Atheist Church Opens in 35 more Towns!

[massmedia]

A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.

Atheism qualifies as a religion.
Atheist reject the validity of other traditional religions. Other religions reject the validity of Atheism.

Whats the big deal with them getting a church?

Atheism is the lack of belief in something for which others have formed beliefs in. "Lack of belief" is not "belief".

Atheism is not a religion
These retards are doing more harm to the idea of Atheism than they know.

 

[massmedia]

they should call it Atheist Club.

actually I bet they would if they could get the same 'tax exempt' status as religious churches get. Great, now we have to make the distinction of religious vs non-religous 'church'. bleh

 

[ivwshane]

I like the church of satan better, I think they are helping the cause.

 

[Retro Rob]

they should call it Atheist Club.

actually I bet they would if they could get the same 'tax exempt' status as religious churches get. Great, now we have to make the distinction of religious vs non-religous 'church'. bleh

This is just semantics. A religion is a religion, and church is a church, no amount of word games can change that.

 

[alzan]

Where did I say those things exclusively belonged to religion? Secondly, book clubs etc (with your usual diversion and non-sequitir arguments notwithstanding) don't criticize religion or how its set up like atheism does.

Please start addressing the arguments that I am actually making.

You didn't; I was just giving an analogy of another group of like-minded people who through their communal gathering do charitable acts for the community at large (like church congregations).

It's hard to tell exactly what argument you're making: are you upset that people find ways other than "worshipping G-d" to perform charitable acts?

Are you upset that this comedian from the UK is calling these gathering places atheist "churches" and thus removing or changing it's traditional meaning?

Despite what you claim on AT not all atheists or agnostics criticize how religion is set up. Also, criticism can be constructive; depending of course on the mindset of the criticizee.

 

[massmedia]

This is just semantics. A religion is a religion, and church is a church, no amount of word games can change that.

 

[Retro Rob]

You didn't; I was just giving an analogy of another group of like-minded people who through their communal gathering do charitable acts for the community at large (like church congregations)

OK, but still, that has nothing to do with what I posted.

It's hard to tell exactly what argument you're making: are you upset that people find ways other than "worshipping G-d" to perform charitable acts?

Are you upset that this comedian from the UK is calling these gathering places atheist "churches" and thus removing or changing it's traditional meaning?

LOL, what?

Just to preface this thread, I don't have a problem with "Atheist Churches", especially being a religious guy myself, I can see the benefits, no doubt

...and I didn't say ALL ATHEISTS criticize how religion is set up.

Holy mother of Christ, are you paying attention to what I'm saying?

 

[massmedia]

Holy mother of Christ, are you paying attention to what I'm saying?

great thread. I think I could follow along without typing a thing.
Also churches are for religions so not sure what this nonsense is about except that some Atheists are not too smart apparently.

 

[alzan]

OK, but still, that has nothing to do with what I posted.

LOL, what?

[/SIZE]

...and I didn't say ALL ATHEISTS criticize how religion is set up.

Holy mother of Christ, are you paying attention to what I'm saying?

Okay so what are you upset about? Your OP is about some guy in the UK setting up gathering places for atheists and he (or someone else) is calling them Atheist Churches. As I see it people who share common interests and ideals are gathering and doing community outreach.

A quote from your OP "But what I have taken issue with is the ignorant hypocrisy as atheists generally seem to hate everything about religion"

What exactly is "ignorant" or "hypocritical" about like-minded people freely associating and doing community charity?

You probably shouldn't take Mary's name in vain.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Don't you just hate it when people are self-righteous?

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

great thread. I think I could follow along without typing a thing.
Also churches are for religions so not sure what this nonsense is about except that some Atheists are not too smart apparently.

who the fuck is mosiah and why do I care what he proselytizes?

 

[massmedia]

don't know, not religious myself - LOL

 

[bunnyfubbles]

bunnyfubbles opinions -- yawn

like-minded people congregating before the existence of christianity - fact
flood myths that predate the biblical flood myth - fact
tales of virgin birthed miracle performers that resurrected after death that predate jesus - fact
winter solstice celebrations that predate christmas (that involved trees, feasts, and gift giving) - fact (Christmas is seen as so pagan/unbiblical in the eyes of some Protestant groups that the celebration of the holiday was actually banned)

your opinion that these facts are just opinions - false

 

[Retro Rob]

like-minded people congregating before the existence of christianity - fact
flood myths that predate the biblical flood myth - fact
tales of virgin birthed miracle performers that resurrected after death that predate jesus - fact
winter solstice celebrations that predate christmas (that involved trees, feasts, and gift giving) - fact (Christmas is seen as so pagan/unbiblical in the eyes of some Protestant groups that the celebration of the holiday was actually banned)

your opinion that these facts are just opinions - false

Just to note, a writing based on an alleged event that was "predated" by a writing before it is hardly evidence of direct borrowing, as you're suggesting.

For instance, there are tons of works written about MLK, some ranging from 1960 to 2010. Using your flawed and obviously prejudice logic, any work written after the 1960 work clearly borrowed from the work written in the 60's, so those can be discounted as plagiarized. Of course, without even looking into any evidence, you'd assume that any book written after 1960 on MLK is original...not because you've examined them all, but because they aren't religious in nature.

