Slashdot Mirror
SimChurch
Roland Piquepaille writes "It's Sunday and some of you might go to a church. But starting on May 11, and for a duration of three months, you'll be able to go to a virtual church. Only the building, with its altar and pews, will be virtual. The preacher, congregation and prayers will be real, according to this BBC News article, 'Glimpse inside the virtual church.' This experiment is launched by a Christian website, Ship of Fools, and will be named Church of Fools. Even with such a foolish name, the virtual church project has been approved by the church hierarchy. This overview contains other details and references about the Church of Fools project."
I'm torn.
On one hand, as a coder, sitting in front of the computer for hours on end I can attest to the meditative state the computer puts me in. I'm not a practicing catholic, but was raised one. Church never really had me contemplating as much as the cathode ray bombarding my brain with it's "green soothing light does". Of course i was a child.
On the other, if this virtual church has "pop up ads" and a whole other pile of garbage, what would jesus do? I mean in the bible he got angry because the holy place was being disrespected, because the spiritual was being commercialized, because the Temple was being desecrated by those who kill the holy and sell it...
Is this a joke?
I'm not a religious man myself but I wonder how successful this will be.
I mean, i thought that meeting up in church wasn't just about the worship
but was about the social interaction with others - the feeling of unity with
your peers. How can an "SimChurch" emulate that side of it?
Watching a webcast or something like it just isn't the same. Anyone who's watched the BBC program "songs of praise" will back me up on that one.
Simon.
Now you can go to church, read /. and watch pr0n all at the same time.
"There is no teacher but the enemy."-Mazer Rackham
Going to church every sunday isn't necessarily just to hear a sermon, a little choir, read a few passages from the Bible...no, a big part rests around the face time with other attendees. It is like a family reunion...in a chat room. You might all be there, but you can't express emotion or body language that gives depth to any sort of relationship. Plus, one huge aspect of going to church and hearing millenia old gospel certainly implies that you are not looking to get tips and tricks on the latest gadgets, linux distros, etc.
the first post is not redundant by its very nature
Pity the new fool overlords.
Keillor had this one story of aboy rebelling against his methodist parents, he would always skip church and such, until his dad informed him:
"You know, son, you can take communinion online now, using a methodist modem"
Internet Church might be the thing of the future, but its current state is awful.
SAILING MISHAP
I predict this will be the first of thousands, including a few dodgy ones based in Nigeria (oops did I just give someone an idea).
"...no one has built an interactive 3D church environment before - complete with gothic arches and hard wooden pews."
HAVE YOU NEVER PLAYED DEUS EX???
It looks like the basic Flash engine that they are using also powered the Ark, an internet based reality game show that the Ship ran last year, featuring Biblical luminaries on a 40 day voyage around a mockup of Noah's Ark. If you examine the screenshots of Church of Fools, you can see Simon Peter, Jezebel, Mary Magdeline, Joseph (with rainbow coat), etc. You can still tour around the Ark by clicking the link above.
-Troy
Proud Shipmate
Sorry, I'm getting a bit carried away.
And if you thought that was boring you obviously havn't read my Journal ;-)
Huxley
This will allow me to stay home every Sunday. ;)
Quite. We've got church once a week...
Finally a good use for the online ordination I bought from that spammer.
;-)
I don't even need to buy candles!
Plenty of you are making light of this, but do you realize how many would love to go to a church on Sundays but can't (e.g., those who are sick, those who live in rural areas)? Fellowship with other Christians is half the Christian faith, and this is a useful tool for those who'll need it.
Yup he will control the global console and will announce his return with the wall command...
"God is present wherever his people gather"
that (or something very similar) was what my pastor said when i asked him about marring me at my parents house instead of the church building itself. I dont see what that same concept couldnt apply to an online church.
Im actually quite tempted to "show up" may 11th. I was raised a christian, still consider myself one, however for various reasons I rarely attend services anymore.... (mainly lack of motivation on my part to actully get up, get ready & drive over to the church) I fully realize thats no excuse at all.. but visiting a virtual service or two might be just what the doctor ordered.
"Nyquil - The stuffy, sneezy, why-the-hell-is-the-room-spinning medicine."
...to the best Church site on the net: Landover Baptist Church. Praise the Lord!
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
There is literally no reason why this sort of thing couldn't have already been going on for who knows how long.
There are all kinds of people in games like Second Life, There, and The Sims Online that take the game way too seriously. It's only a matter of time before someone starts religious services, if they haven't already.
I've seen groups of people all wearing shirts with Crosses and quotes like "Got Jesus?" for a while. An official meeting place on Sundays is only one step away.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
And what is left for those of us that are month-minded?
too many disruptive trolls.
They're going to need a lot of fast fingured moderators to keep that place "holy."
Ben
Work Safe Porn
And... free, with a visit to the "house of fools" site, the companion guide:
Religion For Dummies
-- :P
and yes, I *am* an atheist
How many l33t preteens is it going to take to ruin a virtual service? They're going to have to implement chat restrictions over the course of the main 'worship', and even then, all it would take to ruin the after-chat is one kid.
freeminimacs, just becau
Will the priests be able to virtually molest the alter boys?
That should read '...be able virtually to molest the altar boys?'. You shouldn't split an inifinitive, it's just bad grammar.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
Hoc est enim cookie meum.
I wonder if the Church of Fools has worked out the theological implications of the fact that their priests and pastors are now avatars?
Bless me, father, for I have spammed...
I mean, they're worshipping a deity who isn't real, in order to gain admission to a place, Heaven, that isn't real and avoid being sent by their unreal but supposedly loving God to another place, Hell, that isn't real, where they would be tortured for eternity by an entity, Satan, who isn't real.
You're a bot, aren't you?
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
I guess the only downside is that people would probably expect the ceremony to be consumated by cybersex.
Instead of putting up a virtual church, Jesus would go to those people's houses who couldn't otherwise go to church, and personally worship with them.
That's What Jesus Would Do.
Of all the non threatening social situations, I can't imagine a less threatening atmosphere than a church.
But who knows, maybe this will find it's niche.
As long as they don't junk it up with ads and demand membership fees or whatnot the only problem I see with it is that the internet is a wire monkey. It's bad to depend on the internet for your social fix. Real life person to person interaction is necessary. And of all the places to avoid it, church isn't it.
I also have to wonder how they're going to deal with trolls.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Is this gonna be just like virtual sex? Vaguely satisifying but in the end its all just a w_nk. (That's Aussie slang for masturbation for those of you who don't know).
Think of all the benefits. Just think of all the sacraments:
Virtual communion - zero calories, and won't put you over the limit for when you drive
Virtual marriage - When it goes sour you can always claim it wasn't you on the other end of the computer and keep half your stuff.
Virtual baptism - Only your avatar will get wet.
Virtual last rites - Not as depressing when its an avatar not a real person.
Some things will always be better in person no matter how emmersive the virtual reality. This is totally wasted on me completely. I'm not religious. Religion has in some ways been the bane of my existence. I'd just love it if those that are would just leave me alone and I don't look forward to the prospect of increased net evangelism though I know its bound to happen.
I'm not a troll either though.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I think the people who are organising this are quite aware that its a gimmick, and I think that's probably the point. The article said that they were interested in attracting people who wouldn't otherwise go to a church. There are lots of other examples of churches organising surprising or gimmicky events to attract a different audience. The biggest risk is that they will only get people who go to church anyway. I imagine one of the aims will be to put non-Christians into contact with a local non-virtual church. (btw i'm not using gimmick as a derogatory term)
Well - in regards to atheists being argumentative, that's not all that surprising. But in regards to "frightful outrage" towards people with different views, I disagree. I have no problem if you wish to be Christian/Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Jewish/etc, and I personally am not the type to align myself with those that perceive people of religion as being weak minded. So your broad sweeping generalizations are absolutely unfounded.
If you would like, I could bring up numerous factual examples of those who practice Christianity reacting in "frightful outrage" towards those who have different beliefs. To my understanding, many atheists have become atheist due to religious institutions giving moral backing to very dreadful and brutal acts.
I could go on, but that's not fair to those who do not fit into this generalization. I suspect this is why you are moderated "0, Insightful".
So do they consecrate the server as holy ground or what? I'm not even gonna think about baptisms.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
of the 58ish comments I've read, I've not seen one childish outburst on the side of the Christians, only on the side of those non-christian...not to say we won't stir up a fantatic in a minute, but it reflect badly on the rest of us...I detect a bit of unforgiveness on the parts of non-christians here. *putting all thoughts of imaginary karma aside, he scrolls by the "Post Anonymously" button and straight on to "Submit"*
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
Well, isn't that simple minded.
Lets apply your logic. I believe 2+2=4, and I believe you're an idiot, so I must be right on both counts.
-- I care not for your foolish signatures.
Won't all that old-style English they read from the Bible be even harder to understand once they convert it to chat speak? "In da bginin Gd creatd da hvn n da erth. n da erth ws w/out frm, n void; n drknes [ws] upn da face of da deep. n da Spirt of Gd mvd upon da face of da wtrs. n Gd sd, Let der b lght: n der ws lght."
from my SimState
"Not everything you read online is true."
"Except whatever that man with the priest icon says."
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
Doesn't leave you with much.
There was a piece on the radio earlier today about "Organists Behaving Badly." That's a group of church organists who try to work secular music (e.g. the theme from The Simpsons) into their repertoire without any of the churchgoers catching on. One of the organists they talked to was involved with ShipOfFools.com.
If you want to google for it, I think it was a BBC radio story.
-Rich
Atheists can no more disprove God's existence than believers can prove it. While I have a certain admiration of those with strong convictions, the righteousness of BOTH sides annoys me.
That's sophistry. The burden of proof clearly lies with the theists to prove the existence of god or gods, just as it does for me to prove the existence of my invisible rabbit. And despite thousands of years of trying, the best the theists have managed is logically broken proofs similar to Descartes'. Meanwhile, I'm still working on proving my bunny...
The colection basket has been passed to you. There are no exits because you chose to sit in the middle of the pew. What do you want to do?
Donate O$5 O$10 @$50 via PayPal
Deftly pass it along while hanging your head in virtual shame
-Adam
Churches can be downright mean, especially if you manage to violate the mores of a particular congregation in some heinous fashion such as wearing a short-sleeved shirt or singing off key. Where else do you go where, when you come in, you're asked to stand up in front of a couple of hundred people so they can all get a good look at you?
Note - I love the church. In fact, I'm an itinerant preacher and may be a pastor pretty soon (i.e. as soon as God forces me to give up my rather nice salary in tech in order to serve his people full-time.) But let's not try to pretend that churches are non-threatening.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
going again this Monday since they have an evening service for college students.
"But let's not try to pretend that churches are non-threatening."
Churches are as non threatening as Pastors allow them to be. I havn't dressed up for church in a very long time. Years. In fact every monday there's a very rugged looking guy who comes in who knows pretty much everybody.
"Where else do you go where, when you come in, you're asked to stand up in front of a couple of hundred people so they can all get a good look at you?"
At church, the only one you should be paying attention to is God and His Word. If all you're interested in is the fashion show and vocals of the people around you, you might as well just stay home.
Sounds like you're working for and attend a very hyporitical church that's more worried about looks than spirituality.
So yes, Church is the most non-threatening social environment there is. If a church isn't, then it isn't a church you should be going to.
"as soon as God forces me to give up my rather nice salary in tech in order to serve his people full-time"
So, as soon as he forces you to stop being greedy?
God's not in the habit of forcing people not to do things. Sounds like your church has a lot of serious issues that need to be dealt with and you're more interested in a good pay check and denying serious problems exist playing it off like they're normal, than dealing with them.
Your church is not normal. It's broken. I can't believe you're a pastor even part time if you can't see this and see what's wrong with it.
Maybe everyone would be better off if you weren't the pastor so that someone else with better bearings on what a church should be can run the place and fix it.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
most of the religious discussion I've witnessed on this site is neither thoughtful nor productive,
those who "comment" upon religion, either pro- or con-, usually begin by assuming that theirs is the only rational possible belief, and
few people who want to comment on religion on this site seem interested in playing by any rules of rational discourse.
The bottom line is that many intelligent people have a well-founded belief in Christianity; many other intelligent people do not. If you are interested in engaging in the best part of the debate, then start with respect instead of contempt, and you'll get the best the other person has to offer.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
what exactly has been the cause of every major war in the past 100,000 years?
maybe not the purpose, but the scapegoat, the reason, the cause?
is there any other kind??
An imaginary world where people can go to an imaginary church to talk to their imaginary god.
Oh flame away...
It does seem to be a form of Pascal's Wager. I say it's safe to believe in God because if I'm right, good, and if not, well nothing lost. But then you say, "but by worshiping this one God you may offend another."
But there lies the problem. Not all religions are the same. Out of all the religions (that I've researched), Jesus was the only person to claim to be God. All of the other religions are people writing about other people who appeared to be God-like (but never claimed to be God).
As a result of this, you basically have 2 choices. Either Jesus was wrong (because he was lying, crazy, etc) or he was right. Now I don't believe he was lying or crazy because he knew that if he claimed to be God he would surely be killed. Additionally all of his diciples afterwards proclaimed to the world that he was God (dispite severe persecution). While this is not all the evidence for Jesus, it sets a strong case that he indeed was God and died out of love for all people.
The only thing that will stop you from fulfilling your dreams is you. - Tom Bradley
maybe if you were greek and living 2000 years ago, then you'd be a sophist.
nowadays, the undecided, the middlemen, are called Agnostic.
pax
but without the free food. :(
There were people who thought the same way back in Apostolic times:
1 Corinthians 1:18-29
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
The main problem that I see with this idea is church is molding to cultural ideas. Although the concept of reaching out to people via a forum in which it would be easily acceptable is good, at the same time the whole idea of leaving the 'world' (before any trolls jump on this idea, please take the time to look at the Christian concept of the world) to worship is lost. In a virtual enviroment, people are not themselves, they are free to act and to take on personas that are actually opposite to the way they act in real life. The other aspect that is lost in this idea is fellowship and worshipping with others. At least these are my personal objections. I just don't understand how this will serve any usefull religious purpouse. Outreach is fine. Outreach into virtual worlds doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm just too tradional.
The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
Acts 2:42-47
These two passages, while not giving the complete picture, give a window into what a church is supposed to look like. In America, churches act like vendors of religious goods and services -- just a worldly business like any other. The early church lived more like a commune than a McJesus'. But today, a virtual church is only the logical extension of the modern church business model.
The fact that anyone would be willing to call this a church shows how corrupted the definition of church has become. A church is a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their lives for God, for one another, and for the good of the world. A church is a group of people who choose to live their lives in true community, not hiding behind suburbia. A group of people who choose to live with values completely different from those of a greedy, callous, militaristic, mechanized society. The hospital is an invention of the church when it was the church, when people and communities freely opened up their homes to the sick, poor, and homeless. Today we have conferences, retreats, and other pseudo-religous claptrap (not to mention junk and pulp theology like Prayer of Jabez or Purpose Driven Life).
So this web site is not a church. That's not the real surprise. But guess what? That stone building down the street where people go on Sunday to munch bagels and gossip? That's not a church either. It's a fraud. It's a country club disguised as a religious institution. It exists only for itself and is more about excluding people than including them.
