 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
"Atheist Church" Poll is Counter Productive and Ill advised
I was sort of surprised when I signed in a few minutes ago that there was a poll asking about whether one would approve of / attend an atheist "church". Frankly , and with all due respect for the poll's author... I was disgusted for a number of reasons.
First, the term "church" is antithetical to atheism. A church is a place of worship, for theists. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church
Secondly, with all the mentally impaired theists calling atheism a "religion" and atheists working to counter their idiocy by telling them that atheism is a religion "like balness is a hair color, like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby" ... here we go talking about an "atheist church", giving them ammunition to renew their claim of atheism = religion.
Thirdly, exactly what do all of us have in common to justify a close knit social structure akin to a theist church? Do we all share a "belief system" in common? A common "world view"? I doubt it. You don't know mine, and I don't know yours, and nothing in being atheist defines one.
Do we feel the need for some "spiritual support" (oy!) by a group of like minded "non-believers"? I'd proffer that we all share in common only one thing...the ONLY thing inferred by "atheism": No belief in God/gods. period. Not much there around which to form a close knit "church" like structure.
Oh yes, we likely have some basic axiomatic principles we all support, like respect for science, the need for evidence to accept a "fact". Most of us accept Evolutionary theory as genuine. Some large percentage of us support the equality for women, and womens right to control their reporductive processes.
But there are already science clubs. There are already womens rights organizations. There are abortion rights orgs. etc. The concept of a Church (argghhh) which seeks to somehow service MY need or ANYONES need driven by one thing and one thing only: "No belief in God/gods" is not only unnecessary, but I find it both irrational and counterproductive to how Freethinkers are perceived.
That's not to say I object to clubs, reading groups, discussion forums, even activist organizations to ensure atheist rights of non-belief and separation of church and state are kept sacrosanct. Hell, I belong to a number of those and they serve a clear and defined purpose. But a formalized "church" is down right misguided. The very concept sets us back 50 years. The poll is misguded and ill advised.
That's my opinion. I could be wrong.
But I doubt it.
Yours in Reason and Reality,
Hump
http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/
First, the term "church" is antithetical to atheism. A church is a place of worship, for theists. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church
Secondly, with all the mentally impaired theists calling atheism a "religion" and atheists working to counter their idiocy by telling them that atheism is a religion "like balness is a hair color, like NOT collecting stamps is a hobby" ... here we go talking about an "atheist church", giving them ammunition to renew their claim of atheism = religion.
Thirdly, exactly what do all of us have in common to justify a close knit social structure akin to a theist church? Do we all share a "belief system" in common? A common "world view"? I doubt it. You don't know mine, and I don't know yours, and nothing in being atheist defines one.
Do we feel the need for some "spiritual support" (oy!) by a group of like minded "non-believers"? I'd proffer that we all share in common only one thing...the ONLY thing inferred by "atheism": No belief in God/gods. period. Not much there around which to form a close knit "church" like structure.
Oh yes, we likely have some basic axiomatic principles we all support, like respect for science, the need for evidence to accept a "fact". Most of us accept Evolutionary theory as genuine. Some large percentage of us support the equality for women, and womens right to control their reporductive processes.
But there are already science clubs. There are already womens rights organizations. There are abortion rights orgs. etc. The concept of a Church (argghhh) which seeks to somehow service MY need or ANYONES need driven by one thing and one thing only: "No belief in God/gods" is not only unnecessary, but I find it both irrational and counterproductive to how Freethinkers are perceived.
That's not to say I object to clubs, reading groups, discussion forums, even activist organizations to ensure atheist rights of non-belief and separation of church and state are kept sacrosanct. Hell, I belong to a number of those and they serve a clear and defined purpose. But a formalized "church" is down right misguided. The very concept sets us back 50 years. The poll is misguded and ill advised.
That's my opinion. I could be wrong.
But I doubt it.
Yours in Reason and Reality,
Hump
http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JayBarti on -
I would like to point out that this is a perfect thread to illustrate this point from Mr PZ Myers
Let's be clear about something else. This is atheism: we have no dogma, we have no infallible leaders, everyone is naturally flawed, and we recognize that within our ranks there is a huge diversity of opinion. Our strategy for dealing with these ideas is the same as the scientific approach — constant, relentless criticism. There is no Atheist Supreme Leader. There is no Atheist Pope. There is no Godless Ruling Council, no Atheist Inquisition, no Freethought Dogma.
Try having this discussion somewhere else. I know feelings got hurt on both sides but the fact that we can talk about both sides is almost a more important result then the original question itself.
As for me...
The poll wasn't anything but a poll (there are 1000's of them all over the internet) it says nothing but, hey have I got a question for you.
Personally I wouldn't go to a place that styled itself as an atheist church, I would however go to a place that was styled an atheist community centre, even if they did exactly the same thing. I know it is just semantics, but I feel words and labels are important but they only have as much power as you choose to let them have over you. For me church will always have a negative connotation, but for others it obviously doesn't. That doesn't mean they are any more wrong then I am wrong or anymore right then I am right. Its a discussion keep it coming I say.
-
Permalink Reply by dromedaryhump on -
Jay said: For me church will always have a negative connotation,
ah... but you see, Jay..for me it simply has a theist connotation. Because thats it's only normal application. Alas, no one seems to want to admit that.
regards.
Hump
-
Permalink Reply by beautifully barren on -
C'mon a gathering would be fun - we dont need to call it a church. We could call it the Fight Club, or just a place to fight about what to call it.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert J. Bowlin on -
Yes, but what would the first rule be...... : )
-
Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on -
Let's take a time out while I boil this thread down to its essential elements, the areas that I think we can all agree on:
1. There is a poll on the A|N home page about the idea of an atheist church.
2. The existence of this poll is unlikely to significantly advance the theist agenda or retard the atheist agenda.
3. Nobody here would attend anything called an atheist church.
4. Everybody here seems at least mildly interested in an atheist community center of some sort.
5. The words "infer" and "imply" are frequently mistaken for each other, even by really smart atheists.
You may proceed.
-
Permalink Reply by Creature on -
Okay, more than a little off topic. I've always been under the impression that "infer" and imply" could be used interchangeably...so once I read number 5. I chuckled a little to myself, before becoming completely insecure about the definition of "infer." Take a look at the usage note, cracks me up. :D
in⋅fer /ɪnˈfɜr/ [in-fur] verb, -ferred, -fer⋅ring.
–verb (used with object) 1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object) 5. to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
Origin:
1520–30; < L inferre, equiv. to in- in- 2 + ferre to bring, carry, bear 1
Related forms:
in⋅fer⋅a⋅ble, in⋅fer⋅i⋅ble, in⋅fer⋅ri⋅ble, adjective
in⋅fer⋅a⋅bly, adverb
in⋅fer⋅rer, noun
Synonyms:
1. deduce, reason, guess.
Usage note:
Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers.
-
Permalink Reply by JayBarti on
-
Edit:
The only dictionary references I can find tied to "church" sadly are all religious ones.
Even through the entomology of the word. (lol I hope I am right or I will look pretty stupid)
This is why a "label of church" will never again apply to me in any form.
-
Permalink Reply by dromedaryhump on
-
Kid,
You're my hero in atheism!
you nailed it!
Unfortunately as sussinct as your essay is there will be people, atheists, who cannot, will not, or simply lack the capacity to understand it.
kudos to you.
Hump
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Debra Stevenson replied to James M. Martin's discussion Republican Candidate Trent Franks and Tony Perkins Compare Repeal of "Roe v. Wade" to End of Slavery
Loren Miller replied to James M. Martin's discussion Just Because You Are Not a Believer Doesn't Mean They Don't Pray For You
Edison Sullivan liked James M. Martin's discussion Just Because You Are Not a Believer Doesn't Mean They Don't Pray For You
Edison Sullivan replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Pope Francis says even Atheists go to Heaven
TNT666 replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Biochar-producing cookstove: win win! in the group Eco-Logical: A Group for Environmentalists
 |
 |
 |
 |
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
