How many atheist churches are in existance?

WTF is the point?

“We are gathered here today to state we don’t believe in god. Ok, well, see ya next week.”

You could absolutely have a career as an atheist minister. You just need the startup capital to license your business, get your nonprophet… er, nonprofit status, and start using your stunning charisma to build a congregation.

Good luck. It only took 3 or 400 years for Christianity to become profitable.

@uberbatman

From what I gleaned from that site the point seems to be to provide people who can and will perform ministerial services (such as weddings) without religious associations for people who don’t want those associations.

@Darth_Algar Seems like a fine idea. That is already being done though, like in city halls and the like. That’s how my parents got married, a non religious wedding at the town hall or something like that. even though my mom is religious
Seems like a good idea to me, but unless the word ’‘church’’ can count for any building that’s not actually a church, in which to administer such services, there probably won’t be that many atheist churches being built, when the shit can just get done in any place.

@Symbeline Agreed, I personally preferred the non-religious wedding, for a few reasons.

@Symbeline

A church doesn’t have to be any specific building, or indeed any building at all. The church is the congregation, not the building.

The word “church” is misleading. It should be “club.”

@kritiper

How so?

@Darth_Algar A church is a “body of worshipers; a religious society.” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1960 ed..) of which atheists are not because they don’t worship anything. They just get together to compare notes and talk about their non-beliefs. So it’s more like a club.

<——Atheist.

Phttt. No thanks.

@kritiper

Simply taking one meaning of a word while ignoring any other possible meanings does a disservice to the word and to language and ignores the fluid, ever-changing nature of language.

@Darth_Algar Assuming knowledge of the actual definitions is a disservice to the word, the language and yourself. Check your dictionary and your thesaurus.

@kritiper

As I stated above, the word has several different meanings now, one of which being synonymous with “congregation”. Thus it’s perfectly fine to use “church” instead of “club” in this context. Language is not set in stone and it’s not bound to rigid definitions from decades old books. As words are employed in everyday language their meanings and usage expand and adapt. Would you also cite a 50 year-old dictionary to claim that “gay” is a misleading term to apply to homosexuals?

@Darth_Algar I have consulted my newest and THE most up-to-date Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.), and it says virtually the same thing. Even the word “congregation” means “worshipers” and “churchgoers” clearly implying the worship of “God” or some entity or etc. There are some vague meanings that could be used as you suggest, but they are, on the whole, completely misleading.
And my 11th ed. says that “gay” can also mean homosexual. ” I don’t see it as being a misleading term, nor is it expressed as such.

Yet you’re still missing my point about the fluidity of language. But it’s irrelevant anyway. These folks can call their organization anything they want, regardless of rigid textbook definitions.

True enough. And I am not missing your point about the fluidity of language. There are many people who slaughter the language unknowingly and also willingly, and it will always be so. But by the exact definition of the word, it is misleading because it implies that atheists pray or worship, or otherwise pay homage to some entity, which they very clearly do not. But, sure, let them call it whatever they want.

I guess using that logic then Church’s Chicken is misleading as it implies that prayer and worship take place alongside the orders of fried chicken.

@Darth_Algar Watch out for KFC’s poultry-geists

@Darth_Algar @kritiper I guess we could stop saying church and call it a Temple: an edifice devoted to special or exalted purposes.

@Darth_Algar That church is somebody’s name.
@zenvelo That would work. A stretch, but workable. Still misleading though… since atheists don’t pray or worship. No preacher either.
It seems a bit odd that some person would go to the trouble of setting up a web site and not research more acceptable wording for the name. Could be a lure, bait to lure someone in for a possible conversion, argument against atheism, or to hack your computer.
I still contend that a more suitable word would be club, or association, or league, or union.

I think a meeting of atheists would be in a coffee shop where they sat around, drank coffee and discussed their non-beliefs. Or like a poetry group where they sit around and listen to whoever wants to read his or her poetry to the group, or an AA meeting where someone gets up in front of the group, introduces themselves and tells why he or she became an atheist. No regimented service/mass type atmosphere or goings on.

Hello, I’m Gabrielle Frozzenpygg and I’m an atheist, because, KFC, motherfuckers.

@kritiper

In my experience, the really fun atheist meetings have been Flying Spaghetti Monster dinners (Cheese Be Upon Him) where we sampled the host’s latest homebrewed mead and then argued the relative merits of our favored Hogwarts houses.

@Seek_Kolinahr Why wasn’t I invited??

@kritiper “That church is somebody’s name.”

And how many people are really aware of that? It seems like your issue here is how others might perceive it, so the general public, being largely unaware of the name of the founder of that establishment, could interpret Church’s Chicken as a place of worship and fast food.

And yes, I’m being somewhat intentionally absurd in citing Church’s Chicken, as I feel your complaint here is absurd. No one is going to mistake an organization of atheists for a prayer and worship group, even if they have “church” as part of the name. And given the apparent nature and purpose of this group, to provide congregational and ministerial services, the use of the word “church” is perfectly valid.

Using the term “church” is a bit awkward considering the Quakers call their services “Friends Gatherings” and their buildings as “Friend’s Meeting Places.”

@Darth_Algar I’m sure that there are many people who are/would be aware that “Church’s” implies a person since the apostrophe indicates, in this case, possession. And I still contend that it is inaccurate and misleading. I’d bet a dollar to a hole in a doughnut that there would be MANY others who would question this wording.

@Darth_Algar If you used your description of the sense of “church” in “Church’s Chicken” to apply to an atheist organization, you would have to use it as “Church’s Atheist” instead of Atheist’s church so you are taking it (the word “church” and the person’s name “Church”) out of context.

@kritiper

Dude, I said above that I was being intentionally absurd in that example.

@Darth_Algar I realized your absurdness. I was not trying to be so.
Atheists do not partake of any “congregational and ministerial services.” That would be absurd. To assume that they do, or would, is absurd.

@kritiper

Do what? You think atheists don’t gather together in groups? You think they never lead any kind of civil, ceremonial or other functions?