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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
" 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.
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).