NY Mag - Do Atheists Need a Church of Their Own?

[Synnical]

Or, If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?

Or, The Church of Atheism - as the front of the Mag headlines the article




Nothing really new here, but it's an okay article.

http://nymag.com/news/features/46214/

. . . .

The Society for Ethical Culture was formed in 1877, eighteen years after Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species and made the religious universe wobble on its axis. But godlessness can be a little scary, even for an atheist. Ethical Culture’s imposing 1910 edifice on Central Park speaks to its patrons’ wealth, as well as their concern that society might fall apart if it didn’t have a church. But for all the grandeur of its secular cathedral, Ethical Culture peaked at maybe 6,000 members, with only about 3,000 today.

Now, once again, nonbelievers have a fresh sense of mission. The fastest-growing faith in the country is no faith at all. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released the results of its “Religious Landscape” survey in February and found that 16 percent of Americans have no religious affiliation. The number is even greater among young people: 25 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds now identify with no religion, up from 11 percent in a similar survey in 1986. For most of its modern history, atheism has existed as a kind of civil-rights movement. Groups like American Atheists have functioned primarily as litigants in the fight for church-state separation, not as atheist social clubs. “Atheists are self-reliant, self-sufficient, independent people who don’t feel like they need an organization,” says Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists for the past thirteen years. “They’re so independent that if they want to get involved, they usually don’t join an organization—they start their own.”

The quartet of best-selling authors who have emerged to write the gospel of New Atheism—Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Dawkins (the Four Horsemen, as they are now known)—has succeeded in mainstreaming atheism in a nation that is still overwhelmingly religious and, in the process, catalyzed a reexamination of atheistic raison d’être. But for some atheist foot soldiers, this current groundswell is just a consciousness-raising stop on the evolutionary train, the atheist equivalent of the Stonewall riots. For these people, the Four Horsemen have only started the journey. Atheism’s great awakening is in need of a doctrine. “People perceive us as only rejecting things,” says Ken Bronstein, the president of a local group called New York City Atheists. “Everybody wants to know, ‘Okay, you’re an atheist, now what?’ ”

So some atheists are taking seriously the idea that atheism needs to stand for things, like evolution and ethics, not just against things, like God. The most successful movements in history, after all—Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.—all have creeds, cathedrals, schools, hierarchies, rituals, money, clerics, and some version of a heavenly afterlife. Churches fill needs, goes the argument—they inculcate ethics, give meaning, build communities. “Science and reason are important,” says Greg Epstein, the humanist chaplain of Harvard University. “But science and reason won’t visit you in the hospital.”

More at link

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[and-justice-for-all]

1. Rubbish...

to say the least.

Another attempt to try and tag Atheist with a 'religious' contintation. We do not nor do we want a church of any kind, Atheism is not scary and the "fastest-growing faith in the country is no faith at all" What the fuck ever. There is no faith involved or required.

"Churches fill needs", no they do not. What they is provide a false since of security and distort the reality of the world with superstitous nonsence.

[Warpy]

2. Don't discount the role of community in a lot of people's lives

Churches have been known to organize all sorts of things to help out member families that have fallen on hard times. They also provide the only social venue that doesn't involve fistfights and potential DUIs in a lot of towns.

I've seen a church "family" provide a lot of support to families with someone deathly sick in the ICU. People barely know their neighbors in our overworked country, but they know the people in their churches.

To say they provide no useful function is naive, at best. They most certainly do for a lot of people out there. To deny that is to miss most of the point of why they're still in existence.

I do agree about the slightly patronizing tone of the article, trying again to define us in terms of faith when we have none.

[and-justice-for-all]

3. Well I will kindly disagree with you...

I do not see any need for churches or their wedges they use to maintain such a hold on society.

Churches are not needed to provide support to someone who is deathly sick in an ICU, can you not go to the ICU and see if someone is in need if you feel to do so? So can anyone else, no church required. "To say they provide no useful function is naive, at best"; I think it is more naive of you to think that churches are needed to provide any kind of solace or comfort to people in need.

They continue to exist because it is allowed to do so. Religions cruel history far out weighs any 'good deeds' they hand out.

[Warpy]

8. Again, you're wrong on several accounts

First, don't ASSume that because you are emotionally self sufficient everybody else must be.

Second, if you'd read my post carefully, you'd see that the churches provided emotional support to the families. The person in the ICU bed is generally drugged to the point of not caring about anything, even an impending trip to judgment and hell.

Third, they exist because they meet the emotional needs of people. If they didn't, people would abandon them the way they abandoned temples to Zeus.

But thanks for playing.

[YankeyMCC]

9. Poor neglected Zeus

: (

[and-justice-for-all]

13. Yeah, poor nonexistent deity...LOL

[and-justice-for-all]

14. Fist, you ASSume your correct...

Second, I read your post just fine and just because you make a statement does not mean I have to agree with it. Because I do not.

Your smart ass reply is not appreciated either. I kindly disagreed with you without any rude context, if you can not return the favor; please shut the fuck up.

Game over.

[PassingFair]

4. I remember walking into a Dean for President event once...

and the people coming towards it from all directions,
joining to form a crowd...

I thought then, that THIS is what people in a religious
congregation must feel...the perception of like minded
individuals coming together for a message and a cause.

I have been to lots of democratic meetings where I've had
nascent stirrings of that feeling.

So I understand (a little) the urge to congregate, but I
don't NEED it... or really WANT it on a regular basis.

[YankeyMCC]

5. Atheism needs no church - some People do

Atheism is a description of a position on the existence of gods not an ethical or social philosophy on which people can come together.

Personal, I don't have a 'great need' for a church meaning I can get along ok without it, but I have lately found a local Ethical Society group and I've been going pretty regularly to their Sunday Platforms and other activities they sponsor and I've found it has had a significant improvement on my outlook to have this 'church' of sorts by giving me a sense of community with others.

although they are all primarily atheist it is not a church of atheism, maybe a church of atheists, it is a church of Ethics, a set of common values or at least of people who care about secular, reality based ethics.

So the Ethical Society needs churches. Humanist organizations need churches and on and on any group that wants to maintain a community needs some form of church.


I can relate to the story of feeling similarly at Democratic meetings. I felt a great sense of community with my local Dem Town committee. But those are pretty narrowly focused, it has been wonderful to have a more broad based community at the Ethical Society.

[and-justice-for-all]

15. I think Warpy wants a church...nt

[YankeyMCC]

16. You need to direct your comment to Warpy not me

for what it's worth I think you're mistaken.

[Evoman]

6. Do atheists need a church? Absolutely not. A club might be fun though, if nothing more than to meet

new, like-minded people.

But then, I've decided I'm going to join toastmaster. So ...eh.

[Deep13]

7. The term "church" might be misleading.

It is likely that a lot of people would like an institution to take the place of the roles churches typically fill. In other words, a place to get married, to hold social events, funerals, social initiation ceremonies and as a social hub. One reason skeptics are so far behind the 8-ball is because there are vocal and visible theist institutions on ever corner. That creates a level of legitimacy. Plus, we ought to avail ourselves of the same tax breaks that religious clubs get. I am NOT suggesting we need doctrine, priest, sermons or any of the mystical aspects of churches. Instead, it could be built around a library, an observatory, a science education facility etc.

[Synnical]

12. Oh, it is misleading and that is really my main issue with the article

The editors or copywriters or headline writers couldn't even figure out how to sell the article to the public, so they gave it three different headlines.

MSM keeps trying to make atheism a religion or a philosophy and it just isn't.

I don't feel the need to "join", but others may. I used to attend James Randi's monthly meetings at his Foundation here in Fort Lauderdale, but became annoyed that they were dominated by middle aged white men. And not very attractive ones at that! <snark>

There's a monthly meeting of Broward Atheists here in Fort Lauderdale, and someone else that posts in this forum attends them, but I don't really care to.

I've attended several American Atheists Conferences, and they were fabulous. I've missed the last three for various reasons.

So, once a year works has worked for me lately, plus it involves travel and a mini vacation. But then, I've known that I'm an atheist since I was 13. My family is okay with it, my friends are okay with it. In fact, they're all quite respectful of me, as I am of them - of course, they're mostly agnostics, so it's easy, I guess, for me.

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[rexcat]

10. So when did atheists start joining groups in mass?

Not, and the idea of a church is a complete turn off.

[Deep13]

17. When they realized that there is safety in numbers. nt

[skepticscott]

11. The same old foolish misperception of atheism...

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods...period...end of story. Unlike Christianity or other religions, atheism is only a very small slice of one’s worldview and not an overarching philosophy of life, the universe and everything. Trying to compare religion and atheism in that sense, though very common among lovers of theism, is simply misguided. To make matters worse, many people incorrectly equate atheism with anti-religionism (i.e. the view that organized religion, or at least certain flavors of it, are a detriment to society), and they simply are not the same.

An atheistic worldview (I hesitate to even call it a philosophy, because there just isn't that much to it) says nothing about how you should live your life or treat other people and it doesn't need to in order to justify itself. Assuming that you know everything you need to know about someone once you know they're an atheist is even more ridiculous than making that assumption about a Christian or a Buddhist. Though atheism is frequently part of broader secular humanist philosophies, the two do not necessarily have to go together. Though for some Christians, Christianity is all there is, there are no atheists for whom atheism is all there is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. No; but I'm beginning to think the 'average American atheist' does need a club to join

The amount of mentions from atheists, or agnostics, on DU about some group they belong to for the purposes of meeting and talking about ethics or similar - often on Sunday - surprises me. I think it's a cultural thing - it's not something I've run across in the UK, although a significant majority of us here attend no church at all. We sleep in, instead. Or walk the dog or something.

[moggie]

19. Can you imagine Unitarian Universalism getting any traction in the UK?

Among atheists, that is? I can't. Maybe if they introduced binge drinking to their services.

I wonder how many American atheists who attend church, or church-like services, come from churchgoing families? If you spent the first however many years of your life going to church every Sunday, and a large proportion of your community does, so that you regard it as normal, I can see how atheism could leave a church-shaped hole. By contrast, a lot of British atheists will have experienced church only a few times, for weddings and funerals (and, increasingly, not even for those). I don't know anybody who does church; if I discovered that a friend or acquaintance did, I'd wonder whether they're soft in the head.

[dmallind]

20. I've lived in both and you're right, ironically

Ironic not because you're usually wrong that is ;), but ironic because the UK has a number of things US atheists fear or hate, and yet has nowhere near as much to fear from religion as US atheists do.

We fear or hate things like enforced school prayer, preference for religion, and mandatory observances. You guys have all that. The CofE school I attended had the whole bit - the cross, the assembly, the prayers etc. US atheists would go apoplectic if we had that in public schools, and rightly so.

But what you have is trappings and ritual for the most part. Religion has little influence on your political and social structure. There's no significant political force trying to institute fundamentalist protestant interpretations of the Bible into your law books.

You guys have to wave nicely at the vicar and sing Jerusalem at school every few days, but no frothing gangs of redneck idiots are trying to make you teach creationism in universities or tell you you can't serve beer on Sundays. None of your counties ban the sale of dildos. UK politicians can be elected without competing in Bible debates or proving they go to church every week.

I never considered a need for organized atheism in the UK either. But once I moved here I quickly did. We need at least some counterwight to the Dominionists or even just white-bread conformists who want to make sure we're all good Christian folk.

Essentially the difference is in the UK nobody ever cared if I was an atheist. In fact the overtly religious are looked upon a bit askance. Here, even in supposedly liberal states it is often to many people a shocking revelation about which I should supposedly be embarrassed. So we need to be more visible and more organized here than you guys, simply to demonstrate that we exist and do not rape and pillage and slaughter due to our lack of morality (another assumption about the US godless our UK brethren usually escape).

[enlightenment]

24. I've thought for a long time that it was really

a shame that the founders' made the big push for separation of church and state. If the US had established a state religion, I think we'd be a lot more like the UK now. State mandated religion becomes rote - and rote gets boring. It's there, it's square, let's do lunch.

I don't see any need to join a club, organization, or other group to feel comfortable with my atheism and I can't quite wrap my head around other's need to do so . . . and as long as it doesn't lead to some sort of formalisation of atheism - some creed or value-set or rituals or whatever - I'd like to say I don't see any harm in it.

Problem is, I'm afraid it will lead to those things, eventually. People gather into groups/clubs/organizations because of a perceived like-mindedness or desire to achieve a certain goal. As groups grow, they determine they need "rules" to keep things organized. Now you have people deciding that some things are acceptable and some things aren't - that's what rules do. Pretty soon, some bright bulb suggests that the group needs a "mission statement" - a raison d'etre for existence. And then it's all over but the counting . . .

jmho.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

21. There are plenty of atheist Unitarians.

www.uua.org

I thought the atheist philosophy was secular humanism -- the idea that humans can do great things alone, or working together, and have no need of a god.

See "Cosmos", the TV series by Carl Sagan.


Churches do meet social needs. The U-U church meets the same needs as any other church but has no creedal test, and is generally a place for those who are sick of hearing about how sinful and awful they are, and who think religion is a fairy tale.

[DemProudAmerican]

22. UU is a religion

I grew up being a Unitarian. While it is true that an atheist can attend a UU church and not be criticized for their disbelief in god, UUism is a religion. They celebrate Xmas and Easter. They sing hymns about god and the lord. While they may have an atheist give a talk every now and then and concentrate mostly on secular issues they do use words like god, spiritual, blessings often and may even pray. People are free to express or not express what they want. One person can say "I am an atheist." Another may say "I am an agnostic" and another christian, jew, buddhist or pagan. If you like the idea of going to church and meeting people and don't mind being subjected to Christmas and Easter being celebrated then nobody is stopping you. Many atheists, on the other hand, are not interested in the traditionally UU outlook of finding unity among religions, celebrating all religions, or finding meaningful insight among the world's religious diversity. I never understood why my family celebrated Christmas and have no interest in attending UU since so much of it doesn't make any sense to me. Part of me just wants to say to my family "hey, you all want to celebrate christmas. That's fine. I'll just visit you all some other time." I am still unsure how to respond to "merry christmas!"

I will give this for UU. At least they say up front that they are a religion. Whereas Yoga practitioners claim that they have nothing to do with religion.

[dropkickpa]

26. My family celebrates "xmas" and "easter"

Of course, there's nothing religious about they way we do it, but the excuse for the whole family to get together and gorge themselves into insensibility, play video games, and drink is irresistable to us. Me and Dropkid are doing a "halloween for xmas" theme this year, the tree will be decorated with bats, skulls, ghouls, goblins, and such with a witch on top of the tree and the house will be decorated with halloween stuff (we love halloween, if you couldn't tell). I've been debating changing the whole easter thing to a spring thing with Dropkid, but living in Catholic central, calling it easter it's just simpler to call it by the same name that her friends do, just without the religous stuff. She'll be too old for easter stuff soon anyhow, we'll just do the big family pig-out without the "easter bunny" bringing a basket.

I don't mind the xmas and easter stuff, because it's never been about religion in my family (parents raised us as atheists), just a family get together. Someone tells me "merry xmas", I just tell them "You too". Pretty much means "Have a nice day on the 25th" to me.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

27. I celebrate a secular Christmas.

I have always celebrated a secular Christmas. Because people get depressed in the winter and need to celebrate to feel better in the darkest part of the year.

No nativity scenes. Just a tree which is a Pagan symbol, BTW. Easter eggs are pagan too.

Different UU churches have different attitudes. Some are closer to christianity. Some are full of atheists. Some have lots of pagans and new age types.

Where I go to church, we have a thanksgiving dinner potluck. Then we gather round the piano and sing Christmas carols. Then we get bored and start singing them to "House of the Rising Sun".

That's fun.

[Deep13]

23. I wouldn't call it a "church."

But yeah, having a nonprofit skeptical study center and meeting room would go a long way to establishing legitimacy and refuting the common idea that atheists are immoral and trying to kill America and all that crap. It can be a rallying point and fund raiser for community efforts to keep separation of church and state.

I think it is important for skeptics to have an organized, legitimate, tax exempt presence in the community. We will never get anywhere as long as the churches have a monopoly on community thought.

[immoderate]

25. I belong to an atheists group.

We have a meetup once a week at a pub. The people who come are the same people who post here. And they do it for the same reasons. I think first, it's social. A lot of the members are single and while the original core group was mostly male, there are usually an equal number of females. There are couples, too. One couple brings their 3 year old kid regularly. What a neat kid. That mom is trying to reach out to other atheist moms for play groups, etc.

We have affiliations. Many of my group belong to the local Center for Inquiry (CFI.) We plan events that are educational, activist, and social. We are connected to the ACLU, JREF, and a local Planetarium. We've adopted a highway. (Well, it's really an intersection, but a big one.) We have campouts, picnics, and we run events for Darwin Day and Constitution Day. We filled up a couple of rows at the theater Friday night for Religulus. We get involved in politics, especially seperationist issues. Broward Atheists, which Cindy referred to, is now tied into several meetup groups around south Florida. So we now are called http://www.freethoughtflorida.com/">Florida Atheists and Secular Humanists (FLASH) We have a new website; it's pretty nice.

There's more, but as I write this, I am noting that a lot of these functions are typically those that a church performs for the community. We spend relatively little time discussing atheism, or even religion. With people who know each other, how many times can you go over that? Conversations flow with the times and the interests of a diversified group of smart people. It's always a well spent time.

--IMM