The atheist churches of America

I placed no limits on the boundaries under which this could be discussed - science, religion, philosophy.

I thought you were very clear that this is not a topic for science. Perhaps I was mistaken?

Most people don't even ask these questions. Most people assume that because we have neurons and neurotransmitters, then somehow somebody must have already explained consciousness and conscience. The right questions don't even occur to them. That's like saying because we see apples fall from trees we must have explained gravity.

Agreed. But when the scientists DO study it, the response will probably look more like my characterization than yours.

We both agree that we don't really "know" how mental states arise. But the reason I feel I am following science moreso is because I am limiting myself to only those things which are objectively real to all of us observers.

1. We have a physical brain
2. We know of NO instances in which a thought exists without a physical brain
3. We know there are things in nature which are irreducible to the atomic level and which represent real world things which are "emergent"
4. We know that by damaging the PHYSICAL brain it is possible to induce all manner of beliefs and mental experiences

There may very well be something else needed to explain it, but merely declaring that there's no way for the 4 things we DO know to somehow result in a mental state does NOT mean it is necessarily true.

And finally: we only have the one brain. This is literally the only thinking organic machine we have available. There's every reason to believe that everything we need to know about how mental states arise is within the physical brain and there's only a small number of reasons for us to hypothesize something "Else". And chief among those reasons is that it "feels" like it is needed. Is it phlogiston?
 

Inside the "secular churches" that fill a need for some nonreligious Americans​


Shared testimonies, collective singing, silent meditation and baptism rituals – these are all activities you might find at a Christian church service on a Sunday morning in the United States. But what would it look like if atheists were gathering to do these rituals instead?

Today, almost 30% of adults in the United States say they have no religious affiliation, and only half attend worship services regularly. But not all forms of church are on the decline – including "secular congregations," or what many call "atheist churches."

As a sociologist of religion who has spent the past 10 years studying nonreligious communities, I have found that atheist churches serve many of the same purposes as religious churches. Their growth is evidence that religious decline does not necessarily mean a decline in community, ritual or people's well-being.

Secular congregations often mimic religious organizations by using the language and structure of a "church," such as meeting on Sundays or hearing a member's "testimony," or by adapting religious language or practices in other ways.

What is an atheist church?
Secular congregations often mimic religious organizations by using the language and structure of a "church," such as meeting on Sundays or hearing a member's "testimony," or by adapting religious language or practices in other ways.

For example, there are a growing number of psychedelic churches, which cater to people looking to experience spirituality and ritual through drug use.

These secular congregations often appeal to atheists and other secular people, but their main purpose is not promoting atheism.

However, "atheist church" organizations like the Sunday Assembly and the Oasis explicitly celebrate atheists' identities and beliefs, even though not everyone who attends identifies as an atheist. Testimonies and activities extol values like rational thinking and materialist philosophies, which promote the idea that only physical matter exists.

There are also long-standing humanist and ethical communities that promote secular worldviews and provide secular ceremonies for major life transitions, like births, funerals and weddings. The American Humanist Association, for example, describes its values as "Good without a God." And for decades, Unitarian Universalist congregations, which grew out of Christian movements, have drawn on teachings from both religious and nonreligious traditions, without imposing specific creeds of their own.

But there has been a recent rise in secular congregations that explicitly mimic religious organizations and rituals to celebrate atheistic worldviews. Many have just one or two chapters, such as the Seattle Atheist Church and the North Texas Church of Freethought.

However, Sunday Assembly and the Oasis have networks with dozens of chapters, and Sunday Assembly has been dubbed the "first atheist mega-church". Many chapters of Sunday Assembly see hundreds of attendees at their services.

Whether the atheist church trend will continue remains to be seen. But such churches' recent growth is evidence that they can work much like religious organizations to build community, cultivate rituals and bolster well-being in a time of religious change.


continued
Atheism isn't a religion.
 
I don't care about that debate. They can call themselves whatever they want. The French Revolution experimented with atheist churches they called Temples of Reason. At least the Soviets didn't have any pretensions about it.

What I found interesting is that physical materialists still want to organize a ritualistic system based on the ecclesiastical model that satisfies a need for the transcendent - like ritual centered around objective beliefs of 'goodness' and morality.
Atheism isn't a religion.
 
I thought you were very clear that this is not a topic for science. Perhaps I was mistaken?



Agreed. But when the scientists DO study it, the response will probably look more like my characterization than yours.

We both agree that we don't really "know" how mental states arise. But the reason I feel I am following science moreso is because I am limiting myself to only those things which are objectively real to all of us observers.

1. We have a physical brain
2. We know of NO instances in which a thought exists without a physical brain
3. We know there are things in nature which are irreducible to the atomic level and which represent real world things which are "emergent"
4. We know that by damaging the PHYSICAL brain it is possible to induce all manner of beliefs and mental experiences

There may very well be something else needed to explain it, but merely declaring that there's no way for the 4 things we DO know to somehow result in a mental state does NOT mean it is necessarily true.

