"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

I suppose that exactly how bent you get about the word 'church' is directly tied to how you view your atheism. If your goal is to 'differentiate ourselves', then I can see where the language becomes an issue. However, if the most important thing to you is the rights of non-theists and the removal of religion as a major influence in public policy, then integration of our world and theirs seems like a sensible path. At least it can be discussed as a good idea. If theists are more comfortable with me because I go to a church, then that is a good thing, in and of itself.

As to the word being strictly religious, it is now. But words evolve broader definitions or connotations all the time (see: marriage) and church could easily be broadened in its usage to include non-religious gatherings.

As to the poll, it is simply ridiculous to be upset about asking the membership ANY question and I can't see it doing the atheist cause, whatever that is, any harm.

Regards,
"If theists are more comfortable with me because I go to a church, then that is a good thing, in and of itself."

Mike,
With all due respect - that is the most pathetic statement I've ever seen typed or heard uttered by an atheist.
You're welcome to it.

I hope you don't mind that I just used that comment in my blog.
see the right hand column, red type.

http://atheistcamel.blogspot.com/

Hump
Hey, you can be as derogatory and shitty about other people's opinions as you please. It is your right. I can see how this conversation has gone right down the crapper in spite of the best efforts of a few. Fundamentalism comes in all shapes and sizes I see.

I stand by the statement.

And please don't use "with all due respect"...it's a rather...well...pathetic...crutch. If you want to be inflammatory, then be that way without the bromide of a qualifier.
Mike,
I respect your opinion.

Heck, If a Jew in Nazi Germany attended a Neuremburg ralley so other Germans would feel more comfortable with him, I'd respect that.
Or if a Jew attended a church to make him less threatening / or acceptable to his entirely Christian community, I'd respect that.
Or if you needed to attend a Wiccan's coven to make the paganists in your town more comfortable... I'd respect that.

Actually, no..I wouldn't.
You're right. Your statement deserves no respect. I withdraw the nicety.

Uncle Toms come in all shades and philosophies, I see. I'm embarrassed for you.
Regards,
Hump
Thank you for one of the smartest posts in this discussion.
Mike,
I find it ironic how intolerant and bigoted Hump is towards some non-theists when it is the intolerance and bigotry of delusional theists he is so worried about.
Oh, come now Dave, thats a bit extreme isn't it?

I'm not impairing mike's right to express his perspective. I neither threaten nor intimidated him. I just find it wrong headed and illogical. If expressing my distain for such misguided thinking (IMO) is "intolerance", then I guess holding distain for the belief in human sacrifice is "intolerant", or expressing my disgust for believers in witchcraft and bigfoot is intolerant. If it is, it's harmless intolerance.


Theists intolerance , however, seeks to truncate personal freedoms, of gays, women's reproductive rights, the rights of the terminally ill, etc. Some seek to tear down the wall of separation between church and state, force their version of "morality" on all of us.
Some want to see this proclaimed a "Christian Nation." Many want to see creationism/ID taught in science classes. There's lots to worry about in that regard...well..if you care about those things, if you care about preserving liberty and freedoms guaranteed under the 1st amendment.

History has demonstrated the "intolerance" of theistic thinking through the ages. I don't have to enumerate them for you. To put my dismissal of Mike's uncle tom like acquessence to religionists in order to make him more acceptable to them, they more "comfortable" with hinm ... on a par with theistic intolerance is more than a bit silly, it's fractally wrong.

Regards,
Hump
jesus my spelling sucks...does this site have spell check?
No, surprisingly all of us uneducated, unintelligent people manage to spell just fine without it. Shucks, some of us even managed to struggle through all those big words in Hitchens, Harris, Dennett and Dawkins without one of them new-fangled dictionaries.
Kiristy,
I sense you've been hurt.
Two attacks with no topical reference at all. Hmmm. The pain must be running deep.

how do theists say it??... Oh yeah, let me paraphrase them:
"If an atheist hurt you at some time, I'm sorry."

And perhaps if you HAD a dictionary you'd know what the definition of "church" is. Words actually mean things.
Here..use mine: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/church

;)
Hump
Hump,
You are entitled to establish your rules by which non-theists must follow so as not to be then ridiculed by you if they don't, but you did sum it up in your original post:

"That's my opinion. I could be wrong."

I'm done. I climbing down this molehill mountain now.
pal, everything here is opinion, except the history of theist intolerance.

peace,
Hump

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

Latest Activity

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service