Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
November 9, 2012
Link

Statistics

Replies: 79

Atheist Church of the evolving Human God.

:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2012
Atheist Church of the evolving Human God.

Atheist friends, should you elect a God and sacrifice to him or her?

By doing so, you would be acknowledging that mankind is the greatest force in the universe by symbolically taking the name of Human God and insuring that there is always a church that preaches the truth of what is known as a certainty of the supernatural God. That he probably does not exist and is a man-made mythical ideal perpetuated by the Noble Lie.

[link]

If you believe what the research indicates in terms of hive behavior, then you might wonder as I do if it would not be in the best interest of the atheist movement to elect an atheist God and sacrifice to him or her?

This, if the research is true, would insure the longevity and cohesion of the atheist movement and give it power.

You may have some suggestion for the title that you would put on your leader and church. I do not except for my choice in the title above. Not being a full atheist, I would not have a vote on it; even as I support atheists and non-supernatural spirituality in people over supernatural religious notions and beliefs. I would also suggest a mantra for this church; that being, --- Faith without Facts is for Fools.

I believe in a strongly assertive type of atheism that preaches that truth is the highest principle. This preaching should be done with eloquence and good form and language; recognizing the trap of logical fallacies and the impossibility of atheists proving that there is no creator God; as well as the impossibility of believers to prove that there is a creator God.

Unfortunately I cannot call myself an atheist anymore because of having suffered an apotheosis. As an esoteric ecumenist and Gnostic Christian, you will know that I think that creating an atheist church should be the next evolutionary step for the atheist movement. I believe the research shown above to be true and fear that without a church, atheism will not be affective and perhaps die out without it.

Creating an atheist church would be the ideal for both religionists and atheists. It would insure that atheists are always here to correct the imaginary thinking of those who believe in a mythical supernatural God. This would be a benevolent and altruistic expression of atheistís social conscience and desire to bring all people to sane thinking. This atheist church would recognize the human attribute shown in the following clip and gently try to help those adults whose thinking is hampered by it.

[link]

Atheists seem to already want to do more for society towards this end as they seem to be over-represented in religious forums even as statistics say that the atheist in the U. S. and Canada are only at about 5% of the population. This is a sacrifice for atheists that already adds some cohesion and longevity to the organization and appeases the hive nature that we seem to have. But I do not think it is enough based on the research shown above.

Should atheist elect themselves a Pope or God or someone with some other title and do whatever sacrifice is demanded of them to keep the movement alive for the long run?

Regards
DL
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
I like the 'suffered an apotheosis' much like someone suffers from insomnai. anyway.

I find it cute how you sneak in some non supported arguments derived from supported ones as credence, a very christian thing to do. I.e. this whole group thing argument isn't as easy as it looks, and this church is not the next step in the evolutionary process herp a derp a derp.

I say this because this just turns atheism from a liberal to a more conservative concept, necessarily appealing to someone who unashamedly can go out and throw away their own intellect by calling themselfs a believer, the conservative idea being organizing in churches and regulating atheism, the liberal idea, wich is neglected entirely in your argumentation, being assoziation with a group by dissent. Both concepts are equally valid in a group theme.

For a sucessful.. advancement of Atheism there may thus be a need for the crutch of 'religion' for some people, but making a church in the name of secularism is the same as cutting yourself with a dirty knife to appeal to the festering wound crowd. Religion and it's institutions and ways are redundant, and in steady decline in all of the civilized world(America may rejoin the civilized world as I define it once their Deficit has no more then six zero's behind it) the group feeling and communal activities they represent can easily be replaced by more peer friendly activities, and I see this church concept as the methadone to treat a heavy heroine addiction.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
"For a successful.. advancement of Atheism there may thus be a need for the crutch of 'religion' for some people,"

Exactly except that our hiving or grouping instincts are not a crutch but a real part of what we are.

If you cannot accept the truth of our social instincts to form groups and tribes, even as that is always the way man has been, then our argument is at a stalemate.

I say this even as you contradict yourself by adherence to the word ( church ) even as I stated in the O P that it could be called other things.

