Christian Atheists want to remove what they see as the fairy tale elements of Christianity.

They prefer to call this a non-realistic version of Christianity, rather than Christian atheism. They say that they do believe in God - but not in a fairy tale way.

To do this requires great intellectual sophistication, as you can see from the outline of non-realistic Christianity below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml


On the BBC website. God as being the highest ideal I really relate to. Please read the link.

I wonder how many non-realistic Christian ministers there are - would it be possible to be ordained as one...

Keep It Real wrote:

Christian Atheists want to remove what they see as the fairy tale elements of Christianity.

They prefer to call this a non-realistic version of Christianity, rather than Christian atheism. They say that they do believe in God - but not in a fairy tale way.

To do this requires great intellectual sophisticationry, as you can see from the outline of non-realistic Christianity below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml


On the BBC website. God as being the highest ideal I really relate to. Please read the link.

FIFY

The link talks about prayer, hymns and liturgy as ways of exploring the meaning and purpose of life, having already said that any such purpose and meaning is self-created.

I'm at a loss to see how singing/reciting someone else's words could be called an act of exploration. It also seems to me that any exploration of my self-created meaning and purpose would be badly hindered by the introduction of liturgical or Biblical texts that come from a very different point of view to mine. The main reason that their point of view is different is that they were written by people who believed in God in the traditional sense, not people using that word to refer to their highest ideals.

Apparently this requires "great intellectual sophistication." Who knew?

I don't think there is anything really new here. Plenty of Christians have faith in an entirely non-dogmatic, embracing of science way. You can still be a Christian and accept the theory of evolution or the findings of modern science on other subjects and so forth. You can be Christian and not in any way have a literalist interpretation of the bible, but accept it as being at best allegorical and also being a work of man, rather than the word of god.

Christian =/= Creationist

Generally the Christians I get on best with are the ones who behave this way. Most importantly, their faith is a deeply personal thing, rather than being involved in the ideology prescribed by one of the many and varied xianist movements. They also don't preach about their faith, because it is personal to them, they're not interested in trying to "convert" anyone to their view and also don't talk about their faith unless asked to do so.

They wouldn't call themselves "Christian Atheists" though, because that title is deeply fucking stupid.

They are Christians. They still believe in something. Therefore atheist cannot be applied and it is stupid to apply it.

Non-realism is to me to start another thread on the subject on this board ;)

Sendraks wrote:

They wouldn't call themselves "Christian Atheists" though, because that title is deeply fucking stupid.

They are Christians. They still believe in something. Therefore atheist cannot be applied and it is stupid to apply it.

It isn't the believing in "something" that makes one a theist. It is the specific belief in gods or deities that defines theism. So if they don't hold a belief in a god, but do hold Jesus as their philosophical and moral example, then the term "Christian atheist" is perfectly descriptive.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

They wouldn't call themselves "Christian Atheists" though, because that title is deeply fucking stupid.

They are Christians. They still believe in something. Therefore atheist cannot be applied and it is stupid to apply it.

It isn't the believing in "something" that makes one a theist. It is the specific belief in gods or deities that defines theism. So if they don't hold a belief in a god, but do hold Jesus as their philosophical and moral example, then the term "Christian atheist" is perfectly descriptive.

Non-realistic Christians have a definition of the word God which they believe in. They believe in God therefore they're not atheists.

Whatever floats your boat.

I would consider it marginally more sophisticated if the person defining this version of Christianity actually mentioned, you know, Christ.

Keep It Real wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

They wouldn't call themselves "Christian Atheists" though, because that title is deeply fucking stupid.

They are Christians. They still believe in something. Therefore atheist cannot be applied and it is stupid to apply it.

It isn't the believing in "something" that makes one a theist. It is the specific belief in gods or deities that defines theism. So if they don't hold a belief in a god, but do hold Jesus as their philosophical and moral example, then the term "Christian atheist" is perfectly descriptive.

Non-realistic Christians have a definition of the word God which they believe in. They believe in God therefore they're not atheists.

Indeed.

Keep It Real wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

They wouldn't call themselves "Christian Atheists" though, because that title is deeply fucking stupid.

They are Christians. They still believe in something. Therefore atheist cannot be applied and it is stupid to apply it.

It isn't the believing in "something" that makes one a theist. It is the specific belief in gods or deities that defines theism. So if they don't hold a belief in a god, but do hold Jesus as their philosophical and moral example, then the term "Christian atheist" is perfectly descriptive.

Non-realistic Christians have a definition of the word God which they believe in. They believe in God therefore they're not atheists.

Theism pertains to deities. If you define God as a deity then you're a theist. If you lack a belief in deities, it doesn't matter whether you define 'God' as a warm fuzzy feeling or your favourite rubber duck or whatever, you're an atheist.

Non-theistic Christianity is a little more interesting. The spokesman would be John Shelby Spong but it's probably the majority view among Anglican bishops and Oxbridge theologians. It at least challenges the tired old "definition of atheism" argument.

It would be much simpler, and therefore more wise, not to refer to this as Christianity of any kind. That term has over two thousand years of force of meaning behind it, which will force adherents to constantly explain themselves, and argue about the most basic of details, and all uselessly and unnecessarily.

It's as silly as declaring oneself to be a non-Jewish Zionist, or a an anti-Fascist Nazi.

Maybe go for something more logical from a naming-convention point of view, such as "Jesusism." It's going to be an "ism" of some sort after all. And the term Christ, is a religious title, NOT the name of the philosopher to be followed.

BlackBart wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

They wouldn't call themselves "Christian Atheists" though, because that title is deeply fucking stupid.

They are Christians. They still believe in something. Therefore atheist cannot be applied and it is stupid to apply it.

It isn't the believing in "something" that makes one a theist. It is the specific belief in gods or deities that defines theism. So if they don't hold a belief in a god, but do hold Jesus as their philosophical and moral example, then the term "Christian atheist" is perfectly descriptive.

Non-realistic Christians have a definition of the word God which they believe in. They believe in God therefore they're not atheists.

Theism pertains to deities. If you define God as a deity then you're a theist. If you lack a belief in deities, it doesn't matter whether you define 'God' as a warm fuzzy feeling or your favourite rubber duck or whatever, you're an atheist.

The term "deity" is sufficiently ill-defined as to leave the way open for non-realistic Christians IMO.

Really? Every definition I've seen is pretty unequivocal. Certainly none that fuzzy feelings or rubber ducks could fall into.

"Non-realism" describes pretty much every religion.

BlackBart wrote:Really? Every definition I've seen is pretty unequivocal. Certainly none that fuzzy feelings or rubber ducks could fall into.

They're not "fuzzy feelings" - it's about realising one is being guided by a powerful force outside of ourselves - the perfect form of thought and behaviour to emulate and be guided by.

laklak wrote:"Non-realism" describes pretty much every religion.

Yeah, I don't like the term much but it's better than being an atheist (alone).