And finally: we only have the one brain. This is literally the only thinking organic machine we have available. There's every reason to believe that everything we need to know about how mental states arise is within the physical brain and there's only a small number of reasons for us to hypothesize something "Else". And chief among those reasons is that it "feels" like it is needed. Is it phlogiston?
Localization fallacy.

Just because you search for your keys under the street light because that's where the light is, doesn't mean they were lost in the dark nearby.
 

What happens at an atheist church?​


An "atheist church" in North London is proving a big hit with non-believers. Does it feel a bit like a new religion?

Not many sermons include the message that we are all going to die and there is no afterlife.

But the Sunday Assembly is no ordinary church service.

Launched last month, as a gathering for non-believers, it is, in the words of master of ceremonies Sanderson Jones, "part foot-stomping show, part atheist church, all celebration of life".

A congregation of more than 300 crowded into the shell of a deconsecrated church to join the celebration on Sunday morning.

Instead of hymns, the non-faithful get to their feet to sing along to Stevie Wonder and Queen songs.

There is a reading from Alice in Wonderland and a power-point presentation from a particle physicist, Dr Harry Cliff, who explains the origins of antimatter theory.

It feels like a stand-up comedy show. Jones and co-founder Pippa Evans trade banter and whip the crowd up like the veterans of the stand-up circuit that they are.

But there are more serious moments.

The theme of the morning is "wonder" - a reaction, explains Jones, to criticism that atheists lack a sense of it.

So we bow our heads for two minutes of contemplation about the miracle of life and, in his closing sermon, Jones speaks about how the death of his mother influenced his own spiritual journey and determination to get the most out of every second, aware that life is all too brief and nothing comes after it.

The audience - overwhelmingly young, white and middle class - appear excited to be part of something new and speak of the void they felt on a Sunday morning when they decided to abandon their Christian faith. Few actively identify themselves as atheists.

"It's a nice excuse to get together and have a bit of a community spirit but without the religion aspect," says Jess Bonham, a photographer.

"It's not a church, it's a congregation of unreligious people."

Another attendee, Gintare Karalyte, says: "I think people need that sense of connectedness because everyone is so singular right now, and to be part of something, and to feel like you are part of something. That's what people are craving in the world."


 
There are City/Town Hall meetings one can attend.
I used to go to lots of school committee meetings where our kids were young.

I can't think of anything else that even remotely resembles a church service,
or more accurately, a community assembly, that I've seen fit to attend.

Union meetings, perhaps? I don't know.

I do know that my parents attended church, dragging me along, up until I was about eleven or twelve years old.
Then my mom had a medical situation, and when she recovered, we didn't bother going back to the old routine.

Urban Catholic (and often Episcopalian) churches are not like the little white wooden churches we see in Currier and Ives prints.
They're big, ornate, cathedral like buildings, and in the 1950s, they were packed on Sundays, with several masses scheduled, one after the other.

Today, I honestly don't know anybody who still goes.
I'm sure some do, but nobody that I know.

Middle America and the South seem to be less secularized from what I see and hear.
I suspect that it's tied in to how insanely so many of them vote.
My view, anyway.
 
There are City/Town Hall meetings one can attend.
I used to go to lots of school committee meetings where our kids were young.

I can't think of anything else that even remotely resembles a church service,
or more accurately, a community assembly, that I've seen fit to attend.

Union meetings, perhaps? I don't know.
There's probably more to life than politics, school policy, labor contracts. But the USA is a very consumerist and materialist culture which I myself get caught up in.

Regarding the London atheist church service, I don't think meeting on Sundays to sing Queen songs and listen to stand up comics is really going to be the basis of something meaningful and lasting over the long term.
 
Regarding the London atheist church service, I don't think meeting on Sundays to sing Queen songs and listen to stand up comics is really going to be the basis of something meaningful and lasting over the long term.

Why not? It's what Church is. Why does it HAVE to include appeals to the supernatural to be legitimate community?
 
I don't think meeting on Sundays to sing Queen songs and listen to stand up comics is really going to be the basis of something meaningful and lasting over the long term.

You seem to have a very negative view of atheists. Either you dislike their worldview and can't stand to let anyone claim to be an atheist without you comparing them to Stalin and Pol Pot or you can't see anything valuable coming from an atheist worldview and must denigrate it some other way.

This "Church" is nothing more than "community". Why would you find some reason to assume this is not meaningful or lasting? Community is pretty much a given over all of human history.

I understand that a lot of religious people dislike atheists, but I thought you were not so religious. So why do you have such a chip on your shoulder about atheists?
 
