"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/

Tags: atheism, atheist, church, detrimental, poll, to

Views: 14

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

kristy..
i did not say you or the mgmt support atheist church.
I didnt infer it once.

You have entirely missed the point. I can see now it would be useless for you to read it again. Lets stop talking. I fear we are separated by a common language, among other things. I will endeavor to keep things more... simple... in the future

Oh, and terribly sorry about name dropping dawkins, hitchens, et al in an atheist forum like this ... my bad. I can see how that would be perceived as haughty to some one like you.


Best regards, and G'day.
Hump
Seems to me that the First Church of Atheism is simply about ordaining atheists so they can perform weddings. Doesn't seem like any type of community.
Jennifer,
You are correct.

when I read that site it looked like a parody of christian sites that offer theological diplomas for a price. That this site promotes, first and foremost, some free "degree"/ credentials that endow the holder with certain rights and priviledges is clearly meant to make a point.

I'm certain that it's use of the term "church", is to justify or challenge church exemption from taxation, and the rights bestowed on churchs to perform certain duties that could be performed by secular people.

What I find amusing (and somewhat disturbing) is that some here, presumably educated people, are fooled into thinking this is actually a "church" by the dictionary defintion which is a religionist word, the only sense in which the word can exist; and thus are confused and befuddled.

Ah well.

Hump
Judith,
Not at all. It's my pleasure.

... and take your time, I have the patience of Job.
Regards,
Hump
Thanks for pointing out the real motivation here, Judith. This whole thread had an odor of self promotion. As I said early in the thread, it's all about making a 'splash' - obviously to hawk his blog and his book.

I took a look at hump's book on Amazon. I wasn't surprised to see it is self-published.

Self-praise is no recommendation, hump - and self-publication reeks of a book no real publisher would touch.
Thanks for that kristy. Any publicity is good publicity. I appreciate your bringing my book up.

as a first time author who's been as high as the #6 selling atheist themed book on amazon (july 6-8), and promoted by Richarddawkins.net, and the Huntington Post, and having 35,000+ google hits on my book title, I'll try not to let your jealousy and distain for me slow me down on the way to the bank. Oh, there's that pesky name dropping you hate so much. tsk tsk..

I'm sure Marcel Proust, James Joyce, john Grisham, Harriet Potter, etc. etc., et al, would consider your reference to self published authors a bit short sighted.

I note you've dropped trying to actually engage in discourse on the subject, and have now simply reverted to being snarky and seeking support from other members to bouy your hurt sensibilites.
I guess when one realizes they lack the ability to engage in discourse on topic and at a high level; having had their ass handed to them ; and having been exposed as an inarticulate marginally educated, self appointed group demagogue, thats all you can do.

But hey..you do it so well.

Regards,
Hump
http://theatheistcamelchronicles.blogspot.com/
OOps...typo. not Harriet, Beatrix Potter..you know: "Peter Rabbit". You may have heard of it.
Yes, I've actually heard of Beatrix Potter - she was briefly engaged to her publisher, Norman Warne, of Frederick Warne & Co, before his death.
Thanks, hump. You've just confirmed both your motivation for being on this site and the fact that you're a first class ass with no intention of contributing to this site beyond lining your own pocket. Your aim here has been to exploit AN for free publicity. It's a cheap and tacky approach and I doubt it will pay off.

We are, of course, delighted to promote books written by members who have made an effort to contribute to the site in a positive way. But you have rushed in like an incontinent bull in china shop, and caused as much disturbance and hurled as much shit as you can. It's a piss poor marketing strategy, hump.

I haven't responded any further to your - ahem - argument because once you realized you couldn't win on your original point, you changed tack.

Your original argument was that the poll about the atheist church should not be there. When you failed to convince anyone of that, you swapped horses and started arguing against the atheist church itself - something the poll had already demonstrated wide agreement on. A rather clumsy trick for someone who's losing one argument to do a bait and switch to another one.

As for your comments about me being inarticulate and marginally educated, that's for the rest of the members to judge. As I've already said, self-praise is no recommendation.
Kristy,
You're interpretation of what I bring here is of no regard to me.

Ive already heard from other members about your holier than thou, and pompous attitude and conduct here.

Your dishonesty hadn't been mentioned, but it's evident in the above post, since a number of thinking atheists did indeed corroborate my point and perpective, albeit, that probably pains you to admit and thus ignore it.

But offering an opinion isn't a win or lose proposition. It's an opinion. Offered for consideration, discourse, acceptence or rejection. That's probably lost on you, given your short comings.


I must say, you are living up to what those members told me.
:)
Hump

(ah..here comes another email advising me of a new whine.lol)
Kristy..
Your ignorance knows no bounds:

Beatrix Potter, self published... Here .. read and learn : http://www.blurtit.com/q883564.html

Now..what excuse will you whine to us since you've been discredited again?
Why are you so resistant to fact, being educated, and feel this need to prove yourself? It's failing miserably. You're embarassing yourself.

Hump
Self-published she may have been at the beginning - but she was good enough to get a real publisher to handle her work early on. You'll have made your point when you get a real publisher - not before.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service