Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Atheists starting godless churches [View all]sibelian
(7,804 posts)84. Can't see the problem, meself.
Actually, I think one of the few good things about religion is the way it joins communities together to a common view of how the social locality should move forward as a group. People who otherwise would never meet are brought to a common purpose. The regularity of such meets is an important factor. It provides a backdrop against which the emotional upheaval subsequent to ups and downs of life can be set aside so we can focus on things that are important and steer our personal behaviour according to a set of principles. I think that sense of solidity is a very good thing. I think religion's "ownership" of it is an accident, little analysed and little understood.
What's wrong with getting together on a day of rest to listen to wisdom? To consider philosophical problems? To better oneself among a group of like-minded ppers? To be part of a community that develops a set of shared values? Sounds like an unambiguously good thing to me. Personal morality is strengthened by group consensus.
And as far as I'm concerned, the aspects]/i] of religion that I've outlined above were the main (if somewhat occulted) plus points of religious institutions that actually made them work and gave them value to the populace before it became socially and acceptable to question the myths that they rested their influence on.
We don't need the myths. That doesn't necessarily mean we have to abandon the supportive structures that have traditionally been provided by religion.
Churches promote ideas about reality but they also encourage personal morality. They provide a socially (at least, "socially" insofaras the church community itself buys into the structure) sanctioned bedrock for personal decisions about the parts of our lives that matter.
Religion mostly makes stuff up, but it DOES provide a way for people honestly face the things in life that are important together.
I think the terminology used to describe such a structure is of practilly no consequence. It's the result that matters.
I think if these "atheist churches" are focussed on things like that, I'm all for 'em...
If one turns up where I live I might start going to one...
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
88 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
As an atheist-leaning agnostic I saw Unitarian congregations as intellectually incoherent.
HereSince1628
Nov 2013
#22
Except that they don't. The media does. The organizers call it an assembly.
Luminous Animal
Nov 2013
#70
Everyone has a "World View". Everyone has philosophical frameworks. Everyone.
KittyWampus
Nov 2013
#64
Organized Atheists for the Non-heretical Heretic. What would you name the locations
NightWatcher
Nov 2013
#35
My wife and I went to the North Texas Church of Freethought a few times back in the 90s
derby378
Nov 2013
#38
Otherwise known as a "gathering of people." NOT a "church" and NOT a "sermon."
WinkyDink
Nov 2013
#42
The assemblies actually don't qualify for the definition of mega anything.
Luminous Animal
Nov 2013
#59