http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/22/church-without-god-by-design/

This makes sense -- no need for a magical sky god to have a church that helps its members.

I don't want to go to church. I hated going to church.

I think it's an amazing idea to have a church where it's just about community and helping people though.

The 'atheist' church could end up being more Christ-like than most Christian churches.

Really, this is a club, but they want to provide an equivalency for humanists to the Lutheran and Mormon clubs that meet every Sunday.

If you take God out of church, you just have a club. Clubs have important social aspects, especially when the focus is on building up a community.

Instead of getting so hung up on the word "church", look at what they are doing. I think this is a terrific idea. They probably only need the "church" title to get the same privileged status that Christian sects get.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really, this is a club, but they want to provide
> an equivalency for humanists to the Lutheran and
> Mormon clubs that meet every Sunday.
>
> If you take God out of church, you just have a
> club. Clubs have important social aspects,
> especially when the focus is on building up a
> community.
>
> Instead of getting so hung up on the word
> "church", look at what they are doing. I think
> this is a terrific idea. They probably only need
> the "church" title to get the same privileged
> status that Christian sects get.

I'd say that the Buddhist congregations here in Hawaii
function as something greatly superior to a "club."

If that atheist religion can properly be called a "club,"
it's a very special one -- one that keeps the food bank
going in communities over here.

And the atheist Unitarian Church provides a support group
for life traumas -- where else can an atheist go when he
learns that his wife of thirty years has terminal cancer,
and the nearest dedicated end-of-life support group is
not within traveling distance?

The Unitarian-universalists provided a funeral for my late
son and my wife and I were married by a Buddhist lama.
While living in Taiwan our only access to a private car
was via the Taoist group that met at the school where we
taught. But, I suppose we could have joined some sort of
non-religious club there, to have obtained the same help.

Maybe folks who promote the idea of getting rid of religion
are right -- but in my life, I haven't seen any such need.

UD

Atheists groups don't contribute to things like food banks? Maybe the Atheist group is not big enough to keep a food bank running year round, but the Atheist groups I know certainly do contribute.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Atheists groups don't contribute to things like
> food banks? Maybe the Atheist group is not big
> enough to keep a food bank running year round, but
> the Atheist groups I know certainly do contribute.


Like I said in another posting once, the U-U congregation
here is almost exclusively atheistic and they are great
when it comes to community work. Of course they also
have trained ministers with degrees in counseling, etc.
as well as a multi-generational heritage to draw upon.

We previously discussed the atheist group in SE Idaho that
my father belonged to -- it did not survive his death, and
was pretty much defunct after its original members died
off. But, it's the only such anti-relgious group I have
any personal experience with -- so my view has been limited.

To stop calling it a church.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 03:33PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To stop calling it a church.

There was a similar notion current among the United
Methodist profs at the seminary I attended --- in the
last century.

The word church probably has too much baggage attached to
it, for the term to be embraced much by atheists. The
Buddhists here in Hilo are reluctant to be called members
of a church -- but legal requirements are hard to change.

The original biblical word was simply congregation -- and
it didn't always have exclusively religious connotations.

The Reorganized LDS hit upon the word "Community" for
their new name --- after realizing that church translates
into community in many of the non-English languages that
they teach/publish in.

Unitarian-Universalist Congregation sounds just fine to
me. Even "community" can sound a bit overly exclusive. IMHO.

UD

I think for many, UU is a stepping stone for people that have lost their belief on God, but have not lost their childhood brainwashing that they have to go to Church every week.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think for many, UU is a stepping stone for
> people that have lost their belief on God, but
> have not lost their childhood brainwashing that
> they have to go to Church every week.

Well, you may be right about that -- at least right about
some people.

The UU minister conducting my son's funeral was 4th generation,
with Puritan roots -- DD at Starr-King. He had an idea about
how the denomination would develop in the future. I'm sure that
in his opinion, the services of the group amounted to something
other than just brainwashing -- and that the membership ties
and interactions went beyond just their Sunday get-togethers.

As he explained it to me -- "We try to be a force for the
betterment of society around us, and not just for ourselves."

I expect that there will will a fifth generation and a sixth
generation of these folks. And I wonder if that minister's
thoughts about their atheistic future really will pan out.

UD

In the USA UU membership is around 211,000.

Atheist and Agnostics combined are about 13 million. Even if UU was 100% Atheist and agnostic, the 2 hundred thousand would only represent less than 2% of atheists and agnostic, hardly enough to justify any claims or implication that atheists and agnostics as a whole support UofU. Hell, 2% of Americans are Mormon, that doesn't make Mormonism reflective of American ideals.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 04:14PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the USA UU membership is around 211,000.
>
> Atheist and Agnostics combined are about 13
> million. Even if UU was 100% Atheist and agnostic,
> the 2 hundred thousand would only represent less
> than 2% of atheists and agnostic, hardly enough to
> justify any claims or implication that atheists
> and agnostics as a whole support UofU. Hell, 2% of
> Americans are Mormon, that doesn't make Mormonism
> reflective of American ideals.

I would be happy to see all of Christianity evolve into
something resembling the UU folks, in the coming centuries.

On the other hand -- as the minister tried to explain to
me -- their mission was not to grow into a vast denomination.
Their mission was to be a positive influence upon the society
around them. They did not count upon needing great numbers
of members in order to work at that part of their reason
for being.

UD

And that addresses my point HOW? My point was not that they number of UUs were small, but that even if they were all atheists, you could not claim they represented mainstream atheist views any more than you can say Mormon's represent main stream American views. To try to validate the UU by claiming that atheists are members is like trying to validate the Mormon church by claiming it has USA citizens as members.


