http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/dont_stop_believin_do_atheists_need_a_church/ This was interesting to me. I have absolutely nothing against atheists as they tend to be more reasonable, and the uneducated atheist is far less dangerous to others than the any other uneducated religious person. But, I know a religion when I see one. According to the article, this seems to be a growing trend in England at least. Is there anything like this in other countries? Does it also include regular congregations, symbols, free food, slogans, singing and mockery of other ideological groups? I wonder if resident atheists find something like this appealing or unappealing? Seems to be a good idea. While I've become highly skeptical of any organized mass religion, I do see the immense value in communities being tight knit and informed about each other's problems and progress.
Very unappealing. I remember Christopher Hitchens addressing this once. He said something along the lines of... One of the great things about being an atheist is you don't need to meet every week and reassure yourself that the things you believe are actually true. We don't need to sing hymns about gravity; we don't need to wear ridiculous clothes to feel special... and on. Then he said something like he personally always thought less of people who regularly meet in like-minded groups to massage each others beliefs/opinions. I somewhat agree with that sentiment. I don't need and don't want a weekly/monthly/whatever meetup to listen to someone tell me what I believe (or, in this case, even more absurdly - tell me what I do not believe). There is a group in Houston like this, though. It's called The Houston Church of Freethought: http://www.hcof.org/
I don't have a problem with this. Religious sermons can definitely be uplifting and inspiring, apart from the inclusion of supernatural elements. If the purpose of these gatherings is to build positive bonds and encourage the congregation to do good in the world, what's the problem?
Fellowship. Doesnt have to be more than that. Anything of wide interest has gatherings and congregations of some sorts to mobilize its message. Maybe you still need A SYMBOLIC solid structure to legitimize an institution. Instead of everyone being divided and separated far apart. Or maybe the same way people join in a church for the free food and music, other people would do the same for atheism. Maybe some people DO need to meet occasionally to be told what NOT to believe. I think its kinda lame for atheism, but there's lots of lame yet benign gatherings out there.
Atheism 2.0 now exists? Cool. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2Oe6HUgrRlQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
OK, I just glanced through the article before. Yeah, erecting temples and talks of turning this church into a franchise is too much.
I agree with your sentiments. I do not think they are popular in the USA, as many Athiests feel like Haymitch. However I do know there are a couple in Illinois where I live now. It mostly seems to be a place where people with similar values can get together. I do know that some Athiests "want" to believe because they like the sense of belonging and community that organized religion brings.
Agreed - I don't see a problem with it. It's a bunch of people getting together and seemingly enjoying themselves. I don't see why getting together like that is any different than, say, a bunch of Rockets fans getting together to watch their team and talk about their opinions on it, etc. People crave interaction and community. I don't see why certain types are right or wrong. If they enjoy it and aren't hurting anyone, who cares?
There was an organization for athiests where I went to college. Every year they would set up a table and tell people to bring in their religious texts and they would trade them p*rn magazines for them.
Spoiler <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/w0sGN5wlfhs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
As an atheist, I wouldn't join such a group because I find I have very little in common with other atheists, especially the ones who would define themselves so strongly by their atheism that they'd actually attend a church for it.
To congregate as atheist is not a bad thing. Every special interest group meet and organize so their views can be represented as a group. The Tea Party and NRA is very good when it comes to this and look how politically successful they have been. In order for a particular group to have a bigger voice and have some sort of political clout, you need to be organized. I don't agree with using the words sermon, preach and church for the group you just mentioned so I am 50/50 on this.
I guess before integration and emotional populism made mega-churches inevitable, church used to be about networking and social stratification on the cheap. So if you're at peace with the inevitable bleakness of death, but still want to sell some insurance, get elected to the school board or need some free, low-risk babysitting, then I can see how this would fit the bill.
