[Closed] An Atheist goes to Church

Why pick on the christians, many other sky faries are available
[img] [/img]
Some look way more fun

I quite like that pic, mikewsmith. I just don't think that Viking/Saxon/Celtic feasting halls are quite as accessible in London.

you just don't have an invite, you have easy access to mosques, synagogues and lots of other temples though. Perhaps is you want to experience something you should try them all

Indeed. I know that the mosque near Cardiff University is especially welcoming, and Sikh Gurdwaras pretty much everywhere will feed you should you ever find yourself in need.

TBF my experience was that a good chunk of the congregation is doing exactly what the writer does (even some that claim to be religious). Certainly it's what we ended up doing. Christmas and Easter...

It's a bit like the last religion thread. If all you do that's religious is go to church, you're not religious, you're a tourist.

I'm an atheist, and I went this morning.
The wife is Christian, but neither of us try to browbeat the other.
She lets me go out cycling most Sundays, but every 4 weeks there's an Allsorts service with lots of music, banging of things, games, etc. So we take the young uns along.
Tea, coffee and cake at the end, along with a nice bit of community spirit, and lots of coffin dodgers doting on the children.
It's quite pleasant really 🙂
And it earns me browny points!

You'd think that religious people would be happy enough in their belief to just get on with it. After all, they've discovered their one true path. Why aren't they busy walking it and not irritating the rest of us who've
said time and again that we don't accept any of the superstitious gibberish?

Well it's for the same reason that they are busy indoctrinating their helpless children into their dogma of choice.

They will never be happy UNTIL YOU BELIEVE IT AS WELL.

Alright, "sinners"?

It's knee-patch time again.

"Ooh god you are so big and just, well, so hugely enormouse. I can tell you we're all really impressed down here..." 🙄

I like old churches, they have a nice feel to them usually, and are testament to what people can do when inspired to work together for a communal good. And a lot of them a properly old!

On that article; what a lovely community feel that the author paints a picture of. What a pity that humans seem to need (or think that they need) a common belief in a deity in order to act like that. As an atheist, I feel the same way about community, morals and general rule number oneness as they do, but I feel excluded by them because I can't help but think the foundations of their belief system are daft.

You'd think that religious people would be happy enough in their belief to just get on with it.
Etc etc etc

Is this rantette in relation to anything that’s been posted here?
Or just standard cut and paste anti religion spiel.

Yeah.

It's Whack-a-mole time, sniffy.

How about posting this in the other thread.

Ok.

After discussing this with other mods I’ve reopened it. Keep the discussion reasonable or those who don’t will face a break.

Don't listen to the voices.

I posted a long reply to this and lost it when the thread closed. I'll say this for now though - Mr Woppit, dial it down a little please, there's a good chap. You're not helping anyone.

[url= https://www.google.es/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/24/atheist-pastor-canada-gretta-vosper-united-church-canada ]Being good without a god.[/url]

Because I thought it was time for [url= http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/17/im-an-atheist-who-goes-to-church-heres-why-you-should-too-6909729/ ]another religion thread[/url].

An atheist goes to a community gathering, that happens to be in a church.
As mentioned religions don't have a monopoly on this kind of thing.
Capitalist societies undermine community spirit; competitiveness is good for business. We have to find a way to bring community back, without religion.

This story isn't a million miles from what Ro5ey and Perchy have said in the past. I've often thought that the church as a local community centre is laudable, and in some places in the country that's exactly what it is.

I can't help but think though that the whole "god" bit is increasingly redundant; why can't communities come together without the need for framing it in some organised religion or other? Would attendance fall because being taking part in your community and being nice to each other isn't sufficient incentive in itself?

There actually was an Atheist church in London for a while; what happened to that, was it a success? (Yes, I know, Google.)

I did, of course, post this as a bit of fun, and also to be slightly mischievous.

That said, I am all in favour of the desire on your part, barkm and Cougar, for a renewed sense of community - however that is fostered. At the same time, I also think that you cannot overestimate the human need for 'liturgy' - that is, the ritual act of coming together and singing/dancing/engaging in some sort of shared behaviour. Such things, after all, have been a feature of human society since the beginning.

We can be as cynical as we want about things like the opening of parliament, the coronation of a monarch, the rituals of the courts (wigs, standing for the judge, etc.), and even the religious rituals of churches, synagogues, or mosques (or whatever), but if not for all such things, we either have nothing at all, and so no shared touchstones, or we replace them with more atomistic things like rock festivals.

I love this video as an analogy for a religious gathering:

😉

I like old churches, they have a nice feel to them usually, and are testament to what people can do when inspired to work together for a communal good. And a lot of them a properly old!

+1.

Don't forget that the 'Lord of the Manor' played a huge role in the community in days gone by, employing villagers and taking the responsibility seriously. Once you've lost that family connection then villages can lose that sense of community.

Edit: I'm an atheist and have been a volunteer in a church for years.

I also think that you cannot overestimate the human need for 'liturgy' - that is, the ritual act of coming together and singing/dancing/engaging in some sort of shared behaviour.

Ack, I actually wrote that in the lost draft of that post. I posited whether it was essential that any 'club' (for want of a better term) had to be [i]about[/i] something. Be that a group going to the library (book club), the pub (beer club) or the church (god club). Perhaps being about the community alone is only of merit / appeal if you actually have a community to start with?

<mod>
I've just deleted a few comments which were off-topic and I assumed posted purely to provoke a reaction.

We reopened this on the proviso that an adult conversation takes place for once. We'll only have to close the file if another bloody squabble breaks out.
</mod>

I’m a non believer. My wife is Roman Catholic. We recently married and I had to do all the going to church stuff as it’s where her mother is buried. It was like a cult, with a leader at the front saying things and the people in the audience replying with what they had been told. Made me very very uncomfortable, it’s basically brain washing on a massive scale and has no part in modern day life.

People come together for all sorts of reasons.
We all get scared, we all need human contact.
Doing things together for the benefit of all makes the world better, starting with us as individuals.

We all believe irrational things at some point in our lives.
It would appear to be hardwired.

The problem with irrational beliefs is that people tend to get all killy about them when other people point out the irrationality.

That's why they are so powerful and dangerous.
I don't think belief in the irrational should be encouraged.

I still love old churches though.
🙂
Latest find is St David's Cathedral.
Could spend a week just wandering round the place.

That article really resonates with me - we go to church every now and then but, whilst I have a lot of respect for what christianity teaches, I don't have faith myself. I like going because I enjoy the sense of community, because I like the singing, because our local church is 15th century and beautiful, and because the vicar (who married us) delivers the most fantastic sermons and is always welcoming and interested in us. D'you know, rightly wrongly, I go and get a blessing, and it always gives me an enormous sense of peace. I used to be very cynical about religion, in an uninformed way - I had some frank and interesting conversations with a christian after my mum passed that totally removed that cynicism. Fair play to devout folk of any religion, I'm pretty envious! 🙂

Hello another atheist here :-). love of buildings I totally understand .the people that go to them are completely great (ok there's usually one insufferable but you experience that at work, a bus queue..) but having been to churches in my time I am, respectfully, surprised that anyone enjoys the sermons and lectures unless they are a committed Christian; it's the thing that puts me off religion (I find them overbearing and a bit smug and it's not just one vicar this is the same for all of them ) so if I'm missing something please enlighten me

You know you have to eat your sprouts before you get any pudding?
It's like that.

I stopped going at 10 but can still recite the whole mass.
They were half right, those Jesuits.
🙂

I find them overbearing and a bit smug and it's not just one vicar this is the same for all of them

Man. Harsh. 😯

Come to ours and hear our chap, he's brilliant! It'll generally be 15 or 20 minutes of engagingly delivered thoughtful discourse weaving a bible story into why it's good to be nice, or thoughtful, or generous to those in need, etc. He retires next month, sad to know he's going and his replacement will have a lot to live up to.

I went to church last Christmas day. The leader of said church had organised cooked food and donation for the homeless, of which a few turned up and as we servwd them we listed to thier stories and was humbleed to serve them food.

Would it metter what the denomination was?

Would it matter what the denomination was?

As long as they don't practice coercion and/or manipulation, then nope, I wouldn't think so.

<mod>
I've just deleted a few comments which were off-topic and I assumed posted purely to provoke a reaction.

Sorry, I've been next door for vodkas and orange and a bit of the old how'syerfather...

Look, I do my best but I need a break now and then.

So anyway, religion, eh? What a bunch of....

Oh wait. Somebody said something about a dial?

11, 10, 9, 8, 7, ........

Sorry, I've been next door for vodkas and orange and a bit of the old how'syerfather...

Not that you need it, but you have my full approval. 8)

I love old churches. There was a compound near where I was born and raised called The House of the Resurrection. Absolutely beautiful building and grounds. I think it was some kind of theological college. I volunteered to do some gardening there, just so I could hang out in the grounds and take it all in.

Serious question Saxon (and please tell me to bugger off if it's too personal). I know from previous threads that you have seven kids. Are any of them not religious or have a different faith to you?

What did you have to agree to do openly when you were made a god parent- see i told you they were subtle

Of course, I'm more thoughtful than that. I try to think carefully about what I say. I initially said no because I didn't think I would be able to do what was compatible with my beliefs. But then I read up on what you had to commit to and realised it wasn't really incompatible. It's just about offering to help with spiritual and moral upbringing, which I can do.

As soon as we were offered it was made clear that the parents would understand if we said no; and they and the vicar offered to let us change the vows. The only bit I changed was "with God's help I will" to simply "I will".

TBH the fact they were so accomodating of my beliefs made me even happier about it.

The problem with irrational beliefs is that people tend to get all killy about them when other people point out the irrationality.

Maybe want to have another read of what you wrote there. You're saying that religious people "tend to" kill people who point out their irrationality. That suggests a common trait.

Well, the overwhelming majority of religious people do not want to kill anyone, in fact they spend their lives telling people not to along with a wide range of other bad things. But there are some bad religious people just as there are bad atheists.

Think about next time someone says that bloody cyclists all break the rules. We know that there are aresholes on bikes and aresholes in cars. The same is true of religions.

you have seven kids

Seven? What, you think I'm some kind of amateur? I have eight. 😉

And how do you know I have any religion?

Actually, I do, but it's also a serious question. Across all the religion threads on here, I have generally tried to correct misconceptions where I have perceived them, and to represent a reasonable voice with respect to certain historical/theological/biblical questions, but I do have an academic interest in these things quite apart from a personal interest.

I try to convert SaxonRider all the time though. He needs SPDs and a dropper on his MTB. Not to mention his refusal to accept the good news... tubeless.

And how do you know I have any religion?

From all the religion threads 🙂

And I can't believe you haven't gone tubeless 😯

I have generally tried to correct misconceptions

And I can't believe you haven't gone tubeless

If you have eight kids I'd suggest that you've failed at correcting misconceptions and can well believe that you've gone tubeless for some time now.

(-:

molgrips - Member
Maybe want to have another read of what you wrote there. You're saying that religious people "tend to" kill people who point out their irrationality. That suggests a common trait.

I believe that a conflict of rational beliefs is less likely to end in violence than a conflict which involves irrational belief, on whatever scale.

From all the religion threads

😀

Alright, the answer to your question is: I don't think so. We have always taken the kids to church, but we have also encouraged rigorous questioning.

So, for example, I will even point the older ones to some of the threads on here. But (and no offense whatsoever intended to our resident sceptics and atheists) in my normal work I will often face substantial questions of a more academic sort, and they get to see me working some of those through.

But my field is historical in nature, and consequently I find there is little new under the sun. So I can generally point to a time when similar questions/challenges have been put forward before, and equally point to how they have been dealt with.

The thing is, I believe that we should all be free to criticise and question. But I believe this precisely because if what I believe is true at all, then I don't need to worry about questions and criticisms. The intellectual probing and sparring - if undertaken with respect - is just part of the process for uncovering further truth.