BTW, even Hitler thought he was trying to be a force for good. THe argument that a group is trying to be a force for good does not impress me. Rather it often scares me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 05:07PM by MJ.

If they are Atheists then who enforces those insane rules about Reincarnation ?
And reincarnation is merely an afterlife.

Sure doesn't sound Atheistic to me.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If they are Atheists then who enforces those
> insane rules about Reincarnation ?
> And reincarnation is merely an afterlife.
>
> Sure doesn't sound Atheistic to me.

I attended a meeting with the Dali Lama in Houston in 1979.
One of his memorable sentences was: "Of course you have to
realize that re-birth is itself a symbolism, and not an
ultimate truth."

At the same gathering he was asked about how a Christian
might go about converting to Buddhism --

"Couldn't you do some good by remaining with your family?"
was his cryptic reply.

UD

Is that the same one that oversaw a repressive feudal caste system?

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is that the same one that oversaw a repressive
> feudal caste system?

You'll have to explain that one to me.

During my years in South Asia, it was the Buddhists who
acted as the greatest advocates against the Hindu caste system.

All I know is what I've experienced.

UD

You may want to start with trying to explains why a religious leader would live in a palace like this:

http://www.justfocus.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/potola_photo.jpg

In a country as impoverished as Mongolia.

So how many people did those buddhists kill and enslave to build those insane mountaintop monasteries ?

Built by and for Dali Lama's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potala_Palace

You may want to do some research.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Built by and for Dali Lama's:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potala_Palace
>
> You may want to do some research.


I've done the research. I know the history. Spend the rest
of this thread's allotted postings on such stuff, if you
see it as important.

But I think that the general topic is a good one.

UD

I think quoting the Lama as someone pure and admirable is to ignore his roots. If he had not been thrown out of Tibet, he likely would have continued the repressive rule of Tibet.

He changed his tune to try to get popular support in the western world that had long ago rejected his repressive, privileged beliefs.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...someone pure and admirable
...

Did I really say that?

What I said was that even the topmost lama of Mahayana
admits that re-birth is as illusionary as the rest of
that religion's mythology.

Do you have any interest in getting back to _that_ matter,
or must we debate whether a building in Lhasa was constructed
by unwilling slaves, or some such historical oddity?

UD

what was the value you expected to gain by name d r o p p i n g the Dali Lama?

seriously d r o p p i n g is a band word?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 04:55PM by MJ.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So how many people did those buddhists kill and
> enslave to build those insane mountaintop
> monasteries ?

Never saw any such structures atop mountains. Most of Tibet
is an elevated plateau, rather flat, actually.

In the Himalayas you do see centuries-old structures. I was
glad to take shelter in one of them during a snowstorm --
just me, the yaks and an old lady brewing buttered tea.

Now, if you're asking about the history of the Bon priests
and their interactions with Himalayan peoples -- then that
is a different question altogether.

UD

That's right, the average Tibetan did not live in any sort of luxury, they were surfs dedicated to serving the privileged class. That sort of privilege was reserved for the Dali Lamas and their court.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You may want to start with trying to explains why
> a religious leader would live in a palace like
> this:
>
> http://www.justfocus.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/200
> 9/08/potola_photo.jpg
>
> In a country as impoverished as Mongolia.

Much more than a palace. The seat of government for a
nation, at one time.

And I have not heard any advocacy for returning to the
1940s style of Tibetain governance -- which, even then,
was in the hands of the nobility and civil servants,
and not directly controlled/administered by the top lama.

However, you might wish to address your question to those
Tibetans who still advocate national independence, if you
want a reasoned answer.

The closest I ever got to any of that was on the fringes
of the Great Cultural Revolution in southern China -- about
the time it was fading out. The kids with the Mao buttons
and the red books were disappointed that they had not been
able to go to Lhasa and tear down that same Potala.

And maybe they should have -- such a turn of events ought
not to have bothered a dedicated Buddhist very much.

UD

Yeah, a brutal repressive government run by the Dali Lama's

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

Of course you are not going to hear any advocacy to RETURN to that way of life, he would lose what little support he has.

The system of the Dali Lamas was brutal and repressive.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> The system of the Dali Lamas was brutal and
> repressive.


What feudal system (in the harshest of environments) was not
repressive in olden days? Maybe Switzerland in the days of
William Tell?

What was Tibet like before the Buddhists arrived there?
Would the people have been better off under the previous
system and governance?

UD

Oh, no, the OTHER PEOPLE did HORRIBLE stuff so it really wasn't HORRIBLE that the Dali Lama did it! Seriously DU, most people learn that the logic you just used is fallacious from start to finish by the 5th grade. YOu should be ashamed.

It was repressive, brutal and unjust in Dark Ages Europe and it was the same when the Dali Lama practiced it. Bad is bad even if others are bad.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 04:56PM by MJ.

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...re-birth is itself a symbolism...

I'm trying to imagine The Pope stepping out into St. Peter's
Square, and addressing the multitude with:

"Of course you have to realize that the atonement is symbolic."

Or, President Monson standing up a Conference and saying:

"Actually, families are not forever -- we just say that."

Well, given Monson's current mental state, perhaps the latter
admission would not surprise me all that much.

UD

People that do not believe in God have been gathering together in secular groups to build a better community for a long time ans without the need to call it a church.

This seems to me as just another ploy to validate churches by saying "See, even atheists can have churches"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 01:53PM by MJ.

This is amazing... I'm bookmarking this for later read, but I hope they don't preach against God, because there's no point to that starting a group like this. My whole problem with religion is being told what to believe and how to behave, and I've heard too much from atheism telling me the same thing.

People can't do good unless they have the trappings of religion ?

I say follow the money.
Who is profitting from this B.S. ? (besides CNN)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2013 03:53PM by Dave the Atheist.