Church without God

I believe that the true godless church is the Church of Bob, which offers a money back guarantee on all donations. Unless they have gone bankrupt due to all the payouts. Among Christians, the Unitarians are one of the few true monotheists groups, as they reject the three gods in one idea of the Trinity. As we all know, 3-In-1 (Blessed Be His Holy Name) is the god of oil.

I have observed over the years that what people appear get out of membership in a church, or the Hari Krishnas, or the Moonies, or the Bhuddist temple down at the beach, or whatever, is the sense of belonging to a supportive community. More than anything else, and regardless of the particular set of belief they have, the sense of participation seems paramount. It never mattered what they were trying to get me to join, they all sounded the same.

For the "non-religious" who are not specifically atheist, a "godless church" might be just the thing. But you will not find me joining any group that uses words like (from the first paragraph in the article) "congregation" or "chaplain" or "preach" to describe what they do.

But why not? Atheists can be spiritual, right? Agree?

Book Review: The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality
www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2008/10/the-little-book-of-atheist-spirituality/

No, I think you're thinking of the word "spiritualist".  Spiritualists believe in communicating with the dead.

Anyhow, it's confusing because spiritual is the opposite of material, so there's got to be a cogntive dissonance there.  

Also, being spiritual does not necessarily mean being religious. And to be even more confusing, a religious person may not even belong to a church.

Anyway, the main problem with the reputation of atheism is that it may be seen as an excuse to do anything one wants with no consequence; an excuse to be hedonistic/immoral and is anti-society/community. That's the bad rap it has.

And that's why that an atheist congregation could be a good thing if there's a true participation in the community to do good things. Because what do we have now? Angry atheists being seen as taking away the rights of the majority and donating money to a woman who says publicly to Wolf Blitzer she's an atheist. Doesn't do much for the atheist image.  And it also makes it appear that they don't want to look good, but prefer to stick it in our faces because they're just plain mean. Not good.  Or maybe not good is the point?

Atheism may be seen as an excuse to be hedonistic or immoral, but not by people with your intelligence. The atheist "image" of sticking it in our faces because they are "just plain mean" reminds me of those who have complained blacks stuck their demands in white faces, gays stick their demands in straight faces. We live in a place where minority rights are supposed to be protected, even if it sticks in the faces of the majority. If the majority perceives this as offensive or forceful behavior then it is the majority's turn to look within & reconsider. Asking if "maybe not good is the point" shows you have conflicting feelings about those who are not in sync with your beliefs. Atheists are probably as mean or kind as anyone else in society, although I have no statistics on this. My instinct, which is no proof at all, leads me to think perhaps atheists might be kinder, due maybe to having to hide or defend their beliefs (despite others calling it lack of beliefs).

I believe you are extremely intelligent and will not rush to judgment, even if those who disagree with you do.  As for anyone who is rigid & will never see another person's side of things:  That's what laws are for; to equalize what feelings will not; to override a natural tendency in many to be prejudiced & deny accordingly.  I don't think atheists need a publicist, it's not a product to sell.

I don't think it matters what others feel about what someone's belief system is. Obviously, if one has an unpopular belief that person will not be popular among certain people. I don't think any amount of good publicity for atheists means a thing, or that they should go out of their way to do anything except be the people they are. Always room for improvement of course!

I think that saying "atheists believe ..." is just as inaccurate as say "whites believe" or "Canadians believe" or "democrats believe." Atheists share the belief that there is no god. Otherwise, like any other large group of people, they have all sorts of different views about all sorts of subjects. This includes what they think about religion. And among those in the public eye, it includes how they think they should behave and write and speak.

It's true that most people (at least in the US) think that atheists have no ethics or morals, since they have no religion. But the funny part is that it's believers of one flavor or another who fill the prisons. Whatever we call "bad" behavior, a larger percentage of evangelical Christians commit more crimes, have more divorces, become addicted to drugs, etc. than atheists. If you had to choose between letting an atheist or an evangelical Christian hold all your cash for you, the odds are much, much better that the atheist is the one to trust. 8->

It's the percentage I'm talking about, not the total number. That is, a larger percentage of evangelicals are in prison than of atheists. As to percentage of the total population, that varies, but in the US atheists may be as few as 3% while evangelicals may be around 30%.

And, yeah, I'd trust an atheist stranger with my money sooner than I would an evangelical stranger. No guarantee with either, but the odds are good that a random atheist is more honest than a random evangelical. 8->

ARRRRGH!!!! You said that evangelicals/believers fill the prisons more than atheists. Of course because there's more evangelicals/believers in the population, that's why! I don't care what percentages you're citing.

Also, I wouldn't give my money to hold to any stranger, atheist or evangelical. That was my point. I would give it to a trusted person to hold be they atheist or not. That's the difference in the mindset between you and me.

The link looked strange on my computer. I fixed it (correctly, I hope). In any case the entry I linked to is "June 22 - Wherever the Day Takes You"

Lori (aka "Tin") is a costume stylist here in the Los Angeles entertainment industry, working mainly on commercials. This is what she meant by having a free lance job, since her work is project by project. She's about 35 (I think) and has been travelling extensively for about ten years. I know her through work.

She is not rootless by any means. Travel is her passion - seeing different lands. experiencing different cultures, and meeting people from everywhere. But she always comes home, and home is definitely L.A.

Her current trip is to the South Pacific. She has (as usual) no fixed itinerary, goes "wherever the day takes [her]" and sometimes "abandons herself" to strangers. More than anything, certainly more than material things, she values her experiences, her memories, and especially her friends, both abroad and at home.

I offer her open approach to life and her willingness to listen to her "inner voice" as an example of one way (I think there are probably many ways) that someone can be "spiritual." Don't try to read too much into it.

Okay, I've thought it over. Her decision has nothing to do with the universe at all. It has only to do with her personal decisions as to her life. Nothing wrong with that. But in no way the universe or the spiritual. Unless you can specifically tell me how in her narratives you can tell me how.  

You see, Raybar, when I read those essays I knew nothing about her except your citing them as examples of illustrating what you mean by spirituality. It would help me if you would explain to me how it does that for you.