• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Atheist church has first schism

A'isha said:
This kind of nonsense is exactly why I avoid joining any organized atheist groups.
Click to expand...

I think it would be flattery of most atheist groups to call them 'organized'.

I'm sure if the groups involved had submitted to a central authority this unfortunate occurrence of two groups going in different directions could have been squelched for the heresy it is.

Personally, I consider our ability to amicably part ways to be a feature, not a bug.
 
Locally, we have a group of long standing called the "Ethical Society". Technically an atheist group. Within a couple of years, a group split off from them, calling themselves the Rationalist Society.... They felt that the Ethical Society had become too "religion like", with group "services" and singing and all....

Likely the same reason we have over 2000 different Christian sects as well.
 
I cannot say that I am surprised at new factions/sects developing in these so called 'Atheist Churches'.

After all, I am essentially an atheist myself and I have other atheists here on JREF loudly say how wrong I was when I said "that there is no definitive information about God".

After much discussion, eventually these same people did admit that my statement was correct, however I was amazed that such a discussion even occurred between two people who have the same lack of belief in something which most likely does not even exist.

Ugh!

That is why I will never join an Atheist Church no matter what their ideals are; because when people get into groups, before too long they start fighting among themselves and everyone is absolutely sure that their faction is right and that the other faction is wrong.
 
A'isha said:
But I'd sure as hell keep my distance from people who ranted about how much they hated stamp collecting and thought that all philatelists were mentally ill, or people who meet regularly to sing songs together and discuss all the stamps they don't collect and all the stamp collecting they don't do.
Click to expand...
Well, I expect anyone would. I don't understand the comparison or analogy you are trying to make here, if any. Because, that isn't what happens at Sunday Assembly.

Brian-M said:
I really don't get the whole concept of an atheist church. Why not just keep it as a secular gathering rather than explicitly atheist gathering? Theists and atheists alike would both be welcome to attend.

And why call them churches, instead of something like community groups?

Those interested in attending this kind of thing could hold weekly gatherings in their local community center each Sunday.

Deliberately using terminology associated with religious institutions seems a little silly to me.
Click to expand...
It is essentially a lot of weekly gatherings in local communities of people - theists and atheists are all welcome to attend.

The problem is, someone once coined it the 'atheist church' and that has stuck, regardless of the fact it is actually called the Sunday Assembly, and sometimes referred to by the members as the godless congregation. We have a (at least one) christian on the committee of our local Sunday Assembly, plus a non-atheist who has a term for their position that I can never remember, but it is not a religion title. We have a humanist and a few atheists.

It is a secular gathering, exactly as you describe, but the media don't seem to want to encourage that kind of inclusive, uncontroversial thinking, so they have played up other aspects.
 
Last edited:
Mister Agenda said:
For there to be a 'schism', wouldn't the group splitting off have to belong to the other group in the first place? Sounds like some folks looked at Sunday Assembly, decided it wasn't their cup of tea, and proceded to do their own thing.
Click to expand...

The group splitting off did belong to the original group: they started as the New York branch of the London-based Sunday Assembly, but broke away and formed the Godless Revival because the Sunday Assembly apparently didn't hate believers enough.

chillzero said:
Well, I expect anyone would. I don't understand the comparison or analogy you are trying to make here, if any. Because, that isn't what happens at Sunday Assembly.
Click to expand...

You're right, and I apologize for getting carried away with my snark. My description really only applies to the Godless Revival breakaway group.

I'm actually much closer in my own atheism to the attitude the Sunday Assembly has, and I guess my only real objection to them is that the "services" depicted in the article seem cringe-inducingly goofy to me, somewhat akin to the way I (as a comic and anime fan) sometimes feel about the things certain other fans do and say at conventions.
 
Last edited:
Craig B said:
Do different sects of atheists disbelieve in different gods?
Click to expand...
.
That's some of it.
The Grand Inquisitor is gonna have problems determining which god or gods the atheist on the rack is currently.... say, that brings up electrical probes as more "interesting" than the rack... not believing in, and when did that start...
 
We Discordians have to stick apart.

As an Atheist, I never though these "Churches" would really catch on. It doesn't seem like you can keep people in a long term social situation with a central premise that is a reaction to some others beliefs as opposed to the expression of a positive belief.

As a note, if you want the social activity of a church, and want to meet a bunch of atheists, try the Unitarians.
 
I'd thing actually that in this day and age, you have the mobility to be near any of the possibly hundreds of thousands to millions of people in your area without even commuting. Why not search for a group that you actually have more shared interests than sitting together in a big room, pretending you're in some kind of church?

Whatever your interests are, be it something serious like Austrian school economics or just talking about catgirl anime, there's probably more than one person in your area that you can talk to about it.

I could understand why a village of 200 people in the middle ages would pretty much have only the pub or that tall building with a cross at the top to congregate in. But nowadays in even a modest sized city you can do a lot better than joining a group defined by just congregating in the same place.
 
I'm with Groucho on this... I wouldn't join a church that would have me as a member.
And would eschew the AA meetings and interventions.
 
And we are the same people who laugh at the supposed angels dancing on the pinhead.

:o
 
For the Sunday Assembly, an atheist church is one that has no belief in God; the schismatics think it should be one with a belief in no God.
Click to expand...
Does the Spirit proceed from the Father to the Son or from the Father through the Son? :D Once you start asking questions of this nature, pretending you're different from religion in any significant way is....cute.

A'isha said:
As I indicated in my OP (and have said often here), I am an atheist.
Click to expand...
No you're not. You simply don't believe in gods. That's not what TRUE atheists believe.

That's my objection to the title of the thread--atheism has numerous schisms. Atheism+ is one. The New Atheists are one (I consider anyone who asks for proof those people exist to be trolling--Google it yourself, the name's not of our making). There are others, but sleep deprivation prevents me from thinking of any. The deepest divide right now seems to be whether atheism requires anti-theism or not--in other words, is it sufficient to merely not believe in gods, or must one also consider religion to be so monsterous an evil that lying, misrepresentation (not always the same thing), and dishonest debate tactics (such as pride in not knowing theology, when attempting to debate theological points) are not only acceptable, but required.

thrombus29 said:
As an Atheist, I never though these "Churches" would really catch on. It doesn't seem like you can keep people in a long term social situation with a central premise that is a reaction to some others beliefs as opposed to the expression of a positive belief.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Once the initial phase of "Wait, there are other people who don't believe? I'm NOT abnormal?!" wears off, all that's left is bashing religion, and that gets old after a while. The closest thing an atheist "church" can have to a central purpose is attacking religion. It just doesn't work--only the most irrationally vicious people would accept such a community, and that'll drive away most people regardless of beliefs.

For my money, the SCA takes the place of religion quite nicely. It provides a wide-spread community, social networking, and an excuse to get out of the house/office routine once a week, with some special days set aside to break up the routine even more (I'll take Pensic over Holy Week any day!). It's also a lot more fun. Instead of reading boring books, we bash on each other with sticks and debris (a quote from a song, for those unfamiliar with it). And instead of flat, flavorless bread and bad wine, our feasts include roast meats, pickled vegitables, fish, multiple types of breads, and large amounts of alcohol.

Any social group can work, however. A gym can work. A local gaming community can work. If you feel that something must replace religion, you can find communities that share in your interests and become a part of those communities. Churches ostensibly offer some positive value--ethical teachings and salvation. They're wrong, but that's what they claim. The reason many feel the need to fill a void once they walk away is because they replace that time with something of no value, such as reading second-rate sci-fi and talking about how much they hate religion. Fill that time with something you enjoy, in a community you enjoy, and the question of religion rapidly becomes quite irrelevant. I haven't attended a church service outside family functions (funerals and weddings) in over a decade, and I've neither missed it nor felt compelled to join any atheist mockery of the institution.

Check out Heather Dale's TED talk about finding one's clan. She explains all of this better than I can, from a slightly different perspective (religion doesn't enter into the talk).
 
Dinwar said:
No you're not. You simply don't believe in gods. That's not what TRUE atheists believe.

That's my objection to the title of the thread--atheism has numerous schisms. Atheism+ is one. The New Atheists are one (I consider anyone who asks for proof those people exist to be trolling--Google it yourself, the name's not of our making). There are others, but sleep deprivation prevents me from thinking of any. The deepest divide right now seems to be whether atheism requires anti-theism or not--in other words, is it sufficient to merely not believe in gods, or must one also consider religion to be so monsterous an evil that lying, misrepresentation (not always the same thing), and dishonest debate tactics (such as pride in not knowing theology, when attempting to debate theological points) are not only acceptable, but required.
Click to expand...

Well, I did specify "atheist church" rather than atheism in general as having the schism in my thread title. As you point out, I'm all too aware of the divisions within atheism itself (I don't know how many times I've been called a "faitheist" here).

I just think the divisions are kind of dumb (hence my reaction to the "new new atheism' thing). I'm just as opposed to the idea of Atheism Plus as I am to New Atheism, because I completely fail to see the need to place my lack of belief in any kind of deity anywhere close to the forefront of my identity.

Being an atheist is a pretty minor part of who I am, and outside of this particular sub-forum on JREF, I almost never spend any time thinking about my atheism. The fact that I don't believe in any gods about as important to my sense of self as the fact that I don't own a dog.
 
Brian-M said:
I really don't get the whole concept of an atheist church. Why not just keep it as a secular gathering rather than explicitly atheist gathering? Theists and atheists alike would both be welcome to attend.

And why call them churches, instead of something like community groups?

Those interested in attending this kind of thing could hold weekly gatherings in their local community center each Sunday.

Deliberately using terminology associated with religious institutions seems a little silly to me.
Click to expand...

It is called 'taking the piss'. I agree though. I think some atheists think that they have to be opposite theists.
 
Nay_Sayer said:
does new atheism have baby eating?
Click to expand...

^This. If the "new atheists" are worried about throwing the baby out with the bath water in denying religion, the part they should look to keep isn't Sunday service, but cannibalism...oh, and zombies too. :p
 
I know certain people love to try to paint out atheism as a religion with its own different sects. But it doesn't work. Atheists don't share a common worldview or anything like that, all they share is a non-positive answer to one question.

Those atheist churches represent only their own members, and nobody else (I don't even think they try to represent anyone else). Certainly not all of the world's atheists. I'd be surprised if many of the atheists in China and Vietnam have ever heard of this atheist church.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom