Metatheism

[afleitch]

Yeah, basically. I'm coming at it from a different motivation, but I'm also tired of the same adolescent atheist arguments about the existence of God. I'm going back to the church tomorrow, and I'm wondering about the tension if I am vocally a non believer (in the facts of the existence of God) but simultaneously a believer (in the goals of this particular church in the world), and I'm wondering if I can effectively come to appreciate this lens through which they arrive at those goals on my own terms.

But your going with your children. Surely what you want for them is more important. Do you think your children 'need god' and why? That's more important than what you think or get out of it. As an atheist I've attended many church services and done voluntary work. It doesn't detract from the fact I think it's hokum. And I have no reason to think otherwise. And I know I'm doing things because I feel the need to without any spiritual catalyst. Churches that put 'I do' over 'I believe' can often be good 'communities' but so to can all groups without any religious bent.

[afleitch]

This is a terrible Moderate Hero position.

Either Jesus was real and he was magic or he wasn't.

If he was just some guy who was kinda nice (and made a bunch of weird comments about the apocalypse and how you should never get divorced) there is no reason to hold him in high esteem.

There have been tons of nice people throughout history.

Historians are in near unanimity that Jesus existed.

Even if one doesn't accept his divinity, his teachings distinguish him as more than just a nice guy. Arguably his understanding of morals and ethics puts him at the same level that Gandhi is seen in modern times.

Only if Ghandi’s teachings were only finally being written down now, some 67 years after he died. And what’s declared legitimate and or heretical about what Ghandi said (if he said it at all) isn’t finalised for at least two hundred years from now. That’s the more apt comparison

The fact that ‘historians believe a man called Jesus existed’ means absolutely nothing in respect to what’s attributed to him. Jesus’ ‘inheritance’ as a figure worthy of a special respect is only a hangover from religiously derived reverence passed down over the past millennium of western thought. The idea that what he said was somehow revolutionary in human thought/ethics is a great disservice to other less popular figures of his time and place and also condescendingly ‘Western’ in its outlook.

The Gospels are re-heated Stoicism with obligations of worship contained within them. The fact that they are the most popular works to contain those thoughts (and let’s not forget that early Christians were quite busy literally destroying similar works as heretical), doesn’t mean they are exclusive. Indeed, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictetus etc never said that their view was ‘the truth’ and that they themselves required worship or reverence either directly or as messengers for some deity. The fact that the Gospels require you to accept Jesus as your saviour makes the statements attributed to Jesus morally 'grey'.