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.
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.
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?