And if what I believe is wrong, and one of my kids discovers that for himself, then so be it.

The intellectual probing and sparring - if undertaken with respect - is just part of the process for uncovering further truth.

Why would a lack of respect affect the intrinsic truth?

No one enjoys someone else being horrible to them, but that doesn't make any odds to the validity of their argument.

Philip Larkin very good on church going:

Why would a lack of respect affect the intrinsic truth?

It doesn't, but what I think SaxonRider is saying is that discussion, debate and challenging questions can be done in a respectful way. Use of phrases like "sky fairies" crosses the line of respectful challenge into rudeness, and so reduces the overall quality of the discussion.

I agree, but being a bit sarky and unpleasant is how many humans behave, especially when challenged with unprovable and irrational beliefs.
🙂

Yes, it would be a better world if everyone was nice to each other all the time, but that's not an option right now. Much work, many lifetimes, etc.

You can't discount or marginalise the views of others just because they're rude to you.

And I can't believe you haven't gone tubeless

3.0s too. Buffalo hide.

You can't discount the views of others just because they're rude to you.

No, but you can refuse to debate them. The point about nastiness isn't to do with the argument about God, it's basic manners.

Plus, on the subject of rationality, we all have the potential to be irrational. We are not Vulcans. So the ruder you are to someone the less likely you are to get a rational response, and the closer you get to a fight. That goes for any discussion, religious or secular, believers or atheists.

Thank you, andyrm. I would add, though, that when we set respect aside and descend into unfortunate rhetorical flourish, we often (both sides) end up undermining our own arguments, as we succumb to the temptations of [i]ad hominem[/i] and letting emotion get in the way of logic and agreed terminology.

I agree, but being a bit sarky and unpleasant is how many humans behave, especially when challenged with unprovable and irrational beliefs.

Yes, it would be a much more pleasant world if everyone was nice to each other all the time, but that's not an option right now. Much work, many lifetimes, etc.

You can't discount the views of others just because they're rude to you.

Here's the thing though, if we made the effort to challenge respectfully, we'd probably all learn something and get better conversations.

I have to challenge clients on their thinking, methodologies and strategies on a daily basis - ask these questions respectfully and I cut through, get a good flow of conversation that leads to business. Do it rudely saying "you're irrational/wrong/stupid" etc (basically introducing emotional language into the conversation) and I get **** all other than "don't come back".

As someone much wider than me once said "never write anything online you wouldn't say in the pub to the person's face for fear of getting a thump".

There's ways of challenging and debating positively, sadly the way on STW is frequently to take the approach of being rude and trying to shout down rather than engage in interesting and challenging discussion.

Churches are great places to visit for quiet contemplation; I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.

I think the complexity and architectural magnificence of cathedrals is truly awe-inspiring.

I think we can all agree on that Andy.
🙂

Personally, I've too many favourite churches to list, but I've a soft spot for Downham and Bewick.

Very well put andyrm, fully agree.

Good, we all agree.
🙂

Do you agree with my opinion re rational/irrational beliefs, Mol?

What, that irrationality engenders violence? No.

Is violence irrational? Usually but not always.

Does 'irrational' encompass a specific range of behaviours? No.

I would say that irrationality and tendency to violence are orthogonal characteristics.

I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.

That sir is one of the smartest things I've read on here in a long time.

Live and let live and all that 🙂

I don't agree with your assertion that faith propositions are inherently irrational, Rusty Spanner, so we don't all agree on everything.

I accept that proving the existence of the object of faith cannot be necessarily definitive, but I - along with most of the philosophical academy - do not think that to have faith is an irrational position.

But this:

I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.

times a million.

Hmm.

What, that irrationality engenders violence? No.

I didn't say that.

Is violence irrational? Usually but not always.

Or that.
🙂

Does 'irrational' encompass a specific range of behaviours? No.

Nope, didn't claim it did.

Evidence wins arguments.
Show people that things work, answer their questions and they will believe you.

When two irrational belief systems clash, there can be no rational evidence, only faith.

but I - along with most of the philosophical academy - do not think that to have faith is an irrational position.

It's part of the human condition to hold both rational and irrational views.
No one disputes that.

Whether those views are compatable has always been and will always be open to debate.

I can see no reason why religious belief should be treated or discussed in a different manner to any other irrational opinion.

But this:
I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.
times a million.

Why?
Sitting down and having a friendly discussion about others faith and beliefs is usually a very enlightening experience.

I find the more pleasant religious discussions on here very interesting.
Barnsley Mitch, hope all going well.

I can see no reason why religious belief should be treated or discussed in a different manner to any other irrational opinion.

Fair enough, but what I said is that neither I, nor the majority of the academic philosophical world, regard religious faith as irrational.

I accept that the object of faith is not 'prove-able', but faith as a category is not irrational.

Oh, and I agree with you that discussing faith can be an edifying thing, and that we have had some good discussions on here. What I was referring to when I said 'times a million' was any discussion in which one side or the other is demeaned in some way.

No side should be demeaned. I believe that we sit around the table as equals.

I don't regard the need for or existence of faith irrational, as I have said.

I do find many of the specifics of belief to be so.

No side should be demeaned. I believe that we sit around the table as equals.

Amen to that!

We have always taken the kids to church, but we have also encouraged rigorous questioning.

Seems reasonable to me.

being a bit sarky and unpleasant is how many humans behave,

I have an overactive sarcasm gland, I'd like to think that it doesn't spill over into unpleasantness but would welcome being pulled up if it does.

As I've said numerous times before, if something I say could be taken two ways and one of them makes you upset or cross, I probably meant the other one. Usually. (-:

I believe that we sit around the table as equals.

I'd like to believe that but there's evidence on this forum proving that simply isn't the case.

You might treat others as equal but a lot of folk don't.

I have an overactive sarcasm gland, I'd like to think that it doesn't spill over into unpleasantness but would welcome being pulled up if it does.

It doesn't.
🙂

I worry about it too.

I've taken the funnies with a couple of people on here over the years and others with me.
Turns out we just have a different sense of humour.
I am an idiot sometimes.
🙄

I can relate. (And thank you)

A pleasure, you always come across as a very decent bloke.

If you're still working around Burnley pop in for a brew, be good to meet you.

Gosh. I thought I mostly came across as an argumentative knob. So that's good to know. (-:

And yes, in BB11 most weekdays. Pick a day/time/location, I'm easy. (Quiet at the back.)

Would you like me to bring a kite?

🙂

In Wales at the mo, will check my rota when I get home and let you know when we're in.

Churches are great places to visit for quiet contemplation; I don't see any point commenting about religious beliefs or the absence of them - each to their own.

I think the complexity and architectural magnificence of cathedrals is truly awe-inspiring.

There are a variety of definitions of pantheism. Some consider it a theological and philosophical position concerning God.[5]:p.8

As a religious position, some describe pantheism as the polar opposite of atheism.[10]:pp. 7 From this standpoint, pantheism is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing, immanent God.[11] All forms of reality may then be considered either modes of that Being, or identical with it.[12] [b]Some hold that pantheism is a non-religious philosophical position. To them, pantheism is the view that the Universe (in the sense of the totality of all existence) and God are identical (implying a denial of the personality and transcendence of God).[/b][13]

Evidence wins arguments.
Show people that things work, answer their questions and they will believe you.

At the risk of deploying too much sarcasm - did you just step off a spaceship? Welcome to Earth, how was hyperspace? 😉

Trump
Brexit
Conspiracy theories

It is well known that people will cling to pre-existing beliefs that they like and disregard evidence to the co teary all day long.

Note I am not passing comment on religion with that comment, just people's general irrationality.

^^ This. The other question of course is why the desperate need to "win" an internet argument?

It's quite possible to discuss topics with multiple viewpoints respectfully and agree that there's not always a definitive answer, while at the same time accepting the other party's right to their beliefs. People skills 101.

Maybe the net has eroded those people skills, maybe it gives a platform for those with less skills, maybe people carry themselves differently online, I don't know.

So, what is it again that we're all "respectfully" trying to decide with this polite, boring dialectic? Remind me? Have we got there yet?

It was about non believers going to church, enjoying the whole experience from architecture, interesting sermons, nice people etc without either a: the religious people trying to convert them or b: trying to shout down the religious people's beliefs.

It was a really good article in the OP all about dispelling some misconceptions and just getting along.

Hmm.

I'd be interested why an atheist would find a sermon predicated on what, presumably, the atheist finds to be without any foundation, "interesting". Unless it's to pick the inevitable holes in it I suppose. If, unlike the execrable BBC Radio 4 "thought for the day", the sermon isn't just a convenient hook to hang the central message of superstition on, but is simply a philosophical or ethical message, why take the trouble to go to the church in the first place when a wealth of this kind of subject material is available elsewhere without all the ceremonial folderol accreted around it?

Nice people can be found anywhere. If you need to be in an enclosed space with nice people, again - many groups are available that are not predicated on an empty superstition that is used to justify the gathering.

The study of the architecture of course, doesn't need the attendance at a ceremony any more than attending PMQ's is needed to understand the structure of the houses of parliament.

Are articles from "The Metro" really worth getting worked up about? I mean, Michael Jackson is alive too.. 😕

The study of the architecture of course, doesn't need the attendance at a ceremony any more than attending PMQ's is needed to understand the structure of the houses of parliament.

Good analogy, generally. BUT...

If an archaeologist or anthropologist were to uncover the Houses of Parliament in a few thousand years' time, s/he would have a much, much easier job deciphering what it was all for, and what all the physical symbols actually represented, if s/he was living in a similar parliamentary democracy, and had some 'language' by which to understand and interpret the physical remains.

I once delivered a paper at a medieval studies conference of the nature of ____ in Anglo-Saxon life. Of all the scholars present, I was the only one to have a theological background. Consequently, it was like watching fish floundering in a boat, as non-theological scholars tried to wrestle with the subject, while I was able to offer the context that they had spent many papers trying to construct.

Really trying to get one's head around the meaning of church buildings without a deeper understanding of what actually goes on in them, is never going to give one as full an understanding as if one actually had experience of the life that unfolded inside.

Hmm. As an occasional atheist churchgoer, it's not so much the sermon itself, it's the whole bundle- you can go just to see the building and that's good too but it's not the same. It's like the difference between exploring a theatre and seeing a show.

Or, put it a different way, go to my local church for the watchnight service at christmas and it's almost completely unlike going for a look around when nothing's happening.

I was just thinking about the atheist church-goers singing hymns and making baptism promises and the like. I wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe.

In the fantastic book by the amazing writer Hillary Mantel, "Bring Up The Bodies", Thomas Cromwell is in conversation with the soon to be executed Thomas More.

More claims that his words define him and to say what he didn't believe would render him effectively non-existent. They are the rock on which he stands.

Cromwell reminds him of when they met as children.

"You were reading a book and I asked you what it was and you said - words. Just words. .."

Are they a rock that defines one, or "just words", I wonder.

If, unlike the execrable BBC Radio 4 "thought for the day", the sermon isn't just a convenient hook to hang the central message of superstition on, but is simply a philosophical or ethical message, why take the trouble to go to the church in the first place when a wealth of this kind of subject material is available elsewhere without all the ceremonial folderol accreted around it?

I'm not sure I'd know where else to go for a nice uplifting chat about bettering yourself and being nice to each other with a bunch of other people?

Of course not all sermons are like that. I've said before I've been to good ones and awful ones.

Oh and I usually like Thought for the Day. I like hearing other people's points of view.

Mr Woppit - Member

I wonder if they keep their fingers crossed behind their backs or have some other coping mechanism for uttering things in which they don't believe.

No worries, there's a well established process for going to church but not believing much or any of what's said and never acting on it outside of the church...

(I can sing along to Husker Du's "Diane" without being a rapist, too)