I'm not trying to make a "No True Christian" argument but rather just want to assert that reform does happen both for good and ill. Luther's original reform, in part, was to point out that political concerns within the church were overriding the spiritual concerns of the laity. He wanted to refocus faith on a personal relationship with God. One major criticism of that refocus is that it caused individuals to become over-focused on the self instead of God (as embodied in the institution of the church).
In both cases you could argue that the principle problem is when the focus of faith is something in the world (either the church or the individual). So I think it is perhaps too far to say that "we have always been worshipping ourselves" when the criticisms within and without the church are pointing that out as the problem that triggers the reform.
That is, both Luther and Stirner can be correct in their criticism of religious institutions. There is more than one way to get it wrong.
But also in this text we can feel the idea of the human soul and free-will crumbling, that also are the core of secular humanism.
Marxist analysis is also challenged, as we can speculate that AI would make the organic composition of capital to go to the roof... but you can really talk about OCC in regards of singularity AIs resembling more the Aladdin lamp or the Green Lantern ring than a highly automated factory, without even mentioning the possibility of an agency on their own?
Nah that's just what atheists convince themselves. There's nothing obviously nor truthful about this conclusion or the line of reasoning behind it.
All arguments for and against the existence of God are inherently unfalsifiable, but that doesn't mean atheism is inherently more logical than theism.
In fact, from my point of view, the existence of God is way more logically sound than the alternative, and atheists are the ones following delusions and worshipping their own egos
You can only say, if A is true, and if B is true, then what can we logically deduce from that. But you have to make the initial decision to regard that A is true and B is true.
For me one of the most convincing aspects of Christianity is just how unintuitive it is. Why would God let himself be killed? Why would a God wash the feet of the lowest in society? If you wanted to craft a religion to take over so much of the world that we count the years by it, how could someone possibly know that would be the way to do it? Either there is some truth to it or the people who apparently just made it up were super geniuses.
As to the particulars of the imagined God, actually we do have some evidence for the parameters. The Princess Alice experiments in particular illustrate one desirable property, God (in the experiment, "Princess Alice") should provides behavioural oversight. An imaginary being can deliver effective oversight which would otherwise require advanced technology, but to do so the being must also believe in these arbitrary moral rules.
And that matches what we observe. People do buy Sithrak T-shirts, but, more or less without exception they don't actually worship Sithrak, whereas loads of people have worshipped various deities with locally reasonable seeming moral codes and do to this day.
I'm guessing you're one of those people who thinks atheism means a belief in the absence of a god, rather than its actual meaning, which is an absence of a belief in a god.
Yes.
> The hubris! It seems obvious to me
I would turn that around and claim hubris on your part. You seem to think that your mind and the mind of God are similar, and limitations you perceive are limitations for God.
How come? You think I'm saying that the infinite creator of the universe is unlikely to care about the fate or well-being of humans because... I wouldn't if I was him? I mean, I would. Because I have a human mind. But if there are indeed no similarities between God's mind and my own, well, anything goes, doesn't it? Him caring is just one small possibility out of trillions of alternatives.
> and limitations you perceive are limitations for God.
What limitations? I haven't listed any limitations. Neither a God who cares nor a God who doesn't care is limited. I just don't see why I would assign a particularly significant probability to the former case. It sure would be convenient, but I feel like God being moral in any way that I can relate to would inevitably be projection on my part.
"And [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he was brought up: and he went into the synagogue, according to his custom, on the sabbath day: and he rose up to read. And the book of Isaias the prophet was delivered unto him. And as he unfolded the book, he found the place where it was written:
'The spirit of the Lord is upon me. Wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor, he hath sent me to heal the contrite of heart, To preach deliverance to the captives and sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord and the day of reward.' And when he had folded the book, he restored it to the minister and sat down. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. And he began to say to them: 'This day is fulfilled this scripture in your ears.'"
~ Luke 4:16-20
Do you care about the functioning of every cell in your body? Ask any cancer patient if they do.
I'm a Christian, and I absolutely agree with you that this is absurd! And if God hadn't said it Himself and then proved it true by His actions (both historically, and even in my own life), I'd be right there with you to call it idolatry.
For what it's worth, however, the quoted argument does also feel somewhat hubristic to me: As I see it, it boils down to "I don't understand how God could be this way, and therefore He cannot be this way." I believe that, somewhat ironically, He is beyond our understanding even when it comes to knowing what it means for Him to be beyond our understanding.
Doesn't that describe all religion? I mean, you're telling me that the infinite creator of the universe cares about the prayers, the suffering, the aspirations, and the sexual habits of a bunch of finite beings? The hubris! It seems obvious to me that the gods of all religions are designed by human minds to be receptive to human interests, otherwise nobody would bother worshipping them. In other words, we have always been worshipping ourselves. At least there is reason to think that AI could, at least in theory, be what we expect God to be.