination Dawkinian or Hitchonian may I ask?

I think that is a bit harsh really. There is an idea that even if you don't believe in God there is value in community and sharing, mutual events and someone to officiate at things like funerals or marriages. That you can have one or many aspects without the fundamental because it is healthy for us.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

I think that is a bit harsh really. There is an idea that even if you don't believe in God there is value in community and sharing, mutual events and someone to officiate at things like funerals or marriages. That you can have one or many aspects without the fundamental because it is healthy for us.

I see how you may have got that idea from my post - I apologise if the following was not made clear. I do not question the value of community, sharing mutual events etc. I can't deny these are good functions - but must they have the atheist connotation? Why can't people just have community gatherings and events etc. based purley on mutual interest in the local good and to fill social functions. Must they be atheist? Why can't people mix with whoever happens to be around them, regardless of religion. Must moral lessons be taught by and for atheists in these meetings - and lectures on science too. Just have local meetings that fill these social functions regardless of religion or its opposite.

[Denny Crane!]

They don't. I mean if you read Fkizz's constant stream of subtly rabid anti atheist posts they do but really they are just organising services for anyone. Try thinking about it outside of the frame of the OP.

[Portuguese Rebel]

OP, do you get the joke behind the event? Do you think a bunch of comedians doing a massive joke represent atheists worldwide? Seriously?

More importantly, do you think i have nothing better to do with my Sunday morning than joining this massive fast date service? Damn, Sunday morning i ride my mountain bike through trails and i already have a significant other...

[Himster]

writer Alain De Botton has unveiled a Manifesto for Atheists, listing 10 virtues - or as the press has already dubbed them "commandments" - for the faithless.


They're getting their 10 virtues aswell.

The opinion of one philosopher does not a religion make. Hitchens took the ten and made it 3, George Carlin made it one. There's no dogma here.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

They don't. I mean if you read Fkizz's constant stream of subtly rabid anti atheist posts they do but really they are just organising services for anyone. Try thinking about it outside of the frame of the OP.

I admit they do services for all but the fact that they are dubbed 'atheist churches' and that they consciously mirror a Church Service - music, a sermon, a lecture - lends itself to the conclusion that they want to be a Church minus God. To just take what Churches do - word for word - and just minus God seems farcical to me.

[Denny Crane!]

I was googling them and didn't see them refer to themselves as atheist churches? I will stand corrected if I'm wrong I just couldn't see it.

Edit: And just a thought I mean, yeah kinda farcical in the way its styled but if they enjoy it so what? I was thinking of Buddhist meetings which are meditation, dharma talk and tea and coffee which is less of a copy but somewhat like a church service but definitely minus the god talk and I don't find it ridiculous.

[Napoleonic Bonapartism]

I was googling them and didn't see them refer to themselves as atheist churches? I will stand corrected if I'm wrong I just couldn't see it.

Edit: And just a thought I mean, yeah kinda farcical in the way its styled but if they enjoy it so what? I was thinking of Buddhist meetings which are meditation, dharma talk and tea and coffee which is less of a copy but somewhat like a church service but definitely minus the god talk and I don't find it ridiculous.

I do see you're point - I never said they should not go if they want to. What people want to do with their time is up to them. I just don't see the point - and consider them a farce. But, hey, its up to them. I'm not trying to stop them.

As for if they are offically called Atheist Churches - you are right that they don't offically call themselves that - but they seem to be seen as such and according to BBC News:

Launched last month, as a gathering for non-believers, it is, in the words of master of ceremonies Sanderson Jones, "part foot-stomping show, part atheist church, all celebration of life".

So the founders cannot escape the inevitable parallels it would seem.

But if people want to go - whatever floats your boat. My opinions are simply my own. But I do understand the need people have for some kinda meeting place/social occasion.