There are so many "flood myths" and so many works like there are on MLK, that the similarities are really coincidental, since they cover the same event(s) in question

Just sayin', the "predated" argument alone as evidence has long been dismissed by any serious historian of antiquities.

 

[Chaotic42]

But what I have taken issue with is the ignorant hypocrisy as atheists generally seem to hate everything about religion, but they are stealing the "best bits" (oh, the irony) except for God with these new Churches:

I'd argue that the actions of people who describe themselves as atheists no more represent the feelings of every atheist than the actions of a few people who don't believe in unicorns represent the actions of everyone who doesn't believe in unicorns.

That said, clearly these people don't hate everything about religion because in the quote you provided, they specifically said that they liked a lot of things about religion. I don't see how that's hypocritical. Hypocrisy would be if those people said that church was stupid and then did this.

I don't see any evidence of that here.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'd argue that the actions of people who describe themselves as atheists no more represent the feelings of every atheist than the actions of a few people who don't believe in unicorns represent the actions of everyone who doesn't believe in unicorns.

You are correct, that's why I wanted to speak in generalities because I didn't want to misrepresent all of them.

That said, clearly these people don't hate everything about religion because in the quote you provided, they specifically said that they liked a lot of things about religion. I don't see how that's hypocritical. Hypocrisy would be if those people said that church was stupid and then did this.

You are correct, again. But atheism itself seems to be the opposite of religion, so taking the "good bits" from religion contradicts that -- they probably shouldn't be referred to as atheists on those grounds.

 

[Chaotic42]

You are correct, again. But atheism itself seems to be the opposite of religion, so taking the "good bits" from religion contradicts that -- they probably shouldn't be referred to as atheists on those grounds.

Strictly speaking an atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods. Taking parts of religious ceremonies or traditions which one enjoys or thinks are useful doesn't preclude atheism.

There are anti-religious atheists out there who love to get worked up over any inkling of religion they see, but even if they were the majority of atheists, that wouldn't imply that atheism is against religion.

 

[Cozarkian]

You are correct, again. But atheism itself seems to be the opposite of religion, so taking the "good bits" from religion contradicts that -- they probably shouldn't be referred to as atheists on those grounds.

Atheism is the opposite of theism, not religion. It is my (limited) understanding, that you can be both a Bhuddist and an atheist, as there are types of Bhuddism that do not believe in a deity.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Just to note, a writing based on an alleged event that was "predated" by a writing before it is hardly evidence of direct borrowing, as you're suggesting.

not on its own, no, but it is certainly proof of the unoriginality of the bible

There are so many "flood myths" and so many works like there are on MLK, that the similarities are really coincidental, since they cover the same event(s) in question

except flood myths do not cover the same event(s) (there was never a global flood)

Just sayin', the "predated" argument alone as evidence has long been dismissed by
any serious historian of antiquities.

serious historians will tell us the bible largely doesn't hold water and is full of bunk due to lack of corroborating historical texts and archaeological evidence (or even evidence to the contrary)

 

[Retro Rob]

not on its own, no, but it is certainly proof of the unoriginality of the bible/

You've just contradicted yourself. You said it's not evidence on it's own, but its "proof" of the unoriginality of the Bible?

You are clueless.

serious historians will tell us the bible doesn't hold water and is mostly bunk due to lack of corroborating historical texts and archaeological evidence (or even evidence to the contrary)

Please, go educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

 

[Retro Rob]

Atheism is the opposite of theism, not religion. It is my (limited) understanding, that you can be both a Bhuddist and an atheist, as there are types of Bhuddism that do not believe in a deity.

I agree with this. I guess I'm going off of the definitions of atheism in the Western world.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't have too much of an opinion on church and belief because I am not a religious person who believes in God. You would think that would make me an Atheist but that's not right either because I know God exists. No belief or doubt can apply because I know God by my own experience.

The thing that atheists and people of faith have in common is that they both just have opinions.

 

[MongGrel]

Strength in numbers.

*Probable typical Athiest day*

Goes to work, minds his own business, pays his taxes, etc, etc.

Comes home reads the news.

"The Catholic church, Muslim, Baptist >insert religion< is lobbying or pushing to do X, Y, Z.

*The Church of people that really don't care to much about sky gods goes into existence*

Asthiest might figure why not join a group to have Lobbying power, as religions seem to enjoy the benefits.

My take on it more or less.

they should call it Atheist Club.

actually I bet they would if they could get the same 'tax exempt' status as religious churches get. Great, now we have to make the distinction of religious vs non-religous 'church'. bleh

It does have to be a church though, doesn't it ?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

You've just contradicted yourself. You said it's not evidence on it's own, but its "proof" of the unoriginality of the Bible?

You are clueless.

Please, go educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

original, as in "created, undertaken, or presented for the first time"

you're the one that needs an education

The thing that atheists and people of faith have in common is that they both just have opinions.

and the thing that sets them apart is facts and evidence (or lack thereof)

 

[Cozarkian]

Strength in numbers.
It does have to be a church though, doesn't it ?

No. They can get nonprofit status as a social club - 501(c)(7)