"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: 13

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I was seeing the same irony, Dave. Thus the fundie crack. :)

Cheers,
Dromedary - I just want to take this moment to welcome you to Atheist Nexus, since no one seems to have sincerely done so. Welcome! I'm glad you're here! :)

I haven't been a member for very long and was also taken aback when I signed up and was then asked what I thought of an atheist church. I certainly agree that the term "church" should in no way be used in conjunction with any kind of organizing atheists are or will be doing. However, I do think that it's necessary for us to be able to connect so that we can get to know each other and learn from each other and not feel so alone in the world, and to maybe, possibly, one day have a voice in government. So, I guess I agree with what everyone here has already said.

I also wanted to say that, while I did find your original post a tad confrontational, I don't think it was over-the-top. You have every right to write a blog about whatever you want. It wasn't a personal attack on anyone, you weren't cursing or raving incoherently; you were just explaining your feelings and opinion and I think that's fine.

So, again, welcome! Hope to have more discussions with you.
PS - vomit? Really? Ew...
Jennifer,
You're very kind, thank you for that.

Yes, my posting is confrontational. Sometimes using a little hyperbole to drive a point home is warranted, necessary, to provoke thought. But I see that as a good thing.

As atheists we have at least the obligation not to misrepresent what atheism is. As another member here said, theists are already prone to distortion and stupidity, true. My point is we needn't feed the fire of their idiocy and misconceptions.

Thanks for your welcome.

Yours in reason,
Hump

(PS: yeah.. camels churn up green sticky stomach contents and have been known to projectile vomit. Its one of our more charming traits :)
What would you preach about in an Atheist Church? I just don't get it. I think it's a lame idea!
Dromedary Hump wrote here: 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 ... The poll is misguded and ill advised. [Emphasis added]

The majority of AN members who responded to this attack on the poll, said they had no problem with the poll, but didn't agree with the idea of an atheist church. In fact, the poll itself shows that most of our members don't agree with the idea of an atheist church.

And yet, hump has chosen to misrepresent the members of this site on his blog by writing:

"Unfortunately, there are a few atheists who through their own stupidity feed theist misconceptions of atheism. Some of them, the most unthinking and vapid, call for an "atheist church," or at least see no conflict with the oxymoronic term. They typically have lower IQ's than the average atheist, and don't like to look up word meanings like "church" to understand why it's as absurd as a "Muslim Synogogue." These atheists are the Uncle Toms, the embarrassing mentally deficient relatives, of the activist atheist movement ... It’s their lack of thirst for knowledge, a disregard for learning, a limited intellect."

Who has called for an atheist church, here? Where are these atheists calling for an atheist church? What research have you done, hump, to measure the IQs of those who disagree with you?

And then, in a comment on the blog he continues:

"When I objected to this "poll" that a rather large and well known atheist forum psted [sic] about "atheist church", I was blasted for being intolerant of alternate views.

They didn't understand that the word church actually has a theist meaning, specifically Christian. Some of them were genuinely annoyed with my for saying that the concept disgusts me, and is counter productive to activist atheism by promoting an erroneous image of atheism.

Yep, theists don't have a corner on stupidity. They are just the major share holders."

Who here didn't understand that the word church has a theist meaning? Where was he 'blasted' for expressing an 'alternate view'? Hump didn't actually say that the concept of an atheist church disgusted him, he said that the poll disgusted him. Hump's original argument was over whether the poll was, or wasn't appropriate for this site - not the concept of an atheist church.

This person has completely misrepresented the subject and nature of this discussion on his blog and has tried to paint some of the participants in this discussion as ignorant, uneducated Uncle Toms who are clamouring to build atheist churches. This is patently dishonest.

He has done so while unashamedly using this site to beat up publicity for his self-published book. If the book has as much reference to the truth as his blog about this discussion, it doesn't have much to recommend it.
Kristy,
youre dishonest, and obsessed. Dishonest because I preceded my disgust comment with something you conveniently omitted from the sentence. I wonder why. It reads in total thusly: Frankly , and with all due respect for the poll's author... I was disgusted for a number of reasons. It disgusted me then, it disgusts me now. No apolgy is needed nor offered. The only thing that disgusts me more since that posting is your intellecual dishonesty.

It's clear what your trying to twist and why. Youve been bested and exposed and it hurts. So you resort to a personal crusade. Fine.

Kristy, you're unworthy of my reading your post further than that. You are a hurt, lonely and pained woman, with an ax to grind, who can't rise above a low self image and some perceived protector / leader of the group mentality... the Queen Bee syndrome.


The only person who has promoted my book since afer my initial joining message on the 19th is YOU and your cohort Judith. You are obsessed with it. I'm glad. Thank you.

That you seem to be trying to build a case for why you feel I shouldn't be here through misstatements, omissions, distortions of the truth, inventions and patently childlike attacks out of thin air (see todays charming offerings from you) speaks more to your insecurity and vindictiveness than anything I could do to denigrate this group. You degrade it far beyond any honest observations and opinions I make on people's perspectives.

Your bullying doesn't work anymore, Kristy. I pity you.

Lets move on now, shall we? Or are you going to let this eat away at you so as to generate another insipid and wholey transparent post? After all, even the Crusade against the Cathars only lasted 20 yrs.
Yours in reason,

Hump
Hey camelback, what, exactly, did Kristy omit from your opener? Here it is pasted from above:

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.

Here it is, pasted from Kristy's post:

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 ... The poll is misguded and ill advised.

And here it is, pasted from your post:

Frankly , and with all due respect for the poll's author... I was disgusted for a number of reasons.

Before you go accusing people of intellectual dishonesty, you might want to read a bit more closely. Especially considering all three versions are conveniently side-by-side for easy comparison.

And please dispense with the juvenile armchair psychoanalysis of your sparring partners. It only serves to distract from your arguments and alienate people.
Jason,

I erred. When I scanned Kristy's opening paragraph I saw only the bold faced portion of the phrase (why it was bold faced is beyond me) and responded to that erroneously. Intellectual honesty requires me to admit that.

But, if you were impartial, and went back to prior posts from yesterday --in a flurry of exchanges-- you'd see the intellectual dishonesty that I referenced displayed many times over. But it's moot.

Actually, my analyses are generally quite sound. Reject them or accept them, it is of no consequence.

Yours in reason,
Hump
dramedychump, my impartiality is beside the point. It's your job to back up your accusation of intellectual dishonesty, not mine. I have no interest in doing your dirty work.

And whether your armchair psychoanalyses are sound is also beside the point. They are insulting and irrelevent to your arguments. Worse, they make you look petulant, more interested in establishing your superiority and discouraging disagreement than in making a persuasive argument.
Amen--oh, Jesus! I mean, "I agree."
I think you've summarized the entire discussion perfectly well, Kristy.

But I'm still comfortable with the idea of atheist church. :)

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service