I just want to hit on this because I think you misunderstand _why_ Jews don't try to convert everyone. I am a pretty well educated Orthodox Jew, so I think I can explain.
This isn't about "keeping the truth from everyone". That's silly. Ask a Jew about his religion, he'll tell you everything you want to know (to the limit of their own knowledge). It's funny, but Judaism the religion has no "secrets only clergy may know". Even kaballah was not really secret so much as reserved for people who had a deep understanding of Jewish knowledge already - the thought was that you'd go crazy if you didn't understand it properly. Nowadays, of course, any idiot can go buy a copy of the Zohar (in English, too!). Hardly secret knowledge!
Anyways, back on topic. Jews have no desire to convert gentiles because there's no need whatsoever. If they (the gentile) observe the seven Noachide laws (which, I may add, are not exactly hard to keep), they go to heaven. It's a pretty damned good deal, considering "real Jews" have to keep 613 commandments. A bit more reward for that, but heaven is heaven, and it's better than nothing.
Additionally, in a historical context, _every forced conversion_ of a population (it happened twice, IIRC, Samaritans and I think some population in northern Israel/Lebanon) was a big huge mistake, and it is taught that way in even the most right-wing of yeshivas. Therefore, you're never going to see any popular groundswell of support for forced conversion in Jewish religion. The "tradition" is, thankfully, not there, and is actively reviled.
So, interpret not as "hiding", but rather as "what's the point of converting?" That's why you're supposed to turn away someone who wants to convert 3 times before trying to help them. It's out of their best interests.
I suppose the inevitable question then becomes, why would anyone ever _really_ convert to Judaism? I honestly don't have an answer. I think it's emotional and spiritual attachment to the Jewish people. That's the best I can give.
A final addendum: Jews don't believe you go to hell for not being Jewish and not keeping the seven noachide laws. An interesting contrast to Christianity, I think.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
This is s joke. Christianity refuses to reflect upon itself and understand the present. Instead of a reflection of beliefs and their relevance in our world, the church continues to refuse conceptual evolution and decides instead to masquarade modernization through such ridiculous methods. The Accessibility of the church has to do with its teachings more than its method of delivery. Assuming that the article and site are true and legit, then this is only a pitiful attempt by institutionialized "religion" to skirt around the true issues hampering its growth. The blessing of the arcbishop of this venture only serves to undescore the desire of "religion" to recruit those unable to logically and rationally understand themselves and their place for themselves. For me, the accessibilty of the Church could only be achieved through the revision of the Bible, significant texts, and the church structure, not through pitiful medium migration. And just for the creator/owner/whoever of Church of Fools, who said that "if we don't like it, don't visit the site": I haven't visited the site--I have visited an opinion discussing forum where analysing and the perpetuating of arguments is purpose of its existence. This "if you disagree, get out" type mentality is truly one of the inherent problems of the church ideology in practice, and is utterly irrelevant here
But us Gentiles by and large don't even know what the Noachide law requires us to do and how perfectly must we obey the laws once we discover them?
A final addendum: Christians don't believe you go to heaven for keeping a set of laws. An interesting contrast to Judaism, I think.
"She's a West Texas girl, just like me" - G.W Bush Iraqis
Now I can finally fall asleep in church from the comfort of my own bed instead of upright on a pew!
Disclaimer: This comment was generated by a Flock of Trained Microsoft Programmers for Aqua_Geek.
Browsing the Ship of Fools site I came across the contest to pick an 11th commandment. The first winner was "Thou shalt not worship false pop idols". The top five choices won digital cameras. :-)
The import thing to realize is that a church, like any other social group, has certain mores and conventions -- typically they are inherited from the ambient cultural group.
Example1: Jesus didn't say anything about homosexuality, but he did mention that remarriage after divorce was a sin, and that the resulting relationship was adulterous. However, most churches today are OK with divorced couples marrying, having sex, and having a family, but they are not ok with gay sex or marriage. The difference is the cultural norms in their surrounding community have accepted one, but not the other. As soon as gay marriage becomes overwhelmingly accepted, it will be treated in the same way as divorce and bans on interest bearing loans.