Your "communal activities they represent can easily be replaced by more peer friendly activities,"

is saying what I said because your peer friendly activity means a group, organization or church.

I use the word church because an atheist is not fearful or pigeonholing that term.

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
first of all I apologize for not explaining my basic argument extensively, but as your post seemed intellectual I thought you could extrapolate this, I'll clarify my main argument below.

before answering I'd like you to explain how you can quote mine .. I mean see the contradiction in the argument that says:
'Churches are shitty communal activities, lets replace them with better ones'
wich is my statement in your third paragraph from below clarified.
I presume it a misunderstanding due to an intellectual disparity.

Now to my main argument.

I do not deny the need for group and social activities. I however find it laughable you use this to try and argue for the necessity of a church or any religious structural organizations to be adapted by anyone.
My reason for this is that other social activities fill that role not just equally, but better, as they have no dividing of religions, nor arbitrary obstructive rituals and other disadvantages attach to them.

You do a basic confusion of correlation and causation really. As in the necessity to follow social instincts enhanced the building of religious structures and churches.
It is not that it is only churches that satisfy this urge. they aren't even that good at it.

Please respond to my main argument with counter points in detail and refrain from further strawmanning.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2012
"I do not deny the need for group and social activities."

Then we have no argument. Than was my main point.

If you listened to and believe the statistical information Haigt gave then our issues are longevity, sacrifice and sanctity.

His research shows that for sanctity to occur, sacrifice must be made to the organization, call it what you will. This leads it to longevity.

Do you see the logic behind this at all?

I can from the fact that I value something I have given much to in time and effort let's say, as compared to an accomplishment that was rather on the easy side.

I think women know a bit about this instinctively as they know to make men chase a bit or a lot before acknowledging their advances.

You do not buy the cow if the milk is free, if I can use that poor saying.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012
my problem with this setup is the church and the entire sanctity idea. I for one, wouldn't mind some free milk
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012
I charge for lessons on how to get some.

Send your cheque but I do not offer a guarantee for ugly goats. LOL.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconwesmeadow:
Wesmeadow Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Student Digital Artist
You are speaking rants again, stop it.
Reply
:iconuoruta:
uoruta Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
HEY MODERN SATANISM WITH A NEW NAME!
Reply
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
No thanks, I don't see an Atheist Religion being much better than a normal one. Sure, it might start out better, but eventually it will turn dogmatic and that is not going to end well. Wouldn't it be better to get Religion(the source of dogma tied to personal beliefs about God or Gods etc.) out of belief instead of the other way around?
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
It is impossible for a science and reason based organization to become dogmatic in other than procedure and those procedures are what has advanced science.

Like Gnostic Christianity, it would be based on knowledge and not fantasy, miracles and majic.

Think again from that point of view.

It would work like this says science works.

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
everything can become dogma if you don't wach it.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
Absolutely but an atheist organization would in a sense follow a religious teaching that the religious do not.

"Test all things"
1 Thessalonians. 5:21

This says to also question and test all dogmas but believers have forgotten it and end up believing that talking snakes and donkeys are real and that a God who can kill as well as cure would always seem to choose to take the moral low ground and kill.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
Indeed, however, I would stand against that to some extend. I've seen too much Dogma in scientific communities as well, the problem is not the religion or the science, it is the human that grows content with norms.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2012
Scientific dogmas, if they exist, have to be verified and reproduced by other scientist before being accepted. This gives them more veracity than any religion based on faith.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconalzebetha:
alzebetha Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012
Yeah. no. you fail to acknowledge the problem. perhaps you will one day.

But basically what you are saying is if one person has a divine experience and another has a similiar divine experience they are effectively of equal value to science.

At least when you go that route argue with confirmable predictions about reality next time, wich only science can provide, and the response to that is that this only applies to some basic theories.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Dec 5, 2012
You are all over the map.

Acknowledge what problem. The one that you made up without showing any examples for?

And what does divine experience have to do with science. Unless you think they are demonstrable and reproducible which they do not seem to be.

Your last is too vague for me to try to comment on.

