"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,

Views: 219

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

your point is taken. I understand your perspective, you could be right.

I just think we have the obligation not to give them the impression that any right thinking atheist thinks of atheism as a "religion/church" that's all. It comes under the heading of chicken soup when your sick: "It may not help us, but it couldn't hurt." ;)

Your friend in disbelief,
If they were curious enough, they would have seen the results of the poll. They would have seen there were mostly "right thinking atheist" here anyway.

On a side note, your condescending tone in some of your comments end up undermining any points you're trying to make.

Once again..it wasn't the result of the poll... it was inferring that atheism and "church", were compatable conepts. They aren't, irrespective of the silly website kristy keeps referring to.
Dave...this can't be so difficult as to be missed on you.

as for your side comment: Thanks for your guidance.

But when one receives admonishment from a person who assumes a mantle of spokesman for the group that their opinion is neither wanted nor valid; that it is "irrational" when the rationale is provided; or that it is proffered too soon from date of membership; or that prior to posting a position one needs to take stock of the membership's sensitivities; when ones postition is then distorted,sidetracked and misrepresented because it is over the head of the person offering the admonshment... condescention is not only warranted, it's inevitable.

Although I agree with you on some of the semantics of atheist vs. religious language, using words like rules, enemies, and weapons aren't really correct either. Where is this Atheist Rule Book? Who wrote it? If we all don't follow it, will there be Atheist Rule Book thumpers?

It seems we get lost in seeing the forest through the trees. They are only in a 'superior position" due to a 2000 year history in fooling the people. However, the crushing weight of the ignorance and insanity that has to be maintained to sustain their existence will eventually be their undoing. Words like reason, evidence science, etc... do need to used in the debate. Just because the phrase "Atheist Church" appeared in a little poll on a website that has 57 people on it at this moment will have zero affect on the overall "War" with theists.
nicely said. At least a few of us get it. Your short synopsis captures the intent of my message better than did my own.


Have you ever heard of a dispicable work called "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion."? It is an inventive work that was written centuries ago to make Jews appear to be christian baby eating, world dominating vermin.
There isn't a word of truth in it. But that never stopped it from being widely circulated throughout Europe, inciting new waves of anti-semitism, and is to this day being used in the middle east to justify hatred against jews. The fact that it is false makes no difference. Its inflamatory and intentionally deceptive writings live on.

If we feed theists the concept that atheism is a religion, even in a small community, even if only by proffering it as a question.. it calls into question the ledgitamcy of our claim to be non-theists/non-religionists; to be Free from worshipping, dogma and doctrine that are the pervue of theists.

Whether the effect is less than 1% or greater is hardly the point.
We may as well ask the poll question: "Should atheists eat christian children?" even if the answer is a resounding 100% "NO THATS INSANE!!", the very posing of the question is antithetical to what atheists are... a misstep, and counter productive.
Anyway... thats my perspective, I respect yours.
If non-theists are "Free from worshiping, dogma and doctrine" it seems to me you are trying to establish a doctrine on how non-theists are suppose to act so theists perceive us correctly. I don't understand why you are so worried about what they think of us. I don't give a rat's ass what they think - they're delusional anyway. Over the long haul the saner ones will continue to loose their faith (probably like most of us did) and the insane ones will become even more marginalized. It's inevitable.

On top of that, this is all trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

inevitable indeed.

yep...mtn out of a mole hill, I agree.
But look how much fun we've all had building that mountain.
c'mon... when was the last time this many people got this excited in a thread that didn't have a theist in it?

we should do more of that here. But I nominate you for the next one. I'm exhausted.

Yours in respect and reality,
The original post expresses 'disgust' at the poll which appears on AN's home page - a poll which actually supports the poster's own view. If that's not irrational, I don't know what is!

Hump wrote: 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.

1) The very FACT that the poll is posted and joins the words " atheist church " togther in an atheist forum ... is counter productive to how atheism is perceived by theists. It infers that the words are not oxymoronic. They are, by definition
That you neither understand that or choose not to is more your failing than any error or trespass on my part.

2) Your comment : "You are very welcome on this site, but I think you have jumped to an unreasonable and irrational conclusion on this matter."

Comes across both authoritarian and confrontational. That you don't understand nor perceive that, and don't recognise that is why i had associated you as site mgmt and the poll author, is unfortunate, and evidently a cognition issue.

3) that you find my comments and conclusion "unreasonable and irrational", when my reasons and rationale were clearly defined, I will dismiss as rhetoric in defense of your over reaction, or failure to fully comprehend the rationale offered. I can pretty much assure you, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Meyers, Bertrand russell, et al, wouldn't have been confused or in disagreement with my posting.

Finally, if the hosts need me to be here x number of weeks before I can voice an opinion, I'd prefer They tell me that. I give them more credit for open criticism, and maturity, than you do evidently. Thank you.

i guess I'll just let my opinion stand as it is.

By the way... maybe you could suggest a poll that asks what doctrine the atheist church should have.
Or since "church" by definition is a theistic construct, what or who the atheist congregants should worship?
What rituals and rites should the atheist congregants of the church observe?

Yep.. makes as much sense as the atheist church premise itself. But, hey, maybe it does to someone here. who knows.

Pleasure chatting with you.

Yours in Reason and reality,
Hump, here's a novel idea for you - why don't you just visit the link I provided: First Church of Atheism and see for yourself what they're all about.

"I can pretty much assure you, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, Meyers, Bertrand russell, et al, wouldn't have been confused or in disagreement with my posting."

Oh, puhleeze! That's as lame as a Christian saying, "I can assure you that Jesus would agree with me on this!"
A) jesus never wrote a book.. these gentlemen did... many. You too can read their writings and understand their perspectives, without an atheist Priest, minister, intermediary to explain it to you. and unlike jesus, all are real, and most of them are still alive and conversant...

B} Heres a "novel though for you" go ask the surviving atheist activits mentioned above their thought on proffering an "Atheist Church". And after they finish laughing in yourface, explaining why the concept is inane, and telling you you've eaten waaay too much kangaroo soup, and maybe a dingo stole your baby...you can come back and rethink your statement.

C) funny site link, thanks..i laughed.

I think we are done here, Kristy.


PS: (Note: my commnets relative to kangaroos and dingos is not meant to infer I dislike or lack respect for aussies. I love Oz and aussies. Most of them. Well.. the non theist ones. Well .. the non theists who can think broadly, have an IQ over 100, and have adequate cognition. OK. just wanted to clarify for anyone who lacks the requisit qualifications. ty :)
You keep trying to infer that I or Atheist Nexus support the idea of an Atheist Church. You are arguing against something that hasn't been said. Again, you remind me of a Christian arguing, "I ain't descended from no monkey!" or "You say that something can from nothing!" Your whole approach is irrational and your latest infantile recourse to bad Australian insults is further proof that you are unable, intellectually, to address the real argument - is there really anything wrong with an atheist site seeking opinions about the concept of an already existing atheist church?

I think you've come to this site hoping to make a 'big splash' - "I'll get on that Atheist Nexus and impress everyone with my superior intellect!" I assure you, we've had antagonistic posters like you before, we're very familiar with them, and we see through them immediately. You're just another in a long line of intellectual name-dropping pretenders. Stay if you like, but you'll find your particular brand of bull won't find much traction here.




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service