'non supernatural christianity'

[Visceral Ethereal Carpet]

does any sort of movement like this exist?

I mean like some sort of ethical system based solely on the teachings of Jesus without any sort of far-fetched fairytale bullshit about heaven/hell, existence of god and the like.
I'm sure many athiests, if they believe that he existed in the first place, would admit that Jesus was a great moral philosopher even if he wasn't god/son of god/asexual/whatever.

by removing fear of god from christianity (and from other religions for that matter), christians would be left with an ethical system to work from, but also the freedom of independent thought to be able to grasp simple scientific concepts such as evolution without fear of retribution.

im not saying that this idea would ever work, as the "we've got to stick together and save each other, everyone else is going to hell" mentality is the glue that holds most religion together, and organizing athiests has been compared to herding cats. but if this kind of christianity was taught to young kids in religious schools and by religious parents, it may remove some of the 'us against them' nature of religion, as well as destructive guilt and mortal fear of contradiction that characterizes so many naiive christians.

like ghandi said: "...i dislike your christians, so unlike your christ."

anyway i'm starting to rant a bit. thoughts? any angry xtians wanna get high and mighty?

[AngryFemme]

Originally Posted by Visceral Ethereal Carpet

organizing athiests has been compared to herding cats

This is not only an accurate observation, but a nice visual. +1

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by Visceral Ethereal Carpet

organizing athiests has been compared to herding cats

To call someone an atheist is to simplify their character. While useful in dialogue, this simplification can give rise to inaccuracies: individualism, humanism, positivism and antitheism come to not only be associated with the term, but in the minds of many, assimilated by it, because of loud organizations of self-professed atheists in the media. I have found that in just about all situations where it is known that I am an atheist, whether they themselves are atheists or theists, others will autonomously assume I belong to most of those categories. And yet atheism is but a single disbelief, and all of those categories are beliefs some atheists have built around their disbelief, or rather built their disbelief around. Atheists vary greatly: herding some may be like herding cats, but for others it is like herding cattle.

I hope it is seen what I am saying here. Because someone does not believe in God, it does not follow that they are cats or cattle. In most cases, whichever is the case most likely has nothing to do with their atheism, but atheism has acquired many connotations, so when someone comes to be identified with the term and interpreted within the term alone, they come to be seen as an individual, even if they are not. I believe this confusion of qualities can arise in many other instances too: something or someone may be acquainted with an image, and this image conceals their real being: science is acquainted with impartiality, so scientists are read as being impartial beings, yet their opinions on non-scientific disciplines and realms of belief may be incredibly biased.

[AngryFemme]

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

I hope it is seen what I am saying here. Because someone does not believe in God, it does not follow that they are cats or cattle.

That's not what he's saying at all. He's comparing the highly unlikely scenario of getting a group of atheists to come together under one idea and one agreed "cause" to the unlikelihood of putting a bunch of cats in one big meadow and expecting that they all follow the same shepherd.

Cats are known to be solitary, individualists little creatures who RARELY take to training or direction. While I don't believe that kind of personality is exclusive to just atheists, it's a good comparison, because atheists, contrary to popular opinion, aren't all marching to the beat of the same drum. Like you said, simplifying their character and expecting them all to advocate similar ideals all across the board is just unrealistic.

While some of them DO have a shared mentality regarding the "movement" some take part in of getting religion out of schools, government, etc ... that particular umbrella they gather under doesn't necessarily qualify them as one solid collective thinking mass that rarely color outside their own lines.

Even the "cattle" atheists you speak of have different mentalities on how to go about getting their shared views put forth to the rest of the public. Don't believe me? Peruse Dawkins.net forums and witness the arguments and debates for yourself. Not that I think you'd risk soiling your sensibilities to read what you'd surely define as utter crap, but it's out there for review, nonetheless.

[Hare_Geist]

I know what he said, you don't have to explain it to me. Furthermore, I've been on the Dawkins forum several time.

Even the "cattle" atheists you speak of have different mentalities on how to go about getting their shared views put forth to the rest of the public.

No different to evangelists contemplating the best methods of conversions and having slight variation of belief.

[BrokeProphet]

To call someone an atheist does not simplify their character.....it correctly identifies them as a person without theism as per the definitions of both theism and atheism. Your own bias towards the word itself may simplify their character for YOU.

The key would be to rise above your OWN bigotry of a simple word that correctly identifies someone's religious or lack of religious affiliations.

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

No different to evangelists contemplating the best methods of conversions and having slight variation of belief.

This is not relatable to her point in a real way. This is strawman.

[Hare_Geist]

I am seriously beginning to feel like no one here has any idea what I am talking about. That or they are choosing to ignore/misrepresent what I am saying. Whatever is the case, it is beginning to get frustrating. I just wrote an entire post in this thread about the problem of bias, in the sense of preconception, and connotation through terms. Are you fucking retarded?

[Visceral Ethereal Carpet]

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

To call someone an atheist is to simplify their character. While useful in dialogue, this simplification can give rise to inaccuracies: individualism, humanism, positivism and antitheism come to not only be associated with the term, but in the minds of many, assimilated by it, because of loud organizations of self-professed atheists in the media. I have found that in just about all situations where it is known that I am an atheist, whether they themselves are atheists or theists, others will autonomously assume I belong to most of those categories. And yet atheism is but a single disbelief, and all of those categories are beliefs some atheists have built around their disbelief, or rather built their disbelief around. Atheists vary greatly: herding some may be like herding cats, but for others it is like herding cattle.

I hope it is seen what I am saying here. Because someone does not believe in God, it does not follow that they are cats or cattle. In most cases, whichever is the case most likely has nothing to do with their atheism, but atheism has acquired many connotations, so when someone comes to be identified with the term and interpreted within the term alone, they come to be seen as an individual, even if they are not. I believe this confusion of qualities can arise in many other instances too: something or someone may be acquainted with an image, and this image conceals their real being: science is acquainted with impartiality, so scientists are read as being impartial beings, yet their opinions on non-scientific disciplines and realms of belief may be incredibly biased.

i wasn't implying a generalization of atheistic belief that all atheists are individualist, i was merely making a point about how atheism lacks the socially uniting power of religion.
atheists will not unite under the banner of atheism nearly as much as their theist counterparts. whether or not they are herded together in schools of non-religious thought is irrelevant.

[Hare_Geist]

Originally Posted by Visceral Ethereal Carpet

im not saying that this idea would ever work, as the "we've got to stick together and save each other, everyone else is going to hell" mentality is the glue that holds most religion together, and organizing athiests has been compared to herding cats.

Here you seem to be discussing an ethical unification. But you also seem to worry that although it would be great, it would not work because organizing atheists is like herding cats. I fail to see how this is anything but you interpreting people from within the term atheism, as it is with all the connotations and preconceptions it carries within our culture.

[BrokeProphet]

Originally Posted by Hare_Geist

I am seriously beginning to feel like no one here has any idea what I am talking about. That or they are choosing to ignore/misrepresent what I am saying. Whatever is the case, it is beginning to get frustrating. I just wrote an entire post in this thread about the problem of bias, in the sense of preconception, and connotation through terms. Are you fucking retarded?

Honestly I read the first bit. Your statement "To call someone an atheist is to simplify their character".

I think the problem you are having is that you are very, very, very prententious and long winded. I don't think most people read your ego stroking posts in full.