Why not? It's what Church is. Why does it HAVE to include appeals to the supernatural to be legitimate community?
There's nothing wrong with it. The amateur sociologist in me finds this phenomena interesting.

I don't see it as being analogous to "community" in the same sense as bowling leagues, book clubs, neighborhood block parties.

Meeting on Sunday to sing Fleetwood Mac songs and practice group meditative silence obviously indicates they are missing some kind of devotional and reverent grounding in their life.

I'd be interested to see if these atheist churches ever appeal to anything more than a miniscule fringe minority. People have been trying to get real traction for atheist churches since the French revolution.
 
There's nothing wrong with. The amateur sociologist in me finds this phenomena interesting. I don't see it as being analogous to "community" in the same sense as bowling leagues, book clubs, neighborhood block parties.

Yet here you are parsing what counts as legitimate "community". If it is atheist, it must, by definition, be less valuable.

You are not allowed to hide from your obvious dislike of atheism. You CONSTANTLY (as in about every single time) compared atheism to Stalin and Pol Pot.

I'd be interested to see if these atheist churches ever appeal to anything more than a miniscule fringe minority. People have been trying to get real traction for atheist churches since the French revolution.

And herein lies your fear of atheism? That atheists are like the French Terror intent on tearing down the Churches and replacing them with Temples of Reason?
 
Yet here you are parsing what counts as legitimate "community". If it is atheist, it must, by definition, be less valuable.

I attempt to give atheists equal time to religion in my contributions here.
If you find yourself uncomfortable with Richard Dawkins, Frederick Nietzsche, atheist churches, maybe you need to reflect on your own feelings about atheism.
You are not allowed to hide from your obvious dislike of atheism. You CONSTANTLY (as in about every single time) compared atheism to Stalin and Pol Pot.
Incorrect. It's only when religion is blamed for most of the violence and death do I then ask militant atheists to explain Stalin and Mao.
And herein lies your fear of atheism? That atheists are like the French Terror intent on tearing down the Churches and replacing them with Temples of Reason?
I dont think the Temples of Reason ever killed anyone. Why would you assume they did?

It's a correct historical fact that atheist churches started in the French Revolution. You're ignoring all the commendable accomplishments of the French Revolution, and inexplicably focusing on the short lived period of terror in 1792. The French Revolution had at least five distinct phases over a period of a decade, and the Terror was only a relatively small part of it. And I don't think the Temples of Reason played any direct role in killing anyone.
 
I attempt to give atheists equal time to religion in my contributions here.

No you don't. Every time I've talked about atheism on here you have compared me to Stalin and Pol Pot. It is insulting to the max. And you NEVER say anything positive about atheism, but you write off Christian murder sprees as if they aren't worthy of consideration.

Don't now try to redefine your position. It has been clear from the start.

If you find yourself uncomfortable with Richard Dawkins, Frederick Nietzsche, atheist churches, maybe you need to reflect on your own feelings about atheism.

I have a problem being compared to Stalin because I don't believe in God.

I dont think the Temples of Reason ever killed anyone. Why would you assume they did?

Wow. You bring up the French Revolution and then you run away from your point? I never said anything about killing anyone.

I honestly don't understand why you can't debate someone's point honestly

 
Now you're just resorting to lying.

No, pretty much every single time I've mentioned atheism in relation to morality discussions you've compared me to Stalin and Pol Pot.

Do a search on this forum and you'll see I'm correct.

If you like I have the ability to also do the search and present them for you but it would be tedious and I have hopes you have a functioning memory.

May I ask YOU to be honest about your position on atheism? Why are you so unhappy with atheism? Is it because you clearly don't fully understand atheism? Everything you have presented about atheism is usually a caricature based only on those things you find most prurient and shocking.
 
No, pretty much every single time I've mentioned atheism in relation to morality discussions you've compared me to Stalin and Pol Pot.
A transparent lie, Perry
Everything you have presented about atheism is usually a caricature based only on those things you find most prurient and shocking.
If you find Richard Dawkins, Sean Carrol, Frederich Nietchze, Karl Marx, Sigmund Frued, and atheist churches shocking and reprehensible, then you need to reflect on your own actual feelings about atheism. I provide examples of well known and widely popular atheists as grist for discussion. The only way they could bother you is if you harbor serious doubts about atheist ideology.
 
Upon further thought, I totally reject the concepts of atheist churches and atheism being a religion.

I am an atheist. I have no religion. I attend no church. I seek no congregational community.
Who would know better than I?
 
Upon further thought, I totally reject the concepts of atheist churches and atheism being a religion.

I am an atheist. I have no religion. I attend no church. I seek no congregational community.
Who would know better than I?
Makes sense. That's why I don't think atheist churches will every really get any real traction, despite many attempts to get them up and running.
 
Back
Top