I found out about atheist church today. I was listening to the oral argument in the 7th Circuit in a case called Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Jacob Lew, about a federal income tax provision that lets religious ministers exclude their housing allowance. The case was mainly about standing, with the government's lawyer arguing that only someone who sought and was denied the exclusion could challenge it. Somehow that took a detour at one point into whether there are atheist churches, and the government's lawyer said there were, but couldn't name any.
I found this video about an atheist church called The Sunday Assembly:
९ सप्टेंबर, २०१४
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
९४ टिप्पण्या:
What do they do at service? Hand out the communion wafers and then all say in unison "Yep, it's still just an ordinary fucking cracker" before they eat it?
I thought they were called Unitarians.
A Sunday Social Club is a great idea.
The great thing about being an atheist is not having to get up on Sunday morning to listen to people give speechs. Yet, there they sit.
I guess it's meant for atheist extroverts.
The Washington Ethical Society, located about 3 miles south of where I live, is a left-wing, agnostic & "we don't care if you're an atheist" church.
And don't even get me started on some of the Reform & Reconstructionist Jewish congregations in town! If 50% of them even believe in a "Prime Mover" deity much less the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob I'd be stunned.
atheist church?
round here, we call them Episcopalians.
These people say that it would be better if "no one is watching", if there's nothing beyond this life. But that begs the question. IS someone watching? IS there something beyond this life?
There's a story (I don't know if it's true) that a state legislator proposed a law to provide that the value of pi is 3. This would make calculations much simpler. The only problem is that the value of pi is NOT 3.
Why would standing depend on whether some other party not in the courtroom might have standing to sue? That doesn't make sense.
"Freedom from religion"
What kind of construction is that? Can I get "Freedom from self righteous assholes who are displacing their fear of ISIS and Al Quada onto the Amish?
Steve Martin
Atheist Don't Have No Songs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wogta8alHiU
Sounds reactionary, like atheists who don't mind taking an oath, but don't want God mentioned in the oath (look up the etymology of "oath").
A church for child molesters can go to to be forgiven for things that are not sins.
She says she wants to leave the world a better place and feels empowered to do that without a god involved. So she does find an identity in her secular humanism.
I remember we were taught the intelligent and educated were "existentialists" back in the 1960s.
That is all superficial, and no harm comes from it. Except you miss a lot when you stop there. There is more in life than Sociology and Psychology can explain.
Meeting God in the power of the Holy Spirit changes minds. Never meeting Him is really missing out.
Where in our society is anyone forced, or even pressured, to participate in a religion? Are the Freedom from Religion people former Amish?
PackerBronco said...
I thought they were called Unitarians
Thread winner.
REFERENCES: ATHEISM = RELIGION
James J. Kaufman
VS
Gary R. McCaughtey, et. al.
7th US Court Of Appeals
#04-1914
Decided Aug. 19, 2005.
Also related is the case of:
James J. Kaufman
v.
Gary R. Mccarghry and Jamyi Witch
US District Court
Western District Of Wisconsin
#03-C-027-C
Opinion & Order Given
23 March 2006.
Looks like the atheists are jealous of what deists have.
When a believer goes to church, he goes to worship God. When atheists go to a non-church like this, they go to worship their ideals (and, in a way, themselves) and reassure each other that they aren't the crazy ones.
I know there are lipstick lesbian libertarian racists, but I just can't name any.
natatomic said...
Looks like the atheists are jealous of what deists have.
When a believer goes to church, he goes to worship God. When atheists go to a non-church like this, they go to worship their ideals (and, in a way, themselves) and reassure each other that they aren't the crazy ones.
Correct.
Apparently our atheist friends require a continuous and massive dose of self-flattery.
"round here, we call them Episcopalians."
In our parts we call them followers of Joel Osteen and his wife.
I'm not sure why this is a shocking concept. "Atheist" does not mean "non-religious". There are Buddhist sects and Unitarian Universalist churches that are atheistic, for example.
Mind you, I think they're a bit silly. But plenty of people who dismiss the idea of gods still have spiritual beliefs of one kind or another.
I am not certain what you think religion is, Revenant.
Do Scientologists count as atheists? So far as I have heard Scientology does not include any explicit belief in a deity.
Isn't the Anglican Church atheist?
These people are just being honest and admitting Atheism is a religion too.
The only people that "know" anything are the people who know they don't know.
I am not certain what you think religion is, Revenant.
I think it is a waste of my time. :)
The more important question is what American law considers a religion, and there are atheistic faiths -- such as the ones I mentioned -- that have qualified as such for quite a long time now.
Do Scientologists count as atheists?
Sadly, yes.
You may be an ambassador to England or France
You may like to gamble, you might like to dance
You may be the heavyweight champion of the world
You may be a socialite with a long string of pearls.
But you're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed
You're gonna have to serve somebody,
It may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you're gonna have to serve somebody.
It's Dylan all the way down.
Johnny Ive is an atheist. The Apple Watch is garbage. Therefore atheism is garbage.
Basically, the Society for Ethical Culture is an atheist church. And there are atheist "chaplains" in the military. Also, the Society for Humanistic Judaism is an atheist synagogue. I'd also pretty much agree with the comment above about the Unitarians. Which is ironic since the name comes from a belief about the nature of God. But in today's world, they're basically an atheist church.
Interestingly enough, there is an atheist on the internet who does a successful (at least to my POV) that atheism is a religion. I think it's the guys who's written a lot on atheism on About.com
Now we are back to the whole "Freedom from Religion" thing.
What they really want is freedom from all religions unlike their own. A natural human desire that has caused problems through the ages.
All rich white people.
"'Freedom from religion'
"What kind of construction is that?"
It's very simple: the freedom to not have religious doctrines imposed upon us by the state.
"There is more in life than Sociology and Psychology can explain."
Yep, there's also biology and anthropology. And astronomy and physics and chemistry.
Speaking broadly.
Re: Terry & Revenant:
The best example, to my mind, of an atheistical "religion" is Confucianism. There's nothing intrinsicly supernatural about it -- in its classical form Confucianism was essentially a set of religious rituals whose explicitly religious purpose had already been lost a thousand years ago, with a a body of philosophical explanations and justifications for the rituals as part of an overall social order.
It isn't incompatible with religious or supernatural belief. Many people who practice Confucian rites imagine that the ancestor worship rites are there to worship ancestors who are actually there in spirit, for example. And many Christians in Korea today still keep the old rites alongside their modern Christian observances. It just doesn't require any belief in the supernatural.
It's not a real religion in the sense that most Americans think of religion (O Fish, are you constant to the old covenant?) but it occupies a religion-shaped space in many peoples' lives.
Confucianism: the ideal religion for conservative atheists.
"Where in our society is anyone forced, or even pressured, to participate in a religion?"
It's become less an issue in recent years--due to the efforts of atheists--but any state function where the attendees are expected to stand and recite in unison--or just sit and listen to--a prayer (led by a representative of the state) at the commencement of the function.
Also, laws based on religious doctrine that prohibit social activity or commerce--such as "blue laws," where liquor cannot be sold during certain hours on Sundays, for example--force all of the people to become defacto adherents of religious precepts held by only some of the people.
You know Robert, I am forced to pay higher tax rates due to the moral beliefs of others about what the word "fair" means.
I am not sure how the two are different except that you adhere to one set of moral beliefs and not another.
And your belief that sciences like anthropology, for example, can do much more that provide a rich canvas for the projection of cultural beliefs onto silent artifacts is touching.
We all ready have nonreligious social clubs that do community service...
I miss blue laws. If applied evenly, retail being openn Thanksgiving really saddens me. Yeah, they have a pharmacy at Walmart so they get to be open.... But 20 years ago, when I worked at a CVS, we were only open 9-1 on Thanksgiving and there were NO BLACK Friday deals. The store was quiet. Just a few people after the morning football game.
hahahahahhahahahahahahaha
"...your belief that sciences like anthropology, for example, can do much more that provide a rich canvas for the projection of cultural beliefs onto silent artifacts is touching."
Anthropology describes the cultural practices and traditions of a society, exploring their history and development. In learning how (and possibly why) social practices, behaviors and traditions arise, we can better understand what they mean to those who practice them.
"You know Robert, I am forced to pay higher tax rates due to the moral beliefs of others about what the word "fair" means."
Without you providing specific examples, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. However, "moral beliefs" are not the same as religious doctrines, although moral beliefs may be informed and influenced by religious beliefs. (Actually, I think religious beliefs arise from moral beliefs that are innate in us, and not really the other way around.)
"Robert Cook said...
"'Freedom from religion'
"What kind of construction is that?"
It's very simple: the freedom to not have religious doctrines imposed upon us by the state."
Yeah, those laws based on the 5th, 8th, and 9th commandments are such a drag. quit shoving those down our throats!!
Atheist churches are all over - look for Unitarians.
Re: Robert Cook:
Without you providing specific examples, I'm not sure what you mean exactly. However, "moral beliefs" are not the same as religious doctrines, although moral beliefs may be informed and influenced by religious beliefs.
First, Blue Laws are impositions of morality law. Unlike a requirement that, e.g. a man swear an oath before the altar of the Temple of Mars, it's not forcing anyone to practice a particular religion.
Second, even those kinds of forced observances probably impose by far the least burden on those of us who are genuinely atheist, precisely because we are atheists. A man who believes in a religion which commands him that he shall have no other gods may feel such a forced observance to be a deep betrayal of his god. But to me, it's literally just a bunch of words. And maybe some hand gestures.
I don't believe that is true about anthropology, for example.
Jonathon Haidt, an avowed liberal who spent time in a deeply conservative culture in the Subcontinent, was forced by his ideals as an anthropologist to confront his liberal disgust with his research subjects. He ended up writing some things about conservatives that most conservatives who read it pretty much identify as accurate descriptions of our motivations.
His reward? Widespread attacks on his research. Most "research" into conservatism appears to be the product of motivated reasoning on the part of an overwhelmingly liberal academic establishment to describe conservatism as some kind of psychological defect, Soviet style. The fact that a lot of this garbage is countenanced at all is a sad indictment of anthropology as a science with standards.
You can call it science if you want, but really largely a collection of "just so" stories to project liberal myths onto the culture.
Atheist Churches are full People looking for something. But they don't know what they're looking for.
Within ten minutes of where I live there are eleven catholic churches. Twelve baptist churches.Four Lutheran churches. A Unitarin Church. A couple of Congregational churches. Three synagogs. A couple of Greek Orthodox Churches.And a Hindu Temple.
Ya know what? I don't have to go to any damn one of em. And if standing up at a meeting and mumbling an invocation to your diety makes you happy, then knock yerself out. It isn't hurting me in the least.
"Congress shall pass no law....." Doesn't say a fucking thing about states or municipalities or just people invoking the help of their selected ultimate concern.
Athiest Church. My ass.
Robert Cook is a goof ball.
"Freedom from religion" is a construction designed to prevent others from exercising their freedom of speech.
Nobody has to "listen" to a prayer ("led by a representative of the state) at the commencement of the function"). Worst case, you have to sit through it, like sitting through a stop light when there is no other traffic on the road.
It is odd that an elected official can tell whatever lies are expedient that he/she wants with total impunity and express bigoted, bizarre opinion as if it were fact, as long as it isn't using the word "God."
Blogger MadisonMan said...
Atheist Churches are full People looking for something. But they don't know what they're looking for.
9/10/14, 8:12 AM
Agnostic Churches are full of people who aren't sure they should even be there.
Church of the Material Dialectic is up the road, Comrade.
Services are always and never.
"'Freedom from religion' is a construction designed to prevent others from exercising their freedom of speech."
Not in the least, unless you think one's right to exercise one's religion includes the right to impose one's religious beliefs and practices on others.
"Nobody has to 'listen' to a prayer ('led by a representative of the state) at the commencement of the function'). Worst case, you have to sit through it, like sitting through a stop light when there is no other traffic on the road."
In other words, you do support the state imposing religious doctrine on others. How does one just "sit through" a prayer without listening to it? Why does a state function include readings or recitals of any religious doctrine? Would you be so sanguine about it if state functions were opened with prayers to Allah?
"Blue Laws are impositions of morality law."
Yes, informed by religious doctrine. Thus, they force citizens where such laws are in force to become defacto, even if unwilling, adherents to the religious doctrine/morality being enforced by law.
"It is odd that an elected official can tell whatever lies are expedient that he/she wants with total impunity and express bigoted, bizarre opinion as if it were fact...."
He or she can only do so as long as the official is not caught, or, if caught, as long as the official's constituents are happy enough to continue voting the offical into office.
James Pawlak said...
REFERENCES: ATHEISM = RELIGION
Court cases never prove anything (except that judges are generally pompous boneheads).
Not believing in god(s) is no more of a religion than not believing in unicorns.
Re: Robert Cook:
Yes, informed by religious doctrine. Thus, they force citizens where such laws are in force to become defacto, even if unwilling, adherents to the religious doctrine/morality being enforced by law.
This involves such a perversion of the ordinary meaning of these terms that it might as well be word salad. Blue laws may be informed by religious doctrine on the front-end, but on the back end, in its real, practical effects, it's just a common-or-garden regulation of commerce to an atheist. I'm not being turned into a de facto "adherent" of a religious doctrine or morality because I can't buy liquor on Sundays in Virginia, any more than I'm turned into a Communist because I can only buy liquor from the state-run liquor stores.
Robert Cook was fun to debate back when I knew him as a second year college student.
But that was about 30 years ago.
Atheists generally have a very specific image of the God they don't believe in.
I usually find that though I'm Catholic, I don't believe in that God either.
"But that was about 30 years ago."
40 years ago.
tim in vermont said ...
The fact that a lot of this garbage is countenanced at all is a sad indictment of anthropology as a science with standards.
The American Anthropological Association officially moves to ditch science.
AAA backpedals.
"I'm not being turned into a de facto 'adherent' of a religious doctrine or morality because I can't buy liquor on Sundays in Virginia...."
Sure you are, even if you don't want to accept it.
Because a law written to enforce notions of proper behavior on the Christian sabbath prohibits you from buying liquor on Sundays, you are being made to behave--or prevented from "misbehaving"--according to the religious dictates of others.
Unknown said...
Nobody has to "listen" to a prayer ("led by a representative of the state) at the commencement of the function"). Worst case, you have to sit through it, like sitting through a stop light when there is no other traffic on the road.
One would have to listen to know when it's over, just as one has to watch the light to know when it turns green. The prayer is analogous to a stoplight without an intersection - a pointless waste of time. At least nobody's being tortured to death for heresy.
Volokh:
Should atheists who refuse to say ‘so help me God’ be excluded from the Air Force?
Minor issues compared to medieval Europe or the current M.E., but still not freedom from other peoples' religions.
The atheist church or as I like to call it a social club.
Robert Cook said...
"He or she can only do so as long as the official is not caught, or, if caught, as long as the official's constituents are happy enough to continue voting the offical into office."
That's racist Robert.
Funny how much of Cook's "thinking" is based on attempting to control the definition of terms.
Making somebody stand for a long time = Torture = Hooking a car battery to his testicles why you rape his daughter and wife in front of him, a la Saddam's terror state.
Last I checked, Buddhism counts as a "religion" and they don't believe in God, but rather embrace a bunch of rituals, morals, and beliefs. Whether this is somehow different than Socialism, for example, only depends on whether you get to define the terms of the debate narrowly and carefully enough as battlefield preparation.
Bicycle-riding old trouts.
Years ago, I remember reading an article about a controversy in the Unitarian-Universalist church. It was about whether God should be referred to as He or She in their creed. They resolved this by leaving God out of the creed totally, since you did not have to believe in God to be a member anyway. So yes, there is an atheist church.
Via Drudge:
Boy Charged For Desecration Of Jesus Statue
"The teenager, who was not identified by cops, was charged yesterday with desecration of a venerated object, a misdemeanor. His case will be handled in juvenile court.
As seen at right, one of the photos posted to the teenager’s Facebook page shows him with his crotch in the face of the kneeling statue."
Apparently he didn't actually harm or modify the statue in any way.
America needs to be destroyed in order to tolerate the diversity. I wonder what a uniformly integrated world would look like. Would there be an abortion clinic on every corner? Perhaps with drive- through service. Government has a compelling interest to secure democratic and taxable commodities.
tim in vermont said...
Funny how much of Cook's "thinking" is based on attempting to control the definition of terms.
Making somebody stand for a long time = Torture ...
Cook never used the word "torture", so if you're going to complain about controlling the definition of terms, you might want to stick with the terms which were used. I used the term, but to point out it's not occurring.
So far, Bob, congress hasn't passed a law establishing a religion. The house chaplin not withstanding.
I always got a kick out of the alleged athiests demanding that the Village of Skokie remove their giant mezuzeh from the town hall lawn.
As an athiest, why would you care?
"I always got a kick out of the alleged athiests demanding that the Village of Skokie remove their giant mezuzeh from the town hall lawn.As an athiest, why would you care?"
Personally, I don't care. But other people do, and not all of them are atheists.
A big part of being a leftist is perfect knowledge of which persons are allowed to perceive slights and to "be offended" and for what offenses, and which people simply don't matter in this regard.
I chalk it up to their higher, more evolved humanity, to which we troglodytes may not even aspire.
"I guess they sorta hafta come to this finding in order to protect the United States from being sued by our own torture victims." - Robert Cook on Althouse.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/04/torture-victim-cannot-sue-palestinian.html
That is only the first hit I could find. No scare quotes, just a matter of fact assertion that the US has "torture victims."
Not sure which debate you are referring to, but "never" rarely holds up.
@tim in vermont
I don't know who your comment @ 3:18 pm is directed at, but we do have torture victims...that is, people we have tortured and who have been tortured for us by others. That's not even in dispute by anyone who is being honest.
since there is an atheist church, does that mean that every time atheists force the removal of the ten commandments from a courthouse they are forcing their religion on the rest of us?
I mean that as a serious question. Could Pat Roberts go to court with that assertion?
"since there is an atheist church, does that mean that every time atheists force the removal of the ten commandments from a courthouse they are forcing their religion on the rest of us?"
No. The absence of any signs, plaques, or other public furniture bearing written religious doctrine cannot be said to be the imposition of a doctrine of atheism. It can only be said that no doctrine is being displayed or published, i.e., promoted by the state entity.
If the atheist church has written doctrine and it somehow contrived to have that doctrine displayed in government buildings, they then could be said to be using the state to establish and impose their "religion" on everyone else.
"
If the atheist church has written doctrine and it somehow contrived to have that doctrine displayed in government buildings, they then could be said to be using the state to establish and impose their "religion" on everyone else."
But since the Ten Commandments clearly form part of the basis for our legal code, and atheists say there is no God, and they force the removal of symbols, etc. Aren't they then forcing their doctrine on me?
Robert,
I have personally beaten the snot out of taliban recalcitrants in Afghanistan. That was kinda like torture. Al quaeda in Iraq too. They were scum and we really wanted to know where their friends were as we were enemies engaged in life and death battle. But I know how bad we were. That isn't what America stands for and stuff. We loved hearing what jackasses sitting at home on their couch thought about these things.
Of course the guys we were fighting were as intolerant of Christians as you are. They rejected the public displays of religion that wasn't their own even more assiduously than atheists here. Is this why it always seems like you are on the other side? It always seemed to us like you guys just hated everything about us and our country. Just saying.
"Cook never used the word "torture"," I was responding to that.
Achilles, Thank you for your service. I wish to God it wasn't necessary.
Robert, this video of the Taliban "beheading" Buddha in Afghanistan should warm your heart, religion being the opiate of the masses.
I consider myself a "Christian Atheist" kind of like the atheist Jews who are so common, but they are still Jews, and I still try to take advice from Jesus when I can. I just don't consider the New Testament a suicide pact.
Achilles,
So few words, but so much wrong with what you say.
Tim in Vermont @ 5:01 AM
I have no idea what you're going on about. "...the New Testament a suicide pact."
Wha---??!
"But since the Ten Commandments clearly form part of the basis for our legal code, and atheists say there is no God, and they force the removal of symbols, etc. Aren't they then forcing their doctrine on me?"
No. The constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Those who oppose display of the Ten Commandments and other religious iconography or the recital of prayer in state settings and functions--not just atheists oppose this, by the way--argue that by displaying religious images and writings and by leading those assembled for state functions in prayer, the state is promoting Christian doctrine as official state religion. They are not "imposing atheism" but consider such displays and activities to be in violation of the First Amendment. (Again, not all who oppose state display or promotion of religious images or doctrine are atheists, and besides, "the imposition of atheism" would require that the state actively declare or establish that there is no God.)
I don't understand why Christians seem so hell-bent (heh) on having their religious imagery and commandments displayed and their prayers read at state functions or state institutions. There's a church on every corner, a denomination for every choice, and anyone who wishes can pray all day and all night--to oneself, as prayer should be done. Those who need to practice their religion have no scarcity of places, times, and means to do do; why also expect these matters to be brought into the public sphere?
(Who says the Ten Commandments "clearly" form part of the basis for our legal code? Proscriptions against murder and stealing are basic to the laws of any human society. As for the other eight commandments...well, no.)
" and anyone who wishes can pray all day and all night--to oneself, as prayer should be done. "
Says pan-religious expert and guru Robert Cook.
Matthew 6:5-6
"5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
"6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
Maybe you read it wrong. People who read something only to attack it tend to miss nuances.
@Unknown:
I've quoted it as it is stated in the King James Bible. It is a very well known admonition by Jesus. I did not offer any editorial comment, so...you tell me what you think it means.
Oh, you did not offer any editorial comment. Um, that would come in the prior posts, for which you offer this quote as biblical justification, hypocritical in itself. Either you believe it or you don't and if you don't, why are you quoting it?
@Unknown I put your comment through -- posts older than 2 days have pre-moderation -- but I do not approve of your snotty attitude -- "Um" -- in responding to Robert Cook. Stick to the substantive merits. The incivility undercuts your argument and makes you look bad quite apart from what you may be trying to say.
"Either you believe it or you don't and if you don't, why are you quoting it?"
What do you mean? Why wouldn't I believe it? Why would I quote it to support my previous comment if I didn't believe it?
Or, do you mean, do I believe in the divinity of Jesus? That is an entirely different question, irrelevant entirely to my point.
apologies professor I was doing voice to text and I obviously didn't edit hard enough. I am NOT editing this one either so I hope it doesn't commit any solace isms on my behalf. I see Android doesn't know "solecisms."
cook, this bores me. You're always attacking. Is there anything that you support, endorse or stand for, that you would like to speak of or 4 in an affirmative fashion?
Sorry, Robert, I cannot continue, I am being censored by the hostess.
@Unknown
Did you not see my statement above about posts older than 2 days always being pre-moderated?
You have to wait for your comment to go through when the post isn't relatively new. It's not censorship.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा