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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU 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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm971ltF44A&feature=related 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
There seems to be a consensus on this topic. Your posts tend to make even atheists from all over the www groan in embarrassment. :shrug:
So basically you elect to "speak to the unbeliever in the language of his unbelief?" No. You don't need to engage with believers; you need to ignore them. And whats this "him or her" business, other than cumbersome and unwieldy? ... Jesus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4 [video=youtube;jHc-yMcfAY4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHc-yMcfAY4[/video] Regards DL
Sam Harris puts it best "Is science now in the business of nurturing useful delusions? Surely we can grow in altruism, and refine our ethical intuitions, and even explore the furthest reaches of human happiness, without lying to ourselves about the nature of the universe."
What?? But I don't for a moment believe that mankind is the greatest force in the universe. (Gravity might be a better choice for that one. Not a species of primates on one planet out of countless billions.) I don't have any desire for another "church that preaches", even if what it's preaching in this case is atheism. Your idea sounds like Comte's bizarre Church of Humanity, complete with its secular saints and atheist rituals and sacraments. I don't support that.
What was he referring to with that first comment? As to the rest, no argument. I see something more like this without delusion. http://www.churchoffreethought.org/ Regards DL
Neither would I. But I would have no problem with their icons being those who have furthered free thinking. Hitchens, Dawkins and the like. Regards DL
