How is being a Secular Christian different than following the teachings of the Dalai Lama or Tony Robbins? Do you need to believe in the spirituality of Jesus to agree with what his key secular teachings were?

I said "proud Secular Christian"... not "proud Christian". Perhaps you mean that the extra baggage of Christianity outweighs the positive non-spiritual teachings?

@Admin
You don't believe in god or jesus?

Hopefully better than David Koresh

What's history got to go with it though? A thing is what it is, not what it used to be.

@JeffMurray
A thing is what it is, not what it is popularly perceived to be. And an awareness of its origins can help us see more clearly what its real essence still is.

It’s true that if a thing changes over time into a completely different thing, then it is no longer the original thing. But if popular opinion of a biological necessity morphs into a belief that it is only a bad idea, it doesn’t make the biological necessity go away. An awareness of the historical trajectory of public opinion, as well as the scientific underpinnings of religion, work hand in hand to illuminate the significant role it plays in counterbalancing the evolutionary mismatch caused by the invention of agriculture.

What is popularly understood as religion today is in some ways nearly the diametric opposite of what it needs to be in order to continue fulfilling its biological purpose as counterbalance. The original (historical) purpose of religion isn’t obsolete. What’s obsolete is yesterday’s understanding of religion as applied to today’s need.

@skado I'm sorry, I read this several times and I can't figure out what you're saying here.

A thing is what it is, not what it is popularly perceived to be. And an awareness of its origins can help us see more clearly what its real essence still is.

I'll give you the first part. That's not much different than what I said, i.e. something is what it is and not something else.
But I disagree that knowing something's origins changes its 'real essence'. The thing still is what it is, as we seem to already agree.

But if popular opinion of a biological necessity morphs into a belief that it is only a bad idea, it doesn’t make the biological necessity go away.

True. If everyone thought it was bad to drink water it doesn't make water any less necessary for life. However, if the implication is that religion is a biological necessity, now (remember, if it morphed, it may no longer be necessary), I'm going to need to see some evidence of that.

An awareness of the historical trajectory of public opinion

Again, I don't see how what people thought of religion throughout time has any relevance on what religion is now.

scientific underpinnings of religion

I'll need you to explain what this means and the relevance of it to the discussion.

work hand in hand to illuminate the significant role it plays in counterbalancing the evolutionary mismatch caused by the invention of agriculture.

It being religion, I assume. So opinion + scientific underpinnings illuminate the role religion plays in balancing out a mismatch between what? Man and all other organisms? If I managed to get that right, how is that important, or at all a mitigating factor in how terrible religion has been and still is for mankind (and the planet at large it could be argued).

What is popularly understood as religion today is in some ways nearly the diametric opposite of what it needs to be in order to continue fulfilling its biological purpose as counterbalance.

I'm obviously way off base understanding your point. I'll need you to clarify.

The original (historical) purpose of religion isn’t obsolete.

How so?

@JeffMurray
All good questions. Other responsibilities are demanding my time right now, but I’ll try to do those questions justice later today or at my first opportunity within the next day or two. They require a good bit of background to get up to speed. Thanks.

@skado Thanks. Yeah, take your time. I just really wasn't following where you were going.

The basis for every Christian sect I have ever heard of is that every Christian believes that Christ is the son of God. How can you be an atheist and believe that?

@Lorajay
You could believe that “God” and “Christ” are metaphors.

@skado touche

@JeffMurray
I didn't say "knowing something's origins changes its 'real essence'." I'm saying popular perception may not reflect its real essence, and knowing its history may help us understand that real essence better than only knowing how it manifests today.
And I didn't speak about religion itself morphing (that's another subject) but about public opinion morphing. I called it a biological necessity for short-hand. A more precise description would be a cultural necessity, but even culture has a biological base.

So, culturally necessary for what purpose? To counterbalance "Evolutionary Mismatch" which, in brief, is the situation in which the environment changes faster than evolution can adjust.
[en.wikipedia.org]
In this case we did it ourselves, by inventing agriculture. Agriculture precipitated many radical changes in our environment and behavior that were at odds with our evolved nature. This kind of mismatch is one of the most common causes of extinction.

It appears to me (I'm no scientist, but I read a lot about this particular issue) that our evolved nature was not a seamless fit for city life, and behavioral modifications were necessary to balance that mismatch. It's not that no religion existed before the agricultural revolution - the balancing act had its beginnings long before that. But religion essentially became a very different phenomenon after civilization began.

If this observation is correct - if religious discipline does serve to dampen some of our animal instincts for the purpose of living among large numbers of strangers - then carelessly casting it aside wholesale without considering its historical bio/cultural implications, could be toying with the collapse of civilization, and even extinction.

And though the science appears far from settled on this specific matter, I'm not the first person to say similar things. Dan Dennett, of all people, has urged people to understand what they're destroying before they do it. He thinks, as I do, that religion has taken a cancerous turn. But he also understands that it has biological origins, and so shouldn't be disregarded as useless, before we fully understand its significance.

I don't have slam-dunk proof to offer, but the more I study it, the more religion looks like an essential ingredient in our capacity to sustain civilization. Whether civilization itself is the best path is another question. But whether it is or isn't may not be up to us. I think that genie is already out of the bottle.

Thanks for listening. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

@Lorajay I'm with you on this. There are a lot of loosy goosy definitions of things going around here and across the internet. Nothing I can really do about it, but I like my words to mean something and convey information. If 'Christian' can be used to define one who believes in some of the teachings of Christianity, even without the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, it seems like you can stretch that to include pretty much anything. Then, the only way you'd know if someone is a Christian is if they self-identify, and when people self-identify, you have no idea what that even means because there's no standard definition.

@skado Honestly, I don't see evolutionary mismatch, especially as it pertains to religion, to be of actual concern for humans. Mankind has been actively denying natural selection for decades and have been actively working on our own destruction in other ways for even longer. Seems silly to think a process that we are "over" is more dangerous to us than all of the other problems we've created for ourselves. Add to that the fact that humans have no control over what they believe (regardless of whether people believe they do or not) and you have a problem not worth worrying about because it's not under our control. I'm sure a lot of people will disagree with that assessment, but that's my two cents.