Regards
DL
Reply
(1 Reply)
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
I am aware of that, but I also took human nature into account. Humans have an amazing track record of abusing power and imposing laws in favor of the powerful upon others(usually labeled "Morals"), so I am sure you can see why I oppose it.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
No argument but it is easier to gain power over sheep than goats. Sheep swallow lies much easier than goats will.

Regards
DL
Reply
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
Sure, it would be efficient to just take over for the sheepherder and lead the flock in another direction. However, I don't like the concept of sheepherding, one only keeps the sheep well for slaughter later after all. I rather breed the sheep to become independent creatures who can think for themselves.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
For sure but if you are to use the sheep analogy, remember that the new organization created would be full of goats.

Regards
DL
Reply
:icontdroid:
tdroid Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
And what is the difference of protecting the sheep to slaughter and protecting the goats to slaughter? A goatherder is no better than a sheepherder in that regard.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 28, 2012
True but an atheist is his own shepherd. That is what free thinking is all about and is basically the message Jesus gave that has been hidden by the churches.

I put this together and would like your thoughts on it.

Only I can judge God. I is you if you choose to be.

Using the term --- I am here means you. This applies to all of us. You are ( I ) to you as I am I to me. Only you then can judge the God construct that you see as you evaluate what you know of God.

Jesus said that at the end of days he would return. He meant in spirit only. Not a physical manifestation. He also said that the time of the end was at hand and that the temple of God was within each of us. The tern spirit represents, the spirit of the law, what is written in the hearts, ---- God in other words, ---- is defined as laws and rules and such as they are the only thing you can follow at all times, ---- and these are set by you and you are in effect ruling yourself in terms of following the God construct you have developed.

Jesus is telling you that you and your heart are the only things of importance in terms of leadership as it is the rules you have accepted as worthy of following. Jesus warned that at end times there would be a number of Jesus’ to choose from and morality is what you will have to choose from.

That is why I think it important to evaluate what Jesus said and determine if it is worthy and moral or not.

Jesus Christ. Madman or something worse.
[link]

Below, Bishop Spong speaks of basically redefining Christianity. Going from a church or religious thinking, to a more spiritual or heart felt thinking. I also urge Christianity to change because it is now too immoral to ignore with today’s mentality. It’s overall policies are immoral in my view. The God of war must die and Jesus declared the full and only God that is required and that the noble lie of politics should be revoked to let all know that the God you likely know was always a myth. This may be a good time for you to contemplate such a move as many Christians haves rejected the O.T. God and only focus on Jesus and loving policies.

Bishop Spong speaks well to this issue.
[link]

Apotheosis means just recognizing that you are on a journey of being your own God. Some few will have help from God on this through a real apotheosis but only the very few it seems. You cannot get away from that fact so you may as well forget about fantasy, miracles and magic. They were never real and you are the strongest force you will ever know. After all, who but you can make you want to do anything voluntarily? There is no other force that can do this and therefore you are God in the real sense of being master of yourself. If that does not compute with you then remember that A & E became as Gods, God’s own words, and yours is the same birth rite. Throw it away if you wish. You cannot reject the knowledge of good and evil so I cannot fathom why you would throw away the fact that you as well can become as Gods.

The moral of Jesus and his sacrifice is that we should accept being God, and ruling ourselves even against a government if needs be. Become archetypal Moses and face government and declare that it faces one as great as itself. That is what being a free man is all about.

The time of the end is when Jesus becomes your God on earth, ---- again this is you, --- who takes the place of the mythical heavenly God of war. Jesus/you, as the way, the man’s way of judging first, not some absentee God’s unknown standard. Your covenant with yourself is to be the new covenant. Man answering to man and himself. Not to some unknown God.

This clip from J. Haidt shows that we instinctively share God’s morals. In this we are truly Gods and children of God.

[link]

I am God because I am the only one who is capable of judging the God I know.
You are a God in your own rite as you are the only one who is capable of judging the God you know.

The Noble Lie is firmly in place and manipulating your thinking. Discard it. In this day and age we do not need it the way we may have in the past.

The Noble Lie.
In politics a noble lie is a myth or untruth, often, but not invariably, of a religious nature, knowingly told by an elite to maintain social harmony or to advance an agenda.

As a Gnostic Christian, this theology/philosophy is quite natural to me and can be for all people.

Try thinking as the God that you are. Stop being a sheep and rise to your true inheritance as a shepherd. That is the message Jesus wants you to recognize.

Regards
DL

P.S.
Listen to Jesus and hear for the first time in your life.
Ps 82:6 I said, "You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.
Hosea 1:10 Ye are the sons of the living God.
Do you think that sons of God are destined to be sheep or shepherds?
Jesus was here to empower us. Not enslave us. Do not waste what he gave.
Reply
:iconwolfyspice:
WolfySpice Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist Artist
This thread is fifty shades of fucked up.
Reply
:iconcarusmm:
carusmm Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
fucking great troll.
Reply
:icontotally-dead:
Totally-dead Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Positivism huh? Are you Comte reincarnated?

Yes that statement is meant to be irony.
Reply
:iconhorus2299:
Horus2299 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Wow, an atheist church that worships a human based god? That would actually be pretty funny imo, as long as they don't declare a holy war on other religions. Then when Christians or other people say that atheism is a religion, it would actually be true. I think they might already have certain groups like this though, Secular Humanist societies or something like that...
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
There are some starting but research indicates that more are needed.

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconhorus2299:
Horus2299 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
What research is it that you're referring to? All I really saw on the link was a homepage for one such "atheist church". I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious as to where you're getting your information.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
This is from the O P.

[link]

This takes it further.

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconhorus2299:
Horus2299 Featured By Owner Nov 16, 2012
Well, I must admit I've found much of Jonathan Haidt's work interesting, and I agree that humans are instinctively social beings to varying extents, but you made reference to some kind of research that indicates more atheist churches are needed. That's what I was asking about. It sounds more like a subjective judgement you made rather than something which can be supported by evidence. Maybe there already are enough groups, but it's just that some people who would be interested aren't aware of them.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 26, 2012
[link]

[link]

Progress in unification is slow when dealing with minds who think it a virtue to stand apart.

I have no qualms at being apart but I have to recognize that we are all in this together, alone.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconhorus2299:
Horus2299 Featured By Owner Nov 29, 2012
I'm not disagreeing with you, I think atheism could really benefit from the positive side of religion, as opposed to the blind obedience to authority that actually gets in the way of ascension. You're welcome to the opinion that it isn't happening fast enough, or spreading far enough, and I can respect that. Still, you can't try to pass off your opinions as solid fact without offering some kind of evidence first. That's all I'm really saying. Maybe I misinterpreted your earlier comment, and if that's the case I apologize.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Dec 3, 2012
No problem.

Ihave based my opinion on what has been done by Haigt and others in his field of expertise and my own situation as a loner and free thinker who sees others with their stronger need to be supported by a group.

If atheists do not cater to that need, I fear that good minds will be lost to the fantasy, miracle and magic believer camp.

I hate to see good minds wasted.

Regards
DL
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconlytrigian:
Lytrigian Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
Who else wants to lock ~Greatest-I-am and ~TimeHasAnEnd together in a room for 24 hours just to see which one is still talking at the end of it?
Reply
:iconlyteside:
lyteside Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
lol
Reply
:iconsaintartaud:
saintartaud Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Professional General Artist
I might pay money to see that. :popcorn:
Reply
:iconcinderblockstudios:
CinderBlockStudios Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Professional Traditional Artist
me too.
Reply
:iconhorus2299:
Horus2299 Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
I'm thinking they'd somehow argue each other into the Twilight Zone if that happened.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
On the Noble Lie.
I am pleased that we agree. Have a peek on how it was and is being used.
I will add these clips to the mix for your consideration. They show who put what in Jesus' mouth and how Christianity has been manipulated. The first which is part of the second speaks to my Gnostic Christian label and the second shows my view of religions overall and the Noble Lie that I think we and our governments should rescind. The third clip speaks to the reason that religions were invented in the first place as it shows why social control was required for city states that had to deal with the reality of finite resources. I see these city states as led by a timocratic king who through the religion that he would have created, also realized that there had to be a tyrannical part to his benevolent duty and created a religion to be just that.

[link]

[link]

[link]

I see the King/God as having to have the morals shown in the Haigt clip.

[link]

He would have to create his religion as expressed through his high priest/tyrant who would live by the first commandment of God, place no one above me as the enforcer of his King/God's rules and laws while still obeying his King. The larger Roman system would later assume the same system through the Noble Lie. First through the Flavian and later through Constantine.

[link]

==============================

On the atheist movement.
Those links in the O P speak to how we are groupish by nature. Let me reprint what I put above to another. You seem to have escaped the religious institutions that count on our natural tendency to be hivish or groupish. The research indicates that for the atheist movement to grow and thrive it must form some sort of group so as to better fight against the religious groups and also give a place for your offspring to assuage their natural hivihness or groupishness. If not, you will lose some to religion.

See what other pros are saying.

[link]

"
then how exactly is such a church supposed to offer "a rational approach to religious questions"?"

Being an esoteric ecumenist and a Gnostic Christian, I cannot speak for atheists but think that their talks and or sermons will center around morality. That is what I would do and would be a good way to fight the religious churches as they are deficient in their moral positions on many fronts beginning with their genocidal son murdering God and ending with a Jesus with policies that are anti-love and repressive.
==============================

"But antagonizing religion is neither necessary nor helpful."

Hogwash. The religious right is out of intelligent control and must reform or or be fought by any and all moral people.

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are moral religionists as well as those who do not believe. They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief or not. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Beliefs in fantasy, miracles and magic are evil.

[link]

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
[link]

Jesus Camp 1of 9
[link]

Promoting death to Gays.
[link]

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can. It is your duty to our fellow man.

======================

"Finally, it sounds plain annoying. A god that I have to sacrifice to? Some sort of mantra? Maybe a pope who wants to get paid? There is no way I'm going to do any of that."

Then be ready to have your loved ones lost to woo and idiocy.

This is not about you and me my friend. Think globally to protect your locally.
Nice that you are saved now pass it on.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2012
No no no no no. No. No no no. No. No.

No.

We got free of religion, let's not deliberately repeat all its mistakes.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
You did yes but if you understand what Haigt is saying, you will think of your children and grandchildren who will not be as lucky as they need to feed their hivish natures.

[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
No.

I will not willingly repeat the mistakes of the past.
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Social science is tellig you that it is not a mistake but the best thing you can do for your offsprings.

If you do not understand the science of your hivish or groupish nature then there is nothing I can do for you.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconbullet-magnet:
Bullet-Magnet Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
It isn't the best thing, because whatever "hivish" benefit it brings will be greatly overshadowed by all the harmful nonsense that comes with it.

We can do better. I reject the proposal and the hypothesis it is based on.

And neither ask for not require your assistance in raising any future offspring.

Regards
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2012
[link]

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconsaintartaud:
saintartaud Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2012  Professional General Artist
Oooo, intervie w/Moyers. Gonna have to save that one for later. Thanks for the link!
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
It is a good one and speaks to what it is to be truly human in both body and soul.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconsaintartaud:
saintartaud Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012  Professional General Artist
I watched it. Pretty interesting, but a lot of it reiterates what I already know about Haidt's work. It did start a discussion between me and my boyfriend about whether Republicans are better moral psychologists or not. I'm fond of Moyers, he asks good questions and is good with these kinds of issues (i.e. moral and religious).
Reply
:icongreatest-i-am:
Greatest-I-am Featured By Owner Nov 15, 2012
Yes. I like him as well and he has a lot of good speakers linked to his web site.

So does the TED site.

Regards
DL
Reply
:iconsaintartaud:
saintartaud Featured By Owner Nov 9, 2012  Professional General Artist
I had a better understanding where you were coming from watching the Haidt video. The statistics on success rates of religious communes vs. non-religious was interesting.

I can't help but think of Confucianism, which is an old humanistic philosophy that almost resembles a sort of civic religion.
Reply
Add a Comment: