Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour

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 atheist’s 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
Add a Comment: