The Church of Atheism

I want to start a church. (Go figure! I’m the son of an evangelical pastor)

I would call myself a Bright. I like the term and it is simple to define. My philosophical outlook is naturalistic. No supernatural BS for me. I’m a materialist/monist through and through. Pretty straight forward. However, people wouldn’t believe the journey that I have made to get here. Actually, it isn’t that exciting. Like anyone else’s I guess. Pastor’s son like Nietzsche, and like him I always had more questions. I searched for God. I always wanted to ‘know him’ better. I searched for the truth no matter what the cost. This was my ‘downfall’. I found the truth…

It has been years since my ‘conversion’ or awakening to reality. But I can’t get away from this burning desire to ‘spread the good news’. I want to teach people about how freeing it is to let go: To admit to yourself that you do not ‘have it all figured out’. As weird as it sounds, I figured out that I do not have it all figured out! There is no ‘grand narrative’.

I am a MUCH happier and freer person now. I have pursued philosophy with a vengeance! I am sure there are millions just like me. There are more atheists in this world than any of them lead on. People just don’t give a shit. Who cares to evangelize? We understand there is no God or supernatural, why should we trouble ourselves to preach the good news to these annoying theists? Just let them die off and not go to their heaven. The world will someday be free of religion’s shackles. It is clearly happening. Why should we care to bring it on faster, when being an outspoken atheist today is such a headache!? (In the US at least)

There are a few atheists that are out there evangelizing, but they tend to give it a bad name. For Pete-sake, the term has historically been a pejorative term coined by theists anyway. I don’t like the term Atheist because you can’t be a ‘believer in non-belief’. It is a stupid term. I like the term Bright. To me Bright means monist or materialist in a broad sense.

So I want to start The First Bright Church of USA. Not really, but I want to simply tell people of the happiness, understanding, and meaning I have in my life. I want to teach of how meaningless and mind numbing the concept of God is. Break free from the idiocy of Cartesian Dualism. The supernatural is bogus.

I’m sorry… This post is all passion and not organized well… but I don’t give a too much of a shit.

I guess my question is. Do people know of or attend groups of Atheists or Brights that are in a way like churches? Is anyone fairly evangelical in their atheism? I at least want to start a small group in my little town here in Oregon to teach others that there is so much more that life has to offer… but they must learn to open their mind and hearts and break from the shackles of religion, theism, and Cartesian dualism.

Hrmm…I’d be interested what you think of this video, if you haven’t seen it.

richarddawkins.net/article,1805, … Dawkinsnet

Sam Harris is talking about why it’s such a detriment to label non-believers as atheists, brights, or anything else.

Brings up some interesting points.

That video.
Do they realise they are exactly the same as believers.
The negative aspects of religion do not arise from purely believing in a god, they come from dogma.
They are just creating negative dogma based on their own self-importance and ego instead of a god
This is not the way to go about curing the problems religion has caused.

(I don’t believe in god, before you think I am defending it)

Excellent video d0rkyd00d! Thank you very much.
And it was right on target with this thread.

Sam Harris touched on a number of issues that I brought up above.

When I say that I want to start a church, it won’t really be a church, but a sort of support group. It would be like a bible study or ordered meeting. Similar to a church meeting structure, I think it would be helpful to be structured as:

  1. A five minute or less “Welcome” to the group by the leader (pastor)
  2. Instead of ‘worship’, watch a video or read an extract from a book, on a particular topic concerning atheism. Perhaps a clip from Harris like you posted to get people thinking.
  3. Then the leader (or pastor) would recap the video or book extract.
  4. Then perhaps leave the group open to discussion. (People could also leave at this point or talk about a recent football game.) This would also be a time to meet new visitors and help them with their questions.

I don’t know why I get so excited about this. I know that non-belief isn’t a belief at all and that it is silly to even have the notion of a meeting of non-believers (like a meeting of non-astrologers or non-racists as Harris points out.) He notes how ridiculous it is that they are even having that meeting. And I definitely don’t want to buttress the stereotype of Atheists as being these “grumpy people that meet in hotel conference rooms.”

I want to make it like a small church denomination where little franchises of our meeting groups begin popping up everywhere based on the basic meeting structure that I develop in my ‘startup church’. I know its wishful thinking and maybe it is a desire to feel like I’ve created something healthy for people or that I have contributed somehow to people’s lives. I guess I just don’t want to sit back and seek selfish pleasure and “eat ice cream till I die in front of you” as Harris said in the video.

In general, I think any meeting of people and communicating with each other would be good if we are seeking out how to live better lives. Do you think athiest meetings to be harmful to those that attend? It seemed to me that though they have similar ideas, they also have plenty of controversial ones amongst each other that they can work on and debate.

What do you propose?
It seems one of the very purposes of people meeting up, like in the video, is to discuss “how to go about curing the problems religion has caused.”
At least they are doing something as opposed to sitting back, being atheists, and not giving enough of a shit to even talk to anybody about it (Like we might be temped to do)

I think it would be so helpful for people to give their “testimony”.
Just like in church, personal testimony is very powerful.
Here is Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s personal testimony.

Her discussion and response to Dennett in the Q & A is excellent.

“Cause as much dissonance as possible.” I agree! =D>

min 17 “Activism becomes inevitable” I agree! =D>

The RichardDawkins people are trying to put out a fire by throwing wood at it.

If a religious fundamentalist/evangelist gets hold of the meetings that these people are setting up then he effectively has another fear to batter his followers over the head with.

(puts on his best southern evangelist voice, which is quite good)

‘‘These are new godless scientists breathing their heathen preachings, they are trying to test the faith of us, the lords dearly beloved. They are the final test of the apocalypse, the final test of the truly faithful. Follow me(empty your wallet, vote conservative, kill homosexuals…so on) and you will be shepherded through these dark and turbulent days, my children, to be delivered to paradise in heaven at the side of Jesus Christ our Lord’’

Woodchuckers in a forest fire ain’t no way helpful.

Seek, and you shall find. ask and you’l be given. I’m still waiting for my Lexus. Iv’e grovelled, prayed, all to no avail. I even helped a little old lady put her groceries in the boot of her car. What more does that god want? Sell my house and give the proceeds to the poor? Then I will have no house, and still no Lexus. I think I will have a beer instead of praying from now on. :smiley: :smiley:

Your point is accurate - But so what? Religious Fundamentalists who mind their own buisness are no concern of mine - But then there are those religious fundamentalists who seek to impose their views on society. They seek to change the schools, they seek to change the Constitution, they seek to enter my bedroom, enter my computer - In short they seek to create a theocracy.

Shouldn’t they be combated? And if they should be combated how should this be done?

In this sense, an “Athiest” society is probably not the way to go, since it is a statement where the members are pushing Athieism itself. Is it necessary to oppose fundamentalism by Atheism?

The threat of some aspects of religion is not that people believe in it, but their attempt to impose these beliefs on the rest of us.

Here’s a group that the OP might be interested in, since it doesn’t make religion itself the issue.

aeu.org/

The Mission of the American Ethical Union

Dave

Thanks for your input everyone. I used to think that I should remain quiet about my naturalistic beliefs. I didn’t want to hurt anyone or upset their world view etc. I wanted to be a quiet atheist and let the religious people of the world die out. However, this position is ultimately untenable.

When there are religious psychos that are willing to hijack planes and fly them into buildings, killing thousands, due to their religious beliefs, we cannot excuse this behavior. We must analyze it and demonstrate that it was true and devout religious belief that made it possible for those men to commit the atrocities on 9/11.

Here is how I see it. Religion, taken seriously and to its fundamental/literal ends, is a VERY bad thing for society (as noted above). We can attempt to irradiate the plague of religion either by violence or by peaceful rational dialog. Violence will obviously only alienate opposing sides. But peaceful passive resistance will bring the issue to center stage. People will respond in two ways; they will react against rational ideas with irrational emotion, or they will listen and perhaps change their world view.

At any rate, I see religion dying. It will be dead 1,000 years from now for sure. Hell, maybe even 200 years! My question is, do we push for it to happen, or do we just let it happen? There are going to be conflicts between theists and atheists everyday from now on. It is inevitable. The question is, will the religious of the world resort to stronger violence if we let them alone, or if we bring them ‘the good news’? Aside from religion vs. atheism leading to violence, what about religion vs. religion!? I think there is a strong argument that religious violence is only going to escalate, with or without rational people pointing out that the cause of the violence is religion itself. If anything, it will escalate faster without our mediation! Fundamentalists will be opposed to atheism just as if it were one of the other religions they were opposed to. Since they are naturally fighting all of other belief systems anyway, why not attempt to alleviate some of the damage and suffering?

It is important to note that much of the violence in the world is created by religion vs. religion. Are we to let the fight between religions escalate, killing more of the innocent day by day? Or should we stand up and ridicule religions for causing such violence, war and suffering, in an effort to alleviate some of the damage they are causing mankind? I honestly don’t think we can stand by anymore. I believe that we must clearly point out to people that when religious doctrine is taken seriously and fundamentally, it naturally leads to an ultimately violent result.

I think it is wrong to criticize Dennett, Hitchens, Dawkins, and other prominent Atheists when all they are doing is raising awareness of the plague of religion and causing dissonance in the minds of the religious.

Atheists have done plenty of bad stuff because of the moral standpoint that their atheism gives them too. They just don’t generally go shouting, “I did this because there’s no God.”
Actually, consider the recent school shooting in Finland. The kid was wearing a t-shirt that says, “Humanity is overrated.” That reeks of atheism to me. In fact, I’ve found some quotes of what he said in some of the stuff he left behind:
"Going by the username Sturmgeist89, he called himself a “social Darwinist” who would “eliminate all who I see unfit”. “Sturmgeist” means storm spirit in German…
He had also reportedly posted on another website a rambling manifesto.
In it he said: “death and killing is not a tragedy… Not all human lives are important or worth saving.” "

There we go, a ‘social darwinist’. Clearly an atheist, and he used it to justify his killing spree.

I have a hard time lumping Osama bin Laden in with a Unitarian, yet both are religious, both believe in God. Pat Robertson and bin Laden have more in common with each other - But that doesn’t mean that the typical Unitarian has ANYTHING in common with either one of them.

I have no problem at all with people who believe in God and mind their own damn business. Will religion disappear? I doubt it. As long as people seek answers to the question, “Why am I here,” someone will come up with God as the answer.

Yes. I agree, those who seek to impose their beliefs on others by force should be opposed. Whomever they are. I suggest you take a look at the link I posted. While I’m not a member of Ethical Culture, I certainly agree with them on just about everything… :sunglasses:

Dave

Good, I hoped someone would post saying “People kill in the name of Atheism too!” or something to that effect.

Check out two minutes of this video at minute 26:15.

“Hitler, Stalin [and the kid from Finland] were atheists, what do you have to say to that!?”

These psychos did not commit atrocities any more in the name of atheism than they did in the name of “their mustaches”.

Dawkins - “It is extremely hard to think of any rational person killing in the name of atheism, but it’s very easy to think of a rational person killing in the name of religion. All it takes is you have to believe it… How could it ever be rational to kill in the name of Atheism?” It simply would not be rational, whereas it would be very easy for a rational person to take their religious doctrine to its natural conclusion… violence.


Oops! I deleted one post with the next! Here is the second below:


I put this question to you rainshine87.
Keep in mind that atheism is disbelief in theism.
Belief in disbelief isn’t really a belief in anything at all.
We are simply people that do not believe in theism.
So to do something ‘in the name of’ disbelief doesn’t make rational sense.

Killing in the name of…
“Some of those that were forces are the same that bore crosses.”

Thanks for the post Dave.

Ultimately, ANY person that takes their religion seriously and actually believes the doctrine will be inclined to force it on others. The religious relativists aren’t a threat because they don’t really believe. A large part of the population of the world ‘believes IN BELIEF in God and religion’. Very few people actually ‘believe in God’ literally. There is a huge difference between the two. ‘Belief in belief of God’ doesn’t require ‘belief in God’. Do you see?

It seems to me that what someone commits an act “in the name of” is irrelevant. A religious person would commit the act because of the moral construct that they base around their idea of a God, just like an atheist would base his moral construct around the idea that there is no God. A religious person acts a certain way because he believes it justified by his religion, an atheist acts a certain way because he believes it justified by his moral system. Both are the same thing. No religious person says, “I’m killing this person because there is a God,” they do it because of the moral system that comes from that belief.

Dawkins is being painfully vague there. Is it not possible to kill in the name of darwinism? It certainly is. Religions are just systems of theism, the same as ‘darwinism’ and such like are systems of atheism. Dawkins talks of atheism, which is the basic belief that there is no God, without connecting any particular atheist ideology to it. And yet, by saying, “religion”, he specifically refers to theistic ideologies. He’s tricked you with his silly word trap.

This seems a nonsense statement, I’d be grateful if you’d justify it. Surely I could equally say that ANY person who bears any ideology whatsoever and takes it seriously will be inclined to force it on others. And what does force mean? I’d never force my ideas on another. It sounds to me like your just being grossly anti-religious. Correct me if I’m wrong.

How does that work exactly? It is rational to kill for a belief, but it is not rational to kill for disbelief. That makes no sense. Do you see?

I think you’ve been tricked into thinking atheism a belief in something.
Atheism is not a religion. Disbelief is not a belief.

Seems correct to me. You seem to agree with the statement. How is it nonsense?

Sounds good to me. :slight_smile: