h a l f b a k e r yRIFHMAO
(Rolling in flour, halfbaking my ass off)
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Atheist Pope
The moral authority for millions of the world's atheists | |
Now hold on, you haven't even read the idea yet!
Yes, there would be no premise for the assignment of this
leader's authority, and yes there would be many areas of
little
or no consensus on what is or isn't moral. That being said,
there would be many areas where 95% of the world's
atheists
would agree. These tenets would be supported by their
person in this elected Pope-like office.
They would need a different title than "Pope" because it
would be inappropriate for the first action of this person
being to
alienate and anger the millions of Christians around the
world
who consider the Pope in Rome to be their leader. One of
the
main rules from this atheist Pope would be "try not to pick
fights and disturb the peace".
Their job would be to discuss and promote morality from a
secular viewpoint, free as much as is possible from
controversy. Concepts such as peace, rights of the
individual
regardless of who they are, freedom from tyranny and
oppression, extolling the virtues of science, critical thinking
and education etc and I would argue, getting along with all
the religious people of the world as well.
You should not steal or murder, one should support their
brothers etc. These lessons would be nothing new, but it
might be nice to hear them from a non-religious source.
Atheists need to think about wrong and right too.
I would suggest they be called the "Imperator" which is
another word for "leader" or "emperor" that nobody else is
currently using. Alternately "Grand Council" has a nice ring
to it. Hell, give 'em a robe and hat even. Why not? Put a
little showmanship into it. Or not.
Atheist Mega Churches in US & Australia
http://www.dailymai...t-earlier-year.html
[Skewed, Jun 26 2014]
History Of Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.../History_of_atheism
[Skewed, Jun 26 2014]
The Fench Are Coming To Get Us
http://www.youtube....watch?v=fLwj56WYiAc
Mitch Benn [Skewed, Jun 28 2014]
Gretta Vosper
http://canadaam.ctv...on-behind-1.2844385
An interview with United Church of Canada's controversial atheist minister [Ander, Apr 12 2016]
[link]
|
| |
//Atheists need to think about wrong and right
too.// |
|
| |
I would suggest that we do, rather more than the
average religious individual who gets their morality
spoon fed to them. |
|
| |
Other than that, why would we possibly want a
single central authority who would almost
definitely make decisions we disagree with? After
all, what percentage of the world's Catholics
actually agree with every bit of Catholic doctrine
(hint, in the US and Europe, it is rapidly
approaching zero). And that ignores the fact that
almost every protestant can be framed as someone
who has rejected Catholic doctrine. |
|
| |
Well, as far as consensus, would there be any
disagreement with the ones mentioned so far?
Granted, by the time you winnowed out the more
controversial topics you might be left with little
more than a "Hallmark greeting card morality" but
hey, works for the Dali Lama. |
|
| |
Richard Dawkins? You'd need a little bit better fashion
sense than cardigans and ill fitted suits. Mad respect
for the man but he's not a fashion plate. |
|
| |
Is theft permitted if it is to feed a starving child? |
|
| |
What is murder? Does it include self defense?
How about the various incarnations of the Trolley
problem. |
|
| |
And if I see someone doing something wrong,
don't I have a duty to pick (at least) a verbal fight
with them and disturb the peace in order to
prevent it? |
|
| |
So yes, I would disagree, or at least require much
clarification with your current list. There are
plenty of atheist authors who have written books
on morality. I have studied some, and will
probably read more. I have had extensive debates
on some of the subjects. What I don't need is
some central authority trying to tell me what is
right and wrong. |
|
| |
//there would be many areas where 95% of the world's atheists would agree// - I disagree |
|
| |
//Is theft permitted if it is to feed a starving child?// |
|
| |
Not that it ever comes up, but this is how you'd
handle this very easy conundrum. Do whatever's
necessary to save a human life (no need for them to
be
wide eyed, cute and clutching a teddy bear to be
worthy of keeping alive) then find out why theft was
necessary to feed this person. Then spend whatever
effort necessary to make sure this never happens
again. And before your ask, cannibalism probably has
it's place too, but only in extreme circumstances, not
just
because the Burger King won't open for another 20
minutes. |
|
| |
//And if I see someone doing something wrong, don't
I have a duty to pick (at least) a verbal fight with
them and disturb the peace in order to prevent it?// |
|
| |
Doing something wrong is disturbing the peace,
preventing it, by killing the person if necessary is
keeping the peace. |
|
| |
//What I don't need is some central authority trying
to tell me what is right and wrong.// |
|
| |
Having somebody who extols certain virtues isn't
necessarily telling you what to do. Certainly
discussion of morality can be beneficial. As you've
just pointed out, there may be confusion with some
about the difference between robbing a bank to buy
crack cocaine and stealing
milk to save a starving baby. A
properly attired Grand Council might be able to help
with these kinds of questions. |
|
| |
//Having somebody who extols certain virtues isn't
necessarily telling you what to do.// |
|
| |
Then I would suggest "pope" is entirely the wrong
archetype, since it implies a central authority figure. |
|
| |
Which is one reason why I said they shouldn't be
called "Pope". |
|
| |
"Council" sounds a little less dogmatic. Maybe I should
change the idea title, but to get people to read these
things you need to catch their attention. |
|
| |
They would be Pope-ish in that they would be a
central figure. He could hand down decrees but I
don't think atheists are looking for somebody to tell
them what to do. This "office" would be more of a
hub for discourse than anything else. |
|
| |
Already happening in many ways, there have been atheist movements & organisations since the 1800's at least, there are atheist churches in London <link> & certain eastern (etc.) philosophies branded as religion might be considered to be atheist, some of those have a central authority figure roughly analogous to the pope already. |
|
| |
This has to be @ least half baked? |
|
| |
And I would argue that a central figure for that is
unnecessary. |
|
| |
//Already happening in many ways// |
|
| |
Yea, but there's no one great leader who's risen up
who stands on stage wearing accouterments and
accessories befitting such a grand office. |
|
| |
How about whatever hat Galileo wore? I'm pretty sure
he wore a hat. Hmm. Just checked, apparently he
didn't. Neither did Copernicus. Darwin? Nope.
Franklin? Nope. |
|
| |
Hmm. The great thinkers of the ages didn't wear
hats. I smell a PHD thesis. |
|
| |
But when any organisation gets big enough it will be inevitable. |
|
| |
A 'church' needs meeting space which means resources, add in additional branches & this increases, resources need managing which means an administrative arm is inevitable & an administration will require a hierarchy which means a leader. |
|
| |
Of course it has to survive long enough to reach critical mass as it were. |
|
| |
But once enough resources / power have accumulated to insure enough vested interests its perpetuation is pretty much ensured & it will probably continue to grow & branch out until it's large enough it's 'chief administrator' can be considered analogous to a Pope. |
|
| |
Not all atheists have to belong for it to be analogous, you said Pope, & how many Christians are Catholics? |
|
| |
So it's my position this is the eventual & expected outcome of any large successful atheist movement structured along semi-religious lines, which makes this an observation of a probable or possible outcome rather than a new idea :) |
|
| |
<edit> which isn't to say I don't like the idea (new or not), it might be nice to have someone to fight our corner (as it were) the way an organised religion can. having said that I'm not sure I can see it reaching critical mass before everyone gets bored & wanders off to the next new thing. |
|
| |
Well, I think I'm saying (I think) it might be
interesting if somebody appoints themselves "Grand
Council" and take the position, then try to do some
good with it. Like all leadership rolls, it takes great
temerity to tell everybody they're king just on their
own accord but that is after all how leadership
positions are created. Somebody just makes it up,
puts on a hat and says "Hey! Look at me!" |
|
| |
Certainly that could lead to discussion about the
worthiness of leadership positions in general,
decentralization of leadership being something I'm a
big fan of in many areas. |
|
| |
How about a Sunday morning TV show to go up
alongside the religious programs? |
|
| |
Naa, too confrontational. Ok, resigning this idea to
the archives and going out to get some sun and fresh
air. |
|
| |
//Hmm. The great thinkers of the ages didn't wear hats. I smell a PHD thesis// |
|
| |
Clearly a hat traps in too much heat making the brain sluggish, might there be a further correlation between baldness / seriously thinning hair & genius, perhaps students should shave their heads & eschew the wearing of hats in the months before an exam? |
|
| |
Sorry, but you're just wrong about that. |
|
| |
The flaw in this idea is that it's too reasonable. |
|
| |
If this were to work, you'd need a flamboyant title and costume, as well as hypocrisy and contradiction. The general gist of it would still be secular morality, but you need to keep it fun. |
|
| |
First off, a big fucking hat, bigger than any other religious leader's. A cape would do nicely, as well. Then you need a prime directive like "Free Thought Above All Else," which you contradict by issuing random and capricious edicts, such as "The Earth is 4.5 b years old or die" and "Stealing bread to feed starving kids is A-OK, but it's gotta be leavened bread." |
|
| |
Then there's got to be a schism and some kind of holy war. |
|
| |
In short, keep all of the trappings of the papacy. |
|
| |
[ytk], Unfortunately [hippo] might be right, if all atheists fell into the critical thinking camp a significant portion might (given the same data) be expected to (broadly) agree on any single issue, but most of those who say they have no religion or are atheist (at least in the UK) fall into the don't care camp. |
|
| |
So it depends on what definition of atheist you're both using, the position that there are no gods or just an absence of belief that any exist. |
|
| |
[the porpoise], sounds like Lord Such, pity he's dead, we could have offered him the job. |
|
| |
//Hell, give 'em a robe and hat even//
How about Grand Wizard? Oh no, that's taken isn't it! |
|
| |
Hmm, how about the Borg-ias....you will be assimilated....does sound like a certain church, based in Rome, I could mention... |
|
| |
//it would be inappropriate for the first action of
this person to alienate and anger the millions of
Christians around the world// |
|
| |
I absolutely agree. It ought to be possible to
alienate and anger believers of all persuasions. If
we called him "Godallah" that would probably be a
start, but it needs more work. |
|
| |
// it depends on what definition of atheist your both using // |
|
| |
Well that kind of depends on what definition of "philosopher" you're
using ... |
|
| |
// how about the Borg-ias // |
|
| |
// It ought to be possible to alienate and anger believers of all
persuasions. // |
|
| |
It is. St. Monty of Python ... "Something to offend everyone" |
|
| |
Merely pointing out that not everyone's definition of who are / what is an atheist agrees [8th], ergo they might both be right & disagreeing @ cross purposes. |
|
| |
Personally I don't think a simple lack of belief should count (in my book they're not atheists, just undetermined). |
|
| |
Does that tell you my definition of philosopher? |
|
| |
Do all atheists believe in the same non-deity? |
|
| |
//Do all atheists believe in the same non-deity?// |
|
| |
I don't believe in non-deities. |
|
| |
//Personally I don't think a simple lack of belief
should count (in my book they're not atheists,
just
undetermined). // |
|
| |
I'm an atheist and I'm not undetermined. It's not
that I don't believe there are gods; I believe that
there are no gods. |
|
| |
Of course, it's important to specify the linguistic
context. In Sudanese, "god" means "tree stump".
In Bosnian it means "whatever", and in Hmong it
means "award". |
|
| |
Where should atheistic robots go to not worship? Should they go or not go on Sunday or Saturday? |
|
| |
Electronic minds want to know. |
|
| |
//Electronic minds want to know// |
|
| |
//that kind of depends on what definition of "philosopher" you're using ...// |
|
| |
Philosopher: a) best case scenario - a garden variety scientists without the training, tools or inclination to take the scientific process beyond the hypothesis stage. b) more commonly - a garden variety piss head after the 4th pint. |
|
| |
Religion: fossilised philosophy / what a philosophy becomes after a few thousand years (or less) of uncritical acceptance of its tenets. |
|
| |
//The great thinkers of the ages didn't wear hats. I smell a PHD thesis.// |
|
| |
A hat would disrupt the communication signal they receive from the wise and benevolent Mormon god on Kobol. |
|
| |
Only if you line it with tin foil, I still lean towards my air cooled brain pan theory. |
|
| |
//Baked. Richard Dawkins.// |
|
| |
I actually just heard an interview where he said he
considered himself to be an evolutionary biologist
and called being considered the frontman for the
debate on religion "unfortunate" I think is the word
he used. |
|
| |
Plus, no fashion sense as stated before. |
|
| |
He does have the sense of humor you'd need for the
job though. He was complaining that socialist types
had widely panned his book "The Selfish Gene"
complaining that it justified being a greedy right
winger who didn't support the glorious people's
socialist revolution. He implored them to "...get past
the title and read the rather lengthy footnote that is
the book itself." |
|
| |
//He does have the sense of humor// |
|
| |
See if you can get Mitch Benn interested in the job, doesn't usually go in for the cape & headgear type of routine but I'm sure he could be persuaded & otherwise he'd be ideal. |
|
| |
Imagine something along the lines of 'the French are coming to get us' reworded for Catholics. |
|
| |
<Edit> While stuff like 'Happy Birthday War' nicely covers your morality angle. |
|
| |
One qualification that you need of great leaders upon whose utterances civilization awaits every word with eager or dreaded anticipation is the tendency to be utterly incomprehensible in speech. See for example Pope John Paul II, Alan Greenspan, Ozzy Osbourne, the Christian God... |
|
| |
Steven Hawking, pre-electronic speaker it should be. |
|
| |