Rise Of Atheist Megachurch?

[stromboli]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/1 ... 52360.html

LOS ANGELES -- LOS ANGELES (AP) — It looked like a typical Sunday morning at any mega-church. Hundreds packed in for more than an hour of rousing music, an inspirational sermon, a reading and some quiet reflection. The only thing missing was God.

Dozens of gatherings dubbed "atheist mega-churches" by supporters and detractors are springing up around the U.S. after finding success in Great Britain earlier this year. The movement fueled by social media and spearheaded by two prominent British comedians is no joke.

On Sunday, the inaugural Sunday Assembly in Los Angeles attracted more than 400 attendees, all bound by their belief in non-belief. Similar gatherings in San Diego, Nashville, New York and other U.S. cities have drawn hundreds of atheists seeking the camaraderie of a congregation without religion or ritual.

The founders, British duo Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans, are currently on a tongue-in-cheek "40 Dates, 40 Nights" tour around the U.S. and Australia to drum up donations and help launch dozens of Sunday Assemblies. They hope to raise more than $800,000 that will help atheists launch their pop-up congregations around the world.

They don't bash believers but want to find a new way to meet likeminded people, engage in the community and make their presence more visible in a landscape dominated by faith.

Jones got the first inkling for the idea while leaving a Christmas carol concert six years ago.

"There was so much about it that I loved, but it's a shame because at the heart of it, it's something I don't believe in," Jones said. "If you think about church, there's very little that's bad. It's singing awesome songs, hearing interesting talks, thinking about improving yourself and helping other people — and doing that in a community with wonderful relationships. What part of that is not to like?"

The movement dovetails with new studies showing an increasing number of Americans are drifting from any religious affiliation.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study last year that found 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. Pew researchers stressed, however, that the category also encompassed majorities of people who said they believed in God but had no ties with organized religion and people who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious."

Sunday Assembly — whose motto is Live Better, Help Often, Wonder More — taps into that universe of people who left their faith but now miss the community church provided, said Phil Zuckerman, a professor of secular studies at Pitzer College in Claremont.

It also plays into a feeling among some atheists that they should make themselves more visible. For example, last December, an atheist in Santa Monica created an uproar — and triggered a lawsuit — when he set up a godless display amid Christian nativity scenes that were part of a beloved, decades-old tradition.

"In the U.S., there's a little bit of a feeling that if you're not religious, you're not patriotic. I think a lot of secular people say, 'Hey, wait a minute. We are charitable, we are good people, we're good parents and we are just as good citizens as you and we're going to start a church to prove it," said Zuckerman. "It's still a minority, but there's enough of them now."

That impulse, however, has raised the ire of those who have spent years pushing back against the idea that atheism itself is a religion.

"The idea that you're building an entire organization based on what you don't believe, to me, sounds like an offense against sensibility," said Michael Luciano, a self-described atheist who was raised Roman Catholic but left when he became disillusioned.

"There's something not OK with appropriating all of this religious language, imagery and ritual for atheism."

That sentiment didn't seem to detract from the excitement Sunday at the inaugural meeting in Los Angeles.

Hundreds of atheists and atheist-curious packed into a Hollywood auditorium for a boisterous service filled with live music, moments of reflection and an "inspirational talk, " and some stand-up comedy by Jones, the movement's co-founder.

During the service, attendees stomped their feet, clapped their hands and cheered as Jones and Evans led the group through rousing renditions of "Lean on Me," ''Here Comes the Sun" and other hits that took the place of gospel songs. Congregants dissolved into laughter at a get-to-know-you game that involved clapping and slapping the hands of the person next to them and applauded as members of the audience spoke about community service projects they had started in LA.

At the end, volunteers passed cardboard boxes for donations as attendees mingled over coffee and pastries and children played on the floor.

For atheist Elijah Senn, the morning was perfect.

"I think the image that we have put forward in a lot of ways has been a scary, mean, we want to tear down the walls, we want to do destructive things kind of image is what a lot of people have of us," he said. "I'm really excited to be able to come together and show that it's not about destruction. It's about making things and making things better."

I already know there will be divided opinions about this. I'm kind of in the "meh" category, because I would likely never attend.

[Shiranu]

It gives atheists a chance to be part of a community, which is why so many Christians I know even show up to church. If people find that, then I think it is a good thing.

[Hydra009]

On one hand, a slightly less superstitious experience for those who love the "church experience" would be a good thing.

On the other hand, an atheist church!  DAFUQ!  All sorts of things wrong with that idea, not the least of which would be the lack of interest from the target demographic.

Also, I'm not a real big fan of centralizing/organizing what has heretofore been a loosely-affiliated, decentralized group of people.  A huge part of our strength is that we have no orthodoxy and no hierarchy.  We are everywhere and nowhere, anyone and no one.  We aren't visible, so we don't attract (unwelcome) attention.

[Plu]

I like the idea of atheist community, but they did miss something in the "what's not to like about churches" and that's hierarchy, because when someone "leads" an atheist church they undoubtedly end up like the people who "lead" the regular churches; stuck in some petty powergame or some poor kid's asshole.

If only they'd used the real strength of atheism in building this community and built one without clear leadership, it'd be a much better idea.

[Agramon]

I'm leery of this concept. I think atheist megachurches would separate along narrow political/social lines just like Evangelicals separate over minute details of doctrine ("Atheism+" is a perfect example of this).

[Sal1981]

I'm ambivalent.

As an atheist surrounded by believers, only (atheist) community I can find is a few friends at a pub and chess club and online.

As long as it's a "flat leadership" and not exclusively atheistic then I don't see a problem, quite the contrary. We're social creatures after all and having a  sense of community with other people is a key feature to our happiness, IMO.

On the other hand, all this shanghaiing of religious activity just gives the ammo to the religious that "atheism is a religion". Atheism+, as far as I can tell, was and still is a complete blunder. Latching atheism to a social and political agenda? Was doomed to fail from the start.

I agree with Sam Harris, what he echoed from Daniel Dennett, that we shouldn't identify ourselves as exclusively atheist; that that is such a small part of who we are as people. It's just one aspect, albeit important considering the response, but still only a default position and nothing more. Everything else comes under completely other umbrellas.

Going through the comments in that Huffington Post article, the believers are exactly thinking the "atheism is a religion" bullshit propaganda they have been fed.

As long as it's just an non-denominational assembly, like the Unitarian Universalists, then I don't see the problem. Also, this seems to be a fault of the author(s) calling it a hyphened 'mega-church' when they themselves call it an assembly.

[baddogma]

We only have power in numbers. I am a member of a local organization that is organizing and part of the coalition of reason. We are starting to get a local voice. It is easier for others to come out of the closet if they know there is a community that supports them. It is absurd to call us a religion when we have no deity or common beliefs.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I guess if I ever do go to one, which ain't happening, I'll have to make a big show of NOT giving money to a god (or not) that doesn't exist.
Sounds to much like a money grab from the gullible. Atheism makes nobody immune from fucking stupid.

[GrinningYMIR]

It's kind of iffy, on one hand it gives people comrades to express their ideals in person

on the other hand it panders towards the ideas that we revolted against, and it may even give the more suprah-religious people ideas of where we gather in order to "cleanse the blasphemy"

If there was a maybe category I would put that

[Mermaid]

Totally not my thing. Organizing as atheists smacks of organizing as Christians (or whatever religion you choose).
I think this forum is about as far as I'd go to reach out to other atheists.  :)

So no.

[SGOS]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/10/atheist-mega-church_n_4252360.html

I already know there will be divided opinions about this. I'm kind of in the "meh" category, because I would likely never attend.

It's odd, I probably wouldn't attend unless there was one a mile from my house.  Yet I have a vague craving, which for some reason, I think would disappoint.  A group of atheists?  What do you do with a group of atheists?  Think about it.  What would you expect to get out of an organization of people who don't believe in Big Foot?  There's only so far a lack of interest in something can take you.

[stromboli]

Welcome back, Baddogma. You've been missed.  =D>  

The problem I have isn't against atheists gathering but the nature of group dynamics. There are always going to be people who want to assert their personalities and want to dominate in one form or another. I lived through too many different settings involving groupthink in the work place or in a church setting to not be wary of that. Any group will develop a methodology and philosophy of its own, which will be driven by dominant members. It is how groups operate, and why I- and many others here- are wary of such a scenario.

[entropy]

If that's what some atheists want to do, then it's okay with me as long as they don't start talking like they stand for all atheists. While I'm otherwise okay with atheists who want to do this, I think it's weird. Not that wanting to get together with other atheists is weird - in a virtual sense, that's kinda what this web site is about - but that they want to get together in a "churchy" way. There are many other social organization models to follow other than "church". Though in the U.S. there is a tendency to use the word "church" to denote any place of religious worship, the term is very closely associated with Christianity (the U.S. being historically dominated by Christians is probably why "church" has come to be used as a generic term for a religious place of worship). Jews have synagogues and Muslims have mosques and Christians have churches. Choosing to use the term, "church" for these atheist social organizations to me just evokes strong associations not only with religious doctrines and deity worship, but specifically Christian doctrines and worship. That's just weird.

It's not like there aren't other existing atheist social organizations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_se ... ted_States

[SGOS]

I am not a joiner.  In my entire life, there has only been one group I ever dedicated myself to, a wilderness advocacy group, and that was driven only by a personal need that had nothing to do with being with people.  Granted, I developed some strong personal bonds, but primarily with people who were dedicated to advancing the cause.

Addressing an issue of personal concern is about the only reason I can see for belonging to a group.  Not to say that benefits of a social nature are not a byproduct.  They certainly follow, but for me there has to be a strong reason for joining something, something I could not achieve on my own.

[Mister Agenda]

OK, they don't call themselves a church, so that's one thing. Another is that it's clearly a freethought/humanist thing, so it IS about what they believe in, not what they don't believe in.

I don't see any reason to hate on them.