Example2: The Southern Baptists split with the Northern Baptists over slavery. You can guess which baptist congregation thought it was a sin, and which one thought it wasn't. Both had scriptural arguments.
Example3: The U.S. is a society which focuses on individual success resulting from individual action (e.g. hard work, clean living.) Other cultures are more focused on collective success and collective responsibility (e.g. good schools, effective legal system, social welfare.) Therefore the U.S. churches "spiritualize" this bias by focusing on individual sin/repentance (being personally saved), as opposed to group sin/repentance (social justice), although one must look for relatively rare discussion of the former in the scriptures, since almost all exhortations in the old and new testaments, revolve around the latter. Indeed, most American Christians would consider it discrimination to be punished for something which they didn't individually do, but did* as a group, whereas the Bible is filled with examples or promises of group punishments (punishment of a race, of a generation, of a city.)
Now, getting back to the original point, if you find yourself not sharing the mores of your church (i.e. you think interest bearing loans are cruel exploitation, or you are gay) then your positions will be opposed in the church, as they would in the larger community. However, the *difference* is that opposition in the church is often interpreted as "God disagrees with you" which, to a sincere believer, is much worse than the community disagreeing with him. Indeed each church believes, although there is a long history of previous churches in other cultures gettings things wrong, that *now* the truth is revealed, and *they* have the correct word of God.
And, adding to this ostracism phenomenon, is that we have a very fragmented culture, broken up into many little pockets, each of which have different mores, and so the odds are good that the church you randomly pick will not share your views. Finally, people move a lot, and so can easily find themselves in a place where there is no church that they feel they can go to, and still remain a sincere believer, without a lot of inner tension.
In this way, *every* church is threatening.
And there is no real solution, but it's certainly a step backwards to classify a church as "bad" if someone says it's threatening, since this just perpetuates the assumption that some church subcultures (e.g. adultery ok, homosexuality not ok) are better than others ("committed" homosexuality ok, adultery not ok.) The reason why this can't be the case, is that all of the subcultures are formed out of confused, fallen people, and then each church inherits the mores of it's ambient group. For instance, Jesus, when discussing adultery, made the point "This is wrong, but you were too weak, so Moses let you grant a certificate of divorce. Nevertheless, it's adultery. In fact, even wishing to have sex with a married woman is adultery." So basically each church makes allowances for accepting "sinful" behavior that is predominant in the community, and does not accept "sinful" behavior that is on the margins.
The only recommendation I have is to do some work and find a church that you can live with. In a major urban area, this should b
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
I don't think we have sufficiently common ground to even set rules for a debate, much less have one. If you are interested in current arguments, I suggest Googling for J.P. Moreland or Alvin Plantinga.
/.? Your view is that Christians are afraid to speak because they know they'll "get bitchslapped out of the "rational discourse" faster than you can say hail mary." Mine is that they've decided it isn't worth their time. So far, you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.
I think the confusion is yours, not mine. There is a world of difference between agreeing with someone's opinion and respecting their right to be wrong. I'm suggesting that until you demonstrate the latter, you aren't going to get much in the way of useful discussion. You are much more likely to get the mental "Whatever" as people move on to more compelling and worthwhile conversation.
So, how does one interpret the relative silence of Christians on
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Ah, but I argue that atheism is not a religion.
// atheism
It is instead, the null set.
Consider this programming analogy:
Religion religion;
religion = new Religion("Javaism");
religion = null;
Still, if one were to consider atheism an instance of religion, then it's one that predates all others and that will remain strong when the current majors are reduced to an obscure entry in Wikipedia.
If we ever encounter alien sentients likewise infected with religion, the only thing we'll have in common will be atheism.
Humans are born atheist and then forced to convert by their legal wards.
For more discussions about atheism, check out my journal