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?

organizing athiests has been compared to herding cats

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :)

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?

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.

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.

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.

I don't think most people read your ego stroking posts in full.

For the record, I do. Hare puts effort into his posts and organizes his points well. It's a pleasure to read coherent text that's well put together. I can't accuse him of being long-winded, because I'm guilty of that myself. I can't accuse him of acting like an intellectual, because I believe he is an intellectual.

I can only hope to change his view that all *Dawkinists don't have horns, and a tail. He seems to support the main idea behind it (don't push your religion down my throat; Sky Gods aren't real), yet he abandons the enthusiasm it takes to further it or fellowship with other like-minded non-believers about it. Anyone who does is being absurd and are identifying themselves by non-belief alone, pushing a nasty agenda just like the most savage evangelicals.

*i.e. those who have faith in science, and those whose disbelief in God(s) gives them a reason to associate with one another as a group.

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?

I know exactly what you're talking about, but I'm choosing to ignore it because it's not related to the topic and you're not really saying anything worth saying. That, and your argument has been sufficiently cut down to the point that any further discussion of it would be redundant.

On to the actual topic, I don't think the concept of "non-supernatural Christianity" really works because the morals and ethics of Christianity are based on the wrath of God. One might believe that Jesus had some good ideas about treating others well and generally being a good person, but their basis for these ideas would have to lie somewhere outside of Christianity. Religion relies on the people trusting that some kind of "God" character has mandated that they follow a certain set of rules. If you take away the fear of God part, it's just a set of beliefs based on something personal within the believer, not based in a trust of Jesus's word.

^^^
thanks for bringing the thread back on topic. :)

just because Jesus' ideas about treating others well, etc originated outside of christianity, does not mean they are not still valid, even in a non-religious context.

true taking away fear of god does leave ethics to something personal within a believer. what i'm saying is that the teaching of jesus' ethics may influence the believer in a positive way without requiring the concept of a higher being.

Because someone does not believe in God, it does not follow that they are cats or cattle.
I took it as a joke, but apparently not even the OP sees it that way. :confused:

just because Jesus' ideas about treating others well, etc originated outside of christianity, does not mean they are not still valid, even in a non-religious context.
Last time I read my New Testament I thought just this thing. You could go pretty far, just reading the words in red. I enjoy his teachings - just not the theological side. 'Course, that's kinda picking and choosing... but picking the good parts, maybe? :)

If atheism was the norm, I'd agree that herding Christians would be like herding cats.

Maybe.

For the record, I do. Hare puts effort into his posts and organizes his points well. It's a pleasure to read coherent text that's well put together ... I can't accuse him of acting like an intellectual, because I believe he is an intellectual.



^^^

Can't add much more than that.

I can only hope to change his view that all *Dawkinists don't have horns, and a tail. He seems to support the main idea behind it (don't push your religion down my throat; Sky Gods aren't real), yet he abandons the enthusiasm it takes to further it or fellowship with other like-minded non-believers about it. Anyone who does is being absurd and are identifying themselves by non-belief alone, pushing a nasty agenda just like the most savage evangelicals.

*i.e. those who have faith in science, and those whose disbelief in God(s) gives them a reason to associate with one another as a group.

^^^I can't add much more to that.

http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/

Sure there is. It's called such things as The Golden Rule, being a good citizen, etc. etc. etc.

Being kind and gentle doesn't need a movement, it just needs all the bullshit thrown in its way to be removed - i.e. that fairytale shit that makes otherwise good people engage in completely psychotic and sociopathic activities.

OP--Thomas Jefferson kind of beat you to it.

That is, he edited the New Testament, kept in the moral teachings but deleted the myths.

OP--Thomas Jefferson kind of beat you to it.

That is, he edited the New Testament, kept in the moral teachings but deleted the myths.

What a dick.

Those are the best parts!